Columbus Board of Education v. Penick Appendix Volume I
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1979
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick Appendix Volume I, 1979. 19e12cf9-ad9a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d509e3d7-524d-429a-8b47-25cf37195d07/columbus-board-of-education-v-penick-appendix-volume-i. Accessed April 06, 2025.
Copied!
APPENDIX
In The
guijirpmp (ftmirt uf % Ittltpin J^tatpa
October Term, 1978
No. 78-610
COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
GARY L. PENICK, et al.,
Respondents.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR TH E SIXTH CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED OCTOBER II, 1978
CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 8, 1979
V O L U M E I
(Pages 1 - 406)
INDEX
Chronological List of Relevant Docket Entries_____ 1
PLEADINGS, FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
Complaint (June 21, 1973)______________________ __ 5
Answer of Defendants Columbus Board of Edu
cation, Tom Moyer, Paul Langdon, Virginia
Prentice, Marilyn Redden, Watson Walker, David
Hamlar, Marie Castleman, and John Ellis, Super
intendent of Columbus Public Schools (July 18,
1973)________________________________ ’___________ 12
Second Amended Complaint (October 24, 1974)........ 15
Answer of Defendants Columbus Board of Edu
cation, et ah, to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Com
plaint (November 4, 1974) -____________ ________—... 30
Complaint in Intervention — Class Action (March
10, 1975)________________ ___________ __ _ .... ....... 32
Memorandum and Order (Granting Motion to
Intervene) (March 10, 1975)______________________ 43
Answer of Defendants Columbus Board of Edu
cation, et ah, to Complaint in Intervention (April
1, 1975)_________________________________________ 47
Order (Complaint May be Maintained as a Class
Action) (April 9, 1975) _______________ ___ ________ 50
District Court Opinion and Order on Liability
(March 8, 1977)--------------------------------------------------- Pet. App.
a t l *
* Opinions reproduced in the Appendix to the Petition For a Writ of
Certiorari are not reproduced.
Page
11
District Court Liability Judgment (March 9 ,1979)____ Pet. App.
at 87
Order Granting Petition for Permission to Appeal
(Sixth Circuit, Case Nos. 77-3365, 77-3366) (June
29, 1977) _______________________________________ 51
District Court Memorandum and Order Granting
Leave to File Amended Desegregation Plan (July
7, 1977)-------------- ...---------------------------------------------- Pet. App.
at 90
Motion of The Ohio State Board of Education
and Superintendent of Public Instruction for Sup
plemental Findings of Fact (July 11, 1977)_________ 53
Motion of Columbus Board of Education and
Dr. Joseph L. Davis, Interim Superintendent of
Columbus Public Schools, for Determination of
Incremental Segregative Effect (July 11, 1977)............ 57
District Court Order Rejecting Proposed Deseg
regation Plans (July 29, 1977)_____________________ Pet. App.
at 97
District Court Order Ordering Implementation of
Phase I Preparatory Efforts (August 30, 1977)______ 64
Columbus Board of Education’s Response to the
Court’s July 29, 1977 Order (Desegregation Plan
Only) (August 31, 1977) (Pages 125-135 as revised
September 26, 1977)______________________________ 64
District Court Memorandum and Order Setting
Date for Hearing on Proposed Desegregation
Plan (September 16, 1977) __________________________ 173
page
Ill
Order. Granting Petition for Permission to Appeal
from District Court’s July 29, 1977 Order (Sixth
Circuit Case Nos. 77-3490, 77-3491) (October 3,
1977)_____________________ _____________________ 176
District Court Memorandum and Order Imposing
Desegregation Remedy (October 4, 1977)__________ Pet. App.
at 125
District Court Remedy judgment (October 7,
1977)___________________ _____________________ __ Pet. App.
at 138
Notice of Appeal from District Court’s October 7
Remedy Judgment (November 4, 1977) _______.____ 177
Sixth Circuit Opinion Affirming District Court
Liability and Remedy Judgments (July 14, 1978)____ Pet. App.
at 140
Sixth Circuit Judgment (July 14, 1978) ____________ Pet. App.
at 208
Sixth Circuit Order Denying Stay Pending Cer
tiorari (July 31, 1978) _____________________________ Pet. App.
at 210
Opinion of Air. Justice Rehnquist Granting Stay
Pending Certiorari (August 11, 1978) _____ ______ __ Pet. App.
at 211
Order of Mr. Justice Rehnquist Granting Stay
Pending Certiorari (August 11, 1978) ______ ________ Pet. App.
at 217
Order of Mr. Chief Justice Burger Denying Re
spondents’ Motion to Convene Special Term and
to Vacate Stay (August 25, 1978)_________ _ ...______ Pet. App.
at 218
Page
IV
TRANSCRIPT PORTIONS
Plaintiffs’ Witnesses
Helen Jenkins D avis_________________________ 177
William Lamson _____________________________ 191
Barbee Durham______________________________ 194
Clarence Lumpkin .........______________________ 203
Marjorie Given ________ 222,
John E llis________ 227
William Culpepper__________________________ 243
Michael McLaughlin ________________________ 248
Carl W hite________________ ____ ____________ 249
Frank Gibb _____________ 251
Myron Seifert _______________________________ 254
Karl Taeuber__________ 280
Lucien W right_______________________________ 311
Robert C arter____ 315
Martin E. Sloane_____________________________ 325
Robert Green___________ 354
David H am lar________ 356
Howard Merriman ___________________________ 360
W. A. Montgomery _________________________ 364
Cleo Dumaree_______________________________ 397
Gordon Foster_______________________________ 407
Defendants’ Witnesses
Novice Faw cett______________________________ 544
Francis Rudy________________________________ 578
Robert Carter ______________________________ 607
Joseph Davis (cross examination only) ________ 646
John Ellis __ ..._______________________________ 648
Howard Merriman __________________________ 652
Marilyn Redden ________ 694
Page
V
Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Witness
Joan F o lk --------------- ----------------------------------- - 685
State Defendants’ Witness
Martin E ssex_______________________________ 688
Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Witnesses
Leon Mitchell _______________________________ 695
Harriet Langston ____________________________ 701
REMEDY HEARINGS
July 11-13, 1977
Motion by Mr. Porter _________________________ — 715
Defendants’ Witness
Joseph Davis ________________________________ 741
EXH IBITS
Exhibit No. Description
Px 11 October, 1975 Civil Rights Survey for
U.S. Department of Health, Educa
tion and Welfare, Office of Civil
Rights ______ 745
Px 62 “The 1958-59 Study of the Public
School Building Needs of Columbus,
Ohio,” Bureau of Educational Re
search, Ohio State University, July,
1959. p. 58 only ___________________- 751
Px 63 “The 1967-68 Study of the Public
School Needs of Columbus, Ohio,”
Educational Administration and Fa
cilities Unit, College of Education,
Ohio State University, March, 1969.
pp. 5-7, 9-10, 12, 13, 14-19 only .
Page
751
VI
Page
Px 64 “The 1963-64 Study of the Public
School Needs of Columbus, Ohio,”
Bureau of Educational R esearch,
Ohio State University, June, 1964,
p. 65 only___________________________~ 766
Px 137 Table of Annexations to Columbus
City School District _________ _________ 767
Px 140 Extract from Minutes of the State
Board of Education of Ohio, July 10,
1972 _______............ ,....... - - - ...... ........ - 769
Px 383 Columbus Public Schools, Pupil En
rollments by percent Black from 1964
to 1975-76 -_____ __ __________________ 775
Px 385 Columbus Public Schools, Profession
al Staff by school by percent Black
from 1964 to 1975-76 __________________ 789
Px 505 Karl Taeuber “Columbus, Pupil Seg
regation, Minority vs. Non-Minority”
(Segregation Indices) _________ _______ 802
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF
RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES
Date Filed**
June 21, 1973 Complaint
July 18, 1973 Answer of Defendants Columbus Board of
Education, Tom Moyer, Paul Langdon,
Virginia Prentice, Marilyn Redden, Wat
son Walker, David llamlar, Marie Castle-
man, and John Ellis, Superintendent of
Columbus Public Schools
July 19, 1974 Amended Complaint
October 24, 1974 Second Amended Complaint
November 4, 1974 Answer of Defendants Columbus Board
of Education, et al., to Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint
March 10, 1975 Complaint in Intervention — Class Action
March 10, 1975 Memorandum and Order (Granting Mo
tion to Intervene)
April 1, 1975 Answer of Defendants Columbus Board
of Education, et ah, to Complaint in Inter
vention
April 9, 1975 Order (Complaint May be Maintained as
a Class Action)
March 8, 1977 Opinion and Order (Finding Systemwide
Liability)
March 9, 1977 Judgment
March 18, 1977 Petition of Columbus Board of Education
for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Sixth Circuit)
As shown on Court Docket
2
Date Filed*
April 7, 1977
May 17, 1977
June 10, 1977
June 14, 1977
June 29, 1977
July 1, 1977
July 7, 1977
July 8, 1977
July 11, 1977
July 11, 1977
July 29, 1977
Notice of Appeal
Order (Extending Date for Submission of
Plans to June 14, 1977)
Proposed Desegregation Plan of Colum
bus Board of Education
Plan for Desegregation of Columbus Pub
lic Schools submitted by State Board of
Education
Order granting Petition for Permission to
Appeal of Appellants Columbus Board of
Education, et al., and Ohio State Board
of Education, et al. (Sixth Circuit, Case
Nos. 77-3365 and 77-3366)
Motion for Leave to File Amended Plan
Memorandum and Order (granting leave
to file amended plan)
Amended Proposed Desegregation Plan of
Columbus Board of Education
Motion of The Ohio State Board of Edu
cation and Superintendent of Public In
struction for Supplemental Findings of
Fact
Motion of Columbus Board of Education
and Dr. Joseph L. Davis, Interim Super
intendent of Columbus Public Schools, for
Determination of Inci-emental Segregative
Effect
Order (rejecting proposed remedy plans)
*As shown on Court Docket
8
Date Filed*
August 5, 1977
August 8, 1977
August 17, 1977
August 30, 1977
August 31, 1977
August 31, 1977
September 13, 1977
September 16, 1977
September 26, 1977
Petition of Columbus Board of Education
for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C, § 1292(b) (from District Court Or
der of July 29, 1977) (Sixth Circuit)
Order (granting extension of time to file
remedy plan and transportation report)
August 17, 1977 Report Concerning Phase
I Preparatory Efforts,
Order (approving Phase I Report and
ordering implementation)
Response of the State Board of Education
and Superintendent of Public Instruction
to the District Court Order of July 29,
1977
Columbus Board of Education’s Response
to the Court’s July 29, 1977 Order (De
segregation Plan and Transportation Re
port)
Plaintiffs’ Response to the Proposed De
segregation Plan and Transportation Re
port of the Defendants Filed Pursuant to
the Court’s Order of July 29, 1977
Memorandum and Order (setting date for
hearings on plan)
Revisions to pages 125-135 of Columbus
Board of Education’s Response to the
Court’s July 29, 1977 Order
#As shown on Court Docket
4
Date Filed*
October 3, 1977
October 4, 1977
October 7, 1977
November 4, 1977
November 21, 1977
July 14, 1978
July 14, 1978
August 9, 1978
Order granting Petition for Permission to
Appeal of Defendants Columbus Board of
Education, et al., and Ohio State Board of
Education, et al., from District Court’s
July 29, 1977 Order (Sixth Circuit, Case
Nos. 77-3490 and 77-3491)
Memorandum and Order (ordering imple
mentation of systemwide desegregation
plan)
Judgment
Notice of Appeal (Appeal docketed as
Sixth Circuit Case No. 77-3553, Novem
ber 11, 1977)
Order Granting Appellees’ Motion to Con
solidate Pending Appeals and to Extend
Time (Sixth Circuit, Case Nos. 77-3365,
-3366, -3490, -3491, -3553)
Judgment of United States Court of Ap
peals for the Sixth Circuit (affirming judg
ment of District Court in all respects ex
cept for the remand of cases pertaining
to the Ohio State Board of Education for
further reconsideration as in Section VII)
Opinion by Edwards, J. (Sixth Circuit)
Mandate issued (Sixth Circuit)
*As shown on Court Docket
5
In The United States District Court
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GARY L. PENICK, ANTHONY PENICK,
DONALD PENICK and RONALD PENICK,
by their Mother and Next Friend, ZETTER
PENICK, DONNA CATES, by her Mother
and Next Friend, ROSE CATES, BEVERLY
and WANDA CORNER, by their Mother and
Next Friend, ROSETTA CORNER, ALEXES
and KELLI SMITH, by their Mother and
Next Friend, ETHEL M. SMITH, CHRIS
TIAN D. PALMER, by her Mother and Next
Friend, JANET S, PALMER, LEROY and
VALERIE HAIRSTON, by their Father and
Next Friend, JOHN HAIRSTON, TRACY
BROWN, bv his Mother and Next Friend,
NANCY G. BROWN and MARTIN FISHER,
by his Mother and Next Friend, GOLDIE
FISHER
Plaintiffs
CIVIL
ACTION
“ No.
73-248
COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION and
its individual members; TOM MOYER, PAUL
LANGDON, VIRGINIA PRENTICE, MARI
LYN REDDEN, WATSON WALKER,
DAVID HAMLAR, MARIE CASTLEMAN,
JOHN ELLIS, Superintendent of the Colum
bus Public Schools, OHIO STATE BOARD
OF EDUCATION, MARTIN ESSEX, Ohio
Superintendent of Public Instruction, W IL
LIAM J. BROWN, Attorney General, State
of Ohio and JOHN J. GILLIGAN, Governor,
State of Ohio and Ex Officio member of the
State Board of Education
Defendants
C O M P L A I N T
[Filed June 21, 1973]
6
I. JURISDICTION
1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28
United States Code, Sections 1331(a), 1343(3&4). This
is a suit seeking relief in equity under 42 United States
Code, Sections 1983-1988 and Section 2000(d) to redress
the deprivations under color of Ohio law, statute, custom
and usage of rights, those privileges and immunities guar
anteed by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the Constitution of the United States and Article 1, Section
2 of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. This action is
also authorized by 42 United States Code, Section 1981,
which provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of
the United States shall have the same rights to the full and
equal benefits of all laws and proceedings for the security
of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.
Jurisdiction is further invoked under 28 United States
Code, Section 2201 and 2202, this being a suit for declara
tory judgment to declare the rights, duties and obligations
between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Board of Educa
tion and its members as a result of certain Resolutions
passed by the Board.
II. PLAINTIFFS
2. The Plaintiffs, Gary L. Penick, Anthony Penick,
Donald Penick, Ronald Penick, Donna Cates, Beverly
Corner, Wanda Corner, Alexes Smith, Kelli Smith, Christian
D. Palmer, Leroy Hairston, Valerie Hairston, Tracy Brown
and Martin Fisher, are all parents or minor children thereof
attending school in the public school system of the State
of Ohio, in the City of Columbus, and are black and white
citizens of the United States.
III. DEFENDANTS
3(a). The Defendant Columbus Board of Education,
is organized and exists under and pursuant to the laws of
7
the State of Ohio and operates the public school system
in the Columbus School District, subject to the direction
and control of said Defendant.
( b ) . The Defendants, Tom Moyer, Paul Langdon,
Marilyn Redden, Virginia Prentice, Watson Walker, David
Hamlar and Marie Castleman, are all residents of Franklin
County, Ohio and elected members of the Columbus Board
of Education, Columbus, Ohio.
( c ) . Defendant, John Ellis, is a resident of Franklin
County, and the duly appointed Superintendent of the
Columbus School District, Columbus, Ohio.
(d ) . Defendant, Ohio State Board of Education, is
a constitutional corporate body, charged with the primary
responsibility of administering public school education in
the School System of Ohio, including the Columbus School
District.
( e ) . The Defendant, Martin Essex, is Superintendent
of Public Instruction of the Department of Education of
the State of Ohio and is the Chief Administrative Officer
for public school education in the State of Ohio.
( f ) . Defendant, William J. Brown, is the Attorney
General of the State of Ohio and is responsible for enforc
ing the Constitution and laws of the State of Ohio.
(g ) . Defendant, John J. Gilligan, is the Governor of
the State of Ohio, and Ex Officio member of the State
Board of Education.
IV. FACTS
4. For a number of years the Defendant School Board
and its members has attempted to cope with racial im
balance in the Columbus School District and has sought
numerous means to achieve quality integrated education,
the data on racial imbalance being furnished by school
appointed research groups, community based research fa
cilities and private and independent research agencies
such as the Columbus, Ohio Urban League. The Board
has, by resolution sought to develop affirmative action to
8
achieve better racial distribution of pupils and quality
education for all children. More than six years ago the
Columbus Board of Education passed the following reso
lution :
“Be it further resolved that while solutions to racial
imbalance are being sought, the Board of Education
and the staff of the Columbus Public School continue
to devote all of the necessary energies required for
the development of a total quality education for every
child attending a Columbus public school.”
Resolution of March 21, 1987.
In 1988 the Board passed the following resolution:
“Be it further resolved that the Columbus Public
Schools continue to offer and expand, within available
resources, compensatory education programs while
pursuing efforts to achieve better racial distribution
of pupils.”
Resolution dated June 18, 1968.
The Board was so concerned about the effect of its build
ing program on racial imbalance that it passed two reso
lutions on June 18, 1988, resolving that new school con
struction or additions be delayed until open housing
agreements could be secured in the Columbus District.
During the summer of 1972 the Board launched plans
to raise the sum of 89.5 million dollars to create and
construct educational facilities throughout the Columbus
School District. However, the decision to place the School
Bond Issue on the ballot failed when three of the Defend
ant School Board members, Watson Walker, David Hander
and Marie Castleman, prevented a unanimous vote for the
Bond Issue. These members alleged that previous funds
spent on building facilities had resulted in the increase of
racial imbalance and consequent racial isolation of blacks
in the Columbus School system. They further alleged that
black children would be denied a just share in the building
fund by reason of increasing trends of segregation in the
9
district and because of improper selection of future sites
by the Board. These three members demanded that the
Board pass a specific resolution guaranteeing quality,
integrated education in return for their approval of the
Bond Issue.
The Board, after considerable deliberation, passed the
following resolution on July 18, 1972 as a major policy
statement on integration:
“It shall be the goal and the policy of the Columbus
Public Schools to prepare every student for life in an
integrated society by giving each student the oppor
tunity of integrated educational experiences. Such a
goal does not imply the mandatory or forced trans
portation of students to achieve a racial balance in any
or all schools. The Superintendent of Schools shall
implement this policy by the development of propos
als for the approval of the Board of Education. The
first priority of the Superintendent shall be the de
velopment of a plan to provide the transportation
necessary to give all students access to vocational and
career facilities and all special programs or courses
offered by the Columbus Public Schools.”
V. CAUSE OF ACTION
5. It is the contention of the Plaintiffs that the resolu
tion set forth in paragraph 4, as well as all other resolutions
of the Board, recognizes the existence of racial imbalance
in the Columbus School District, contrary to the legal
mandate of the Supreme Court case, Brown v. The Board
of Education and its progeny. The resolutions also recog
nize that the Board can become an instrument in the
creation of racial patterns, as well as in the elimination of
racial isolation. The Plaintiffs contend that the Resolutions
set forth establish the responsibility of the Board to
provide the opportunity of integrated educational experi
ences in compliance with the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment and to eradicate segregative
10
trends through affirmative action. The Plaintiffs allege that
careful planning in the use of the enormous fund created
by the Bond Issue will be such affirmative action as can
affect the patterns of equal use and equal access of these
Plaintiffs to school facilities built through such public
funds for years to come.
6. It is the further contention of the Plaintiffs that
since the passage of the Bond Issue in the November, 1972
election, the Defendant School Board, in planning and
carrying out its new construction and site selections plan,
has failed to include therein any effective plans which will
implement the Board’s resolution set forth above. Plaintiffs
further say that the Board majority, since the passage of
the Bond Issue, has shown lack of good faith in carrying
out its adopted resolutions for integrated educational ex
periences. Members of the Board have made statement
denying the clear intent of the Resolution and objecting
to any school board plan, having as its aim the integration
of races. The Board has also shown lack of good faith by
the following acts:
A. REJECTING A PROPOSAL TO FORM A SPE
CIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL
SITE SELECTION.
B. BY OPPOSING AN INNOCUOUS AND INEF
FECTIVE PLAN TO TRANSPORT STUDENTS
TO SP E C IA L PRO GRAM S, COM M ONLY
KNOWN AS “ THE COLUMBUS PLAN”.
C. BY REFUSING TO FREELY NEGOTIATE
WITH THE OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMIS
SION FOR TEACHERS AND STAFF INTE
GRATION.
D. BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT A PORTION OF
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000.00) IN
H.E.W. FU N D S W H ICH R E Q U IR E D TH E
BOARD TO SUBMIT A PLAN FOR SCHOOL
DESECRATION.
11
7. Plaintiffs say that rights, duties and obligations
arose between these Plaintiffs and the Defendant Board
of Education and its members as a result of the passage
of the Resolution of July 18, 1972 and all other Resolutions
pertaining to affirmative action for quality integrated edu
cation, and that resulting therefrom an honest dispute and
justiciable controversy now exists between the parties as
to the interpretation of said Resolution and as to whether
or not it requires the Board to initiate and carry out any
affirmative action to guarantee integrated educational ex
periences through the building program under the funds
now available and being spent, or about to be spent out
of the Bond Issue passed November 7, 1972. Plaintiffs say
that the controversy between the parties involves sub
stantial constitutional rights under the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendment and under Article 1, Section 2 of
the Ohio Constitution and Bill of Rights.
VI. DEMAND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF
Plaintiffs say that they have no adequate remedy at
law to redress the abuse of their rights under the Federal
Constitution, that the wrongs which would Ire inflicted
upon these Plaintiffs would be a continuing one and that
since permanent structures are about to be built with pub
lic funds, the damages to Plaintiffs’ rights will be irrepa
rable, and the relief sought here is essential to the preser
vation of the Plaintiffs’ rights arising under federal law as
well as the Bill of Rights of the State of Ohio.
PRAYER
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request the following relief:
1. A declaratory judgment, finding that there is racial
imbalance in the Columbus School District.
2. A Judgment declaring the rights, duties and obli
gations created and existing by and between the Plaintiffs
and the Defendant Board of Education as a result of the
12
Resolution of the Defendant Board and, specifically, as
the resolution of July 18, 1972 affects the building program
approved, after passage of the Resolution by the Board.
3. A mandatory injunction, requiring the Defendants
to perform any acts required to effect any legal obligations
found to exist by the Court.
4. The appointment of a Master by the Court to
supervise the implementation of any order by the Court.
5. The advancement of this cause on the docket be
cause it involves the alleged iminent spending of public
funds in a manner contrary to federal law.
6. Such other and further relief as may be just and
equitable, including attorney fees.
William J. Davis
855 East Long Street
Columbus, Ohio 43203
Trial Attorney
Irwin Barkan
8 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Associate Trial Attorney
------------------- ♦ --------------------
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION, TOM MOYER,
PAUL LANGDON, VIRGINIA PRENTICE, MARILYN
REDDEN, WATSON WALKER, DAVID' HAMLAR,
MARIE CASTLEMAN, AND JOHN ELLIS,
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE COLUMBUS
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
[Filed July 18, 1973]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
First Defense
1. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs seek to bring this
action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a), 1343(a) and (4),
13
2201 and 2202, 42 US.C. §§ 1981, 1983-1988 and 2000(d).
Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have the right to bring an
action under these sections or that a claim is stated there
under and otherwise deny the allegations contained in
Paragraph 1 of the Complaint,
2. For want of knowledge, Defendants deny the
allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint,
3. The Defendants admit that the powers and duties
of the Defendants Columbus Board of Education, Ohio
State Board of Education, Martin Essex, Superintendent
of Public Instruction of the Ohio Department of Educa
tion, and William J. Brown, Attorney General of the State
of Ohio, are provided for by the laws of the State of Ohio,
but deny the other allegations of Paragraph 3(a) , (d),
( e ) and (f) of the Complaint.
4. The Defendants admit the allegations of Para
graph 3(b) , (c) and (g).
5. Defendants admit that on March 21, 1967, June 18,
1968 and July 18, 1972, resolutions were passed by the
Columbus Board of Education and that part of those
resolutions are quoted in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
Defendants deny that the remaining allegations of
Paragraph 4 of the Complaint contain or present a com
plete or accurate history or background of the circum
stances surrounding or the motivating factors causing
adoption of the resolutions and therefore, denies all other
allegations contained in Paragraph 4 not herein otherwise
admitted to be true.
6. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Par
agraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Complaint.
7. Defendants deny each and every other allegation
of the Complaint not herein otherwise expressly admitted
to be true.
14
Second Defense
8. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted against the Defendants and each
of them.
Third Defense
9. The Plaintiffs are without standing before the
court to maintain this action.
Wherefore, the Defendants ask that the Complaint
be dismissed and that they go hence without day.
Respectfully submitted,
Samuel H. Porter
PORTER, STANLEY, PLATT
& ARTHUR
37 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 228-1511,
Attorneys for Defendants
COLUMBUS BOARD OL
EDUCATION, TOM MOYER,
PAUL LANGDON, VIRGINIA
PRENTICE, MARILYN
REDDEN, WATSON
WALKER, DAVID HAMLAR,
MARIE CASTLEMAN, AND
JOHN ELLIS,
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE
COLUMBUS PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
[Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing]
♦
15
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[Filed October 22, 1974]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
I, JURISDICTION
1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28
U.S.C. Section 1221 (a), 1343 (3) and (4). The amount in
controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, exceeds the
sum or value of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). This
is a suit in equity authorized by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983-
1988 and 2000 (d), to redress the deprivations under the
color of Ohio Law, statute, custom, and/or usage of rights,
privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the Thirteenth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, and such further relief as is warranted
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-2202. This action is
also authorized by 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1982,
which provide that all persons within the jurisdiction of
the United States shall have the same rights to the full
and equal benefits of all laws in proceedings for the secu
rity of persons and property, and rights of acquisition
thereof, as is enjoyed by white citizens. This action is also
brought under the Fair Housing Law of 1968 as amended,
42 U.S.C. Section 3601, et seq.
II. PARTIES
2. The Plaintiffs, Gary L. Penick, Anthony Penick,
Donald Penick, Zetter Penick, Donna Cates, Rose Cates,
Beverly Corner, Wanda Corner, Rosetta Corner, Alexes
Smith, Kelli Smith, Ethel M. Smith, Christian D. Palmer,
Janet S. Palmer, Leroy Hairston, Valerie Hairston, John
Hairston, Tracy Brown, Nancy G. Brown, Martin Fisher
and Goldie Fisher, are all parents or minor children there
of attending school in the public school system of the
16
State of Ohio, in the City of Columbus, and are black
and white citizens of the United States.
3. The defendants, The Board of Education of the
City of Columbus; organized and existing in Franklin
County, Ohio, under and pursuant to the laws of the State
of Ohio and operating the public school system of Colum
bus, Ohio, subject to the direction and control of said
defendant.
4. The defendants, Tom Moyer, Paul Langdon, Mari
lyn Redden, Virginia Prentice, Watson Walker, David
Hamlar and Marie Castleman, are all residents of Franklin
County, Ohio and elected members of the Columbus
Board of Education, Columbus, Ohio.
5. The defendant, John Ellis is a resident of Franklin
County and the duly appointed Superintendent of the
Columbus School District, Columbus, Ohio.
6. The defendant, James A. Schaefer is a resident of
Franklin County and the duly elected Franklin County
Recorder, and records and retains in his custody all Deeds
of real estate in Franklin County, Ohio.
7. The defendant, The Ohio State Board of Educa
tion, located in Columbus, Ohio, is a constitutionally cor-
porated body charged with the primary responsibility of
administering public education in the public school sys
tems of Ohio, including the Columbus Public School Dis
trict and its total school community.
8. The defendant, Martin W. Essex, a Franklin
County resident is Superintendent of the Public Instruc
tion of the Department of Education of the State of Ohio,
and is chief administrative officer for public education in
the State of Ohio.
9. The defendant, William J. Brown, Franklin Coun
ty resident and the Attorney General of the State of Ohio,
who is responsible for enforcing the laws and constitution
of the State of Ohio.
17
10. The defendant, John J. Gilligan, Governor of the
State of Ohio, is a Franklin County resident and an ex
officio member of the State Board of Education.
III. CLASS ACTION
1. Plaintiff minor children, by their parents and next
of friends, pursuant to Rule 23, and more specifically 23
(a) (2) , 23 (b) (1) (b), and 23 (B) (2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, bring this action on their own
behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. The
class which plaintiffs represent consists of:
( a ) All those children within the Columbus Pub
lic School District, or eligible to attend schools within
said school district, who by virtue of the actions, ac-
quiescences, and omissions of the Board of Education
and other defendants herein, will be attending segre
gated or substantially segregated schools on the
grounds of their race and who will be forced ̂to
receive an unequal educational opportunity during
the 1974-75 school term; and
( b ) All those school children who are within the
Columbus Public School district or eligible to attend
school within said school district, who by virtue of
the policies, actions, aequiescences, and omissions of
the Board of Education and other defendants herein,
will be and have been attending segregated schools
or substantially segregated schools on grounds of their
race, and who will be and have been receiving an
unequal educational opportunity.
12. There are questions of fact and law common to
all members of the class represented by plaintiffs, namely:
(a) Whether in fact, members of said class, by
virtue of the actions of defendants complained of
herein, will be attending segregated or substantially
segregated schools, and will be forced to receive an
unequal educational opportunity and, further, wheth
er in law such actions of the defendants are uncon
stitutional and void;
18
(b) Whether in fact, members of said class, by
virtue of the actions, acquiescences, or omissions of
the defendants complained of herein, will be and have
been attending segregated or substantially segregated
schools and will be and have been receiving an un
equal educational opportunity; and further, whether
in law such actions, acquiescences, and omissions of
the defendants herein are unconstitutional and void;
and,
(c) Whether defendants acting under color of
law, regulation, custom or usage, have caused or
permitted plaintiffs to be deprived of rights, privi
leges, and immunities secured by the Constitution
and Laws of the United States.
13. The claims of the individual minor plaintiffs are
representative and typical of the class, in that each plain
tiff reflects and illustrates one or more of the various types
of deprivation complained of herein.
14. Said individual minor plaintiffs will fairly and
adequately represent and protect the interest of the class,
in that said plaintiffs in the class share common objectives
and purposes in presenting the issues framed herein, in
seeking a declaration of their constitutional rights, and
in seeking equitable relief to prevent the injuries com-
plained of, and their attorneys are qualified and able to
conduct this litigation.
15. The prosecution of separate actions by individual
members of the class would as a practical matter be dis
positive of the interest of other members not parties to
the adjudications, and would substantially impair their
ability to protect their interest. The parties opposing the
class, that is, the defendants herein have acted and have
also refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
class as more fully appears herein; and the final injunctive
and declaratory relief sought herein will apply to the
class as a whole.
16. Questions of law or fact common to members
of the class predominate over any questions affecting or
19
relating only to individual members of the class; and pro
ceeding by way of this class action is superior to any
other alternative means available, if any, for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy, and the granting
of adequate relief, thus, the only alternative would be the
prosecution of separate suits related to each school within
the District, but no adequate relief could be formulated
for the constitutional defects of the school system as a
whole under such a piece meal approach, nor would the
differences between schools be sufficient enough to justify
such a multitude of suits.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
17. This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment,
preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the de
fendants from continuing their policy, practice, custom
and usage of operating the public schools in Columbus,
Ohio, and where applicable, its total school community,
in a manner which has the purpose and effect of pursuing
policies of containment, perpetuating racial segregation
in the public schools; to restrain defendants from all fur
ther school construction with certain exceptions, until
such time as a constitutional plan for the operation of
the Columbus Public Schools has been approved and
new construction re-evaluated as a part thereof; to re
strain the Franklin County Recorder, and those under his
direction, from accepting, recording, publishing and/or
disseminating unlawful, discriminatory deeds of property
transfer or restrictive agreements entered into by the de
fendant School Board, and for such other relief as herein
after more fully appears below.
18. This is also an action wherein injunctive relief
against the Columbus Board defendant, to restrain them
from the further misspending and dispersal of funds
from an Eighty Nine and One-Half Million Dollar
($89,500,000.00) School Building Bond Issue that was
20
approved by the voters of the Columbus School District
on November 7, 1972. Said defendants are proceeding
“with all deliberate speed” to get as much of their build
ing program under way before the Court can act to resolve
the issues presented here, thereby resulting in the segre
gative aspects of this program being set in concrete. In
return for the vital minority support needed for the pas
sage of this Building Levy in 1972, defendant School
Board Members passed a resolution on July 18, 1972,
stating that it shall be their goal and policy to prepare
every student for life in an integrated society. The Black
community had shown just how necessary their support
was for passage of a School Building Levy by voting down
the two previous Bond Issues for that purpose on May 4,
1971 and September 16, 1969. A majority of defendant
Board Members have subsequently shown lack of good
faith concerning the commitments that they made in re
turn for said Black support that was delivered to them.
V. CAUSE OF ACTION
19. From the year 1829 until the repeal of the so-
called “Black Laws”, the common or public schools in
Ohio and in the City of Columbus were segregated by
law and thereafter the Columbus School Board, up to
and including the present day, pursued policies, actions
and committed acts hereinafter set forth which have re
sulted in continued and perpetual racially identifiable
schools so that up to and including the date of filing of
the original complaint herein, the defendants and their
predecessors maintained 29 racially identifiable “Negro
Schools” and 29 racially identifiable “White Schools” in
the Columbus School District. In addition the defendant
School Board has built or authorized additions to 24
schools which were built to serve black population and
which were racially identifiable as Negro Schools at the
21
time of the erection of the schools or the additions there
to; the defendant School Board and its predecessors has
also built 57 racially identifiable White Schools by use of
housing patterns and attendance zones which would guar
antee a substantially white student attendance in the said
57 schools.
20. Until 1973 and prior to the filing of the original
complaint herein, the defendant Columbus School Board
deliberately and knowingly segregated teachers and other
faculty members on the basis of race. However, in 1973
a consent decree was arranged with the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission and said defendant agreed to a pattern of
faculty re-assignment in accordance with constitutional
requirements. However, said defendants still segregate
their principals, assistant principals and cadets on the basis
of how the student bodies of the respective schools are
racially identifiable.
VI. COUNT ONE
21. Plaintiff's complaint against the State defendant
herein, namely the Ohio State Board of Education, Martin
Essex, the Ohio Superintendent of Public Education, Wil
liam J. Brown, Attorney General and John J. Gilligan, the
Governor of said State, is the said State defendants acting
through the defendant School Board of Columbus, its indi
vidual members and predecessors, have engaged in acts,
practices, customs, and usages which have had the natural,
probable, foreseeable, and actual effect of incorporating
and maintaining racial segregation and discrimination in
the Columbus School System in violation of the rights of
the plaintiffs and their class not to be segregated on the
basis of race in public schools.
22. The State defendant’s action on their own and
through the defendant Columbus School Board and its
predecessors have deprived or assisted in depriving the
22
plaintiffs of their constitutional rights by committing, inter
alia, the following acts:
(a) Permitting student assignment patterns with
racially restricted patterns for many years as well as
setting up School District Boundaries to enhance ra
cial imbalance and segregation and unlawfully allow
ing segi'egated schools to exist since 1887.
(b ) By allocation, appropriation and distribu
tion of education funds to a local school district to
wit, the Columbus School District, which was not in
compliance with and had not conformed to Federal
and State Laws.
(c) The defendant State School Board has re
fused to perform its duty under Ohio and Federal
Laws with respect to the right of these plaintiffs and
except, in the field of safety and health, has provided
no machinery to monitor the broad authority dele
gated to the Defendant Columbus School Board.
(d) The defendant Attorney General has failed
and refused to enforce the laws of the State of Ohio
and the United States Constitution which protect the
rights of the plaintiffs to equal access to the public
school system, and the defendant Attorney General
has failed to implement his own decisions and a Writ
ten Decision of his predecessor dated July 9, 1956,
directed to defendant State Board.
(e) The State defendants have failed and re
fused to develop an affirmative action program to
protect the constitutional rights of these plaintiffs.
VII. COUNT TWO
23. The defendant Columbus School Board, its mem
bers and their predecessors have, over the years, and are
at present, deliberately and purposefully attempting to
create, foster and maintain racial segregation within the
school district by superimposing the so-called "Neighbor
hood School Concept” upon a racially segregated resi
dential pattern with full knowledge that this so-called
23
concept would result in racial segregation in the Colum
bus Public School, reflective of said segregated residential
patterns, and said defendants continue to maintain such
a “neighborhood school” polcy with the intent, purpose,
and effect of creating, fostering, and maintaining school
segregation along racial lines.
24. The defendant School Board with funds from an
Eighty-Nine and One-half Million Dollar ($89,500,000.00)
School Bond Issue has proceeded ahead with plans for
substantial building of school facilities in the suburban
extremities of the white residential areas, these areas being
the farthest from the Black residential area, and they are
also using said funds for substantial building on, or ad
jacent to, the sites of their present racially identifiable
Negro schools and by these acts they are contributing to
a very long tradition and custom of segregated public
schools in Columbus which would be preserved for future
generations.
25. The defendant Columbus School Board and its
members have utilized optional attendance zones to allow
“White flight” from their “Negro Schools” and even to
provide for “White flight” from schools which may be de
scribed as racially imbalanced. Said policy is causing fur
ther segregation and racial imbalance and plaintiffs say
that, as certain schools in the Columbus School District
have undergone transition to gradually increasing propor
tions of Negro pupil population, the defendants have pur
sued an attendance policy with respect to the areas of
attendance and school boundaries, which has had the pur
pose, intent and effect of creating further racial segrega
tion of pupils within the district.
26. The defendant Columbus School Board well
know and recognize that they have not implemented the
U. S. Supreme Court decisions following Brown vs The
Board in 1954, and nevertheless, save for a token so-called
“Freedom of Choice” program, and token faculty deseg-
24
rogation, they have made no effort whatsoever to comply
with these decisions, further evidencing a deliberate, pur
poseful intent on the part of the defendants to practice
and pursue a policy of maintaining and perpetuating seg
regation in the public schools and the Board has refused
to accept or follow the suggestions of reasonable and oper
able plans submitted to them by the Columbus Branch
of the NAACP, (1966), The Columbus Urban League,
(1967), and an Ohio State University Study financed and
solicited by the defendant School Board itself (1969).
27. Plaintiffs say that the defendant Columbus School
Board, in flagrant violation of the Constitution and in
violation of the Fair Housing Law and of 42 U.S.C. 1986,
said defendant has conspired with the Franklin County
Recorder to place said Deeds on public record and said
defendants have located schools under their administra
tion and are locating schools in areas serving schools in
which racial restrictive covenants cover the property ad
jacent to said schools.
28. Plaintiff allege that there are numerous other acts
on the part of the defendant Columbus School Board, its
members and the defendant John Ellis, Superintendent
of the Columbus School Board indicating that said defend
ants have failed and refused to take all necessary steps to
correct the effects of their policies, practices, customs and
usages of racial discrimination in the operation of public
school in the City of Columbus School community and to
assure that such policies, customs, practices, and usages,
now and hereafter conform to the requirements of the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
VIII. COUNT THREE
29. Plaintiffs complaint against the defendant James
A. Schaefer, Franklin County Recorder, is that he and
those acting under his direction, and his predecessors,
have continued to unlawfully record Deeds to property
25
purchased by the defendant School Board with public
funds and that said Deeds have contained racially re
stricted covenants and that said covenants serve as instru
ments of racial discrimination and further enforce the
defendant Columbus School Board’s policy of unlawful
segregation of blacks in racially identifiable schools.
30. Plaintiffs content that a continuation of such un
lawful acts involves the State in private discrimination as
well as public discrimination so as to violate the Thir
teenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C, Section 1982 and that
the Recorder’s Office is such an essential part of the real
estate market, before and after sale of property, that the
recording of the aforementioned described instruments,
the acceptance of them for recording, the display of them
for official public view, and the inspection, copying and
reproduction of them upon request, gives these covenants
a legitimacy and effectiveness in the eyes of a layman
which they do not have at law. Plaintiffs contend that the
Title Abstract and recital of these covenants in title in
surance policies obtained from such copies are further re
production of the official records within the prohibition
of 42 U.S.C. Section 3604 (c).
IX. EQUITY
31. The actions, omissions, and improper acquies
cence of defendants recited above have violated the rights
of plaintiffs and members of their class to freedom of asso
ciation, freedom from the vestiges of slavery, right to due
process and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by
the First, Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States and laws passed
by Congress to implement these Amendments.
32. Plaintiffs and other members of their class have
made numerous demands on defendants to end the racial
segregation described herein, but to no avail. Plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated and affected, on whose
2 6
action this was brought, are suffering irreparable injury
and will continue to suffer irreparable injury, by reason of
the patterns and practices complained of herein. Plaintiffs
have no plain adequate remedy to redress the wrongs com
plained of herein other than this action for declaratory
and injunctive relief. Any other remedy to which plaintiffs
could be remitted would be attended by such uncertain
ties as to deny substantial relief and would cause further
irreparable injury. The aid of this Court is sought in assur
ing the citizens of Columbus and in particular the Black
public school children of the City of Columbus, and Co
lumbus School District their basic rights as American Citi
zens set forth above.
X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
33. W h er efo r e , plaintiffs, on their own behalf and
on behalf of those similarly situated, pray that this Court
will advance this case on the Docket, cause this case to be
in every way expedited, hear this case at the earliest prac
ticable date, and upon such hearing will:
1. Enjoin and restrain preliminarily during the
pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter,
the Columbus Board defendants and their successors
from all further school construction, with the excep
tions to be designated, until such time as a Consti
tutional Plan for operation of the Columbus Public
Schools has been approved and new construction re
evaluated as a part thereof.
2. Adjudge and decree, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 2201, that the actions of the defendants com
plained of herein are unconstitutional and void, as
depriving plaintiffs and those similarly situated, due
process and equal protection of the laws in contra
vention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti
tution of the United States, of their right to freedom
of association, in contravention of the First and Four
teenth Amendments, and of their right to be free
from the vestiges of slavery, in contravention of the
27
Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
3. Enter a decree enjoining the Columbus Board,
defendants, and each of them, their agents, attorneys,
assistants, successors, employees, and all persons act
ing in concert or cooperation with them or at their
direction and under their control:
(a ) From directly or indirectly continuing, main
taining, requiring, promoting, or encouraging,
through their rules, regulations, resolutions, pol
icies, directives, customs, practices, or usages,
the segregation and separation by race of the
pupils within said public schools.
(b) From any further creation, alteration, or
enforcement of any boundaries for any school
attendance area that is intended to or does in
fact, discriminate on the basis of race.
(c) From any further creation or enforcement
of optional attendance zones or permissive pol
icies providing for “white flight” from racially
identifiable Negro schools.
(d) From the pursuit of any further policy re
garding the assignment of faculty and staff which
is intended to or does in fact assign less experi
enced or less qualified faculty or staff to schools
which are predominately Negro or in areas of
low income.
(e) For continuing any policy, practice, custom,
regulation, rule, or usage, not specified above,
which is intended to or has the effect, directly
or indirectly, or furthering, promoting, reviving,
creating, maintaining, renewing, extending, en
trenching, or perpetuating racial segregation in
the public schools.
4. Order the State defendants to prepare and
file with this Court, within a time which is both rea
sonable and certain, and which would allow suffi
cient time for implementation of such program at the
28
mid-point of the 1974-75 school term, a comprehen
sive plan for desegregation in the Columbus School
community as a whole, and for each school therein
which will effectively.
( a ) Remove the traditional segregation and sep
aration by race and social class within and among
such schools ROOT AND BRANCH (Green vs
Countv School Board, 391 U. S. 294; 75 S. Ct.
7 5 3 ) ;'
(b ) End the containment, restricting and/or
confinement of the majority of Negro School
children to racially identifiable schools, primarily
found in the neighborhoods comprising Colum
bus’s inner-city Ghettoes;
(c ) Remove any existing disparity in the re
sources allocated to such schools;
( d) Afford and ensure to every school child, re
gardless of race and regardless of the school
which such child attends, an equal opportunity
to attend schools which, from the standpoint of
facilities, faculty and staff, are in fact equal or
as nearly so as is practical and feasible under the
circumstances;
(e) Afford and ensure to every school child, re
gardless of the school such child attends, an
equal educational opportunity in fact; and,
(f) Insure a continuation of the desegregated
state once it is brought about; and avoid resegre
gation, through the use of periodic re-adjust-
ments of attendance areas to deal with popula
tion shifts, in order that the benefits of equal
educational opportunity will not be temporary
or transitory.
5. Enter a decree enjoining the State Defend
ants as well as the Columbus Board defendant, their
agents, attorneys, successors, assistants, employees,
and all persons acting in concert or cooperation with
them or at their direction and under their control,
29
from approving budgets, making available state and
local funds, approving employment and construction
contracts, approving school sites, school plans, school
additions, and approving policies, curriculum, and
programs, which either are designed to or have the
effect of maintaining, perpetuating, supporting, or
re-introducing racial segregation and containment in
the Columbus School community; said plan to be
effective no later than the mid-point of the 1974-75
school term.
6. Enter a decree enjoining the defendant
Franklin County Recorder, his employees, agents,
assistants, attorneys, successors, and all persons act
ing in concert or cooperation with him or at his/their
direction and under his/their control, in order that a
broad policy of containment will no longer be served:
(a) From hereafter accepting and recording, in
any of the County records, any racially-restrictive
covenants in Deeds to land purchased by the
defendant School Board.
(b) From hereafter accepting and recording, in
any of the County records, any of the “'post 1948
variety” of restrictive covenants or restrictive
agreements; which while not making any spe
cific mention or prohibition on grounds of race,
religion, or ethnic ancestry, or worded so that
they serve that same discriminatory purpose.
7. Order said Franklin County Recorder, his
employees, agents, assistants, attorneys, successors,
and all persons acting in concert with them, or at his/
their direction or under his/their control, to place the
following stamp on each of the restrictive covenants
to be designated: “RACIALLY RESTRICTIVE COV
ENANTS, AND THOSE WHICH SERVE THAT
PURPOSE, ARE NOW PROHIBITED BY LAW. See
Misc. Vol. P. __,” the latter designating the Mis
cellaneous volume where the Order of this Court shall
be recorded.
80
8. Order said Franklin County Recorder, his
employees, agents, assistants, attorneys, successors,
and all persons acting in concert with them, or at his/
their direction or under his/their control, to place this
same stamp on any copies or reproductions hence
forth made of any of the aforementioned varieties of
restrictive agreements or covenants, that are not al
ready so stamped.
9. That the Court fashion such remedies as may
be appropriate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988,
where no such remedies presently exist.
10. That plaintiff recover their costs, attorneys’
fees, out-of-pocket expenses, and such other relief as
may appear to the Court just and proper.
[Subscription and Certificate of Service Omitted
in Printing]
------------------- ♦ --------------------
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION, TOM MOYER,
PAUL LANGDON, VIRGINIA PRENTICE, MARILYN
REDDEN, WATSON WALKER, DAVID HAMLAR,
MARIE CASTLEMAN, AND JOHN ELLIS,
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE COLUMBUS
PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[Filed November 4, 1974]
[Caption, Omitted in Printing]
First Defense
1. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs seek to bring this
action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1221(a), 1343(3) and (4 ),
2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1988, 2000(d), and 3601,
et seq. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have the right to
bring an action under these sections or that a claim is
stated thereunder, aver that there is no 28 U.S.C. § 1221(a)
as alleged, and otherwise deny the allegations contained
in Paragraph 1 of the Second Amended Complaint.
31
2. For want of knowledge, Defendants deny the alle
gations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Second Amended
Complaint.
3. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 3,
4 and 5 of the Second Amended Complaint.
4. Defendants deny the allegations contained in
Paragraph 6 of the Second Amended Complaint.
5. Defendants admit that the powers and duties of
the Defendants Ohio State Board of Education, Martin
Essex, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Ohio
Department of Education, and William }. Brown, Attorney
General of the State of Ohio, are provided for by the laws
of the State of Ohio, but deny the other allegations of
Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the Second Amended Complaint.
6. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 10
of the Second Amended Complaint.
7. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs purport to bring
this action as a class action, but deny all other allegations
contained in Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the
Second Amended Complaint.
8. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Par
agraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, and 32 of the Second Amended Complaint.
9. Defendants deny each and every other allegation
of the Second Amended Complaint not herein expressly
admitted to be true.
Second Defense
10. The Second Amended Complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted against the
Defendants and each of them.
Third Defense
11. The Plaintiffs are without standing before the
court to maintain this action.
32
Fourth Defense
12. The Defendants Tom Moyer, Paul Langdon,
Virginia Prentice, Marilyn Redden, Watson Walker, David
Hamlar, Marie Castleman, and John Ellis are not proper
parties in this action.
Wherefore, the Defendants ask that the Second
Amended Complaint be dismissed and that they go hence
without day.
[Subscription and Certificate of, Service
Omitted in Printing]
— ---------------- ♦ ----------------------------------------------
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION - CLASS ACTION
[Filed March 10, 1975]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28
U.S.C. § 1331(a), 1343(3) and (4 ), this being a suit in
equity authorized by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-1988 and 2000(d),
to redress the deprivation under the color of Ohio law,
statute, custom and/or usage of rights, privileges and im
munities guaranteed by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; by
42 U.S.C. § 1981 which provides that all persons within the
jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same rights
to the full and equal benefits of all laws and proceedings
for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by
white citizens and by 42 U.S.C. 1982 which provides that
all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall
have the same rights as white citizens to purchase real
property.
2. Plaintiffs in Intervention are all parents or minor
children thereof, attending school in the public school
system of the State of Ohio and in the City of Columbus.
They are all citizens of the United States and bring this
action each in their own behalf and on behalf of their minor
children and on behalf of all persons similarly situated.
33
3. This is a class action brought by the intervening
plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23(a) and
(b )(2 ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Members
of the class may be defined as follows: all children ( approx
imately 98,000) who attend public schools within the
Columbus Public School District and their parents or
guardians. Members of the class are too numerous to bring
before the Court, but are similarly affected by the action
or inaction of the defendants in maintaining a dual dis
criminatory system of public education in Columbus and
share common questions of fact and law with the named
plaintiffs, namely whether the defendants acting under
color of law, regulation, custom or usage have caused or
permitted plaintiffs in intervention to be deprived of rights,
privileges and immunities seemed by the Constitution and
Laws of the United States and the State of Ohio.
A common relief is sought and the intervening plain
tiffs adequately represent the interest of the class since the
parties defendant have acted or refused or neglected to
act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby
making injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the
class as a whole.
4. The defendants, The Board of Education of the
City of Columbus, organized and existing in Franklin
County, Ohio, under and pursuant to the laws of the State
of Ohio and operating the public school system of Colum
bus, Ohio, subject to the direction and control of said
defendants.
5. The defendants, Tom Moyer, Paul Langdon,
Marilyn Redden, Virginia Prentice, Watson Walker, David
Harnler and Marie Castleman, are all residents of Franklin
County, Ohio, and elected members of the Columbus
Board of Education, Columbus, Ohio.
6. Defendant, John Ellis, is a resident of Franklin
County and the duly appointed Superintendent of the
Columbus School District, Columbus, Ohio.
34
7. Defendant, James A. Schaefer, is a resident of
Franklin County and the duly elected Franklin County
Recorder, and records and retains in his custody all Deeds
of Real Estate in Franklin County, Ohio.
8. The defendant, The Ohio State Board of Educa
tion, located in Columbus, Ohio, is a constitutionally cor-
porated body charged with the primary responsibility of
administering public education in the public school sys
tems of Ohio, including the Columbus Public School Dis
trict and its total school community.
9. The defendant, Martin W. Essex, a Franklin
County resident, is Superintendent of Public Instruction
of the Department of Education of the State of Ohio, and
is Chief Administrative Officer for public education in
the State of Ohio.
10. The defendant, William J. Brown, Franklin
County resident and the Attorney General of the State of
Ohio, is responsible for enforcing the Laws and Constitu
tion of the State of Ohio.
11. The defendant, James Rhodes, Governor of the
State of Ohio, is a Franklin County resident.
12. All defendants herein are used individually and
in their official capacities. Relief is also sought against
defendants’ agents, attorneys, assistants, successors, em
ployees, and all persons acting in concert or cooperation
with them, or at their direction or under their control.
13. This is a proceeding for a preliminary and a per
manent injunction enjoining the defendants from continu
ing their policy, practice, custom and usage of constructing
and operating the public schools in Columbus, Ohio in
a manner which has the purpose and effect of perpetuating
racial and economic segregation in the public schools and
for such other relief as hereinafter more fully appears. The
State Board of Education and other defendants by their
actions and inactions have effected racial segregation and
discrimination in the operation of the Columbus public
schools in violation of the rights secured to plaintiffs by
35
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, and Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution
of Ohio.
14. The defendants and their predecessors acting
through sub-units of state governments have engaged in
acts, practices, customs and usages which have had the
natural, probable, foreseeable and actual effect of incor
porating public and private residential racial segregation
and discrimination into the Columbus school system in
violation of the rights of plaintiffs in intervention under the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitu
tion of the United States.
15. Through its various instrumentalities, including
but not limited to zoning boards, planning commissions and
departments, licensing agencies, state-approved realtor
organizations, public housing and urban renewal authori
ties, the defendants herein, and others, by various methods,
including but not limited to State laws or local ordinances
prescribing minimum lot sizes and the construction of
publicly-assisted housing facilities, the location of parks
and highways, and pursuant to a policy of racial discrimi
nation, the State and other defendants have established a
pattern, practice, custom and usage of racial residential
segregation of blacks to prescribed residential areas in the
City of Columbus and have superimposed pupil assign
ment, school construction and zoning with the natural
probable foreseeable and actual effect of requiring the
black and white plaintiffs in intervention to attend racially
segregated schools.
16. Through its various instrumentalities, but not lim
ited to zoning boards, planning commissions and depart
ments, licensing agencies, state-approved realtor organiza
tions, public housing, urban renewal authorities and school
boards, the defendants herein, and others, have exploited
the plaintiffs through a situation created by governmental
and socio-economic forces tainted by racial residential
segregation with the effect of requiring the black and white
36
plaintiffs in intervention to attend racially segregated
schools in the City of Columbus.
17. In the operation of the Columbus school system,
the defendants have seized upon and taken advantage of
the opportunity created by racial residential segregation
to contain the black plaintiffs in intervention to certain
racially segregated schools by their policies and practices
of drawing school attendance boundaries, pupil assignment
practices, school construction, additions and financing with
the result that the patterns created by racial residential
segregation have been re-enforced in such a manner as to
aggravate the existing racially discriminatory actions, both
public and private discriminatory policies, customs, prac
tices and usages and have resulted in a dual public school
system in Columbus composed of predominately minority
group schools and predominately white schools.
18. The Columbus Board of Education and the State
defendants have conducted and had presented to them
numerous studies for the purpose of determining the best
method of eliminating the pattern of racial segregation in
the public schools in the Columbus area. They have failed
to act despite the knowledge that the effect of such in
action would be greater segregation.
19. The Columbus Board of Education and the State
defendants have approved a pattern of school construction
within the perimeter of the City of Columbus which has
resulted in the establishment of school complexes having
an overwhelming white enrollment, which provides a
school house for white students to the exclusion of black
students and facilitates the maintenance of the pattern of
racial separation in the public schools of the City of Colum
bus. At the same time, the Columbus Board of Education
and the State defendants have continued their policy of
school construction and additions which have resulted in
the containment of the black population to racially iden
tifiable black schools. Said policies extend to the assign
ment of principals, assistant principals and cadets in ac
87
cordance with the racial identifiability of the Columbus
public schools.
20. In at least two instances the State Board of Edu
cation has acted to require consolidation of school districts
in Ohio to eliminate racial segregation between the dis
tricts as well as to equalize educational resources available
to citizens of the consolidated districts. The State defend
ants have a policy of merging and consolidating schools
and school districts to better educational opportunity for
school children. The State defendants acting through sub
units of state government including the local defendants
and their predecessors and otherwise, have engaged in acts,
practices, customs and usages which have had the natural,
probable, foreseeable, and actual effect of incorporating
into school systems serving the Columbus area, the private
residential racial segregation and discrimination in viola
tion of the rights of plaintiffs not to be segregated on the
basis of race in public schools or school districts.
21. The State defendants acting through their pred
ecessors and otherwise have allocated and permitted to be
allocated educational resources in a manner that has had
the natural, probable, foreseeable and actual effects in the
Columbus area of:
■ ( a ) Discriminating in the provision of school facilities
and other educational resources on the basis of race
against children attending the public schools within
the city of Columbus;
(b ) Establishing and maintaining the pattern of
racially separate schools and school systems in viola
tion of the rights secured to plaintiffs and their class
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and the Constitution and Laws of
the State of Ohio.
22. The defendants’ present method of operating sep
arate school attendance boundaries in the Columbus school
system with the discriminatory effects described herein is
not required for the fulfillment of any valid state educa
38
tional objective nor any compelling state interest which
could not be equally or better served by a different set of
boundaries which did not incorporate racial segregation.
23. Although educationally sound, feasible, and prac
tical, alternative methods of school organizations are reas
onably available to the defendants and the implementation
of such alternatives would fulfill the defendants’ educa
tional objectives, the defendants have failed to select such
alternatives resulting in aggravating racial segregation and
inequitable allocation of educational resources.
24. Throughout the Columbus school system during
the 1974-75 school year, of 168 programs at all levels, there
are 16 Senior High Schools, 26 Junior High Schools and
124 Elementary Schools.
The total enrollment for the Columbus School System
is 98,016, of these there are 22,436 in Senior High School,
21,795 in Junior High School and 53,334 in the Elementary
School.
Senior High School
25. Within the Senior High School there are 22,436
students of which there are 7,539 (34% ) black and 14,824
non-black students, including 6 American Indians, 42 Asian
Americans and 25 Spanish surname students. Over half
(57% ) or 4,317 of the total black senior high school popu
lation of 7,359 are assigned to the 5 schools which have
60-99% black enrollment, while 80% or 12,111 of the total
non-black population is assigned to schools having 60-
99% non-black enrollment. There are 6 predominately
white schools having a total enrollment of 10,526 and of
this only 703 or 6% are black.
Junior High School
26. Within the Junior High School there are 26 school
programs. Of these, 5 are racially identifiable black (60-
99% ), and 21 racially identifiable white schools (60- 99% ).
39
Of the total black junior high school enrollment of 6,446,
48% or 3,100 of the students are assigned to the 5 racially
identifiable black schools.
Elementary School
27. Within the 124 elementary schools, there are 35
racially identifiable black and 89 racially identifiable white
schools. Twenty-five being 80-99% black; 10 being 50-
80% black; 11 being 25-50% black; 78 being 1-25% black.
Of the total elementary school population of 53,344, 30%
or 16,333 of the enrollment is black. Of this black popula
tion, (78% or 12,841) attend the 35 schools which are
60-99% black. The remaining 41% (6,721) attend the 89
majority non-black schools.
28. On all three educational levels of the Columbus,
Ohio School System, approximately half of the total black
population is assigned to schools which are 60-99% black.
Fifty-five (55% ) per cent in the senior high schools in 5
out of 16 schools; 48% of the junior high schools in 5 out
of 26 schools; and 78% of the elementary school in 35 out
of 124, in a school system with a total black enrollment
of 30%.
29. Of the total number of school programs, on all
levels, 81 of the 168 schools have 90% or more non-black
enrollment. Thirty-two (32) schools have an 80-99% black
enrollment in a school system with a total black enrollment
of 30%.
30. Until 1973, the Columbus Board of Education
segregated faculty members on the basis of race. In 1973,
a Consent Decree was arranged with the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission, after the case at bar was filed. The Consent
Decree fixed certain Constitutional requirements of faculty
desegregation. However, the defendants still segregate
principals, assistants, and cadets on the basis of race con
sistent with job assignments in the respective racially segre
gated schools, The effects of the racial identification of
40
schools imposed by such purposeful faculty segregation
have not been dissipated.
31. The intervening plaintiffs allege that the defend
ants herein acting under color of the laws of the State of
Ohio have pursued and are presently pursuing a policy,
custom, practice and usage of operating, managing and
controlling the Columbus public school system in a man
ner that has the purpose and effect of perpetuating a
segregated public school system. Such racially discrim
inatory policies and practices have included assigning
students, designing attendance zones for elementary,
junior, and senior high schools, establishing feeder pat
terns to secondary schools, planning future public educa
tional facilities, constructing new schools, and utilizing
and building upon the existing racially discriminatory
patterns in both public and private housing on the basis
of the race and color of the children who are eligible to
attend said schools.
32. The defendants have failed and refused to take
all necessary steps to correct the effects of their policies,
practices and customs and usages of racial discrimination
in the operation of public schools in the City of Columbus
in order to assure that such policies, customs, practices,
and usages, now and hereafter, conform to the require
ments of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the Constitution of the United States. The intervening
plaintiffs and all those similarly situated and affected on
whose behalf this action was brought, are suffering
irreparable injury and will continue to suffer an irreparable
injury by reason of the patterns and practices complained
of herein. The intervening plaintiffs have no plain, ade
quate or complete remedy to redress the wrongs com
plained of herein other than this action for preliminary
and injunctive relief. Any other remedy to which these
plaintiffs could be remitted would be attended by such
uncertainties as to deny substantial relief and would
41
cause further irreparable injury. The aid of this Court is
sought in assuring the citizens of Columbus and in particu
lar the black and economically deprived public school
children of the City of Columbus and the Columbus metro
politan area, equal protection and due process of law
under the Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution.
W HEREFORE, THE INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS
RESPECTFULLY PRAY that upon the filing of the Com
plaint, the Court grant a preliminary and permanent in
junction:
(a) Requiring defendants, their agents and other per
sons acting in concert with them to develop and im
plement a “system wide” plan of desegregation which
will provide for the elimination of the pattern of racial
segregation in the Columbus public school system
at the beginning of the 1975-1976 school year.
(b) Restraining defendants from all further school
construction until such time as a constitutional plan
for the operation of the Columbus public schools has
been approved and new construction plans re-evalu-
ated as a part thereof.
(c) Requiring defendants to assign for the 1975-1976
school year, principals, faculty and other school per
sonnel to each school in the system in accordance with
the ratio of white and black principals, faculty and
other school personnel throughout the system where
such ratio does not already exist.
(d) Order the State defendants to prepare and file
with the Court a plan for desegregation of the Co
lumbus public schools.
(e) Advance this cause on the docket and order
speedy hearing of this action according to law and
upon such hearing, issue preliminary and permanent
decrees enjoining the defendants, their agents, at
torneys and successors from continuing to utilize any
policies, customs, practices and usages described
42
herein which have the purpose or effect of leaving
intact or establishing racially identifiable schools.
(f) Enter a decree enjoining the State defendants
as well as local defendants, their agents, attorneys
and successors from approving budgets, making avail
able state and local funds, approving employment and
construction contracts, approving school sites, school
plans, school additions and approving policies, cur
riculum and programs which either are designed to
or have the effect of maintaining, perpetuating or
supporting racial segregation and containment in the
Columbus public school system.
(g) Award intervening plaintiffs fees to their at
torneys for services rendered and to be rendered by
them in this cause and allow plaintiffs all out-of-
pocket expenses of this action and such other relief
as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just.
Respectfully submitted,
Nathaniel J ones
General Counsel
N.A.A.C.P.
1790 Broadway
New York, New York 10019
(212) 245-2100
Louis R. Lucas
Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas
525 Commerce Title Building
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
(901) 525-8601
John A. Dziamba
746 Main Street
Williamantic, Connecticut 06226
(203) 423-8425
43
Caroline A. Watts
Trial Attorney
1423 East Main Street
Columbus, Ohio 43206
(614) 253-8233
Irwin Barkan
50 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 221-4221
Of Counsel:
Cox & Dickerson
50 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 221-5373
[Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing]
----------------- 4 ------------------
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
[Filed March 10, 1975]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
Applicants are before the Court with a motion to inter
vene as party plaintiffs in this class action suit against the
Columbus School Board and various state and local offi
cials for alleged discriminatory policies and practices in
the operation of the city’s public school system.
The applicants base their motion on two grounds.
First, they seek to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule
24(a) (2 ), Fed. R. Civ. P. This Rule provides that upon
timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene
when the applicant claims an interest relating to the
property or transaction which is the subject of the
action and he is so situated that the disposition of the
44
action may as a practical matter impair or impede his
ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s
interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
To intervene as of right, therefore, the application must
( I ) be timely, (2) show an interest in the subject matter
of the action, (3) show that the disposition of the action
may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s
ability to protect his interest, and, finally, (4) show that
the interest is not adequately represented by an existing
party.
The threshold question in any motion to intervene is
that of timeliness. In their respective memoranda filed in
opposition to this motion the original parties cite the fact
that this lawsuit was originally filed on June 21, 1973, some
twenty months ago. The amount of time which has elapsed
since the original complaint was filed, however, is not the
sole factor to be considered when determining the time
liness of a motion to intervene. ( See NAACP v. New York,
413 U.S. 345, 366 (1973) wherein the Supreme Court re
iterated this idea and further stated that “timeliness is to
be determined from all the circumstances. ) Intervention
is proper where the substantial litigation of the issues has
not begun when the motion to intervene is filed. Under
such circumstances, intervention has even been allowed
several years after the commencement of suit. See 3B
Moore’s Federal Practice, jf 24.13[1]. In the instant case
the Court has allowed the filing of two amended com
plaints, the last of which was filed as recently as October
24, 1974. In such circumstances I do not feel that this
motion to intervene can be said to be untimely; no sub
stantial litigation on the issue raised herein has in fact
occurred.
Plaintiffs herein purport to represent a class consisting
of all children who are or will be attending school within
the Columbus Public School District. Applicants for inter
vention purport to represent all children who attend
45
schools within the Columbus Public School District. Thus,
except for the different individually-named plaintiffs of
each, both seek to represent the same class. Further, both
plaintiffs and applicants seek to protect similar if not iden
tical interests. As a practical matter, therefore, disposition
of this case will affect the applicants’ ability to protect
their asserted interests.
Thus, the only determination remaining to be made
concerns the adequacy of the representation by plaintiffs’
counsel. As the rule set out above states, intervention shall
be allowed unless the applicants’ interests are adequately
represented by existing parties. Judge, now Justice, Black-
mun once said that inadequacy of representation could be
shown “by proof of collusion between the representative
and an opposing party, by the representative having or
representing an interest adverse to the intervenor, or by
the failure of the representative in the fulfillment of his
duty.” Stadin v. Union Electric C o ., 309 F.2d 912, 919
(8th Cir. 1962), cert, denied 373 U.S. 915 (1963). It is
argued herein that representation is adequate if there has
been no collusion between the class representative and the
opposing party or if the representative is not alleging an
interest adverse to the applicant or, finally, if the represen
tative will not fail in the fulfillment of his duty to the class.
However, it is one thing to say that inadequacy of repre
sentation has been shown by establishing one of these
circumstances; it is quite another to find representation
adequate unless one of these is present. In the instant
case the would-be interveners claim that “the approaches
taken and issues raised, therefore, by the original plaintiffs
are different than the approaches and issues adopted by
the applicants for intervention.” In such a situation, they
contend the Court should be influenced “by the extent of
the applicant’s interest and in part by the contribution he
can make to the Court’s understanding of the case in light
of his knowledge and concern.” Support for this contention
is found in Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America,
46
404 U.S. 528 (1971). In Trbovich Mr. Justice Marshall,
speaking for the Court, noted:
The requirement of the Rule is satisfied if the appli
cant shows that representation of his interest ‘may be’
inadequate; and the burden of making that showing
should be treated as minimal. ( Citation omitted.)
Trbovich, supra at 538.
Finally, this Court is mindful of, and is in agreement
with, the view expressed by some commentators that the
overall effect of the recent changes to Rules 23 and 24 is
to grant members of a Rule 2 3 (b )(2 ) class, as we have
here, a more liberal right to intervene in the original class
action. See 3B M oores Federal Practice, If 23.90[2]. For
the above reasons I find that intervention as of right should
be granted these applicants.
Even assuming arguendo, however, that the applicants
may not intervene as of right, they have also moved for
permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) (2 ), Fed.
R. Civ. P., and I find that this motion should be granted.
Rule 24(b) (2) states that upon timely application anyone
may be permitted to intervene in an action
when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main
action have a question of law or fact in common.
A motion under this rule is directed to the sound dis
cretion of the Court. In exercising this discretion the Court
is only required by the rule to consider whether the inter
vention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of
the rights of the original parties. There appears to be no
dispute among the various parties that the requisite ele
ment of commonality of fact and law is present; the only
question is whether undue delay or prejudice will result.
Certainly it can be said that additional parties always re
quire at least some additional time. But to find this deter
minative is to do away with permissive intervention. In
the instant case I find no factor present which would lead
47
to the conclusion that adjudication will be delayed or
prejudiced. This is not a case where the issues have begun
to be litigated in court or where the issues have already
been decided adversely to the applicants. Although the
Court presumes that discovery is ongoing at the present
time, applicants’ counsel, who appear to be highly skilled
in this area of the lav/, should have no problem familiar
izing themselves with the progress of the case to date.
Because there would appear to be little likelihood of delay
and prejudice and because intervention in class actions
such as this should be liberally construed, see Hall v.
Warthon Bag Corporation, 251 F. Supp. 184 (M.D. Term.
1986), I find that applicants herein should be allowed
intervention in this matter.
For the reasons set forth above, the motion to inter
vene is GRANTED.
It is so ORDERED.
Robert M. Duncan, Judge
United States District Court
------------------- ❖ --------------------
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION, TOM MOYER,
PAUL LANGDON, VIRGINIA PRENTICE, MARILYN
REDDEN, WATSON WALKER, DAVID HAMLAR,
MARIE CASTLEMAN, AND JOHN ELLIS,
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE COLUMBUS
PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
[Filed April 1, 1975]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
First Defense
1. Defendants admit that plaintiffs seek to bring this
action under 28 U.S.C. j[j[ 1331(a), 1343(3) and 1343(4),
and 42 U.S.C. 1981-1988, 2000(d). Defendants deny
48
that plaintiffs have the right to bring an action under these
sections or that a claim is stated thereunder, and otherwise
deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Com
plaint in Intervention.
2. For want of knowledge, defendants deny the alle
gations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint in In
tervention.
3. Defendants admit that plaintiffs purport to bring
this action as a class action, but deny all other allegations
contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint in Intervention.
4. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 4
of the Complaint in Intervention.
5. Defendants deny that Tom Moyer is presently an
elected member of the Columbus Board of Education, and
admit the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
5 of the Complaint in Intervention.
6. Defendants admit the allegations contained in
Paragraph 6 of the Complaint in Intervention.
7. Defendants deny the allegations contained in
Paragraph 7 of the Complaint in Intervention.
8. Defendants admit that the powers and duties of
the defendants Ohio State Board of Education, Martin
Essex, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Ohio
Department of Education, and William J. Brown, Attorney
General of the State of Ohio, are provided for by the laws
of the State of Ohio, but deny the other allegations of
Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the Complaint in Intervention.
9. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 11
of the Complaint in Intervention.
10. Defendants admit that the defendants are sued
individually and in their official capacities, deny that such
is proper, and deny all other allegations contained in Para
graph 12 of the Complaint in Intervention.
11. Defendants admit that plaintiffs are seeking pre
liminary and permanent injunctive relief, but deny their
right to do so or that a claim has been made therefor and
49
the other allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint in
Intervention.
12. Defendants deny the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the
Complaint in Intervention.
13. Defendants admit that the figures alleged in
Paragraph 24 of the Complaint in Intervention are approx
imately accurate and correct, but deny the exactness of
said allegations.
14. Defendants deny the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28,' 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the Com
plaint in Intervention.
15. Defendants deny each and every other allegation
of the Complaint in Intervention not herein expressly ad
mitted to be true.
Second Defense
16. The Complaint in Intervention fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted against the de
fendants and each of them.
Third Defense
17. The plaintiffs-intervenors are without standing
before the Court to maintain this action.
Fourth Defense
18. The defendants Tom Moyer, Paul Langdon, Vir
ginia Prentice, Marilyn Redden, Watson Walker, David
Hamlar, Marie Castleman, and John Ellis, are not proper
parties in this action.
Wherefore, the defendants ask that the Complaint
in Intervention be dismissed at the cost of the plaintiffs-
intervenors.
[Subscription and Certificate of Service
Omitted in Printing]
♦
50
O R D E R
[Filed April 9, 1975]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
This matter came on before the Court on plaintiffs’
Motion that their Complaint be maintained as a class ac
tion and the Court being fully advised in the premises finds
that no objections have been made to said Motion. The
Court further finds that the plaintiffs are representative of
the class which seeks relief herein, said class consisting
of all children attending public schools in the Columbus
Ohio School District together with their parents or guard
ians. The Court also finds that there are questions of law
and fact common to the class and that the claims of the
plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests
of all the members of the class.
The Court further finds that this action is maintained
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, ( I ) and (2),
and that notice to other members of the class represented
by the plaintiff is therefore not mandatory; however, the
Court also finds that this action has been given widespread
publicity by the local news media during the period which
this suit has been pending.
Upon consideration the Court determines the Motion
of the plaintiffs to be meritorious and, the request that this
suit be maintained as a class action is hereby granted.
It is so ORDERED.
Robert M. Duncan, Judge
United States District Court
51
Nos. 77-8315-16
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
GARY L. PENICK, et al,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
COLUMBUS BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et a l,
Defendants-Appellants.
COLUMBUS BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Intervener-Appellee.
COLUMBUS EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION,
Proposed Intervenor-Appellant. I
Before: EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and PECK,
Circuit Judges.
Defendants Columbus Board of Education, et al., and
Ohio State Board of Education, et al., petition this court
for leave to appeal under 38 U.S.C. ft 1292(b) (1970),
asserting that certain findings and orders of the United
States District Court entered in the above-styled cause
involve a controlling question of law as to which there is
a substantial difference of opinion and that an immediate
appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination
of litigation. The District Judge has sua sponte certified
his belief that such a controlling question of law exists.
In his opinion the District Judge entered the following
findings pertaining to the Columbus Board of Education:
From the evidence adduced at trial, the Court
has found earlier in this opinion that the Columbus
O R D E R
[Filed June 29, 1977]
52
Public Schools were openly and intentionally segre
gated on the basis of race when Brown I was decided
in 1954. The Court has found that the Columbus
Board of Education never actively set out to disman
tle this dual system. The Court has found that until
legal action was initiated by the Columbus Area Civil
Rights Council, the Columbus Board did not assign
teachers and administrators to Columbus schools at
random, without regard for the racial composition of
the student enrollment at those schools. The Colum
bus Board even in very recent times, has approved
optional attendance zones, discontiguous attendance
areas and boundary changes which have maintained
and enhanced racial imbalance in the Columbus Pub
lic Schools. The Board, even in very recent times and
after promising to do otherwise, has abjured workable
suggestions for improving the racial balance of city
schools.
Viewed in the context of segregative optional
attendance zones, segregative faculty and administra
tive hiring and assignments, and the other such
actions and decisions of the Columbus Board of Edu
cation in recent and remote history, it is fair and
reasonable to draw an inference of segregative intent
from the Board’s actions and omissions discussed in
this opinion.
Concerning the Ohio State Board of Education and
its Superintendent, the District Judge found:
The failure of these state defendants to act, with
full knowledge of the results of such failure, provides
a factual basis for the inference that they intended
to accept the Columbus defendants’ acts, and thus
shared their intent to segregate in violation of a con
stitutional duty to do otherwise.
The District Court thereupon permanently enjoined
the defendants from “discriminating on the basis of race in
the operation of the Columbus Public Schools,” and di
rected defendants to formulate plans for desegregation of
58
the Columbus Public Schools and enjoined new school
construction, absent prior approval of the court.
Leave to appeal from the findings which held de
fendants responsible for unconstitutional segregation at
the Columbus Public Schools and ordered desegregation
thereof and orders of the District Court is hereby granted.
In the public interest, the case will be advanced for
hearing on this court’s calendar as soon as briefing is
completed.
Entered by order of the Court
John P. Hehman, Clerk
By Grace Keller
Grace Keller, Chief Deputy
----------------- ♦ ------------------
MOTION OF THE OHIO STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION AND SUPERINTENDENT OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
FINDINGS OF FACT.
[Filed July 11, 1977]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
These state defendants respectfully request the Court
to supplement the findings of fact previously made in its
Memorandum and Order of March 8, 1977. The reason
for this motion is given in the accompanying brief.
Mark O’Neill
James L. McCrystal, J r.
Weston, Hurd, F allon, Paisley & Howley
2500 Terminal Tower
Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216/241-6602)
Attorneys for the Ohio State Board of
Education and Superintendent o f Public
Instruction, Franklin B. Walter.
54
Of Counsel:
Thomas Michael
Alexander, E binger, Holschuh, F isher & McAlister
17 South High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614/221-6345)
B R I E F
On June 27, 1977 the Supreme Court announced its
decision in Dayton Board o f Education v. Brinkman,
. . IJ.S. . . (1977). We will not attempt any detailed de
scription of that opinion or the procedural history which
preceded it since we are sure that the court is fully in
formed. Suffice it to say that it provides important clari
fication with respect to the remedies that may now be for
mulated in school desegregation cases. Inasmuch as we are
now in the phase of the present case where a remedy for
Columbus must be developed, it is important that we pro
ceed in accordance with the Supreme Court’s most re
cently declared requirements. Writing for a unanimous
court Mr. Justice Rehnquist said:
The duty of both the District Court and Court of
Appeals in a case such as this, where mandatory seg
regation by law of the races in the schools has long
since ceased, is to first determine whether there was
any action in the conduct of the business of the school
board which was intended to, and did in fact, dis
criminate against minority pupils, teachers or staff.
Washington v. Davis, supra. All parties should be free
to introduce such additional testimony and other evi
dence as the District Court may deem appropriate.
If such violations are found, the District Court . . .
must determine how much incremental segregative
effect these violations had on the racial distribution
of the Dayton school population as presently consti
tuted, when that distribution is compared to what it
would have been in the absence of such constitutional
violations. The remedy must be designed to redress
55
that difference, and only if there has been a system-
wide impact may there be a systemwide remedy.
Slip opinion, 13-14,
The difficulty of this task was recognized explicitly:
We realize that this is a difficult task, and that it
is much easier for a reviewing court to fault ambigu
ous phrases such as 'cumulative violation’ than it is
for the finder of fact to make the complex factual de
terminations in the first instance. Nonetheless, that is
what the Constitution and our cases call for, and that
is what must be clone in this case.
Id., 14.
The state defendants respectfully request this Court
to supplement the findings of fact previously made in its
Memorandum and Order of March 8, 1977 in order to
define “how much incremental segregative effect [the de
fendants’] violations had on the racial distribution of the
[Columbus] school population as presently constituted,
when that distribution is compared to what it would have
been in the absence of such constitutional violations.”
Dayton, supra.
The need for supplementary findings of fact stems
from this Court’s limited description of the present effects
of the violations which the Court found, together with the
absence of any finding comparing the present racial dis
tribution of the student population with what it would
have been if such violations had not occurred. This dif
ference is absolutely critical to the formulation of any
remedy for, “The remedy must be designed to redress that
difference. . . .” Dayton, supra.
Two days after Dayton was decided the Supreme
Court confirmed the critical importance of the language
noted above in School District o f Omaha v. United States,
. . U.S. . . (June 29, 1977). The Court granted certiorari
and then vacated the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court
56
of Appeals which had affirmed the remedy order for Oma
ha. In remanding that case for consideration in the light
of Village o f Arlington Heights and Dayton, the Supreme
Court observed that neither the Court of Appeals nor the
District Court “addressed itself to the inquiry required by
our opinion in . . . Dayton . . . in which we said:
‘If such violations are found, the District Court in
the first instance, subject to review by the Court of
Appeals, must determine how much incremental seg
regative effect these violations had on the racial dis
tribution of the Dayton school population as presently
constituted, when that distribution is compared to
what it would have been in the absence of such con
stitutional violations. The remedy must be designed
to redress that difference, and only if there has been
a system-wide impact may there be a system-wide
remedy.’ Slip op., 13-14.”
School District of Omaha, supra, 2.
The Supreme Court decided Milwaukee’s petition for
certiorari on the same basis in Brennan v. Armstrong,
. . U.S. . . (June 29, 1977). The District Court in Mil
waukee had found the local defendants liable and had cer
tified the case for interlocutory appeal, as this Court has
done. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit af
firmed the District Court’s findings on liability. The school
board petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court grant
ed it, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and
remanded for consideration in the light of Village o f Ar
lington Heights and Dayton. Once again the Supreme
Court observed that neither lower court had “addressed
itself to the inquiry mandated by our opinion in . . . Day-
ton . . . in which we said:
‘If such violations are found, the District Court
in the first instance, subject to review by the Court
of Appeals, must determine how much incremental
segregative effect these violations had on the racial
57
distribution of the Dayton school population as pres
ently constituted, when that distribution is compared
to what it would have been in the absence of such
constitutional violations. The remedy must be de
signed to redress that difference, and only if there has
been a system-wide impact may there be a system
wide remedy.’ Slip op., at 13-14.”
Brennan v. Armstrong, supra, 1.
The findings of fact in this Court’s Memorandum and
Order of March 8, 1977 do not address the inquiry man
dated by Dayton, Omaha and Brennan v. Armstrong.
Those findings are therefore insufficient to permit the for
mulation of an appropriate remedy. We respectfully sug
gest that a remedy cannot be fashioned in accordance with
current constitutional requirements until this Court first
defines the incremental segregative effects which the vio
lations had on the racial distribution of the Columbus
school population as presently constituted, comparing that
distribution to what it would have been had such con
stitutional violations not occurred.
[Subscription and Certificate of Service
Omitted in Printing.]
—---------------♦ ------------------
MOTION OF COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION
AND DR. JOSEPH L. DAVIS, INTERIM SUPERIN
TENDENT OF COLUMBUS PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
FOR DETERMINATION OF INCREMENTAL
SEGREGATIVE EFFECTS
[Filed July 11, 1977]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
Defendants Columbus Board of Education and Dr.
Joseph L. Davis, Interim Superintendent of Columbus
Public Schools, respectfully move the Court to determine
how much incremental segregative effect the constitutional
58
violations found in its March 8, 1977 Opinion and Order
had on the racial distribution of the Columbus school popu
lation as presently constituted in each elementary, junior
and senior high school, when that distribution is compared
to what the racial composition of the Columbus school
population would have been in the absence of such con
stitutional violations in each elementary, junior and senior
high school in the system.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
On June 27, 1977 the Supreme Court announced its
decision in Dayton Board o f Education v. Brinkman, —
U.S. (1977). The Court vacated a Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals decision which had upheld a remedy plan
requiring that the racial distribution of each school be
brought within 15% of the 48%-52% black-white popula
tion ratio of the Dayton schools.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous Court,
set forth the following duties of lower courts in school
desegregation cases:
“The duty of both the District Court and the Court of
Appeals in a case such as this, where mandatory segre
gation by law of the races in the schools has long
since ceased, is to first determine whether there was
any action in the conduct of the business of the school
board which was intended to, and did in fact, discrim
inate against minority pupils, teachers or staff. W ash
ington v. Davis, supra. All parties should be free to
introduce such additional testimony and other evi
dence as the District Court may deem appropriate. If
such violations are found, the District Court in the
first instance, subject to the review by the Court of
Appeals, must determine how much incremental segre
gative effect these violations had on the racial distribu
tion of the Dayton school population as presently
constituted, when that distribution is compared to
what it would have been in the absence of such con
stitutional violations. The remedy must be designed
59
to redress that difference, and only if there has been
a systemwide impact may there Ire a systemwide rem
edy. Keyes, supra, at 213.”
Dayton Board o f Education v. Brinkman, Slip Opinion
at 12-14.
The Columbus defendants respectfully submit that
Dayton requires the Court to determine the “incremental
segregative effect” of the constitutional violations identified
in its March 8, 1977 Opinion and Order before any remedy
can be required. The Dayton case also instructs the Court
on the method of determining such effect. The Court must
compare the racial distribution of the Columbus school
population as presently constituted to what the racial dis
tribution would have been in the absence of the constitu
tional violations found. It is the difference yielded from
that comparison that must be remedied. Dayton, — U.S.
—, Slip Opinion at 13-14.
The applicability of Dayton to other school desegre
gation cases was illustrated in two Supreme Court an
nouncements on June 29, 1977. In both cases, the Supreme
Court vacated lower court judgments and remanded for
reconsideration in light of Dayton.
In School District of Omaha v. United States, — U.S.
— (Slip Opinion June 29, 1977), the district court had
originally found in favor of the school system and had
dismissed the complaint. 389 F. Supp. 293 (D. Neb. 1974).
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, held that the segre
gation in the Omaha schools must be eliminated “root and
branch,” and remanded with directions and guidelines for
development of a system-wide remedy. 521 F.2d 530 (8th
Cir. 1975). In particular, the Court of Appeals found:
“We conclude that, in five decision-making areas, the
appellants produced substantial evidence that the de
fendants’ actions and inactions in the face of tendered
choices had the natural, probable and foreseeable con
sequence of creating and maintaining segregation.
The five areas include faculty assignment, student
6 0
transfers, optional attendance zones, school construc
tion, and the deterioration of Tech High. The proof
in each area was sufficient in and of itself to trigger
the presumption of segregative intent. We also con
clude that the defendants failed to carry their burden
of establishing that segregative intent was not among
the factors which motivated their actions. Accord
ingly, we hold that the segregation in the Omaha
public schools violates the Constitution and must be
eliminated root and branch.’ Green v. School Board
of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20
L.Ed.2d 716 (1968).” [Footnote omitted.]
United States v. School District o f Omaha, 521 F.2d
at 537.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari. 423 U.S. 946 (1975).
On remand, the district court ordered a comprehen
sive, system-wide student integration plan in accordance
with the Eighth Circuit’s express guidelines. 418 F. Supp.
22 (D. Neb. 1976). The plan was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals. 541 F.2d 708 (8th Cir. 1976). The Supreme
Court’s June 29 decision vacated the Eighth Circuit’s deci
sion affirming the system-wide remedy because neither the
Court nor the district court had addressed the “inquiry
required by our opinion” in Dayton. The Supreme Court
said:
“Neither the Court of Appeals nor the District
Court, in addressing themselves to the remedial plan
mandated by the earlier decision of the Court of
Appeals, addressed itself to the inquiry required by
our opinion in No. 76-539, Dayton Board o f Education
v. Brinkman, in which toe said:
‘If such violations are found, the District Court
in the first instance, subject to review by the
Court of Appeals, must determine how much
incremental segregative effect these violations
had on the racial distribution of the Dayton
school population as presently constituted, when
that distribution is compared to what it would
61
have been in the absence of such constitutional
violations. The remedy must be designed to re
dress that difference, and only if there has been
a system-wide impact may there be a system-wide
remedy.’ Slip Op. at 13-14,
“The petition for certiorari is accordingly granted,
and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated
and remanded for reconsideration in the light of
Village o f Arlington Heights, and Dayton, supra.”
School District o f Omaha, Slip Opinion at p. 2.
Thus, the system-wide remedy order in Omaha was va
cated pending the determination of the “incremental seg
regative effect” of the specific constitutional violations
found. The court of appeals’ broad declarations that a sys
tem-wide remedy was required were not sufficient absent
the more specific determinations required by Dayton.
Also on June 29, 1977, the Supreme Court applied the
Dayton case to the Milwaukee school desegregation litiga
tion. Brennan v. Armstrong, .... U.S...... . (Slip Opinion,
June 29, 1977). As in Omaha, the Supreme Court vacated
the judgment of the Court of Appeals for reconsideration
in light of Village o f Arlington Heights and Dayton.
In the Milwaukee case, the district court originally
found intentionally caused segregation in the Milwaukee
system. Amos v. Board o f Directors o f City o f Milwaukee,
408 F. Supp. 765 (E.D, Wis. 1976):
“The Court concludes that the defendants have know
ingly carried out a systematic program of segregation
affecting all of the city’s students, teachers, and
school facilities, and have intentionally brought
about and maintained a dual school system. The
Court therefore holds that the entire Milwaukee pub
lic school system is unconstitutionally segregated.”
Amos, supra, 408 F. Supp. at 821.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s finding,
Armstrong v. Brennan, 539 F.2d 625 (7th Cir, 1976), and
the school board sought a writ of certiorari on December
62
14 1976. 45 U.S.L.W. 3477. On March 17, 1977, the
district court ordered implementation of a system-wide
plan of desegregation. Armstrong v. O’Connell, 427 F.
Supp. 1377 (E.D. Wis. 1977).
The June 29, 1977 decision of the Supreme Court,
vacating the Seventh Circuit’s decision, said:
“Neither the District Court in ordering development
of a remedial plan, nor the Court of Appeals in affirm
ing, addressed itself to the inquiry mandated by our
opinion in No. 76-539, Dayton Board of Education v.
Brinkman, in which we said:
Tf such violations are found, the District Court
in the first instance, subject to review by the
Court of Appeals, must determine how much
incremental segregative effect these violations
had on the racial distribution of the Dayton
school population as presently constituted, when
that distribution is compared to what it would
have been in the absence of such constitutional
violations. The remedy must be designed to re
dress that difference, and only if there has been
a system-wide impact may there be a system-
wide remedy.’ Slip op., at 13-14.
“The petition for certiorari is accordingly granted,
and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated
and remanded for reconsideration in the light of the
Village o f Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan D evelop
ment Corp., U.S. (1977), and Dayton.”
Brennan v. Armstrong, Slip Opinion at pp. 1-2.
Thus, notwithstanding the lower courts’ general pro
nouncements that the violation or liability in the Mil
waukee case was system-wide, the Supreme Court’s remand
required the lower courts to address and to make the
specific determination of incremental segregative effect
as defined in Dayton.
We respectfully submit that this Court is also required
to address itself to the “inquiry mandated” by the Supreme
Court’s Dayton opinion. As in Dayton, Omaha, and Bren
63
nan, this Court must “determine how much incremental
segregative effect these violations had on the racial distri
bution of the [Columbus] school population as presently
constituted, when that distribution is compared to what
it would have been in the absence of such constitutional
violations.” Dayton, Slip Opinion at 13-14. As made clear
in Brennan, the required inquiry should be made when the
court first orders development of a remedial plan. Only in
that manner will the Court and the litigants know what
type of “remedy must be designed to redress that differ
ence.” Dayton, Slip Opinion at 14.
The Court's March 8, 1977 Opinion and Order, like
the decisions in Omaha and Brennan, finds certain consti
tutional violations and holds that the liability is system-
wide. 429 F. Supp. 266. In its Memorandum and Order of
July 7, 1977, the Court said that it would not “order
implementation of a plan which fails to take into account
the systemwide nature of the liability of the defendants.
In view of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court,
however, the Court is required to do more: to determine
the difference between the present racial distribution in
the Columbus public schools as compared to what it would
have been in the absence of such constitutional violations.
It is only that difference, the incremental segregative ef
fect, that must be remedied under constitutional principles.
Because of the mandatory considerations now required
by Dayton, Omaha and Brennan, the findings of fact con
tained in the March 8, 1977 Opinion and Order are insuffi
cient to permit the formulation of an appropriate remedy.
It is respectfully submitted that a remedy cannot be fash
ioned in accordance with current constitutional require
ments until the Court first defines the contemporary effects
of the constitutional violations described in the March 8
Opinion and Order.
[Subscription and Certificate of Service Omitted
in Printing]
—-----— ----- _ --------------- -
64
O R D E R
[Filed August 30, 1977]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
This matter is before the Court upon the August 17,
1977, report concerning Phase I preparatory efforts which
the Columbus defendants have submitted pursuant to the
Court’s July 29, 1977, order. The intervening defendants
have filed objections to the report; plaintiffs have not.
The Court finds that the August 17, 1977, Phase I
report should be approved as submitted, with the under
standing that modifications of the Phase I plan may be in
order for good cause shown once details of the remainder
of the desegregation plan become known.
It is accordingly ORDERED that the August 17,1977,
Phase I report of the Columbus defendants is approved
for implementation.
Robert M. Duncan, Judge
United States District Court
------------------- $ --------------------
COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION’S
RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S
JULY 29, 1977 ORDER
[Filed August 31,1977, Amended September 26,1977]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
Pursuant to this Court’s July 29, 1977 Order, the
Columbus Board of Education hereby submits the follow
ing, all of which are attached hereto:
(i) a new pupil reassignment plan prepared ac
cording to the guidelines set by the Court in its Order
and entitled The Columbus City School District
Response to a July 29, 1977 Federal Distilct Corn!
Pupil Desegregation Order;
85
(ii) a transportation report entitled Analysis of
Transportation Requirements and Alternatives for
Systemwide Desegregation of Columbus Schools, pre
pared for the Board by Simpson & Curtin, Transpor
tation Engineers, August, 1977;
[Omitted in Printing]
(iii) Resolution in Response to July 29, 1977
Court Order to Produce Pupil Reassignment Plan and
to Report on Transportation, which was adopted by
the Columbus Board of Education on August 30,
1977; and
[Omitted in Printing]
(iv) Resolution in Response to July 29, 1977
Court Order to Indicate Which Transportation Method
the Board of Education Proposes to Use to Implement
Student Reassignment Plan, which was adopted by
the Columbus Board of Education on August 30, 1977.
[Omitted in Printing]
Pursuant to the first resolution referenced above,
counsel, on behalf of the Board of Education, hereby
notifies and informs the Court that nothing contained in
any submission by the Columbus Board of Education is
intended to disqualify the school system from eligioility
for any federal or state funds, including Emergency School
Aid Act Funds, and requests that the Court, in any future
remedy orders issued in this case, not include any pro
visions therein that would disqualify the Columbus School
system from eligibility for any such funds.
Pursuant to the second resolution referenced above,
counsel, on behalf of the Board of Education, hereby noti
fies the Court that the Columbus Board of Education
recommends against the purchase of second-hand or used
school buses and transportation equipment because of
safety, financial and administrative considerations, and
further recommends against implementation of the pupil
reassignment plan until such time as adequate new school
buses can be obtained, thus assuring safe and reliable
66
school transportation for the students required to he trans
ported.
In submitting new pupil reassignment plan and trans
portation report pursuant to the Court’s July 29 Order,
the Columbus Board of Education does not waive, and
indeed specifically reserves, all of its rights to continue the
prior initiated appeals of the Court’s March 8,1977 Opinion
and Order and March 9, 1977 Judgment and the Court’s
July 29, 1977 Order and to take an appeal from any future
orders of the Court if the Board should so elect at the
appropriate time.
[Subscription and Certificate of Service
Omitted in Printing]
■----------------- ♦ ------------------
The Columbus City School District
Response To A July 29, 1977
Federal District Court Pupil
Desegregation Order
August 30, 1977
A Table of Contents
I. The Desegregation Remedy Plan
A. The Pupil Assignment Component
1. Preface ______________ 1
2. Considerations for Pupil Assignment 1
3. Vacated Buildings ___________________ 2
4. Pupil Assignment: Elementary Schools „ 3
5. Pupil Assignment: Junior High Schools 46
6. Pupil Assignment: Senior High Schools 74
7. Pupil Assignment: All Pupils ________ 93
8. Career Center Programs ___________ _ 110
9. Alternative School Programs ____ _- _ 110
10. Columbus Plan Pupil Participation _ 110
Page
1
1
67
Page
B. Exceptions to the General Pupil Assignment
Policies _____ __________________________ . 110
1. Kindergarten ....................... ......... ........... .... 110
2. Graduating Seniors ______ .....__ 110
3. Special Education ________ _ I l l
4. Gifted and Talented................... .................................................... I l l
C. Pupil Transportation ____________________ I l l
1. 1976-77 School Year Transportation
System ______________________ ______ 112
2. 1977-78 School Year Transportation
System _______________ . 1 1 3
3. Desegregation Transportation Planning
Considerations _________ 113
4. January, 1978 Modification of the
September, 1977 Transportation System 115
5. Requiring the Needed Equipment for
the January, 1978 Desegregation
Component _________________________ 117
6. The 1978-79 School Year Transportation
System ___________________ 118
7. September, 1978 Bus Fleet
Considerations _______ 118
8. Transportation Specifics in Terms of
Pupil in Transit and Distances to be
Traveled _______ 121
II. Remedy Plan Budget Requirements ___ ______ 125
III. School District Budget Status_______ ... 135
68
I. DESEGREGATION REMEDY PLAN
A. The Pupil Assignment Component
1. Preface
The pupil assignment plan described herein was de
veloped to comply with the July 29, 1977 Order of the
United States Federal District Court. The plan desegre
gates the entire Columbus City School District by elimi
nating the racial identifiability of schools. The definition
of a racially identifiable school follows the criterion
applied throughout the July 29th Court Order —that is,
any school in which the black pupil population falls out
side a range of 32% ±15% .
2. Considerations for Pupil Assignment
In developing the pupil assignment component of the
remedy plan, considerations which gave direction to
planning included:
Approach (Goal, Techniques). Eliminate racially iden
tifiable schools. Use techniques such as boundary
changes, grade level reorganizations, pairings and
pairings and clusterings, and the vacating of schools.
Approach (Equitahility). Distribute the burdens of
desegregating equitably among black and non-black
pupils.
Process (Racially N on-Identifiable Schools). Involve
racially non-identifiable schools when it contributes
to the elimination of racially identifiable schools.
Process (Non-Contiguous Attendance Areas). Assign
no more than one non-contiguous attendance area to
a junior or senior high school attendance area.
Process (Building Blocks). Use elementary school at
tendance areas as the major building blocks in de
veloping the pupil assignment component of the
remedy plan.
69
Process (Building Location). L ocate all buildings
within the attendance areas they serve.
Definition (Racially Identifiable School). Consider
schools racially unidentifiable if they are ± 15% of
the city-wide black average.
Enrollment Figures. Use the pupil population figures
from the October 1, 1976 HEW Report adjusted to
reflect residential school enrollment. Assume that pu
pil enrollments in terms of numbers and racial com
position at the time of implementation will approxi
mate the October 1, 1976 adjusted HEW Report.
Feeder Patterns. Maintain feeder patterns where pos
sible from elementary to junior and junior to senior
high school.
Grade Organization. Maintain an elementary (1-6),
junior high (7-9), and senior high (10-12) organiza
tion where possible. Establish primary centers (1-3,
1-4) and intermediate centers (4-6, 5-6) when neces
sary.
Grade Organization (Combination Schools). Eliminate
combination schools: elementary-junior high schools,
junior-senior high schools.
Grade Organization (Primary Level). Include at least
three (3) primary grades in a primary center. Avoid
one and/or two grade primary centers.
Grade Organization (Schools Attended). Have a pupil
assigned to as few schools as possible in grades 1-12.
Avoid more than two schools for the elementary years
(Grades 1-6).
Transportation (Minimal). Reassign pupils in ways
that result in minimal distance traveled and time re
quired for transportation.
Transportation. Provide transportation when —
• Pupil resides more than 2 miles from assigned
school and desires transportation.
• Severe safety hazards exist.
Reimburse pupils when transportation cannot be real
istically provided yet the pupil is eligible.
70
Finance. General fund monies are at a critical low.
Make prudent use of all funds including those related
to desegregation.
Finance (Efficient Operation). Operate school at ca
pacity or slightly above it to encourage the vacating
of unneeded schools (low capacity and small enroll
ments) and the efficient use of staff in the remaining
schools.
3. Vacated Buildings
In the development of the pupil assignment plan,
several buildings were vacated. Factors considered in
vacating these buildings included:
Building Capacity — when a building has a capacity
of less than 400 pupils.
Declining Enrollment — when a school drops substan
tially below rated capacity.
Building Age/ Nature — When a building reaches the
point that the costs of maintenance/remodeling are
excessively high and/or the internal organization of
the rooms does not accommodate the instructional
program.
Maintenance Costs — when a building cannot be op
erated economically, due to heating plant or main
tenance costs.
Environmental Changes — when a building location
becomes inaccessible, undesirable, hazardous, etc.,
due to urban deterioration, urban development/re
newal, alterations of traffic patterns, etc.
Alternate Use — when a building location or physical
design provide good prospects for an alternative
school, sale or conversion to another use.
Organizational Considerations — when a building in
cludes more than one organizational unit ( elementary-
junior or junior-senior) and can be reduced to one
organizational unit.
71
Desegregation Potential — when the vacating of a
building and subsequent consolidation/redistricting/
clustering can improve racial balance.
Table 1 contains a listing of vacated buildings and
their intended disposition under the auspices of the
Remedy Plan.
4. Pupil Assignment: Elementary School Groupings
The pages following Table 1 contain charts reflecting
Desegregation Remedy Plan statistics for each elementary
school or school cluster.
Each chart contains the names of the schools in
volved in the cluster and the designated grade level or
ganization of the building. Vacated schools are identified.
The projected enrollment of the school is then listed in
terms of the number of black pupils, the number of non
black pupils, the percent of the total enrollment that is
black, kindergarten enrollment and total enrollment. The
school enrollment capacity follows these projections.
The next section of each chart portrays projected pu
pil transportation in terms of the number of pupils to be
transported. The transportation projections are presented
for black and non-black pupils, and in terms of the total
number of pupils transported.
The last chart in this sequence presents the overall
totals for the elementary school aspect of the Desegrega
tion Remedy Plan.
72
TABLE I
VACATED BUILDINGS AND BUILDING
DISPOSITION
Racial Identity; % Black, Oct. 1976
(47.1-100%) (17.0-47.0%) (0.0-16.9%)
School Black Unidentifiable Non-Black Disposition
Elementary
ALUM CREST X
BARNETT X
BELLOWS X
COURTRIGHT X
CRESTVIEW X Junior High Occupancy
DOUGLAS X Alternative L.E.M.
EAKIN X
GETTYSBURG X
GLENMONT X
HEIMANDALE X
HOMEDALE X
INDIANOLA X Alternative: Informal
JAMES ROAD X
LEXINGTON X
LINDEN PARK X Alternative: l.G.E.
MARBURN X
MILO X
NORTHRIDGE X
OAKLAND PARK X Alternative: Traditional
PARSONS X
SHEPARD X
STEWART X Alternative: Traditional
VALLEYVIEW X
WALFORD X
WAYNE X
W ILLIS PARK X
Elementary Total 5 5 16
73
TABLE I
VACATED BUILDINGS AND BUILDING
DISPOSITION (Continued)
Racial Identity: % Black, Oct. 1976
(47.1-100%) (17.0-47.0%) (0.0-16.9%)
School Black Unidentifiable Non-Black Disposition
Junior High
BEECHCROFT X Senior High Occupancy
FRANKLIN X Alternative: Success
Impact
INDEPENDENCE X Senior High Occupancy
McGUFFEY X Elementary Occupancy
ROOSEVELT X Junior High Occupancy
Junior High Total 2 i 2
Senior High
NORTH X
MOHAWK X
Senior High Total ~T T "T
All School Total T ~6 19
C H A R T 1
P U P IL A SSIG N M E N T : E L E M E N T A R Y A T T E N D A N C E P A T T E R N S
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Told Capacity Black Black Total
Garfield K, 1-3 159 432 26.9 591 58 647 690 149 17 166
Parsons (Vacate) 420 9 124 133
Scioto Trail K, 4-6 99 270 26.8 369 89 458 540 0 133 133
Stockbridge K, 4-6 60 162 27.0 222 52 274 480 0 156 156
Total 318 864 27.0 1182 197 1,379 158 430 588
CHART 2
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportatio
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Cedarwood K, 4-6 108 258 29.5 366 79 445 630 6 231 237
Moler (11%) 28 21 49
Watkins K, 1-3 108 258 29.5 366 43 409 510 89 18 107
Total 216 516 29.5 732 122 854 123 270 393
CHART 3
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Fomof K, 1-4 120 220 35.3 340 61 401 390 3 51 54
Heimandale (Vacate) 420 73 165 238
Koebel K, 5-6 126 240 34.4 366 59 425 420 177 58 235
Reel) K, 1-4 132 260 33.7 392 63 455 660 14 112 126
Total 378 720 34.4 1098 183 1281 267 386 653
*<3Ol
CHART 4
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Lincoln Park K, 1-4 140 356 28.2 496 74 570 690
Smith Road K, 1-4 96 236 28.9 332 50 382 420 48 52 100
Southwood K, 5-6 118 296 28.5 414 83 497 600 5 329 334
Total 354 888 28.5 1242 207 1449 53 381 . 434
CHART 5
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Deshler K, 5-6 188 334 36.0 522 123 645 810 144 77 221
Heyl K, 1-4 232 384 37.7 616 86 702 630
Siebert K, 1-4 144 284 33.6 428 52 480 480 1 104 105
Total 564 1002 36.0 1566 261 1827 145 181 326
t *3
CHART 6
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Barnett (43%) 9 83 92
Berwick K, 1-4 132 312 29.7 444 77 521 480 40 39 79
Courtright (90%) (Vacate) 540 47 84 131
Olde Orchard K, 5-6 152 360 29.7 512 76 588 720 2 388 390
Scottwood K, 1-4 172 408 29.7 580 103 683 630 60 64 124
Total 456 1080 29.7 1536 256 1792 158 658 816
CHART 7
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School : Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Alum Crest (Vacate) 420 132 43 175
Moler (89%) K, 5-6 130 298 30.5 428 78 506 480 143 71 214
Oakmont K, 1-4 120 276 30.3 396 63 459 420 10 115 125
Woodcrest K, 1-4 140 320 30.4 460 73 533 600 11 134 145
Total 390 894 30.5 1284 214 1498 296 363 659
CHART 8
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Fairwood K, 5-6 152 262 36.7 414 79 493 720 298 21 319
Liberty K, 1-4 168 288 36.8 456 70 526 660 12 234 246
Maybury K, 1-4 136 236 36.6 372 58 430 720 2 115 117
CHART 9
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
TotalSchool Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black
Main K, 1-3 171 285 37.5 456 54 510 450 148 14 162
Shady Lane
Willis Park
K, 4-6 171 285 37.5 456 98 554 630 4 147 151
(Vacate) 480 18 124 142
Total 342 570 37.5 912 152 1064 170 285 455
--3
CHART 10
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Courtright (10%)
630
18 33 51
Easthaven K, 1-4 112 320 25.9 432 87 519 16 159 175
Kent (75%) K, 5-6 126 385 26.0 484 48 532 570 181 13 194
Leawood K, 1-4 140 396 26.1 536 107 643 640 17 217 234
Pinecrest (20%) 1 22 23
Total 378 1074 26.0 1452 242 1694 233 444 677
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
CHART 11
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Barnett (57 %) (Vacate) 330 8 27 35
K, 5-6 148 310 32.3 458 68 526 620 247 24 271
Fairmoor K, 1-4 172 384 30.9 556 98 654 660 11 117 128
James (Vacate) 450 2 67 69
Pineerest (80%) K. 1-4 124 236 34.4 360 63 423 660 4 87 91
Total 444 930 32.3 1374 229 1603 272 322 594
CHART 12
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportatio
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Broadleigh K, 1-6 138 228 37.7 366 61 427 630
CHART 13
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Alpine K, 1-4 156 376 29.3 532 92 624 630 4 179 183
Northgate K, 1-4 160 404 28.4 564 99 663 600 4 300 304
South Mifflin K, 5-6 158 390 28.8 548 83 631 690 301 33 334
Total 474 1170 28.8 1644 274 1,918 309 512 821
00o
CHART 14
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Cassadv K, 5-6 198 330 37.5 528 107 635 630 485 40 525
Devonshire K, 1-4 236 388 37.8 624 92 716 690 1 185 186
Forest Park K, 1-4 160 272 37.2 432 65 497 660 1 129 130
Total 594 990 37.5 1584 264 1848 487 354 841
CHART 15
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
School Organization Black
Arlington Park K, 5-6 144
Avalon K, 1-4 168
Walden K, 1-4 120
Total 432
Projected Pupil Enrollment
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
316 31.3 460 74 534
360 31.8 528 91 619
272 30.6 392 65 457
948 31.3 1,380 230 1610
Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
540 244 50 294
600 16 273 289
450 6 125 131
266 448 714
CHART 18
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
School Organization Black
East Columbus K, 5-6 146
Northtowne K, 1-4 92
Parkmoor K, 1-4 116
Shepard (Vacate)
Valley Forge K, 1-4 84
Total 438
Projected Pupil Enrollment
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
388 27.3 534 96 630
232 28.4 324 52 376
300 27.8 416 66 482
244 25.6 328 53 381
1164 27.3 1602 267 1869
Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Capacity Black
630 162
420 5
480 6
330 179
630 2
Non-
Black Total
114 276
98 103
125 131
13 192
104 106
354 454 808
CHART 17
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Beatty Park (50%) 72 2 74
Maize K, 4-6 186 324 36.5 510 107 617 660 0 153 153
Northridge (Vacate) 570 4 167 171
Pilgrim K, 1-3 186 324 36.5 510 63 573 540 136 6 142
Total 372 648 36.5 1,020 170 1,190 212 328 540
CHART 18
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Beaumont K, 1-4 108 244 30.7 352 69 421 450 13 83 96
Eastgate K, 5-6 120 264 31.3 384 48 432 450 193 2 195
North Linden K, 1-4 132 284 31.7 416 75 491 510 7 104 111
Walford (Vacate) 4 76 80
Total 360 792 31.3 1152 192 1344 217 265 482
CHART 19
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Huy K, 4-6 150 360 29.4 510 88 598 720 6 258 264
Oakland Park (Vacate -
Alternative)
34 34 480 2 99 101
Trevitt K, 1-3 150 360 29.4 510 48 558 570 142 2 144
Total 300 720 29.4 1020 170 1190 150 359 509
00
05
CHART 20
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Innas K, 1-6 144 348 29.4 492 82 574 600 126 305 431
CHART 21
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
East Linden K, 1-6 144 276 34.3 420 70 490 540
00rf*.
CHART 22
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Duxberry Park K, 5-6 152 344 30.6 496 81 577 630 296 28 324
Gables K, 1-4 152 364 29.5 516 89 605 600 2 177 179
Gettysburg (Vacate) 300 0 289 289
Winterset K, 1-4 152 324 31.9 476 78 554 660 7 356 363
Total 456 1032 30.6 1488 248 1736 305 850 1155
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
CHART 23
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Gladstone K, 5-6 124 264 32.0 388 60 448 450 237 5 242
Homedale (Vacate) 330 2 59 61
Salem K, 1-4 124 268 31.6 392 68 460 660 1 148 149
Sharon K, 1-4 124 260 32.3 384 66 450 450 1 69 70
Total 372 792 32.0 1,164 194 1,358 241 281 522
CHART 24
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Cranbrook K, 4-6 117 171 40.6 288 60 348 570 19 292 311
Kenwood K, 4-6 135 216 38.5 351 75 426 480 4 111 115
Marbum (V acate) 420 9 154 163
Windsor K, 1-3 252 387 39.4 639 78 717 810 231 3 234
Total 504 774 39.4 1,278 213 1,491 263 560 823
CHART 25
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Brentnell K, 4-6 153 345 30.7 498 53 551 540 150 9 159
Glenmont (Vacate) 540 2 150 152
Indian Springs K, 1-3 153 345 30.7 498 113 611 690 2 209 211
(Colerain)
Total 306 690 30.7 996 116 1,162 154 368 522
CHART 26
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Clinton K, 4-6 216 399 35.1 615 133 748 780 2 266 268
Crestview (Vacate) 360 1 129 130
Hamilton K, 1-3 216 399 35.1 615 72 687 720 212 4 216
Total 432 798 35.1 1,230 205 1,435 215 399 614
CHART 27
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Calumet IC, 1-4 64 156 29.1 220 36 256 360 1 35 36
Como K, 1-4 124 276 31.0 400 67 467 600 8 125 133
Hudson K, 5-6 94 216 30.3 310 52 362 420 167 42 209
Total 282 648 30.3 930 155 1,085 176 202 378
00-3
CHART 28
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
School Organization
Projected Pupil Enrollment
School
Capacity
Projected Pupil Transportation
Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
Non-
Black Black Total
Linden Park (Vacate -
Alternative) 53 53 690
McGuffey IC, 1-6 240 498 32.5 738 70 808 1,380
Total 240 498 32.5 738 123 861
r
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
CHART 29
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Linden K, 1-6 204 432 32.1 636 106 742 840
ooDC
CHART 30
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Eleventh (60%) K, 1-4 144 424 25.4 568 32 600 780 58 6 64
Indianola (Vacate - 36 36 420
(Alternative)
Medary K, 5-6 72 212 25.4 284 74 358 570 11 285 296
Total 216 636 25.4 852 142 994 69 291 360
CHART 31
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Eleventh (40%) 58 6 64
Fifth K, 4-6 171 297 36.5 468 75 543 540 14 210 224
Kingswood K, 4-6 99 159 38.4 258 42 300 660 20 133 153
Lexington (Vacate) 270 218 4 222
Weinland Park K, 1-3 270 456 37.2 726 125 851 810 89 128 217
Total 540 912 37.2 1,452 242 1,694 399 481 880
CHART 32
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Hubbard K, 1-4 120 288 29.4 408 40 448 420
Milo (V acate) 570 71 7 78
Second K, 5-6 110 262 29.6 372 96 468 540
Thurber K, 1-4 100 236 29.8 336 50 386 390
Total 330 786 29.6 1,116 186 1,302 71 7 78
CHART 33
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Eakin (Vacate) 570 31 138 169
Georgian Heights K, 4-6 195 420 31.7 615 118 733 690 1 185 186
Highland K, 1-3 195 420 31.7 615 87 702 720 164 98 262
Total 390 840 31.7 1,230 205 1,435 196 421 617
(£>
©
CHART 34
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Bellows (90%) (Vacate) 390 28 231 259
Sullivant K, 1-3 141 312 31.1 453 88 541 570 121 33 154
W estgate K, 4-6 141 312 31.1 453 63 516 600 9 181 190
Total 282 624 31.1 906 151 1,057 158 445 603
CHART 35
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Beatty Park(50%) K, 1-3 75 201 27.2 276 25 301 540 72 2 74
Garfield K, 1-3 111 294 27.4 405 35 440 510 106 0 106
Valleyview (Vacate) 330 6 289 295
West Broad K, 4-6 186 495 27,3 681 167 848 900 5 369 374
Total 372 990 27.3 1,362 227 1,589 189 660 849
CHART 36
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Binns K, 1-4 132 280 32.0 412 65 477 720 3 128 131
Burroughs K, 1-4 204 o00cO 34.9 584 96 680 780 17 177 194
Douglas (Vacate - 53 53 510 185 28 213
Alternative)
Lindbergh K, 1-4 148 324 31.4 472 80 552 510 2 86 88
Ohio K, 5-6 242 492 33.0 734 73 807 780 243 47 290
Wayne (Vacate) 270 9 65 74
Total 726 1,476 33.0 2,202 367 2,569 459 531 990
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
CHART 37
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Avondale K, 1-4 108 300 26.5 408 67 475 510 1 133 134
K, 1-4 120 324 27.0 444 71 515 630 1 141 142
Kent (25%) — 61 5 66
Livingston (75%) K, 5-6 164 452 26.6 616 89 705 840 199 91 290
West Mound K, 1-4 100 280 26.2 380 81 461 660 31 132 163
Total 492 1,356 27.0 1,848 308 2,156 293 502 795
<D>to
CHART 38
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Organization Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
Chicago K, 1-6 72 258 21.8 330 55 385 510
Total 72 258 21.8 330 55 385
CHART 39
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Bellows (10%)
Franklinton K, 1-6 60 192 23.8 252 42 294 420
Total 60 192 23.8 252 42 294
co
CHART 40
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % Sub School Non-
School Organization Black Black Black Total Kdgn. Total Capacity Black Black Total
Beck K, 1-6 138 384 26.4 522 68 590 660
Livingston (25%) —
Stewart (Vacate -
Alternative) 19 19 390
Total 138 384 26.4 522 87 609
CHART 41
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School Black
Non-
Black
%
Black
Sub
Total Kdgn. Total Black
Non-
Black Total
TOTAL
ELEMENTARY 14,108 30,726 31.5 44,832 7,472 52,304 7,496 13,113 20,609
95
5, Pupil Assignment: Junior High School
The following pages contain charts reflecting the
Desegregation Remedy Plan statistics for junior high
schools.
Each chart contains the name of the junior high
school and the names of the elementary schools which
will comprise the junior high feeder area. This latter group
ing of schools also includes the percent of the elementary
school population involved in the designated junior high
school feeder area when that percentage is less than 100
percent.
Following this identifying information the projected
enrollments of the feeder schools and the designated
junior high are presented. These projections are portrayed
in terms of the number of black pupils, the number of
non-black pupils, percent of the total enrollment that is
black, and the total enrollment. The enrollment capacity
of the designated junior high is then presented.
The next section of each chart portrays projected
pupil transportation data for each elementary school in
volved in the designated junior high school feeder pat
tern. The total for the designated junior high feeder area
is also presented. These pupil transportation projections
are presented in terms of pupils to be transported. Projec
tions are further detailed in each general case for black
and non-black pupils, and in terms of the total number of
pupils transported.
The last chart in this sequence presents the overall
totals associated for the junior high school aspect of the
Desegregation Remedy Plan.
CHART 42
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
BARRETT 375 691 35.2 1,066 1,000
Heyl 41 214 16.1 255
Kent 181 13 93.3 194
Livingston (75%) 149 68 68.7 217
Siebert 1 153 0.6 154
Southwood 3 243 1.2 246
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT:
CHART 43
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Elementary School
School Feeder Areas Black
Projected Pupil Enrollment
Non- %
Black Black Total
School
Capacity
Projected Pupil Transportation
Non-
Black Black Total
BEERY 248 576 30.1 824 850 159 559 718
Fornof 4 75 5.1 79 4 75 79
Heimandale 31 70 30.7 101 31 70 101
Lincoln Park 103 117 46.8 220 103 117 220
Reeb 21 166 11.2 187 21 166 187
Scioto Trail 0 131 0.0 131 0 131 131
Watkins 89 17 84.0 106
CO
cn>
CHART 44
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE .PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
.School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
BUCKEYE 305 574 34.7 879 850 281 60 341
Cedarwood 6 227 2.6 233
Clarfield 149 17 89.8 166 149 17 166
Koebel 132 43 75.4 175 132 43 175
Moler (11%) 9 11 45.0 20
Parsons 9 122 6.9 131
Stockbridge 0 154 0.0 154
CHART 45
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
CHAMPION 258 443 36.8 701 700 98 437 535
Beatty Park (50%) 72 2 97.3 74
Beaumont 19 121 13.6 140 19 121 140
Innis 71 171 29.3 242 71 171 242
North towne 8 145 5.2 153 8 145 153
Pilgrim (80%) 88 4 95.7 92
CHART 46
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
CLINTON 349 667 34.4 1,016 1,000 331 167 498
Brentnell 150 9 94.3 159 150 9 159
Gladstone 178 4 97.8 182 178 4 182
Maize 0 150 0.0 150
North Linden 10 154 6.1 164
Northridge (51%) 2 84 2.3 86
Valley Forge 3 154 1.9 157 3 154 157
Walford 6 112 5.1 118
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT:
CHART 47
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
Projected Pupil Enrollment
PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
CRESTVIEW 281 739 27.5 1,020 1,010 278 350 628
Clinton 2 262 0.8 264
Crestview 1 127 0.8 128
Hudson 125 31 80.1 156 125 31 156
Linden 101 212 32.3 313 101 212 313
Linden Park 52 101 32.7 159 52 107 159
CHART 48
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
DOMINION 229 651 26.0 880 900 226 320 546
Duxberry Park 222 21 91.4 243 222 21 243
Glenmont 2 147 1.3 149
Indian Springs (Coleraln) 1 184 0.5 185
Salem 2 197 1.0 199 2 197 199
Sharon 2 102 1.9 104 2 102 104
CD
CD
CHART 49
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
EASTMOOR 294 466 38.7 760 750 198 89 287
Barnett (57%) 9 42 17.6 51
Broadleigh 70 112 38.5 182
East Columbus 121 84 59.0 205 121 84 205
Fairmoor 16 173 8.5 189
James Road (50%) 1 50 2.0 51
Shepard 77 5 93.9 82 77 5 82
CHART 50
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Elementary School
School Feeder Areas
EVERETT
Fifth
Hubbard
Kingswood (52%)
Lexington
Milo
Second
Thurbe.r
Projected Pupil Enrollment
Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
281 654 30.1 935
14 207 6.3 221
1 119 0,8 120
8 57 12.3 65
93 2 97.9 95
108 10 91.4 116
31 138 18.3 169
28 121 18.8 149
Projected Pupil Transportation
School Non-
Capacity Black Black Total
900 154 64 218
8 57 65
93 2 95
53 5 58
oo
CHART 51
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
HILLTONIA 302 581 34.2 883 1,000 239 127 366
Binns (20%) 1 37 2.6 38
Deshler 239 127 65.3 366 239 127 366
Lindbergh 3 127 2.3 130
Wayne 13 95 12.0 108
West Mound 46 195 19.1 241
CHART 52
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
1NDIANOLA 263 498 34.6 761 800 8 52 60
Eleventh 145 14 91.2 159
Indianola 13 95 12.0 108
Kingswood (48%) 8 52 13.3 60 8 52 60
Medary 8 211 3.7 219
Weinland Park 89 126 41.4 215
PUPIL
School
ASSIGNMENT:
Elementary School
Feeder Areas
CHART 53
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTE
Projected Pupil Enrollment
NDANCE
School
Capacity
PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Transportation
Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total Black
Non-
Black Total
JOHNSON PARK 391 628 38.4 1,019 1,000 151 33 184
Barnett (43%) 6 32 15.8 38 6 32 38
Berwick 60 57 51.3 117
Courtright (90%) 71 124 36.4 195
Eastgate 145 1 99.3 146 145 1 146
James Road (50%) 2 50 3.8 52
Leawood (45%) 9 109 7.6 118
Pinecrest 8 160 4.8 168
Scottwood 90 95 48.6 185
101
CHART 54
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
LINMOOR 297 510 36.8 807 1,000 11 276 287
Calumet 3 104 2.8 107 3 104 107
Como 12 185 6.1 197 6 92 98
Hamilton 211 4 98.1 215
McGuffey 69 137 33.5 206
Northridge (49%) 2 80 2.4 82 2 80 82
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT:
CHART 55
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Projected Pupil Enrollment
ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
MEDINA 263 524 33.4 787 900 255 173 428
Arlington Park 183 37 83.2 220 183 37 220
East Linden 72 136 34.6 208 72 1.36 208
Huy 6 254 2.3 260
Oakland Park 2 97 2.0 99
102
CHART 56
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
MIFFLIN 311 848 26.8 1,159 1,200 241 842 1,083
Alpine 6 265 2.2 271 6 265 271
Cassady 298 24 92.6 322 228 18 246
Devonshire 1 273 0.4 274 1 273 274
Northgate 6 286 2.1 292 6 286 292
CHART 57
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
MOHAWK 462 763 37.7 1,225 1,250 34 440 474
Beck 18 111 14.0 129
Burroughs 25 261 8.7 286 25 261 286
Franklinton 30 85 26.1 115
Livingston (25%) 50 22 69.4 72
Main 148 14 91.4 162
Ohio 182 35 83.9 217
Stewart 0 56 0.0 56
Westgate 9 179 4.8 188 9 179 188
103
CHART 58
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
MONROE 170 491 25.7 661 700 6 488 494
Gables 2 139 1.4 141 2 139 141
Gettysburg 0 122 0.0 122 0 122 122
Pilgrim (20%) 22 1 95.7 23
Trevitt 142 2 98.6 144
Winterset 4 227 1.7 231 4 227 231
CHART 59
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
RIDGEVIEW 254 469 35.1 723 900 244 256 500
Cranbrook 11 166 6.2 177 11 166 177
Homedale 3 87 3.3 90 3 87 90
Kenwood 4 109 3.5 113
M arbum 6 104 5.5 110
Windsor 230 3 98.7 233 230 3 233
104
CHART 80
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
SHERWOOD 232 591 28.2 823 900 201 216 417
Fair 185 18 91.1 203 185 18 203
Leawood (45%) 9 108 7.7 117
Shady Lane 4 145 2.7 149
Willis Park 18 122 12.9 140
Woodcrest 16 198 7.5 214 16 198 214
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT:
CHART 81
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
SOUTHMOOR 280 623 31.0 903 800 98 495 593
Alum Crest 58 18 76.3 76 58 18 76
Courtright (10%) 8 14 36.4 22 8 14 22
Easthaven 24 235 9.3 259 24 235 259
Maybury 3 170 1.7 173 3 170 173
Moler (89%) no 51 68.3 161
Oakmont (20%) 3 34 8.1 37 3 34 37
Smith Road 72 77 48.3 149
Leawood (10%) 2 24 7.7 26 2 24 26
105
CHART 62
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas
Non-
Black Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity
Non-
Black Black Total
STARLING 173 673 20.4 846 900
Avondale
Bellows
Chicago
Dana
Sullivant
2 196
13 109
.35 127
2 208
121 33
1.0
10.7
21.6
1.0
78.6
198
122
162
210
154
CHART 63
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School
School Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
WEDGEWOGD 174 491 26.2 665 750 139 21 160
Binns (80%)
Douglas
Eakin
Georgian Heights
3
139
31
1
152
21
136
182
1.9
86.9
18.6
0.5
155
160
167
183
139 21 160
90
T
CHART 64
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
WESTMOOR 350 583 37.5 933 1,000 219 51 270
Beatty Park (50%) 72 2 97.3 74 72 2 74
Garfield 106 0 100.0 106 106 0 106
Highland 164 96 63.1 260 41 24 65
Valleyview 3 122 2.4 125 0 25 25
West Broad 5 363 1.4 368
CHART 65
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment .Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
WOODWARD PARK 268 830 24.4 1,098 1,050 231 82 313
Avalon 24 246 8.9 270 6 58 64
Forest Park 1 191 0.5 192
Parkmoor 9 185 4.6 194
South Mifflin 225 24 90.4 249 225 24 249
Walden 9 184 4.7 193
107
CHART 66
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
YORKTOWN 240 577 29.4 817 850 228 441 669
Fairwood 223 15 93.7 238 223 15 238
Liberty 3 204 1.4 207 3 204 207
Oakmont (80%) 12 136 8.1 148
Olde Orchard J 2 222 0.9 224 2 i 222 224
108
CHART 67
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS SUMMARY
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % School Non-
School Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
TOTAL 7,050 15,141 31.8 22,191 4,030 6,039 10,069
BARRETT 375 691 35.2 1,066 1,000
BEECHCROFT SENIOR HIGH OCCUPANCY
BEERY 248 576 30.1 824 850 159 559 718
BUCKEYE 305 574 34.7 879 850 281 60 341
CHAMPION 258 443 36.8 701 700 98 437 535
CLINTON 349 667 34.4 1,016 1,000 331 167 498
CRESTVIEW 281 739 27.5 1,020 278 350 628
DOMINION 229 651 26.0 880 900 226 320 546
EASTMOOR 294 466 38.7 760 750 198 89 287EVERETT 281 654 30.1 935 900 154 64 218
FRANKLIN ALTERNATIVE
HILLTONIA 302 581 34.2 883 1,000 239 127 366
INDEPENDENCE SENIOR HIGH OCCUPANCY
INDIANOLA 263 498 34.6 761 800 8 52 60JOHNSON PARK 391 628 38.4 1,019 1,000 . 151 33 184
CHART 67 (Continued)
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS SUMMARI
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Non- % School Non-
School Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
UNMOOR 297 510 36.8 807 1,000 11 276 287
McGUFFEY ELEMENTARY OCCUPANCY
MEDINA 263 524 33.4 787 900 255 173 428
MIFFLIN 311 848 26.8 1,159 1,200 241 842 1,083
MOHAWK 462 763 37.7 1,225 1,250 34 440 474
MONROE 170 491 25.7 661 700 6 488 494
RIDGEVIEW 254 469 35.1 723 900 244 256 500
ROOSEVELT VACATED
SHERWOOD 232 591 28.2 823 900 201 216 417
SOUTHMOOR 280 623 31.0 903 800 98 495 593
STARLING 173 673 20.4 846 900
WEDGEWOOD 174 491 26.2 665 750 139 21 160
WESTMOOR 350 583 37.5 933 1,000 219 51 270
WOODWARD PARK 268 830 24.4 1,098 1,050 231 82 313
YORKTOWN 240 577 29.4 817 850 228 441 669
I l l
6. Pupil Assignment: Senior High School
The following pages contain charts reflecting the De
segregation Remedy Plan statistics for the senior high
schools.
Each chart contains the name of the senior high
school and the names of the elementary schools which will
comprise the senior high feeder area. This latter grouping
of schools also includes the percent of the elementary
school population involved in the designated senior high
school feeder area when that percentage is less than 100
percent.
Following this identifying information the projected
enrollments of the feeder schools and the designated senior
high are presented. These projections are portrayed in
terms of the number of black pupils, the number of non
black pupils, the percent of the enrollment that is black,
and total enrollment. The enrollment capacity of the desig
nated senior high is then presented.
The next section of each chart portrays projected pu
pil transportation data for each elementary school involved
in the designated senior high school feeder pattern. The
total for the designated senior high feeder area is also pre
sented. These pupil transportation projections are pre
sented in terms of pupils to be transported. Projections are
further detailed in each general case for black and non
black pupils, and in terms of the total number of pupils
transported.
The last chart in this sequence presents the overall
totals for the senior high school aspect of the Desegrega
tion Remedy Plan.
CHART 68
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
BEECHCROFT 423 867 32.8 1,290 1,300 404 56 460
Alpine
Arlington Park
6
181
241
34
2.4
84.2
247
215 181 34 215
Avalon (25%) 6 62 8.8 68
Devonshire 1 248 0.4 249
Northgate
South Mifflin
6
223
260
22
2.3
91.0
266
245 223 22 245
CHART 69
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
BRIGGS 209 487 30.0 696 800 180 31 211
Binns 4 172 2.3 176
Burroughs (34%) 9 81 10.0 90
Lindbergh
Ohio
3
180
116
31
2.5
85.3
119
211 180 31 211
Wayne 13 87 13.0 100
112
CHART 70
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
BROOKHAVEN 517 932 35.7 1,449 1,350 511 558 1,069
Duxberry Park 220 19 92.1 239 220 19 239
East Linden 71 124 36.4 195 71 124 195
Linden 100 193 34.1 293 100 193 293
Linden Park 51 97 34.5 148 51 97 148
Maize 0 137 0.0 137
McGuffev 69 125 35.6 194 69 125 194
Northridge 4 149 2.6 153
Oakland Park 2 88 2.2 90
CHART 71
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
CENTENNIAL 278 556 33.3 834 800 272 222 494
■ , 1 ■ Gables 2 127 1.6 129
.. .. . Gettysburg 0 111 0.0 111 0 111 111
Kenwood 4 99 3.9 103 4 99 103
Milo 105 9 92.1 114 105 9 114
Pilgrim (20%) 22 1 95.7 23 22 1 23
:, (] L' if ' Trevitt 141 2 98.6 143 141 2 143
Winterset 4 207 1.9 211
113
CHART 72
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
CENTRAL 508 1,051 32.6 1,559 1,400 289 262 551
Avondale 2 178 1.1 180
Beck 18 101 15.1 119
Bellows 13 99 11.6 112
CMcago 35 115 23.3 150
Dana 2 189 1.0 191
Franklinton 29 77 27.4 106
Livingston 198 82 70.7 280 198 82 280
Sullivant 120 30 80.0 150
West Mound 46 177 20.6 223 46 177 223
Kent (25%) 45 3 93.8 48 45 3 48
CHART 73
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity- Black Black Total
EAST 372 663 35.9 1,035 1,100 70 657 727
Beatty Park (50%) 72 2 97.3 74
Crambrook 11 151 6.8 162 11 151 182
Eastgate 143 1 99.3 144
Fifth 14 188 6.9 202 14 188 202
Hubbard 1 108 0.9 109 1 108 109
Kingswood 16 99 13.9 115 16 99 115
Pilgrim (80%) 87 3 96.7 90
Thurber 28 111 20.1 139 28 111 139
114
CHART 74
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
_____ Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
EASTMOOR 450 893 33.5 1,343 1,400 346 474 820
Barnett 15 68 18.1 83
Berwick 59 52 53.2 111 59 52 111
Broadleigh 70 102 40.7 172
Courtright (90%) 70 113 38.3 183 70 113 183
East Columbus 120 77 60.9 197 120 77 197
Faixmoor 16 158 9.2 174
James Road 3 91 3.2 94
Pinecrest 8 146 5.2 154 8 146 154
Scotfcwood 89 86 50.9 175 89 86 175
CHART 75
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
INDEPENDENCE 274 755 26.6 1,029 1,300 268 416 684
Alum Crest 56 17 76.7 73 56 17 73
Courtright (10%) 8 12 40.0 20 8 12 20
Easthaven 23 214 9.7 237 23 214 237
Leawood (10%) 2 22 8.3 24 2 22 24
Liberty 3 185 1.6 188
Maybury 3 154 1.9 157
Moler (89%) 105 50 67.7 155 105 50 155
Oakmont (20%) 3 31 8.8 34 3 31 34
Smith Road 71 70 50.4 141 71 70 141
115
CHART 76
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School
School Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
linden McKinley 488 928 34.5 1,416 1,500 139 670 809
Calumet 3 95 3.1 98 3 95 98
Como 11 168 6.1 179 5 84 89
;■ i ' Crestview 1 115 0.9 116 1 115 116
Hamilton 209 3 98.6 212
Hudson 124 28 81.6 152
Indianola 13 86 13.1 99 8 58 66
Medaiy 8 192 4.0 200 3 77 80
Second 31 126 19.7 157 31 126 157
Weinland Park 88 115 43.3 203 88 115 203
CHART 77
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
MARION FRANKLIN 429 784 35.4 1,213 1,500 62 714 776
Cedarwood 6 207 2.8 213 6 207 213
Clarfield 148 15 90.8 163
.• Fornof 4 68 5.6 72 4 68 72
Heimandale 31 63 33.0 94 31 63 94
Koebel 131 39 77.1 170
Moler (11%) 13 6 68.4 19 13 6 19
Parsons 8 111 6.7 119 8 111 119
Scioto Trail 0 119 0.0 119 0 119 119
Stockbridge 0 140 0.0 140 0 140 140
Watkins 88 16 84.6 104
116
PUPIL
School
MIFFLIN
PUPIL
School
NORTHLAND
ASSIGNMENT:
CHART 78
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
407 763 34.8 1,170 1,200 407 763 1,170
Beaumont 19 111 14.6 130 19 111 130
Cassady 295 22 93.1 317 295 22 317
Huy 6 232 2.5 238 6 232 238
Innis 71 156 31.3 227 71 156 227
North Linden 10 140 6.7 150 10 140 150
Walford 6 102 5.6 108 6 102 108
CHART 79
ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
448 959 31.8 1,407 1,600 401 16 417
Avalon (75%) 18 161 10.1 179
Brentnell 149 8 94.9 157 149 8 157
Forest Park 1 174 0.6 175
Gladstone 176 3 98.3 179 176 3 179
Northtowne 8 132 5.7 140
Parkmoor 9 169 5.1 178
Shepard 76 5 93.8 81 76 5 81
Valley Forge 3 140 2.1 143
W alden 8 167 4.6 175
CHART 80
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
SOUTH 539 988 35.3 1,527 1,600
Deshler 237 116 67.1 353
Heyl 41 195 17.4 236
Kent (75%) 134 9 93.7 143
Lincoln Park 102 106 49.0 208
Reeb 21 151 12.2 172
Siebert 1 139 0.7 140
Southwood 3 221 1.3 224
Stewart 0 51 0.0 51
CHART 81
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School Non- % School Non-
School Feeder Areas Black Black Black Total Capacity Black Black Total
WALNUT RIDGE 621 989 38.6 1,610 1,600 565 369 934
Fair 184 16 92.0 200 184 16 200
F airwood 221 14 94.0 235 221 14 235
Leawood (90%) 18 197 80.4 215
Main 147 13 91.9 160 147 13 160
Oakmont (80%) 11 124 8.1 135 11 124 135
Olde Orchard 2 202 1.0 204 2 202 204
Shady Lane 4 132 2.9 136
Willis Park 18 111 14.0 129
W’oodcrest 16 180 8.2 196
118
CHART 82
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
Elementary School
School Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
WEST 539 1,160 31.7 1,699 1,600 345 336 681
Beatty Park (50%) 71 2 97.3 73 71 2 73
Burroughs (66%) 16 157 9.2 173
Douglas 137 19 87.8 156 137 19 156
Eakin 31 124 20.0 155 31 124 155
Garfield 105 0 0.0 105 105 0 105
Georgian Heights 1 166 0.6 167 1 166 167
Highland 162 88 64.8 250
V alleyview 3 111 2.6 114 0 25 25
West Broad 5 331 1.5 336
Westgate 8 162 4.7 170
CHART 83
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
Projected Pupil Enrollment Projected Pupil Transportation
School
Elementary School
Feeder Areas Black
Non-
Black
%
Black Total
School
Capacity Black
Non-
Black Total
WHETSTONE 482 1,004 32.4 1,486 1,400 472 534 1,006
Clinton 2 239 0.8 241 1 164 165
Eleventh 144 13 91.7 157 144 13 157
Glenmont 2 134 1.5 136
Homedale 3 79 3.7 82 O 79 82
Indian Springs/Colerain 1 167 0.6 168
Lexington 92 2 97.9 94 92 2 94
Marbum 6 94 6.0 100
Salem 2 180 1.1 182 2 180 182
Sharon 2 93 2.1 95 2 93 95
Windsor 228 3 98.7 231 228 3 231
119
CHART 84
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT:
School
TOTAL
BEECHCROFT
BRIGGS
BROOKHAVEN
CENTENNIAL
CENTRAL
EAST
EASTMOOR
INDEPENDENCE
linden McKinley
MARION FRANKLIN
MIFFLIN
MOHAWK
NORTH
NORTHLAND
SOUTH
WALNUT RIDGE
WEST
WHETSTONE
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE PATTERNS SUMMARY
Projected Pupil Enrollment
Non- %
Black Black Black Total
6,984 13,779 33.5 20,763
423 867 32.8 1,290
209 487 30.0 696
517 932 35.7 1,449
278 556 33.3 834
508 1,051 32.6 1,559
372 663 35.9 1,035
450 893 33.5 1,343
274 755 26.6 1,029
488 928 34.5 1,416
429 784 35.4 1,213
407 763 34.8 1,170
JUNIOR HIGH OCCUPANCY
VACATED
448 959 31.8 1,407
539 988 35.3 1,527
621 989 38.6 1,610
539 1,160 31.7 1,699
482 1,004 32.4 1,486
Projected Pupil Transportation
School Non-
Capacity Black Black Total
4,731 6,078 10,809
1,300 404 56 460
800 180 31 211
1,350 511 558 1,069
800 272 222 494
1,400 289 262 551
1,100 70 657 727
1,400 346 474 820
1,300 268 416 684
1,500 139 670 809
1,500 62 714 776
1,200 407 763 1,170
1,600
1,600
401 16 417
1,600 565 369 934
1,600 345 336 681
1,400 472 534 1,006
K)o
121
7. Pupil Assignment: AH Schools
The following pages contain charts reflecting the
school attendance area projections for grades K-12. These
projections are portrayed for each elementary school that
was open or under construction during the 1976-77 school
year.
The name of the elementary school is first presented
followed by its Remedy Han grade level organization. The
elementary school designated for kindergarten attendance
under the Desegregation Remedy Plan is then presented.
This is followed by the elementary school designated for
primary grade attendance and intermediate grade atten
dance. In these last two cases, if the attendance is less than
K-6, the grade levels are designated.
The schools designated for elementary school atten
dance are followed by the schools designated for junior
high and senior high attendance in the Desegregation
Remedy Plan.
Throughout all charts, if a former elementary atten
dance area is to he divided among more than one school by
the Desegregation Remedy Plan, it is so indicated.
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85
Pupil Assignment
Former
Elementary
School
New
Elementary
Organization
Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary
Primary
Elementary
Intermediate
Junior High
(Grades 7-9)
Senior High
(Grades 10-12)
ALPINE K/l-4 Alpine 1-4 Alpine 5-6 South Mifflin Mifflin Beechcroft
ALUM CREST VACATED Moler it 1-4 Oakmont
1-4 Woodcrest
5-6 Moler Southmoor Independence
ARLINGTON
PARK
K/5-6 Arlington Park #1-4 Avalon
1-4 Walden
5-6 Arlington Park Medina Beechcroft
AVALON K/l-4 Avalon 1-4 Avalon 5-6 Arlington Park Woodward Park SBeecheroft
Northland
AVONDALE K/l-4 Avondale 1-4 Avondale 5-6 Livingston Starling Central
BARNETT VACATED IBerwick
Pinecrest
#1-4 Berwick
1-4 Pinecrest
15-6 Glde Orchard
5-6 Fair
Stjohnson Park
Eastmoor
Eastmoor
BEATTY PARK K/l-S JrBeatty Park
Pilgrim
#1-3 Beatty Park
1-3 Pilgrim
#4-6 West Broad
4-6 Maize
SWestmoor
Champion
West
East
trPupiis will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
122
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT; ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
Pupil Assignment
CHART 85 (Continued)
Former New
Elementary
School
Elementary
Organization
Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary
Primary
Elementary
Intermediate
Junior High
(Grades 7-9)
Senior High
(Grades 10-12)
BEAUMONT K/l-4 Beaumont 1-4 Beaumont 5-6 Eastgate Champion Mifflin
BECK K/l-6 Beck 1-3 Beck 4-6 Beck Mohawk Central
BELLOWS VACATED SSullivant
Franklinton
#1-3 Sullivant
1-3 Franklinton
#4-6 Westgate
4-6 Franklinton
Starling Central
BERWICK K/l-4 Berwick 1-4 Berwick 5-6 Olde Orchard Johnson Park Eastmoor
BINNS K/l-4 Binns 1-4 Binns 5-6 Ohio jfHilltonia
Wedgewood
Briggs
BRENTNELL K/4-6 Brentnell #1-3 Colerain
1-3 Indian Springs
4-6 Brentnell Clinton Northland
BROADLEIGH K/l-6 Broadleigh 1-3 Broadleigh 4-6 Broadleigh Eastmoor Eastmoor
BURROUGHS K/l-4 Burroughs 1-4 Burroughs 5-6 Ohio Mohawk #Briggs
West
-Pupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
123
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former New
Elementary
School
Elementary
Organization
Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary
Primary
Elementary
Intermediate
Junior High
(Grades 7-9)
Senior High
(Grades 10-12)
CALUMET K/l-4 Calumet 1-4 Calumet 5-6 Hudson Linmoor Linden McKinley
CASSADY K/5-6 Cassady #1-4 Devonshire
1-4 Forest Park
5-6 Cassady Mifflin Mifflin
CEDARWOOD K/4-6 Cedarwood 1-3 Watkins 4-6 Cedarwood Buckeye Marion Franklin
CHICAGO K/l-6 Chicago 1-3 Chicago 4-6 Chicago Starling Central
CLARFIELD K/l-3 Clarfield 1-3 Clarfield #4-6 Scioto Trail
4-6 Stockbridge
Buckeye Marion Franklin
CLINTON K/4-6 Clinton 1-3 Hamilton 4-6 Clinton Crestview Whetstone
COLERAIN K/l-3 Colerain 1-3 Colerain 4-6 Brentnell Dominion Whetstone
COMO K/l-4 Como 1-4 Como 5-6 Hudson Limnoor Linden McKinley
COURTRIGHT VACATED fScottwood
Leawood
#1-4 Scottwood
1-4 Leawood
#5-6 Olde Orchard
6-6 Kent
#Johnson Park
Southmoor
SEastmoor
Independence
tfPupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
124
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former
Elementary
School
New
Elementary
Organization
Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary
Primary
Elementary
Intermediate
Junior High
(Grades 7-9)
Senior High
(Grades 10-12)
CRANBROOK K/4-6 Cranbrook 1-3 Windsor 4-6 Cranbrook Ridgeview East
CRESTVIEW VACATED Clinton 1-3 Hamilton 4-6 Clinton Crestview Linden McKinley
DANA K/l-4 Dana 1-4 Dana 5-6 Livingston Starling Central
DESHLER K/5-6 Deshler 11-4 Heyl
1-4 Siebert
5-6 Deshler Hilltonia South
DEVONSHIRE K/l-4 Devonshire 1-4 Devonshire 5-6 Cassady Mifflin Beechcroft
DOUGLAS VACATED
ALTERNATIVE
Douglas 1-4 Binns
#1-4 Burroughs
1-4 Lindbergh
5-6 Ohio Wedgewood West
DUXBERRY
PARK
K/5-6 Duxberry Park #1-4 Gables
1-4 Winterset
5-6 Duxberry Park Dominion Brookhaven
EAKIN VACATED Georgian Heights 1-3 Highland 4-6 Georgian
Heights
Wedgewood West
JtPupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
125
Former
Elementary
School
New
Elementary
Organization
EAST
COLUMBUS
K/5-6
EAST LINDEN K/I-6
EASTGATE K/5-6
EASTHAVEN K/l-4
ELEVENTH K/l-4
FAIR K/5-6
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
_________________ Pupil Assignment
CHART 85 (Continued)
Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary
Primary
Elementary
Intermediate
Junior High
(Grades 7-9)
Senior High
(Grades 10-12)
East Columbus #1-4 Northtowne
1-4 Parkmoor
1-4 Valley Forge
5-6 East Columbus Eastmoor Eastmoor
East Linden 1-3 East Linden 4-6 East Linden Medina Brookhaven
Eastgate #1-4 Beaumont
1-4 North Linden
5-6 Eastgate Johnson Park East
Easthaven 1-4 Easthaven 5-6 Kent Southmoor Independence
(Eleventh
Weinland
#1-4 Eleventh
1-3 Weinland
#5-6 Medary
4-6 Fifth
4-6 Kingswood
Indianola Whetstone
Fair #1-4 Farmoor
1-4 Pinecrest
5-6 Fair Sherwood Walnut Ridge
(Pupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former
Elementary
New
Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Junior High Senior High
School Organization Kindergarten Primary Intermediate (Grades 7-9) (Grades 10-12)
FAIRMOOR K/l-4 Fairmoor 1-4 Fairmoor 5-6 Fair Eastmoor Eastmoor
FAIRWOOD K/5-6 Fairwood #1-4 Liberty 5-6 Fairwood Yorktown Walnut Ridge
FIFTH K/4-6 Fifth
1-4 Maybury
1-3 WeinlandPark 4-6 Fifth Everett East
FOREST PARK K/l-4 Forest Park 1-4 Forest Park 5-6 Cassady Woodward Park Northland
FORNOF K/l-4 Fomof 1-4 Fornof 5-6 Koebel Beery Marion Franklin
FRANKLINTON K /i-e Franklinton 1-3 Franklinton 4-6 Franklinton Mohawk Central
GABLES K/l-4 Gables 1-4 Gables 5-6 Duxberry Park Monroe Centennial
GARFIELD K/l-3 Garfield 1-3 Garfield 4-6 West Broad Westmoor West
GEORGIAN K/4-6 Georgian Heights 1-3 Highland 4-6 Georgian Wedgewood West
HEIGHTS Heights
JfPupiis will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
.127
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former
Elementary
New
Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Junior High Senior High
School Organization Kindergarten Primary Intermediate (Grades 7-9) (Grades 10-12)
GETTYSBURG VACATED Gables 1-4 Gables 5-6 DuxberryPark Monroe Centennial
GLADSTONE K/5-6 Gladstone #1-4 Salem 5-6 Gladstone Clinton Northland
GLENMONT VACATED Indian Springs
1-4 Sharon
1-3 Indian Springs 4-6 Brentnell Dominion Whetstone
HAMILTON K/l-3 Hamilton 1-3 Hamilton 4-6 Clinton Linmoor Linden McKinley
HEIMANDALE VACATED Fomof 1-4 Fomof 5-6 Koebel Beery Marion Franklin
HEYL K/l-4 Heyl 1-4 Heyl 5-6 Deshler Barrett South
HIGHLAND K/l-3 Highland 1-3 Highland 4-6 Georgian Westmoor West
LIOMEDALE VACATED Sharon 1-4 Sharon
Heights
5-6 Gladstone Ridgeview Whetstone
HUBBARD K/l-4 Hubbard 1-4 Hubbard 5-6 Second Everett East
ifPupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
f
128
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former New
Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Junior High Senior High
School Organization Kindergarten Primary Intermediate (Grades 7-9) (Grades 10-12)
HUDSON K/5-6 Hudson #1-4 Calumet 5-6 Hudson Crestview Linden McKinley
1-4 Como
HUY K/4-6 Huy 1-3 Trevitt 4-6 Huy Medina Mifflin
INDIANOLA VACATED
ALTERNATIVE
Indianola 1-4 Eleventh 5-6 Medary Indianola Linden McKinley
INDIAN K/l-3 Indian Springs 1-3 Indian Springs 4-6 Brentnell Dominion Whetstone
SPRINGS
INNIS K/l-6 Innis 1-3 Innis 4-6 Innis Champion Mifflin
JAMES ROAD VACATED Fairmoor 1-4 Fairmoor 5-6 Fair #Eastmoor Eastmoor
Johnson Park
KENT K/5-6 Livingston 1-4 Avondale
#1-4 Dana
5-6 Livingston Barrett South
1-4 West Mound
Kent #1-4 Easthaven 5-6 Kent Barrett South
1-4 Leawood
IPupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
129
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former
Elementary
School
New
Elementary
Organization
Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary
Primary
Elementary
Intermediate
Junior High
(Grades 7-9)
Senior High
(Grades 10-12)
KENWOOD K/4-6 Kenwood 1-3 Windsor 4-6 Kenwood Ridgeview Centennial
KINGSWOOD K/4-6 Kingswood 1-3 Weinland Park 4-6 Kingswood iEverett
Inchanola
East
KOEBEL K/5-6 Koebel #1-4 Fornof
1-4 Reeb
5-6 Koebel Buckeye Marion Franklin
LEAWOOD K/l-4 Leawood 1-4 Leawood 5-6 Kent {Johnson Park
Sherwood
{Independence
Walnut Ridge
LEXINGTON VACATED Weinland Park 1-3 Weinland Park #4-6 Fifdi
4-6 Kingswood
Everett Whetstone
LIBERTY K/l-4 Liberty 1-4 Liberty 5-6 Fairwood Yorktown Independence
LINCOLN PARK K/l-4 Lincoln Park 1-4 Lincoln Park 5-6 Southwood Beery South
LINDBERGH K/l-4 Lindbergh 1-4 Lindbergh 5-6 Ohio Hilltonia Briggs
#Pupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former New
Elementary
School
Elementary
Organization
Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary
Primary
Elementary
Intermediate
Junior High
(Grades 7-9)
Senior High
(Grades 10-12)
LINDEN K/i-e Linden 1-3 Linden 4-6 Linden Crestview Brookhaven
LINDEN PARK VACATED Linden Park 1-3 McGuffey 4-6 McGuffey Crestview Brookhaven
ALTERNATIVE
LIVINGSTON K/5-6 Livingston 1-4 Avondale 5-6 Livingston SBarrett Central
#1-4 Dana Mohawk
1-4 West Mound
Beck 1-4 Reek 5-6 Beck SBarrett Central
Mohawk
MAIN K/1-3 Main 1-3 Main 4-6 Shady Lane Mohawk Walnut Ridge
MAIZE K/4-6 Maize 1-3 Pilgrim 4-6 Maize Clinton Brookhaven
MARBURN VACATED Kenwood 1-3 Windsor 4-6 Kenwood Ridgeview Whetstone
MAYBURY K/l-4 Maybury 1-4 Maybury 5-6 Fairwood Southmoor Independence
JPupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
m
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former
Elementary
School
New
Elementary
Organization
Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary
Primary
Elementary
Intermediate
Junior High
(Grades 7-9)
Senior High
(Grades 10-12)
McGUFFEY K/l-6 McGuffey 1-3 McGuffey 4-6 McGuffey Linmoor Brookhaven
MEDARY K/5-6 Medary 1-4 Eleventh 5-6 Medary Indianola Linden McKinley
MILO VACATED Second 11-4 Hubbard
1-4 Thurber
5-6 Second Everett Centennial
MOLER K/5-6 fWatkins
Moler
1-3 Watkins
#1-4 Oakmont
1-4 Woodcrest
14-6 Cedarwood
5-6 Moler
SBuckeye
Soutlimoor
SMarion Franklin
Independence
NORTH
LINDEN
K/l-4 North Linden 1-4 North Linden 5-6 Eastgate Clinton Mifflin
NORTHGATE K/l-4 Northgate 1-4 Northgate 5-6 South Mifflin Mifflin Beechcroft
NORTHRIDGE VACATED Maize 1-3 Pilgrim 4-6 Maize JClinton
Linmoor
Beechcroft
NORTHTOWNE K/l-4 Northtowne 1-4 Northtowne 5-6 East Columbus Champion Northland
tfPupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
CHART 85 (Continued)
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
Pupil Assignment
Former New
Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Junior High Senior High
School Organization Kindergarten Primary Intermediate (Grades 7-9) (Grades 10-12)
OAKLAND
PARK
VACATED
ALTERNATIVE
Oakland Park 1-3 Trevitt 4-6 Huy Medina Brookhaven
OAKMONT K/l-4 Oakmont 1-4 Oakmont 5-6 Moler SSouthmoor
Yorktown
({Independence
Walnut Ridge
OHIO K/5-e Ohio 1-4 Binns
il-4 Burroughs
1-4 Lindbergh
5-6 Ohio Mohawk Briggs
OLDE
ORCHARD
K/5-6 Qlde Orchard #1-4 Berwick
1-4 Scottwood
5-6 Olde Orchard Yorktown Walnut Ridge
PARKMOOR K/l-4 Parkmoor 1-4 Parkmoor 5-6 East Columbus Woodward Park Northland
PARSONS VACATED Scioto Trail 1-3 Scioto Trail 4-6 Garfield Buckeye Marion Franklin
PILGRIM K/l-3 Pilgrim 1-3 Pilgrim 4-6 Maize tChampion
Monroe
lEast
Centennial
({Pupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former
Elementary
School
New
Elementary
Organization
Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary
Primary
Elementary
Intermediate
Junior High
(Grades 7-9)
Senior High
(Grades 10-12)
PINECREST K/l-4 CLeawood
Pinecrest
51-4 Leawood
1-4 Pinecrest
#5-6 Kent
5-6 Fair
Johson Park Eastmoor
REEB K/l-4 Reeb 1-4 Reeb 5-6 Koebel Beery South
SALEM K/l-4 Salem 1-4 Salem 5-6 Gladstone Dominion Whetstone
SCIOTO TRAIL K/4-6 Scioto Trail 1-3 Clarfield 4-6 Scioto Trail Beery Marion Franklin
SCOTTWOOD K/l-4 Scottwood 1-4 Scottwood 5-6 Olde Orchard Johnson Park Eastmoor
SECOND K/5-6 Second #1-4 Hubbard
1-4 Thurber
5-6 Second Everett Linden McKinley
SHADY LANE K/4-6 Shady Lane 1-3 Main 4-6 Shady Lane Sherwood Walnut Ridge
SHARON K/l-4 Sharon 1-4 Sharon 5-6 Gladstone Dominion Whetstone
tPupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former New
Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary junior High Senior High
School Organization Kindergarten Primary Intermediate (Grades 7-9) (Grades 10-12)
SHEPARD VACATED East Columbus 1-4 Northtowne
#1-4 Parkmoor
5-6 East Columbus Eastmoor Northland
1-4 Valley Forge
SIEBERT K/l-4 Siebert 1-4 Siebert 5-6 Deshler Barrett South
SMITH ROAD
SOUTH
K/l-4 Smith Road 1-4 Smith Road 5-6 Southwood Southmoor Independence
MIFFLIN K/5-6 South Mifflin #1-4 Alpine
1-4 Northgate 5-6 South Mifflin Woodward Park Beechcroft
SOUTHWOOD K/5-6 Southwood #1-4 Lincoln Park 5-6 Southwood Barrett South
1-4 Smith Road
STEWART VACATED
ALTERNATIVE
Stewart 1-3 Reck 4-6 Beck Mohawk South
SPupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
135
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former
Elementary
School
New
Elementary
Organization
Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary
Primary
Elementary
Intermediate
Junior High
(Grades 7-9)
Senior High
(Grades 10-12)
STOCKBRIDGE K/4-6 Stoekbridge 1-3 Clarfield 4-6 Stoekbridge Buckeye Marion Franklin
SULLIVANT K/l-3 Sullivant 1-3 Sullivant 4-6 Westgate Starling Central
THURBER K/l-4 Thurber 1-4 Thurber 5-6 Second Everett East
TREVITT K/l-3 Trevitt 1-3 Trevitt 4-6 Huy Monroe Centennial
VALLEY FORGE K/l-4 Valley Forge 1-4 Valley Forge 5-6 East Columbus Clinton Northland
VALLEYVIEW VACATED West Broad 11-3 Beatty Park
1-3 Garfield
4-6 West Broad Westmoor West
WALDEN K/l-4 Walden 1-4 Walden 5-6 Arlington Park Woodward Park Northland
WALFORD VACATED North Linden 1-4 North Linden 5-6 Eastgate Clinton Mifflin
WATKINS K/l-3 Watkins 1-3 Watkins 4-6 Cedarwood Beery Marion Franklin
IPupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
136
PUPIL ASSIGNMENT: ALL SCHOOLS
(Grades K, 1-12)
CHART 85 (Continued)
Pupil Assignment
Former
Elementary
School
New
Elementary
Organization
Elementary
Kindergarten
Elementary
Primary
Elementary
Intermediate
Junior High
(Grades 7-9)
Senior High
(Grades 10-12)
WAYNE
WEINLAND
VACATED Lindbergh 1-4 Lindbergh 5-6 Ohio
#4-6 Fifth
Hilltonia Briggs
PARK K/l-3 Weinland Park 1-3 Weinland Park 4-6 Kingswood Indianola Linden McKinley
WEST BROAD K/4-6 West Broad #1-3 Beatty Park
1-3 Garfield
4-6 West Broad Westmoor West
WEST MOUND K/l-4 West Mound 1-4 West Mound 5-6 Livingston Hilltonia Central
WESTGATE K/4-6 Westgate 1-3 Sullivant 4-6 Westgate Mohawk West
WILLIS PARK VACATED Shady Lane 1-3 Main 4-6 Shady Lane Sherwood Walnut Ridge
WINDSOR K/l-3 Windsor 1-3 Windsor #4-6 Cranbrook
4-6 Kenwood
Ridgeview Whetstone
WINTERSET K/l-4 Winterset 1-4 Winterset 5-6 Duxberry Park Monroe Centennial
WOODCREST K/l-4 Woodcrest 1-4 Woodcrest 5-6 Moler Sherwood Walnut Ridge
IPupils will be assigned by geographic area to one of these schools.
188
8. Career Center Programs
The Columbus City School District proposes to con
tinue the program of vocational education through career
centers. Existing procedures for enrollment in the various
program offerings based on pupil interest, counselor assess
ment, program capacity, and racial balance will be
observed,
9. Alternative School Programs
The Columbus City School District proposes to con
tinue to offer alternative school programs, but only on a
racially balanced basis.
Existing alternative school programs will be given
first priority for opening. New alternative school programs
will be considered as financial resources are available and
as parent and pupil interest justify.
10. Columbus Plan Pupil Participation
All Columbus Plan transfers at a given grade level,
except for those discussed above under “Career Center
Programs” and “Alternative School Programs,” will be
terminated when that grade level is involved in implemen
tation of the pupil assignment component of the Desegre
gation Remedy Plan. These pupils will report to their
newly assigned school as specified herein.
B. Exceptions to Pupil Assignment
The Columbus City School District proposes that all
pupils enrolled in the school district be involved in the
Desegregation Remedy Plan with the following exceptions:
1. Kindergarten
Only pupils in grades 1-12 will be included. Kinder
garten will be excluded.
139
2. Graduating Seniors
All pupils enrolled in the 12th grade at the beginning
of the 1978-79 school year will be permitted to graduate
from the high school in which they were enrolled in the
1977-78 school year, provided the school remains open as
a senior high school for the 1978-79 school year. If the
school is closed, seniors will be reassigned to the senior
high school designated by the Desegregation Remedy Plan.
This exception will be in effect only for the 1978-79
school year.
3. Special Education Program Enrollees
Students enrolled in classes for the educable mentally
retarded and for the learning and behavior disordered; as
well as the low incidence handicapped — the blind and
partially sighted, the deaf and hard of hearing, the ortho-
pedicaliy and multiply handicapped, and the severe
behavior disorder cases — will not be part of the general
Desegregation Remedy Plan.
Classes for the educable mentally retarded and learn
ing behavior disordered pupils will be placed such that
the resulting program enrollment will be racially desegre
gated.
Specialized physical facilities — and in three instances,
specialized school buildings — will continue to be provided
for the low incidence handicapped.
Tutoring services will continue to be provided for
eligible pupils up to the limit of the school district’s
financial capacity.
4. Gifted and Talented
Pupils selected for the Gifted and Talented Program
will not be included in the remedy plan. Pupil selection
will occur so that the program will be racially balanced.
140
C. Pupil Transportation
The Columbus City School District proposes the fol
lowing transportation system for the Desegregation Rem
edy Plan. Specifics are presented regarding the existing
bus fleet, its use during the 1976-77 school year, and its
anticipated uses in September, 1977, in January, 19/8,
and September, 1978. Specifics concerning additional bus
fleet requirements due to involuntary pupil assignment in
January, 1978 and September, 1978 are also presented.
Finally, the specifics associated with pupil time in transit
and distances to be traveled are presented.
1. The 1976-77 School Year Transportation System
End-of-year accounting indicates that during the
1976-77 school year the Columbus City School District
transported 17,528 pupils using 222 board-owned vehicles,
28 contract carriers, taxi-service, and direct parent pay
ments in lieu of school bus service.
The type and number of buses in the board-owned
fleet were as follows:
Type of Bus Number of Buses
66-Passenger 129
36-Passenger 39
16-21-Passenger 45
Wheelchair Lift Vans 9
TOTAL 222
All twenty-eight contract carriers were 66-passenger buses.
End-of-year accounting indicated the following trans
portation data for each pupil group transported.
141
Pupil Group
Transported
Number of
Pupils
Bus
Loads Equipment Used
Non-Public Pupils 2,333 59 55 sixty-six passenger
buses and 4 vans
Secondary 2,549 69 51 sixty-six passenger
Columbus Plan buses
Pupils
Elementary 1,028 43 38 vans
Columbus Plan 5 sixty-six passenger
Pupils buses
Special Education 445 37 9 wheelchair lift van
Pupils 28 vans
1,437 — Taxi-service
Residential 9,155 170 89 sixty-six passenger
Population buses
In addition to the above, the Columbus City School
District transported 581 pupils under agreements with
parents which provided reimbursement payments in lieu
of school bus service.
The Columbus City School District maintained a
spare bus fleet of 12 sixty-six passenger buses and 14 vans.
This transportation system costs the Columbus City
School District an estimated $3,150,700.00 to operate.
2. The 1977-78 School Year: September, 1977
Transportation System
The Columbus City School District has anticipated
the following transportation system without the impact of
school desegregation for the 1977-78 school year.
The 1977-78 bus fleet is constituted as previously
indicated at 222 units. The number of contract carrier
buses has risen to 30 sixty-six passenger buses.
The Columbus City School District plans to employ
board-owned buses, contract carriers, taxi-service, and
parental reimbursement payments in lieu of school bus
142
service to transport an estimated 18,313 pupils in the
following fashion. Specifis are presented for each pupil
group to be transported.
Pupil Group Number of Bus
Transported Pupils Loads Equipment to be Used
Non-Public Pupils
Secondary
Columbus Plan
2,333 59 55 sixty-six
passenger buses
4 vans
Pupils
Elementary
Columbus Plan
3,280 99 69 sixty-six
passenger buses
Pupils
Special Education
1,100 43 5 sixty-six
passenger buses
38 vans
Pupils 450 37 9 wheelchair
lift vans
28 vans
Residential
1,580 — Taxi-service
Population 8,990 191 112 sixty-six
passenger buses
In addition to the above, the Columbus City School
District anticipates transporting 580 pupils under agree
ments with parents to provide reimbursement payments in
lieu of school bus service.
The Columbus City School District plans to maintain
a spare bus fleet of 14 vans and only four of the needed
13 sixty-six passenger buses.
This transportation system is estimated to cost the
Columbus City School District $3,927,407.00.
143
3, Desegregation Transportation Planning
Considerations
As stated in the July 29, 1977 Federal District Court
Order, The Columbus City School District is to implement
the elementary school component of a pupil desegregation
plan when schools reopen after January 1, 1978. The
anticipated 1977-78 school year transportation system,
described previously will need to be modified to accom
modate the Desegregation Remedy Plan.
The following considerations were used in modifying
the September, 1977 school year transportation system,
and in formulating the 1978-79 school year transportation
system.
Transportation Policy — Continue the current Board
policy of providing transportation to students living
more than two miles from their assigned school who
are in grades K-9. Expand the Board policy on trans
portation to include the transportation of pupils in
grades 10-12 living more than two miles from their
assigned school when the high school component of
the remedy plan is implemented.
Factors for Estimating Transportation — Base esti
mates of pupil transportation on the Board policy as
noted above, include considerations of adverse safety
conditions and the need for a pupil to walk past a
school of appropriate grade assignment to reach the
assigned school.
Distance — Measure distance on a school site to school
site straight line basis. When it appears walking
distance could exceed two miles, an estimate of the
distance of the walking route will be applied in
determining the estimate of students eligible for
transportation.
Travel Time — Estimate travel time on a school site
to school site basis in multiples of five minutes for
each straight line mile. Note special traffic situations
(congestion, freeways, bridges, etc.) and adjust times
accordingly.
144
Loading — Use a loading factor of 66 pupils per
elementary bus, 60 pupils per junior high bus and
55 per senior high bus.
Loads Needed — Calculate loads as indicated above.
Use elementary attendance areas in planning and
calculating the number of trips for elementary, junior
and senior high schools.
Pick Up — Provide neighborhood (residential) or other
appropriate pick-up locations for transported pupils.
Residential Transportation — Continue residential
transportation within the current and expanded
policy. Include residential transportation when deter
mining the number of buses needed.
Starting Time — Assume two starting times in the
Elementary phase of this Desegregation Plan and four
starting times, one each for junior and senior high
schools and two for elementary schools, in the Sec
ondary phase of this Desegregation Plan.
Special Education — Needs will continue to be served
on van vehicles. As the elementary Columbus Plan is
modified, additional van buses will be used to trans
port special education pupils now transported on out
side contracted services.
Non-Public — Requests have continued to increase
during the last two years and have increased again
this fall. The service is not expected to drop below
the current 59 trip schedule.
Columbus Plan Secondary Pupils — These pupils will
continue to be transported to their assigned school
throughout the 1977-78 school year. Columbus Plan
transfers for vocational programs, career centers and
alternative programs will continue after the imple
mentation of both the elementary and secondary
phases of the desegregation plan. They would remain
on the same time schedule initiated in September,
1977.
Columbus Plan Elementary Pupils — The elementary
Columbus Plan will be modified at the time of imple
mentation of the desegregation plan and will include
145
transportation to and from the five existing alterna
tive schools plus any additions the Board of Education
elects to add. The transportation of elementary pupils
will be redesigned for greater efficiency and will use
66 passenger buses in place of the smaller units now
in service.
4. January, 1978 Modification of the September, 1977
Transportation System
The following transportation requirements will have
to be met by the Columbus City School District when the
court-ordered elementary component of school desegrega
tion is implemented after January 1, 1978. All require
ments are presented in terms of the pupil group to be
transported.
Pupil Group Transported
Number of
Pupils
Bus
Loads
Non-Public Pupils 2,333 59
Secondary Career-Vocational 1,704 48
Pupils
Secondary Program Transfer 1,376 46
Pupils
Secondary Alternative School 200 5
Pupils
Elementary Alternative School 1,500 25
Pupils
Special Education Pupils 2,030 154
Secondary Residential Pupils 3,789 81
Elementary Level Desegregation
Transfers 20,609 353
TOTAL 35,541 771
Of the bus load total of 771, 145 pupils loads will be
accommodated by 70 thirty-six passenger vans (66 for
special education pupils and four for non-public pupils)
and 9 wheelchair lift vans for special education pupils.
146
Thirteen (13) special education pupil loads will still need
to be transported by taxi-service. The remaining 613 pupil
loads need to be transported with sixty-six passenger buses.
Using a two-bell school starting schedule these 613 pupil
loads would be transported in the following fashion:
Bell Schedule 1
Buses
Bell Schedule 2 Required
55 Non-Public Pupil
Loads
55
48 Secondary Career-
Vocational Pupil
Loads
14
46 Secondary Program
Transfer Pupil Loads
15
5 Secondaiy Alterna
tive School Pupil
Loads
0
81 Secondary Residen
tial Pupil Loads
69
100 Elementary Desegre
gation Pupil Loads
100
25 Elementary Alterna
tive School Pupil
Loads
0
360 Loads 253
Elementary Desegre- 55
gation Pupil Loads
Elementary Desegre- 34
gation Pupil Loads
Elementary Desegre- 35
gation Pupil Loads
Elementary Desegre- 5
gation Pupil Loads
Elementary Desegre- 81
gation Pupil Loads
Elementary Desegre- 100
gation Pupil Loads
Elementary Desegre- 25
gation Pupil Loads
Loads 335
Buses
A total of 369 sixty-six passenger buses including 34
spares are required, the school district owns 129 and
estimates having lease agreements for 30 contract carriers
for a total of 159 vehicles. An additional fleet of 210 sixty-
six passenger buses would be needed 176 of which would
comprise the operational fleet.
147
5. Acquiring the Needed Equipment for the January,
1978 Desegregation Component
The Columbus City School District Board of Educa
tion authorized its legal counsel to retain the firm of
Simpson and Curtin, Inc., Philadephia, Pennsylvania, to
perform the transportation study ordered by the Court
on July 29, 1977. That report accompanies this plan.
The report identified five possible means of securing
the transportation resources required to desegregate the
Columbus City School District. It also includes the number
of school bus coaches which would be required by both
elementary and secondary involuntary pupil reassign
ments. The report also evaluated the availability and
adequacy of each source of transportation in terms of its
ability to satisfy the needs projected.
The report states that sufficient new buses could not
be purchased in time to accomplish a January, 1978
desegregation of the elementary school population. A
national leasing firm, ARA of California, would not pro
vide enough information to truly evaluate the possible
use of the transportation services available from such
leasing agencies. No agreement appears possible with the
Central Ohio Transit Authority. There is a possibility that
up to thirty 66-passenger school buses could be loaned to
the Columbus City School District by other Ohio school
districts. Finally, the report indicates that there will likely
be a supply of used buses available resulting from trade-
ins by other Ohio school districts. However, it is some
what improbable that the latter could be obtained to
accommodate a January implementation.
Simpson and Curtin, Inc., state that “about 60 percent
utilization can be counted upon for day-to-day use with a
fleet made up entirely of second-hand school buses.” This
would mean that the true purchase requirement for used
vehicles would be 167 percent of day-to-day operating
148
needs. In this instance, the operating fleet need is 176
sixty-six passenger buses and 13 spares for the board-
owned 66-passenger bus fleet of 129 vehicles. Applying
the recommended 167 percent factor would increase the
purchase requirement to 315 sixty-six passenger buses.
Though the Simpson and Curtin, Inc. report indicates
that the used-bus option might possibly accommodate a
January, 1978 implementation, it is not recommended.
6. The 1978-79 School Year Transportation System
Beginning with the opening of school in the 1978-79
school year, the Columbus City School District has been
ordered by the Federal District Court to implement a
secondary school desegregation plan. The transportation
requirements incumbent on the school district at that time
are estimated to be as follows. Again, the information is
presented in terms of the pupil group to be transported.
Pupil Group Transported
Number of
Pupils
Bus
Loads
Non-Public Pupils 3,500 65
Secondary Career-Vocational Pupils 2,112 56
Secondary Alternative School 320 8
Pupils
Elementary Alternative School 1,500 25
Pupils
Special Education Pupils 2,030 154
Elementary Level Desegregation 20,609 353
Transfers
Junior High Level Desegregation 10,069 185
Transfers
Senior High Level Desegregation 10,809 212
Transfers
TOTAL 50,949 1,058
149
Of the bus load of 1,058, 145 loads would be accom
modated by 70 thirty-six passenger vans, (66 for special
education pupils and 4 for non-public pupils) and 9 wheel
chair lift vans for special education pupils. Thirteen special
education pupil loads will again be transported by taxi-
service. The remaining 900 pupil loads would need to be
transported with sixty-six passenger buses. Using the four-
bell school starting schedule listed under '‘Desegregation
Transportation Planning Considerations” on page 114 of
this document these 900 pupil loads would be transported
as shown in Table 2.
The total 66-passenger bus fleet required is 338
vehicles plus a 10 percent spare factor, or 372 buses. Of
this total, 336 buses will be used for desegregation.
TABLE 2
TRANSPORTATION OF 66-PASSENGER
BUS LOADS IN SEPTEMBER, 1978
BY BELL SCHEDULE
Total
Bell Schedule 1 Bell Schedule 2 Bell Schedule 3 Bell Schedule 4 Buses
85 Non-Public Pupil
Loads
4 Junior High Desegregation
Pupil Loads
20 Elementary Desegregation
Pupil Loads
41 Elementary Desegregation
Pupil Loads
85
58 Secondary Career-
Vocational
Pupil Loads
— 28 Elementary Desegregation
Pupil Loads —
28
212 Senior High
Desegregation
Pupil Loads
181 Junior High Desegregation
Pupil Loads
130 Elementary Desegregation
Pupil Loads
130 Elementary Desegregation
Pupil Loads
212
88 Junior High Alternative — —
Pupil Loads
2525 Elementary Alternative —
Pupil Loads ___ __
333 TOTAL 193 TOTAL 203 TOTAL 171 TOTAL 338
150
151
7. September, 1978 Bus Fleet Considerations
The method used to acquire the bus fleet necessary
to desegregate the secondary school population is de
pendent upon the fleet acquisition for the January, 1978
elementary desegregation component.
If the recommendation of Simpson and Curtin, Inc.
were followed, no elementary school desegregation would
have occurred in that new school buses could not have
been purchased in time. However, if used school buses
were purchased, delivered, and operated, the Columbus
City School District would have 444 used 66-passenger
school buses on hand in September, 1978.
Of the aforementioned board-owned fleet of 444 used
66-passenger buses, 129 would be retained for service in
the 1978-79 school year. Following the recommendation of
Simpson and Curtin, Inc., the remaining fleet of 315 sixty-
six passenger school buses would be traded in on 213 new
sixty-five passenger buses. An additional expenditure of
funds would be required.
If a contract lease agreement were effected in Janu
ary, 1978 for elementary school desegregation, the Colum
bus City School District would need to terminate that con
tract and purchase 213 new 65-passenger school buses.
If no desegregation occurred in January, 1978 the
Columbus Board of Education would have no buses to
trade-in, and no lease contract to terminate, but would
have to purchase 213 new 65-passenger school buses.
Whether or not the elementary pupil reassignment
component is first implemented in January, 1978 or Sep
tember, 1978, the Columbus City School District will need
to purchase 213 new 65-passenger school buses to accom
modate the entire pupil reassignment component in Sep
tember, 1978.
In summary, the recommendation of the Simpson and
Curtin, Inc. firm is that the most preferred manner of
acquiring transportation to desegregate the Columbus
152
City School District is the purchase of new vehicles. The
only alternative open is the purchase of used school buses
being traded-in by other Ohio school districts this Fall and
the borrowing of 30 spare school buses from other Ohio
school districts. The trade-in buses could only be used for
the period January, 1978 through June, 1978 and would
be buses which the Ohio Department of Education would
have already certified as unserviceable, unsafe, or non-
cost-effective. Substantial funds would have to be spent to
re-condition the trade-in buses.
The firm of Simpson and Curtin, Inc. recommends
against the purchase or use of used school buses. Agree
ment with this recommendation would require that all pu
pil reassignment initially occur in September, 1978.
8. Transportation Specifics in Terms of Pupil Time in
Transit and Distances to be Traveled
When all components of the pupil reassignment plan
are implemented, pupils will be eligible for transportation
for the following reasons: Involuntary Desegregation
Transfers, Alternative School Enrollment, and Career-
Vocational Transfers. The table below contains the num
bers of pupils eligible for transportation for each phase of
the Desegregation Remedy Plan and for each of the afore
mentioned reasons for transportation eligibility.
TABLE 3
ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF PUPILS ELIG IBLE FOR
TRANSPORTATION BY COMPONENT
AND PURPOSE
Voluntary Transfers
Involuntary Career-V ocational
Transfers Alternatives Program
Elementary
Component 20,609 1,700 1,704
Secondary
Component 20,878 120 2,112
41,487 1,820 3,816
158
The amount of time a pupil spends riding a bus is a
function of the distance to be traveled, the types of sur
face routes to be used, the volume of traffic, and the
number of pick-up points involved for a particular route.
The transportation of court-ordered, involuntary desegre
gation transfers is similarly affected. The Columbus City
School District Desegregation Remedy Plan would involve
the following estimated site-to-site riding times for invol
untary transfers.
Elementary pupils would ride a bus for a mini
mum of five minutes to a maximum of twenty-five
minutes, with the median travel time being twenty
minutes.
Junior high pupils would ride a bus from a
minimum of five minutes to a maximum of thirty
minutes, with the median travel time being ten
minutes.
Senior high pupils would ride a bus from a
minimum of five minutes to a maximum of twenty-five
minutes, with the median travel time being ten
minutes.
The estimated straight-line, school site to school site
mileage that involuntary-transfer pupils will travel ranges
from less than two miles to approximately seven miles at
the elementary and from less than two miles to eight miles
at the junior high level. Senior high students residing more
than two miles from their assigned high school will receive
transportation if requested. If transportation is requested
by all, they could be transported from two miles to eight
miles.
The cost of the pupil transportation component is
found in Section II of this document.
Table 4 contains a summarization of transportation
data for all involuntary transfers associated with the Deseg
regation Remedy Plan. It includes numbers of students
transported, percent of students transported, and average
years transported for black and non-black students. Totals
154
are also presented. As well, school site to school site mile
age is presented in frequency distribution form. The same
is true for time spent being transported from school site
to school site. Median statistics and range statistics are
presented in these latter two cases.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION DATA
BY REMEDY PLAN
Elementary Transportation Data
Number of Students Transported
Black 7,496
Non-Black 13,113
Total 20,609
Percent Students Transported
Black 36.4%
Non-Black 63.6%
Average Years Transported of Those Students Trans-
ported
Black 3.6 years
Non-Black 3.0 years
Total 3.2 years
Distance Transported (School Site to School Site)
Range:
Less than 2 miles 25
2-3 miles 14
3-4 miles 9
4-5 miles 22
5-6 miles 34
6- 7 miles
7- 8 miles
8- 9 miles
12
Median 4-5 miles
Range Less than 2-7 miles
155
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Time Spent Being Transported (School Site to School
Site)
5 minutes
10 minutes
15 minutes
20 minutes
25 minutes
30 minutes
Median
Range
Junior High Transportation Data
Number of Student Transported
Black
Non-Black
Total
Percent Students Transported
Black
Non-Black
Average Years Transported of Those
Students Transported
Black 3.0 years
Non-Black 3.0 years
Total 3.0 years
Distance Transported (School Site to School Site)
Range:
Less than 2 miles 31
2-3 miles 21
13
23
5
40
35
20 minutes
5-25 minutes
4,030
6,039
10,069
40.0%
60.0%
156
TABLE 4 (Continued)
3-4 miles 2
4-5 miles 7
5-6 miles 11
6-7 miles 3
7-8 miles 2
8-9 miles
Median 2-3 miles
Range 2-8 miles
Time Spent Being Transported (School Site to
School Site)
5 minutes 5
10 minutes 30
15 minutes 3
20 minutes 6
25 minutes 18
30 minutes
Median 10 minutes
Range 5-30 minutes
Senior High Transportation Data (based on 2 mile limit)
Number of Students Transported
Black 4,731
Non-Black 6,078
Total 10,809
Percent Students Transported
Black 43.8%
Non-Black 56.2%
Average Years Transported of Those Students
Transported
Black 3.0 years
Non-Black 3.0 years
Total 3.0 years
157
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Distance Transported (School Site to School Site)
Range:
Less than 2 miles 28
2-3 miles 21
3-4 miles 2
4-5 miles 7
5-6 miles 3
6- 7 miles
7- 8 miles
8- 9 miles
2
Median 2-3 miles
Range Less than 2-8 miles
Time Spent Being Transported (School Site to
School Site)
5 minutes
10 minutes
15 minutes
20 minutes
25 minutes
30 minutes
Median
Range
2
38
11
11
12
10 minutes
5-25 minutes
158
In the United States District Court
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GARY L. PENICK, et a l.
Plaintiffs
-vs-
COLUMBUS BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action
No. C-2-73-248
JUDGE DUNCAN
REVISIONS TO PAGES 125-135
OF COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION’S
RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S
JULY 29, 1977 ORDER
Defendant Columbus Board of Education submits
herewith the attached revised pages 125-135 of the Co
lumbus Board of Education’s Response to the Court’s July
29, 1977 Order, which was filed August 31, 1977.
Respectfully submitted,
Samuel H. Porter
Curtis A. Loveland
William J. Kelly, Jr.
Porter, Wright, Morris &
Arthur
37 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Telephone: (614) 228-1511
Attorneys for Defendants
Columbus Board of Education and
Superintendent Joseph L. Davis
159
II. THE DESEGREGATION BUDGET
A. The Phase I Budget
On August 16, 1977 the Columbus City School Dis
trict approved a response to certain desegregation prepa
ration court orders. The summary budget contained in
that response was as follows.
Budget
Program 1977-78 1978-79
Pupil Orientation —
Elementary Level $ 20,156.00 $ —0—
Pupil Orientation —
Secondary Level 17,990.00 - o -
Multi-Cultural Curricu
lum — Elementary Level 26,030.00 —0—
Multi-Cultural Curricu
lum — Secondary Level 32,800.00 —0—
Staff Orientation 103,780.00 119,466.00
Community Orientation and
Information Services 142,477.00 129,283.00
Reading Development 3,320,067.00 3,460,652.00
Total $3,663,300.00 $3,709,401.00
Two-Year Total $7,372,701.00
B. The Phase I Budget Revised
When the Columbus City School District initiated the
organizational planning associated with its August 16, 197 /
response to the July 29, 1977 Court order, certain altera
tions had to be made in the original plan. Originally, the
1977-78 total cost was to $3,663,300; however, when the
personnel were assigned to the task their replacements
160
cost more than anticipated. The new Phase I budget is
as follows.
Budget
Program 1977-78 1978-79
Pupil Orientation —
Elementary Level $ —0 —
Pupil Orientation —
Secondary Level - 0 -
Multi-Cultural Curricu
lum — Elementary Level $ 446,040.00 - 0 -
Multi-Cultural Curricu
lum — Secondary Level - 0 -
Staff Orientation 119,466.00
Community Orientation and
Information Services $ 142,477.00 129,283.00
Reading Development 3,320,067.00 3,460,652.00
Total $3,908,584.00 $3,709,401.00
Two-Year Total $7,617,985.00
C. The Phase II Budget
The desegregation of the Columbus schools could cost
$19,022,101 depending on the initial transportation option
selected: contract lease, or used bus purchase. However,
the cost of the contract lease option cannot be determined
due to the unavailability of such information from poten
tial leasors. Hence, only the used bus purchase option will
be presented here.
1. The Transportation System
a. Needed Equipment — January, 1978
To implement the elementary component of this De
segregation Remedy Plan, 315 used, sixty-six passenger
school buses would be required. Their purchase price is
161
estimated to be $3,800 each. They would also cost an
estimated $1,500 each to ready them to pass State High
way Patrol inspections. This would total to $5,300 each.
The total cost would be $1,669,500. The State of Ohio
would reimburse the Columbus City School District 35
percent of a depreciated cost based on a current market
value of $14,236. This amount is depreciated 10 percent
per annum: 20 percent the first year and 10 percent each
year thereafter. The reimbursement could range from zero
to $1,255,277. However, a final figure cannot be com
puted until all these used buses are purchased.
As well, each of these used buses would require a
two-way radio. Each radio would cost $885. This cost
would be $278,775. The current school district bus fleet
is not totally equipped with the necessary radio equipment.
In order to accomplish maximum flexibility through inter
changeability among the school district’s 66- and 65-pas
senger bus fleet 43 buses will need to be equipped with
two-channel, two-way radios. In order that contact with
the special education bus fleet can be maintained at all
times 55 radios need to be purchased and installed, each
at a cost of $885. The total radios needed is 98 and the
total cost of this purchase to the city school district would
be $86,730. The total radio purchase price for all buses
would then be $365,505.
The school district would also need to purchase a large
wrecker at $28,000 and service track for $10,000.
Total equipment costs would be $2,073,005 less a
to-be-determined amount of state reimbursement.
b. Needed Personnel — January, 1978
The Columbus City School District would need to
employ 176 regular, part-time school bus drivers and 14
substitute, part-time school bus drivers. These 190 drivers
would be employed for five hours daily for 120 days each.
These drivers will also be employed for 80 hours of pre
service training. The hourly rate of pay for pre-service
162
training would be $4.58 plus 16.056 percent for fringe
benefits or $5.32 and the hourly rate of pay for regular
service would be $4.68 plus 16.056 percent for fringe bene
fits or $5.43 per hour. The total 1977-78 school year cost
for each driver would be $3,684. Total driver cost would
be $699,960. The State of Ohio would reimburse the school
district $7 per driver trainee or $1,330. The net driver cost
would then become $698,630.
One automotive body mechanic would need to be
employed at a cost of $8,313 plus 16.056 percent for fringe
benefits or a cost of $9,648.
Five automotive service workers would need to be
employed at a cost of $7,185 each plus 16.056 percent for
fringe benefits or $8,339 for a total 1977-78 school year
cost of $41,695.
An automotive parts clerk would be employed at a
cost of $7,185 plus 16.056 percent for fringe benefits or
$8,339 for a total school year cost of $8,339.
Twelve automotive mechanics would be employed:
six mechanic I s and six mechanic II’s. The former would
cost $7,973 each plus 16.056 percent for fringe benefits or
$9,253 each. The latter group would cost $8,237 plus
16.056 for fringe benefits or $9,560 each. The total cost
for these personnel would be $112,878.
Three typist-clerk II’s would be employed at a cost
of $5,836 each plus 16.056 percent for fringe benefits or
$6,773 each. The total cost would be $20,319.
Six assistant bus supervisors would be employed at a
cost of $8,847 each plus 16.056 percent for fringe benefits
or $10,267 each. The total cost for these personnel would
lie $61,602.
One bus dispatcher would be employed at a cost of
$8,847 plus 16.056 percent for fringe benefits or $10,267.
One certificated 52-week supervisor would be em
ployed at a cost of $17,506 plus 17.056 percent for fringe
benefits or $20,492.
163
Forty certificated pupil personnel specialists would
be employed at an average salary of $17,021 plus 17.056
percent for fringe benefits or $19,924 each. The total cost
for these personnel would be $796,960.
Total elementary desegregation component personnel
costs would be $1,780,830 for an eight-month period.
c. Needed Capital Improvement — January, 1978
Three new bus storage facilities would be required at
a cost of $552,000, exclusive of land purchase expenses.
A new body shop facility would be needed at a cost
of $121,000, exclusive of land purchase expenses.
Expansion of the present bus storage and maintenance
facilities would cost $298,000, exclusive of land purchase
expenses.
The total capital improvements expenses required
exclusive of land purchase expenses would be $971,000.
d. Required Bus Operation and Maintenance
Costs — January, 1978
End-of-year accounting indicates that the per-pupil
cost of school bus operation and maintenance in the
Columbus City School District was $35. Using this figure
as an index, the estimated cost of transporting 20,609 ele
mentary, involuntary desegregation transfer pupils would
be $721,315. The estimate of State of Ohio reimbursement
for this amount would be $23 per pupil or $474,007.
Conversations with Ohio Department of Education
desegregation consultants indicate that this estimate should
be inflated by as much as 50 percent because used buses
would be the prime vehicle in use. However, as the above
estimate is based on a full school year’s transportation costs
and the bus fleet would only be in use 60 percent of the
1977-78 school year, it can be balanced against the 50 per
cent suggested estimate and be permitted to stand.
164
e. Total Required Transportation Cost —
January, 1978
The following transportation costs would be incurred
by the Columbus City School District if a January, 1978
desegregation of elementary schools were to occur as de
scribed herein.
aThis cost would be reduced by a yet-to-be-determined State of
Ohio bus purchase reimbursement.
f. Needed Equipment — September, 1978
No matter the option selected in January, 1978 from
no implementation to implementation with leased or used
buses 213 new 65-passenger buses would need to be pur
chased as recommended by Simpson and Curtin, Inc., for
initiation of the secondary component of this pupil deseg
regation plan or for implementation of the total desegre
gation contained herein. Each of these buses would cost
$19,100. If an elementary desegregation component had
been implemented in January, 1978, no two-way radios
would be required and the cost of each bus would be
reduced to $18,215.
The former figures would yield a total cost of
$4,068,300 and the latter a total cost of $3,879,795. In
either case, State of Ohio reimbursement would be the
same: 35 percent of $14,236 or $4,982.60 per bus for a
Equipment
Personnel
Capital Improvements
Operation and Maintenance
Sub Total
State Reimbursement
Total
$2,073,005a
1,780,830
971,000
721,315
5,546,150
(474,007)
$5,072,143
165
total reimbursement of $1,061,294. As well, if a January,
1978 elementary component were implemented, 315 used
66-passenger buses would be available for trade at an
estimated value of $1,800 per bus for a total value of
$567,000. Thus, the total bus cost for a September, 1978
secondary school desegregation component could range
from $2,251,501 to $3,007,006.
Additional radio service for board-owned vehicles
could range from zero to $86,730, depending on whether
or not an elementary desegregation component were im
plemented in January, 1978. If not, the second figure would
apply; if so, the first.
The $28,000 cost of a wrecker and the $10,000 cost of
a service truck would also be attributed to this date unless
the January, 1978 component implementation required the
purchase earlier.
Total equipment cost for the September, 1978 De
segregation Remedy Plan contained herein would be
$2,251,501 if it were preceded by a January, 1978 elemen
tary school desegregation implementation and $3,131,736
if it were not.
g. Needed Personnel — September, 1978
Seven additional part-time bus drivers would need to
be employed for 195 days each for six hours per day in
addition to 80 hours of pre-service training. The per-hour
cost would be $4.93 plus 16.056 percent for fringe benefits
or $5.72 per hour. The cost per driver would be $7,150
and the total cost for seven additional drivers would be
$50,050 less a total of $49 state reimbursement for seven
driver trainees or $50,001. The cost of the previously
employed 190 drivers would be $5.87 including 16.056
percent for fringe benefits per hour for 1,210 hours or
$7,103 each or a total of $1,349,570.
The cost of other employee groups previously cited
in the January, 1978 section of this budget would be as
166
follows for this desegregation component. All costs include
fringe benefits of 16.056 or 17.056 whichever is appropriate.
Employee Group Number Unit Cost Total Cost
Automotive Body Mechanic 1 $15,885 $ 15,885
Automotive Service
Worker II 5 13,486 67,430
Automotive Parts Clerk 1 13,486 13,486
Automotive Mechanic I 6 14,983 89,898
Automotive Mechanic II 6 15,885 95,310
Typist-Clerk II 3 11,700 35,100
Assistant Bus Supervisors 6 16,982 101,892
Bus Dispatcher 1 16,982 16,982
Certificated Supervisor 1 31,520 31,520
Pupil Personnel Specialist 40 21,267 850,680
Total $1,318,183
The total personnel costs of the September, 1978 pupil
desegregation component whold be $2,713,859 whether or
not it was preceded by a January, 1978 pupil desegregation
component.
h. Needed Capital Improvements —
September, 1978
If this component of the Desegregation Remedy Plan
is preceded by a January, 1978 component, there are no
capital improvement costs associated with this component.
Other-wise, the capital improvements budget required at
this point is $971,000.
i. Required Bus Operation and Maintenance
Costs — September, 1978
Using the 1976-77 per-pupil bus operation and mainte
nance cost of $35 as a beginning index and inflating it by
167
eight percent, an index of $38 per pupil may be used to
estimate the bus operation and maintenance costs associ
ated with this desegregation component. This plan indi
cates that 41,487 pupils will be transported in this deseg
regation component. The total bus operation and mainte
nance budget required would be $1,576,506. State reim
bursement is estimated to be $40 per pupil resulting in a
total reimbursement of $1,659,480.
j. Total Required Transportation Cost —
September, 1978
The following transportation costs would be incurred
by the Columbus City School District in this component of
the Desegregation Remedy Plan.
January, 1978
Component-Yes
January, 1978
Component-No
Equipment $2,251,501 $3,131,736
Personnel 2,717,754 2,717,754
Capital Improvements - 0 - 971,000
Operation and Maintenance 1,576,506 1,576,506
Sub Total 6,545,761 8,396,996
State Reimbursement (1,659,480) (1,659,480)
Total $4,886,281 $6,737,516
2. Other Costs
a. Needed Equipment — January, 1978
Funds for the purchase of extra telephone service in
schools, of radio communication equipment, of portable
communications equipment, of portable sound equipment
in schools would cost an estimated $203,300.
b. Contract Carrier Costs — January, 1978
Recall that 30 contract 66-passenger buses are to be
employed in the January, 1978 desegregation transporta
168
tion plan. These buses will carry one desegregation pupil
load daily of 66 pupils. The 1976-77 cost of this transpor
tation was $130 per pupil. During 1977-78 this cost is
estimated to be $140 per pupil. The cost of transporting
1,980 pupils will be $166,320 for the January, 1978-June,
1978 period.
c. Needed Personnel — January, 1978
An in-system security unit would be established that
would work at the direction of the Division of Administra
tive Services. This unit would be comprised of six (6)
specially trained persons who would be responsible for
crisis control, liaison between state and local agencies, sur
veillance, and the coordination of other security related
activities. Th cost of this unit would include one director
at a cost of $18,802 plus 17.056 percent for fringe benefits
or $22,009. Also included would be five specialists at a cost
of $12,361 plus 17.056 percent for fringe benefits or $14,469
each. The total cost of this unit would be $94,354.
d. Total Other Costs — January, 1978
The total cost for the above additional but needed
equipment and personnel plus $150,000 for external com
puter services is $447,654.
e. Needed Personnel — September, 1978
The cost of an in-system security unit for this com
ponent of the Desegregation Remedy Plan would be
$29,373 plus 17.056 percent for fringe benefits or $34,383.
Five specialists would cost $17,724 plus 17.056 percent for
fringe benefits or $20,747 each. The total cost of specialists
would be $103,735. The total cost of this unit would be
$138,118 whether or not it were preceded by a January,
1978 desegregation component.
169
f. Needed Equipment — September, 1978
No additional costs would be incurred in this area at
this time unless no January, 1978 component occurred. The
cost in that instance would be $203,300 for the desegrega
tion component.
g. Contract Carrier Costs — September, 1978
Thirty contract carrier 66-passenger buses are pro
jected as part of the September, 1978 desegregation trans
portation plan. These buses will carry two pupil loads
daily of an average of 60 pupils per load or 120 pupils
daily. The 1978-79 per pupil cost for this service is esti
mated to be $151. The cost of transporting 3,600 pupils
will be $543,600 for the September, 1978-June, 1979 period.
h. Total Required Other Costs — September, 1978
The following additional but required costs would be
incurred by the Columbus City School District in this
component of the Desegregation Remedy Plan.
Equipment
Purchased Services
Personnel
Total
January, 1978
Component-Yes
—0—
$316,320
94,354
$410,674
January, 1978
Component-No
$ 203,300
843,600
138,118
$1,185,018
C. Total Desegregation Costs
Depending on the order of implementation the costs
for desegregating the Columbus City School District would
approximate the following schedules.
170
Schedule A
Elementary school desegregation is implemented in
January, 1978 and Secondary school desegrega
tion is implemented in September, 1978.
Expenditure Category
January 1,
1978
Amount
September,
1978
Amount Total
Transportation Purchased
Services
316,320 693,600 $ 1,009,920
Transportation Equipment 2,073,005a 2,251,501 4,324,506a
Transportation Personnel 1,780,830 2,717,754 4,498,584
Transportation Capital
Improvements 971,000 - 0 - 971,000
Transportation Operation
and Maintenance 721,315 1,576,506 2,297,821
Other Equipment 203,300 —0— 203,300
Other Personnel 94,354 138,118 232,472
Phase I Costs 3,908,584 3,709,401 7,617,985
Sub Total 10,068,708a 11,086,880 21,155,588*
State Reimbursement (474,007) (1,659,480) (2,133,487)
Total $ 9,594,701a $ 9,427,400 $19,022,101a
aThis cost would be reduced by a yet-to-be-determined State of
Ohio used bus purchase reimbursement.
The funds represented in Schedule A will finance de
segregation costs incurred by the Columbus City School
District from December 1, 1977 through July 31, 1979.
171
Schedule B
Total Desegregation in September, 1978
Expenditure Category Cost
Transportation Purchased Services $ 843,600
Transportation Equipment 3,131,736
Transportation Personnel 2,717,754
Transportation Capital Improvements 971,000
Transportation Operation and Maintenance 1,576,506
Other Equipment 203,300
Other Personnel 138,118
Phase I Costs 4,366,635
Sub Total 13,948,649
State Reimbursement (1,659,480)
Total $12,289,169
The funds represented in Schedule B will finance
desegregation costs incurred by the Columbus City School
District from August 1, 1978 through July 31, 1979.
The cost of purchasing used buses to accomplish a
January, 1978 elementary desegregation needs to be con
sidered in light of the facts that —
* Total desegregation in September, 1978 costs 35 per
cent less than desegregating elementary schools in
January, 1978 and secondary schools in September,
1978.
• Safer more reliable transportation could be provided
each pupil.
III. SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET STATUS
The Columbus City School District would remind the
Court of the statement of budget and finance submitted
in both the June 10, 1977 and July 8, 1977 Desegregation
Remedy Plans. That statement is still highly relevant to
172
school district operations and most especially to the imple
mentation of a pupil desegregation plan. The critical fi
nancial factors associated with this plan follow.
The Columbus City School District would need to
spend money they do not presently possess in order to im
plement the Desegregation Remedy Plan submitted here
with.
The actions described in this Desegregation Remedy
Plan will cost the Columbus City School District approxi
mately $19,022,101. These dollars are above the antici
pated 1977, 1978, and 1979 revenues of the Columbus City
School District.
The Board of Education will be asked to place a levy
on the ballot in 1977 in an attempt to secure additional
local tax funds to maintain the current level of operation
and provide funds for the educational programs provided
in this plan. It will be necessary for the Board to consider
the probability of passage of the levy in arriving at its de
cision of when to place the issue on the ballot.
The Columbus City School District has insulficient
funds to even maintain present operations. If additional
funding from state, federal, local, or private sources is not
available in an amount sufficient to sustain operations and
fund this remedy plan, the only alternative left will be to
close the schools. If the remedy plan is implemented in
January, 1978, the estimated January through December
cost would be approximately $10.5 million. Other costs
incurred in 1977 would increase the estimated 1977 deficit
to $4.7 million but would not cause the closing of the Co
lumbus City School District in 1977. Even though schools
will remain open throughout 1977, the added costs could
require the closing of school as early as October 18, 1978,
without additional funds. Such school closings are required
by the Ohio Revised Code when the cash balance falls to
zero, as determined by the Auditor of the State of Ohio.
♦
173
MEMORANDUM' AND ORDER
[Filed September 16, 1977]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
On August 31, 1977, the Columbus Board of Educa
tion submitted its response to this Court’s order of July
29, 1977. The July 29 order required the submission of a
plan including provisions for the reassignment of elemen
tary school students in January 1978. The Columbus de
fendants claim that new school buses cannot be purchased
and delivered by January 1978; therefore, some used ve
hicles and other used equipment will have to be purchased
in order to meet the January 1978 implementation require
ment. In this regard the Columbus Board’s submission con
tains two recommendations:
Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Board of
Education recommends against the purchase of sec
ond-hand or used school buses and transportation
equipment because of safety, financial, and adminis
trative considerations, and authorizes and directs legal
counsel to so notify the Court when the new pupil
reassignment plan is submitted.
Be It F urther Resolved, that legal counsel is
authorized and directed to notify the Court that the
Board of Education recommends against implementa
tion of the pupil reassignment plan until such time as
adequate new school buses can be obtained, thus as
suring safe and reliable school transportation for the
students required to be transported.
The transportation report filed by the State Board of
Education states that:
Pupil transportation can be provided for imple
menting a January 1978 desegregation plan of the
elementary schools in Columbus provided sufficient
lead-time is given to consummate the available op
tions identified in this study. Given experiences with
certain leasing arrangements and the problems associ
ated with used buses, it is not possible to assure the
174
desirability, economy or efficiency of such trans
portation.
On September 13, 1977, the plaintiffs filed a response
to the defendants’ August 31 submissions in which they
stated their belief that the study of transportation require
ments and alternatives submitted by the defendant Colum
bus Board of Education is “inadequate and does not justify
the conclusions drawn by the defendants.” The plaintiffs
assert that “[t]he costs figures concerning transportation
as proposed in this [August 31] plan are still highly in
flated and plaintiffs disagree with both defendants as to
the use of used buses and the availability of various forms
of transportation.”
In addition to the questions of the cost and availa
bility of transportation equipment, there are those who
strongly argue that a mid-year implementation would
grossly impair the ability of the Columbus school system
to provide quality educational opportunities to elementary
pupils. Plaintiffs vehemently disagree “with any suggestion
that implementation be delayed again to September, 1978,
for the additional reasons that the constitution requires an
immediate remedy.”
In considering these issues, one fact remains of para
mount importance: constitutional rights have been, and
are presently being, violated. The Court, therefore, is un
der a duty to redress these rights with all due dispatch.
Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968).
On the other hand the Court is well aware that a school
desegregation remedy that becomes “so burdensome upon
a school system as to impair its basic ability to provide the
best possible educational opportunities, is no remedy at
all.” Penick v. Columbus Board o f Education, 429 F. Supp.
229, 266 (S.D. Ohio 1977).
Recognizing these com peting considerations, the
Court finds that there are issues raised which necessitate
that the Court hold further evidentiary hearings. The
175
Court lias already heard volumes of evidence in this case
and has considered numerous arguments of counsel. There
fore, the scope of the inquiry permitted at such hearings
will be limited . The presentation of cumulative or extrane
ous evidence will not aid the Court’s critical examination
of these issues.
The Court will hear this case commencing on Septem
ber 26, 1977, at 9:00 a.m. The scope of the hearing will
be limited to:
1. The cost and availability of transportation equip
ment and related transportation facilities neces
sary for the safe and reliable implementation of
the student reassignment component of the Co
lumbus Board of Education’s August 31, 1977,
submission; and
2. An opportunity for the defendants to show cause
why a further delay should be granted in the mid
year implementation phase of the remedy in this
case.
The Court requests counsel to present concise (pre
ferably expert) testimony directed toward matters not pre
viously considered and decided by the Court. The Court
will allow a maximum of four (4) days for the presentation
of evidence and argument concerning the issues set forth
herein.
It is so ORDERED.
Robert M. Duncan, Judge
United States District Court
♦
176
No. 77-8347/8
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
GARY L. PENICK, et al.,
Plaintiff s-Respondents
v.
COLUMBUS BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al., (77-8347)
OHIO STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et a l, (77-8348),
Defenclants-Petitioners
BEFORE: EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and ENGEL,
Circuit Judges
Both the Ohio State Board of Education and the
City of Columbus, Ohio Board of Education have filed
petitions for permission to appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b), the district court’s orders filed July 7, 1977
and July 29, 1977. The petitions also seek to have this
Court stay any pupil reassignments pending disposition
of these appeals, should permission be granted.
Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that the peti
tions be and they hereby are granted. Counsel for the
petitioners shall file a brief and joint appendix not later
than October 24, 1977; counsel for the respondents shall
file their brief not later than November 18, 1977; any
reply brief may be filed within seven (7) days thereafter.
Upon further consideration, the application for stay
is denied.
The Clerk is directed to schedule these cases, to
gether with the appeals in Nos. 77-3365/6, at the earliest
practicable date after all briefs have been filed.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
J ohn P. Hehman, Clerk
ORDER
[Filed
October 3,
1977]
♦
177
NOTICE OF APPEAL
[Filed November 4, 1977]
[Caption Omitted in Printing]
Notice is hereby given that the defendants Columbus
Board of Education and M, Steven Boley, Paul Langdon,
Virginia Prentice and Marilyn Redden, Board members,
and Joseph L. Davis, Superintendent of the Columbus
Public Schools, hereby appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the Judgment en
tered in this action on the 7th day of October, 1977,
ordering the implementation of a system-wide desegrega
tion remedy plan in September, 1978, denying the Colum
bus Board of Education’s motion for a stay pending appeal,
ordering the continuation of certain preparatory efforts,
ordering the re-examination of the anticipated budget for
the desegregation remedy, ordering the commencement
of the bidding process for the acquisition of new school
buses and related equipment necessary for a September
1978 implementation, and ordering the filing of periodic
written reports with the Court.
This appeal is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a).
[Subscription Omitted in Printing]
# & # # #
HELEN JENKINS DAVIS
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ATKINS:
[128] Q. [By Mr. Atkins] Would you state your full
name and address for the record, please?
A. Mrs. Helen Jenkins Davis, 1100 East Broad Street,
Columbus, Ohio.
Q. Now, Mrs. Davis, did you attend public schools in
Columbus?
178
[129] A. Yes. I am a native of Columbus, Ohio, and
attended all my education in Columbus.
Q. And you attended the Garfield Elementary School?
A. From the first grade through the eighth.
Q. And the Douglas Junior High School?
A. Ninth grade. It was the first year they put the
ninth grade out of the regular high schools. One was at
Mt. Vernon School, and one was at Douglas.
Q. Then from there you went to East High School?
A. I went to East for ten, eleven and twelve. They
didn’t call it that. They called it two, three and four then.
Q. And you graduated from East High School in what
year, Mrs. Davis?
A. 1914.
[130] Q. And from East High School, you went to
Teacher’s Training School, did you not?
A. Yes, Columbus Normal School.
Q. Now, at that time, was the Columbus Normal
School a part of the Columbus Public School System?
A. It was a part of the System. You had to go there.
It was free, and you had to go there to become an elemen
tary teacher.
Q, And how long were you at Columbus Normal?
A. Two years. It was a two-year course.
Q So, in 1918, you graduated from Columbus Nor
mal; is that correct?
A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. And is it true that you had a rather high grade
point average?
A. My grade average was 98.5 — .6, rather.
Q. 98.6 out of a hundred?
A. Yes. They gave us all our grades in all of the
subjects and then gave us the average.
Q. Now, after graduation from Columbus Normal, did
you make an effort to obtain a teaching position in the
Columbus Public Schools?
179
A. Well, immediately upon graduation, I put an
application in the Columbus System —
Q. And that —
[131] A. — and I —I waited eighteen months before
I was hired.
[136] Q. Now, you were filling in the rest of the term
for this teacher who had gotten married?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you remain at Spring Street?
A. Two and a half years.
# # # # #
[140] Q. Now, at the time you were teaching at
Spring Street School, were there any black teachers in any
other schools in the Columbus Public School System, as
far as you know?
A. None but Champion Avenue. They took them out
of the schools where they were before they built Champion
and put them there, and they hired no more.
Q. There had been black teachers in other schools
prior to the opening of Champion?
A. Yes, in the integrated schools.
Q. What schools were they?
A. Mound Street, Fieser and where the YMCA is,
there was a school there. Of course, they tore that down.
YMCA bought that. Years and years ago there was one on
Spring Street, but I don’t recall the name because it has
been so long ago. My mother told me that.
Q. Now, did you know the teachers who had been
[141] teaching at Mound Street?
A. Yes. Miss Baker who became principal when they
built Champion and Miss Nell Moffitt who was also a
teacher now at Mound Street, being an integrated school.
Miss Baker was the eighth grade teacher, and Miss Moffitt
was the sixth grade teacher. They took those two out and
put those in Champion and didn’t replace them. They
hired no more black teachers.
180
Q. You mentioned there also had been black teachers
at Fieser School?
A. Yes, and she was put in Champion. She was taken
out and put in Champion.
Q. Do you remember who that teacher was?
A. Ranetta Monmouth. She married later, and her
name was Morgan.
[142] Q. And the school that was located near where
the Y was, was that the Front Street School?
A. Yes, that was Front Street School.
Q, Now, there were black teachers at that school?
A. There was one there. Her name was Celia Davis.
I remember seeing her once, but she died years ago.
Q. And when Champion opened, this would have
been around 1910.
A. Yes.
Q. Did Champion have an integrated student body,
also, like Spring did?
A. No, all black, all black teachers and all black chil
dren. When you got there, there was never any openings
because the teachers weren’t old, too old — they weren’t
old enough to retire, and, of course, if you got married, you
didn’t have a job so they just stayed, and then that meant
less openings for the younger colored girls coming out.
Q. So from 1910 until Champion opened, until 1918,
Champion was the only school in which blacks were per
mitted to —
A. Yes, that’s right, that was the only place I could
go, because Miss Gugle had already said that was the only
place I could go in Columbus, and here I was for genera
tions and her generations just came from Europe, and yet
she’s telling me there’s no place for me in Columbus. Ohio.
[143] Q. Now, you mentioned that Champion was
the only school where blacks were permitted to teach. I
take it, then, that the only time a black was hired was
when someone left Champion; would that be correct?
A. That’s right. That’s right.
181
Q. And in 1921, when you left Spring Street School
to go to Champion, Champion was — what grades were
taught there?
A. They had kindergarten through the eighth grade,
and they had two white teachers in the kindergarten, be
cause there weren’t any colored trained to teach in Colum
bus. They were trained in the grades. And then, later,
when a couple of colored girls took the training at Normal
School, they were placed in there.
Q. Replaced the two white teachers?
A. Yes.
# # # & #
[144] Q. All right. Do you recall the closing of the
Eastwood Elementary School during the time you were
teaching at Champion?
[145] A. I certainly do. Those — some of those child
ren were sent to me. I had fifty-two children in my class
room.
Q. You mean the children from Eastwood were re
assigned to Champion?
A. Yes, and we were overcrowded.
Q. Were these the black and the white children?
A. No, just — no whites, just blacks.
Q. Well, what happened to the white students who
had been attending that school?
A. Well, they were sent over to Fair — over to some
of the other schools.
Q. Do you remember what schools they were sent to?
A. It was — they went over on Fair Avenue.
Q. Fair Avenue School?
A. Yeah, Fair Avenue School.
Q. And that was a predominantly white school?
A. It was all white, yes.
Q. Majority white school. You say it was all white
at that time?
A. Yes. I don’t know of any colored that went there.
# # # # #
182
[147] Q. Let me ask you if you know, and if you
don’t, you may say so, if you know why it was reported that
the Eastwood School was closed?
A. There were all white people living in that neigh
borhood, and they did not want colored children crossing
Long to come over into their neighborhood.
Q. Was the Eastwood School torn down at the time
it was closed?
A. Oh, no, it’s still standing. It just closed from use
not long ago. I even subbed over there.
[148] Q. You subbed there afterwards?
A. Yes, since I retired.
Q. Now, you mentioned that one of the effects of the
closing of the Eastwood Elementary School was that some
of the students, the black students, were reassigned to
Champion and that you remember having -
A. Fifty-two children in my room.
Q. Where did you seat fifty-two children?
A. They put in an extra row of seats. There were
eight. I had forty. They put eight more — eight more —
another row of eight seats, and then I had four more,
fifty-two sitting on the seats with no desks in front of
them, the books beside them on the seat or on the floor.
Q. Were the classes in Champion while you were
there larger or smaller or about the same size as the Spring
Street when you taught there?
A. Oh. they were small — Spring Street was smallei.
Q. Champion classes were larger?
A. Yes. Twice a year we had to go to an art meeting
or a music meeting or some other of the supervisors were
called and they would ask us when they called the roll
how many pupils we had. Champion Avenue and Pilgrim
always had more than the white schools. They would have
in the 30’s, and we had in the 40 s and 50 s. Of course,
they had to know how much material to send to us, and
that’s how I know [149] what the other schools had.
183
Q. Do you recall during the time you were at Cham
pion ever having a white child in your class?
A. Never.
Q. How long were you at Champion, Mrs. Davis?
A. Seventeen years.
Q. From 192]/ to 1938?
A. Yes.
Q. And during the time you were at Champion, do
you recall the method by which textbooks and desks and
other material got to Champion?
A. Oh, yes, I do. It was demoralizing. We got all the
old books from the white schools and the old desks.
Q. You mean the used?
A. The used, and they had been all old. All summer —
we had to turn our books in if they were worn out or poor.
We sent our report in June.
In the fall, when we came back, our report had been
filled but they were filled with old books.
Q. How do you know that?
A. In the back of the cover of all the books was a
paper with the name of the book, the school, the date, the
teacher’s name and condition —
Q. I see.
A. — starting with new, good, fair, poor, worn out,
[149A] and we got the good, fair and worn otit, and they
had been pasted and glued and it was really demoralizing.
[150] Q. Was this also the practice when you were at
Spring Street School?
A. No.
Q. The books there were new?
A. We got new books. We never got the old books.
Q. And the desks, were they ever sent to Spring
Street from the other schools?
A. No, we got desks that had been sanded, and you
could see the initials that had been carved so deep. We
got the old.
184
Q. That was at Champion Avenue?
A. We got the old desks. Even the teachers’ desks
were old.
# # # # #
[152] Q. Now, do you recall the old Children’s Home
on Sunbury Road?
A. Yes, I got the children when — they had to go to
school, because there was no school there where the
Children’s Home was on Sunbury. The white children
were sent to Shepard. The black children passed their
neighborhood school and were sent to Champion and Pil
grim, because I had them.
Q. Now*-, what was the old Children’s Home?
A. Well, that was an orphanage.
Q. All right. The white students, you say, were per
mitted to go to Shepard?
[153] A. Yes.
Q. Was that within walking distance?
A. Yes. They wouldn’t have a colored child in that
school.
Q. But there were black children in the old Children’s
Home?
A. Yes.
Q. How did they get to Champion or to Pilgrim?
A. They bussed them because it was too far to walk.
They had them in a bus and took them in a bus.
[154] Q. Now, in 1937 and 1938 or around that period,
a decision was made relative to the Champion and elemen
tary schools. Do you recall the nature of the decision that
was made at that point?
Q. About what?
A. About the Champion and elementary — Champion
and Pilgrim Schools?
A. Oh, yes. They were going to make Champion an
all junior high school.
185
Q. And up to that time, it had been a K through
eighth?
A. Yes, yes, and then Pilgrim School was an inte
grated junior high.
Q. A seventh through ninth?
A. Yes
Q. And what was to happen to —
A. They took us — they took the elementary teachers
out of Champion and put us in Pilgrim School, making it
an all black elementary school.
Q. Now, at this time, was Champion still an all black
school?
A. Yes, it was still.
Q. So, now, Champion is an all black junior high
school?
A. Yes.
Q. And its students were coming from Pilgrim, or
were they coming from other schools as well, if you recall?
[155] A. I don’t know whether — the blacks would
have to go to Champion, but I don’t know where the
whites went.
Q. All right. Now, you left Champion, then, in 1938,
and where did you go from there?
A. Well, we were assigned to — Pilgrim, an all black
elementary school, which had been integrated, had been
an integrated junior high.
Q. Prior to your leaving Champion, do you recall the
American Addition area and where the children who lived
in that area went to school?
A. Yes, I think it was two or three portables out there.
The white children never went there.
Q. Never went to the American Addition?
A. They never went there. They were taken out and
sent someplace else, either to Leonard Avenue School or
Eleventh.
Q. So American Addition was —
188
A. All black, a segregated school.
Q. Well, now, there came a time when American
Addition students were assigned to Champion; is that not
correct?
A. When they go to the — I think they only had to
the fourth grade there.
Q. And so they were then regularly —
A. Sent to Champion, yes.
Q. Was Champion their regular elementary school?
[156] A. Yes, they were sent there. They were bussed
there.
Q. Now, do you recall, is the American Addition —
A. They had to pass Shepard School.
Q. I was going to ask you that. Is the American Addi
tion contiguous to the Champion attendance area?
A. Well, they made it so. They made it that all their
children there either had to come to Pilgrim or Champion.
There was no place else where they would send them.
Q. Was the American School closer to Champion than
it was to the Eleventh Avenue Junior High School, for
instance?
A. I don’t recall how far Eleventh is, but, you know —
Q. All right. Now, in 1938, you began teaching at
Pilgrim; is that correct?
A. That’s right.
Q. And this would have been what, in September of
1938?
A. September.
Q. And do you recall whether or not there were any
white children within the Pilgrim attendance area?
A. Yes, right across the street. White families across
the street, down the street and all the way down on Taylor
Avenue and all of Greenway. Greenway, which is east of
Taylor Avenue, was white because they had restrictive
covenance on that street and they were just lower income
white people.
# # # # #
187
[163] Q. How long did you teach at Pilgrim, Mrs.
Davis?
A. Seventeen years there.
Q. During the 17 years you taught at Pilgrim, did you
ever have a white child in your class?
A. Never. None were assigned there. They were al
ways assigned someplace else.
Q. So for 17 years at Champion and for another 17
years at Pilgrim —
A. All black; all black.
# # # * *
[166] Q. Now, you said you retired in 1954. Did you
have any subsequent involvement with the Columbus
Public Schools after 1954?
A. Yes. I went to California and stayed for a while,
and then I came back. My friends said they wanted me to
sub in their rooms if they had to be absent because they
wanted somebody experienced. So I applied like on Mon
day, and on Tuesday Miss Ryan had charge of choosing
the substitutes. She called me, and she said, You didnt
think I was going to call you so soon, did you?” And I
said, “No.”
She said, ‘1 am going to send you to Pilgrim.” I said,
“I live in the Shepard district. I can hear the children when
they are on the school grounds.” She never answered. I
went to Pilgrim.
Then she would call me, but always to an all-black
school. So one time she called me to go [167] down to
Beck Street, way down behind Schottenstein s. I said, “I
told you the first time you called me I live in the Shepard
district.” They had something going on between them.
That principal and those teachers wanted no black face
over in that building, and she would not send me over
there. By that time, I was living in that district, and colored
children were moving into the district.
188
Q. Into the Shepard district?
A. Yes. They even had colored children over there
at that time. She would never send me over there.
I said, “I have had enough racism. I am going to quit.”
Q. That was when, what year?
A. In the ’60’s; about ’61 or something lilce that. I had
all I could take.
# • # & # #
[171] Q. Now, Mrs. Davis, I would like to ask you, if
you can, to identify at each of several different periods
the schools in which black teachers were permitted to
teach. For instance, in 1910 you have indicated that there
were black teachers, there had been black teachers prior
to the opening of Champion at Mound, Front, Fieser, and
I think you said perhaps Spring?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in 1918 when you left or when you began at
Spring, the only schools were Champion and Spring. Those
were the only schools in which black teachers could teach;
is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In 1921 when you left Spring, where could black
teachers teach then?
A. Champion.
[172] Q. Was that the only:school?
A. Yes. If you didn’t teach there, you had no job.
O. In 1938 when you left Champion, where could
black teachers teach in the Columbus Public School Sys
tem?
A. When I left Champion?
Q. Yes, when you left Champion?
A. Only Champion and Pilgrim.
Q. And in 1954 when you retired from the Columbus
Public School System, where then could black teachers
teach?
189
A. In ’54, let me see. They were beginning to be put
in Douglas and a few of the others like Felton. They were
beginning to put one or two in some of those schools, but
not predominantly.
Q. Champion was still a school in which blacks
taught; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Pilgrim was also a school?
A. Yes.
Q. What about Leonard Avenue? Did blacks teach in
Leonard Avenue in 1954?
A. If they had done away with the schools out there
where they had the portal)les.
[173] Q. American Addition?
A. American Addition, because they were transferred.
Q. To Leonard?
A. Yes.
Q. What about Mt. Vernon, were blacks able to teach
then in Mt. Vernon, 1954?
A. That was an all-black school.
Q. So blacks were able to teach?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. What about Kent School, were blacks permitted to
teach at the Kent School?
A. When I subbed there, they were.
Q. But not in 1954?
A. I don’t know because I never got down that way.
Q. What about Main Street?
A. I really don’t know because I never —I wasn’t
interested, only in the school where I was teaching.
Q. Do you know whether blacks were permitted to
teach in the Reeb School?
A. Not then, no.
Q. Not in 1954?
A. No.
190
[174] Q. What about Eastwood, the school that had
been closed in 1932 and then reopened subsequently; were
blacks permitted to teach at Eastwood?
A. When I subbed, there were black and white.
Q. That was in 1958-’59?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether in 1954 a black teacher
would have been permitted to teach?
A. No, I don’t know.
# # # # #
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
# # # » #
[205] Q. [By Mr. Porter] You were hired at the end
of about 18 months?
A. Eighteen months, yes.
Q. And then, at that time, you taught in a white
school. I think you referred to it as the Spring Street
School; is that correct?
A. That’s right, yes.
Q. And the Spring Street was both black and white?
A. About— about 2/5 black when I ended.
Q. And from there you went to Champion and then
to Pilgrim and then retired while you were at Pilgrim;
am I correct about this?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is that right?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, the students that attended Champion while
you were a teacher there I believe you said came pri
marily, or came from the East end of the city; is that
right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. They would have been from a specific geographical
[206] area; am I correct?
A. That’s the only place they were allowed to live.
191
Q. All right. So that the school itself reflected, if I
may, the housing patterns from the area from which it
drew; is that right?
A. That’s the way it was designed.
Q. Thank you. Now, would it not be correct that
through your years as a teacher in the Columbus Public
School System, and let’s say until the time of your re
tirement in 1954 — was it ’54?
A. ’54.
Q. All right. — until the time of your retirement in
1954, it was the practice of the Columbus Public School
System to have school attendance zones; is that right, to
have attendance zones —
A. They were supposed to have them, yes, but any
white child that wanted to leave could leave.
Q. If I understood what you’re saying, this was
through some kind of an optional zone; is that right?
A. For white children, yes.
Q. Right. That’s your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. But that the schools themselves had an
attendance area; is that right?
A. They have an attendance area, yes —
[207] Q. Okay.
A. — for a neighborhood school.
Q. And they were neighborhood schools, were they
not?
A. Yes.
# # # # #
WILLIAM LAMSON
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
[271] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] State your full name and
occupation, please.
192
A. William Lamson. That is spelled L-a-m-s-o-n. I
am working as a forensic demographer primarily for the
NAACP.
# * * # #
[276] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Mr. Lamson, in preparing
the census data and transferring it to a map, what kind of
base data do you use first? What do you look at?
A. I take the 1970 or the most current census, IJ. S.
Census, and look at the individual percentage black per
block, block by block throughout the city.
Q. All right, the Census Bureau also reports that in
formation on the basis of census tracts, does it not?
A. Yes. It is essentially a compilation of each tract as
composed of a number of blocks, blocks being city blocks
essentially.
# #. # a #
[278] Q. Is block data generally considered a finer
and therefore more accurate measure?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. Now, you have a legend on this map. Would you
explain to the Court and counsel what the legend means
and how you arrived at it?
A. All right. The color breakdown of the [279] legend
is that all areas indicated as uncolored or white represent
0 to 9.9 percent black in their racial composition.
Q. That information comes from the U. S. Census?
A. That is right.
Q. That is the 1970 Census we are using on that map?
A. That’s right, but it is my color scheme.
Green represents racial percentages of from 10 to 27.9.
Blue represents racial compositions, general population
racial composition of from 28 to 49.9 percent black. Orange
represents from 50 to 89.9 percent black, and red repre
sents from 90 to 100 percent black in racial composition.
The way I come to this, I draw a graph of the occur
rences of blackness block by block in the city, and I start
193
in from 0 to 100 percent black, and I see the number of
occurrences. What I get is an inverted bell curve with the
highest number of occurrences at the opposite ends, either
at 0 percent black or 100 percent black, and the curve is
essentially a trough.
The choosing of the 50 percent line is because in every
case I have ever been in, it seems to end being important.
Everybody want to know [280] where 50 percent is. I just
take that as an arbitrary 50 percent, and the blue is under
50 percent immediately, and the orange is immediately
over 50 percent. Other than that, I look for the natural
apparent cutoffs in the data as they are arrayed across this
0-to-100 percent grade.
[281] Q. And based upon the distribution as it oc
curs from the census data?
A. Right, so at 9.9 or 10, the really steep downslope
from 0 percent blacks, it more or less bottoms out at
around 10 occurrences, 5 to 10 occurrences. Then it main
tains a rather uniform posture until it gets to 89, between
89 and 90, and then it again assumes a steep curve up
to 100 percent black.
# # # # #
[283] Q. Mr. Lamson, if you would step to the maps,
we have an overlay. Would you tell us if that overlay has
an exhibit number from the elementary?
A. Yes, the exhibit number is 278.
Q. And that’s the elementary boundaries for 75-76;
is that correct?
[284] A. That’s correct.
Q. Can you tell me what you did in putting the in
formation that appears in that overlay on that piece of
paper?
A. All right. For each one of the schools shown on
this overlay, there is a single sheet of paper and that sheet
of paper has a verbal and a graphic description of the
individual elementary school on it. I read the description.
194
the written description, compare it with the graphic de
scription and then represent it on this overlay.
After doing that approximately 150 times, you arrive
at the — this representation of the school system and its
elementary attendance zones and school locations.
# # # # #
BARBEE WILLIAM DURHAM
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS:
[354] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Please give us your full
name and you occupation, sir?
A. Barbee William Durham. I’m a laboratory super
visor.
Q. And where are you employed, sir?
A. Ohio State University.
# # # # #
[355] Q. All right. Can you tell us first when the Van
Guard League was formed?
A. 1940.
Q. And what was its most active period?
A. From that period on, from 1940 until about 1945.
Q. All right. Did you hold a position, office in that
organization?
A. I did.
Q. And what positions did you hold?
A. I was chairman of the education committee and
vice president at one time.
Q. Did you hold any positions in the NAACP?
A. I did.
Q. And what positions did you hold, and can you tell
[356] us your term?
A. For several years, I served as chairman of the
education committee, and for 15 years I served as the
195
executive director of the Columbus branch, and I also
served as a member of the board of the state in NAACP.
# # # * #
[363] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Did you start this before
the Vanguard League? Did it start in about 1940 at the
same time the League was founded?
A. About 1941, ’40 to ’41, the Education Committee
of the Vanguard League on a number of occasions at
tempted to persuade the Board of Education, the adminis
tration, to hire, place and promote school personnel on
the basis of qualification rather than race. It was a policy
of the administration to hire, place and promote on the
basis of race.
An example of this is what happened at one of the
schools with which we were particularly concerned. It
was Felton School. Felton School was changed from an
all-white faculty to an all-Negro faculty, and when the
Vanguard League learned that this was going to happen,
the League asked the Board and the administration to not
do this, to have an integrated staff at Felton, but this was
done. During one change, 13 teachers and principal, all
white, were exchanged for 13 teachers and the principal,
all Negro.
# # # # #
[365] Q. Were there certain schools where there were
only black teachers at this time?
A. Yes.
Q. What schools were those?
A. Garfield, Mt. Vernon, Felton after the change,
Champion and Pilgrim.
Q. Are any of those schools still around today?
A. Yes.
Q, Are they still black schools?
A. Yes. Mt. Vernon, the name of Mt. Vernon has been
changed to Ohio Avenue School.
196
Q. I am sorry, to what?
A. The name of Mt. Vernon has been changed to
Ohio Avenue School, I believe, but they are all still black
schools.
# # # # • #
[369] Q. I show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 376, a booklet
entitled “Which September” and ask you if this is the
booklet published by the Vanguard League?
A. It is.
[375] Q. Would you read the section beginning,
“The apparent intention and policy of the Board”?
[376] A. The Vanguard League is well justified in
stating the apparent intention of the Board of Education
to perpetuate and expand the segregated school system.
This conclusion is substantiated by the past performance
of the Board and recent evidence secured by the League.
The evidence is:
1. With few exceptions, white families residing with
in the Felton school district send their children to Milo,
East Columbus, Douglas and Shepard Schools;
2. Two years before Felton was made into a colored
school, the white families in that district were informed of
the impending change and were told that they might send
their children to other schools. The same thing was done
when Garfield was made into a colored school;
3. Children of white families that move into colored
districts are transferred by school officials to white schools
instead of to the colored school, the one to which they
would normally be sent;
4. The white families residing within the colored
school districts do not find it necessary to get the required
permission to send their children to a school outside of
the district. On the other hand, it is almost impossible for
colored families to get permission to send their children
to schools in other districts;
197
5. School districts are established in such a [377]
manner that white families living near colored schools will
not be in the colored school district. The area in the
vicinity of Pilgrim School embracing Richmond, Parkwood,
and parts of Greenway, Clifton, Woodland and Granville
Streets is an excellent example of such gerrymandering.
A part of Greenway is only one block from Pilgrim School,
however, the children who live there are in Fair Avenue
School district twelve and one-half blocks away.
Q. Would you go on?
A. A more striking example of such gerrymandering
is Taylor and Woodland Avenues between Long Street and
Greenway. Here we find school districts skipping about as
capriciously as a young child at play. The west side of
Taylor Avenue, colored residence is in Pilgrim Elementary
district and Champion Junior High. The east side of
Taylor, white families is in Fair Avenue Elementary district
and Franklin Junior High. Both sides of Woodland Avenue
between Long and Greenway are occupied by white fam
ilies and are therefor in the Fair Avenue-Franklin district.
Both sides of this same street between 340 and 500 are
occupied by colored families and in the — are in the Pil
grim-Champion or colored school district. White families
occupy the residences between 500 and 940, and as you
would expect, the white family — the white school district
of Shepard and Franklin applies;
# # # # #
[380] Q. Mr. Durham, you have written I guess over
the years hundreds and hundreds of letters to individuals
and newspapers concerning problems of race in this com
munity. Is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you addressed yourself to the issue of school
construction in Columbus?
A. Yes, I have.
198
Q. Let me show you a series of documents which have
previously been marked as Exhibits.
MR. LUCAS: May I stand by the witness, Your
Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Lucas) The first document is Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 361, and I ask you if this is a letter you furnished
to me?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is it addressed to?
A. Attorney Donald E. Calhoun, President of the
Columbus Board of Education.
Q. What is the date?
A. August 24, 1970.
Q. And the letter is from you; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. If you will, would you read the first two para
graphs of the letter?
[381] A. “Dear Mr. Calhoun: I note in the press that the
Columbus Board of Education has purchased an elemen
tary school site in the Scarborough community. This com
munity is to have 376 townhouses and is one of the sections
of the larger development of Walnut Hills which is to total
3,500 to 4,000 rental and condominium units.
“I should like to know what consideration the Board
has given to the possibility of this school being one from
which Negroes will be excluded by virtue of their being
excluded from the community as a result of racially dis
criminatory practices in spite of laws that now exist?”
Q. All right, did you — perhaps you should read the
remainder.
A. “It is my feeling that if it has not already been
done so, the Board of Education ought to inquire of the
developers their intentions in this area. Will Negroes have
the same opportunity to obtain housing in this new devel
opment as other citizens? I feel this way because if the
199
Board is going to purchase land in a self-contained com
munity, thereby furnishing the developers with one of the
necessary factors to state in their promotion that this is to
be self-contained, then the Board has an obligation to make
every effort to assure that this community will be open to
all on an equal basis. [382] “I would appreciate hearing
from you at your earliest convenience.”
Q. All right, and the date of the letter is August 24th;
is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive a reply?
A. I did.
Q. I show you what has been marked as Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 362 and ask you if you can identify it?
A. Yes. This is a response from Mr. Calhoun.
Q. And he simply acknowledges your letter and indi
cates he will attempt to become informed on the matter;
is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I show you another letter marked for identification
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 366 bearing the date October 4, 1970.
Is this letter also addressed to Mr. Calhoun?
A. It is.
Q. Does it refer to another development area?
A. Yes.
Q. What area is that?
A. Evergreen on the Commons,
Q. That is a $20 million apartment complex?
A. Yes.
Q. How many townhouses and apartment units?
[383] A. 350 townhouses and apartment units.
Q. Do you refer in this letter to your letter of August
24?
A. Yes. Would you like for me to read this letter?
Q. Well, let me see. I don’t want you to duplicate
anything.
200
This letter is essentially the same inquiry you made
with respect to the other community; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I will show you a letter dated October 6th from
Mr. Calhoun marked for identification Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
364 and ask you to read that letter.
A. “Dear Mr. Durham: I wish to acknowledge your
letter of October 4, 1970. I have no personal knowledge
of this. I have sent a copy of your letter to all Board mem
bers and will ask Mr. Ramsey, Chairman of our Building
Committee, to check into it.
“As to your letter of August 24, I requested a reply
from the administration. When they gave it to me, I was
not satisfied with it. I showed their comments to other
Board members, and they did not feel that it was ade
quately responsive to your inquiries. Thereupon, I have
asked Mr. Ramsey to work on an investigation. I expect
soon to have a response for you based on his investigation.
“Yours very truly, Donald E. Calhoun.
[384] Q. All right, did you write him again in March,
1971?
A. I did.
Q. And the date is March 13?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is to Mr. Calhoun?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you read that letter, please?
A. “Dear Mr. Calhoun: I wish to call your attention
to an announcement of a new housing and shopping area
planned for Mew Albany. Included in this development
is an elementary school and neighborhood park which
would occupy 11.5 acres, 10 of which are owned by the
Plain Local School Board. You may recall my concern
about this pattern as evidenced in my letters of August
24 and October 4, a pattern which indicates possibly co
operation between real estate developers and Boards of
Education or their agents.
201
“I am very much concerned about this because it en
ables developers to more easily control the racial makeup
of the school since the school became a part of the deal
which they, the developers, can offer prospects.
“I have not heard from you since your letter of
October 6, and I am wondering if Mr. Ramsey completed
the investigation you requested of him. Might I hear from
you at your earliest convenience?”
[385] Q. An I believe you beard from him on March
23, 1971, did you not?
A. I did.
Q. I show you now Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 366, a letter to
you from Mr. Calhoun. Would you read that letter, please.
A. Dear Mr. Durham:
I spoke to Mr. Ramsey recently concerning your un
answered inquiries. He says that he looked, questioned
and watched the development of sites selection and school
location planning but has found no indication that the
staff has been subservient to developers. He says that sites
are selected for new schools through consultation with the
City Planning Department whereby areas for residential
development are indicated. By this process of identifica
tion, we did, when we had the money, purchase a school
site long before it developed and before the developers
had acquired the land.
Q. Let’s stop right there. The areas you had written
him about were areas that had already been announced
for development and the announcements indicated that
there was a school site already selected; is that correct?
A. Right.
Q- And this letter indicates that the Board of Edu
cation, before there is a development, is purchasing sites;
[386] is that correct?
A. Right.
Q. And before there’s any development planned, ac
cording to this letter?
A. Yes.
202
Q. All right. Go on.
A. This type of planning is, of course, based on pro
viding a school where the population needs requiie a
school. Mr. Ramsey recognizes that developers have ex
ploited the fact that a school will be located nearby in
their advertisements to appeal to buyers. In this respect,
we are much like sewer and water being available.
It has been suggested that developers sign an agree
ment in advance that their project will be open to all
people. We believe in this and believe that it is some
thing that the City of Columbus could enforce. This is
because all the plans, zoning, building, sewer and water
permits are controlled by the City.
If an agreement were violated, why wont it be pos
sible for the City to cut off the services that we granted
in reliance upon the agreement? Specifically, you asked
about Green Commons and Scarborough Community. Mr.
Ramsey and I were both advised that in each of these
instances the school site need was identified by the City
Planning Commission and we acted to acquire or protect
a [387] suitable school site before area development plans
were submitted. The Planning Commission’s staffs resolved
all the proposals, which include accommodation of school
sites.
Yours very truly,
Donald E. Calhoun.
* <f # * #
[445] CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER:
[452] Q. The point that I wish to make and wish to
discuss with you just a little bit, Mr. Durham, is this, that
it is my understanding from what you have said and writ
ten over the years — and you correct me, please — that
you consider probably the single most significant factor
203
in the dealing with racially imbalanced schools is the lack
of open housing; isn’t that true?
[453] A. This is sort of a chicken and egg situation.
If the schools make a purchase of land even before devel
opers get into it, the schools have taken the first step.
Secondly, there are many occasions where schools
boards of education administrators work in conjunction
with the development of new areas. This was the burden
of my letter to Mr. Calhoun.
# <* # # #
CLARENCE LUMPKIN
called as a witness on behalf of the
Plaintiffs, having been first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ATKINS
[478A] Q. [By Mr. Atkins] Would you give your
name and address for the record, please?
A. My name is Clarence Lumpkin, I live at 1362 East
20th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio.
# # # # #
[488] Q. I show you now what has been marked
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 198 and ask that you take a look at it,
please. Do you recognize that document, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what is it?
A. This is an official press release issued by the
NAACP.
Q. What date?
A. June 5, 1967.
Q. And at the time this press release was issued,
were you still co-chairman of the NAACP’s Education
Committee?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you read the press release, please, Mr.
Lumpkin?
204
A. To all Press Media for Release June 5, 1967:
NAACP announced today that it would request action
at the Tuesday, June 6 Board of Education Meeting on the
suggestions and questions made by the NAACP Urban
League and numerous neighborhood clubs and individual
parents. “After a year and a half of discussions of the
damages done to children by segregated schools, it is time
that the School Board did something for a change,” com
mented William J. Davis, Legal Redress Chairman of the
branch office, Columbus Branch.
The Columbus NAACP also released two resolutions
[489] by its Executive Board demanding the release of the
achievement testscores and the termination of bussing to
perpetuate school segregation and cover planning mistakes
by school officials.
Q. Now, the first resolution contained in this press
release I take it was a resolution adopted by the Columbus
NAACP; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. As was the case with the second resolution?
A. That is correct.
Q. So this represented the official position of the
Columbus NAACP in 1967 in June; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you read Resolution No. 1?
A. Resolution 1: The Executive Board of the Colum
bus NAACP demanded that the Board of Education re
lease to parents and civic organization the results of stand
ardized tests to all Columbus children during grade school.
The Executive Board further demands that nationally
standardized exams be required through the twelfth grade.
These tests are essential in those inner city schools where
previous tests indicate that children are being irreparably
damaged by inferior segregated schools.
[490] Q. And would you read Resolution No. 2?
205
A. Resolution No. 2: The Executive Board of the
Columbus NAACP demands that the Board of Education
stop busing Negro children to maintain school segregation
and to cover up failures to build adequate facilities. Co
lumbus spent over half a million dollars last year in busing.
Negro children were among the main victims. Gladstone
Elementary School is a well-known example of busing Ne
gro children to cover up the failure of the school board
to correct errors in the building and location of schools.
The first year the school was opened, there was no space
for the sixth grade. This year, after repeated complaints
of parents about several rooms with more than one class,
school officials saw the problem. They bused out the
kindergarten students.
Negro parents know that school boundaries.
Q. I think there is an “a” missing, school boundaries.
A. All school boundaries are carefully redesigned to
maintain and increase segregation in our schools. These
parents also know that busing is a glaring example — these
parents also know that busing is used where necessary
to keep Negro children out of primarily white schools.
As a glaring example, school officials admitted last
fall to the Council on Intercultural Education that [491]
children were being bused from the other side of the Alum
Crest School district, 80-percent Negro, to Molar School,
2-percent Negro. One official, after saying that it was tem
porary — I am sorry. One official, after saying that it was
a temporary measure, admitted that the children had been
bused ever since Alum Crest School was built.
Clearly the Board of Education is against busing only
when they want to maintain segregation. The NAACP and
Negro parents will regain their faith in the school board
only when they see action, not just words.
# # # # #
[493] Q. Do you remember whether, in response to
either Resolution I or Resolution II, the Columbus Board
2 0 6
invited the N A AC P’s Education Committee members, of
co-chairman of the NAACP’s Education Committee to
come and meet with it for the purpose of discussing these
resolutions.
Q, Was such a meeting requested by the Columbus
Board?
A. I do not recall a specific meeting being set up for
that particular purpose. There was several meetings over
a period of years held with the Board of Education. I can
not say that these resolutions was not discussed.
[494] I am sure that these particular resolutions was
presented to the Board. Whether or not, or when, if a spe
cific meeting was called to discuss these resolutions, I do
not recall, sir.
Q. I show you now what has been marked previously
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 199 and ask that you examine it.
Do you recognize this document, Mr. Lumpkin?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you identify it, please?
A. This is a press release issued by the Education
Committee of the Columbus Branch of the National As
sociation for the Advancement of Colored People.
Q. What date was on this document?
A. June 20, 1967.
Q. At that time were you still co-chairman of the
NAACP’s Education Committee?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was this press release, in addition to being re
leased to the press, sent to the Columbus Board of Educa
tion?
A. Yes, sir.
* ̂ # * *
[496] Q. Were any boundaries changed as a result
of the recommendation from the NAACP that boundaries
be changed rather than setting up a program of open en
rollment as I understand this release?
207
A. Some boundaries was changed, but not in accord
ance with our recommendation. Boundaries was changed
at Gladstone Elementary School, for an example, but this
was not in accordance to our recommendation.
Q. In what way did it differ from the recommendation
made by the NAACP on June 20, 1967?
A. The intent of the recommendation-resolution was
to change boundaries in order to bring about a better racial
composition or racial balance in the public school system
throughout the City of Columbus, not to change bound
aries; to restrict, to continue or to perpetuate the racial
isolation in the Columbus public schools.
[497] Gladstone was built and then Hamilton Ele
mentary School was built. There was — Attendance pattern
then was changed. Gladstone boundary children came
from far west of Cleveland Avenue to Gladstone Elemen
tary School, and when Hudson Elementary School was
built, then some of the children that had been attending
Gladstone, which v/as — I don’t know — probably at that
time 70, maybe 80 percent black, some of them then was
shifted to Hudson Elementary School, which I think was
either predominant black or very rapidly became black.
There were no children brought in from other pre
dominant white schools into Gladstone or to 11th Avenue,
Windsor Terrace, what-have-you, sir.
Q. So far as you could see, the effect of the boundary
changes at Gladstone, construction of Gladstone, the
boundary changes there, and the attendance boundaries
drawn for, I believe you said Hudson? —-
A. Yes, sir.
Q. — and Hamilton Schools, had a segregative effect
rather than an integrative effect as recommended; is that
correct?
A. That’s my opinion.
Q. Can you recall any instances in which the School
Board, either in response to the NAACP, or on its own
208
initiative, changed boundaries for the purpose of effecting
integration?
[498] A. I don’t know of any, sir.
# # # # #
[504] Q. I show you what has been marked previ
ously, Mr. Lumpkin, as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 352 and ask that
you examine it, please. Do you recognize this document,
Mr. Lumpkin?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you identify it, please?
A. Subject of this document is “Racial Segregation
In The Columbus Public Schools.” This is a position paper
presented to the Council on Intercultural Education by
the Columbus, Ohio, National Association for the Ad
vancement of Colored People, August 10, 1966, and this
paper was prepared by the Education Committee of the
NAACP, and this was — this was a paper that consisted
of statistics and data that was compiled for the presenta
tion to the Columbus Public School System on desegrega
tion of the Columbus Public Schools, various plans, et
cetera.
Q, Now, what was the Council on Intercultural Edu
cation, if you can recall?
A. This was a council, a group made up of various
community organizations of which NAACP, Urban League,
Civil Organization and interested and concerned citizens
and parents.
Q. Now, do you know whether or not there was any
issue representation on this council from the Columbus
Public School System?
A. I believe there were — there was a liason person
[505] or persons on this committee. I know we met with
several — several occasions with administrators, staff per
sons. I don’t know if Mister — what was his name — Davis
— what’s Mr. Davis’ first name? Joe Davis? Joe Davis?
209
Q, Joseph?
A. Joe Davis, I believe. Mr. Joseph Davis and the
Superintendent in charge of buildings, Mr. Warren Beers,
I think, acted as a liaison person. There could have been
others.
Q. Now, in answer to previous exchanges between
Plaintiffs and the Columbus Defendants it has been ac
knowledged that this particular document was received
by the Board, and I want to call your attention to particu
lar sections of it and ask you a couple of questions about
it. If you’ll look at page 3, under “Recommendations,” it
says, No. 1, desegregation.
A. That’s right,
Q. Would you read that particular part of that recom
mendation?
A. “The Columbus NAACP proposes that a combina
tion of the Princeton pairings and redistricting be applied
to eliminate racial imbalance where school districts in the
same area have widely dispar — ” Pimm “ — percentages
of Negroes. The Princeton Plan should be applied in those
cases where two school districts could be combined to
provide racial [508] balance and redistricting should be
applied. Where there are three or more, districts must be
combined to meet this necessity. The possibilities men
tioned below pinpoint which schools fall into these cate
gories and may serve as a point of departure. We realize
that many other factors must be considered in the final
location of school district boundaries but racial balance
must be a requirement. Appendix 3 contains appropriate
definitions and descriptions relative to our usage of certain
terms in connection with desegregation.”
Q. Now, on the next page, page 4, the indication is
that in this series of recommendations, as to the first one,
the Princeton Plan pairing concept, some 16 schools were
mentioned in which Princeton Plan pairing could be used
to achieve, as called here, a balanced distribution of Negro
210
children. Do you recall whether, with respect to any of
these recommendations, there was either action by the
Columbus Board or a response as to why action was not
taken?
A. I do not recall, sir, a response as to any action
taken on the Princeton Plan upon the recommendation
coming from the — the Committee. No, I do not recall this
type of plan being implemented or receiving written com
munication that it would be implemented.
Q. Let me call your attention specifically to No. 1 on
[506A] that list of proposed pairings. It mentions East
Columbus, which in that year this says had an enrollment
of 606, 39 percent Negro, and Broadleigh which had an
enrollment of 447 with a 0.2 percent Negro enrollment
should be paired, giving two racially balanced schools of
22 and a half percent Negro. Do you know where those
schools are?
[507] A. Yes. East Columbus and Broadleigh, that is,
do I know what section of the city they are geographically
located in?
Q. Yes, my question is, as far as you can recall, Mr.
Lumpkin, were these contiguous school attendance areas?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would that be true then of each of the other
seven pairings mentioned on this page?
A. Yes, sir. As I recall, as we went over the maps and
the racial composition of the schools, we arrived at the
decision that these schools could be — the Princeton Plan
could be implemented here, sir.
# # # # ft
[510] Q. Now, a second part of that recommendation
on desegregation had to do with redistricting. It says here
that — the recommendation was that redistricting be used
according to the following six plans to restore racial bal
ance in 21 schools. As far as you can recall, Mr. Lumpkin,
211
were any of the boundary changes proposed here involv
ing these 21 schools, were any of those boundary changes
in fact effected by the Columbus Board?
A. As far as I can recall, no, sir. There was one school,
and I don’t recall the name, in the far south end, but, as
far as I can recall, no, sir, none of these.
Q. Now, at the end of that particular section on re
districting, it says on this section on desegregation, and
I am quoting: “We propose open enrollment financed by
the school district to begin desegregation in the remaining
elementary schools. The NAACP will offer plans in the
future to desegregate junior high and high schools.”
[511] As far as you can recall, were there similar plans
for desegregation offered having to do with junior high
and high schools?
A. Yes, sir, there were plans offered. I can’t recall
at this point, without referring to some of my notes at
home, what these plans were, sir.
Q. Do you recall, Mr. Lumpkin, attending any meet
ings of the Columbus Board during the period 1965 to
1970? Did you attend any of the Board meetings?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you attend many of the Board meetings?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At any of the Board meetings that you attended
during that five, four or five-year period, were any of the
techniques for desegregation which were mentioned here
that we have discussed this afternoon, were any of those
discussed by the Board?
A. In an open forum?
Q. Yes.
A. They were discussed when we brought forth —
some time at an open regular Board meeting we presented
these plans, and they were discussed by Board members,
yes.
212
Q. So it would be safe to say, would it not, that the
Board was aware of these techniques of desegregation?
A. Yes, sir.
& # & # #
[543] Q. Mr. Lumpkin, you indicated that you were
at one point I believe you said President of the Gladstone
Parent-Teacher Association; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Prior to the construction of the Gladstone School,
did you and others with whom you were acquainted op
pose the [544] construction of that school?
A. Yes, sir, we did.
Q. Was the grounds of your opposition the size of
the school, the location of it, what? What were the grounds
for your opposition, if you can recall?
A. My opposition to the construction of the Gladstone
Elementary School was because, after looking at the archi
tect — after looking at the drawing and the statistics and
the population density up there, that this school would be
inadequate, that it would be too small to serve the children
that would be required to attend that school,
I told them that they should acquire additional prop
erty and build a larger school because I did not believe
that the school would be large enough for the — to enroll
all of the students that would be required to attend that
particular school, sir.
Q. When you say it wouldn’t be large enough to en
roll all the students who would be required to attend it,
were you referring to the need to provide for integration
at the Gladstone School?
A. Both, sir. At that particular time, the racial com
position, the racial makeup of the community was chang
ing. The population was increasing. I saw this school as
being a building, another school building, that would be
totally black or predominantly black within a very short
213
period of time, [545] maybe less than two years, that it
would lie predominantly black.
In fact, I don’t recall the exact percentage, but I be
lieve it opened up in the neighborhood of about 75 or 70
percent black when it was opened up, and I saw this being
another totally black school, in addition to not being large
enough to house the children that was there.
[546] Q. Now, when you say you opposed the Board’s
plans for the construction of the Gladstone School, do you
mean that you by some means communicated that opposi
tion to the Board of Education or to the Superintendent
or to the staff?
A. Yes, sir. I communicated this information to the
Board. I had numerous conversation with Mr. Beers, I
think, whom at that —
Q. Would that be Warren Beers?
A. Yes, sir, who I think was in charge of building or
building constructions and, et cetera. I had many con
versations with him. I also appeared before the Board of
Education trying to convince them that this building was
inadequate, sir.
Q. When the school opened was it, in fact, in addi
tion to being, as you indicated, a predominantly black
school as you predicted, was it also too small, as you had
also predicted?
A. Yes, sir, it was. The first year it opened, kinder
garten and sixth grade and I believe the first grade was
unable to attend that school. We had also provided in that
building at that time two classes in one classroom. For
example, you may have first and second grade in one
classroom. And my child, my son, was bussed to Duxberry
Elementary School from the first year that it opened, sir.
Q. Did the Board take any action or make any effort,
[547] as far as you can recall, to provide for this integra
tion at the Gladstone School?
A. In my opinion, no, sir.
214
Q. When the Gladstone School opened, you indicated
that at least some of the children were being transported
to the Duxberry Elementary School because of lack of
space. Did there come a time when the Gladstone PTA,
of which you were president, requested the Board of Edu
cation or the Superintendent and the staff to make provi
sions for integrating the . . further integrating the Glad
stone School?
A. Yes, sir.
[548] Q. Did you make specific recommendations of
how or what alternative ways might be pursued to en
hance integration at Gladstone?
A. Yes, sir. I recall making a recommendation that
there were other schools in the area that children could
be attending if the boundary lines were — was redrawn.
For example, there was Linden Elementary School, which
was predominant white. At that particular time, Dux-
berry, I believe, was predominant white. McGuffey was
predominant white. So there were other schools, that by
drawing or redrawing the attendance, that we could have
changed the racial balance or the composition of any of the
schools in that area, sir.
Q. Did the Board or the Superintendent, in fact,
change the boundaries of the Gladstone attendance area
to bring about this desegregation you had recommended?
A. No, sir.
# & & # #
[554] Q. You indicated, Mr. Lumpkin, that you have
served as [555] a member of the Urban League’s Educa
tion Committee.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Approximately when did that service begin, if
you can recall?
A. Probably in the year of ’65. I’m not exact sure of
the year, it may have been ’65 or ’64. It’s been a long time,
sir. I’m not exactly sure, but I believe it was ’64, ’65.
215
Q. And how long did you serve on the Urban
League’s Education Committee, sir?
A. Up to the present, I’m still a member of the Urban
League Education Committee, sir.
Q. And during the time that you served on the Urban
League’s Education Committee, do you recall the Urban
League ever recommending to the Board of Education
that it take action to desegregate schools in Columbus?
A. Yes, sir. In fact, the Urban League undertook a
study of the Columbus Public Schools System and compiled
a book, document, which we presented to the adminis
tration, the Board of Education, in which there were many
meetings held around the recommendation of the Colum
bus Urban League proposal.
Q. Just a second.
Were the recommendations made by the Columbus
Urban League’s Education Committee, of which you were
a member, [556] essentially the same as or different from
the recommendations made by the NAACP’s Education
Committee of which you were co-chairman?
A. No, sir. They were very similar. In fact, we col
laborated on most of all of them. We all was in support
of them, sir.
Q. And during the time that you served on the Urban
League’s Education Committee, did you have occasion to
accompany the members, other members of the Commit
tee to meetings with staff members, employees of the
Columbus Board of Education?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you also have occasion to accompany them
on meetings — to meetings with members of the Columbus
Board?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And during the course of these meetings, were
the recommendations for desegregation to which you have
referred discussed directly with the Columbus Board
members and/or Columbus Board employees?
216
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, can you recall, Mr. Lumpkin, whether or not
the Board response to the recommendations of the Urban
League, as far as integration is concerned, did it differ
any from the response of the NAACP’s recommendation?
A. There was no difference in the response. If you’re
[557] referring to implementation of any of the recom
mendations, there was no difference in the response, sir.
* * * * *
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
* * * * *
[582] Q. [By Mr. Porter] It was your opinion, was
it not, in June of 1967, your opinion in June of 1967 that
the Columbus Public School System had inadequate
physical facilities, wasn’t [583] that true?
A. That is true.
Q. And that it needed more physical facilities in
order to better provide education to the Negro popula
tion; wasn’t that true?
[584] A. Not only to the Negro population, but to
the population as a whole, sir.
Q. Thank you very much. And it was your opinion at
that time and it was contained implicit in the news release
that the way to accomplish that was for the Columbus
Public School System to build schools; isn’t that right?
A. That is not completely correct, sir.
Q. AH right then, straighten it out.
A. To build schools, but not build them in a manner
to further segregate the Columbus School System or to
perpetuate segregation.
Q. Thank you.
A. I think we presented plans showing schools could
be built in a manner wherein they would not perpetuate
the segregation in the Columbus Public School System.
Q. Where are those plans?
■21-7
A. I don’t recall now, sir, where they are. I am sure
that —it’s been a long time ago, and they may be con
tained in some of these documents here of building schools,
the campus type, et cetera.
Q. Thank you. Would you explain, please, not —
would you explain, please, the concept that you felt was
presented to the school system that they should follow
in the construction of buildings?
[585] MR. ATKINS: Your Honor, I am going to ob
ject to the question in that form because it is broader than
the direct examination.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
A. State the question again.
Q. I believe that you said at the end of your last
answer that you thought you could not remember what
the specifics were but that you thought the buildings were
possibly on a campus?
A. That was just one. That was one method that we
discussed and thought out to be looked into.
There were, as the population, as the whites moved
out to the suburbs, there was another discussion, and there
was another plan wherein — and I am sure this was the
recommendation made, that even if a parent found out
of the particular attendance in the area where his child
was going to school, that the child would remain in that
particular school; that if you drew rings around the City
of Columbus and you built the school on maybe the first
ring which would be the center city, central city, and
the second ring could we say the next level and the third
ring would be the outermost area of the school, Columbus
School District, that if you built schools around on the
second ring, that you could feed in from both areas and
therefore bring about a better racial balance of the school.
Do you understand the picture that I [586] am trying to
paint, present to you?
Q. Yes, I do.
218
A. Well, this was one other method that I personally
and we discussed this. I don’t know if it shows up in one
of the plans that’s in all these documents. I haven’t had
a chance to go through them. That was one we talked
about, that you could feed in from both directions rather
than continuing to build little schools in a particular area
and contain that population in there.
For instance, one time we were really seriously con
sidering putting portable schools around even Linmoor
Junior High. I was forced to accept that, although I was
opposed to that, and it never happened simply because
we didn’t have enough space, and I would be opposed to
enlarging of Linmoor Junior High which had about 1,300
students in it. It was only built for 800. I was opposed to
enlarging Linmoor Junior High because I felt that here
again we were bringing more and more blacks into a
particular geographical area, school.
# # # # #
[605] Q. Mr. Lumpkin, let me do it another way.
You do not need that.
It is your opinion, is it not, that you cannot, through
the manipulation of zones, school zones, effect the segrega
tion unless there is a change in housing patterns; isn’t
that right?
A. That is not my opinion, sir.
Q. All right. What is your opinion?
[606] A. My opinion is that the desegregation of the
— a school system can he achieved even though you can
not change the housing policies of a particular location,
community, locale or municipality. I think this has been
demonstrated throughout the South.
I think that the School Board has a moral obligation
to attempt, as well as other officials, to eliminate housing
discrimination, red lining, and restriction, and etc., but
that to say that you cannot eliminate geographical school
zones unless you eliminate segregated housing, I don’t
219
believe, in my own opinion — in my own opinion that that
is true, sir, that you can.
Q. Mr. Lumpkin, that wasn’t my question. My ques
tion was that it is a fact, is it not, that it is your opinion
that you cannot desegregate simply through the changing
of school zones?
# # # # #
[608] Q. All right. Now, my question, Mr. Lumpkin,
is this: As long as housing is not integrated, schools will
not reflect the racial balance of the community simply
through the manipulation of school zones; isn’t that true?
A. My answer to your question is that as long as the
Board of Education continued to follow — or build schools
in areas, as it gives an example here where blacks cannot
attend, you will have segregated schools.
Q. Would you agree — would you agree with the
proposition that the Columbus Board of Education, how
ever, has built schools where there was a necessity to
serve a school population?
A. I would agree that they have built schools where
there was a necessity to serve a particular racial or ethnic
population.
Q. All right. And you would also, I take it, agree
that they have done this on a so-called neighborhood
school basis; is that right?
A. I will agree that they use the neighborhood con
cept as a justification for building the school.
Q. All right. Now, directing your attention to your
[609] last statement, is it your position that the construc
tion of a school building in north Columbus in 1950 or
the early ’50’s was a racially motivated decision?
A. In 1950 in north Columbus? How far north Co
lumbus? I live in north Columbus, sir.
Q. Anywhere north.
A. Was raciallv motivated?
220
Q. Yes.
A. It goes back to my previous answer to you, sir,
that if you built the school in north Columbus, one of your
justifications for building it there in addition to the need,
as you put it, to serve the people that live there would be
of the demand concept. I say that the school could be
built south, further south, and both groups of the com
munity could feed into that particular school.
Q. And if that was done, that would be a departure
from the so-called neighborhood concept, would it not?
A. I would say so.
# # # # #
[610] Q. Okay. Now, just a few more questions, and
I’ll be through.
You have stated that Gladstone, you felt, should have
been constructed with more capacity than was initially
contained in the building; am I right about that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is true, is it not, that it was built, and then
within two or three years an addition was put onto it so
that its capacity went from, I think — its enrollment, at
least, went from 300 and some to I think almost 500; is
that right?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. All right. And you also suggested that it should
have been combined with, or there should have been a
different district is more accurate, I guess, than that which
was [611] adopted?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. And did you take into account the capacities and
enrollments of the surrounding schools when you made
that recommendation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I believe that you referred to Duxberry as one of
them, of the schools, —
A. Yes, sir.
221
Q. — and Hudson, possibly, as another. I’m not sure
whether you mentioned Hudson or not. It would be a
possibility, I assume, would it not?
[612] A. I think Hudson was — Gladstone was built
— I will have to assume this. Gladstone was built to relieve
some of the pressure of Hudson Elementary School. That
was the idea. This is what we were led to assume.
Q. And I think that Linden which would be also
immediately to the north of Gladstone was over capacity
at the time, was it not?
A. No, sir, I am not aware of that fact.
Q. All right. It is immaterial here either way. Do you
happen to recall what the situation was with respect to
capacity enrollment of Duxberry which was another one
you mentioned as a possibility of being included?
A. Duxberry, I don’t remember the exact capacity,
what the capacity is for Duxberry, but it stood to reason
to me that if you were busing children from Gladstone
over to Duxberry, it could not have been as crowded as
Gladstone; and when you brought the students from Dux
berry back into Gladstone, either you then brought chil
dren from some other area to take up that space or you
had some extra space there. I don’t recall the number of
capacity for this school at this time.
# # # # #
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ATKINS
[618] Q. [By Mr. Atkins] Mr. Lumpkin, I am showing
you what is a missing page £ from the exhibit marked
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 352, and will ask you to read what is
Paragraph 2 on that page?
[619] A. “While residential housing patterns have
contributed to segregation in fact, we charge that the
Board of Education has also deliberately promoted segre
gation in some school zones by drawing zone lines around
segregated residential areas in order to contain Negro
students in separate schools.
222
“In some instances, the zone lines have been drawn
in particular shapes to avoid sending children of one
skin color to schools with those of another color. The
Moler school zone, for an example, is split in two, two
separate distinct zones (outlined in green on the map
overlay) which lies on the south and west boundaries of
the Alum Crest School zone.” May I read that again.
“Alum Crest on the south.” May I read that again, “out
lined in green on the map overlay) which lies on the south
and west boundaries of the Alum Crest zone. Alum Crest,
as noted earlier, is over 80-percent Negro, while Moler
is a mere 2.5-percent Negro.
“The NAACP will not permit the Columbus Board of
Education to hide behind the so-called neighborhood
school concept, especially when the board invokes this
concept only when necessary to confine Negro children
to sub-standard schools.”
Q. Was that the position of the NAACP in 1966 and
throughout the period up until and including 1969 when
you [620] were co-chairman of its Education Committee?
A. It was, sir.
* # # # #
MARJORIE GIVEN
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
[624] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] State your full name and
occupation, please, ma’am?
A. My name is Marjorie Given. My job classification
is Typist-Clerk III. My function is assigning substitutes
in the Columbus Public Schools.
# * fc # #
2 2 8
[627] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Mrs. Given, can you explain
how your office operates in terms of placement of substi
tute teachers?
A. Our primary function is to fill a vacancy of an
absent teacher with a certified substitute teacher. We
receive the substitute teachers from Teachers Personnel.
We receive them after they are hired.
[628] Q. And they have to be appointed by the
Board; is that correct?
A. Yes.
# # # # #
[629] Q. The information you get from the Personnel
Office contains an original personnel folder with the ap
plication of the individual, does it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And that application, how does it show the race
of the applicant?
A. I can speak for elementaiy only because I —
Q. Yes, I understand.
A. On the application when the folder conies to us,
there is a minority code number 1 or a 2 with a circle
around it or a 4.
Q. What does 1 mean?
A. One means White.
Q. Two?
A. Black.
Q. Do you know what the others mean?
A. Well, 4 is oriental. Those are the only three that
I have ever used.
Q. And it doesn’t have any letters in front of it? It
just has the number with the circle?
A. That is true.
Q. And that is on the original application for em
ployment as a substitute; is that correct?
A. I see it on the application when it comes down to
us after the substitute teacher has been hired, yes.
224
[630] Q. Now, are these numbers a code used by the
Columbus School System?
A. Yes, at least by Teacher Personnel.
Q. Now, do many of these applications also contain
the pictures of an applicant?
A. In the past the pictures were there. The picture is
not required anymore, and many of the folders that come
down never do have a picture in the folder.
Q. But they do have the code designation; is that
correct?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Now, you work with that as your base folder, and
then you have another card that you use; is that correct?
A. Yes.
# # # # #
[631] Q. Now, there is a third type of card that you
utilized in your day-to-day operations; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Are these cards prepared each year —
A. Yes.
Q. — on each teacher?
A. Yes, they are.
# # # # *
[632] Q. I l l show you a card which has been marked
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 433-A, a card you furnished us at deposi
tion. This is a Xerox copy furnished us at the time. You
maintained your original card, did you not, —
A. Yes, sir,
Q. —because you needed it?
A. Yes.
& # # # #
[634] Q. Now, just on the right of that on the same
line in the same box, essentially, is the racial code, is it
not?
A. Yes.
225
Q. And what is that code?
A. It says MC-1.
# # # * *
[640] Q. And do you work closely with the lady who
works with the secondary teachers?
A. We work side by side.
Q. And do you occasionally dip into each others
boxes for people when you need them?
A. Yes, on a very busy day, if I run out of substitutes,
I will borrow some of hers and vice versa.
Q. And does she use a slightly different code system
than you do?
A. I cannot honestly answer that question.
Q. From handling her —
A. She does not - we do not keep our cards the same
way.
Q. The same way. From handling her cards, can you
tell me whether or not a number of those cards have the
corner blacked out?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that the way she codes race on her cards,
to your knowledge?
[641] A. Yes, to my knowledge.
[645] Q. All right, I would like to show you a card
from 1953 which is not marked as an exhibit, but it is not
out of the card files that were brought here at our request,
not our demand, our request to Mr. Porter, and he was
kind enough to bring them here.
I recognize that you had no responsibility whatsoever
for preparing these cards, but I show you a card, a
printed card. Is this similar to the cards that are utilized
by you?
226
A. I have seen that card in the card file, but I have
not seen — I do not believe I have seen any other one
like it.
Q. What does this card say?
A. That card in the upper left-hand comer says
“Colored.”
Q. What is the date?
A. January 1953.
Q. Airs. Givens, I show you another card, and per
haps I better let you tell me what you think that date
is on it?
[646] A. Well, it is for the school year 1959-1960.
Q. There is a pencil date, and then there is a typed
date also; is that correct?
A. I don’t know exactly what the pencil date is either.
Q. It looks like 190 or 196. In any event, it is typed
on the card?
A. It is for the 1959-60 school year, yes.
Q. And what does it say at the top? Would you read
what is typed in at the top?
A. Okay. It says: “Not Bellows, Fairwood, South-
wood, Chicago, Avondale or colored schools.”
Q. I am sorry, it doesn’t have any conjunction, does
it? It just has a dash?
A. That is right. I am sorry.
Q. I show you another card, 1960-61. Unless the
other parties insist, I would prefer not to read the name
into the record, but is there a “C” behind the name of
the individual shown on that card?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. It is in parens, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I show you a card for 1965-66. Is there a “C”
behind that individual’s name in parens?
A. Yes.
# # # # #
227
JOHN ELLIS
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
[661] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] State your full name and
your occupation, please.
A. John Ellis, Superintendent of the Columbus [662]
Public Schools.
Q. How long have you been Superintendent?
A. Since August, 1971.
Q. And that’s also the date you first became em
ployed in the system?
A. Yes, sir.
# # # # #
[683] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Dr. Ellis, can you define for
me the neighborhood [684] school concept as used in the
Columbus School System?
A. In the Columbus School System we attempt to
construct a school building in an area where a large num
ber of pupils exist so that the pupils will not have to travel
an excessive distance to get to their school, but will be
attending a school as close to their home as possible.
Q. Is the neighborhood school concept as used here
in Columbus in any way a sociological concept of neigh
borhood?
A. It is primarily a school that is defined geographi
cally. We attempt to set boundaries based on natural
boundaries such as rivers, super highways, major arteries
and things of that nature.
Q. Would I be correct in saying that in addition to
those physical dimensions you just described that the
neighborhood school concept in Columbus is not a socio
logical concept of ethnic neighborhood or any other kind
of homongenious group? [685]
228
A. We do not attempt to draw school boundary to
isolate or identify anyone on a sociological basis.
Q. You don’t look at the idea of the community hav
ing a separate integrity of its own which is described by
the boundaries drawn around it for the school purposes?
That’s not the concept you use?
A. The concept is essentially to draw a boundary that
makes the most sense, to create a boundary where the
greatest number of pupils exist, where they can get to
school in the most convenient fashion. I don’t know how
that relates to your question of integrity, but it’s essen
tially a geographic concept.
Q. Would it be fair to describe it as: Your basic
purpose is to obtain a walk-in school?
A. The basic purpose is to provide a school that is
convenient to the home and the parent so that they can
establish a good relationship between the school and the
home to insure that we reduce travel time to a minimum,
transportation costs to a minimum and improve the com
munications between the home and the school and create
a school in an area where it can be close to the people.
[686] Q. In referring now to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 278,
the elementary overlay for 1975-76, which is superim
posed on top of the 1978 Census, Plaintiffs Exhibit 2t>2.
Let me ask you first, since I noticed during the recess
you were comparing this with a map that you had, is
this overlay correct as far as you know?
A. As far as I know, but I’ve only had a minute or
two to look at it, so that’s not sufficient to confirm its
authenticity.
Q. Has you staff reported to you as to whether oi
not it’s correct?
A. They have not.
Q. Have they been studying it?
A. If they have, I have not been advised.
Q. But from your quick inspection, you do not see
anything wrong with it?
229
A. It appears to be okay.
[687] Q. Okay. All right. Let's look at Beatty Park
School.
A. Beatty Park.
Q. Is it Beatty? I am sorry. Is that a — one of the
smaller school attendance areas in the Columbus School
District?
A. I don’t know. I can only look at the map, and it
appears to be the same size as many others I see on the
map.
Q. Is that a neighborhood school?
A. It is.
Q. All right. The school’s not located in the center
of that; is it?
A. It is not.
Q. All right. There is another school building, looks
like three, four blocks to the west, called Garfield; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. That zone’s about doubled the size of the Beatty
zone; isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the same kind of neighborhood school as
the Beatty School?
A. Yes, it is. There is a lower density, and we’ve had
a decrease in pupil population in that particular area.
In fact, the Felton School was located here at one point in
[688] time, and it was one of the schools that we men
tioned that we have closed because there was a dramatic
reduction in the number of pupils.
Q. But students in the Garfield zone would have to
travel further distances than those in the Beatty Park
School zone; is that correct?
A. My understanding, based on recollection and not
that particular map, is that no pupil in the Garfield area
has to travel more than a mile and a half, I think 90%
280
of them one mile or less, but I’m recalling from a year or
two ago. the statistics.
Q. The Beatty Park children, do they have to travel
that far?
A. They would have to travel a half mile or less in
most cases.
Q. How about the Main Street School? Do they have
to travel less distance?
A. Yes, for the most part.
Q. You call those neighborhood schools; is that right?
A. We do.
Q. What about the Kingswood School, that’s about —
it looks to me about three times the size of the Garfield
zone, geographically speaking.
A. That is correct. I would point out, however, that
in a large portion of that zone we had the University
Farms, [689] which do not house children but rather that
is property that is owned by the Ohio State University.
There are a few, if any, children in there, so the size of the
zone does not represent the distance the child might have
to travel.
Q. Are there any streets above the Lane Street?
There appears to be some sort of thoroughfare.
A. Yes, Lane travels across.
Q. Are there some streets above that?
A. There are some streets above that, yes.
Q. All right. What about the Winterset zone, is that
also another neighborhood school, walk-in school?
A. It is a neighborhood school, yes.
Q. For people to walk in from all over Winterset?
A. I believe that most of them do.
There has been some transportation in the entire
northern area of the city because we have had a tremen
dous amount of overcrowding, so children have been
transported to the various schools. I would state that when
you locate a school in a developing area, there is a tend-
231
eney to have that school be sort of a wider geographical
area, and then as it develops, we would sometimes sub-
divide the area because you have a greater number of
pupils living there, and in order to locate the school that’s
close to the people and as efficiently as I described we
attempt to do, a subdivision sometimes occurs.
Q. There is no consistent pattern, though, in the size
[690] of the school attendance area and the colored schools
in Columbus, is there?
A. The consistency is in attempting to locate a school
as close to the greatest number of pupils as possible. Size
is only one criterion.
Q. How about distance from school?
A. That’s another.
# # # # &
[690] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] All right. Just limiting your
answer, if you will, at this point to distance to the school,
is there any consistency in the pattern of neighborhood
schools in Columbus?
A. Yes, there is a consistency. We have attempted
to locate schools so that a child will not have to travel
farther than one mile to the neighborhood school. Now we
do not meet that criterion in every instance, but that has
been a general guideline.
# # # # #
[713] Q. Have you examined the pattern of principal
assignment in the Columbus School District?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a congruence between black principals
and black pupils in the Columbus School District?
A. There was a tendency to assign black principals
to schools that were predominantly black.
# # # # #
[717] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] From an educational point
of view, do you favor an educational process whereby
232
children attend — black and white children attend the
same school building?
A. Yes.
Q. What steps are you taking to achieve that in
Columbus?
A. The major effort that we have taken I would
characterize as twofold. First, through the school building
program, we have added a variety of career centers that
are open and available to students from across the school
district. At the elementary and junior high school level,
we have designated schools as developmental learning
centers that are open to children beyond the neighborhood
district. We are also offering different alternative schools
such as an informal school, a traditional school, an IGE
school, a positive reenforcement school, all schools that
will have students from across the entire school system.
So one thrust is to insure that we have a wide diversity of
educational programs that will appeal to the great needs
of a metropolitan area.
The second part of our approach, and all of this I [718]
assume could be embraced under the label “Columbus
Plan,” is to insure that pupils know about the opportuni
ties, that parents know about the opportunities and that a
transportation network is created so that the opportunities
are not merely ephemeral but can become actual. [719]
Q. But this is a programmatic alternative offered to
all students, regardless of race. It is not a desegregation
device, is it?
A. In order for a pupil to transfer to another school
for the entire day, that transfer must improve the racial
balance of the transferring and receiving school, and
therefore it could be construed as an integration device.
Q. That’s not its primary purpose or effect, is it?
A. It is certainly a primary purpose.
Q. The first two years of the Columbus Plan, as a
matter of fact, the district refused to provide free trans
238
portation for students whose express intent was to achieve
a desegregated education; isn’t that true?
A. That is true.
Q. So would you characterize the plan as a desegre
gation plan during the first two years of its operation?
A. It still had an integrative effect.
Q. What percentage of the total enrollment of the
Columbus School System is involved on a full-time basis
in the Columbus Plan?
A. The total participants in the Columbus Plan are
approximately 3,600 pupils, so we are talking about a per
centage of slightly less than 4 percent.
[722] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Over that period with the
figures and the changes you have seen, can you describe
the Columbus Plan as a plan likely to eliminate the pattern
of segregation in the Columbus Public Schools?
A. The Columbus Plan has been in operation for
three years. We have made an enormous effort to com
municate its advantages to set up different alternatives.
Many of the new facilities that are programmed to become
part of the Columbus Plan are not yet operational but
are [723] becoming so. Certainly given the present level
of the Columbus Plan, one can scarcely be comfortable
that the level of integration that might be desired is accom
plished, but neither would I conclude that because the
Columbus Plan is new and has not yet demonstrated its
capacity to insure that every school will have a reasonable
degree of integration, that it will not happen. We are
working mightily to insure that it does.
# & ft # #
[740] Q. [By Air. Lucas] What did you say the total
number was of transported, not—excluding special educa
tion?
A. Ten thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight.
234
Q. So, roughly, nine thousand students are trans
ported on a regular basis not related to any special physical
or mental handicap; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And not related to the Columbus Plan itself?
[741]
A. That’s correct.
Q. Has that level been fairly constant since you’ve
been Superintendent, Dr. Ellis?
A. Yes, except for the Columbus Plan students which
has increased dramatically to the one thousand from zero.
Q, So it would be fair for me to say, then, that the
Columbus System, since the time you became Superin
tendent, has averaged transporting nine thousand students
a year other than special education programs?
A. Yes.
# # # # #
[755] Q. Is the Innis Road Elementary School opened
now?
A. It is.
Q. Is the Cassady Elementary?
A. It is.
Q. In considering what you’d do about attendance
at those schools, was one of the alternatives you considered
the Princeton pairing?
A. We did not use that terminology, but that was one
of the alternatives.
[756] Q. Was that option presented to the Board?
A. It was.
Q. Was it rejected by the Board?
A. The Board of Education selected the other option
which was presented as an equally desirable option.
Q. Who prepares the proposals for you?
A. Generally speaking, the Division of Administra
tion. They are the ones that handle the boundary lines and
235
work with them on an intimate basis. I do not work with
boundaries on an intimate basis.
Q. Mr. Carter was the gentleman in charge of that,
except he’s on Sabbatical at the present time; is that
correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And did he work on the Innis Road and Cassady
proposals?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. In other words, they originated before
he left on his Sabbatical?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is the individual in charge of that department
today during his absence?
A. Philip Fulton.
Q. Mr. Fulton also worked on a proposal?
A. I don’t know if he worked on it or if he worked
[757] with it after it was completed. It occurred about the
time that a change was being made.
Q. What about the boundaries at Walnut Ridge, East-
moor and Independence, did you present two sets of al
ternatives to the Board at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what were those alternatives?
A. Well, they’re hard to describe verbally, but they
simply provided the geography in two different ways, and
we attempted to look at ways in which we could insure
when those buildings opened that they would enhance the
possibility for integration as much as possible, and I pre
sented to the Board of Education two options that seemed
to me to be very reasonable to divide the territory and
insure that each school would open with some degree of
integration.
Q. All right. One option called for a substantially
larger degree of integration in the two schools, did it not,
or the three schools? I’m sorry.
236
A. Yes.
Q. And another option provided for some black and
white attendance at each school, but it was substantially
different from the first option?
A. It was somewhat different.
Q. And did the Board make a choice of the options
[758] or make a choice of the option which provided for
less desegregation?
A. The Board made a choice that would select the
one that would have the least amount of transfer, and there
was less racial balance in the schools.
Q. And when did that take place?
A. April or May of ’75.
# # & # #
[760] Q. Let’s go back to the Innis Road-Cassady
Elementary proposal. Will you describe that in a little bit
more detail?
A. Basically we looked at two options. One was main
taining the present kindergarten through grade six organi
zation that does exist in almost all instances in the Colum
bus Public Schools, and that was the alternative that was
selected, the maintenance of the present organizational
pattern for the school system.
[761] As another alternative, we looked at the possi
bility of making one a K - 3 center and another a grade
four through six center which would in effect have created
a large district and would have had the population in both
of these schools be representative of a larger area.
Q. At your deposition you testified that both alterna
tives were educationally realistic and acceptable alterna
tives, did you not?
A. They were to me.
Q. If you paired those two schools, what would have
been the racial composition? What was your projection?
A. Roughly 51 percent - 59 percent non-white.
237
Q. By not pairing, did you end up at Cassady with
552 black students and 66 white?
A. That’s approximately correct.
Q. I am no mathematician, but how far off did the
other alternative in terms of percentages leave you?
A, Well, I can give you where we are today. Innis
Elementary School has 154 minority children out of 545
or 28.3 percent minority, and Cassady Elementary has 66
white students, 552 black students, or an 89.3 percent
minority population.
[762] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] What are you reading from?
A. From Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 468.
Q. What date is that data from?
A. The data that I am reading from is from the cur
rent HEW form which was provided to the Plaintiffs, and
I don’t recall the number.
Q. ’75-76 school year?
A. Yes, current school year.
Q. And you have what for Cassady?
A. Cassady, 66 white and 552 black.
()• What percentage does that give you?
A. Eight point three percent minority.
Q. Thank you. Cassady Elementary School came
into the district from another district, did it not?
A. Yes, from the Mifflin School District.
Q. And you were in the process of establishing at
tendance boundaries for the Columbus Board’s operation
of that school; is that correct?
A. Could you repeat that, please?
Q. You were in the process of establishing the at
tendance boundary for the operation of that school, were
you not?
A. We maintained the present attendance boundary
when the school came into the system, but there was tre
mendous overcrowding in the area. The Mifflin School
[763] District had been financially floundering. They were
238
overcrowded. We had to assign pupils out of the district
to a nearby temporary facility, so that we were engaged
in projecting a construction program and the establish
ment of boundaries for that area.
Q. The situation with the Mifflin District was a total
merger, was it not?
A. The total Mifflin District was merged to the Co
lumbus District, yes.
Q. Did the State Board approve the transfer of the
Mifflin District to the Columbus District?
A. I believe that the Mifflin District was transferred
through the County Board of Education. There is a very
complicated transfer law process, and there were several
parcels of land that were transferred in a unit. Part of
it became litigated, and part of it was transferred, and
part of it that the State Board approved, and part of it
the County Board approved, and I would suggest that if
you want a definitive answer on that, you should get a
battery of lawyers to respond.
# # # # #
[765] Q. [By. Mr. Lucas] Now, you mentioned that
Columbus had this tremendous influx or tremendous
increase in its enrollment historically, some of which, most
of which may have occurred before you came. Is Colum
bus greatly different from any other medium-sized city
school system in its experience of a rapid increase in
enrollment during the period of time when it occurred in
Columbus?
A. I think it is.
Q. All right, can you tell me the period of time that
you think this rapid increase in enrollment occurred in
Columbus?
A. If I may refer to a document, please?
Q. Sure.
239
A. The document that I have didn’t contain the in
formation that I thought it did, but I can respond to
your question nevertheless.
In 1940 or immediately at the end of World War II,
Columbus had about 140 or had 40 square miles of
territory [766] and has expanded to today where the
school district has about 160 and the city has considerably
more, like 175 or 180. That’s a four-fold growth in area,
and there was an even greater growth in the number of
pupils.
The growth was heaviest in the ’50’s and in the 60’s,
when the war babies swept through the school system.
Now, we are not unique in that we had the great influx
of war babies because almost every district across America
experienced that. Where we are unique is that we were
expanding rapidly with territory, and we were having the
war-baby boom sweep through the district as well. Very
few districts in the country had both factors impact the
district.
Q. Have you made any study of that particular phe
nomenon?
A. Of which phenomenon?
Q. The one you are describing, the impact of annexa
tions and the baby boom?
A. No, because there are very few districts that expe
rienced a similar situation, and studies just do not exist.
There are many studies with the single phenomenon of
the war-baby boom, but when you juxtapose that with the
rapid expansion of territory, you get a fairly unique situ
ation.
Q. Is the uniqueness the fact that you have more
[767] land mass involved, or is the uniqueness the fact
that you had X amount of enrollment responsibility, in
creasing enrollment?
A. The uniqueness is that most American cities fail
to expand their boundaries to any substantial amount.
240
Most American cities—in fact, many American cities were
ringed by suburbs, and a different economic pattern de
veloped. The shopping centers developed, and many of
the shopping centers, if not most, were in the suburbs,
and the cities badly deteriorated.
Columbus is fortunate in the sense that we have ex
panded outward and that we have annexed large amounts
of territory, and, during that period of time, there has
been a tremendous expansion of pupil population, so the
uniqueness is in the two factors coming together. Very
few cities in America have experienced that. There may
have been others, but it is not a widely studied phenom
enon because it is so unique.
Q. Would the fact that Columbus is not ringed in
make it easier for Columbus in terms of desegregation or
more difficult?
A. In what sense do you mean easier, sir?
Q. Well, many cities have claimed that because they
were restricted and could not deal with the suburbia
growth areas, that it made it difficult or impossible to
[768] have effective or stable desegregation processes.
Are you familiar with that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I take it from what you have just said that
Columbus did not have the problem of being hemmed in
or ringed in as other cities may have had. Can we agree
so far?
A. We can agree so far.
Q. My next question, does the fact that Columbus
was not hemmed in create an added problem that made
it more difficult for Columbus to desegregate? Is that
your position?
A. No, my position would be that the process of
desegregating, if a district is required to desegregate, is
not simply one of whether or not you are hemmed in, but
rather where may people flee to get away from something
241
they consider to be undesirable? Therefore, any city that
is required to desegregate, and where there are conveni
ent sanctuaries to which they may flee, is faced with a
very considerable problem. It is not just simply being
hemmed in. It is a question of where may people move if
they wish to leave for whatever reason they wish to leave?
Q. Why people consider desegregation undesirable
and therefore flee; is that your thesis?
A. My thesis is that if people find anything to be
undesirable — and desegregation could be one and, in fact,
[769] in some cities is one. If there is an easy or convenient
way for them to leave the city and if there are convenient
suburbs or territory or other areas nearby, they frequently
will avail themselves of that opportunity. Therefore, if you
are speaking directly to the question of the effects of ease,
which was your question, not mine, and if ease meant that
it would be effective, which I assume is part of your
question, a desegregation plan that is required, if it is
found to be required, is most apt to be effective when a
very wide geographical area is included so that the phe
nomenon of flight of the middle class, both black and
white, is reduced. If that does not occur, I think that
James Coleman’s evidence which is fairly recent is indi
cating that desegregation plans may have well produced
resegregation which is a serious liability of starting out
to cure an ill and ending up with a worse one.
Q. I don’t want to get into an extended debate, but
are you aware that Professor Coleman has now conceded
that there is no basis, in fact, for his statement that white
flight was increased by desegregation in 20 major cities
that he reported on?
A. I am aware of the fact that Mr. Coleman has been
seriously questioned. He acknowledged that some of the
research on the 20 cities was not as substantial as it ought
to be. If you read on with his arguments, he states [770]
that his essential thesis is correct and can be demonstrated.
242
Q. Where he said despite the fact that the evidence
he used didn’t support his thesis, he still believed it?
A. No, sir, that’s not the proper characterization of
what the man said. [771]
Q. We’ll get into that with another witness.
I still, with our early starting hour this morning, I
still am failing somehow to understand your point. Has
Columbus’ situation today with the racial pattern in the
schools been somehow aggravated or been made more
difficult to deal with the fact that Columbus has been
hemmed in like other cities have been hemmed in?
A. I think it has made it a better city, a better school
system in many respects in that it has been an advantage
to the district with respect to integration or desegregation,
or whatever term you chose, rather than a disadvantage.
Q. So it would be fair for me to say that Columbus
has had a unique advantage and was not faced with
similar difficulties that other communities may have been
faced with in terms of the desegregation process?
A. I would not agree that it had advantages or that
it was not a difficult process. Columbus was inundated
with pupils and territory. In some years, 60 different
boundary changes were made. You’ve have to be a genius
to attempt to — to remember all those particular boundary
changes. There were years when we were simply scram
bling madly to insure that a child had a roof over his
head. It was a regretably difficult situation. Each Sep
tember, you just didn’t know where the children were
going to be put, [772] because there were too many, and
the building’s weren’t ready and you were at temporary
quarters and temporary rooms and it was a monumental
problem.
Now, I was not here at the time, but I participated
in many staff conferences, and these administrators and
Board members of Columbus and the residents of Colum
bus, in my judgment, have done a masterful job of facing
243
a major problem of merely insuring that a youngster had
a roof over his head.
Q. Let’s see, these youngsters were in a school some
where and had a roof over their head before annexation
took place, did they not? They were not out in the
streets?
A. Well, it was a scramble. There were times — in
fact, we’ve had people complain that they did not, in fact,
have a roof over their head, but they had a piece of
canvas and they were afraid, and we’ve had complaints
that an airplane flying over would cause a problem, and
that may seem ludicrous, but it was a very, very difficult
situation to insure that adequate housing was provided
for the vast number of students that this district had.
# # # #
WILLIAM C. CULPEPPER
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ATKINS
[1139] Q. [By Mr. Atkins] Would you state your
name and address for the record, please?
A. William C. Culpepper, 1049 East Long Street.
£ # # # #
[1140] Q. When did you first become active in real
estate matters?
A. 1948.
Q. And in what capacity was that, sir?
A. As a sales person.
Q. In 1948 when you became a salesman in realty
matters, was it possible for a black realtor to become a
member of the Columbus Board of Realtors?
A. No, absolutely not.
# # # # #
244
[1141] Q. And in 1950 when you obtained your brok
er’s license, did you attempt to join the Columbus Board
of Realtors?
A. No.
Q. Why?
A. Because I was told by older brokers that the door
to the realtors was closed to me because I was black.
Q. You were told this by older black brokers?
A. Right.
Q. Did you know any black brokers who were in
the Realtors, Columbus Board of Realtors in 1950?
A. None, no place in the country that I knew.
Q. Did you in 1950 join an association of black
realtors?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was its name?
A. The Columbus Association of Real Estate Brokers.
Q. And is that the same group that sometimes is pop
ularly referred to as the Realtists?
[1142] A. Realtists, this is true.
Q. So there were white realtors and black realtists?
A. Right.
Q. Now, in 1950 when you first began practicing as a
broker, where was it possible for a black broker to get
listings?
A. In an area that had been decided by prior brokers
would be acceptable, would be an all-black area.
Q. Let’s see if we can be a little more specific. What
part of the City of Columbus might you then have been
able to get housing listings in?
A. Well, let’s see. When I first became a broker, I
believe the dividing line between black and white was
Ohio Avenue.
Q. That was the race line in 1950?
A. Right.
245
Q. And it was impossible to get listings outside that
area?
A. That’s true.
Q. And that would be true both with respect to the
City of Columbus and with respect to the suburban com
munities of metropolitan Columbus, would it not?
A. True.
# # # # #
[1143] Q. Yes, I will. In 1950 was it possible for a
black realtist to participate in the multiple listing service
available to the white realtors?
A. No, it was not possible.
Q. Now, in 1952-1953, what listings then became
available to blacks?
A. Well, I would say that from Ohio Avenue to Tay
lor and from Taylor to Nelson Road.
Q. Was it around this same time that the Eastgate
area opened up?
A. Later Eastgate, in the early ’50’s to mid-’50’s.
Q. Now, was Eastgate opened up for listings to blacks
prior to or after Hilltop was opened up for listings to
blacks?
A. I would think about the same time. They would
be in the same general time period.
Q. Both around 1953-’54, in that period?
A. Yes, right.
[1144] Q. And when did Driving Park become avail
able as an area for black realtists to obtain listings?
A. About the mid-’5Q’s.
Q. ’55, ’58, around there?
A. Yes.
[1145] Q. And this will be the area south of Living
ston Avenue, maybe?
A. True.
Q. And when did the Shephard addition become
available to black realtors?
246
A. About the latter ’50’s and early W s.
Q. 1959, 1960; is that true?
A. Yeah, in right there.
Q. And when did the St. Mary’s of the Springs area
become available for the first time to black realtors?
A. Let’s see. From mid-50’s to ’60’s or the latter ’50’s
to ’60’s.
Q. So it wasn’t until the beginning of the 1960 period
that black realtors could expect to have listings —
A. Yeah.
Q. — throughout that area?
A. Early ’60’s.
Q. And when did the Linden area first become avail
able to black realtors?
A. About early ’60.
Q. 1960, ’61, ’62?
A. Uh-huh, rig ht.
Q. And was that all the Linden area or was it only
part of it?
A. Well, it came in steps, —
[1146] Q. What do you —
A. — steps from the early part. We were told that
the — that the dividing line would be up to 17th Avenue,
from 11th to 17th.
Q. And then when was —
A. And then from 17th to Hudson.
Q. Okay.
A. And later from Hudson to Weber, but there was
always that line, we was told, that — “Don’t go beyond it.”
If you did, you won’t be able to obtain financing.
Q. All right. Now, let’s go back to the 11th area, to
the 17th Avenue area. Would that have been in the — I
think you said the early ’60’s, ’61, ’62, around there?
A. Right.
Q. And subsequent to that, the area from 17th Avenue
to Hudson became available; is that your testimony?
247
A. Right.
Q. And that would have been ’62?
A. Right, in there.
Q. ’63?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And then the area from Hudson to Weber, farther
north, became available and that would have been what,
’64, ’65, around there?
A. In the — let’s see, yeah, in that period.
# * # # #
[1167] Q. What was the first personal experience you
had with a suburban listing?
A. Well, I call it suburban, but yet it was in the City
of Columbus. I sold a property at 806 Josephine back in
1966, and we had a cross burned in front of the property.
Q. In front of the house on Josephine?
A. Yes. We couldn’t get a lender in town to make
the loan, so I made a trip to Chicago, and I was able to
get the Supreme Limited Life Insurance Company to make
the loan. I couldn’t get a lender to handle it personally,
so I had to go into FHA and learn how to process the loan
myself. They took me to the basement of the FHA, and I
was briefed there how to put together an FHA, my first
FHA loan, but they did insure it. Supreme Limited Life
Insurance Company did make the loan.
Q. And did you subsequent to that have particular
[1168] experience with another suburban community in
metropolitan Columbus?
A. Right.
Q. Which one was that?
A. We sold a few properties in Westerville, Worthing
ton. I did have a listing in Arlington at one time.
Q. Upper Arlington?
A. Upper Arlington.
Q. What happened to that one?
248
A. Well, I had all kinds of pressures on me to cancel
the listing by realtors, mortgage bankers, presidents of
banks, to cancel the listing, but I stood my ground. I
didn’t cancel it.
Q. What did you do with it?
A. Well, I showed it several times to various people
at night after 8:00 o’clock, after sundown, where we
couldn’t be seen. I didn’t get a sale, but later — it was
a $50,000 property, and I understand that 25 whites who
lived in the Upper Arlington area formed a corporation
and bought the property.
Q. Was this corporation in existence prior to tire dis
covery by Upper Arlington that you had the listing for
the property?
A. I don’t think so. I understood it was formed for
that specific purpose.
# # # # &
MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ARNOLD
# # # # #
[1244] Q. [By Mr. Arnold] You have previously
identified this document marked Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 349
entitled “Housing the Region” as one that you were
familiar with and had dealt with?
A. That’s correct.
Q. I will call your attention to a statement on page
15 entitled “Racial Migration.” Are you familiar with
that?
A. I have read through this several times.
Q. Are you or are you not familiar with the under
lying data which supports that?
A. That’s correct, I am.
249
Q. Would you read that, please? [1245]
A. Suburbanization was also the trend for the Negro
population during the last decade as shown in figure 8.
Although these rings are too large to judge the even
dispersal of Negroes throughout the region, they do indi
cate an increasing internal mobility. Where 13 percent of
all the Negroes in the region live within Ring No. 1 in
1960, that proportion had fallen to 2.7 percent in 1970,
but this mobility was limited to certain identified areas
and land adjacent to those areas. In 1960, for example,
73.6 percent of all Negroes in this region were concen
trated within 21 contiguous census tracts in the near
northeast and east side of the central city of Columbus.
In 1970, this changed only slightly. 71 percent of all
Negroes now live in 23 contiguous concensus tracts. See
figure 9.
Q. Is that consistent with your knowledge of the
change in population between ’60 and ’70?
A. Yes, it is.
# # # # #
CARL F. WHITE
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ARNOLD
[1291] Q. [By Mr. Arnold] Please state your name
and your address, please?
A. Carl F. White, 3090 Blue Ridge Road, Columbus,
Ohio 43219.
Q. What is your occupation, Mr. White?
A. I ’m Executive Director of Housing Opportunity
Center, located at 700 Bryden Road, Suite 208.
Q. How long have you served in the capacity of
Executive Director of the Housing Opportunity Center?
250
A. I’ve been Executive Director since the opening
of the Housing Opportunity Center, which was the fall
of 1969.
# # # # #
[1319] Q. In your position with the Housing Oppor
tunity Center, have you been involved with any efforts to
contact the School Board with regard to the problem of
segregation in schools?
A. Yes, we have. In 1975 we met with Mr. Ellis and
Mr. Merriman about the impact which would take place if
the Cassady Elementary School boundaries were changed
and a new school created. We recommended that the Innis
Road School become a K-through-3 school and that the
Cassady Elementary School become a 4-through-6 school
in order to try and keep a racial balance within that school
district.
Q. Now, you say we. Was this when —
A. This was the PTA.
Q. As a PTA member?
A. As a PTA member and then as a concerned parent
and then as a person from Housing Opportunity Center,
we did make these requests.
Q. Have you also had correspondence with the Col
umbus School Board regarding the problems of open hous
ing and the effect of segregated housing on the school
system?
A. Yes, we did send letters to the Columbus School
Board. We did send letters to the Columbus School Board.
We mailed a letter on April 28, 1971 to the School Board,
at which time we talked about the Board and their posi
tion [1320] about building new schools. I have that letter
here.
Q. Would you read that letter, please?
A. “Gentlemen: The Housing Opportunity Center
notes with interest the School Board’s recent appointment
of the Task Force on Racial Discrimination to study racism
251
in the schools. We noted that one of the first areas that
came up was the suggestion that new schools be built so
as to accomplish integration. We also noted that the sug
gestion was made that the School Board may move rap
idly to secure open housing agreements from developers.
“The Housing Opportunity Center believes such ef
forts are admirable. However, we do not believe that
they will accomplish the task of integrating the suburbs
so as to make the schools from which such children come
integrated.
“It seems obvious that the School Board is going to
have to do more than to get lip service paid to existing
law with respect to discrimination in housing.
“It would also seem that the School Board has an
affirmative responsibility not to take actions in the future
which are likely to perpetuate segregated enrollments in
the Columbus Public School System. Specifically, we think
that the School Board should not construct any new schools
which will not result in their being integrated. This would
apply both to all-white or black schools built in the sub
urbs or in the inner city.
[1321] “We would therefore appreciate hearing from
the School Board and being advised what steps the School
Board intends to take with respect to dealing with the
problem of our segregated suburbs and the location of
new schools in those areas.”
Q. What response did you have to that letter?
A. None to this letter.
# # # & &
FRANK GIBB
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STEIN
[1584] Q. [By Mr. Stein] Repeat your name and ad
dress for the record, please.
252
A. My name is Frank C. Gibb, and I reside at 376
East Fourteenth Avenue, Columbus, Ohio.
Q. What is your occupation, sir?
A. I am Chief of Legal Operations for the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission.
# # # # #
[1598] Q. I hand you what’s been market for identi
fication purposes as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 223 which is a
letter from you to John Ellis, I believe, and ask you to
read the first paragraph of that letter.
A. “Dear Sir: You are hereby advised that in the
event of and after a preliminary finding by the Commis
sion that unlawful discriminatory practices have been and
are being engaged in by the respondent and in the event
and after failure of attempts to conciliate the above mat
ter by informal meetings of conference, conciliation and
persuasion, a public hearing will be held at a place and
time to be set after the failure of such attempts as set
forth in the enclosed certified complaint and notice of
hearing.”
Q. What is the date of that letter?
A. October 18, 1972.
Q. And it has enclosed with it a complaint and
notice?
A. That is correct.
Q. I believe paragraph 3 contains the particular
charges of this complaint. I wonder if you might read
those for the Court?
A. “That an investigation initiated on the charges of
[1599] the Columbus Area Civil Rights Council and the
Northwest Area Council for Human Relations, complain
ants herein, and conducted by the Commission pursuant
to and in accordance with Ohio Revised Code Section
4112.05(B) disclosed or tended to show the following
facts:
“A. That respondent controls the placement of its
teachers and other professional employees.
253
“B. That respondent specifically assigns black teach
ers and other black professional employees to schools
within its jurisdiction which are in areas of high black
population proportion or which have a high black student
enrollment.
“C. That in over 40 of respondent’s schools located
principally in areas of high white population proportion
or which have a high white student enrollment, few or no
black teachers or other black professional employees are
employed.
D. That as a result of respondent’s pattern axrd prac
tice of assigning its black teachers and other black profes
sional employees by race, the opportunities of such teach
ers and professional employees for advancement and other
job-related benefits are severely limited.
“E. The discriminatory patterns and practices alleged
herein existed on June 1, 1972 and continue to date.”
# # # # #
[1607] Q. As a result of your personal involvement in
this matter leading up to that hearing in 1973, was a con
ciliation agreement entered into between the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission and the Columbus Public Schools?
A. There was an involvement of some information
that I conveyed to the Commission which led to the agree
ment, yes.
Q. What type of information did you convey to the
Commission?
A. Some principles, along which it was indicated to
me that settlement might be possible without hearing.
Q. I hand you what’s been marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 229 and ask you what this document is?
A. This is a conciliation agreement and consent order,
in the matter of Columbus Board of Education and Super
intendent of Columbus Public Schools.
Q. Is this before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission?
A. Yes.
254
Q. Does it indicate in the upper right-hand corner
that it was approved by the Commission on July 20, 1973?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Is it, in fact, signed by members of — by the Pres
ident of the Columbus Board of Education, as well as the
Commissioner for the Civil Rights Commission?
A. Yes.
[1608] Q. What were the general broad areas of em
ployment contained in this conciliation agreement?
A. Generally, over a two-year period, sufficient trans
fers and other assignments of teachers by race would be
made to assure that all schools were within a range of 7%
percent, plus or minus the racial proportion which existed
in the entire Columbus Public School System for teachers.
An additional one year was granted in the case of four
heavily impacted schools.
The interim goals were set up requiring, with the
exception of the four schools, that 50 percent of the goals
be achieved by the first year, and by that I mean the first
assignment. After the execution of the agreement which
was in September, 1973, with one third being required the
first year for the four heavily impacted schools.
# # * # &
MYRON SEIFERT
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
[1669] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] State your full name and
occupation, please.
A. My name is Myron Seifert, School Historian of
the Columbus Public Schools.
THE COURT: Plow do you spell your last name?
THE WITNESS: S-e-i-f-e-r-t.
255
Q. (By Mr. Lucas) Mr. Seifert, how long have you
held that position?
A. Eleven years.
Q. What are the duties of your position as Historian?
A. We establish a museum, per se, and, in addition,
we have a research facility. It is the school history [1670]
research facility.
Q. Do you have a staff that works under you?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you maintain certain files and records under
various headings and categories concerning the operation
present and past of the Columbus Public Schools?
A. Ido.
Q. And these are records obtained from within the
school system and from independent research on your
part; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
# # # # #
Q. Mr. Seifert, you have written a document which is
entitled “Early Black History in the Columbus Public
Schools”; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
[1671] Q. And this is a historical analysis of the opera
tion of the Columbus Public Schools with respect to black
students and black teachers; is that correct?
A. In part. It is a documentary largely from news
paper sources.
[1672] Q. All right. Do the other sources include Board
minutes and annual reports to the Board?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you maintain the supporting documentation
for this early black history in the Columbus Public Schools?
You have supporting documentation which went along
with it?
A. Yes, indeed, I have,
256
Q- All right. And I believe you at some point in time,
under the direction of Air. Porter, furnished to Air. Mont
gomery copies of those documents?
A. I have made all available, all resources, and that
is the policy that we maintain.
Q. Very good. Let me show you a copy of that. It
hears Intervening Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 351, and the Origi
nal Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 51-A, capital A ,___1. I ’ll ask you
if you can identify that as the document we’ve been refer
ring to?
A. That is correct?
* # # # &
[1685] Q. Now, you have quoted on numerous occa
sions in this report from reports in the Ohio State Journal.
Was that a newspaper regularly published in the City of
Columbus?
A. That is correct.
Q, All right, would you read at page 11 of your report
a reference to Reverend Poindexter who I believe you
called a past master of public relations?
A. That’s correct.
Q. You quoted from a report in the Journal dateline
April 6, 1869. Would you read the excerpt you have
quoted?
A. This is a letter to the editor of the Ohio State
Journal. Morning Journal it was called then.
“In your issue of Wednesday morning last, the public
are informed that the Columbus Board have resolved if
practicable to so alter the building at present occupied as
a school house by a part of the colored children of Colum
bus as to make to accommodate the whole of them. If not
found practicable to thus alter it, then they propose to
erect a new building. Such alteration is not practicable,
and it is to be hoped the building committee [1686] will so
find and determine. The little piece of ground not already
257
covered by the old building is entirely too small for neces
sary yard privileges. And playground, there is none.”
Q. From your examination of the information at that
time — I am sorry, if you will just turn to page 12, I think
it answers my question. Read the first sentence at the top
of page 12 which is a continuation of this letter.
A. “To compel our little ones, residents in the south
end, to travel to the north end and then to crowd them
into such a building as that will be when altered is not to
carry out the school law. Any who will go to the trouble
to read the school law of Ohio will find it is the design of
the good people of our state, as provided for in the State
Constitution and enacted in their legislature, to secure to
all our youth who will it the advantages of a good common
school education.”
[1691] Q. Mr. Seifert, would you turn to Page 15 and
return to the section entitled Both Whites, Negroes Peti
tion Board in 1869. Would you read the first paragraph
there.
A. “The race issue in Columbus in 1869 was some
times a two-way street. The February 23, 1869 Minutes of
the Board of Education contain an insertion that white
citizens in the neighborhood of the Sixth Street School
viewed the school a negro school “as being an annoying
and disturbing element to the neighborhood” whereupon
the Board instructed the building committee to “abolish
said school as speedily as possible and open a school in
close proximity to the other colored schools.”
Q. From your review of the records, do you recall
where this particular school was located on Sixth Street?
Was there any connecting street nearby that you could
help us with on that?
A. No, I am fuzzy on the location, Mr. Lucas.
Q. I believe the next paragraph indicates that that
decision was reversed a month later?
A. Yes.
258
Q. At least that is my interpretation of it; am I
correct?
A. Yes, that’s right.
[1692] Q. Then again, in the third paragraph, in
March of 1869 the Board vascillated again?
A. Um-hmm.
Q. With respect to the erection of a colored school
house; is that correct?
A. That’s right, yes.
Q. Finally, however, what did the Board authorize?
A. Authorized “either to build a third story on the
old house or, if that is impracticable, to erect a two-story
frame.”
Q. There was also a petition, and I think this is what
you referred to in the two-way process, to establish a negro
school at some convenient location in the southern part of
the city?
A. That’s right.
Q. That was in November of 1869; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Up until that time, or at least through that time,
the negro students in that portion of the city were having
to get to the other schools in the northern portion of the
city; is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your understanding?
A. Um-hmm.
Q. You have to say something for this lady here.
[1693] A. “Prior to the year 1871 futile attempts have
been made to establish adequate schools for negro chil
dren, and in this year the active efforts of a few of the
leading negro citizens brought the subject prominently
before the public.
“May 23, 1871 the Board decided to reconstruct the
school building on the corner of Long and Third Streets
and establish it as a negro school.”
259
Q. It was called the Loving School at that time?
A. It was called the Dr. Starling Loving School.
Q. Dr. Loving was a member of the Board at that
time?
A. He was a member of the Board of Education and
also a physician.
[1694] Q. Now, there’s a reference to an entry by the
Clerk of the Board. The original title of the Board was
Board of School Directors; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. There’s an entry of May 9, 1871, in the
Board minutes. Does this refer to the same construction
that you’ve just talked about at Long and Third?
A. I would assume, not knowing the exact location, I
would assume.
Q. The minutes reflect that the school house and lot
on the southeast corner of Long and Third Streets —
A. Yeah.
Q- - b e appropriated for the use of the colored chil
dren for schools; is that correct?
A. That’s right.
Q. Dr. Loving voted no, did he not, he thought the
site was unhealthy?
A. Yes.
Q. And they named the school after him; is that
right?
A. That’s right.
Q. Your report at page 17 indicates a recommendation
by the Superintendent of Schools as reflected in the Ohio
State Journal of November 20, 1872. What was that recom
mendation?
A. The establishment of a school at the Montgomery
[1694A] School House who live a great distance from
the Loving School.
[1695] Q. Did you indicate what happened with that
recommendation?
260
A. An exasperating legal quarrel arose with a man
who claimed ownership of the lot on which the Mont
gomery Building stood, The difficulty grew out of mis
takes in deeds involved in a prior exchange of lots. Eight
years passed before the argument was settled, and the
school for Negro children was not opened at the Mont
gomery School until April 1, 1880.
Q. All right, there was a protest in 1876 on the part
of white parents, if you will turn to page 19 and read the
section about protesting Negroes in East Friend Street
School.
A. It was not unusual for white parents to object to
the admittance of Negroes to their children’s schools. In
1876 when the mixed school question arose, there were
instances of parents protesting such action on the part of
the Board of Education. The following letter which was
published in the October 3, 1876 Ohio State Journal is
typical of the protest. Do you want me to read that?
Q. Yes. This was addressed to the Superintendent of
Schools, was it not?
A. That is correct.
“Dear Sir: We the undersigned citizens and parents
who send children to the East Friend Street School [1696]
respectfully remonstrate against the introduction of colored
children into said school building and ask the Board of
Education, if need be, to direct that said colored children
be withdrawn and provided with school privileges by them
selves. We further request that early action be had in the
matter.”
Then there is an insertion of the names on the petition.
On the motion, the petition was referred to the com
mittee on teachers.
Q. All right, if you will refer to the section entitled
“Negroes Are Divided on Mixed School Legislation; Most
For It,” refers, does it not, to the legislation proposed in
1878 to strike out the color line?
261
A. That’s right.
Q. If you will look at page 20, it refers, does it not,
to a meeting at the Second Baptist Church, representatives
of the black community, does it not?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Does it set forth at page 20 a resolution submitted
I suppose at that meeting and then sent on to the legis
lature?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Would you read the second paragraph of the reso
lution?
[1697] A. “Resolved, that we, the colored people of
Columbus, are emphatically and irrevocably in favor of
the change, for the double reason that separate schools are
a grievous injury to the educational interests of the colored
children, and a needless oppression of the too heavily
burdened taxpayer; and this detriment to the educational
advancement of colored children under the present system
is serious, and more so than a generous public would’’
I am not sure about the next word.
Q. “brook.”
A. “. . brook if honestly made aware of it and the addi
tional cost to the taxpayer to maintain it, and in the present
paralyzed condition of the industries of the State, and the
conviction of the people that they are overtaxed, were
those having in charge the education of the children, to
incur the expense necessary to put colored children in
separate schools or even an approximate footing with the
white children, the separate or present system would not
last a day.”
Q. The next paragraph.
A. Resolved, that in many localities where colored
children are too few to form a separate school, they are
kept out of school altogether, and, except in a few local
ities, they are entirely excluded from high school privileges
all over the State; the objection to proposed [1698] change
262
that it would turn five or six-hundred colored teachers out
of employment, proceeds on the supposition that legisla
tion must provide all trades or professions employment.
Certainly, if colored school teachers or any teachers, why
not all trades and occupations? Worse.
[1699] Q. I believe that’s far enough, unless you think
there’s something that makes that incomplete?
A. No.
Q. You’ve just read that black children were excluded
from high schools all over the state. You have a section
beginning at Page 26 wherein you named the first negro
graduates from high school in Columbus.
Would you read the beginning of that section?
A. In 1878, Miss Mary E. Knight completed the high
school course and became the first negro in Columbus to
earn this distinction.
# # # # a
[1701] Q. All right. There is a reference, I believe
for the first time in here, to the Columbus Dispatch in the
report at Page 28. It refers to two stories that appeared
in the Columbus newspaper on September 3, 1878.
Would you read the report from the Columbus
Dispatch?
A. P. Skury, J. Johnson and Daniel Trent, colored citi
zens and taxpayers, as alleged in their communications,
stated that they lived north of Long and east of 20th
Street and desired to send their children to Douglas Street
school claiming that Loving School was two miles away,
too far for their little folks to walk, and not as good
[1701A] a school as provided for white children. They also
stated that they sent their children to Douglas Street
School when it opened last year, and they were sent away.
[1702] This was never reported to the Board. These
persons have been offered streetcar fare, street is in paren
theses, on tire Long Street Road in all kinds of weather
263
during school term, but refused to accept it. They are
near the street railway and would have to cross it to get
to the Douglas building. The matter was referred.
Q. All right. You also quoted from the Columbus
Statesman. Was that a newspaper in general circulation
at that time?
A. That is correct. It went by two or three names,
the Ohio Statesman, the Columbus Statesman and the
Central Ohio Statesman.
Q. All right. Would you read just the first paragraph
of that?
A. School privileges for colored children.
A communication was read from P. Scurry, J. Johnson
and Daniel Trent, the same trio that we referred to, ask
ing that the children of colored parents be admitted to the
Douglas Street School. The petitioner recited that there
was plenty of room in that building, yet notwithstanding
this, the colored children were compelled to walk, some of
them as far as two miles. Last year, their children had
presented themselves at the Douglas Street building but
were refused permission to enter, even after the fact that
it was advertised in the papers that all were to be admitted
[1703] there. It was a hardship, the petitioners said, to
compel their children to walk all the way to Loving School
when the other was so much nearer their home. They
therefore asked for some action on the premises.
On motion of Mr. Beck, the matter was referred to
the Committee on teachers.
Do you want me to read the next, too?
Q. Yes, the next paragraph.
A. It is said that facilities have been provided for
the colored children — there are three dots indicating that
this is not a complete quote — but parents have failed to
improve the opportunity offered. There are also buildings
in the vicinity where they had lived owned by the Board
and where the children could be accommodated so that
it is unlikely another school will be opened.
264
Q. All right. There’s reference to another site for a
school operated by the Columbus Board of Education for
black children, and the reference I make is in your report,
page 31, indicates — if you go back to page 30 and begin
with the sentence, “In 1879 it was alleged.”
A. In 1879, it was alleged that the Fulton School
building was, quote, in a crowded condition, end of quote,
and the Board was faced with the problem. As a result,
the Mt. Airy School, A-i-r-y, was created to serve both
mulatto and white pupils.
[1704] Q. And the details were reported in the De
cember 3, 1829, Ohio State Journal?
A. That’s right.
Q. Would you read them, please?
[1705] Q. Would you read them, please?
A. “Mr. Beck, from the committee on rules and regu
lations, reported as follows on the resolution as to the
admission of colored pupils in the schools:
“Whereas, the Fulton Street building are in a
crowded condition and cannot accommodate more pupils
without great inconvenience; therefore
“Resolved that the Committee on Sites together with
the Superintendent be instructed to rent a room south
of Town Street for the accommodation of the colored chil
dren, who live in said district, south of Town Street of the
B, C and D Primary grades.
“Second — That a school for colored children of the
same grades, east of Washington Avenue, be opened in
Mt. Airy school building.”
Q. All right.
A. The report was signed by all members of the com
mittee.
[1706] Q. In 1880 Dr. Loving made his annual visit
to the [1707] Loving School. I believe you have this under
265
the heading “Dr. Loving Cites Bad Conditions at Negro
School?”
A. Yes.
Q. Would you read that section, beginning at the
top of Page 33?
A. “On his annual visit to Loving School in 1880, Dr.
Loving lamented the environment in which the Negro
youngsters were schooled. I t was a saloon-infested area,
surrounded by such unhealthy moral atmosphere,’ he
contended.”
“In his annual report to the board for that year, he
noted:
“Gentlemen:
“Your committee beg leave to make the following re
port respecting our visits —
Q. This is addressed to the Honorable Board of Edu
cation, Columbus, Ohio; is that correct?
A. That’s right.
Q. Go ahead.
A. Did you want me to proceed?
Q. Yes, please.
A. “Your committee beg leave to make the following
report respecting our visits to the Loving School during
the spring examinations: . . .
“. . . It is certain that no school in the city is [1708]
surrounded by such an unhealthy moral atmosphere as the
Loving School.”
It was the custom then, as now, for school board
members to visit various schools. It was always an annual
afFair, and back in the 1880’s.
Proceeding: “Saloons . . . lie on every hand and make
it at once one of the worst places for a public school, in
the city. This in connection with the poor architectural
design of the building. There are no conveniences for
teachers or pupils in the way of a washroom, and the
crowding of the rooms with scholars. All these things sug
2 6 6
gest the necessity of a change. We most respectfully ask
your attention to these points, and your favorable con
sideration of the same . .
[1709] Q. All right. In 1881 did a delegation of Negro
citizens approach the Board of Education with reference
to requesting desegregation of the schools and considera
tion of that factor, particularly for the future development
of new schools?
A. This is on page 35?
Q. 37 and at the top of 38.
A. Yes. Reverend Poindexter and a number of his
Negro friends attended one of the Board of Education
meetings in 1881 for the purpose of inducing the Board to
integrate colored and white in all Columbus public schools
and particularly those schools that were on the drawing
board for future development.
Q. Would you say that has been a rather consistent
request of representatives of the black community with
respect to new construction and to desegregation of the
schools in Columbus?
A. Yes.
Q. Over the years?
A. Yes.
Q. Starting as far back as — what was that date again?
A. Well, at this point, yes. I wouldn’t go so far as to
say that there was no — it was just a blanket deal.
Q. What was the date?
[1710] A. 1880. This has been the philosophy at least
from 1880. That would be my opinion.
Q. If you would turn now to page 39 and refer to
tire discussion that took place in the Board of Education
over the proposal to set up a separate school for colored
youth in the Fulton Street School, would you read the
statement of Mr. I believe it is Schuller, S-c-h-u-l-l-e -r?
A. “The undersigned, a member of the committee on
sites, to which was referred the practicability of locating
267
a separate school for the colored children in the south
eastern part of the city, begs leave to present the follow
ing minority report: Although in theory and principle in
full accord with the report of the majority, yet he con
siders it unwise to unite at present the two antipodal races
in so-called mixed schools, for by the prevalence of a
certain prejudice that cannot be wiped out by legislation,
in such schools the colored children will be exposed to
humiliation and insults, the results of which would be
worse than continuing separate schools, namely non-
attendance. Of this prejudice the colored people them
selves are well aware and are unwilling to suffer thereby,
as is shown by the fact that when left at their option, they
continue to maintain with great sacrifices separate colored
churches, with preachers of their own color, and to unite
in separate colored lodges and societies, and even more
than that, moved [1711] by selfishness and not by their
avowed principles, some colored men draw a color line
and deny to men of their own race the same privileges
they extend to the white. An instance of this kind occurred
but a few years ago in a barber shop held by a colored
man in our city.
“The law also takes cognizance of this question and
prohibits the intermarriage of white and black persons.
Parenthetically, see Revised Statutes of Ohio so and so.
“In view of these facts, the undersigned considers the
Board of Education justified to establish separate schools
for colored children and recommends that the frame build
ing on the Fulton Street lot be used as a school house
for colored children in that section of the city. As the
building is in good condition and the grounds are large,
no expenditure of money would be involved.
“Respectfully submitted, J. R. Schueller.”
Q. All right, the next section of your study — let me
go back. I believe the proposal with respect to the Fulton
Street School was not adopted, was tabled; is that correct?
268
A. Yes.
Q. The next section is headed “Attempt to Assign
Negro Students to Districts in Which They Live Fails.”
Would you read the questions that were posed at the Board
meeting in 1891?
[1711A] A. These questions were raised at the Board
meeting in 1881, but none of them were resolved.
[1712] Q. I believe the questions come first.
A. How do you require students to attend the school
in the respective districts in which they live? How many
of our schools should be integrated and should the whole
city compose the Loving School District as far as the negro
students are concerned?
These questions were raised at board meeting in
1881, but none of them were resolved. The method of the
hoard — Shall I proceed?
Q. No. If you would just turn now to the actual re
port of excerpts from the board minutes, the statement
of the board treasurer.
A. Did you want the resolution read, Mr. Lucas?
Q. No. Just read the statement of the board treasurer
and then Mr. Loving’s statement.
A. Resolved that the Superintendent of Instruction
be and he is ordered to require —
Q. No, no. Just read the statement of the board treas
urer. It appears — I think it is the fifth paragraph down.
A. This is on 41, isn’t it?
Q. Yes. If you think it is incomplete without reading
the resolution, please feel free to do so.
A. Well, there is a little contention here among board
members. Maybe I better read the whole of it.
[1713] Resolved that the Superintendent of Instruc
tion be and he is ordered to require the school children
that may be enrolled irrespective of color or race to attend
school in the respective district in which they reside.
269
Mr. Jones — Now, I am not sure who Mr. Jones is.
I don’t think he was a board member. Mr. Jones said some
provision must be made for colored children, the board
having refused to furnish a building in the south end.
There are many colored children there that are de
prived of the school privilege. It is not legal and it is not
right that such a state of things should exist. The question
must be met, and let us meet it now.
The resolution means equal school privilege for all,
a mere guarantee of the legal right of a certain race.
Now, Mr. Neil thought the resolution would break
down the Loving School. Mr. Neil was a member of the
board. 1 can’t remember the gentleman’s name, whether
he was a member of the board at that time or not.
Mr. Schueller, another member, was in favor of the
resolution. He wanted mixed schools all over the city and
not in one part.
Mr. Corzilious, the board treasurer, asked how much
territory the special district, the Loving School, contained.
Mr. Loving stated the whole city composed the Loving
School District.
[1714] Mr. Stewart said — I think he was a board
member also — that he did not think that the adoption of
the resolution would abolish the colored school. The mo
tion, however, was lost.
Q. Would you read the section on Page 42, “Negro
Children Denied Education at Sullivant School — Parent
Protests”?
A. Tradition dictated that all negro children attend
Loving School regardless of where the child lived. As late
as 1881 when the color line was supposedly broken in
the public schools of the city, there were many instances
in which negro children were denied admittance to mixed
schools.
270
A report published in the September 6, 1881 issue of
the Ohio State journal was typical. Did you want me to
read that?
Q. Yes.
A. Mr. Stewart presented the following petition:
“Gentlemen:
“I am a citizen of the United States of the State of
Ohio, resident of the 10th Ward, City of Columbus, Frank
lin County, Ohio. I sent my children, aged respectively 9,
11 and 13 years to the Sullivant School September 5, 1881,
the school to which my white neighbors send their chil
dren, and they were denied admittance and told by the
principal that they must go to the Loving School.
[1715] I object to this as discrimination which in
volves oppression and violates the Constitution of the
United States. I understand it to be the right of my
children to attend school in their own proper districts
and demand of you gentlemen sworn to do justice to all,
irrespective of color or race, that you maintain my children
in the right of schooling. Will you do my children justice,
or shall I be compelled to secure it as the end of a law suit?
I petition justice. I demand justice.
It is signed by Willis Mitchell.
[1716] Q. Looking at page 43, does it indicate that
there was a motion that it be referred to the Committee on
Teachers?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And then recites some argument by board mem
bers?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe there was a motion offered in sub
stitution for the resolution; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What was that?
A. It was also referred.
271
Q. Was the motion to admit Mr. Mitchell’s children
to the Sullivant Building?
A. Yes.
Q. And was it objected to?
A. That’s right.
Q. And referred to the Committee on Teachers; is
that right? Isn’t that what it says, that it was referred to
the Committee on Teachers?
A. Yes, it was referred to the Committee on Teachers.
Q. And did there come a time in your study when the
Loving School was closed and the children reassigned to
other schools in the district?
A. There was, but I can’t document that offhand.
Q. All right. Would you refer to your report, [1717]
page 44?
A. 44. “During the summer of 1881, Mr. Twiss” —
Mr. Twiss was a high school principal — “surprised the
Board by suggesting that the Loving School property be
sold. Almost two months later, in late September, 1882,
the Board initiated action to close the school.
“Records reveal that from this time until the selling
of the property, attendance progressively became worse at
the Loving School.
[1718] Q. Do the minutes go on to reflect that the
school was sold and closed?
A. I ssume that it did, but 1 —
Q. I believe it appears at Page 45.
A. Forty-five.
Q. Just read it to yourself, and if that’s correct —
A. Yes.
# # # # #
[1719] Q. Well, it simply skips over, and you have a
section that begins, “Attempt to Annul Mixed Schools and
Set Up Separate Schools for Negroes Fails.”
A. Yes, I see.
Q. Obviously, as I ’ve indicated here, some members
of the Board of Education made efforts to re-establish
272
separate negro schools in Columbus, and in March, 1883,
for example, board member Gunning, of the Douglass
School Committee, introduced a resolution for the readop
tion of separate schools for colored children.
His colleagues refused to support him, however, so
the measure failed in committee.
I think that answers the question.
Q. All right. I show you a document which has been
marked Original Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 51-E-9.
I don’t believe this very bulky exhibit has been copied.
It has been available, and Mr. Porter copied some sections.
I don’t know whether he copied this.
There’s a notation at the top, “From Historian’s
Records” and I believe that handwriting is Mr. Mont
gomery’s?
A. Yes.
[1720] Q. Are you familiar with that?
A. This is mine.
Q. All right. Would you read that, please? Read it
aloud, if you will.
A. This is from the Columbus Dispatch:
Members of the Board of Education who favored a
separate school building for colored children — I’m not sure
of that next, sec, is that sic? Is that supposed to be —
Q. What’s the title on that?
A. It’s “Clever Scheme to Separate Racism in Colum
bus Schools.”
Q. All right.
A. Would you indicate what this is? Is that s-i —?
Q. It says — looks like see to me, but your opinion is
as good or better than mine.
A. Yea. Well, the heading on this is, “Clever Scheme
to Separate Racism in Columbus Schools.”
Members of the Board of Education who favored a
separate school building for colored children — now, that
next is — I don’t know. That’s see. I think we both agree
it’s see. It might be seemed. Seemed, could that be right?
273
seemed to have stolen the march on those members who
favored a continued mixture of the races, announced
[1721] the December 7, 1907 Columbus Dispatch, The
Law Department of the City rendered a decision to the
effect that the board had no legal right to establish a
separate school for colored children, then, “but there will
be one, the newspaper said, and “again, and no law will
be violated.” That’s the end of the quotes.
# # # # *
[1879] Q. I am going to refer you now to the min
utes of the Board of November 11, 1907, page 343 marked
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit — original Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 51-E-7A.
This is a very poor copy, so you will have to do the best
you can.
A. My eyes aren’t too keen either.
Q. First of all, sir, do you recognize that as a form
in which minutes were kept in that period?
A. This is a form used in the Board minutes of that
period as far as I can ascertain.
Q. Okay, and they were kept in handwritten form at
that time?
A. That is correct.
Q. Can you locate in those minutes the motion of the
Sites Committee for the purchase of certain lots, certain
pieces of real estate?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. Can you read the motion?
# # # * #
[1881] A. This is a poor, poor copy, or my eyes are
very, very poor, Mr. Lucas.
Q. Does it say Chairman of the Sites Committee,
Board of Education?
A. Yes. My Dear Sir: I herewith submit to you — you
will have to help me. Proposition on Lot Nos. 6 and 8.
Submit it to the Judge, would you please, Mr. Lucas,
and see if it is legible.
274
Q. Perhaps I can help you with it. If you feel I am
less than helpful, please say so.
It looks like Mr. Morrison’s subdivision to be con
sidered. Let me ask you if this is clear. I think I can read
that, but perhaps —
A. Size of lot, 105 by 140, line on the north side of
Hawthorne. The item above it, Lots 6, 7 and 8, it appears.
Can you tell me for this? Can you decipher this for me,
please?
Q. That’s the $1,300.
A. I mean above my fingers.
Q. William Morrison Subdivision is what it looks like
to me, but I don’t know.
[1882] Q. The map does show the location, does
it not?
A. Yes, it shows the location.
Q. That’s much easier to read. What is the location
of those lots? Just give us the streets, the boundaries.
A. Bounded by Champion Avenue on the east, alley
on north, Hawthorne Street on south. What is this, do
you know?
Q. It looks like an alley.
A. Alley on the west. On motion of Mr. Thompson
— your eyes are better than mine. I can’t see that. I am
sorry.
[1883] Q. That’s all right. This one is particularly
bad.
MR. LUCAS: Your Honor, we will propose on this
particular document to type up what we think it says
and submit it to Mr. Porter. It is quite a visual problem.
THE COURT: Very well.
Q. But the lots that are marked out on the map are
six, seven and eight?
A, That’s correct. I can see that.
Q. Thank you, sir.
A. Thank you.
275
Q, Are you familiar with the Ohio State Journal?
A. I am.
Q. All right. I show you what’s marked as Original
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 51-E-7B from the Ohio State Journal,
Tuesday morning, November 12, 1907, an article entitled
“New School Site to be Purchased.” Would you read that,
including the heading?
A. New School Site to be purchased. The Board of
Education plans for a building on Hawthorne Avenue near
Champion. Janitors want pay raise, $10 a month. Obvi
ously that’s not the same story.
Q. Would you read just the first part?
A. The site for what will be the best equipped school
in Columbus will be purchased from J. S. Starbuck within
a few days by the Board of Education. The school will be
[1884] located on the north side of Hawthorne Avenue be
tween Champion Avenue and Mingo Street, I assume that
it. Is that Mingo?
Q. M-i-n-c-k is what it appears to be.
A. Minck Street, perhaps.
Q. The site consists —
A. The site consists of three lots which have a front
age of 105 feet on Hawthorne Avenue and a depth of
140 feet.
[1885] A. (Continuing) On recommendation of the —
Q. Finance and building.
A. — finance and building committees at the meeting
of the Board last night, instructions were given for the
purchase of the site, the consideration to be $1300. The
erection of the building will be begun as soon as possible.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
A. I know the problems you have in making copies
from newspapers. I’ve done so many of them.
Q. All right. I show you Original Plaintiffs’ 51-E-23,
a page from the minutes of the Board, dated August 31,
1908, page 587, and ask you to look at the second to the
276
last paragraph from the bottom. Let’s see if you can read
it, if you can hold it in the light?
A. Mis. - - what is that, Wood? Mr. Wood or H. W.
Wood? H. V. Wood — I’ll take a guess at it.
Q. All right.
A. — moved to name the proposed building at the
corner of Champion Avenue and Hawthorne Avenue, the
Champion Avenue School which —
Q. Was agreed —
A. — which was agreed to, I assume that is.
Q. All right. Thank you.
I ’ll show you Exhibit 51-E-24A, Original Plaintiffs’,
and I have two copies, one of them an excerpt from the
[1888] historian’s records, and the balance of the article
from the newspaper records.
Since it’s easier to read the copy — the excerpt from
your records, would you read that, please?
A. This is date line, January 6, 1910, the Columbus —
no, the Ohio State Journal.
Negroes to have fine new school head. Champion
Avenue structure will be for use of colored children, sub
head.
Expected to provide places for ten teachers and a
janitor of that race, the second subhead.
Although no definite statement has been made by
members of the Board of Education, the east side people
believe the new school building now in the course of con
struction on Champion Avenue near Long Street will be
used exclusively for colored children with colored teachers
and jobs. The colored population in that section is large
and it is likely that all the scholars in the new building,
which is to have ten rooms, will be of that race. Structure
is located within three squares of the 23rd Street School.
It is just under roof and it will not be ready for occupancy
until next September.
277
At present, there are only six colored teachers em
ployed in the Schools. There are four colored janitors. It
is proposed to have Negro care for the Champion Avenue
[1887] school.
The colored population of the city is estimated to be
between 28,000 and 30,000.
Q. All right. If you can read from the copy from the
journal, page 10, which, correct me if I ’m wrong, appears
to be simply the balance of that article?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Can you try and read from “Opposition in the
Past”?
A. All right. Strong sentiment has been worked —
worked up. Now, I’ve read it — worked up in something
— the northwest section of the city. Would that be correct?
A. Yes.
A. Can you make —
Q. Against.
A. — against segregation of pupils —
Q. Whenever.
A. — whenever the subject has been — is that remem
bered?
Q. Mentioned.
[1888] A. —mentioned. There is some colored lead
ers, however, who have deprecated opposition to a sepa
rate school for their children, I suppose it is.
Q. That’s “colored” up there?
A. For colored children.
The next line’s almost deleted. I can’t make out the
beginning there. You have to drop down. —
Q. You have to get to the lights, that’s right. “They
point out that there is —”
A. They point out that there is no opportunity of
employment of colored —
Q. Girls.
A. — girls — something about on graduation, I can see.
278
Q. Who are graduates.
A. — who are graduates from schools and —
Q. Colleges.
A. — and colleges. Employment in stores — is that
institutions or what is that word?
Q. In factories, I believe.
A. — in factories is limited to them.
Q. Are —
A. Is that limited?
Q. Is barred to them
A. Is barred to them, because certain entertainment,
[1889] I get that.
Q. A feeling entertained against.
A. — a feeling entertained against such — something
about the white employees.
Q. Associations.
A. — associations by white employees. They would
either enter —
Q. Excuse me, but they must either.
A. — they must either enter domestics — domestic
employment or remain idle at home.
Q. According.
A. According to those — What’s that line, colored
leaders who are —
Q. Entering.
A. Who are entering no objection to the operation
of a school — what’s that word?
Q. Exclusively.
A. — exclusively for the colored children. It is the —
Q. It is their argument.
A. It is their argument that —
Q. Desirable.
A. — desirable teaching —
Q. Positions.
A. — positions are to be provided for more colored —
279
[1889A] Q. Can be provided for more colored girls
if colored schools are established.
A. Um-hmm.
[1890] Q. Do you agree with that? Don’t let me put
any words in your mouth on that.
A. Well, it looks like it might be there. I guess I ’ll
have to go back to school again and learn to read, Mr.
Lucas.
Q. I think we both may need new eyes.
A. Is there some more there you want me to — I
think this is more legible, maybe.
Q. It’s down here ( indicating).
A. Down here ( indicating).
Law against segregation. This is a state law — there is
a state law against segregation, but it is understood that
— would you like for the Judge to look at this?
Q. I don’t know if he’d have any better luck than we
would. That’s strict adherence.
A. Strict adherence.
Q. To this law. Strict —
A. Strict adherence to this law.
Q. Can be avoided.
A. Can be avoided if — something about —
Q. Schools.
A. — school are — is that constructed?
Q. Yes.
A. — constructed —
[1891] Q. At such colored pupils —
A. Such colored pupils as wish are permitted to at
tend. White — that doesn’t make sense.
Q. White children could not be barred from such
schools if their parents sought to send them; is that cor
rect?
A. That s correct, as far as I can ascertain.
* # # * »
280
KARL TAEUBER
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
[1729] Q. [By Air. Lucas] Would you give us your
full name and occupation, please?
A. Yes, my name is Karl Taeuber. I am a Professor
of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin.
# # # # #
[1730] Q. Would you give us some of your major
population and migration studies, publications in this area?
A. Yes. I am co-author of two books. One I forget
the exact title. One of them I recall is Negroes in Cities
with a subtitle Residential Segregation and Neighborhood
Change.
[1731] The migration book, the title is simply Migra
tion in the United States, An Analysis o f Residence Histo
ries.
In addition, there are a number of journal articles,
chapters in books.
Q. Have you done particular studies in the area of
racial concentration, population and the changes in that
concentration?
A. Yes, I have, both in the books and in many of
the individual articles and chapters.
Q. All right, can you list some of those for us, please?
A. Yes. In the American Journal of Sociology there
was an article in 1965 on the changing character of Negro
migration. There are a number of articles on residential
segregation, one with the title, Residential Segregation in
Scientific American in 1965. Population Trends and Resi
dential Segregation Since 1960 in the Journal of Science.
The Effect of Negro Distribution on Racial Residential
Segregation in the Urban Affairs Quarterly. Negro popu
lation in Housing, a chapter in a book in 1969.
281
[1732] A. (Continuing) Indexes of racial residential
segregation for 109 cities in the United States, 1940 to
1970, published last year, the black population of the
United States, a chapter forth coming this year in a publi
cation called “The Black American Reference Book.”
Q. Have you done studies with regard to the relation
ship between housing segregation and school segregation?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Can you identify some of those, please?
A. Yes. There is an article in the Wayne Law Review
which I wrote called “Demographic Perspectives on Hous
ing and School Segregation.” There is testimony I pre
pared for what was called the Mondale Committee, a
Senate-select committee, I believe, on equal educational
community in the late 1960s or around 1970 or ’71, I be
lieve, and another article, “The Demographic Context of
Metropolitan Education,” published in 1967, and —
Q. Was that revised and reprinted at a later day?
A. Yes, that appeared as a chapter in a book of a
couple of years later.
I also have been involved in research project at the
Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wis
consin concerned with the relationship between residential
and school segregation.
Q. Have you also served as a consultant with the
U.S. [1733] Commission of Civil Rights?
A. Yes, I did, in the 1960s and on occasion, more
recently.
Q. All right. Do you serve as a consultant from time
to time with the U.S. Bureau of Census?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And in what particular areas have you consulted
with the Census Bureau?
A. In connection with the 1970 Census, I was asked
to consult their program of publications concerning racial
and ethnic information.
2 8 2
Currently, I’m consulting with them about a possible
project for release of some census data from earlier cen
suses to permit more historical analysis of similar topics.
# # # # #
[1740] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Dr. Taeuber, in your book
Negroes in the Cities, you have developed and utilized
what you called an index of segregation. Would you
describe to the Court what exactly that index is, and
what does it purport to show?
A. Yes. The index was applied to the census data in
an effort to make possible certain kinds of formal com
parisons of trends in racial residential segregation. Pre
vious work had made use of maps shading in blocks or
census tracts to show the racial composition of the cities,
[1741] the distribution of black population as compared
to the distribution of white population. Such maps were
used in an attempt to compare one city with another, but
this depends on visual interpretation of the degree of con
centration shown by one map versus another.
What I attempted to do was to provide a summary
statistical index of the degree of segregation. Now, this
index is like a scale that goes from 0 to 100 where zero
represents the situation of no segregation by race. No
segregation means in the census data that every single city
block would have the same percentage of whites and
blacks. If there are 20-percent blacks in the city, then
every block would have 20-percent black, 80-percent
white. That would he zero segregation, and the index
value would be zero.
If every city block is completely occupied by black
families or completely occupied by white families, that
would be complete segregation. The index value would
be 100.
Measures in between 0 and 100 were obtained for
every city. No city is completely segregated. No city is
completely unsegregated.
283
The specific formula for calculating the index deter
mines the percentage of the black population or of the
white population that would have to be relocated in order
to obtain a zero segregation level, so that an index of 90
for [1742] a city would mean that there is a 90-percent dis
similarity in the way blacks and whites are distributed
and that to transfer to the desegregated pattern would
require moving the 90 percent say of the blocks that are
in heavily black residential blocks into blocks that are
predominantly white.
As I say, this is a statistical technique for calculating
that percentage. The index then refers to the system, the
actual observed system of residential location of blacks
and whites in a city for a given area.
a # # # #
[1744] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Did you calculate the in
dex of residential segregation in the City of Columbus for
the years 1940, ’50, ’60, and ’70?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Can you tell us what index you determined the
degree of segregation in housing in Columbus?
A. Yes. For 1940 for the City of Columbus, the index
was 87.1. For 1950 the index was 88.9. For 1960, 85.3.
For 1970, 84.1.
Q. Was your comparison between white and non
white [1745] in those figures?
A. Yes. All of those figures compare the distribution
of white households with that of non-white households.
That is the only way, the only racial division that was
given in the Census for 1940, 1950 and 1960.
Q. All right. Was there a more detailed breakout for
the 1970 Census with respect to race and other minority
groups?
A. Yes. For 1970 the Census provided additional in
formation for city blocks on a special census tape, and
284
it is possible to obtain these tapes and use one’s own com
puters to obtain more detailed information.
In this case, in addition to the division between whites
and non-whites, the non-whites can be divided into blacks
and other races. The census terminology “other races”
means principally Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, American
Indian.
Q. Spanish?
A. No Spanish unless they happen to identify a Negro
say as some Puerto Ricans, some of the Caribbean peoples
do, specifically Spanish are classified under whites. It is a
very special kind of definition that the Census Bureau has
been using for many years. They call it race, but it is
basically a mixture of color and origin. [1746]
Q. All right. Did you calculate the index for white
and black in the index of residential segregation in the
City of Columbus for 1970?
A. Yes, I did. That value was 86.2.
Q. I believe the figure when you simply used white
and non-white was 84.1?
A. Yes. This is the typical pattern that when the
other races’ population is excluded and we consider only
blacks, not the total non-whites, then we typically find a
somewhat higher degree of segregation. This is true in
Columbus and in virtually every other city. In fact, in
every other city for which I have done this calculation the
index is higher comparing only whites and Negroes than
when we compare whites and the combination of Negroes
plus other races.
# # # # #
[1747] Q. All right. Before we get to the school seg
regation, can you tell the Court what type of analysis
your research has led you to with respect to determining
what difference, if any, there may be between the dis
persal pattern of ethnic groups in communities as opposed
to the dispersal or non-dispersal pattern of black citizens
in communities in the United States?
285
A. Yes. I made a number of studies using the census
data which, in addition to providing information on
whites, blacks and other races, also provides information
on persons classified by the country in which they were
born or the country in which their parents were bom so
that we can obtain from the Census that information on
a number of ethnic groups from various European origins,
Italians, Germans, Poles, Mexicans, and the like.
In addition, there is information for certain states
and cities on either persons of Spanish surname or [1748]
persons who speak Spanish in the home. The Census
Bureau uses several ways of trying to identify the Spanish
population.
Now, for each of these groups, there is information
on a census tract basis so that the distribution of these
groups among residential neighborhoods may be compared
and a segregation index may be calculated which com
pares, for instance, the pattern of distribution of persons
of English origin with the total group of say native
whites or total group of everybody else in the population.
These comparisons show that currently, say 1960, 1970,
the segregation indexes, residential patterns for each of
these ethnic groups other than the black population, these
groups are less segregated residentially from the native
white population or from each other than are the blacks.
Now, the Spanish origin populations are typically white
segregated, but not quite as segregated as the blacks, The
populations of the European groups, European origin,
are much less segregated. The indexes may be 20 or 30
or 40. For black-white segregation, the indexes are typi
cally 80 or 90. There is some difference from one time
period to another in the character of these comparisons.
Q. Does it change from generation to generation?
A. Yes, it does. The European groups during the
periods of heavy immigration in the late 19th Century
and the [1749] period 1900, 1910, 1920, were more
286
segregated one from another and from the native popula
tion than they were subsequently. For each of these
groups of European origin during the period of mass
migration of the group, a particular group, say the South
ern Europeans in the early part of this century or the
Northern and Western Europeans in the last decade of
the 19th Century, during each period of mass migration,
the measures of residential segregation were initially high
but declined census by census to these lower levels.
[1750] A. (Continuing) Now, back in 1900 or 1910,
the black population, which was not represented to a great
degree in most cities in the country, was segregated resi-
dentially pretty much to the same degree statistically as
were these European ethnic groups, but in subsequent
years, the European measures declined, the black-white
segregation measures increased. So that during the period
of rapid black movement, in this case, not from other
countries, but from America’s rural areas to its cities, the
black urban segregation increased, and as I mentioned,
even by 1970, is still at high levels, higher levels than
were observed for the ethnic segregation of European
groups, even back in the turn of the century period.
Q. Dr. Taeuber, in your work in sociology, have you
run into the — I don’t know if attitude is the proper word,
but shall we say the popular beliefs that ethnic neighbor
hoods are homogeneous in certain ways and that this sort
of ethnic Italian neighborhood, Jewish neighborhood, and
so forth, the same phenomenon that is observed when you
look at the black community?
A. Yes. There has been considerable discussion in
sociological writings of these concepts and of the com
parison between blacks and the earlier immigrant groups.
# # # # #
[1751] Q. Dr. Taeuber, directing you to your earlier
testimony that you’ve given, what is the difference be
tween the black ethnic neighborhood and the Italian or
287
other European ethnic group neighborhoods discussed in
the popular literature and is analyzed by the reality of
the census data?
A. Well, 111 concentrate on the reality of the census
data which shows that, first, the degree of segregation of
these ethnic groups was never as great in the past as has
been in the case per black-white segregation in the cities
of the United States during the last 30 years. In other
words, the indexes at their peak for these ethnic groups
were perhaps around 50 as compared to measures of 80
and above which commonly occur for black-white racial
segregation.
[1752] This indicates that although there were Little
Italys, German communities, Chinatown, Jewish neighbor
hoods, Catholic neighborhoods and the like, these neigh
borhoods, for the most part, were neither completely
homogeneous — in other words, within these neighbor
hoods there may have been — there is often a concentra
tion of one kind of population, but it is not complete.
Many people with other characteristics also live in these
neighborhoods.
In addition, many of the people with those character
istics, many Germans or Jews or Catholics or Italians or
Chinese, live in other parts of the city, so that the segre
gation in the middle, indexes of around 50, rather than
close to the 100 level which occurs if the areas are com
pletely one group or completely another group.
Now, the change through time for these groups other
than the black population has been for a high degree if
dispersal so that many of the second generation, the third
generation, even the first generation as they live in the
city longer move away from these identified areas of heavy
concentration into areas that are much more mixed. These
cities have many areas where there’s some, say, over
representation of Italians or Catholics or Jews. Perhaps
a group is 10 percent of the total population, and in some
288
census tracts some neighborhoods would have 20 percent,
others would have 5 percent.
[1753] In the case of blacks and whites, it is common
in every city in this country to find areas that are 99 per
cent and 100 percent of one race and, of course, zero per
cent of the other.
Q. Dr. Taeuber, the explanations, two explanations
which have been suggested for residential segregation,
and I believe you’ve just touched on one of them in part,
have to do with questions of choice and economics, and if
I may articulate, the choice is further than you’ve already
discussed it. Have you had occasion to examine the factor
of choice, that is, all blacks like to live together, as to
whether or not there is evidence for or against this propo
sition?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And what have you looked at, what types of in
formation have you examined, and if you would give us
your conclusions from that examination?
A. I would say there are three types of information.
One, to follow up on the comment on ethnic groups,
looks at what happened to these groups, say Italian origins,
in relation to what those groups were seeking at the time.
In other words, there were, say, churches where the Euro
pean language was spoken, there were neighborhood
stores with a particular kind of food and with people who
spoke the language, there were these communities, the
little Italys, [1754] that sort of area.
There were efforts on the part of the established mem
bers of these groups, the church leaders, the business
leaders, to try and sustain this ethnic identity and the
ethnic character of the neighborhood, and yet, the people
dispersed, as I have described, so that the cultural tradition,
the religious tradition, the language traditions, the patterns
of life did not lead to a complete and a continuing resi
dential concentration. There was a great deal of residential
dispersal despite these other factors.
289
[1755] In the case of the black population, even hack
in 1910,1920, 1930, as the black populations were growing,
all of the major, organized groups were—nearly all of the
major, organized groups were pleading for more resi
dential dispersal for less concentration of black population.
They were concerned with the patterns of discrimina
tion attempting to overcome them. There was not the same
focus that there had been in these ethnic communities for
trying to keep people attached to the community.
There were attempts to dimmish this sort of inward
turning focus of the group upon itself.
This suggests to me that, in the case of choice, that
the black groups, as indicated in their organized expres
sions, were very concerned about this concentration and
seeking to overcome it.
It was not a free choice. It was viewed as one imposed
upon them at the time, so this is one kind of evidence.
Another kind of evidence is based on surveys by the
Gallup Poll, the Lewis-Harris Poll, the National Opinion
Research Center at the University of Chicago, the Survey
Research Center at the University of Michigan. Many of
these have been summarized in an article by Thomas Petti
grew in a publication of the National Academy of Sciences
about three years ago.
[1756] These show that the majority of black popula
tion, when asked what kind of neighborhood they wanted
to live in, preferred one that is racially mixed. They do not
express a preference, for the most part, for living in an all
white area. They do not express a preference for living in
an all white area. This was true in the 1950’s. It was true
in the 1960’s. It was true in the early 1970’s.
So this again is a measure of choice by going out and
asking people what do they want?
A third kind of measure comes out of the statistical
information on who actually lives where, and I have asked
this for a number of cities and find that the financially
better off black population in cities leads the movement
290
away from the concentrated black areas. The better off,
economically better off blacks, the better educated blacks,
are more likely to live in areas that are somewhat racially
mixed and that are at the fringes or beyond the heavily
black areas that are found in all of our cities.
This suggests that these people who have economic
alternatives available to them seek to avoid living in com
pletely 100 percent black areas.
[1757] There is a whole set of corresponding evidence
by economists and others that there are pretty much —
there is a black housing market that functions very much
like the white housing market in that the well-off people
within the black poplation seek better housing, they seek
to buy home owned housing to get more space, to get
single family housing, to move away from the congested
areas in the same way that the white population does, but
this seems to occur largely within a constrained area so
that there is an ocean of a dual housing market where
blacks are making the same kinds of choices but with con
straints imposed upon that choice.
Q. Have you compared the data and the degree of
dispersal of upper economic blacks versus the degree of
dispersal of upper economic whites to lower income
whites?
A. Yes. I made a calculation from the 1970 Census
data for the Columbus area to indicate the way in which
this general pattern applies within the local community.
Q. Let me ask you first, Dr. Taeuber, does this parti
cular facet hinge on both the choice question and the
question of economics as a determination of the residence?
A. Yes, it also — in talking about an actual pattern,
one also gets into the third kind of factor that you didn’t
mention, which is the discrimination one. Choice and
economics and discrimination affect all of the observed
[1758] distributions, so the attempt to talk about them sepa
rately is one of these attempts to analytically circumscribe
291
the world, but one can’t help talking about all three of
them at once.
Q. You say you examined certain census data with
respect to the stature.
A. Yes.
Q. What did you look at for your source of infor
mation?
A. I used the 1970 Census Tract Volume for Colum
bus, Ohio, published by the Bureau of the Census. Within
that I used the tables that show families by race, white
and black, and by income. The census question is: What
income — what was your total family income in 1989?
And I also then looked at how many families of each
race, of each economic level live in the city and how many
live elsewhere in Franklin County. I sort of lumped that
together as a shorthand way of calling the suburbs.
Q. What was the result of your examination?
A. Okay. Among whites, even at the very low income
levels, white families with economics less than a thousand
dollars a year or with less than three thousand, four thous
and, five thousand dollars, white families with those low
incomes, about 25 to 30 percent of the Franklin County
total lived outside of the City of Columbus.
Now, the percentage living outside the City [1759]
increased as the income moved up to five thousand, six
thousand, up to ten thousand and over, so that for ten
thousand and over, something like 47 percent of the fami
lies with that income level lived outside of the city, so that
at the high income levels it was nearly half of the families
live in the city, half in the suburbs. At the lower income
levels, it was more like one-fourth or one-third.
Now, for black families, the greatest proportion living
in the suburbs was found for those with the highest eco
nomics, ten thousand and over, but this percentage was
six percent, so that the black families with the highest
economics were less than one-fourth as likely to be found
292
in the suburbs that were white families with the lowest
levels of income, and for black families with low income,
this ranged down to about one percent, so for black fami
lies, additional income increased families that lived in the
suburbs, but the maximum was only six percent at the
upper income level identified in the census table.
This shows — in light of the underlying question,
“What does it show about choice and economics,” it shows
that in each group, the people with greater economic
ability are more likely to live in the suburbs, which in
general, in Columbus and in other cities, are regarded as
having more desirable housing, but that the degree to
which [1760] this pattern of getting into the suburbs
obtains for blacks is quite different than for whites, so some
of the choice factors are similar, some of the economic
factors are similar within the group, but when you make
comparisons of whites with high income, then we find
radical differences. Blacks with low income and whites
with low income do not live within the same places. Whites
are more likely to live in the suburbs.
Q. Within the City of Columbus, did you examine the
pattern of residents of blacks to determine whether or not
it was concentrated in certain tracts or dispersed other
than the use of the index itself?
A. Yes. Well, I looked through the Census Volume
myself and I also examined a number of maps such as the
one that appears here in Court. I don’t know if this has an
exhibit number, but —
Q. All right. Is the pattern of residents of black in
Columbus similar to the pattern in other communities in
terms of whether or not it is dispersed on a contiguous
nature?
MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, it is similar in that the pattern is one of a high
degree of concentration to certain areas that are almost
293
entirely black occupied and surrounding areas that taper
off [1761] to some degree of racial mixture, and finally,
large portions of the city that have virtually no black resi
dents at all.
Q. All right. Turning now, Dr. Taeuber, to the — let’s
go back again to the economic factors. Has there been
research by other scholars as well as yourself into the
question of whether or not the economic availability to
black families determines their place of residence?
A. Yes, this has been looked at by many scholars in a
number of separate studies.
Q. All right. And have they drawn conclusions from
their studies that you’re familiar with?
A. Yes, there have been conclusions from these
studies.
I might mention that some of them are of the charac
ter you describe. Other are much more complete in that
they also consider where people work and the size of
family they have and many other factors, and in all of these
studies there is an indication that the location of black
population is determined partly by these factors, and the
same way as for whites, but that in addition, there is a
great degree of racial concentration of blacks that can’t
be explained by these factors.
[1762] In the simplest case of the income compari
son you mentioned, the blacks with a medium income
or paying medium levels who rent or own homes of a me
dium value are not living interspersed with whites at the
same economic level or paying the same amount for hous
ing, and the poor whites and the poor blacks are not
interspersed. The rich whites and the rich blacks, as I
indicated in the city and suburban example, are not in
terspersed. This is obviously true within the city simply
by the degree of concentration of the black population.
Q. Now, you mentioned your 6-percent figure for
black, $10,000 and over.
294
A. Yes.
Q. Is that accounted for by a lower proportion of black
families which have incomes in that range?
A. This applies to the families that have that income.
It’s a percentage of all those who do have high incomes
Q. The 6 percent is not realized to the number of
blacks with that, but it is a percentage of all those groups;
is that correct?
A. Right. Of the — if we call them the wealthy blacks,
6 percent live in the suburbs. Of the wealthy whites, 40
percent of them live in the suburbs.
Q. If people v/ere originally presented with the value
[1763] of the housing they could afford instead of accord
ing to skin color, what would happen to the levels of resi
dential segregation in most American cities?
MR. PORTER: I object to the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The level of segregation would be, on my index,
more like 5 or 10 or 15 rather than 70 or 80 or 90.
# # # # #
[1777] Q. All right. Now, going back, if you will, to
Section 266 which refers to schools, what effect, in your
opinion Dr. Taeuber, does the racial composition of schools
with respect to pupils have on housing choices and hous
ing location?
A. As the FHA Manual indicated, many of the fami
lies seeking housing of school-age children, these people
in particular consider not only the house and the physical
— other characteristics of the neighborhood, but also the
character of the schools that their children will most easily
be able to attend, and typically this is the local public
school. The people, as I indicated before, through the
listing services or through the transmittal of information
from realtors and others typically are informed as to the
name of the school and often as to the racial character
295
of the school or other features of the desirability of the
school,
* # # # #
[1778] Q. (By Mr. Lucas) Dr. Taeuber, I show you
the realtors’ multiple-listing service manual Columbus
Board of Realtors, April 9, 1976, and ask you if the cards
located therein or reprinted therein show schools?
A. 7es, the standard form includes a space for grade
school, junior high, high.
Q. Is that the sort of information you have been
referring to?
A. Yes, that is the kind that is available, whether or
not it is printed in a book, but it is available to the peo
ple doing the selling, whether they are realtors or private
individuals. It is frequently communicated in advertising.
It is frequently used, as I indicated, as a basis for housing
to characterize the residential neighborhood.
The character of the local school is one of the most
important features of the neighborhood, and it is used
that way, described that way. It is known to the people
involved.
I might mention this is true not only for the people
with school-age children, but for other families who might
be in the family formation stage who might eventually
have school-age children. Because it is so important to
so many families, it also thereby becomes important to
[1779] everbody else because it helps define the general
understanding of the desirability of the neighborhood. As
the FHA Manual indicated, as President Nixon’s state
ments in his report to the Congress indicated, there is
continuing concern as to the racial composition of the
local school in the neighborhood, as well as to features
of whether there are parks, whether there are industries
and other inducive features.
296
Q. What effect does the change of the faculty from
white to black have on identification of an area insofar
as it affects housing choice?
A. In most American cities in the last 30 years, black
population has been increasing. This has meant that addi
tional housing has to be found for the population, and
there has typically been an expansion at the periphery of
previous areas predominantly Negro. Now, this expansion
occurs in a small area at a time. It is not typically a scat
tered process where if a thousand new black families come
into a city in a year, they locate scattered around the hous
ing vacancies as would a thousand white families who
came to the city. They typically locate in certain areas
that are widely understood by blacks, by whites, parti
cularly in the housing industries, to the areas that are
available under the sanctions of good real estate practice
for sales, rental, of formerly white occupied housing to
blacks.
[1780] Now, the precise boundaries of these areas,
how much of an area opens up in a given unit, is often
determined bv school boundaries and the character of the
local school, and, in some cases, the response of the School
Board by putting in black faculty as a few black pupils
move into the school. If a black principal or black teacher
is appointed there, but not out in a predominantly white
area, this is an indication, a confirmation of the general
understanding that this area is going to become all black.
# # # # #
[1786] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Did you examine material
with reference to the number of annexations which have
taken place in the Columbus area?
A. Yes, I was provided with a list of something like
a hundred and ninety separate annexations to Columbus
during the period since 1954,
297
Q. All right. Did you examine that annexation in turn
with the effect on the population figures as reflected in
the U.S. Census.
A. The report that I was presented did not show
population figures, and I have not made a specific effort
to determine how much of the population in each of the
census years was in territory annexed dining the preceding
decade. Such figures are shown in the census reports.
Q. How does Columbus differ, if any, from other
communities in terms of its total population growth or
decline?
A. Well, Columbus City continued to grow. The gen
eral pattern in the U.S. has been for the metropolitan
populations to continue to grow throughout.
Let’s take the period from World War II on. They’ve
been growing very rapidly in nearly every metropolitan
area. There are exceptions in particular economic factors,
Scranton, coal mining areas. They had difficulty. But in
general, metropolitan areas have grown. [1788]
Now, the cities have been a mixed picture in that
many of the larger eastern and midwestern cities were
densely settled and did not annex additional territory or
very much territory during this period, and many of these
cities showed either a net out migration or an absolute loss
in population. In other words, the out migration was
greater than the natural increase, so that many large cities
in the east and midwest have actually declined in popula
tion, many of them during the 1960s, some of them even
back during the 1950s.
Now, Columbus does not show this pattern. It had
a substantial annexation and had lots of vacant land as do
many of the southern cities which could still be built upon
within the city limits, so not all of the additional housing
was accommodated beyond the city boundaries.
So, in this sense, Columbus is somewhat unusual.
Much of the metropolitan growth that is quite common
298
nationally and in other metropolitan areas occurred in
Columbus with the expanding boundaries of the central
city. This is a pattern that’s true of many places, but the
majority do not have that kind of extensive, continuing
annexation.
# # ' # # #
[1791] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Did you prepare a segre
gation index for the Columbus Public Schools?
A. Yes, from these same data sources, the 1983-64
through 1975-76 years, with the exception for 1986-67 data,
which no data appear on these lists. I have the index for
pupils for elementary junior and senior high schools.
Q. Did you use minority versus non-minority?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And in Columbus, are the other minorities a very
small number?
A. There are very few minorities other than the Negro
pupils.
Q. All right. What is the index segregation at the
elementary level in 1960 through ’64 of the Columbus
Public Schools?
A. The index was 76.
Q. What was it in 1970?
A. In 1970, it was 80.
Q. And in 1975? [1792]
A. In 1975, 70.
Q. What was the index at the junior high level in
February of ’63-64?
A. That was 83.
Q. All right. And 1968, is there a change between
’68 and ’67?
A. Yes, from ’68, the figure was 61 the ’85-88 year,
and in the ’68-87 year — excuse me. The —
Q. ’67-88, I believe.
A. Yeah. We switched from a spring date to a fall
date on which there is some confusion there. In the ’65-66
299
year from the data on those exhibits the index was 61, and
from the ’67-68 year, the index was 69. This was an in
crease of eight points over that two-year period-
Q. Did you look at any of the school construction
data to determine the reason for that jump?
A. Yes, I -
MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, I examined the school by school changes and
noticed that one junior high school that had a mixed racial
composition was closed, and I believe four additional
junior high schools were opened for predominantly one
race pupil enrollment.
Q. All right. And what was the figure — let’s pick
[1793] the same break points — 1970?
A. 1970, the figure for junior high pupils was 66.
For 1975, the figure was 56.
Q. All right. At the senior high level, what was the
figure in February of ’63-64?
A. The figure then was 55.
Q. In 1970?
A- In. 1970, the figure was again 55.
Q. In 1975?
A. The figure was 54.
• ■ - * # ' # # &
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
[1817] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Your index is a measuring
device; isn’t that right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And it takes a set of given facts and it measures
them; isn’t that correct?
A. That’s correct. [1818]
Q. No conclusions with respect to the cause which
may underlie it; isn’t that right?
A. That’s right.
300
Q, Now, if I understand correctly from what you have
said here today and what you have said on other occasions,
there are basically three causes for residential segregation.
They are economics, choice and residential discrimination
or discrimination in housing; am I right about that?
A. Well, yes, racial discrimination. Yes, those are the
three general categories of causes.
Q. Just so we understand each other, it is your posi
tion and your testimony that those are the three causes
for residential discrimination; is that right?
A. Those are the three types of causes of residential
segregation.
Q. And then you proceed in this case and elsewhere
to say, well, choice has the following problems associated
with it, that it is really not free choice in many situations
and so forth. Am I not correct about this?
A. Yes.
Q. But the fact remains that choice remains one of
the three factors which determines this; is that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. And the same thing is true with economics; is
that not so? [1819]
A. Yes.
Q. And finally, the last one which you refer to as
racial discrimination, you list a group of practices which
affect racial discrimination; am I right about this?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. They are racially motivated site selec
tions and attendant assignment policies in public housing;
is that correct?
A. Are you quoting from me there?
Q. Yes, I am.
A. Which document?
Q. I am quoting from your most recent article in the
Wayne Law Review entitled Demographic Perspective on
Housing and School Segregation by Karl E. Taeuber.
301
A. That’s it, thank you,
Q. And I am reading from page 840.
A. Right.
Q. That is the first one, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And the second one is racially motivated site selec
tion, financing, sales and rental policies of other types of
government subsidized housing, for example, Federal
Housing Administration and Veterans Administration in
surance programs; is that correct?
A. Yes. [1820]
Q. The third one is racially motivated site selec
tion, relocation policies and practices and redevelopment
policies and urban renewal programs. That is the third
one, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And the fourth one is zoning and annexation poli
cies that foster racial segregation; is that correct, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The fifth one is restrictive covenants attached to
housing deeds; is that correct, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And the next one is policies of financial institu
tions that discourage prospective developers of racially
integrated private housing?
A. Yes.
Q. That’s the next one, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And the next one, seven, is policies of financial
institutions that allocate mortgage funds and rehabilitation
loans to blacks only if they live in predominantly black
areas; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The eighth one is practices of real estate industry
such as limiting the access of black brokers to [1821]
302
realty associations and multiple-listing services; is that
correct so far?
A. Yes.
Q. The next one is refusal by white realtors to co
broke on transactions that would foster racial segregation.
Is that the next one?
A. Racial Integration it says.
Q. I am sorry, that’s correct. And the next one is
block-busting, panic selling and racial scaring; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The next one is racially identifying vacancies
overtly or by nominally denying codes, for example, adver
tising' housing according to ratially-identifiable schools or
other neighborhood identifiers; is that right?
Q. Yes.
Q. The next one is refusing to show houses or apart
ments or refusing to encourage blacks to consider housing
in white neighborhoods. That is the next one, is It not?
A. Yes.
Q. The next one is reprimanding or penalizing brokers
and salesmen who act to facilitate racial integration. That
is the next one, is it not?
A. Yes. [18221
Q. And the last one is racially discriminatory prac
tices by Individual homeowners and landlords. That com
pletes the list, does it not, Dr. Taeuber?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. You believe, if I understand what you have writ
ten, which is a little presumptuous of me, but to the extent
I understand it, what you are saying is that there is a
unit — and I believe that’s your word — a unit of problems
which have caused the residential segregation that exists
in this community, and that it has to be dealt with as a
unit. Isn’t that right?
308
A. Unity, I intended to refer not primarily to any
focus on residential segregation, but the common linkage
between the economic discrimination and housing dis
crimination and educational discrimination, labor market
discrimination, social discrimination.
Q. And that’s what I meant to say, too. Thank you
for correcting me.
It is all these problems which have produced or rather
all of these factors which have produced the problems that
exist with respect to discrimination; is that right?
A. Right.
Q. And you feel as a sociologist that the way to handle
that is through the so-called unity approach; is that right
or not? [1823]
A. As a sociologist, yes.
Q. For example, you say in your book Negroes in the
Cities at page 20 that it is impossible to pin responsibility
for residential segregation on the prejudice or discriminat
ing behavior of any particular group or agency. Does that
not appear in there?
A. Yes.
Q. That is your opinion, is it not? That is your
opinion?
A. In the context. I hate to have to live forever with
out the context in which a particular sentence appears.
If I state my opinion now, I would insert the word full.
Pinning full responsibility on any one agency, that’s im
possible.
Q. I think you also stated in this publication at page
198 that if there are sizeable really homogeneous clusters,
then public institutions such as schools, libraries and parks,
as well as stores, theaters and other places of business may
seiviee only one racial group solely because of the resi
dential segregation. Did you not say that?
A.- Yes.
304
Q. Now, if I understand correctly, it has been your
experience or it is your opinion, I guess is more accurate,
that during the period of the ’40s — excuse me, during
the [1824] period of the ’50s, the in-migration of blacks in
the ’50s primarily settled in established residential areas.
By that I mean buildings, homes, that were in existence.
Am I correct about that?
A. Are you referring to the black in-migration?
Q. The black in-migration?
A. Yes.
Q. If I understand correctly, it is your opinion that
in the ’60s the in-migration is of a slightly different type,
that it is more dispersed than the in-migration of the ’50s;
is that correct?
A. No, I don’t recall making that statement here or
writing that any place.
Q. Well, do you agree with it? I assure you I didn’t
make it up. I thought I got it from out of your stuff, but
maybe I didn’t.
A. This has been true in a number of places where,
as I indicated, the segregation measures decline, but I
have not made a specific study as I did for the 1950s of
the location of migrants.
Q. For my purposes — let me explain where I am
going and see if we agree. You have identified and we have
just gone over a number of factors which cause people to
live where they live, in this case, blacks. What I would
suggest to you and ask you if it isn’t a fact that you [1825]
cannot predict specifically what piece of real estate will
be occupied five years from now by any particular minority
group?
A. It cannot be predicted with perfect accuracy, but
a lot of money has been made by predicting it with
reasonable accuracy.
Q. Well, the efforts, the efforts, I would suggest to
you, are efforts such as yours that appear in your hook —
isn’t that true — includes this type of efforts?
305
A. No. [1826]
A. No, I made no effort to examine which particular
properties will turn over. I know the general process, but
not the particular dynamics and particular tiny segments
of the real estate marketing in particular cities.
Q. Well, I misunderstood you, then. I thought you
testified that a community developed — the black com
munity developed from some kind of a fixed location and
then expanded out. Isn’t that what you said?
A. At any given census point, there is a cluster or
several clusters of predominantly black areas. There are
areas surrounding them that are less heavily black, and
there are further white areas outside of those. Now, those
areas — what I have done is to — for example, say, let’s
take the area that has blacks, all these census tracts that
have blacks, and let’s identify, say, as of 1950 all of the
surrounding predominantly white tracts, and then I’d say,
“What are the characteristics of all the peripheral tracts
that, given this peripheral expansion process, are subject
to racial turnover, which one of those did turnover,” in the
sense of not which one was at northeast or along this street
or that street, but in the sense of, “Was it the ones with
the better housing or the worst housing?”
I ve made no attempt — I’ve never made any attempt
to try and predict the dynamics, the specific dynamics in
the way an investor would make in the local [1827] real
estate market.
Q. Okay.
A. It’s been the character — what are the character
istics of the blacks that move into these surrounding terri
tories, and which of these surrounding territories acquire
the blacks and which don’t, I say, in the sense of is it the
better areas, the worst areas, the slums, is it the ethnic
neighborhoods?
# # # # #
306
[1828] Q. [By Mr. Porter] The point I simply wish
to make and ask you if you would not agree is that the
growth or the residential pattern for blacks in a com
munity will vary between the community based on what
ever the peculiarities are within the particular locality.
Would you agree with that?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. For example, if I suggest to you that the growth in
the City of Columbus has not been to the west but has
been to the east and north, would this come as any par
ticular surprise? to you? I suppose you would say, “Well,
I don’t know which way it’s going to go. It could go any
way.” Right? [1829]
A. Are you talking about which way it has gone or
which way it is expected to go within the next few years?
Q. Which way it has gone.
A. That would be roughly accurate, but there is some
western projection. [1830]
Q. But I would suggest to you, Dr. Taeuber, there
wasn’t any in 1950. How do you account for that?
A. I’m not sure what the contradiction is. Are you
referring to the 1950s?
Q. Yes.
A. There wasn’t any black?
Q. There was a very small black community, accord
ing to the census tract, in the City of Columbus west of
the river in 1950?
A. And what’s the question about it?
Q. That is not— has not developed as a periphery
part of the black community?
A. It’s not at all unusual for there to be somewhat
isolated pockets, if you will, that are there for historical
reasons, either old residential areas, some times areas of
poor housing, sometimes around a particular institution,
particular historical reasons why there is such a settlement,
and as the black population expands, part of my view
307
is that it is deliberately channeled in certain directions
and that it doesn’t just scatter in every which direction, it
doesn’t fill in all the peripheral tracts. It fills in. certain
ones and not others, and there are specific historical and
institutional and specific reasons why the movement oc
curred in a certain direction and not in some other direc
tion, and so I have no explanation as to [1831] why it
does or doesn’t fill in toward one particular concentration
of blacks.
Q. You would agree, would you not, that it would —
the development would depend on a myriad of facts and
circumstances; isn’t that true?
A. Yes, yes.
# # # # #
[1839] Q. [By Mr. Porter] You did not know that
fact. Directing your attention now to page 240 of your
book Negroes in the Cities, I am going to hand it to you
with the Court’s permission and ask you to look at Table
A-5 headed Estimated Effect of Annexation on Segrega
tion Indexes, and I would ask you to take a look at it,
please, and then I want to ask you a couple short questions.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, first off, I would assume that the reason for
the selection of the list by you at the time was because it
represented a city where there had been substantial [1840]
annexation; am I correct about that?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it true that the area shown by cities annexed,
that the largest area is In Dallas, Texas?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it, please?
A. 193,000.
Q. And what is the next one?
A. Columbus.
Q. What is it, please?
A. 76,000.
308
Q. And as of what time is that, Doctor?
A. This is 1950 to 1960.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that then it drops to — what is the
next one, please?
A. 62,000.
Q. Thank you. Approximately how many cities are
listed there, Doctor?
A. 24 cities are listed.
# # # # #
[1840] Q. [By Mr. Porter] You were asked to look
at the multiple listing of Columbus, some page or two of
it, and asked some questions or asked about the identifi
cation of schools on that. Do you recall that this morning?
[1841] Q. Do you happen to recall whether or not
— strike that.
I ’ll hand it to you, Doctor, and it’s opened to page
281. Is that the page that you were looking at with Mr.
Lucas?
A. I don’t know.
Q. In that multiple listing classification, does it say
anything about race? It doesn’t does it?
A. Well, it’s — I’m looking through the form before
I answer.
No, there’s no obvious place for any specific indica
tion of race.
Q. Is there anyplace on there that deals with racially
restrictive covenants?
A. No apparent place, no,
# * # # #
[1848] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Now, I wish to direct your
attention, please, to the school segregation index in the
City of Columbus. First off, I would like to ask you if you
did the — if you have the papers before you which show
those results with respect to Columbus by year or school
or however it is done?
A. Yes, I do.
309
Q. May I see it, please?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I would like you, Dr. Taeuber, since I don’t have
a copy of this — do you have a copy in front of you?
A. I have a handwritten version.
Q. All right, that’s what this is. I would like to put
into the record, please, what these figures are. [1849]
Q. (Continuing) Would you start with —
MR. LUCAS: Can we mark the document as an exhibit
so that it will be complete?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PORTER: C? What is it?
MR. LUCAS: Excuse me. Mr. Porter, why don’t we
make it Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 505?
MR. PORTER: Fine, 505.
Q. Now, if you would, please, give us the elementary
school figures starting at the bottom of your list down
through the fall of 75.
A. Year by year?
Q. Please.
A. Beginning with 1963-64, the index is 76, and
then 78, 80.
And then a year is skipped, and then the index for
1967-68 is 79, 81, 81, 80, 77, 76, 76, 73, 70.
Q. Would you do it, please, for the junior high school?
A. Read what’s on the exhibit?
1963-64, 63.
Next year, 63, 61.
Skip a year, and then 69, 68, 67, 66, 67, 66, 64, 62, 56.
Q. The senior, please? [1850]
A. Senior, beginning with ’63-64 school year, the
index is 55, 54, 53.
Skip a year, and 50, 53, 56, 55, 57, 58, 57, 56, 54.
# # # e *
310
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
# # # # #
[1865] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Mr. Porter read — had you
read or read to you, I believe, extensively from an article
you wrote about the causes of housing separation, and he
had you enumerate choice, economics, and I believe you
used the term “discrimination,” and he had you — or he
read to you a number of specifics from that particular
article of racial discrimination. He did not, however, ask
you to read from page 841 of that article. Is there an
additional section which he failed to read to you? Do you
have a copy?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the title of the section on 841?
A. The Section 3 of the article is the relationship
between housing and school segregation.
Q. All right. If you would turn to page 843 and
read the paragraph from your article beginning “How
ever.”
MR. Porter: If the Court please, I’m going to object
on the basis that —
THE COURT: Yes?
MR. PORTER: — it’s beyond the scope of [1866]
cross-examination.
THE COURT; Overruled.
A. I wrote: “However, the cause-and-effect relation
ship between residential and school segregation can be
viewed the other way as well. The racial composition of
a school and its staff affects the racial composition of
housing within the school’s attendance zone. This is espe
cially apparent in neighborhoods experiencing racial
change. The changing racial composition of the school’s
pupils and staff serves as a signal to the public — realtors,
homeseekers, residents, et cetera — that school authorities
expect the school to become all black. Families with chil
dren, and everyone else, too, may use school attendance
zone lines to make their housing decisions.”
311
Q. Continue, please.
A. “Several factors contribute to the influence school
attendance zones may have on patterns of residence. One
factor is that residential neighborhoods rarely have pre
cisely defined boundaries; schools provide local adminis
trative boundaries which are widely known. A second
factor is that young couples with young children account
for much of the extraordinary residential mobility of Amer
icans. Choice of location depends on available housing
but also on perceptions of neighborhood amenities. Among
these, the perception of the local school looms large. If
it is [1867] identifiable as a black school, whites tend to
move away or stay away. If schools were not racially
identifiable, or if predominantly black schools were not
perceived as inferior schools, then school attendance zones
would play only a minor role in residential choices and
in the behavior of the real estate business.”
Q. And the third factor?
A. A third factor is that schools, their staffs and at
tendance zones, are subject to direct administrative con
trol. Assignment of a black principal and the shifting of a
school attendance boundary are highly visible deliberate
acts that may imply racial consequences to homeseekers,
landlords with vacancies, and banks with funds to loan.”
# # # & #
LUCIEN C. WRIGHT
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ADKINS
[2037] Q. [By. Mr, Adkins] Would you state your
full name?
A. Lucien C. Wright.
Q. And your address, please?
A. 1304 East Long Street.
312
Q. Mr. Wright, are you an employee of the Columbus
Board?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what is your position?
A. At the present time, I am Director of Human
Relations.
Q. When did you begin your employ with the Co
lumbus Board?
A. September of 1935.
[2038] Q. In what capacity?
A. As a teacher at Mt. Vernon Avenue School on the
corner of Mt. Vernon and Ohio Avenue.
Q. How long were you a teacher at Mt. Vernon?
A. Eight years.
Q. In 1943 did you assume another position with the
Columbus Board?
A. Yes. I was made Principal at Felton Elementary
School.
Q. And how long were you at Felton as Principal?
A. Twenty years.
Q. In 1963?
A. I was transferred to Garfield School. In the mean
time from ’59 to ’63 I had a double assignment, Leonard
Avenue and Felton, and then in ’63 I was transferred to
Garfield and Clearbrook Elementary Schools.
Q. In 1963 were you simultaneously Principal of Gar
field and Clearbrook?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how long did you remain in that position, sir?
A. I remained Principal of Garfield and Clearbrook
until ’68. In the ’67 school year I was relieved of my double
assignment. Someone else was assigned Clearbrook, but I
kept Garfield until April 1 of 1968.
Q. And in 1968 you assumed what position?
[2039] A. Director of Intercultural Education at the
Board of Education.
313
Q. Is the Departmental Intercultural Education the
same as the Department or Office of Human Relations
which you now head?
A. I understood at the time in talking with the super
intendent, who was the late Harold Eibling, that I was to
assume the responsibility of working with the Intercultural
Council. It did not meet. I assumed the Chairmanship of
the Task Force, Administrative Task Force, plus a lady
that came in with me, Mrs. White, assumed the responsi
bility in the volunteer role. Later on we asked that the
name be changed to Human Relations instead of keeping
the intercultural name. This was around ’71.
* # # # #
[2042] (}. During the time you were teaching in Mt.
Vernon, the eight years that you were at Mt. Vernon, can
you. recall whether the student body at Mt. Vernon was a
racially integrated or predominantly black or predomi
nantly white student body?
A. It was predominantly black.
Q. During the time that you were there, was the
teaching faculty a racially integrated teaching factory, or
was it also predominantly black?
A. It was all black.
Q. It was a hundred percent black?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And during the time you were teaching — or you
were principal at Felton, was it a predominantly black
student body, also?
A. Yes, it was. When we — when we started in ’43,
about, I think, ten or — I’d say ten or twenty, not being
able to count for sure, of the students stayed until leaving
the sixth grade, but the staff assigned at the time was 100
[2043] percent black.
Q. In 1943, when you became principal at Felton,
that was in September, 1943, I assume, right?
A. Yes. Yes.
314
Q. In 1943, in June of that year, had the teaching
staff at the Felton Elementary School been a hundred per
cent black?
A. No, sir, it was a hundred percent white.
Q. So between June of 1943 and September of 1943,
the teaching faculty went from a hundred percent white
to a hundred percent black?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And was the principal at Felton in 1943, that
school year that ended in June, also white?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was the rest of the administrative staff at
Felton white?
A. Well, she was only —she was the only principal
there at the time.
Q. She was the only principal?
A. Yes, sir.
A. And in September of 1943, the school was con
verted from a hundred percent black administrative staff
and faculty — from a hundred percent white administra
tive faculty and staff to a hundred percent black?
A. That’s correct.
[2044] A. Yes.
Q. Between June and September, 1943, did Felton
become a predominantly black student enrollment?
A. I would say prior to that time the area had almost
completely changed. Knowing the policy at the time, that
was the way it was done. A school was changed adminis
tratively and teaching staff. Felton was the last school that
this type of program was worked.
Q. Now, did something particular happen in 1943
that caused a decision to be made to change Felton from
100-percent white staff and faculty to 100-percent black
staff and faculty? Do you know of any particular thing
that happened?
315
A. Only the almost complete change of enrollment at
the school. That’s the pattern that I noticed in Mi. Vernon
and Garfield.
Q. You say Felton was the last school at which that
happened?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By that you mean the complete transfer from 100-
percent white to 100-percent black?
A. Yes
Q. Did the same thing happen at Garfield?
A. It had happened, yes, around ’32 or ’3. I don’t
know the exact date.
[2045] Q. But at some point a previously all-white
administrative staff and faculty in June at the end of one
school year was succeeded by a totally all-black staff and
faculty in September of that same year?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it also happen at Mt. Vernon?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Do you know of other schools at which that hap
pened, Mr. Wright? At Mt. Vernon would it have been
around ’28 or ’29?
A. I think around ’28 or ’29. I am just remembering.
I think Garfield was around ’32. In ’37 Pilgrim was changed
from a junior high to an elementary and the staff was
changed. Then Felton in ’43.
# # # # #
ROBERT W. CARTER
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
[2268] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] Would you state your full
name and occupation, please, sir?
316
A. My name is Robert W. Carter. I am presently a
full-time graduate student at Ohio State University in the
doctor program of educational administration.
[2269] Q. I believe at your deposition you indicated
you were employed by the Columbus Board of Education,
did you not, sir?
A. I am on a sabbatical leave from the Columbus
Board of Education.
Q. And are you an employee of that Board?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Thank you. How long have you been employed by
the Columbus Board of Education?
A. I have been employed for a period of 19 years.
Q. In what capacity have you been employed, if you’ll
start from your earliest and bring us foward, please?
A. I was employed in the year 1957 as a teacher and
later as a teacher-counselor in a junior high school.
In 1963, became administrative cadet and went
through the administrative cadet program.
In 1964, received an appointment as assistant director
of administrative services, central office.
In 1969, appointed executive director of administra
tion, central office.
Q. When did you first begin to deal with the question
of setting school attendance patterns?
A. During the 1964-65 school year.
# # # # #
[2325] Q. Were you responsible for the assignment
of black principals to black schools?
A. That was the responsibility of the Superintendent.
Q. Were you aware of a pattern of assignment of
black principals to schools with predominantly black en
rollments?
[2326] A. I was aware, yes, sir.
Q. Did you make any recommendations with respect
to changing that pattern?
317
A. Recommendations were made from tire Deputy
Superintendent’s office regarding the assignment of prin
cipals.
Q. Did you make that recommendation?
A. I have had inputs to those recommendations.
Q. Is it a recommendation in favor from you or
against?
A. They have been in favor, yes, sir.
Q. In favor of change?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when did you make that recommendation?
A. Of change of assignments?
Q. Yes.
A. Is that what you mean?
Q. I am sony, I can’t hear you.
A. Change of assignments?
Q. Assignments of principals so that there would no
longer be a pattern of black principals and black students.
A. We made annual recommendations on the assign
ment of principals.
Q. In the course of making the annual — I take it
they are reassigned annually?
’ [2327] A. Yes.
Q. So each and every year you have an opportunity
or the Board has an opportunity or the Superintendent,
whoever is responsible, to make a change, each and every
year; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And each and every year there has been a pattern
of assignment of black principals to black schools; is that
correct, since you have been with the System?
A. There has been modification of that policy in re
cent years.
Q. But it is still a pattern that is visible and readily
so in the Columbus School System, isn’t it?
A. We still have black principals of black schools.
318
Q. Is there a pattern to it, not just an occasional
situation where that occurred? Do most of the predomi
nantly black schools have black principals?
A. I cant speak matter of factly on the question of
pattern. I would say from my general knowledge of assign
ment, there would be more black principals of black
schools than black principals of white schools.
# # # # #
[2329] Q. Did you make any recommendation that
the pattern be changed is my question?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did anyone make any recommendations that they
change that pattern, anyone within the staff?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Were there outside recommendations and requests
that that pattern be changed?
A. I have no direct knowledge of this recommenda
tion, only hearsay knowledge.
Q. All right, did you obtain any of your information
from the public press indicating that organizations inter
ested in the schools had requested the Board to make such
changes?
A. Yes, sir.
# # * # #
[2398] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] All right. You testified
earlier this morning that the school attendance boundary
lines or organizational changes would be made to improve
the opportunity of schools to be integrated. Do you recall
that?
A. Yes.
Q. My question, then, very narrower is that, to your
recollection, is that the first time that the system had
indicated that it would consider the technique of grade
organization changes as a method of desegregating?
A. I don’t recall specifically that the Board indicated
grade organization. They indicated that racial balance
319
would be considered in the location and placement of
schools and in the drawing of boundaries,
Q. Okay. That leads me to my next question.
Was the Innis-Cassady grade organization change
proposal that was submitted as one alternative to the
Board the first such proposal that you can recall?
A. The grade organization to promote a better dis
tribution [2398A] was the — in Innis and Cassady was the
first such option of its kind presented to the Board of
Education by me. [2399]
Q. Is it the first once to your knowledge since 1964
by staff? I realize other community groups have sug
gested that earlier.
A. Yes, for a total school.
Q. Had the system operated one grade centers prior
to this time?
A. We had operated in three or four locations a
primary center, but the entire attendance area, we always
had a home school before, a K through 6 school that was
a supporting school. We never had a complete division of
primary-intermediate.
Q. You mean system-wide, but you did have some
primary schools. For the record, would you define what
you mean by primary?
A. Primary is basically K through 3, and these were
schools added to relieve the overcrowding of the home
base school.
Q. Generally speaking, what you would do is simply
divide the home school attendance area and put a portion
of the students in that attendance area in a primary unit
located within the same geographic boundary?
A. That’s essentially how we handled it.
Q. Can you give us some examples of that?
A. Hudson-Hamilton was an example. Then we
simply with the ’72 bond issue, when we added rooms to
320
Hudson Street, [2399A] we made it a K through 6 organi
zation, so it now became a self-contained organization.
Colerain-Indian Springs is another example of this
where we located a primary center in the Indian Springs
K through 6 attendance area.
A third example might be Sixth Avenue Elementary
School where we located to relieve the overcrowdedness
of Weinland Park and Second Avenue.
Q. When you locate a primary unit within an
^attendance zone, it is the same thing as expanding the
capacity of that particular plant, in effect, is it not?
A. That’s correct.
Q. By maintaining the same boundaries, you, in
effect, rather than move boundaries out or narrow the
boundaries some way or another to relieve the over
crowding, you simply have added on to that unit, that
organizational unit for that building?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Does that have the effect of containing those
students in that particular location?
A. The decisions were made generally because the
home base school was at maximum capacity in terms of
size. The Board of Education generally wished to build
elementary schools not larger than 25 to 27 rooms, ap
proximately 25. This would be approximately 700 stu
dents, and the general [2400] feeling was that this was
large enough for an elementary school.
We rather than build an addition to the school to
relieve the overcrowding, the general trend was to build
these primary centers which in turn eventually would
become school attendance areas on their own. An example
of this is Hudson-Hamilton.
Q. My question to you is does the building of the
primary unit at that location within that attendance zone
have the effect of containing that particular zone’s popu
lation?
321
A. It does not alter the general attendance area of
the home school,
Q. Does it have the effect of containing those chil
dren within that attendance area?
A. It contains the children in that general attendance
area, yes, sir.
Q. From time to time has the Columbus System built
what might generally be called replacement schools in
essentially the same location for existing older structures?
A. This was a part of the recommendation of the
1972 bond issue program and is, in fact, an activity that
is being followed in the ’72 program.
Q. And generally speaking in building these schools
in the same — first of all, generally in the same attendance
[2401] area; is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And usually, depending on availability of sites, in
close proximity to the existing site?
A. Yes.
Q. On some occasions they actually tear down a
portion of the old building and build on using whatever
green space there might have been and then tear down
the balance of the old when they finish the new one; is
that correct?
A. That’s generally the process.
Q. So it generally results in the relocation of the
school at the same site?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately. All right, at the same time I take
it your office would re-examine the question of boundaries,
although you were not again involved in determining
whether to rebuild at that site? That was made by some
body else?
A. That’s right,
322
Q. Once given that premise, you would redetermine
the boundaries of that particular school unit, or would it
be assumed that the existing boundaries would be suffi
cient?
A. We would review the capacity of the new facility
in terms of the facility that it replaced, and appropriate
adjustments might or might not be made of the general
[2402] attendance area.
Q. My question to you would be did you follow the
same procedure? Did you do a full-scale census if you were
replacing a school on the existing site?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. You might have in some instances, but generally
no; is that fair?
A. Generally no, that’s correct.
Q. Generally speaking, you would end up effectively
redrawing the boundary of that school in the same loca
tion?
A. That’s correct.
Q. While it might technically be a new boundary, it
would still be the old boundary?
A. Right
MR. LUCAS: If the Court would indulge me just
a minute.
Q. (By Mr. Lucas) When you build a completely new
school in an area where there is not an existing building
and you go out and do the full-scale census and draw the
boundaries, the boundaries that you select, are they in any
way related to some sort of ethnic neighborhood or some
sort of homogenous type development? Are they strictly
based on numbers of children?
A. We would consider several items in the develop
ment of new boundaries. One would be geographic bar
riers, major [2403] thoroughfares, railroad tracks, those
kinds of safety hazards. We would consider the density of
the community. We would consider potential for growth
in the area so that if we needed to expand, we had to
323
give that consideration. We would consider the ethnic
distribution of the area, I mentioned safety. We would
consider the organizational structure of the area.
[2404] Q. What do you mean by “organizational
structure”?
A. Whether it was an elementary or junior or senior
high school.
Q. Would you say that the drawing of the boundary
by the school Board at that time determines the — well, in
fact, it determines the attendance area of the schools once
that decision is made?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that determine the neighborhood of the
school?
A. That would then become the —
Q. Neighborhood for the school?
A. — the school neighborhood, the school community.
# # # # #
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROSS
# # # # #
[2405] Q. [By Mr. Ross] All right. Do you know how
long the pairing of [2406] Indian Springs and Colerain
Elementary has been in effect?
A. It was in existence when I was assigned to the
central office in 1964, and it continues to the present time.
There has been an addition of the crippled children’s
school at Colerain to permit mainstreaming of those young
sters, but it is, in fact, still a primary center to Indian
Springs School.
Q. Okay. And which is the home school, Indian
Springs or Colerain?
A. Indian Springs.
Q. Indian Springs? And the reason for this is that
there has been a high kindergarten through three student
population in Indian Springs?
A. At one time, that is correct.
324
Q, All right. But is there any reason at this time for
maintaining that system?
A. The only reason would be a distance factor. If
Colerain School were not located where it is, in all prob
ability, the administration would have to face a transpor
tation problem, and it does not because of the location,
proximity of Colerain to the area it serves.
Q. Okay. Would you describe this as a Princeton
pairing type situation?
A. No. sir.
Q. How would it differ?
[2407] A. My understanding of Princeton pairing
would be the exchange that you would find in —you
would find grade levels representing each school in the
other school, and the Indian Springs - Colerain —
Q. Difference in grade?
A. I’m sorry?
Q. You said difference in grade?
A. You would find grade twos from A school in B
School in grades three and B School in A, as an example.
That’s my understanding of the Princeton pairing.
Q. Okay. Do you understand it also to include K
through 3 and —
A. It could.
Q. — 4 through 6? It could?
A. It could.
Q. It is flexible in that nature. So this particular situ
ation may be one which could possibly be termed as a
Princeton pairing, then?
A. No, it’s a feeder school. We do not have 4 through
6 youngsters from Indian Springs in Colerain, nor do we
have K through 3 youngsters in Colerain. I see a distinct
difference.
Q. It’s K through 3 in Colerain and 4 through 6 in —
sorry — K through 3 in Indian Springs and 4 through 6 in
Colerain?
325
[2408] A. No, sir. The Colerain organization is K
through 3 or 4. I’m not sure of the maximum grade
level at this point. I believe it’s K through 3. And Indian
Springs is K through 6, so that the attendance area for K
through 3 in Indian Springs is one portion of the total
attendance area for Indian Springs. K through 3 in Cole-
rain is the remaining portion of that general attendance
area, and the 4 through 6 youngsters come from the entire
attendance areas of both schools.
Q. Okay. Now, how many other such pairings are
there in the Columbus School System, do you know?
A. We have eliminated that kind of pairing at Hamil
ton - Hudson, and we’ve closed Sixth Avenue. I believe
this is the remaining satellite.
Q. And you find those particular grade structure ar
rangements to be educational and sound and feasible?
A. Yes, sir.
# # # # #
MARTIN E. SLOANE
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. JONES
[2409] Q. [By Mr. Jones] Would you state your
name, please?
A. Martin E. Sloane.
Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Sloane?
A. I reside in Washington, D.C.
Q. By whom are you employed?
A. I ’m employed by the National Committee Against
Discrimination and Housing.
Q. In what capacity?
A. I ’m the General Counsel.
# # # & #
326
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
[2417] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Mr. Sloane, have you had
the opportunity or have you participated in studies involv
ing the City of Columbus or its School System?
A. No, I haven’t.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. JONES
[2429] Q. [By Mr. Jones] Now, let’s talk about FHA.
Are you familiar with [2430] the policies and practices
of the Federal Housing Administration?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And are you familiar with those policies that were
pursued by its predecessor agencies or agency?
A. Well, FHA had no predecessor. The housing home
— the Department of Housing and Urban Development —
Q. I meant HUD and its predecessor?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Would you identify those policies and — well, just
identify the policies, if you can.
A. FHA?
Q. Yes.
A. FHA was established in 1934. It was created as
part of the National Housing x\ct of that year, and its
policies for the first decade and a half of its existence
were policies of open racial discrimination and segrega
tion in housing. It strongly pursued those policies until
around 1950 to the point where it actually recommended
to private builders and homeowners for filing of a racially
restrictive covenant which would exclude racial minorities
and all but a very small segment of the white Caucasian
population.
FHA also advised its underwriters against insuring
loans on houses in neighborhoods where there were in
harmonious racial groups living. That’s the term FHA
used, [2431] inharmonious racial groups.
327
FHA also warned of insuring mortgages on loans on
houses in neighborhoods where children of an inharmo
nious racial group were attending school in substantial
numbers. These policies lasted for the first 15 or 18 years
of its existence and well into the post~2nd World War
suburban housing boom.
Q. Mr. Sloane, I’d like to hand you what has been
marked for identification purposes as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No.
57. Would you just look at that and tell the Court whether
or not you’re familiar with that document?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And —
A. This is an excerpt from the FHA Underwriting
Manual with revisions to June 1, 1935.
Q. Now, is that the document from which the term
“inharmonious groups” originated?
A. Yes.
Q. What effect, Mr. Sloane, did that particular — the
policies contained in that exhibit have on the housing
patterns that developed in this country?
A. In my opinion, it was a major factor in the —
Q. Why?
A. — in the intensification in the racial segregation
and disparities in housing quality for black [2432] people
and majority group members in that FHA was a major
force in the entire housing industry, and still remains so,
but was particularly in its early days. Its policies and prac
tices tended to be followed by other elements of the
private housing and home finance industry.
Moreover, when builders who wanted the benefits of
FHA mortgage insurance would come to FHA, they were
aware that FHA’s policies really could be characterized
as separate for whites but nothing for blacks, and builders
who wanted to do business with FHA quickly got the
idea that their subdivisions would have to be white only.
328
Q. Will you turn to Section 951 in that document,
please?
A. I don’t think this has a 951,
Q. The third page from the back here.
Would you bear with us just one moment, Your
Honor, until we get this organized?
(Off-the-record discussion.)
MR. JONES: Your Honor, apparently there’s a page
or two missing from the original, so I will hand the witness
a copy of Exhibit 51 — 57. I’m sorry.
THE COURT: A page or two are missing from the
originals, so you’re going to hand him a copy that has —
AIR. JONES: Apparently, it was an omission in the
statement. [2433]
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. JONES: I ’m sure that’s all it is.
THE COURT: Does the Defense have this?
MR. PORTER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
Q. Mr, Sloane, I call your attention to Section 951.
Would you take a look at that, please, and tell me whether
or not you’re familiar with it?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And what is that, sir? Would you read that, please?
A. The entire paragraph?
Q. No, the section beginning, “If the children of
people living —
A. If the children of people living in such an area
are compelled to attend school with a majority or a con
siderable number of pupils representing a far lower level
of society or an incompatible racial element, the neigh
borhood under consideration will prove far less stable and
desirable than if this condition did not exist.
Q, Do you have an opinion, sir, as to what effect
that particular section has had on the composition of
schools in these urban areas?
MR. PORTER: Objection.
329
THE COURT: Overruled. W ell let him answer that.
[2434] I think it is a matter of weight than admissibility.
A. I think the inevitable effect would be to tend
toward racially segregated schools in that the message
here to underwriters is that if schools are racially inte
grated the neighborhood is considered less stable and less
desirable, therefore, areas where schools are integrated
would be avoided by builders.
Q. Do you have next 980?
A. Yes/[2435]
Q. Would you read that, please, under Recom
mended Restrictions?
A. Part of 980 has to do with recommendations Un
recorded restrictive covenants to protect the properties.
Among the recommended restrictions in this section is
“G,” prohibition of occupancy of properties except by the
race for which they are intended. This constituted FHA’s
recommendation of racially restrictive covenants which
was then proliferated around the country.
Q. Are you familiar with the so-called model restric
tive covenants?
A. Yes.
Q. What is a model racially restrictive covenant?
A. Well, I can tell you what it contains. It contains
a restriction against an unbelievably wide racial and ethnic
groups beginning with black people, extending to people
of the Semitic race, as it is called in the covenants, usually
restricting against people of Syrian ancestry, Italians,
southern Europeans generally, restricting such a wide
variety that only a small portion of largely northern Euro
pean Caucasians are permitted.
Q. Would you turn to Section 284 of the Underwrit
ing Manual that you have in your hand?
A. 284?
Q. Yes. [2436]
A. I don’t think I have 284.
380
MR. JONES: I withdraw the question. There is some
inixup on this exhibit, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Take your time and get it straightened
out.
Q. [By Mr. Jones] What effect, Mr. Sloane, on the
growth of cities and suburban areas have the policies of
FHA and to an extent VA. had in terms of racial con
figurations?
A. The policies and practices of both FHA and VA
have been very strong factors responsible for the develop
ment of residential segregation in metropolitan areas
throughout the country. As I mentioned earlier, FHA’s
policies well into the period of the enormous suburban
housing boom of the late ’40s and early ’50s was one of
insisting on racial segregation and racial discrimination.
The VA whose loan guarantee program is quite similar to
FHA’s mortgage insurance program tended to follow
FHA’s policies and practices and still to a large extent
does.
What’s more, the policies and practices of FHA and
VA tended to be followed by the entire housing and home
finance industry so that during the period of — the early
period, certainly, of the suburban housing boom and con
tinuing on into the present, the effect of those policies
has been to intensify residential segregation in metro
politan areas. [2437]
Q. I would like to ask you now some questions, Mr.
Sloane, about the policies pursued by the Public Housing
Authority. Will you tell us what the Public Housing
Authority is, what its mandate is and what the policies
and practices have been? [2438]
A. The name of the particular agency has changed
over the years, but most of the time it was called the
Public Housing Administration. That agency administers
the low rent public housing program. The public housing
program was established in 1937 as a part of the United
331
States Housing Act. It serves people of low income by
definition, those who are too poor to afford housing that’s
produced through the ordinary channels of the housing
market. A disproportionate number of people who have
been served over the years by the public housing program
have been racial minorities.
The policy of the Public Housing Administration
differs substantially from policies of FHA and VA. That
is, the Public Housing Administration insisted on what
was called a racial equity formula insisting that racial
minorities get their fair share of public housing units.
FHA and VA, as I pointed out earlier, insisted that sub
divisions be racially homogeneous, and that meant all
white, so that minorities were disproportionately under
represented as users of FHA and VA programs. The Public
Housing Administration, however, insisted on racial equity.
However, the Public Housing Administration felt it
was perfectly permissible if local public housing authori
ties wanted to operate the public housing program on a
racially segregated basis. In fact, over the years [2439]
most public housing authorities in the north, as well as
in the south, did operate the public housing program on
a racially segregated basis. Therefore, while minorities
got equity, they got it on a segregated basis.
Over the years the public housing program has pro
duced over one million units of public housing, mostly in
central cities, mostly on a racially segregated basis, so
that the effect of that program also has been to intensify
residential segregation.
Q. This has been primarily in large cities or major
cities, has it not?
A. That’s right.
# # # # #
[2441] Q. [By Mr. Jones] Tell us what 235 is and
what the result of your evaluation was.
332
A. The Section 235 program is a home ownership
program for lower income families. It was established as
part of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968
and produced a massive volume of housing units for lower
income families throughout metropolitan areas.
In 1970 the Commission on Civil Rights conducted a
study of the racial impact of the Section 235 program. The
study was conducted under my supervision. What we
found was that minorities were participating in the pro
gram in large numbers. There was a larger percentage of
minorities participating in the 235 program than there was
a percentage of minorities in the country, but their parti
cipation was almost entirely on a central city, older
housing basis.
The Section 235 program could be used both for new
housing and for existing housing. The new housing was
a rather good quality. It was being built almost entirely
[2442] out in suburban parts of the metropolitan areas.
It was occupied almost entirely by white people, white
families. The existing housing — and there were a lot of
problems and some scandals with respect to the existing
housing that was used under the 235 program. The exist
ing housing was in the central city almost entirely, and
that is where minorities were confined.
We also tried to find out why this phenomenon was
so. The reason why it puzzled us at the Commission was
that one of the explanations offered for why you find
very few minorities living in new suburban housing, but
rather in old housing in the central city, is that they can
not afford the new housing. This economic justification
simply wouldn’t work with the Section 235 program, for
lower income people, minorities, were, in fact, participat
ing in very large numbers. The incomes were the same
for whites as well as blacks. The mortgage limits were the
same for whites as well as blacks. Yet the same pattern of
whites living in the new housing out in the suburbs and
333
blacks living in the older housing in the central city pre
vailed in this program.
What we found out was the major reason was that
FHA charged with the responsibility of administering the
program had abdicated that responsibility and turned over
applicants to real estate brokers and other elements of
the [2443] private housing industry, and the traditional
pattern of segregation in residence was continued in the
operation of this program. We found a pattern of racial
steering on the part of brokers, and FHA did nothing at
all to interfere.
Q. What is racial steering, Mr. Sloane?
A. Generally it is the practice of persuading by ac
tion or inaction people to live only in areas where their
race is in majority and dissuading them from seeking
housing in areas where their race is in the distinct minority.
Q. It is true, is it not, that the Civil Rights Act of
1968 prohibits that kind of conduct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Can you tell us what, if anything, the agencies
responsible for enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of
1968 and specifically this kind of conduct has done?
A. Well, there are a number of agencies that have
some enforcement responsibility. HUD, of course, is the
principal agency, but its enforcement has been limited
largely to passive posture of receiving individual com
plaints, processing individual complaints. To my knowl
edge, they have not done anything to stop the institutional
practice of racial steering.
The Department of Justice, of course, has responsi
bility for instituting litigation in the event of patterns or
practices of discrimination. The Department has [2444]
brought a number of suits, individual suits, against brokers
in particular for racial steering, but it is awfully difficult
for individual litigation to end an institutional practice
which is nationwide. [2445]
334
Q. What is red lining?
A. That is a practice, a particularly insidious practice
of mortgage lending institutions refusing to lend in par
ticular areas of the city or requiring much more stringent
terms and conditions for loans on houses in particular
areas of the city than in others. Usually the connotation
is areas where minorities are either in majority or where
the area is all black.
Q. Let’s go back to the public housing matter for a
moment. After the Public Housing Administration was
directed to harmonize its policies with the Executive Or
der, can you describe the types of programs that were
initiated and reforms that were set in motion?
A. The Executive Order caused little in the way of
a substantive change in the policies and practices of the
Public Housing Administration. To be sure, they no longer
were overtly and openly permitting local housing authori
ties to segregate by race, but less overt forms of segrega
tion were tolerated. For example, before the Executive
Order was issued, many local Public Housing authorities
maintained tenant assignment lists which were separate,
one for black and one for white. This was no longer per
mitted. What was permitted and in fact encouraged by
officials of the Public Housing Administration was a form
of freedom of choice plan which had been tried in sev
eral cities with no success [2446] whatsoever. Nonetheless,
the Public Housing recommended to local Public Housing
authorities that they switch from segregated tenant assign
ment lists to freedom of choice so tenants or applicants
would theoretically have a choice of projects. The results
were in almost perfect perpetuation and continuation of
segregated public housing.
Q. Why was that?
A. Because freedom of choice did not work in the
area of Public Housing for many of the same reasons it
did not work in the area of school desegregation. In fact,
335
these reasons were recognized by the Public Housing Ad
ministration itself four years later in what I thought was
a rather eloquent explanation of why they would no
longer permit freedom of choice plans in public tenant
assignment.
# # # # #
[2449] Q. [By Mr. Jones] During the time of recess,
Mr. Sloane, we went out to discuss a little more red
lining, and I ’m not sure at what point we broke off, so
would you just tell us what red lining is, sir?
A. Red lining is a practice engaged in by mortgage
lending institutions of refusing to make loans in certain
neighborhoods, neighborhoods generally that are racially
integrated or predominantly black or, if they do make
loans in such neighborhoods, requiring stricter terms and
conditions for loans than they would require in neighbor
hoods [2450] that are predominantly white.
Q. We also discussed this morning, Mr. Sloane, the
various policies that had been adopted by the Public Hous
ing Administration pursuant to the Executive Order issued
by the President. You had testified with respect to freedom
of choice. Was there also a policy pursued which gave
applicants a right of refusal without losing their place on
the list?
A. Yes. That came several years later. Following
issuance of the Executive Order, as I said earlier, the
Public Housing Administration advised local Public Hous
ing authorities to switch to a freedom of choice form of
tenant assignment. With respect to site selection policies,
however, there was no change. Sites for projects intended
to be for white occupancy were located in white areas.
Projects intended for black occupancy were located in
black areas.
In 1964 the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed,
including Title VI which prohibited racial discrimination
in a large number of federally assisted programs, includ
3 3 6
ing public housing. Several years after Title VI was en
acted, the Public Housing Administration made a fairly
substantial change in its policies, both with respect to
tenant assignment and with respect to site selection. On
tenant assignment, they required a form of first-come-
first-served procedure. This is [2451] the way it worked.
A local housing authority could offer an applicant whose
name came to the top of the list for a particular type of
an apartment two refusals, no matter what the ground
was. If the applicant refused an otherwise appropriate
apartment, the third time he went down to the bottom of
the list and had to start all over again, which was a change
from previous tenant assignment policies which were
strictly on a racial basis.
On site selection as well there was a change in that
the Public Housing Administration required a balanced
site selection policy. That is, for every unit of public hous
ing that was located in minority neighborhoods, there had
to be an equivalent unit located outside minority neigh
borhoods. Now, the policies were maintained for the next
five years. In fact, the tenant assignment policy first-come-
first-serve is still in effect.
There was a change in site selection policies in 1972
when HUD issued what were called project selection
criteria which were aimed for the most part at assuring
that sites for public housing and other forms of federally
subsidized housing served to reduce racial concentrations.
That was the first time that the federal policy was actu
ally in favor of reducing racial concentrations, and that
occurred only in 1972.
Q. What effected that policy change, if you know?
[2452]
A. Yes. There was a specific incident. A lawsuit was
brought against HUD in Philadelphia. The case was called
Shannon versus HUD in which HUD approval of a low-
income housing project in a racially integrated area was
337
challenged on grounds that HUD had failed to take into
account the effect on the racial composition of the neigh
borhood and on the vitality of the neighborhood. The Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with plaintiffs
and said that HUD did have that obligation to take into
account the effect of its approvals of low-income projects
on the racial composition of the neighborhood, among
other things, that the Court of Appeals said.
This led directly to two particular sets of regulations:
One, the issuance of project selection criteria on a nation
wide basis not just limited to the jurisdiction of die
Third Circuit which were aimed at assuring that site
selections would serve to reduce racial concentrations and
also regulations called affirmative fair housing marketing
regulations aimed at assuring that HUD-assisted builders
would undertake programs to attract minority home seek
ers to usual subdivision housing in the suburbs from which
they previously had been excluded. [2453]
A. (Continuing) But the Shannon case was the pre
cipitating event.
Q. What has FHA done in an effort to comply with
the mandate of the law?
A. Well, of course, as I said earlier, in its early years,
the first 15, its policies were actively in favor of racial
segregation and racial discrimination, including outspoken
advice to underwriters, which were put in racial terms,
those quotes from the Underwriting Manual that I read
from this morning.
In 1947, in response to continuing protests from civil
lights organizations and also in response to a specific re
quest from the then Attorney General of the United States,
FHA made changes in its Underwriting Manuals and no
longer used terms such as inharmonious racial groups but
substituted for such terms the term inharmonious user
groups. The change was distinctly a cosmetic one, just a
change in language. It had no substantive effect at all.
338
The first real change in FHA policy came following
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in
Shelley versus Kraemer which ruled that judicial enforce
ment of racially restrictive covenants was unconstitutional.
That decision came down in May, 1948. At the time, FHA
was actively encouraging use of racially restrictive cove
nants.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, FHA [2454]
continued to encourage use of racially restrictive covenants
for nearly two years. It wasn’t until February of 1950 that
FHA changed its policy with respect to racially restrictive
covenants.
What it announced in February of 1950 was that it
would no longer insure mortgages on houses carrying
racially restrictive covenants if the covenants were filed
after February of 1950-
Q. What was the situation with regard to restrictive
covenants that were already on file?
A. FHA would continue to insure mortgages on such
houses forevermore.
Q. So this was in effect a grandfather clause?
A. That’s exactly right.
For the next 12 years, FHA’s policy could be char
acterized as one of neutrality. If a — officially one of
neutrality. If a builder chose to discriminate on the basis
of race in sales of houses which were provided with the
aid of FHA mortgage insurance, that was perfectly accept
able to FHA. Officially, if a builder chose to sell houses
without regard to the race of the home seeker, that was
acceptable to FHA as well. However, there were many
instances that came to the attention — to my attention and
other staff members’ attention at the U. S. Commission on
Civil Rights suggesting strongly that the official policy
was [2455] not quite the unofficial policy carried out in
practice in the field, but that builders were still encour
aged to sell houses, if they were going to use FHA mort
gage insurance to sell houses to whites only.
339
The real change in FHA policy came after the issu
ance of the Executive Order on Equal Opportunity and
Housing, which was issued in November of 1982, and
that Order constituted a direct command from the presi
dent to the FHA Commission to take action necessary to
prevent discrimination in the operation of its programs,
and FHA then was in the legal position of advocating
open occupancy for nondiscrimination in housing.
The manner in which FHA chose to comply with that
presidential command was the most passive manner imag-
ineable. Their enforcement efforts were limited to receipt
of complaints, individual complaints and processing of
individual complaints and making efforts to secure a house
for an individual complainant if they found that the com
plaint was justified. That was the full extent of FHA’s
enforcement activities.
The 1968 Fair Housing Law, the Federal Fair Housing
Law, was another command to FHA as well as all other
federal agencies to prevent discrimination. FHA still, by
and large, carries out its enforcement responsibilities
through the receipt and processing of individual com
plaints. [2456]
So that FHA has been under increasingly strong man
dates for equal opportunity, certainly, since 1962, which
is 16 years ago.
From my experience, the enthusiasm with which they
are carrying out their current equal opportunity mandates
falls far short of meeting the — of matching the zeal with
which they carried out their racial segregation policies
during the first 15, 16 years of their existence.
& # # # #
[2460] Q. [By Mr. Jones] I would like for you to
assume for the purpose of this question, Mr. Sloane, the
following facts. I would like for you to make these assump
tions against the background of your knowledge on the
extent to which restrictive covenants have excluded blacks
840
from residential areas, the various programs and policies
of FHA have had the effect of excluding racial minorities
or, specifically, blacks from certain residential areas and
the failure of other federal [2461] agencies to comply with
various statutory and constitutional requirements with re
spect to enforcing rights are concerned.
I would like for you to assume the following: That
in 1952 the Columbus School System constructed five ele
mentary schools in areas that contained restrictive cove
nants; in 1953 the Columbus Public School System con
structed three elementary schools in areas that contained
racially restrictive covenants; in 1954 the Columbus School
System constructed one elementary school in such an area;
in 1955, four schools were constructed in areas that con
tained racially restrictive covenants; in 1956, five were so
constructed; in 1957, six; in 1958, two; in 1959, five; in
1960, five; in 1961, five; in 1962, three; in 1963, six; in 1964,
two; in 1965, two; in 1966, nine; in 1967, three; in 1968,
three; in 1969, one.
I would like for you to further assume that the same
Public School System that constructed these schools in
these areas also adopts and pursues a policy of geographic
neighborhood assignment of children.
I would ask whether you have an opinion as to the
effect of this kind of policy on the residential patterns that
would surround these schools 1 have mentioned and the
schools themselves?
A. First, I do —
MR. PORTER: Excuse me just a minute. Is the
[2462J question completed?
MR. JONES: Yes.
AIR. PORTER: If the Court please, could I have the
last sentence or two read?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Partial question read.)
AIR. PORTER: I object to the question.
341
THE COURT: Do you want to make a record?
MR. PORTER: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. I am
not clear- in my mind as to which question is being asked
in the first place. If he is being asked as something within
his expertise of housing as distinguished from schooling,
I am not clear about it. I think that is not the purport of
the question, however. He has not been qualified in any
way that I know of with respect to school construction
and school programs. [2463]
MR. PORTER: (Continuing) The other thing that
I would like to also object to is the recitation of the
presence of restrictive covenants. I don’t know whether
in the first place there is in evidence that there were at
some point in time restrictive covenants in the areas where
these schools were built.
The other thing is that in 1947 or ’48 they were held,
I think, illegal, and I think that characterization is wrong,
the inference.
THE COURT: The Court, relying on what I consider
the rather marked changed in rules of evidence in tins
area, particularly 703 and 705, I believe the question is
proper and leaves you to your cross-examination, so I will
overrule the objection.
Q. (By Mr. Jones) Can you remember the question?
A. Yes, I do. Well, first the fact that there are restric
tive covenants in the area which exclude racial minorities
necessarily would mean that the schools in the area would
be white. The fact that the schools are white, there is a
reciprocal effect. The racial identification of the schools
as white also has an effect in perpetuating the whiteness of
the residential area which feeds into the school. Even if
restrictive covenants after awhile were somehow expunged
from deeds, the whiteness of the school and the whiteness
of the residential neighborhood would have [2464] recip
rocal effect perpetuating each other.
342
Q. What, based upon your experience, Mr. Sloane,
as one associated with the U. S. Commission on Civil
Rights, one who has conducted numerous studies, studies
that you referred to in your earlier testimony on housing
segregation in this country and testimony you prepared
for Congress that led to the enactment of various pieces of
legislation, including Title VIII, what is your opinion as
to the lasting effects of policies that I described in the
hypothetical question?
' MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled,
A. The lasting effects are considerable. Residential
patterns that develop over decades, sometimes generations,
tend to perpetuate themselves. It takes a considerable
effort to make a dent in the residentially segregated pat
terns that exist.
Since the Federal Government through its many
agencies bears such a large part of the responsibility for
the development and hardening of the patterns of residen
tial segregation in the metropolitan areas, it would seem
to me that these federal agencies bear at least as large a
responsibility to make a similar effort at undoing what
they in large part have done. So far I have not seen any
thing resembling that sort of a major effort [2465] emerging.
Unless there is a major effort, the patterns of resi
dential segregation will perpetuate themselves because
that’s the way residential patterns go on. Similarly, pat
terns of school segregation imposed upon the patterns of
residential segregation with the key element of geographic
attendance areas will similarly go on.
ft ft ft ft ft
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
[2466] Q. [By Mr. Porter] What are you saying is
your understanding of the hypothetical question that was
asked to you and your reply to it?
A. What was my understanding of the question?
34S
Q. What was your understanding of the question that
Mr. Jones asked you and your reply?
MR. JONES: Objection.
THE COURT: I am going to allow it if you can
answer it.
THE WITNESS: Certainly.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. My understanding of the question was, given a
situation where schools, a number of schools were built
in residential areas where the houses carried racially re
strictive covenants and, number one, what effect would
the residential pattern have on school attendance and,
number two, what effect would school attendance have on
the residential pattern? My answer was that there would
be a reciprocal effect of maintaining and perpetuating an
all-white neighborhood, all-white school.
Q. Well, you are accepting as given, and maybe
properly so, that these eight schools that are identified or
were constructed in 1952 were constructed on properties
that [2467] had racially restrictive covenants; is that right?
A. Not necessarily on properties, but in neighborhoods
where the houses carried racially restrictive covenants.
That was part of it. I didn’t understand the question to
be —
Q. That’s all right, I accept that. You don’t know
and you are not suggesting that the Glenmont Elementary,
James Road Elementary, Kingswood Elementary, Oakland
Elementary, South Mifflin Elementary, Weinland Park
Elementary, Westgate Elementary and West Mound Ele
mentary were actually built in areas where there were
restrictive covenants? You are simply assuming for the
purposes of the question that Mr. Jones has stated the
facts correctly; is that right?
A. I don’t recall any names of schools were given;
just numbers of schools. No, I don’t know anything about
those schools.
Q. So to the extent that this record reflects that the
schools that he has identified by number opened with
predominantly black student bodies, what would that indi
cate to you so far as these restrictive covenants in the
area were concerned?
A. If these schools opened that way under the set of
conditions that Mr. Jones gave in his hypothetical, I would
be flabbergasted. I couldn’t see how that could happen.
If we are talking about schools that are located in residen
tial [2467A] areas which carry racially restrictive cove
nants that exclude black people and attendance is on a
geographical basis, it would seem inevitable to me that
those schools would open with white people. [2468]
Q. Well, if I tell you, as a matter of fact, that the
Beatty Park Elementary School, which was one of the
three schools built in 1954, opened 90 percent black, there
is something the matter; isn’t there?
A. I would think so. I’m not in a position to dispute
the facts.
Q. And if I told you that in the same year Eastgate
Elementary opened and it had a substantial black enroll
ment, then there is something again wrong with that?
A. I would again be very surprised.
MR. JONES: What school again? I’m sorry?
MR. PORTER: Eastgate.
A. (Continuing) I would assume one of the facts
given in the hypothetical just wasn’t present.
Q. Or more?
A. Yes.
Q. Depending on what this record shows; is that
right?
A. One or more of the essential facts just isn’t there.
Q. All right. Now, as an expert, would you agree that
as time has gone by, since 1947, the effect or the viability
that you find in these covenants has diminished?
A. Since the Supereme Court decision?
844
345
Q. Yes. [2469]
A. It has some, but it has by no means — the effect
has by no means disappeared for a variety of reasons. They
still are, by and large, recorded on deeds. There are a
good many people who still honor them. For one thing,
most people aren’t lawyers and may not know that these
covenants are judicially unenforceable.
Secondly, most people are accustomed to living up
to what they say they’re going to do. I would agree that,
in effect, the effect has been diminished — certainly that
there is less effect today than there was in 1947, the year
before the Supreme Court decision in Shelley versus Krae-
mer, but they still have some lingering effect.
Q. And to the extent that a given area has had — had
restrictive covenants in some time in the past and that aiea
is now, according to the census information, predominantly
black, that certainly would be an example of an area where
the covenant had lost its viability for whatever the reason?
A. Yes, I would agree, yes.
Q. It is my impression from reading your testimony
in Dayton and Cleveland that there are two key elements
to your position, and I would like to discuss these with
you just a little bit.
The first is that, talking as we are now on the subject
that we’ve been talking about, the first is that residential
patterns are slow to change racially; is that [2470] right?
A. Oh, yes, that’s — at least that.
Q. At least that.
And that is true whether or not there are restrictive
covenants, right?
A. That’s largely time, yes.
Q. It is a — if I would understand your position, it
is because there are a whole number of factors which bear
on the question of the development or the living condi
tions within an area and these are slow to change, money
markets are slow to change, the community is slow to
change; is that right?
346
A. Well, discriminatory practices are slow to change,
too.
Q. All right.
A. And also recognition of the extent of equal hous
ing opportunity does exist is slow to come.
Q. And the other thing that seems to me, Mr. Sloane,
to prevade or is a dominant theme in your opinion or
position, is that the Federal Government, for whatever the
reason, the Federal Government has not, as a matter of
policy in your opinion, actively enough pursued equal
housing or open housing; is that right?
A. Let me answer it this way: Yes to that, but per
haps even more important, even when policies of Federal
agencies [2471] have been at an acceptable level, the
bigger with which those policies have been carried out in
the field, in the practice, have been severely wanting.
Q. That is part of what I’m trying to say.
A. Yes.
Q. That while there may be, in your opinion, there
may be a stated policy, it has not been sufficiently aggres
sively pursued; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And this has nothing to do with schools, does it?
I mean, this is simply national housing policy, right?
A. Well, as I testified earlier, part of the instructions
to underwriters in the FHA underwriter manual back in
the ’30s and the 1940s had to do with the racial composi
tion of schools, and according to that underwriting manual,
racially integrated schools were a minus factor for under
writing purposes.
Q. Okay. I will talk about that in a minute, but let’s
go back to my question.
I stated your position correctly, did I not, that as a
national policy, the Federal Government, in your opinion,
has not pursued open housing to the extent that it should;
is that right?
A. That’s right.
347
Q. All right. Now, let’s go back, and if we xnay,
[2472] please, take these pieces of FHA and VA and put
them into a time frame, okay?
Now, if I understand it correctly, the FHA started in
1934, am I right?
A. Right.
Q. And, according to your testimony and the testi
mony of others here in this case, in about 1935 or 1938
there appeared in the FHA manual or appraisal manual
these things dealing with injection of certain things into
the neighborhood? I’ve forgotten exactly the term. Is that
right?
A. Well, those were there from the very inception of
FHA. [2473]
Q. Okay. And they continued down past Shelley
versus Kraemer in 1948 until 1950, right?
A. As I testified earlier, in 1947, there were — there
was a change in language in the Underwriting Manual
from inharmonious racial groups to inharmonious user
groups.
Q. And if I understand what you’ve said here, and
it’s consistent with what you have said elsewhere, that
that language was eliminated in 1950; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. So that as of 1950, if an outsider was to
look at the Federal Government’s guidelines and policies
with respect to financing under the FHA, he would not
find this language which you’ve identified; is that right?
A. No, it would be the outward appearance of neu
trality on racial discrimination.
Q. And I believe it was your testimony here and else
where that they did, in fact, pursue or at least pay lip
service to a position of neutrality; is that right?
A. That was the official policy, yes.
Q, All right, Now, if a school board — strike that.
Strike it.
348
And it’s also my recollection from your testimony
elsewhere that the FHA and VA loans from 1950, in the
1950’s were in excess of 40 percent of the new housing
market; is [2474] that right?
A. At certain periods during that time, yes.
Q. All right. And I think you have also testified else
where that this financing was almost entirely in the sub
urban parts of the metropolitan areas; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then in the ’60s, the piece of the FHA-VA
market was approximately 30 percent? It was down, right?
A. That’s right, yes.
Q. And would I be correct in assuming that it still
is primarily in the suburban rather than — in the suburban
parts of the metropolitan area?
A. In the 1960’s?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, for the most part. In the latter part of the
1960’s, there was a concerted effort on the part of high
FHA officials to turn FHA’s attention to the central city.
Q. And today, according to your testimony, in Cleve
land, I think it was, it is now approximately 15 percent?
A. FHA’s share?
Q. That’s correct.
A. I think so, yes.
Q. All right. So that since 1950, there has been no
policy of encouraging or recommending these racial cove
nants or this racial policy so far as neighborhoods are
[2475] concerned? That’s right so far; isn’t it?
A. No, I’m not sure if I can agree with that.
Q. Okay. I did get cumbersome.
A. No, as I testified earlier, the unofficial policy car
ried out in the field —
Q. Wait just a minute. Let me ask the question.
A. I thought I was responding to one.
Q. Let me ask it. Let me bring it down.
349
After the change in FHA policy or the elimination of
this language out of these manuals in ’47 and then in ’50,
then in 1962 there was an affirmative Executive Order or
an Executive Order by the then president which affirma
tively dealt with equal opportunity in housing; is that right?
A. That’s right.
Q. And then, in 1964, two years later, there was the
Civil Rights Act; isn’t that true, which dealt in part with
this?
A. No, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn’t really
cover FHA.
Q. I had understood or read your testimony in another
case to indicate that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 had played a part in this picture.
A. Title VI has an exemption of contracts by way of
insurance or guarantee, and other than the new subsidy
[2476] programs which came later, FHA’s financial assist
ance is solely by way of mortgage insurance or a contract
of insurance and was exempt from coverage under Title VI.
Q. All right. And then, in 1968, there was the Federal
Fair Housing Law; is that right?
A. That’s right.
Q. So that to the extent that a school system built a
school building after 1950 it built it upon a federal policy
that did not — did not encourage racial discrimination,
did it?
A. No, I ’m sorry, I don’t think that’s right. It built it
upon a federal policy carried out by local insuring officers
in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and every other major
city in this country which continued to be discriminatory,
and the demonstration of that is that the United States
Commission on Civil Rights estimated that as of 1959,
nine years after FHA officially had stopped discriminat
ing, less than 2 percent of the post World War II FHA
housing had been occupied by minorities.
By 1967, which was five years after the Executive
Order on Equal Opportunity was signed, that percentage
350
had risen only to 3.3 percent. This, it seems to me, is a
practical suggestion that the policies which officially were
announced in Washington were not being carried out with
very much enthusiasm, and that discrimination was con
tinuing with [2477] respect to FHA housing.
Q. Well, let’s put it a different way.
If Dr. Novice Fawcett was going to put a building up
in the Columbus Public School System in 1952 and some
body said, “Hey, you’d better look at the FHA rules,” he’s
not going to find anything in there such as existed prior to
1950, is he?
A. No. [2478]
Q. And he’s going to be told if he inquires or his
people inquire that the Federal Government is neutral
upon the subject; is that right? Is that what your testi
mony was?
A. He’ll be told by whom? If he goes down to the
FHA insuring office, he might not be told that.
Q. All right. Now, Mr. Jones asked you about a model
restrictive covenant. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you identified one; am I right?
A. I told him what the model covenants contain,
generally.
Q. Do you remember testifying to Mr. Jones in Cleve
land on Wednesday, December the 10th, —
A. Yes.
Q. -1 9 7 5 ?
And you were asked the question by Mr. Jones:
Did your research and investigation into the practices
of FHA, Mr. Sloane, reveal whether or not that agency pro
vided developers with language or model restrictive cov
enant terminology or an inclusion in the local documents?
A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. Do you remember that question?
A. Yes.
851
Q. Do you remember what your answer was? [2479]
A. Yes.
Q. What was it?
A. I had always assumed that FHA had provided a
model covenant and everybody I talked to was operating
under that assumption. My search did not reveal one. T
couldn’t find it.
Q. Yes, I think that you said:
I personally have not discovered one?
A. That’s right. Everyone, including FHA officials,
said, “Oh, yeah, we used to be able to provide a model
covenant,” but I haven’t been able to find it. The model
covenant I told Mr. Jones about earlier was just a model
covenant and was not used.
Q. Are you familiar, or I assume I guess to be more
accurate, I guess I should assume that you are not familiar
with the Federal Housing — the Public Housing projects
in the City of Columbus?
A. No, I am not,
Q. You don’t know, so that the record is clear, you
don’t know whether or not the seven or eight or nine non
senior citizen public housing projects in the City of Colum
bus, you do not know where they were built, what their
racial composition was when they opened up or what it
is today, do you?
A. No, I don’t. [2480]
Q. Nor do you know whether or not the school build
ings predated the construction of the public housing facil
ity, do you?
A. I don’t.
Q. All right. I understand that your employment by
the Government, the Federal Government, specifically, the
United States Civil Rights Commission, ended in 1973; is
that correct?
A. That’s right. [2481]
Q. So that Exhibit 511 which you have read from
dealing with the Federal Civil Rights enforcement in 1974
352
was a document which was prepared after you left?
A. That’s right. This is one in a longer series of sim
ilar reports. The first three or four were done under my
supervision. This was not.
Q. Do you have the full report there?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. May I have it, please?
I am going to hand you the full book, Mr. Sloane,
and open it to page 119, and I would ask you to read that
paragraph because I believe that it differs from my recol
lection of your testimony.
A. HUD does not yet collect data on racial and ethnic
composition of neighborhoods in which single-family hous
ing sales are made. Thus it is not possible to assess the
extent to which sales made through HUD’s single-family
housing program perpetuated or combated segregated resi
dential patterns. It appears that HUD does not yet collect
data on the racial and ethnic composition of the popula
tion for which HUD’s programs are targeted, and thus it
seems that HUD cannot measure the extent to which
minorities are proportionately represented in its programs.
It also appears that HUD does not collect racial and ethnic
data on private housing and does not make systematic use
of [2482] census data to survey the nation’s racial and
ethnic housing patterns.
Q. Thank you. Do you agree with that?
A. Do I agree with —
Q. That statement?
A. That HUD does not collect data on the ethnic and
racial composition of neighborhoods, I believe that’s so.
HUD does collect racial data on the houses which are
acquired by people.
Q. Do you agree with the statement “And that it is
not possible to assess the extent to which sales made
through HUD’s single-family housing program perpetu
ated or combated segregated residential patterns”?
3 5 3
A, I don’t think that would be so in that certainly
those data are available through census, I believe. That s
just a single page. As I understand it, all they are saying
is that HUD does not itself provide data on the racial
composition of neighborhoods. It doesnt say those data
aren’t available elsewhere.
Q. I also noticed in your testimony in Cleveland that
you attribute to the FHA the — I think your language
actually was that the FHA was instrumental in making
racially restrictive covenants more popular and prevalent
than they were prior, and I suppose prior to 1934; is that
right? [2483]
A. That’s right.
Q. So that to the extent that there were school build
ings, for example, built prior to 1934, it would be your
understanding as a housing expert that they were in less
use — restrictive covenants were in less use prior to that
time than they were subsequent to it?
A. That’s right, generally.
Q, To the extent the school buildings were built be
tween 1934 and 1950, they would have been built during
the time when these restrictive covenants were in wide
use; is that right?
A. That’s right.
Q. If there weren’t any buildings being built by the
Columbus Public School System during that 16 years, then
it is of no significance, is it, the restrictive covenants?
A. Restrictive covenants are of no significance?
Q. So far as the construction of school buildings are
concerned?
A. I am not following your question.
(). I am not sure what it was at this point. I think I
just have another question.
MR. PORTER: I have no further questions. Thank
you.
# # # # *
354
ROBERT L. GREEN
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
[2525] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] State your full name and
occupation, please.
A. Robert L, Green, Dean, College of Urban Devel
opment and Professor of Educational Psychology at Michi
gan State University.
# ft ft # #
[2583] Q. Dr. Green, based on studies — perhaps we
should go back then.
The College of Urban Affairs in Michigan State Uni
versity, does it study the entire interdisciplinary relation
ship of urban areas, schools, housing, demographic move
ments, things of this nature?
A. Race, ethnic, social movements.
Q. All right. One of the areas of study at the Uni
versity and at the College of Urban Affairs deal with migra
tion patterns of whites and blacks?
A. Yes.
Q. And does the University also deal with questions
of housing choice and why people make those choices?
A. Yes.
Q. Does the University also deal with the conditions
of schools and the perception of conditions of schools?
A. Yes.
[2564] Q. And I believe you were the first director
of the Department when it was a department at the Uni
versity, and then Acting Dean and then Dean as it became
a college; is that correct?
A. Yes.
355
Q. Now, based on your knowledge and working with
your faculty and your staff, is there any data to support,
other than just your personal opinion, is there any data to
support the idea that whites moving into a community and
finding that schools are black in an area where they would
be looking at a house would have any sort of perception
of those schools?
A. Yes, We have a young geographer on our staff,
Professor Joe Darden, who has done extensive research on
residential desegregation and perception of whites in se
lecting communities, schools and so forth, and whites
moving into any community normally would view and will
view schools that are predominantly black and neighbor
hoods that are predominantly black as communities in
which they would not want to raise their children, but it’s
specifically schools.
As a matter of fact, if I could move it one step further,
blacks who move into a community with resources and
means accomodate the views very often of the white
community and they, too, will very often see predomi
nantly black schools as being less than desirable in which
to raise [2565] their kids, especially blacks with means and
education, but it’s definitely a white view, a view that’s
held by whites. Schools that are predominantly black are
perceived as being lacking in resources, lacking in having
instructional personnel that’s well-trained with the years
of experience and exposure to the classroom and typically
see these schools as schools which they would not want to
have their children raised due to inferior resources and
personnel. Whether it’s true or not, that’s a perception.
# # # # #
[2567] Q. Dr. Green, let’s assume for the sake of this
question that Columbus has rebuilt a number of its black
schools on the same sites or nearby and has spent a fair
amount of money refurbishing schools and so forth. Does
356
this fact get communicated or does the factor of race in
terns of in migrating individuals, does the factor of race
tend to obscure such physical facts?
A, Oh, yes,
MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The fact of race does obscure the development of
new sites because race is yet seen as being the most
powerful factor in the choices that individuals historically
have made regarding where their children will be edu
cated. * * * * *
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER
* * * * *
[2568] Q. [By Mr. Porter] And your testimony for
the most part here today deals with your opinions within
your field of expertise generally and not with specific
reference to Columbus, [2569] although you would not
exclude Columbus from the generalities; is that right?
A. That’s correct.
* * * * *
DAVID HAMLAR
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ATKINS
[2660] Q. [By Mr. Atkins] Would you give your full
name for the record, and address, please?
A. David D. Hamlar, 2626 Kenview Road South,
Columbus, Ohio.
Q. I believe you are a doctor, are you not, Mr,
Hamlar?
A. Yes, sir.
857
Q. Dr. Hamlar, you are now a member of the Colum
bus Board of Education, are you not?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. How long have you been a member of the Colum
bus Board?
A. This is my sixth year of this term. Two years
before.
Q. And the prior two years were back in the —
A. ’66/67.
Q. And this term began in 1971?
A. This term started in ’72 — ’74.
[2661] Q. I am sorry.
A. ’74.
Q. And have you, during either your first or the
present term, been an officer of the Columbus Board?
A. Yes.
Q. Which positions have you held, sir?
A. I have been president, vice president.
Q. And during what period were you president?
A. Last year.
Q. Was that for a one-year term?
A. One-year term.
Q. What was the period, if you can recall, when you
were vice president?
A. It was the previous year.
Q. Dr. Hamlar, I believe in a deposition taken by
Plaintiffs’ counsel Mr. William Davis on April 12, 1974,
you were questioned relative to certain resolutions offered
by you as a member of the Columbus Board. Do you re
call that deposition?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The indication was that on May 1 of 1973 or May
of 1973, you introduced a resolution to the Columbus
Board seeking certain assistance from the State Board or
the State Department of Education. Could you describe
briefly the substance of the resolution?
858
[2662] A. Well, the idea of the resolution was to ask
for any advisory assistance or money that could be made
available to help desegregate Columbus Public Schools.
Q. What was the action taken by the Board on the
resolution?
A. On that particular resolution, we decided not to
do that, and we - there were several resolutions presented
by me towards the asking for assistance, monetarily and
advisory, hut I can’t recall specifically whether they were
in committee meetings or in the voting Board members,
which I had introduced resolutions in both concerns, but
we always in committee meetings determined whether it
would be advisable to bring in a resolution form rather than
have the Superintendent put it in resolution form. If we
don’t have enough votes to carry, we automatically just
dismiss it.
Q. Now, according to the deposition in April of 1974,
the indication was that that particular resolution on a 4-
to-3 vote was defeated or rejected, whichever term would
be more appropriate, by the Columbus Board. Does that
comport with your recollection?
A. Yes.
Q. And was the vote at that time, as far as you can
recall, a vote that split essentially along racial lines of
the Board?
A. Yes.
[2663] Q. And since that time, has the Columbus
Board passed any other resolutions seeking from the State
Board of Education, the State Department of Education,
the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, assistance
in desegregating the Public Schools of Columbus?
A. No.
Q, During the period that you have served on the
Columbus Board, has the Columbus Board passed resolu
tions relative to instructing the Superintendent to use the
Princeton pairing plan to effect desegregation in Columbus?
359
A. You say have we passed a resolution instructing
the Superintendent?
Q. Yes.
A, No, sir.
Q. Were resolutions or orders, whatever form they
take, during your term passed by the Columbus Board
instructing the Superintendent to use the cluster plan to
desegregate public schools in Columbus?
A. No.
[2664] Q. Do you recall a resolution that was offered
by another member of the Board seeking to set up a site
selection advisory committee? Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And was the purpose of that resolution to provide
a mechanism for preventing sites being selected whose
construction — on which construction would result in
racially segregated schools?
Q. Yes. It was explained to me — that’s the way I
understood it.
Q. Did the Board pass that resolution, Dr. Hamlar?
A. No.
Q. Has the Board passed any resolution similar to
that since then?
A. You mean similar to site selection?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Has the Board during the term you have served on
it, either your first or your second term, instructed the
superintendent to redraw school attendance boundaries so
as to desegregate the public schools in Columbus?
A. I must say not in those terms, but boundaries were
to be considered under our last resolution in providing
more integrated educational experiences, as it’s been put-
in resolution form.
[2665] Q. That resolution dealt with new schools
that were being constructed, did it not?
A. Yes, sir.
360
Q, But as far as you can recall, the Board has not
during your first or second term instructed the superin
tendent to review the boundaries in existence in the Colum
bus Public School System for the purpose of redrawing
them where needed to desegregate the schools?
A. It’s been inherent in some of our plans, but not
specifically to do that. As a matter of fact, there have been
occasions it has been stated that no boundaries would be
done, that it would be unnecessary gerrymandering to do
such a thing.
Q. You mean that no boundaries would be redrawn
for the purpose of desegregation?
A. Specifically, yes, I would say that, but boundaries
were to be considered where necessary, where new schools
were to furnish better integrated educational experiences.
# . # # * # •
HOWARD OWEN MERRIMAN
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY AIR ATKINS
[2958] Q. [By Mr. Atkins] Would you state your full
name and address for the record, please?
A. Howard Owen Merriman, 3627 Olentangy Boule
vard, Columbus, Ohio.
Q. Mr. Merriman, I believe you have a Ph.D., do you
not?
A. That’s correct.
Q. In what field is that?
A. Educational Administration, research, evaluation,
research management.
Q. When did you begin your employment with the
Columbus School System?
A. In 1964.
361
# « * # #
[2970] Q. You mentioned that as a part of your — the
positions you have held with the Columbus School System
you have had certain kinds of responsibility for develop
ment functions. You said your title was at one point
Executive Director of Development, and then it became
Special Associate for Development, or was that —
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay. And what did you do?
A. Ran the building program.
Q. All right. Did you plan the building program as
well as run it?
A. Ran the building program to implement promises
made.
# # * # #
[2972] Q. Okay. So for every new school that was
built, you or somebody on your staff reporting to you had
to develop a racial profile of the potential area you served,
is that right?
A. We had to collect as much information as we
could on locating the school if there were options opened
for locating it. Some of the schools, new schools specified
in Promises Made were being located on Board-owned
sites, and the sites had been determined prior to the 1972
bond issue.
Q. Do you recall, Dr. Merriman, what the specific
Board vote was that created this policy, the policy attempt
ing to site new schools so as to enhance where possible
integration?
A. Specifically, no, but my primary reference point
is in the document to which I have referred called Promises
Made wherein the statement of the Boardpolicy is spelled
out.
. # # # # #
[2986] Q. Was it your understanding that the Board
policy was such that you were constrained from choosing
362
a site whose attendance area would be serviced by either
public or school department provided transportation?
A. Please say again.
Q. Was it your understanding that the only atten
dance areas that were permissible as a part of this to locate
the buildings so as to create the integration process were
those that the children could walk to?
A. With the exception of the Columbus Plan and the
schools where we created capacity over and above the
neighborhood area, —
Q. All right.
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Isn’t it the case that that there are al
ready the school districts or attendance areas for high
schools in Columbus which are sufficiently large; that
some of the [2987] students at least need to ride one or
another form of transportation to get to their school? That’s
the case now; isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. It’s also true that some of the junior high districts
are sufficiently large that some of the students within them
have to use either public or another means of transporta
tion to get to their schools?
A. Yes.
Q. There are even some elementary school districts
or elementary attendance areas that are sufficiently irreg
ular to require some of those students to need one or
another form of transportation to get to their school; isnt
that true, too?
A. Yes. # & # # #
[3058] Q. [By Mr. Adkins] Showing you a docu
ment that has previously been marked Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
137 which I believe was obtained during some of the
pretrial discovery for this case, obtained from the Columbus
363
Board, do you know whether or not the first annexation
shown there, the Mifflin annexation in 1957, brought with
it a school or schools?
A. I don’t believe so, but I don’t know of my own
knowledge. The Mifflin annexation I am familiar with was
when the entire residue of the Mifflin district was absorbed
by the Columbus District. I believe it was in 1971.
Q. All right now, this Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 137 indicates
that there have been several interactions between Columbus
and the Mifflin district, does it not? [3059]
6-10-57 there were 20 acres or 21 acres annexed by-
Columbus from Mifflin; then again on 11-9-59, two sepa
rate transactions, two separate actions, close to 87 acres;
again on June 10, 1983 in two separate actions, 35 acres,
thereabouts. Was it the 1963 annexation to which you are
referring or was that a later one?
A. No, sir. If you look on the next page of your
exhibit, the paragraph indicates —
Q. Paragraph No. 3, right?
A. That’s correct, a transfer of the entire district into
the Columbus City District on July 1, 1971.
Q. Right. [3060]
A. And that was all the students and all the buildings
in the Mifflin District.
Q. At that time, that was South Mifflin Elementary,
Cassady Elementary, East Linden Elementary and Mifflin
Junior Senior High School; is that correct?
A. That’s correct, uh-huh.
Q. Would you look at this Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 137.
Can you tell me whether any of these other annexations
brought with them schools, and if so, which ones, to the
best of your recollection?
A. There was a Worthington annexation, and it may
have been one of these, and I ’m not precisely sure of the
dates because I’m not — I wasn’t involved in it, but there
was a Worthington annexation in the ’60s and included
364
in that transfer was Homedale Elementary and Sharon
Elementary Schools.
Q. Homedale and which one?
A. Sharon.
Q. Did either of the ten or eleven annexations in
volving Reynoldsburg add schools?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Or Upper Arlington?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or Westerville?
A. The Westerville reference, I believe it’s on page 4,
[3061] is the, I believe — are the annexations to which I
referred earlier, part of those annexations which the Ohio
Supreme Court recently decided to uphold the transfer
which is to occur July 1st of this year, and that includes —
that includes a small, I believe it’s an eight-room elemen
tary school on Cleveland Avenue called, it was called
Minerva Park Elementary School.
I see no others on this list that contain school build
ings that I’m aware of.
Q. What about the southwestern — neither of the
southwestern annexations, as far as you can recall, involved
any schools as such?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. You’ve indicated that the policy that guided
the Columbus Board’s annexation was an effort to coincide
the school district boundaries with the municipal bound
aries; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
# # # # #
W. A. MONTGOMERY
called as a witness on behalf of the
Original Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
365
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUCAS
[1372] Q. [By Mr. Lucas] State your full name and
address, please.
A. W. A. Montgomery, 161 East Fourteenth Avenue.
Q. Mr. Montgomery, you have been employed by
the original Plaintiffs for some period of time collecting
data and investigating certain facts as to the matters
affecting [1373] this school desegregation case, have you
not?
A. Yes, sir.
# # # # #
[3161] Q. Do you have with you Original Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 51?
A. Yes. This is it (indicating).
Q. Would you examine 51E-2-C, please?
A. 51E-2-C is the September 3, 1907 Ohio State jour
nal, page 9.
Q. All right. Would you read that section beginning
“Segregation of Races Up Again”? I am sorry, “Again Up.”
A. That particular exhibit —
MR. PORTER: May I have an objection to all of
this, please?
THE COURT: Yes. The exhibit that you described
is No. 51E-2-B which is headlined “Segregation of Races
Again Up.” See, there is a B and C subpart of that exhibit.
Q. I am sorry. Give us B first, please.
A. Okay. B is the September 3, 1907 Columbus Eve
ning Dispatch, page 12. There is an article in the upper
righthand corner of the page which says in large print,
“Segregation of the Races Up Again.” There is a line, and
it says, “A resolution offered in School Board to establish
special colored school,” and another line, “Matter refer
red,” and then it gets into a different Board of Education
matter. The article states:
366
“The proposition to establish a special school for
colored children instead of allowing them to attend the
same school with white children made its periodical ap
pearance at the meeting of the Board of Education Mon
day night.
[3162] A. (Continuing) John J. Trauger, member
from the south side —
Q. Spell that, please, sir.
A. T-r-a-u-g-e-r — brought the matter up and the
proposal this time went even so far as to be referred to
a joint committee consisting of the sites and judiciary
committee.
New paragraph. This places the question in the
hands of —it’s either E. F. Wood or C. F. Wood, Dr.
W. O. Thompson and C. E. Morris as members of the
sites committee and J. J. Stoddard, J. C. Brown and Dr.
A. Timberman, members of the judiciary committee. Their
report on the matter is to be made to the Board in one
month.
Q. Is the article in —and I will drop, if I may, with
reference to the 51 and just give the letters — ETC essen
tially the same article?
A. ETC is the Ohio State Journal’s account of that
Board, and it doesn’t seem to differ. It does mention the
names of those Board members who have a responsibility,
you know, on those joint judiciary and sites committees
to look into that question.
Q. All right. Would you refer now to the Board
minutes of September 16, 1907, Exhibit 51E-3-A?
A. Yes, I have those Board minutes, and page 295
of those minutes which has the exhibit of that number.
[3163] Q. All right. In 295, there’s a motion by Mr.
Thompson. Would you read the motion?
A. Yeah. That’s from Board Member William Oxley
Thompson. He presented the following resolution:
RESOLVED, that the City Solicitor of this city as
367
the legal adviser of this Board be asked for an opinion
as to whether or not this Board has the power under the
laws of Ohio to establish separate schools for the white
and black races and to compel the children apportioned
hereto to attend the schools to which they are assigned.
Mr. Thompson moved to adopt the thing, which was
agreed to.
Q. Is Mr. Thompson a member of the sites com
mittee?
A. Yeah, that’s the same William Oxley Thompson.
Q. All right. Now, I refer you to the Columbus Even
ing Dispatch for Thursday, September 17, 1907.
A. Okay. That is marked Exhibit 51E-3-B, and on
page 2 of that paper, in large print it says at the top:
Favors Separate Schools for the Negro Children.
There’s a line.
Dr. W. O. Thompson is not unfriendly to them but
thinks it for the best. Dr. W. O. Thompson of the Ohio
State University — he was also president of that body in
addition to being a Columbus Board member —
Q. All right.
[3164] A. —is in line on the side favoring separate
schools for colored and white children. Dr. Thompson
said he was a friend of the colored people as well as the
white, and he believes it is for the best interests of both
that they be educated in separate schools. A resolution
introduced by him at the meeting of the School Board
Monday night asks that an opinion as to the legality of
separate schools be secured from the City Law Depart
ment. It is not expected that the Law Department will
render the decision before the coming election.
Q. I take it things haven’t changed.
Would you refer, please, Mr. Montgomery, to 51E-
4-A, B and C?
A. Yes. These are the three evening papers, the Co
lumbus Dispatch, the Columbus Citizen and the Ohio
State Journal for September 25, 1907.
368
Q. Is that September 24th perhaps?
A. September 25th, they report about a meeting of
about 800 colored people out on the Mt. Vernon Avenue
skating rink, on Mt. Vernon Avenue.
Q. That’s at 23rd Street?
A. Yes. Like this one Dispatch article is headlined:
Colored People Object Strongly to Segregation — or, wait,
I reserved that word order. That’s colored people strongly
object to segregation.
[3165] Q. All right.
A. And all three papers carry substantially the same
account, that they had a mass meeting of colored people
to object to —
Q, Read what it says, if you will.
A. Okay. I ’m reading from the Ohio State Journal,
which is 51E-4-B. The historians records of that news
paper article, that’s what this exhibit is. Okay.
Protest against colored schools.
Negroes hold mass meeting and make objection to
the Board of Education plan. Resolutions condemning the
suggested plan to establish separate schools in Columbus
for white and colored pupils were adopted last night at
the meeting at the skating rink of Mt. Vernon Avenue at
23rd Street were attended by 800 colored residents of
the city.
And then they have some proposed resolutions which
they were drafting and which was delivered to the Board
meeting at the end of the month.
Q. All right. Do you have the minutes of the Board
meeting of September 30, 1907, page 306, containing that
resolution?
A. Yes. These are those Board minutes. This is Ex
hibit 51E-5-A, and, let’s see, what’s the page number on
this? 306 of the Board minutes.
Q. All right. Would you read the —
[3166] A. Okay. There is a flag note out in the mar
gin. It says:
369
Resolutions: Colored mass meeting protesting against
any action favoring separate schools.
It reads:
Mr. Keller presented the following resolutions from
a committee of colored people which were read and
placed on file:
WHEREAS, we have learned from the newspapers
of the city that there is a proposed action by the Board
of Education looking to the establishment of separate
schools for the education of white and colored children,
the same being contrary to the letter and spirit of the state
— of the statutes of the State of Ohio; and
WHEREAS, such a separation we deem would miti
gate against and subject the colored children to undue
disadvantages; and
WHEREAS, the continued agitation of this question
in the manner aforesaid is menacing the stability of our
present commendable and very much appreciated free
public school system; and
WHEREAS, the boundary lines of certain school
districts in this city having been drawn as to segregate
colored children was an act of injustice committed against
them, both white and colored, to satisfy the prejudices of
[3167] a few; and
WHEREAS, the spirit which prompted such actions
by the Board of Education of this city is selfish, narrow
and not in accord with the broad Christian spirit which
would dominate every American home.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, we, the
colored citizens of Columbus, in mass meeting assembled
appreciate the necessity of entering upon a discussion of
this question, yet holding it to be the paramount duty
of every man to look well into the questions affecting the
welfare of his citizenship, hence we feel it incumbent upon
us to state our position on this matter.
370
[3168] BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, we
condemn any action that the School Board having for its
object either directly or indirectly the establishment of
the separate schools for the education of colored children
and that we are unalterably opposed to class legislation
of any kind under any conditions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the condi
tion of our people, objectionable or otherwise, is due
largely to the treatment which we have received at the
hands of American white people. Therefore, we feel that
the white citizens of our city owe it to us to give us that
benefit which accrues to us as a result of education by
contact and by association in the public schools as they
now are.
RESOLVED THAT, a copy of these resolutions be
sent to the Board of Education and the press.
Signed: Ralph Morman, Robert Jones, Robert Barkus,
W. B. Jones and G. A. Weaver, Committeemen.
# # # # #
[3171] Q. Would you refer to 51-E-16-A? These are
the minutes of May 11, 1908, page 481 and 483. They
contain a protest on behalf of a delegation of black citi
zens by Reverend E. L. Gilliam?
A. Yes, sir. There is a brief note on that in here. It
says the president announced that there was a delegation
of colored citizens present who desired to be heard and
presented the following communication:
[3172] Gentlemen:
A committee of representative colored citizens desire
to have the opportunity to present to your Board at this
session a matter of vital interest to them. Signed — there
is a name Gilliam and three other names here, and then
on motion —
Q. I believe that’s already been referred to by Mr.
Seifert. Would you refer now to —
A. Wait. There is more.
371
Q- That’s enough. If you will refer to 51E-18.
A. Okay.
Q. Refer now to the minutes of the Board from 1908,
June 8, pages 504-505.
A. This is that exhibit.
Q. All right. Does it indicate the appearance of an
other delegation or committee before the Board?
A. Yes. There is a flag note out in the margin. It says
Hawthorne Resolutions protesting against colored Sch.
Q. All right. Read the text, please.
A. The Clerk also presented the following resolution
which was read and laid on the table. WHEREAS, it is a
known fact that the Board of Education of the City of
Columbus, Ohio, has purchased property in the neighbor
hood of Hawthorne Street and Champion Avenue, a loca
tion — the Clerk of the Board repeats it twice here, a loca
tion, a [3173] location, near equal distance from the 23rd
Street and the Eastwood Avenue Schools which already are
as close together as any other two schools in the city and
not so crowded as to warrant the building of a new school
house in the same neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, it is positively asserted by persons in
positions to know whereof they speak that the said Board
intends to erect a school house on the aforesaid property,
and despite its denial to outline such a district as will
cause all or a greater part of the colored childen of that
vicinity to attend this school and thus virtually establish
a public school for the exclusive use of colored children;
and
WHEREAS, the lav/s of the State of Ohio forbids the
separation or segregation of the races in the public schools
of the State; and
WHEREAS, such separation of the races, even if the
laws of the State did not forbid it, always results ultimately
in the inferior school equipment for colored children and,
moreover, tends to set the races further and further apart
372
and so to hinder that mutual sympathy and better under
standing which close personal contact in the plastic yeais
of childhood helps to cultivate; therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that we colored citizens of the
City of Columbus, Ohio, in mass meeting assembled
earnestly [3174] protest against any such action, and
especially when contemplated by a Republican Board,
several of whose members owe their election to office to
colored voters; and
RESOLVED, that if the Board of Education executes
its rumored intention, we enter our protest at the polls and
in the course of the State and resolve -
Q, Excuse me. Is it the Courts of the State?
A. Courts of the State, and it concluded and resolved
that a copy of these resolutions be sent to the Board of
Education. Signed Ralph D. Brown and five others, Com
mittee.
Q. All right. The minutes of 1908, of July 31, 1908,
51E-23 reflect the change of the Hawthorne site to the
Champion Avenue School changing names as testified to
by Mr. Seifert.
Would you refer to Exhibit E24-B, an article from
the Ohio State Journal of January 7, 1910 at page 10?
A. Yes, I have that.
Q. Would you read that article, please?
A. It says at the top of the page -
MR. PORTER: Excuse me.
A. In large print —
(Discussion had off the record.)
Q. Go ahead.
MR. PORTER: Excuse me.
[3175] A. Negroes to have fine new school. The
Champion Avenue structure will be for the use of colored
children. It is expected to provide places for ten teachers
and janitor of that race.
37 S
[3297] Q. Okay. Refer to Original Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
51E-28a.
A. I have that.
Q. All right. Does that indicate the filing of a law
suit?
A. Yes, sir, against the Columbus Board of Education.
Q. And where did you get that particular record?
Where does it appear?
A. Franklin County Clerk of Courts’ office in micro
film Book 304, page 703. This is case No. 59,9342, Charles
T. Smith, et cetera, versus the Board of Education, et
cetera, Defendants.
Q. Now, this complaint was not filed until 1910; is
that correct?
A. It says here on the 23rd day of July, A.D., 1910,
[3298] came the Plaintiff and filed in the Office of the
Clerk of Court, so that’s the date.
# # # # #
[3300] Q. All right. Read on in the text.
A. The Plaintiff further says that on or about the
blank day of blank, 19 blank, comma, the Defendant Board
of Education and the said Defendant members of said
Board, with unlawful intent and purpose of establishing a
separate elementary and junior high school for colored
children purchased a site for a school building and grounds
at the northeast comer of Champion Avenue and Haw
thorne Avenue in said City Schol District, which site is — is
the colored — oh, which site — now, this sentence with the
blurry print, this sentence may not sound straight, so let
me read it to you the way it looks — which site is in die
colored reside district hereinabove described. That’s what
it looks like to me.
That hereafter, such proceedings were had by said
Defendant Board of Education and by said Defendants,
members of said Board as have resulted in the construction
upon said site of a school building and the installment
374
thereof all of the furniture and equipment thereof neces
sary to carry on an elementary and a junior high school
therein;
[3301] That there is now and has been for a number
of years last past a large commodious school house and
grounds established by said Defendant, Board of Educa
tion — there’s clearer print here, the next page — at the
southeast corner of Mt. Vernon Axenue and Ohio Avenue
in said city school and known as the Twenty-third Street
School and an elementary and a junior high school con
ducted therein by said Defendant Board, which school
house and grounds are distant from said Champion Avenue
Schoolhouse and grounds hereinabove de — hereinbefore
described two and one-half short squares northwest thereof;
That there is now and has been for a number of years
last past a large and commodious school house and grounds
established by the Defendant Board of Education on East-
wood Avenue in the City School District and known as the
Eastwood School and an elementary school conducted
herein by said Defendant Board which school house and
grounds are distant from said Champion Schoolhouse and
Grounds hereinabove described three and one half squares
southeast thereof;
That said Twenty-Third Street in the Eastwood Schools
wherein are ample and sufficient to accommodate the
children of school age residing in that part of the City
School Districts and in which the same are located, and
especially all such children who reside at what is known
as [3301A] the Champion Avenue School District herein
after described, and there was and is no necessity for addi
tional school in the locality of said Champion Avenue
School site was purchased and said building constructed.
[3302] The Plaintiff further says that on or about
November 22, 1909, the said Defendant, Board of Educa
tion, and said Defendants’ members of said Board in fur
ther — furtherance of said unlawful intent and purpose to
375
establish, maintain and conduct a separate elementary and
junior high school for colored children in said Champion
Avenue School building fixed, adopted and established a
new subschool district for said school in the following
words and figures, and then it repeats that same descrip
tion that I gave earlier.
Q. All right. Skip that, please.
A. The Plaintiff further says that said Champion
Avenue School District was carved out of — they use that
word then, carved out of — the school districts, therefore
establishing and existing for the 23rd and Eastwood Schools
and was and is so bounded and described as its boundary
lines are coincident with and describe the boundaries of
the colored residential district — the way they drew those
boundary lines — where territory hereinabove described.
That a large majority of the boundary lines of said
school district are alleys — oh, boy, that’s true enough —
instead of streets;
That the north boundary line thereof is one of the
alleys immediately to the south and contiguous to the lot
upon which stands the 23rd Street School Building.
[3303] The Plaintiff further says that the erection and
establishment of said Champion Avenue School District in
the fixing of the boundary lines thereof was an arbitrary,
forced, unnatural and unnecessary exercise of its power and
authority to assign youth to the schools established by them
attempting to a flagrant abuse thereof, and of its — in their
discretion therein, upon the parties, Defendant Board of
Education and the Defendant members thereof, on and
needs for the sole purpose of carrying into execution and
their unlawful purpose of establishing in said school
building —
Q. Maybe you misread that.
A. And their unlawful intent of establishing in said
school building a separate elementary and junior high
school for colored children.
376
And the Plaintiff further states and in furtherance of
said unlawful plan and purpose on or about June 26, 1910,
the Defendant, Jacob A. Shawan, Superintendent aforesaid
of the school district, made a report to the Defendant
Board of Education to the effect that he had appointed,
subject to the approval and confirmation, the following
named persons as teachers:
And then it names some teachers, and — names some
teacher assignments.
Q. Teachers where?
[3304] A. To the Champion Avenue School District. I
think they’re going to go on to name them as black persons.
Should I read on?
Q. You don’t need to read all the names.
A. That said Defendant, Board of Education, on or
about June 20, 1910, ratified, approved and reaffirmed
said appointments of said persons as principals and teach
ers for the said Champion Avenue School — oh, here it is —
that each and every one of said appointees are colored
persons of African descent; that no white teacher has been
appointed to said school.
Q. All right. Read the next paragraph.
A. Yeah, here’s where you leave off, yeah.
And the Plaintiff further says that said Defendant,
Jacob A. Shawn, Superintendent aforesaid, has notified all
of the colored youth of school age residing within the
limits of said so-called Champion Avenue School District
to no longer attend the said 23rd Street and Eastwood
Schools, —
[3305] A. (Continued) —heretofore attended by
them, but, on the contrary, to hereafter attend said Cham
pion Avenue School.
# # # # #
[3309] Q. Would you refer now to Exhibit 51-E-29a.
A. That’s what the Appeals Court had to say on this
[3310] decision. I have that here. The Appeals Court
377
was known then as the Circuit Court of Franklin County,
Ohio and this is Case 3094, decision rendered the 30th
day of December 1912, and I got this from the County
Law Library, I think on the 12th floor. They keep Circuit
Court decisions there, and that is where I got this.
Q. Did the Court simply hold that it had no authority
to interfere with the authority conferred on Boards of
Education?
A. Among other things, it held that.
Q. Is that the conclusion of the Court?
A. That’s one of the conclusions of the Court. They
seem to dodge the issue altogether.
Q. Mr. Montgomery, please. Let’s not have editorial
comment about it at this point.
# * *t # #
[3316] Q. And did you check the racial data on
residence for this particular period of time, and was there
some unusual data available, unique to that period of
time?
A. Yes, there was some unique and extraordinary
racial information available on these attendance zones
on these different schools at that time and very precise
way of measuring the racial composition of these resi
dences.
Q. Did the street directory, the street guide, direc
tory of householders for the City of Columbus for a period
of years actually denote colored families with the letter C?
A. They did that for a total of four years only. Then
they stopped it.
Q. What four years were they?
A. Well, there was one year before this addition
you have in your hand, and then there was that year and
then two other years, and that’s all I saw of them using
“C” in parenthesis to denote colored residents.
Q. Is that a conclusion you drew or is that actually
stated on the front of Original Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 51E-31?
378
A. It says here right on page 65 of this directory,
the 1911-1912 Columbus Directory, page 65; “C” paren
thesis, denotes colored.
Q. Did you examine this for the period 1910-1911?
[3317] A. Yes, from that map 8-E-l or 31E-30, 30-B,
I think that was. I examined all the streets contained
inside the Champion School zone within and withoutside
of this district, and is is remarkable when you look up
all those streets inside of the district. They have C s be
hind the resident’s name. You can look up any street
here, and you look outside of the district, and there is
only a sporadic and occasional resident that has a C next
to his name.
Q, The majority of the homeowners or the people
living within the blocks enclosed in the Champion zone,
do they have the letter C after their name?
A. An unholy large number of them had the C s next
to their name.
Q. That’s not a term 1 can deal with. Is it 80, 90 or
100 percent?
A. A figure between 90 and 100 percent.
Q. And in the other zones, is it less than ten percent?
A. Less than four percent.
# # # # #
[3328] Q. The Board minutes of September 18, 1922,
do you have those?
A. Yes.
[3329] Q. Would you read the minutes?
THE COURT: Read what’s there.
[3330] A. Okay. It says the official record at the
Board of Education showed that on September 13, 1920,
Superintendent Francis recommended to the Board of
Education that the Champion Avenue School be made
an intermediate or junior high school in order that the
pupils in this district might be provided with the same
879
educational opportunities as the pupils living in other
junior high school districts. Then it has a report here in
the minutes from the Assistant Superintendent in charge
of the Champion Avenue School District, and he talks
about the Champion School there.
Q. Would you read that?
A. Okay. When the junior high schools have been
organized in Columbus, successful teachers in those
schools who were continuing their professional training
in a satisfactory manner, even though not college grad
uates, have been retained in the departmental work of
these junior high schools. All the teachers in the Cham
pion Avenue School are either college graduates or are
normal school graduates now working towards their de
gree by taking approved teacher training courses during
the summer and doing university extension work during
the school year. In my judgment the junior high school
teachers in the Champion Avenue School meet the same
standards in scholarship, training and professional spirit
as those of our other [3331] junior high schools. The
pupils in the Champion Avenue School have a splendid
spirit, and the quality of their work is improving from
year to year. The courses of study used in school in both
the elementary and junior high departments are the same
courses followed in the other grades in junior high schools
in Columbus. The work of pupils transferred from Cham
pion Avenue to other buildings compares favorably with
the pupils transferred from other schools.
The general conditions of the Champion Avenue
School are now very satisfactory. The building itself is
one of the best in Columbus. It is provided with elec
tricity. The rooms are large, light and well ventilated.
The manual training and home economics rooms are ex
ceptionally good. The playground —
a # # # #
380
[3332] Q. All right, with reference to the boundaries
of the junior high school, would you refer now to Original
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 51F-6?
A. Yes. This I obtained from the 1925 manual and
directory at the downtown Columbus Public Library. It is
a description of the Champion boundaries.
Q. All right, and from your familiarity with the
[3333] previous exhibit, are these the same boundaries
as have been established for the elementary school?
A. Yes, I would say so.
Q. Have you previously examined it and compared
it and made sure; it is not just a guess?
A. Yes, I have plotted these on maps.
# # # # #
[3931] Q. Mr. Montgomery, are you familiar with
the 1932 boundary change in connection with the Pilgrim
Junior High attendance zone and the Franklin Junior
High?
A. Yes, sir. I have the materials on that here.
Q. Would you refer to the Board minutes of [3932]
August 15, 1932, Exhibit 51G-7(a)?
MR. PORTER: May I have a continuing objection
to this, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. It will be denied.
A. Okay, I have that exhibit, and those boundary
changes were made in the Board minutes of August 15,
1932 on page 557 at the bottom lower part of the page.
Q. Does it contain a recommendation of the Build
ing Committee?
A. Yes. They are the ones that recommended the
change in the boundaries of Pilgrim and Franklin Junior
High Schools, and it says here motion carried.
Q. All right, and the change recommended was in
the eastern portion of the Pilgrim Junior High attendance
zone?
381
A. Yes, the white residential areas in the eastern part
of the attendance zone.
Q. Was there anything in the minutes indicating a
protest to this change?
A. Yes. Immediately after these boundaries were
offered, it says Mrs. E. W. Moore, 229 Douglas Street,
protested against changing the boundary of Pilgrim
School, but they still moved for approval and it passed.
Q. All right. Had there been a previous request on
behalf of the Eastgate Addition parents in the Board
meeting of September 15, 1930 for a change in this area?
[3933] A. Yes. Eastgage is part of that white residen
tial on the east side. Eastgate is a part of it and so is the
Shepard community. Eastgate in that 1930 meeting, which
I have the minutes here and newspaper accounts, they
wanted to allow their kids to go down to the Franklin
Junior High School and the action the Board took was
unusual. It said they were not lawfully allowed to go there,
but it permitted them to stay there then. Here it formally
approved that change. It gave legal sanction to it so that
they could go down to Franklin Junior.
Q. In 1932 the boundary change?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a map, Original Plaintiff’s 5lG -7(b)
showing the original boundaries and the changes?
A. Yes, sir. I got this map here and this has also been
worked into one of the examples I cite in No. 8.
Q. All right. Can you tell us what is on the base map?
A. The base map, it has the residential area for what
Franklin — let’s see —• what the boundaries were as of 9-7-
1931, in that particular Board meeting, what they were.
Then those areas are encircled in purple for Franklin Junior
boundaries and green for the Pilgrim Junior boundaries,
and the Champion Junior, an area in between these
boundaries which is no color attached to it. For the 1932
[3933A] boundary changes I have encircled that part in
382
red, an inner circle on the green line which shows the
eastern part which now went down to Franklin Junior
which is further away than Pilgrim, their neighborhood
school,
[3934] Q. All right. The Franklin Junior zone is
modified by the addition of the northerly strip?
A. Yes. It contains Eastgate and the Shepard Com
munity.
Q. Was there any change in grade structure which
took place at this time?
A. I would have to study the minutes closely to
examine changes in grade structures. I am not aware of
any just olfhand.
Q. Okay. Do you have your 1930 Census tract map,
51G-4?
A. 51G-4, yes, I have previously cited from this
exhibit.
Q. All right. This does show racial composition, does
it?
A. Yes. It shows that Tract 31A which constitutes
that eastern portion containing Eastgate and Shepard was
more akin to the racial composition of Franklin Junior
attendance zone than —
Q. What does the legend show?
A. On the legend it gives markings for five and less
than 25 percent, but the proportion of black here is actually
closer to five. I have the numbers of population also in this
exhibit.
Q. All right. Take your time. The Tract 31A conforms
almost — well, in large measure, particularly on the [3935]
eastern boundary, to the boundary change for Franklin
Junior High which is taken from the Pilgrim zone; is that
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Does it include a portion of any other
tract?
383
A. Just a small — possibly a little comer here of
this 8A exarts an extremity on that census tract. It may
include a little part of that.
Q- Using the base map, 51G-7(b), and your census
data for 1930, did you examine the data by block in the
area changed?
A. Well, I don’t have block statistics until 1940.
Q. I’m sorry. Did you examine the tract data for 31A?
A. Yes, I did. They are included in this exhibit.
Q. What does the tract data show for that tract?
A. Tract 31A in 1930 has a population of, let’s see,
282 Negro which is 6.7 percent of the total population of
4,214 for that tract.
# # # # #
[3939] Q. All right. From your examination of the
minutes, were the boundary changes rescinded by the
Board?
A. From my examination in detail of those Board
minutes, neither these boundaries were rescinded nor was
a case, court case filed on this one.
Q. All right. Would you refer to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
51G-8(b) again?
A. 8 (b ). I have it.
Q. Is there a reference in that particular article to
the Eastgate School?
A. That’s a headline on page B -l of the August 23,
1932 Dispatch. The large print says:
The site of Eastgate School is purchased by Board,
and then there’s a line. It says: New portable structures
to be built.
# # # # #
[3940] Q. It’s a 1932, October 4, 1932 Dispatch ar
ticle.
A. Oh! Oh, yes, yes, I have that. 51G-10(d)-2.
Q. Does it refer to the Eastgate portables again?
A. Yes, there’s an article entitled, on page 2 of
384
the August 4, 1932, Columbus Citizen, an article entitled:
100 Residents Before Board and School Row. Eastgate
parents want people sent to new portable establishment in
addition. In other words, not just elementary grades, they
want all of their kids to go to the portables —
Q. Excuse me. Read what it says there, please.
A. Well, just — the headlines stop after: Eastgate
parents want pupils sent to new portable establishment of
addition, and then there’s opposing sets of parents from
Eastwood and Eastgate.
Q. All right. Is there anything in the article that in
dicates what the parents were seeking in terms of port
ables?
A. The Eastgate parents wanted to send their kids to
the portables right in their neighborhood for all six grades,
and the Eastwood parents where these kids used to go
to school objected to that in this article.
Q. All right. Originally, first and second grades were
assigned to the Eastgate portable; is that correct?
A. I think grade three might also have been included.
I’d have to check on that. It was just two or three grades.
[3941] Whether K was also included, I’d have to check.
Q. All right. Refer now to 5lG -10(a), which are the
Board minutes of August 21, 1933, page 106.
A. 51G-10(a), that’s page 106 of the Board minutes
of that date.
Q. All right. Is there any indication there of proposed
boundary changes in that area?
A. Yes. It describes a set of boundary changes, and
then a boundary line is drawn to separate the attendance
zone of the new Eastgate portables. They closed the East-
wood School in 1944 — excuse me — 1954, and the parents
to the west of that boundary line sent their kids down
to Fair instead of going to Eastwood.
385
Q. All right. I’ll show you the 1937 map, tract book
of Columbus and vicinity, Original Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No.
51G-10(b), and you’ll have to tell me, I think that’s 2.
A. That’s B sub 2.
Q. All right. Does this indicate the boundaries?
A. The base map — has the boundaries established in
1931 for Eastwood and Shepard Elementary attendance
zones.
Q. All right.
A. The overlay atop it has a —
Q. Excuse me. Would you give us the colors for each?
A. Orange-tan color is the Eastwood attendance zone,
[39421 purple is the Shepard Elementary attendance zone.
Q. All right. And do you show the X’s for the loca
tion of the schools?
A. Red X’s designates the location of the school sites.
Q. You previously in your testimony referred to the
Shepard area in connection with the Franklin Junior High.
Is that the same area that we’re now referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. That this is at the elementary level; is that correct?
A. Yes..
Q. All right. Now, what does the overlay reflect?
A. There is a boundary line from that description I
just read. I drew that boundary line on a map, an overlay,
and all this line is a description of a north-south line. It
seems to stop from Maryland Avenue down to East Broad
Street. It’s a north-south line with a little jag in it to
conform to some railroad tracks, and to the east of the
line those parents attended Eastgate portables in that
white residential area, while — and then on the overlay
I’ve indicated that the Eastwood School’s closed. I just
put something right on top of the site of that school to
indicate this thing’s closed.
Q. What color is the new boundary shown in?
[3943] A. That north-south line is drawn in blue, and
3 8 6
then I ’ve indicated the location of Fair Avenue School
with a red X where there’s parents to the west of that
boundary line. They go down to school further south.
Q. All right. I refer you now to another exhibit while
you’re still working with that one, 51H -5(b), entitled
“Democracy in Action, Publication of The Vanguard
League,” and directing your attention to page 4 of that
article, ask you to read Items 2 and 3.
A. Oh! On page 4, Item 2 says that, quote: The physi
cal plants — talking about a recommendation of a Van
guard survey. This is No. 2. That the physical plants of
the colored school be brought to standard, in other words,
the elimination of portables at the Garfield and Mt. Vernon
Schools and the improvements of the Garfield School plants.
No. 3: That the Eastwood Elementary School be re
opened to relieve congestion in the Garfield-Mt. Vernon
Schools.
Q. Is this the same school you’re referring to that’s
just been closed?
A. Yes, sir, but that request was not granted at that
time.
Q. All right. Would you read —
A. It says here about Eastwood Schools.
[3943A] Q, — the last paragraph beginning with
“The third recommendation was dismissed”?
[3944] A. Oh, it’s a report here. The third recom
mendation was dismissed by a brief explanation. The Su
perintendent of Schools held at the time Eastwood was
closed that there were only 132 pupils enrolled, this mak
ing it unprofitable to operate the school.
Q. Go on and read the rest of it.
A. The Vanguard League made very clear that the
low enrollment in the Eastwood School was effected by a
redistricting order from the Board of Education which
threw most of the Negro children formerly in the Eastwood
District into the Mt. Vernon area. That happened in 1931.
387
Q. All right. And the Eastgate Addition drew the
white students out of the school which was now closed and
zoned them into the Eastgate Portables; is that correct?
A. Well, no, sir. See, to the west of this line, they
went down further south to the Fair School designated by
this red X. To the east of the blue line, they went to the
Eastgate portable school.
Q. That’s what I said, the Eastgate line is where they
sent them to the portables.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Is Taylor Street involved in that?
A. Taylor Street, that became involved in the 1937
boundary changes.
Q. All right. Would you refer to Original Plaintiffs’
[3945] Exhibit 51G-13(a), the Board minutes of August
the 3rd, 1937?
A. I have those. This is page 522, 523 and the top of
page 524 of the Board minutes of that date.
Q. All right. What happened to the Pilgrim Junior
High as reflected by those minutes at that time?
A. They closed the Pilgrim School. I mean, rather,
they converted it. Excuse me. They converted it to an
elementary, and they converted Champion Elementary into
a junior high with greatly expanded boundaries.
Q. All right. Would you refer to Original Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 51G-13(b)?
A. Okay. From these official boundary descriptions,
I prepared that map which is — that exhibit shows the new
expanded size of the Champion Junior boundaries.
Q. And all that map shows is the meets and bounds
of the particular boundary description; is that correct?
A. Okay. Would you want me to say anything about
the limits of these?
Q. Well, describe them, if you will.
A. South boundary is Long Street. The north bound
ary is the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis
888
Railroad Tracks up to — up to where Leonard Avenue
intersects those tracks, and then goes diagonally north up
to the Norfolk and Western Railroad Tracks, then it pro
ceeds south down to Woodland, and I’d want to — I’d want
to quote the official [3948] description from the 1937
boundaries before I attempt anything further, because
there’s irregular lines here drawn from east-west boundaries.
Q. All right. You did copy it from the minutes; is
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Would you refer to G 13(c)?
A. Okay. Now, that — now, I’ve put the boundary
changes on here for Garfield, Mt. Vernon and Pilgrim,
that are included right in here, and I’ve interposed new
Fair boundaries from the other boundary descriptions to
show how that relates to this now that the Eastwood School
is closed, also, so you have a picture of that.
Q. All right. Would you describe the base map, first?
A. Okay. The base map shows the boundaries of
existing schools prior to August 3, 1937.
Q. Now, are these elementaries, junior highs or what
are they?
A. It has the Mt. Vernon Elementary boundaries, the
Champion boundaries and the Fair Avenue boundaries.
Q. And the different colors?
A. The Fair Avenue boundaries are in turquoise, the
Mt. Vernon boundaries are in — are in tan-orange color
and the Champion School occupies the area in between.
Q. That fits right within the middle between those
[3947] two; is that correct?
A. Yes, no particular color.
Q. All right. The overlay does what?
A. Well, it shows — it shows no change here for the
Fair Avenue boundaries in the August 3, 1937, boundary
changes, but the boundary changes for Garfield I’ve de
scribed in a violet colored magic marker, and then Mt.
389
Vernon — the new boundaries for Mt. Vernon are inter
posed on the overlay with orange, and the new Pilgrim
elementary boundaries are put in black.
Q. Now, Pilgrim is converted to an elementary; is
that correct?
[3948] A. Yes. You may recall Helen Davis taught
in that school from 1937 on.
Q. All right. Pilgrim took over what part of the
Champion zone?
A. Well, it took the north part of Mt. Vernon —wait
a minute. It took the north part of Mt. Vernon attendance
zone and the eastern half of the former Champion Ele
mentary zone.
Q. Champion now becomes a junior high; is that
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. The boundary between Fair and the new
— the converted Pilgrim Elementary is what street on the
east after the dog leg?
A. That’s — Taylor Avenue is the boundary and then
goes up to the — then it goes up to the alley there.
There’s an alley north, I think, of — north of this one
street on the north. It’s drawn in an alley. I’d have to
check my descriptions on that.
Q. All right. I l l refer you now to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit,
Intervening Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 376, a document entitled
“Which September?,” and ask you to read at page 7,
Item No. 5.
A. School districts are established in such a manner
that white families living near colored schools will not
be [3949] in the colored school district. The area in the
vicinty of Pilgrim School embracing Richmond, Parkwood
and parts of Greenway, Clifton, Woodland and Granville
Streets is an excellent example of such gerrymandering. A
part of Greenway is only one block from Pilgrim School.
However, the children who live there are in the Fair Ave
nue district twelve and one-half blocks away.
390
Q. All right. Read the next paragraph.
A. A more striking example of such gerrymandering
is Taylor and Woodland Avenues between Long Street and
Greenway.
Q. Can you locate that on your map, 51G-13(c)?
A. Between Long Street here and Greenway, yes.
Q. Okay. “Here” doesn’t mean anything in the record.
You have to sort of identify it in terms of points of the
compass. Long Street runs which direction?
A. East-west.
Q. All right. And it is the street which forms the
bottom part of the Pilgrim boundary?
A. The bottom part of Pilgrim and Mt, Vernon, the
new boundaries with Fair Avenue School.
Q. All right. And so north of the boundary is Pilgrim,
south of Long at that point is Fair; is that correct?
A. Yes. The Fair Avenue boundary goes much further
north than Long Street. It goes —
Q. All right. Just take your time.
[3950] At Taylor Street, what happens to the bound
ary of Fair in respect to Long Street? Does it turn?
A. Yes, there’s a sharp right angle and it goes steadily
north.
Q. Does it form a type of what might be called a
chimney?
A. Yes, sir. You got a situation here, in fact, where
the white and black children would cross each other’s
path on the way to school each day, blacks from the south
ern end of the Pilgrim zone walking up Taylor to get to
the Pilgrim School, and then the whites up here in the
north part, they’d walk south to go down to Fair. They’d
cross each other’s path every day.
Q. And you’re referring there to the elementary
district?
A. Yes, sir.
391
Q. And PX 376 refers to the west side of Taylor Ave
nue, colored residents in the Pilgrim Elementary district
and then goes to Champion for junior high?
A. Yes.
[3951] Q. And that’s the same area that was orig
inally part of the Champion Elementary zone; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The east side of Taylor, white familiies are in the
Fair Avenue Elementary District and then go on to Frank
lin for junior high; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir. They still go south down to Franklin
Junior to attend school.
Q. Your map with respect to the junior high and
overlays and your map with respect to the elementaries,
do they conform with that description?
A. Yes, yes, they do.
# # # * #
[3953] Q. Would you look at the Original Plaintiff’s
Exhibit 23.
A. Okay. I believe I have a copy of that with me.
Q. Do you?
A. Yes.
Q. The annual report of the Superintendent of Co
lumbus Public Schools, October 11, 1964, do you have the
document?
A. 23.
Q. All right. Would you look in the report — I don’t
believe the pages are marked, but there is a page appear
ing after the picture of Monroe Junior High School January
22, 1964, and then another picture of it with another phase
of its construction.
A. Yes, there is a page here that says Monroe Junior
High, and this would be the next page after that.
Q. Is there a reference to what is called Project ’71?
A. Yes. I see where it makes reference after they —
yes, I see this.
392
[3954] Q. It is called Project ’71 in the 1960-64
building program; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Does it indicate that Project ’71 is re
lated to the Bolivar Arms project?
A. Yes, sir. It describes the survey team estimating
the pupil potential of Bolivar Arms at 3,215 school-age
children, and then probable enrollment at such grade level
for the fall of ’64 has been included with these figures
that were presented to the Board, it indicates.
Q. And I believe it indicates in April of 1962 as the
first official action toward making Project ’71 a school
building, is that correct, second column?
A. I see, yes. I see that.
Q. And the site tentatively designated was what?
A. It says a tentatively designated site bounded by
Monroe Avenue, Leonard Avenue, Galloway Avenue and
Atcheson Street.
Q. Does it indicate the site has been recommended
for any particular reason?
A. It says after extensive study of the area the site
has been recommended because of its close proximity to
the source of most of its pupils, Bolivar Arms, and because
of its relationship to existing junior high schools.
Q. All right. Do you have the racial data indicating
[3955] how Monroe Junior High School opened in terms
of racial composition, racial percentage?
A. Yes, sir. Those are contained in Original Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 25B.
Q. Do you have a copy of that with you?
A. They are in the box.
Q. Would you refer to it?
A, Okay. Monroe Junior High percentages for early
spring of 1964 are listed here as zero percent white pupils.
Q. Would you refere back to Exhibit 23 again and tell
how many students the Monroe Junior High was planned
to house? I believe it is the last paragraph.
393
A. Oh, last paragraph?
Q. Yes.
A. It gives the square footage here.
Q. How many pupils?
A. “700 boys and girls of grades 7 through 9 held its
first classes even though construction work had not been
finished,” is what it says.
Q. All right. The boundaries for the Monroe Junior
High, what relationship do they have to the old Champion
Junior High attendance zone?
A. The new Champion Junior High attendance zone,
I have the boundary descriptions of those right here also.
[3956] Q. Do you have 51I-3(c)?
A. Yes. 3 (c ) is the Champion boundaries for Septem
ber of ’64.
Q. That would be the new boundaries for Champion;
is that correct?
A. Yes. The new boundaries for Champion now go
over to Alum Creek, and the census information I have
right here says that blacks had moved into that area when
they moved it over to Alum Creek.
Q. The Monroe Junior High split the old Champion
Junior High attendance zone approximately in half?
A. Yes, sir, and it shows the relative proportions. The
Champion boundaries went all the way over to it appears
to be Alum Creek, and then the northern boundary is the
Penn Central Railroad, and it describes its interrelationship
here with the Monroe Junior High boundaries.
Q. All right. It moves south across Long Street,
doesn’t it?
A. Yes. Champion Junior boundaries now go south
as far as — to the middle of Broad Street, first time.
Q. And the Eastgate Addition, is that included now?
A. It is now included. I have the census informa
tion here for Eastgate. It is Census Tract 252, and it
indicates —
394
Q. That’s Exhibit 51I-(d)3?
A. Yes. This exhiibt is taken from Original [3957]
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 49N which is prepared by United Com
munity Council comparing 1950 and 1960 census tracts.
Q. All right. The 1950 figures were what in that tract?
A. Total for Tract 25 in 1950 which included the
Shepard community then, but Shepard in 1960 became
25-1 and Eastgate became 25-2.
Q. Give us the total for Tract 25 in 1950 first.
A. In 1950 the total was 798 non-white and 5,113
white for Tract 25 totals. These had substantially changed
in 1960, at least for Census Tract 25-2, the Eastgate part.
Q. What was the 25-2?
A. 25-2 in 1960 was 4,800 non-white and 740 white.
They pretty well describe here — this closely resembles
where those Eastgate portables were in good part.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. PORTER:
[4003] Q. [By Mr. Porter] Mr. Montgomery, direct
ing your attention, please, to the Eastgate area, you testi
fied that in 1940 that area lay in, I believe, if my memory
serves me correctly, Tract 25; is that right? What tract
was it in?
A. In 1940 — I have a 1940 Census map here. Shall
I consult it?
Q. Please.
A. It was known as Tract 25 in 1950. Whether it was
that same number —
Q. That’s satisfactory for my purposes. It was Tract
25 in 1950; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it was then, 1960, was in some other tract or
some part of that tract; is that right?
A. It was fragmenting two parts, 25 dot 1 and 25 dot 2.
Q. What is your understanding, what does that mean?
395
[4004] A. That means that it’s no longer known as
25 but that it’s a new tract number with different bound
aries.
Q. Why?
A. Well, that can mean — it indicates, first of all,
there’s at least two parts of it, and then the outer perim
eters, there may be some changes in those, also, some
modifications. They say there’s some tracts you can’t
compare strictly from year to year.
Q. Doesn’t it mean that there has been a doubling
of density if they split a tract into two tracts and make
25 in to 25.1 and 25.2? Doesn’t that mean that there is
twice the density that there was before?
A. That sounds like a simple assumption, and I'm
tempted to make it. It might logically follow.
Q. You worked with the census information with
respect to the east part of Columbus and also with the west
part of Columbus, if I remember your testimony correctly;
is that right?
A. Well, among other parts of Columbus.
Q. And it is true, is it not, that in the east part of
Columbus and in the west part of Columbus, between
1950 and 1960, there was a substantial increase in popula
tion?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did that increase in population include an
increase in children; is that right?
[4005] A. You mean concomitant with the increase
of other persons?
Q. Or parallel thereto, yes.
A. Yes.
Q. So it meant that the Columbus Public School Sys
tem at that point in time had more children to educate in
1960 than they did in 1950; is that right?
A. Especially with their annexation rates.
Q. And they built school buildings to take care of
those children, did they not?
396
A. Not always. There are some departures, I found, in
my own research from what, you know —what can be
convenience for the attendance or the greatest number
thereto.
Q. All right. Now, it would be your understanding,
would it not, that the Columbus Public School System
built a building in the area of Bolivar Arms to serve that
housing development; is that right?
A. Well, that’s what the Superintendent’s Annual Re
port No. 23, that’s what it — that exhibit indicates.
Q. And I think that you said that there was some
estimate in there that the school population was to exceed
3000 or something of that sort?
A. I recall some such number as given in there.
Q. And the system presumably was asked to place a
[4006] school building there to take care of the children;
is that right?
A. There is particular, or at other locations to serve —
Q. I’m speaking about in the area of the Bolivar Arms,
if you know?
A. Could you repeat this question again? Let’s make
sure what I ’m answering.
[4007] Q. My question, Mr. Montgomery, if you
know, is whether or not the Columbus Public School Sys
tem was asked to provide school facilities for the children
that were going to be living in the area of Bolivar Arms?
A. The City officials, I think that they — there was
interaction between various city officials, according to that
one Exhibit 23 in the relocation — urban renewal, there,
concurrent with their development of this public housing,
they did ask school officials to collaborate with them in
degree towards the construction you are speaking of.
Q. And the school facilities were provided, were
they not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then subsequently for one reason or another
Bolivar Arms did not work out as the type of dwelling
397
units that had originally been proposed and was converted
into senior citizen’s; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that that school building was subsequently
closed, is that right, because of lack of children?
A. Monroe closed?
Q. Felton?
A. I haven’t testified any to Felton.
Q. I didn’t ask you. Did Felton close?
[4008] A. Yes, I believe it closed in ’74, if I am right.
I think it did. I would have to check to make sure.
# # # # #
CLEO L. DUMAREE,
called as a witness on behalf of the
Intervening Plaintiffs, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ATKINS
[3177] Q. [By Mr. Atkins] Good morning, Mr.
Dumaree.
A. Good morning, sir.
Q. Would you give your full name and address for
the record, please?
A. Cleo L. Dumaree, 145 West Dominion Boulevard,
Columbus, Ohio.
Q. Would you briefly recount your history of em
ployment with the Columbus School Board?
A. I was employed with the Columbus Schools in the
summer of 1935. I taught at North High School from 1935
to 1940. From 1940 to 1944 I was Principal of East Colum
bus and Shepard Elementary Schools. From 1944 to 1947,
[3178] 1 was Principal of Barrett Junior High. From 1947
to 1952, Principal of South High School. From 1952 to
1956, Principal of Central High School. From 1956 to 1971,
Assistant Superintendent-Administration. From 1971 to
January of 1975, Deputy Superintendent.
398
[3179] Q. And in 1975, did you sever your relation
ship with the Columbus Public Schools?
Yes, 1 did, sir. As of January 11, 1975, I retired.
[3189] Q. It says you were also responsible for both
studying and recommending boundaries for the individual
schools. What did that responsibility entail? What did you
do in fact?
A. Well, the problem is two-edged. First it would be
boundaries for a school that is in existence and possible
changes that would need to be made in a school that’s
already operating. The other side of the problem would
be a new building that has been constructed, and, of
course, this would involve the streets in the immediate
proximity of that school and would have a domino effect
of touching into existing schools, because when a new
building is built, it is evident that it is needed because of
numbers of students and overcrowding of schools that are
in existence in that total geographic area, the broad geo
graphic area. So it would mean not only new streets that
might be developed by the city, but it would mean the
adjustment of some streets [3190] that already had sent
their children to another school assignment that was al
ready in existence.
Q. Now, this domino effect or this sort of rippling
effect of locating a new school, was this also true of what
happened when an existing building had an addition built
onto it, a substantial addition, would that have sort of the
same kind of domino effect?
. . A. Yes, sir.
Q. Your responsibility then was to look at these
boundaries and from time to time study them to recom
mend to whomever the changes were needed — who made
the decision to change a boundary?
A. The Board of Education.
899
Q. Did the Board vote on every boundary change?
A. Yes, sir.
# # # # #
[3201] Q. Well, I suppose then by projection the
determinations of pupil numbers in a given district would
also then impact on the decision whether and, if so, to
what extent, to initiate various forms of facilities to re
lieve overcrowding at school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that you would have, for instance, been in
volved in the process by which a decision was made to
rent a facility?
A. To rent a —
Q. To rent a facility to relieve overcrowding?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you be responsible for finding the facility
that was going to be rented?
A. Not at its outset. This would have been handled
by the division working with the building program. They
would attempt to identify a site or sites, a building or
whatever, and then ask us to take a look at them. Usually
one superintendent also would be involved in taking an
ultimate look. It might be an area where there was no
choice. [3202] It was for temporary facilities, and we
would move in that direction, but it was a team approach
to a final decision.
Q. All right. Now, you have also been involved and
at least partially responsible for the decision as to whether
or not at a particular school, because of overcrowding,
either actual or projected, a portable unit was needed; is
that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And likewise, you would have been involved and
at least partially responsible for the decision as to whether
at a particular school an addition was needed to house
students in classrooms?
400
A. That is correct.
Q. And you would have also been at least partially
involved or partially responsible for those decisions that
had to do with the necessary transporting of students from
School A to School B for the purpose of relieving over
crowding?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you would have determined whether the
students going from A went to B or to C? Would that have
been the responsibility of the people reporting to you as
well?
A. Again this becomes a team approach. The princi
pal, of course, would be the originating source as to over
crowded conditions, or principals. We would collect the
[3203] necessary information, and again we would share
this with the Superintendent and the Superintendent’s
cabinet.
# # # # #
[3204] Q. In earlier deposition you indicated that it
was your [3205] belief that the transporting of students
which was done by the Columbus School System to re
lieve overcrowding did not at any point take into account
the question of the racial or the impact, the racial impact
upon the sending or the receiving school; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you also testified during one of those deposi
tions that some of the schools had attendance areas that
were so large that it was necessary to use or for the school
system to provide transportation to get the kids to their
assigned schools. That’s true also, isn’t it?
A. Yes, sir, that would be on a distance factor..........
Q. Yes, and mentioned specifically by you at that
time were Woodward Park, Glenmont, Dominion, Linden-
McKinley and Marburn. Those are schools of which that
would be true; is that not so?
A. Yes, sir.
401
Q. And you also indicated that the Alum Crest
School was built at the request of private housing devel
opers to service the Alum Crest Apartments?
# # # # #
[3206] A. That is correct.
Q. And I believe you indicated also that the trans
porting of students that was done was at some point for
some period of time carried out in what would be called
an intact manner. That is to say, the students were moved
in a group from the sending school to the receiving school,
remaining in a group at the receiving school and relating
back administratively to the sending school?
A. That is correct.
Q. And that during the period of their attendance at
the receiving school, their responsibilities, extra curricular
activities, parental associations, were determined not by
the school to which they were sent, but by the school from
which they were sent. That’s correct, too, isn’t it?
A. That is not totally correct. The records of the
students were kept in their home school. We called their
home school. The sending school would be the home
school. The sending school would be the home school.
Their teachers were a part of that staff. Their records were
all maintained there. In most cases the parent-teacher
association meetings and school meetings, the receiving
school — you have used this term — the receiving [3207]
school would also include the parents of children who were
coming there in their meetings and would welcome them.
They were also welcomed in their so-called home school.
Q. Do you recall, Mr. Dumaree, for what period of
time the technique of intact busing was used? What were
the years involved?
A. The total time of my assignment as Assistant Super
intendent or Deputy Superintendent.
Q. So from ’56 through ’75?
A. Yes, sir. Not through ’75. It would be January.
402
Q. Until January?
A. Yes, sir, I think it was through the total year, but,
to be accurate, it would be January,
# # * # #
[3214] Q. Beginning on page 38 of this deposition,
the question to you was:
“In 1956, did you have to your recollection black prin
cipals and black assistant principals at that time in 1956?”
And you said: “Yes.”
And the question: “Were those principals assigned to
predominantly black schools at that time? Student enroll
ment-wise, I mean.”
And you said: “Yes.”
And the question was: “Were there any white prin
cipals or assistant principals in any predominantly black
schools at that time in 1956?”
And you answered: “Principals or assistant principals?”
The questioner said: “Principals or assistant principals
in predominantly black schools and by predominantly
black, I am talking about student enrollment in 1956.”
You said: “Well, that is difficult for me to recapture.
I don’t know. I don’t know. That would have to be re
searched.”
[3215] The questioner said: “Were there any —”
And you said: “I can’t carry all that,” presumably in
your head.
The questioner said: “I understand. If you don’t
know, certainly say so.
“Do you recall if there were any black principals in
predominantly white schools in 1956?”
And you said: “I don’t recall. I don’t recall of any.”
You remember that testimony now, do you not?
A. Yes, sir.
[3216] Q. All right. Pursuant to what Board policy
with black principals and black principals assigned to
black — or to those schools that had black student enroll
403
ments, pursuant to what Board policy was that practice
pursued?
A. Well, of course, as you know, by statute, the Su
perintendent has the responsibility of assigning adminis
trators to the buildings. He presents his recommendations
to the Board each year. Actually, that’s the basic procedure.
By statute, though, the Superintendent assigns the ad
ministrators.
Q. I understand the statute quite well. My question
is: Pursuant to what Board policy were black principals
and black assistant superintendents assigned solely to those
schools that had black student majority?
A. I don’t know whether it was the Board policy on
it or not.
Q. Do you remember whether or not there was an
administrative directive from either of the superintendents
with whom you worked —
A. No, sir.
Q. — to that effect?
A. No, sir.
Q. Well, then, whose idea was it?
A. Well, the Superintendent, to repeat what I said
before, by statute, the Superintendent assigns administra
tors. [3217] That was not my responsibility.
Q. You mean it wasn’t your statutory responsibility?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who recommended to the Superintendent where
to put those administrators or what administrators to put
where?
A. Again, this is a team procedure.
Q. Where did the buck stop, Mr. Dumaree? Who
carried the ball?
A. With the Superintendent.
Q. Who carried the ball to the Superintendent on a
principal recommendation?
A. Our division.
404
Q. That would be the Assistant Superintendent dur
ing the period you were in charge of administration,
wouldn’t it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you’re telling me there was no Board policy
that black principals and black assistant principals be
placed in black schools?
A. I don’t know of any.
MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q, And you also said to your recollection there was
no policy statement or administrative directive from the
Superintendent that required that?
[3218] A. That is correct.
Q. And you just said that you were the one who
made the recommendation to the Superintendent as to
who went where?
A. I want to say this.
Q. Yes?
A. That in the matter of assignment of personnel,
administrative personnel, that this again is a team project
and — but the final decision is made by the Superintendent.
Q. All right. Were you ever told by the Superinten
dent, either of them, with whom you worked, as either a
Superintendent or Deputy Superintendent that black as
sistant principals or black principals were not to be as
signed to predominantly white schools?
A. No.
Q. You were never told that, were you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you ever told by the Superintendent that
white principals or white assistant principals were never
to be assigned to predominantly black schools?
A. No, sir.
[3219] Q. So If I were to tell you that there was a
pattern that indicated black schools and black assistant
405
principals and black principals, how would you explain
that pattern if it existed?
A. You’d have — I’m sorry?
Q. If it existed?
A. You’d have to discuss that with the Superintendent.
Q. No, I want to discuss it with you. How would you
explain it?
A. That again is the prerogative of the Superintend
ent. He makes the final decision. He’s die executive officer
of the Board and employed by them to administer the
School System and assign personnel to employ —
Q. That’s not — go ahead.
A. — to keep teachers and to assign them and to as
sign administrators.
Q. All right. So if there were such a pattern, you
weren’t aware of any policy of the Board or Superintend
ent that led to it? It just happened; is that what you’re
saying?
A. I didn’t make any such statement.
Q. Well, I’m asking you, is that what you’re saying?
It just happened?
MR. PORTER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
[3220] Q. Is that what you’re saying?
A. Well, what is the question? I’m sorry.
Q. If such a pattern existed, your testimony is it just
happened?
A. That was the decision of the Superintendent and
the approval of the Board of Education.
# # # <* *
[3223] Q. (By Mr. Atkins) You do recall, do you not,
Mr. Dumaree, that as a matter of fact in 1956 when you
became the Assistant Superintendent that there was no
black person in a principal’s position in a school other
than one that was predominantly black? You recall that,
don’t you?
406
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The same thing would be true of a black person
who was an assistant principal, wouldn’t it? He would be
found only in a school that was predominantly black?
A. My memory doesn’t serve me on that. I don’t re
member where all the assistant principals were at the time.
I can’t say that. I don’t know. I don’t remember.
Q. And you also would recall, would you not, that
in 1956 when you became the Assistant Superintendent —
I imagine [3224] that somebody prior to your getting there
had made this decision — that there were no white princi
pals in schools that were predominantly black? You recall
that, too, don’t you?
A. Yes, sir.
# # # # #
[3229] Q. You indicated earlier that your responsi
bilities included as Deputy Superintendent studying and
making recommendations for changes in boundaries. Do
you recall that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was also a part of your responsibility
when you were Assistant Superintendent of Administra
tion; isn’t that true?
A. Yes.
& # # # a
[3230] Q. And I take it you were not instructed by
the Superintendent in drawing boundaries for new schools
or redrawing boundaries for existing schools to do it in
such a way as to eliminate racial segregation where it
exisited? I take it you were given no such instructions; is
that correct?
A. That is correct.
# # # # #