Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education Transcript of Proceedings
Public Court Documents
June 15, 1963
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education Transcript of Proceedings, 1963. d121972f-c59a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d965a6d8-9452-495b-84ad-0d5be465964a/stell-v-savannah-chatham-county-board-of-education-transcript-of-proceedings. Accessed May 04, 2025.
Copied!
\ r
\ \ 0\ Y
\4 ~h* :
U ~f~z>*1 /
VO OyftrU , Ur< O r e f e
<&> ^ /eTxv f<j
IN THE
MxnUft States Sistrirt (Zimvt
For the Southern District of Georgia
Savannah Division
Civil Action No. 1316
RALPH STELL, a minor by L. S. STELL, Jr ., his father and next friend, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SA Y A N N A H -C H A T H A M C O U N T Y BOARD OF E D U C ATIO N , et al.,
Defendants.
LAW RENCE ROBERTS and D A N IE L ROBERTS, minors, by A D R IEN N E M . ROBERTS,
their mother and next friend, et al.,
Intervenors.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
For the Plaintiffs:
B. CLAREN CE M AYFIELD ,
E. H . GAD SD EN ,
Attorneys at law.
Savannah, Georgia.
D O N A LD L. HOLLOW ELL,
Attorney at law,
Atlanta, Georgia.
JACK GREENBERG,
CO N STAN CE BAK ER M O TLEY,
DERRICK A . BELL, Jr„
Attorneys at law,
New York 19, New York.
For the
R. CARTER PITTM AN ,
Attorney at law,
Dalton, Georgia.
CHARLES J. BLOCH,
Attorney at law,
Macon, Georgia.
For the Defendants:
MORRIS & MORRIS,
Attorneys at law.
Savannah, Georgia.
E. FR EEM AN LEVERETT,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
State of Georgia,
Elberton, Georgia.
Intervenors:
J. W A L T E R C O W A R T,
Attorney at law,
Savannah, Georgia.
GEORGE S. LEO N ARD ,
Attorney at law,
Washington, D . C.
I N D E X
page
Transcript of Proceeding............................................ 1
Certificate of Court Reporter............................... 266
TESTIMONY
P l ain tiffs ’ W itnesses
D. L. McCormac:
C ross......................................................................... 5
Recross..................................................................... 40
L. Scott Stell, Jr.:
D irect....................................................................... 61
C ross......................................................................... 68
I ntervener ’s W itnesses
D. L. McCormac:
D irect....................................................................... 94
Dr. R. T. Osborne:
D irect....................................................................... 99
C ross......................................................................... 121
Redirect................................................................... 123
R ecross..................................................................... 124
Re-redirect .............................................................. 124
Dr. Henry E. Garrett:
D irect....................................................................... 127
C ross......................................................................... 147
Redirect................................................................... 150
R ecross..................................................................... 153
Re-redirect .............................................................. 154
Re-recross ............................................................... 171
Re-re-redirect.......................................................... 172
11
PAGE
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong:
Direct ...................................................................... 176
Cross ....................................................................... 184
Dr. Wesley Critz George:
Direct ...................................................................... 191
Dr. Ernest van den Haag:
Direct ...................................................................... 218
Cross ...................................................................... 249
Intervener’s Exhibit 1 267
Transcript of Proceedings
[ 1 ] IN TH E
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F oe th e S outhebn D isteict oe Georgia
Savannah D ivision
Civil Action No. 1316
---------------------- o------------------ —
R alph S tell , a minor by L. S. S tell , Jb., bis father and
next friend, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
S avannah -C h ath am C ounty B oaed op E ducation, et al.,
Defendants.
L aweence R obeets and D aniel R obeets, m inors, by
A dbienne M. R obeets, their m other and next friend ,
et al.,
Appearances:
Intervenors.
For the Plaintiffs:
B. Clabence M ayfield , E. H . Gadsden, Attorneys at
law, Savannah, Georgia.
D onald L. H ollowell, Attorney at law, Atlanta,
Georgia.
Jack Geeenbeeg, C onstance B akee M otley, D eeeick
A. B ell, Jk., Attorneys at law, New York 19, New
York.
2
[2] For the Defendants:
M orris & M orris, Attorneys at law, Savannah, Georgia.
E. F reeman L everett, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, State of Georgia, Elberton, Georgia.
For the Interveners:
R. Carter P ittm an , Attorney at law, Dalton, Georgia.
J. W alter Cowart, Attorney at law, Savannah,
Georgia.
Charles J. B loch , Attorney at law, Macon, Georgia,
at law, Dalton, Georgia.
George S. L eonard, Attorney at law, Washington, D. C.
Colloquy
The Court: All right, are there any motions by any
members of the Bar?
(Court Reporter: No motions were made.)
The Court: All right, the case set here this morning
is the case of Ralph Stell, et al., vs. Savannah-Chatham
County Board of Education, et al. I am going to take
this case up and decide it one way or the other. I under
stand this is a case to be heard on its merits.
I might say that I have had inquiries about what [3]
I am going to do about my court starting Monday in
Savannah. If we are not through with this case this
week, then I am going to recess it over to Savannah next
week, and open my court down there and then come right
back on this case and continue on all next week, and if
necessary I will adjourn the Savannah court entirely and
continue right on through with this case until I get it
disposed of, and nobody is going to try to continue this
case or put it off. I am going right straight through until
3
I get through with it and render a judgment one way or
the other in it.
Now, what is the announcement in this case of Ralph
Stell, by next friend, et al. vs. Savannah-Chatham County
Board of Education, et al.?
Mrs. Motley: The plaintiffs are ready, your Honor.
The Court: What about the defendants?
Mr. Morris: The defendants are ready, your Honor.
The Court: Since the case is brought by Ralph Stell,
as plaintiff, you may proceed.
Mrs. Motley: We would like to call Mr. McCormac to
the stand.
Mr. Bloch: I f the Court please, I would like to present
Mr. George S. Leonard, of Washington, D. C., a member
of the Bar of the District of Columbia and of New York
and the Supreme Court of the United States, and ask leave
for him to [4] participate to some extent.
The Court: I am sure there are no objections. We
are glad to have you with us. Now, as I understand, both
sides are ready, so you may proceed.
Mrs. Motley: We would like to ask that Mr. McCormac
take the stand.
The Marshal: Do you want them to call all of their
witnesses ?
The Court: Yes. How about each side calling all of
their witnesses, and we will know more about the length of
the trial. Suppose each side call their witnesses and let
them be sworn now.
Mrs. Motley: Rev. Stell, Mrs. Mabel Godson. Those
are all the witnesses we have, your Honor.
The Court: All right, suppose you call the witnesses
for the other side now? Who is going to try this case for
the other side? Call your witnesses first, though?
Mr. Pittman: Dr. Osborne and Dr. Garrett.
The Marshal: Dr. Osborne and Dr. Garrett.
Colloquy
4
Mr. Pittman: Your Honor, since this case involves
issues on which lawyers are not ordinarily equipped we
would like to divide the work among the attorneys.
The Court: That is perfectly all right. Only thing
is I just abhor to get into the trial of a case and have one
[5] lawyer jump up and another one pop up. Of course,
I know you all are not going to do that.
Mr. Pittman: Well, we will divide the work, question
ing and cross-examining the witnesses, and as to the objec
tions and so forth, one counsel will handle that.
The Court: That will be all right, just so we don’t
have two or three lawyers jumping up at one time.
The Clerk: Do you have any witnesses, Mr. Morris ?
Mr. Morris: None other than Mr. McCormac.
The Court: How is that?
Mr. Morris: None other than Mr. McCormac. He is
all we have, and he has already been called by the other
side.
The Court: How about you gentlemen over there? Do
you have any witnesses?
Mr. Pittman: We will have witnesses coming in as
we need them. They are special men, college professors.
The Court: All right, notify the Marshal as they come
in, so we will know.
Mr. Pittman: All right, sir.
The Clerk: All the witnesses raise your right hands.
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give
upon the trial of the issues in the case between Ralph Stell,
by his next friend, etc., Plaintiffs vs. the Savannah-Chatham
County Board of Education, et al., shall be truth, the whole
truth, and [6] nothing but the truth. So help you Cod.
The Court: All right. Do the attorneys on both sides
want the witnesses placed under the rule, or is it satis
factory for them to stay in the court room?
Mr. Pittman: We have no objections to them remaining
in the court room.
Colloquy
5
The Court: All right, is that satisfactory with the
plaintiffs for the witnesses to stay in the court room, or
do you want them placed in the witness room?
Mrs. Motley: We have no objections, your Honor, to
them staying in the court room.
The Court: All right, then you may proceed for the
plaintiff.
Mrs. Motley: We now call Mr. McCormac to the stand
for the purpose of cross-examination, your Honor.
The Court: All right.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
[7] H. L. McCokmac, called by the plaintiffs for the
purpose of cross-examination and after having been first
duly sworn the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth to tell, testified as follows:
On cross-examination by Mrs. M otley:
Q. Mr. McCormac, are you a defendant in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you the Superintendent of Schools in Chatham
County? A. Yes, I am.
Q. How long have you been Superintendent of Schools
in Chatham County? A. Acting Superintendent since
November 1, 1958, and Superintendent since January 16,
1959.
Q. Hid you hold any position with the Chatham County
School System prior to 1958? A. Yes.
Q. What was that? A. I was Assistant Superintendent
in charge of instruction at the time I became Acting Super
intendent.
Q. And, how long have you held that position? A. Since
the fall of 1956.
6
[8] Q. Did you have any position with the Chatham
County School System prior to the fall of 1956! A. Yes,
for the year 1955 and ’56 Director of Secondary Education.
Q. Did you have any position with the School System
prior to that time! A. No, not before August 1, 1955.
Q. So, you have been connected with the Chatham
County School System since August 1st, 1955, is that
correct! A. Yes.
Q. Now, on August 1st, 1955, the Chatham County
Public Schools were operated on a racially segregated
basis, were they not! A. Yes.
Q. Now, since August 1st, 1955, until the present day,
has there been any de-segregation of the Chatham County
Public Schools to your knowledge! A. No.
Q. Now, were you connected with the school system in
1955, when a petition was presented to the School Board
by negro parents to desegregate the schools!
Mr. Leverette: May it please the Court, we think
the petition will speak for itself. The petition,
itself, would be the highest and best evidence.
[9] The Court: Well, I think he could testify
to it, if he knows of his own knowledge. She is not
going into what it contains. She just asked him if
it was presented. I think that is admissible. I
think the question, as asked, is admissible. She is
not going into the merits or what is contained in the
petition. She just asked him if it was presented.
Go ahead.
The Witness: All I can say is, as I understand,
that something with regard to it was brought to
the Board of Education, but I was not directly
working with the Board at that time.
Q. Now, were you connected with the school system
when a petition was presented by negro parents seeking
de-segregation of the schools in October of 1959!
D. L. McGormac■—-for Plaintiffs—Gross
7
Mr. Leverett: There again, your Honor, she is
stating what the petition contains.
The Court: Well, I think he answered it just
now. I will let her ask that question.
The Witness: I was Superintendent at that
time, yes, the date you mentioned.
Q. Well, do you have any knowledge of any action
taken by the Board with respect to that petition? A. I
do not know of any action of the Board.
Mr. Leverett: May it please the Court, I think
the records of the Board would be the highest and
best evidence.
[10] The Court: Well, if he goes into the
contents of any of the records, or anything like that,
then you can raise your objection. I think the, ques
tion, as asked, is admissible. You can go ahead.
Q. Do you have any knowledge of any meetings, con
ducted by the Board, concerning de-segregation of the
Public Schools of Chatham County? A. Meetings called
for the purpose of discussing the matter?
Q. Yes? A. I know of no general board meeting that
was called for that purpose.
Q. Do you know of any other meetings, called by the
Board, other than board meetings, for the purpose of
discussing the de-segregation of the Chatham County Public
Schools? A. There were some committee hearings for
various groups to appear before a Committee of the, Board,
which I did not attend.
Q. Do you know who, on the Board, served on the
Committee? A. I know the Chairman of the Committee.
Q. Who is that? A. Mr. Shelby Myrick, Jr.
Q. Do you know any other members of the. Committee ?
[11] A. For that particular purpose, I don’t recall. That
was a special arrangement for the hearing.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
8
Q. Do you know of any action taken by the Board as
a result of those meetings? A. From the standpoint of
taking action on the basis of the hearing, I know of none,
no.
Q. Do you know of any present plan of the Board of
School Commissioners of Chatham County for de-segregat-
ing the schools as of September, 1963, or any future date ?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether or not the Board has estab
lished any procedure to be followed by negro students
seeking initial assignment or transfer to white schools?
A. No.
Q. Now, isn’t it a fact, that in September of 1962
thirteen negro parents made application for admission or
transfer of their children to a white elementary known as
the Pulaski School in the City of Savannah? A. I under
stand that a group did appear at that school.
The Court: Not what you understand, but what
you know. Do you know that, of your own knowl
edge ?
The Witness: I was told that.
Q. By whom were you told that? [12] A. By the
principals.
Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, we object to any
thing that this witness was told by anybody else.
The Court: That’s right. I asked him the ques
tion and he said that he was told by so and so. Well,
I think you will agree that is hearsay evidence, if
somebody else told him, wouldn’t you?
Q. Now, your testimony is that you have no knowledge
of those applications by negroes for admission to the
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
9
Pulaski School. Is that your testimony! A. I did not
say that.
Q. Well, that is what I am asking you. What knowl
edge do you have about those applications for admission
to the Pulaski School! A. The principal of the school
stated that they—
The Court: —Now, you can’t go into what the
principal of the, school stated to you. That is hear
say evidence.
Q. Just tell us what you know about those applications!
The Court: Just what you personally know
about it.
The Witness: All I know is that I was told that
they—
The Court: —I have told you twice that you
can’t testify to what somebody else told you. That
is hearsay evidence,. [13] Just testify from your
personal knowledge.
The Witness: Well, I will say that they appeared.
Q. Pardon me! A. I will say that they appeared, or
their parents did.
Q. Did you see the applications made out by those
parents! A. No.
Q. Did the principal of the school present those applica
tions to the Board, to your knowledge! A. No.
Q. Who acted on those applications? A. The principal
of the school advised them what to do.
Q. Advised the parents what to do? A. Ye,s.
Q. Do you know what advice he gave them?
The Court: Wouldn’t that he hearsay?
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
10
Mrs. Motley: Not if he knows what advice he
gave them.
The Court: Well, if he knows of his own knowl
edge, I cautioned him three times, but it apparently
didn’t do any good, to just testify to what he knows
of his own personal knowledge. If you know of
your own knowledge, of course, you [14] can testify
to it, but anything somebody told you you cannot
testify to it.
Q. Well, let me ask you this question: Do you know
what happened to those applications? A. I simply know
that the applications were not approved.
Q. Now, when you heard about these applications, did
you discuss that matter with the Board? A. I don’t recall
discussing it with the Board.
Q. You never made any mention at all to the Board of
the fact that negroes had applied for admission to white
schools, is that it? A. No.
Q. You did not? A. No.
Q. Let me, ask you this: Do you know of any action
taken by the Board with respect to those applications? A.
No.
Q. Do you know of a letter written to the Board by
those parents protesting the assignment to negro schools?
A. Such a letter was sent to the Board.
Q. Did you ever see the letter? A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever discuss the letter with the Board?
[15] A. I recall no discussion with the Board on the letter.
Q. Now, you were subpoenaed to bring certain maps to
this hearing, were you not? A. Yes.
Q. Did you bring them? A. Yes.
Q. May I see them? A. Yes.
Q. Now, are all of these the same, or are they different?
A. They are different.
I). L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
■ l
Mrs. Motley: Will you mark these—or this map
here for identification?
(Note: Accordingly, same was then marked for
identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1.)
Q. Let me show you the map, which has been marked
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1 for identification, and ask you
to explain what that map shows? A. This is a map of
Chatham County showing attendance areas for negro
schools.
Q. The negro elementary schools, or negro high schools,
or all negro schools? A. We have only one identification
of districts [16] for all purposes.
Q. So, all negro schools aye on that map? A. The
schools are not on this map, but the attendance districts
are.
Q. For each negro school? A. A district does not indi
cate a school. Croups of districts may be assigned to a
school, junior high school, elementary and senior high
school.
Q. Well, let’s get it clear in the record, please, what
this map shews. You say this map shows districts and not
the school zone for each negro school? A. That is correct.
Q. Now, these districts, you say one or more districts
may be assigned to a school? A. Yes.
Q. Now, how are these districts determined? A. I don’t
know the entire history of the development of it, but it is
a matter that’s grown up, depending on, maybe, several
factors, but for a long time they have been identified by
districts, which are sometimes changed, divided and so
forth, for convenience in assigning to schools. What the
original basis for the outline of these districts was I do
not know.
Q. Now, do these district lines have any relation [17]
to the capacity of a particular school? A. Maybe to some
D. L. McCormao—for Plaintiffs—Cross
12
extent because of population shifts and so forth. We
sometimes have to re-shape because of housing problems,
which have been serious for many years. We, maybe,
assign half of one of these and identify it to a school
because of school capacity for housing. They do change
occasionally. These were the maps used in 1962 and 1963.
Q. But this map takes into consideration the total
negro school population of Chatham County? A. Yes, and
we would identify levels in each of these districts.
Q. That is elementary, junior high and senior high?
A. They are on this, but don’t show up too well, the schools
to which they would go but not total numbers, but we do,
in assigning, have to prepare such lists, which I don’t have.
Q. What do those numbers refer to on there? For
example, 103(a), what does that refer to? A. It is just
merely one of the areas used on the map for the purpose
of assigning people in the area described (circled there),
to a particular school. The “ A ” or “ B ” simply means
that once it was 103 and divided into two, and identified
as 103(a) and 103(b).
[18] Q. Is there a separate school in 103(a) and 103(b) ?
A. No, but students in 103(a) may go to one school and
those in 103(b) to another, just as you would have for any
two adjacent areas. It could happen at any place else.
Mrs. Motley: Will you mark this for identifica
tion, please?
(Note: Accordingly, same was then marked for
identification as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2.)
Q- I show you a map; which has been marked as Plain
tiff’s Exhibit No. 2, for identification, and ask you to explain
that map, please? A. This is a map of the city. The other
was a map of the entire county. Because of the problem
in size and the density of population we use separate maps.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs— Cross
13
This is for the city, and designates the attendance areas
for negro schools.
Q. Now, are all the negro schools in the City of Savan
nah shown on this map? A. Not the schools, hut all of the
attendance areas.
The Court: What?
The Witness: The attendance areas, sometimes
referred to as districts.
Mrs. Motley: Mark this one, please.
(Note: Accordingly, same was then marked for
identification [19] as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3.)
Q. I show you a map, which has ben marked as Plain
tiff’s Exhibit No. 3, for identification, and ask you to ex
plain that map, please? A. This is the county map, with
attendance areas for whites.
Q. That shows—well, that takes into consideration all
of the white school population in the county, is that right?
A. That’s right, with the exception of the city, which is
blocked out here, as in the other case.
Mrs. Motley: I would like to have this marked
for identification, please.
(Note: Accordingly, same was then marked for
identification as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, for identifica
tion.)
Q. I show you another map, which has been marked
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 4, for identification, and ask you to
explain that map, please? A. This is the map of the city,
showing the attendance areas for whites.
Mrs. Motley: We would like to offer these maps
into evidence, your Honor.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
14
The Court: Any objections?
Mr. Cowart: May we see them?
[20] The Court: Yes.
Mr. Cowart: No objections.
The Court: Admitted without objections.
By Mrs. Motley.
Q. Now, isn’t it a fact that these school district lines
overlap, that is, where negro and white live in the same
area? A. Yes, and different areas.
The Court: I didn’t understand you. You say
different areas?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. Now, are you familiar with ail of these school dis
tricts yourself? A. Not in detail, except as the maps indi
cate.
Q. Pardon me? A. Except as the maps indicate. I
would not know all of the details in regard to them.
Q. Now, isn’t it a fact, that negro children living out in
the country are transported into the city of Savannah to
attend negro schools and pass white schools in the process ?
A. That does happen.
Q. Do you know about the negro children who live in
the Grove Point Road area, who are transported to the
Sophronia Tompkins School and pass the Robert Groves
School in [21] the process? A. For the moment, I can’t
identify Grove Point.
Q. Do you want to look on the map of negro schools?
A. I am not sure that it will indicate it, but I will need the
maps. (Witness examining map) I would have to know
exactly where Grove Point is and, frankly, I don’t.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
15
Q. About ten miles south of Savannah on Highway 17 f
A. Then the route would not be—did you say Groves High
School?
Q. Yes, Robert W. Groves High School? A. Then I
would not know of any transportation by there from Grove
Point unless the bus takes a route that I am not familiar
with, because that would not be the route to take.
Q. Isn’t the Robert Groves High School nearer to the
Groves Point road than the Tompkins School? A. No.
Q. It isn’t? A. No. I would think it would be a half a
mile or more nearer to Tompkins from Grove Point.
Q. Than to Robert Groves School? A. Yes, if it is where
you say it is.
[22] Q. What about Savannah High School, which is
a white high school, isn’t it? A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t that nearer to Grove Point than the Tompkins
School is? A. I am not sure of those distances.
Q. How far would you say the negro children have to
travel from Grove Point to reach the Tompkins School?
A. As I say, I can’t quite identify Grove Point. I think
I know, roughly, where it is ; and your question now is
what?
Q. How far is Grove Point from the Tompkins School?
A. I could not answer that.
Q. All right. Do you know anything about the negro
children living in the White Bluff area to travel to De-
Renne, Wheeler and Heard Schools? A. I know where
they are, yes.
Q. Don’t they pass several white schools in the process?
A. I think, on that route, I am sure they would pass one,
if they come directly toward the city, they would pass at
least one.
Q. But they may pass others, you think? [23] A. Pos
sibly, depending on the bus route.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs— Cross
16
The Court: Depending on what!
The Witness: Depending on the bus route.
Q. All right, how about the negro children who live
on Wilmington Island! Where do they go to school! A.
I do not have the record on that. I would say they are
brought into Savannah.
Q. Isn’t there a new school for whites on Wilmington
Island which has just opened up! A. Fairly new, about
six years, I suppose.
Q. Now, far would you say those negro children have
to travel from Wilmington Island to get into the city school,
which they attend! A. Roughly, eight or ten miles.
The Court: By bus !
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Furnished by the county!
The Witness: Yes.
Q. All right, how about negro children on the Isle of
Hope! A. They are transported into town from the Isle
of Hope.
Q. Don’t they live nearer the Thunderbolt School, which
is white! [24] A. I am not sure that is true, because
Thunderbolt is, of course, not on that Island.
Q. I know it is not on an Island, but isn’t that school
nearer to the Island than to the school to which they are
assigned! A. We have a school that handles students, one
through twelve, and the Johnson School which is probably
a quarter of a mile, something like that, nearer to Isle of
Hope.
Q. Than Thunderbolt! A. Than Thunderbolt School.
Q. Why is the Johnson School one through twelve? A.
A. At one time there was a school there called Ballard
Laboratory School, which was used as a training school for
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs— Cross
17
prospective schools supervised, to some extent, by the col
lege staff, Savannah State College, and—
The Court: What college? I didn’t catch that.
The Witness: Savannah State College. Then in
recent years a school designed for junior-senior high
school students was built there. First, a new school
was built to substitute for the Ballard Laboratory
School, and then the Junior-Senior High School
added, which is a new plant, and use of site and
proximity to the college there were several selections
in consideration—or rather several considerations in
selection of the site but they happened to be on the
same site and are now [25] under the same adminis
tration.
Q. Do you have any other schools which encompass
grades one through twelve? A. We did have at Tompkins.
We are separating the administration there, but we do not
have another situation where we have one through twelve.
We do have one through nine.
Q. What school is that? A. That is Chatham Junior
High School, the old academy.
Q. Is that a negro or white school? A. White.
Q. Is Tompkins School a negro school? A. Yes.
Q. And Johnson is negro, isn’t it? A. Yes.
Q. Now, isn’t it a fact that negro students from the east
side of the City of Savannah have to pass by Savannah
High School, which is white, and Jenkins High School,
which is white, and the John Wilder Junior High School to
attend this Sol C. Johnson School that you just referred
to? A. I think we would have to see bus routes and the
nearest routes from where they actually live, and I think
the only way it could be answered would be to take it area
by area and I am not familiar with all the routes, or the
nearest [26] bus routes. It is possible that they could.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
18
Q. But Savannah High School is on the east side, isn’t
it? A. Yes.
Q. How about the Jenkins High School? A. Southeast.
Q. What about John Wilder Junior High School? A.
Somewhat southeast of the city.
Q. Now, where is the Sol C. Johnson School located?
A. At Thunderbolt.
Q. Where is that with relation to the east side ? Is that
east? A. It is the place to which you referred to a minute
ago.
Q. On the west side? A. On the east side.
Q. Now, isn’t it a fact that negro students living in the
Montgomery Eoad area also pass the Montgomery School
which is white ? A. I do not know whether we actually have
anybody that would do that. If so, it would be few, but I
am not sure that we have any where the new building has
just been completed.
Q. Now, these school zone lines, which we went over on
the map, are children assigned to the school in the [27]
zone in which they live? A. Not necessarily. That de
pends upon housing and whether or not there is adequate
housing close to them, and sometimes we have to shift
segments of these, or these areas, say, to other schools. It
doesn’t mean that once we establish the numbers here that
they would go to the same school indefinitely, and those
things do change occasionally. I am not sure of the point
of your question.
Q. I am getting at the basic purposes of the zone lines,
or district lines, as you call them, the basic purpose is
to assign children to a particular school because they
live in that area, isn’t that the purpose of the lines? A.
Yes, but not in the sense that a school is in the area, be
cause it may not be. There may not be one.
Q. And, when there isn’t a school in the area, they
are assigned to the nearest available school, is that it?
A. Not always the nearest available school, but available
from the standpoint of space or seating them.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
19
Q. And in the case of negroes, they would be assigned
to the nearest available negro school, and the case of
whites they would be assigned to the nearest available
white school in terms of space, isn’t that right? A. If
space is available, that is correct.
Q. Now, have you ever discussed with the Board [28]
the policy of assigning teachers to schools on basis of
race and color!
Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, we would like to
object to this testimony on the grounds that it is
irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in this case.
It has no bearing whatsoever on the issues here.
The Court: Well, what was the question? I
didn’t get the question.
Mrs. Motley: I asked him whether he had ever
discussed with the Board the policy of assigning
teachers to schools on the basis of race and color?
The Court: I think, perhaps, that’s admissible.
The Witness: No.
Q. You never have discussed it with the Board? A.
No.
Q. But the teachers and principals and other pro
fessional personnel are assigned on the basis of race, aren’t
they? That is, only whites are assigned to white schools
and only negroes are assigned to negro schools, isn’t that
right ?
Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, for the purpose of
the record, I would like to note an exception.
The Court: That is the same objection you made
just now?
Mr. Leverett: Yes, sir.
[29] The Court: I ’ll overrule your objection.
The Witness: Now, would you give me the ques
tion, please?
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—-Cross
20
Mrs. Motley: Mr. Reporter, may we have the
question!
The Court Reporter: (Reading) “ But the
teachers and principals and other professional per
sonnel are assigned on the basis of race, aren’t
they! That is, only whites are assigned to white
schools and only negroes are assigned to negro
schools, isn’t that right!”
The Witness: Yes.
Q. Mr. McCormac, do you recall that your deposition
was taken by the plaintiffs’ counsel on December 7th,
1962! A. Yes.
Mrs. Motley: We would like to offer Mr. Mc
Cormac’s deposition into evidence for the admis
sions contained therein.
The Court: Well, you will have to be specific
on that, I should think.
Mrs. Motley: Well, we have asked him a num
ber of things which he has admitted in here. It
would take a long time to read it, your Honor.
The Court: We have got all of this week and
nest week.
Mrs. Motley: Pardon me!
[30] The Court: We have got all of this week
and next week too. I want to get what’s the pur
pose of it.
Q. Well, let me ask you some additional questions
which avoid us having to put this into evidence; you re
consider those school zone lines each year, don’t you, to
determine what the capacity of a particular school is going
to be! A. Yes. We at least look into it to determine
whether or not it is necessary to redefine areas.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
21
Q. So, that, every year, prior to the beginning of a
school year you look at the total school population and
assign students to schools, don’t you, according to those
maps? A. Yes.
Q. How long does that take each year? A. What aspect
of it?
Q. The assignment of students to schools? A. Well,
I can’t answer specifically on it, but it requires several
weeks of detail study to determine how many students
can be taken care of in each school and from which area
they should come and what staff should be assigned to
the schools, and some members of my staff have been on
it a number of weeks each year.
Q. When you say a number of weeks, how many weeks?
A. I can’t say specifically, because we try, I [31] am
sure they try to keep records as they go, as they have
information, and it may run along for several months,
but actually on detail study I would say that it would
require at least four or five weeks to do the detail study.
That is an estimate on it.
Q. And have you done that for September, 1963? A.
We have already done that. We have looked into it.
Q. What time of the year do you usually do that? A.
That is usually started around January or February,
some time along then.
Q. Now, you have converted schools from negro to
white schools in Savannah and the county recently, have
you not? A. I don’t get the question.
Q. You have converted schools from negro to white
youths in Savannah and the county recently, have you
not? A. Yes.
The Court: You have done what? I didn’t get
it.
The Witness : Well, I would like to get her ques
tion again.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
The Court: Well, ask it again.
Q. You have converted schools from white to negro
youths in the county and the City of Savannah recently,
[32] have you not! A. We did one for the current year.
Q. What school was that? A. Anderson Street.
Q. Why was that school converted to negro youths?
A. Well, it happened that the negro student population
around the building justified the use of the building, and
the white enrollment had dwindled.
Q. What did you do with the white students remain
ing there? A. They were sent to the nearest white schools.
Q. You have also converted other schools in the past
the same way, haven’t you? A. I do not recall but one,
which was converted at the immediate time from a divi
sion of instruction building to a negro school. It had
formerly been a white school.
Q. How about the Barnard Street School? A. That is
the one to which I refer.
The Court: Was that the case which I tried,
the Barnard School?
The Witness: Yes, sir, it was.
Q. Have you ever converted any schools from negro
to white youths? A. Not during my administration.
[33] Q. Now, do you have any technical high schools
in Savannah? A. We have what we call an area trade
school, and we are building two schools that will be called
Technical Vocational Schools that will serve areas in the
state beyond our county. We have the Harris Area Trade
School.
Q. Is that negro or white? A. Negro.
Q. Do you have a similar white trade school? A. Not
that we call a trade, school at the moment. We do have
a vocational school.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—-Cross
23
Q. What is the name of that one? A. Savannah Voca
tional School.
Q. And the negro school again was what, called what?
A. Harris Area Trade School.
Q. Was that devoted to trades only, or were other
subjects taught there ? A. Well, if you call nursing a trade,
nursing is taught, electronics, and masonry.
Q. What other trades? A. Shoe repairing. I believe
there is a home making course there. I do not have a
listing of all the offerings that are there.
[34] Q. What do you teach at the, white vocational
schools ?
Mr. Leverett: May it please the Court, we would
like to object to this line of testimony on the grounds
that it is irrelevant and immaterial.
The Court: Well, it might be releyant. I will
let you ask it. Go ahead and answer the question.
The Witness: I don’t have a listing of all the
offerings, but we have the electronics course in the,
Savannah Vocational School. We have offered,
periodically, upholstering. We have—I believe there
are, others in the home making areas maybe that are
not always offered. That is one of the things the
offerings change from time to time, and for the
moment I cannot give you a listing exactly of all
of it.
Q. Now, you were subpoenaed to bring the papers show
ing the differences in the curriculum between negro and
white schools, were you not? A. Yes.
Q. Did you bring those? A. I do not have a document
showing differences. I have a document showing courses
approved for all schools because our high schools are
comprehensive schools and the programs are the same
D. L. McCormac—■for Plaintiffs—Cross
24
from the standpoint of administration through the elemen
tary grades.
[35] Q. Well, the papers which you brought, do they
list the curriculum of the Area Trade School of the Harris
School! A. No, I do not have anything on the vocation,
but I have a listing of subjects for all schools that is the
basis for the development of a program in the individual
high school, which would apply to all high schools.
Q. Now, do you have a person who supervises the negro
schools under your jurisdiction! A. Not as a separate
supervisor of negro schools.
Q. What does he do! A. I say we do not have a super
visor of negro schools. We have several staff members
that work in different capacities with the different schools.
Q. What negro staff members do you have on your
staff! A. From the standpoint of supervision, we have
a supervisor that works in the secondary level.
Q. What is his name! A. Hardwick.
Q. What is his full name! A. Mr. Clifford Hardwick.
Q. Well, what is his title! A. Supervisor. It ’s come
out as specialist, and [36] maybe that is all right, but he
is in a supervisory capacity.
Q. Well, now, what white schools does he supervise!
A. None.
Q. What other negroes do you have on your staff! A.
We have two elementary supervisor’s positions but because
we, have moved those two people at different times, one
last year and this year, we moved them to principalship,
and we have vacancies there at the moment.
Q. You have two vacancies! A. Yes.
Q. You do not have any negro supervisors at the
elementary schools at the present time! A. The person
who was the supervisor moved to a principalship, which is
a promotion. She is simply carrying out her commitments
until the end of the year, at which time the position will
be tilled.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
25
Q. What other negroes do you have on your staff!
A. We have, maybe we need to define staff, but we have
two visiting teachers.
Q. What do they do? A. Well, they are supposed to
visit the homes of students, where they are problems in
school and absences and so forth. At one time they were
generally considered to be [37] attendance teachers.
Q. Do they visit in any white homes? A. No.
Q. Do you have any other negroes on your staff? A.
We have some itinerant librarians, because we don’t have
full time librarians in the elementary schools, but we do
have a few people that devote their time, and they are
trained librarians, serving more than one school each to
set up the libraries and make them useful.
Q. How many negroes do you have in such capacity?
A. I believe that it is two at the present time.
Q. Do they service any white schools? A. No.
Q. Do you have any other negroes on your staff? A.
From the standpoint of operating out of the central office,
no.
The Court: What do you mean by that?
The Witness: Well, it comes back, your Honor,
to the question of definition, I would consider a
principal on the staff. It is a question of definition,
and I certainly would consider the principal of a
school as being on the staff, and we have those prin
cipals, and it is just a matter of definition as to
whether we want to say the immediate staff of
the Superintendent or the staff in the division of
instruction, or what-not.
[38] Q. Well, let me ask you this: We went over in
stances where negroes passed white schools. Do you know
of any instances where whites passed negro schools? A.
I am sure they do. I am sure that happens.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
26
Mrs. Motley: I believe those are all the questions
for this witness, your Honor.
The Court: All right, do you gentlemen wish to
cross-examine. Who is going to do the cross-
examining.
Mr. Leverett: I understand we are entitled to
cross-examine our own party on matters brought
out.
The Court: No, you can’t do that. He is an
adverse witness. That is right, is it not?
Mrs. Motley: Yes, sir.
The Court: You cannot cross-examine your own
witness. You can call him as your witness at the
proper time. See if I am correct, gentlemen. I don’t
think he would be entitled to cross-examine an ad
verse witness. He is your witness. She put him
up as an adverse witness, and I don’t think you
have a right to cross-question your own witness,
when he is an adverse witness. You can put him
up later.
Mr. Leverett: I am not arguing with the Court
except to state my position.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Leverett: It is my understanding, may it
please [39] the Court, that where a party is called,
one of the parties are called as an adverse party, that
his own counsel has a right to propound to him
questions in the nature of cross-examination on mat
ters brought out.
The Court: When you put him up as your wit
ness, yes. That is my recollection. What do you
gentlemen say? If you all will quit talking among
yourselves and answer my question. Let’s go ahead,
gentlemen. Answer my question, if you will. If
you didn’t hear it, I would not mind repeating it,
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs— Cross
27
of course. Is he entitled to cross-examine this wit
ness!
Mr. Leonard: It is my understanding of the
rule that he has a right to do so to the extent of
matters brought out by the witness.
The Court: All right, if you agree to it. What
do you say!
Mrs. Motley: I think that is right, your Honor.
The Court: All right, if both sides agree to it.
It is up to you all. Go ahead. I sure have been
committing a lot of errors around this court.
Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, I believe I read a
recent decision to that effect.
The Court: All right, if both sides agree to it.
That’s up to them.
[40] Cross-examination by Mr. Leverett:
Q. Mr. McCormac, refreshing your recollection, do you
recall whether or not Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Shuman and Mr.
Wiggins were on this committee to study the matter of de
segregation that you referred to on your examination in
chief! I was simply trying to ask you to refresh your
recollection as to the composition of the committee! A. I
am not certain about that.
Q. Isn’t it true that Committee held several meetings,
public meetings! A. The particular Committee, I am not
sure.
Q. Do you recall whether or not any public announce
ments were ever made by the Savanah School System with
reference to meetings that that Committee would hold! A.
Yes.
Q. Do you recall what the substance of those announce
ments were! A. That the Board Committee would meet
with various groups wanting to be heard.
Q. Do you recall whether or not such meeting was held!
A. Such meetings were held.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
28
Q. Do you know approximately how many? A. I don’t,
but possibly three or four. I am not [41] sure.
Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. McCormac, that this Committee
had a meeting scheduled which was postponed or put off
because of the filing of this suit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In 1962! A. Yes, sir.
Q. In other words, this Committee was still conducting
its hearing and its study when its proceedings were stopped
by virtue of the filing of this suit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at that time this Committee had not completed
its study, had it? A. No.
Q. Now, isn’t it true, Mr. McCormac, if you know, but
of course if you don’t know you can’t answer it; but isn’t
it true that not a single one of the plaintiffs in this law
suit ever appeared at any of these Committee meetings to
assist the Board in solving this problem? A. I could not
answer that, because I was not at the meetings.
Q. Now, with respect to the application of these pupils
to attend the, Pulaski School, Mr. McCormac, of your own
knowledge, isn’t it true that the reason no further proceed
ings [42] were had with respect to that was that the parents
themselves indicated that they really didn’t want to pursue
their applications? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you explain to the Court the reason, or detail
the reason, why this determination was made? A. Yes,
because of re-assignment of pupils in what is known as the
Staley Heights Area while a new school was being built,
or planned to be built and is now under construction. While
it was being constructed we had to redistribute and elim
inate, as far as possible, double sessioning of students, and
these students were unhappy about their assignment.
Q. They were being assigned from one existing negro
school to another? A. Yes, and had attended one of those,
but some were moved to another negro school, which is a
brand new school.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
29
Q. Wasn’t it determined that they really wanted to stay
at the school they then were attending? A. Yes.
Q. And that this application to Pulaski was simply for
the purposes of emphasizing their discontent with being
reassigned from a negro school which they were then at
tending? [43] A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. McCormac, do you handle the assignment
of pupils in the Savannah-Chatham County School System?
A. I do not do the detail work. The total program, when it
has been worked out by members of the staff, is submitted
to me for approval.
Q. For that reason, then, you are not familiar with all
the aspects of these attendance area maps and procedure
as to how this is done, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. McCormac, have any applications ever
been made, to your knowledge, from negroes in the Grove
Point area seeking transfer to any other school? A. I know
of none.
Q. What about with respect to Wilmington Island? A.
I know of none.
Q. What about with respect to Montgomery Eoad? A.
I know of none.
Q. Or any of the other areas that counsel for the plain
tiffs questioned you about? A. I know of none.
Q. Now, these two vacancies in the negro supervisors
that you referred to, are they in the process of being filled,
or is some one from the Board seeking to fill those [44]
vacancies? A. Yes.
Q. Will they be, filled? A. So far as I know, they will be
filled, yes.
Q. Now, Dr. McCormac, you were questioned about the
processing or the preparation of your attendance areas, has
all of that already been done for the 1963 and 1964 school
year? A. Yes, it has been done tentatively.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs— Cross
Mr. Leverett: That’s all.
30
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
The Court: All right.
Cross-examination by Mr. Pittman:
Q. How many years did you spend as a classroom
teacher! A. I was principal and teacher for four years,
and then I taught in high school four years.
Q. As teacher, were the problems of discipline directly
under you of your class! A. The four years I taught as a
teacher, full time teacher, I was responsible for the dis
cipline in my groups. Prior to that time I had supervision
over the entire school.
Q. How long have you been in a capacity as a [45]
supervisor over classroom teachers! A. Well, as a prin
cipal, for twenty years, and as a superintendent approxi
mately eight altogether.
Q. I believe you bear the title of Doctor, do you not!
A. No, sir, I am not entitled to that title.
Q. Mr. McCormac, how long have you been in a position
which would enable you to exercise discretion or power with
respect to segregation or integration or separation of races!
A. I would say that I have never been in that position.
Q. What body exercises that power or performs those
duties! A. I would consider it a function of the Board of
Education within the framework of law under which it
works.
Q. Has it been your function to recommend to the Board
policies and plans under which you believe to be to the best
interest, or which you believe to be, to the best interest of
the white children and the colored children! A. Yes.
Q. And have you made such recommendations to your
Board! A. May I ask if you are referring to a particular
type of organization!
[46] Q. No. In general! A. In general, the welfare of
people.
31
Q. Do you believe it to the best interest of tbe negro
children and white children that they be mixed in the
schools? Would you have recommended that? A. I would
not, if I knew that it was not in the power of the Board
to do anything about it under law.
Q. If the Board had such power, would you have rec
ommended it? A. Would I have recommended a particular
type of thing?
Q. Yes? A. I consider the problem we are dealing with
one of policy-making with the Board having the function
of making poliey. I certainly have not been in position,
say, up to the moment of making a recommendation for any
change with regard to this problem.
Q. You know all the schools and you know many of the
people in the schools? A. Yes.
Q. And you know the different types and characters and
traits of the various groups in Savannah, do you not? A.
I would say I know a good many of those.
Q. In your opinion, is the present system, by [47] racial
schools, most advantageous to whites and blacks ? A. That
would be merely stating an opinion.
Q. Yes, sir. That is what I am asking you for. You
are qualified. Give us your opinion. You are qualified to
give an opinion on that subject? A. As I view it and have
worked with it and considered the development of the pro
gram for both races and strength and so forth it would be
my answer that I believe that it is best as it is.
Q. In all of your years of experience as a teacher and
supervisor have you ever observed any injury to a colored
child by reason of that child not being permitted to mix
and mingle with white children in schools? A. I know of
no concrete evidence to that effect.
Q. You recognize, do you not, that the petition filed by
the plaintiffs in this case makes this allegation in the first
paragraph of paragraph 9:
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs— Cross
32
“ Plaintiffs, ancl members of the class which they rep
resent, are injured by the refusal of defendants to cease
operation of a compulsory biracial school system in Cha
tham County.”
Are you familiar with that allegation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that true or untrue? [48] A. I have no evidence
to show that it is true.
Q. In your opinion, is it untrue? A. So far as my
knowledge goes, yes.
Q. I read you another allegation of that same para
graph :
“ The plaintiffs, and members of their class, are, injured
by the policy of assigning teachers, principals and other
school personnel on the basis of the race and color of the
children attending a particular school and the race and
color of the person to be, assigned.”
Do you know of any injury suffered by the plaintiffs
or the members of their class as the result of the policy of
assigning white teachers to the white schools and the col
ored teachers to the colored school? A. No.
Q. On the contrary, is it not your opinion that such
assignment of colored teachers to colored schools and white
teachers to white schools is to the best interest of the
negroes and to the best interest of the white people? A.
That is my personal belief, yes.
Q. Further on in this same paragraph, I would like
to read this allegation:
“ The injury which plaintiffs and members of
their class suffer as a result of the operation of a
compulsory biracial [49] school system in Chatham
County is irreparable and shall continue to irrep
arably injure plaintiffs and their class until enjoined
by this Court.”
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
33
Are you familiar with that allegation! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of any injuries the plaintiffs and mem
bers of their class have suffered as a result of the mainte
nance of separate schools for the white children and the
colored children in Savannah and Chatham County? A. No.
Q. Would you deny that allegation, the theory of it?
A. I have no proof that that is true.
Q. In your opinion, is it untrue? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you said you had a number of meetings to dis
cuss the question of desegregating the schools of Savannah.
At any of those meetings was it pointed out to you, or by
counsel, that it was necessary for the NAACP counsel to
prove that the colored children were injured by segregation
before they would be entitled to an injunction in this case ?
A. I believe the meetings to which you refer were meetings
which I didn’t attend.
Q. Well, at any meetings of your school hoard was [50]
it not pointed out that it was necessary for the NAACP
to prove that segregation injured colored children in order
to entitle them to an injunction? A. I do not recall the
Board taking that position.
Q. You mean that you have come here to try this case
without any witnesses besides yourself to disprove this
allegation? A. I was subpoenaed to come as a witness.
Q. I will ask you, Mr. McCormac, in your opinion,
what would happen in a classroom in Savannah, if it was
balanced as to races ? We will take the fifth or sixth grade
class. First, let me ask you this: What proportion of the
school population in Savannah is negro? A. Approximately
38 percent, between 38 and 40 percent.
Q. And the, balance is white? A. Yes, sir.
Q. State, as your opinion, what problems would arise if
negro children and white children were mixed in the ratio
of 38 to 62?
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
34
Mrs. Motley: We object to that question, Your
Honor. It is speculative as to what problems would
arise, if?
The Court: I think you would have, to rephrase
your question, because it is speculative as to what
is or might [51] happen in the future. Anything
in the past might be admissible, anything that he
knows, but anything that might happen in the future
would be speculative.
Q. From your experience as a school man and your
experience with problems of discipline, do you have any
knowledge what would result, or might result, from the
mixing of children of different colors in the same school
room? A. I certainly don’t think I am competent as an
expert to estimate in detail as to what would occur under
those conditions.
Q. In your answer in this case, page 7, you state that
you are cognizant that great social, economic, psychological
and other influences were, at work both for and against seg
regation, is that true? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you also say on the same page, page 7, that the
school board had before it evidence of such developments
in other communities leading—at least on two occasions the
intervention of the armed forces of the United States—it
recognizes that such development would not be conducive
to the education and welfare of all children of whatever
race and creed? Do you subscribe to that statement? Is
that a true statement? A. I would like, if you will, to give
me the, last part of your statement again. I am sorry?
[52] The Court: That is the Board of Educa
tion’s statement, isn’t it?
Mr. Pittman: That is the Board of Education,
but answered by him as well.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
35
Q. Are you not a defendant in this ease? A. Yes.
Q. So, in your answer, you have before you, the evidence
of such developments in other communities, and I will read
you: ‘ ‘ leading at least on two occasions to the intervention
of the armed forces of the. United States, and it recognizes
that such a development would not be conducive to the
education and welfare of all children of whatever race and
creed.” Do you recognize that statement? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it true? A. Yes, I agree with that.
Q. So, either you or the members of the school board
felt qualified to make an allegation as to what would happen
or might happen if integration of the races took place, is
that true? A. Yes, that is true.
Q. In the Savannah School System you are obeying the
state law with reference to compulsory education? A. Yes,
sir.
[53] Q. I f you have a serious disciplinary problem with
respect to a boy or a girl, what do you do? Do you expel
them? A. The principal has the right to suspend tem
porarily, but only the Board of Education has the right to
expel.
Q. If serious problems of discipline should arise as a
result of racial conflict, and those could not he solved on
the teacher level or the principal level, and you had sources
of constant irritation, that could he settled by the Board
of Education dismissing those responsible for it?
Mrs. Motley: We object to that, Your Honor, it
is irrelevant as to whether the schools are segregated
or integrated?
The Court: What do you say, Mr. Pittman?
Mr. Pittman: It is to show, if Your Honor
please, that under the present system in Savannah
there is no way that the conflict that might arise
from integration could he effectively controlled.
The Court: I will let you go ahead on that.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
36
Q. Further on in your answer, Mr. McCormac, you
said this: ‘ ‘ Defendant Board has never received an appli
cation from either a negro or white student for transfer or
assignment to a school of the opposite race,” is that true?
[54] A. I know of no such a case.
The Court: Read that again. I didn’t catch it.
Mr. Pittman: The Defendant Board has never
received an application from either a negro or a
white student for transfer or assignment to a school
of the opposite race. ’ ’ Is that true ?
The Witness: With the exception of the testi
mony with regard to the group brought out earlier.
Q. Well, what about these particular plaintiffs in this
case, Stell and others? Have any of those children ever
made application to the school board for transfer or as
signment to a white school? A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. The first notice that you had of the desire of those
particular plaintiffs was when the petition was served upon
you? A. Yes.
Q. Mr. McCormac, in your opinion, do negro children
learn better, or would they learn better, from negro teachers
than from white teachers?
Mrs. Motley: That’s irrelevant, Your Honor.
We object to that.
The Court: I think it would be irrelevant for
this reason: He never has had any, so he wouldn’t
know of his own [55] knowledge.
Mr. Pittman: I know, Your Honor, but I don’t
ask him for his knowledge. I asked him his opinion
as a school man. We believe he qualified as an expert.
The Court: He did do that, yes. I tell you what
I am going to do: I am going to admit all the evi
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
37
dence, which I think is pertinent at this time, and
then when we get through with all the evidence, then
yon can make your motion, which I presume you will
make, to eliminate all of this, and then I will hear
you. I want to hear the full case, if you will. When
they get through with their evidence, if there is any
evidence that you think should he thrown out, why,
then you get up and make your motion, and then
you will have your record clear. I think that is the
best way to handle it.
Q. The school hoard appears in this case, seemingly,
without taking sides with the white or the colored, is that
true! Is that your posture! You appear as a neutral
body! A. I think that would have to be defined. I certainly
would say that the Board of Education has the interest
of both races at heart and would like to see the best pos
sible program of education for each race.
Q. What are the education aims of the Chatham County
School System! A. I probably could give you a list of
things we [56] hope to achieve through the educational
system.
Q. Is it all directed toward the welfare of the children!
A. Yes.
Q. It is directed toward the welfare of all the children!
A. Yes, from the standpoint of the philosophy of the staff
and the administration, yes.
Q. If, in your opinion, it would be best for the negro
school children to be taught and supervised by negro school
teachers, would you recommend that policy! A. It would
be conjecture with me. I don’t have evidence that such
would be true and therefore would not face the issue of
making such a recommendation.
Q. Do you know why the schools in Chatham County
are segregated! A. Well, I know that the State of Georgia
until early 1961 and back for ten years behind that, at any
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
38
rate, would not permit the mixing of the races in the school
and continued to contribute to the financial support of the
program.
Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. McCormac, that segregated schools,
a segregated school system, is now maintained by your
board and by you in order to provide the best educational
[57] opportunities possible for both races! A. I can simply
say that seems to me, as I evaluate it, to be the desire of
the Board of Education and the Administrative Staff, and—
Q. —is that exercise based upon the considered judg
ment for the best interest of the children! A. That cer
tainly would be my appraisal of the thinking.
Q. If you believed it best for negroes and whites to
congregate them in schools, would you recommend that!
A. In my own approach to any educational problem and
coming around to the point of readiness to make a recom
mendation, I would certainly say that I would want a lot
of evidence pro and con, and I think for me to answer that
could be answered in only one way, and that is if I was
convinced that a thing is good then I should point it out
as something that I feel is good.
Q. Have you ever found any evidence that it was good
to congregate them in school together! A. I have not had
the experience with it.
Q. Do you know of any evidence or experience of any
city like Washington, D. C., or any other city where it is
to the benefit of the colored and the white children to con
gregate them rather than to segregate them! [58] A. I
know of no conclusive evidence.
Q. Is not the action of your Board based somewhat
upon experience and observation! A. It has, of course,
experience with the segregated system and is of the opinion
that is better, evidently.
Q. I believe your answer says this: “ No formal action
has ever been taken by the board (since the date you men
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
39
tioned a few minutes ago) and the defendants contend that
the Defendant Board has not adopted by custom or other
wise any so-called biracial system.” Do you recall that
allegation! A. Yes.
Q. You don’t mean by that that the biracial system that
exists in Savannah does not exist with your approval and
that of your Board of Education! A. My interpretation
of this statement simply is in the period of time cited it
has not definitely restated its policy with regard to it.
Q. On page 8 you allege this: That any school system
and locality over which it has jurisdiction for educational
purposes they present an independent factual picture,”
is that correct! A. Yes.
Q. That your school system and the locality over which
it has jurisdiction for educational purposes present an
[59] independent factual picture.” Is that true! A. Yes,
I would think so.
Q. Do you feel that you and your school hoard are
qualified to pass upon and act upon the independent factual
pictures that exist in Chatham County! A. Well, I think
it is a competent group. Our Board of Education, I think,
to do that, it should take the, position it has, that it would
study it and get opinions from various groups and thoughts
of various groups before coming to a point of determina
tion.
Q. Now, you say, in the last part of your answer, on
page 9, that none of the students—you say, nor has any
of its students been denied a proper and adequate education
irrespective of race or creed and it does not desire that
such progress be interrupted or unduly disturbed. What
do you mean by unduly interrupted or unduly disturbed!
A. Well, it means the present organization, the basis for
organization seems to us to be sound for the time because
we, believe, or I do, as Superintendent, I believe that the
program of education is gradually and in many ways
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Cross
40
faster developing strength and that for both races every
effort is being made within the realm of our finances to
strengthen both programs with no differentiation in our
out-look toward it from the standpoint of race.
[60] Mr. Pittman: Your Honor, we, reserve the
right to call Mr. McCormac hack later on as our
witness.
The Court: All right, any other questions?
Mrs. Motley: Yes, Your Honor.
Recross Examination Ry Mrs. Motley:
Q. Mr. McCormac, I believe you testified that the filing
of this suit cut off certain committee hearings being con
ducted by the board on de-segregation? A. Yes.
Q. Is that your testimony? A. Yes.
Q. Now, who was conducting those hearings at that
time? A. A committee of the Board of Education.
Q. Who were the members of that committee? A. I
can recall only the Chairman of the committee.
Q. Who was that? A. Mr. Shelby Myrick, Jr.
Q. Is he still Chairman of the Committee? A. He is no
longer a member of the board.
Q. Wasn’t that why the hearings were cut off? [61]
A. What do you mean?
Q. It was not because of the filing of the suit. It was
because Mr. McCormac left the board, wasn’t it? A. Mr.
Myrick, you mean?
Q. Myrick, I am sorry? A. It was not because Mr.
Myrick left the board.
Q. Well, why were the hearings cut off? A. Well, when
the suit was filed the hearings were discontinued because
it was to be thrown into court.
Q. And you never attended any of these hearings? A.
No, sir.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
41
Q. Do you know how many were held! A. No, I men
tioned three or four, but I do not know exactly.
Q. Now, you indicated that you knew that the negro
parents, who applied for admission to the Pulaski School,
desired not to pursue that application through. Now, how
did you know all of that about the parents and their appli
cations? A. I read the letter that was written on behalf
of the parents in which it was stated that this was not an
application to integrate the school.
Q. What did the letter state? A. It indicated that it
was a protest because of moving their children from one
school to another.
[62] Q. Who wrote the letter? A. I do not recall the
name of the person.
Q. Was there more than one name signed to it? A. It
seems that one person was signing for the group, but I am
not sure of that. It may have been signed by more than one
person.
Q. Where did you see that letter? A. Well, it came
through my office.
Q. When you say it came through your office, was it
mailed to your office? A. I am not sure now whether it was
the original or a copy made and put on my desk.
Q. Now, had that letter been received when their appli-
tion was turned down? A. As I recall the letter came in
before definite action was taken, and I believe I testified
that the Board never did take action on it, and I do not re
call, but it was some days following their appearance at the
school that the letter came in.
Q. Now, has the hoard ever authorized you or any per
son under your jurisdiction, such as the person in charge of
assigning the students, to admit negroes to white schools?
A. No, not to my knowledge.
Q. Have you ever discussed with the teachers and [63]
principals of the Chatham County School system the deseg
regating of the schools? A. No.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
42
Q. Do the negro and white teachers meet separately for
in-service training programs and other programs! A.
Ususally, yes, for their general meeting. We have some
joint committees and our monthly staff meeting of princi
pals and supervisors and directors—is a meeting for all.
Q. Well, how about your in-service training program for
teachers, are they integrated or segregated? A. As a rule
they are segregated. We have joint committee working on
different phases of the program.
Q. Now, as to the Superintendent of the Public Schools
of Chatham County, you are the Chief Executive Officer of
the Board, are you not? A. Yes.
Q. And your primary duty is to carry out the policy
established by the board, is it not ? A. Yes.
Q. Now, the negro and white teachers, do they have to
meet the same qualifications for employment in the Public
School System of Chatham County? A. Yes, and they are
on the same salary schedule.
[64] Q. You have already testified, I believe, that the
curriculum in the elementary schools and the junior high
schools and the senior high schools are the same for both
negro and white schools, is that correct ? A. So far as that
can be made. If you interpret the term ‘ ‘ curriculum ’ ’ in its
very broad sense every teacher would make a difference in
the curriculum. From the standpoint of the provisions for
subject offerings and the time devoted to subjects, the mate
rial of instruction and so on down the line, they are the
same.
Q. And the negro and white children take the same
achievement test, don’t they? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any other test in the school system other
than the achievement test? A. Well, we have what we call
a mental maturity test. We have vocational aptitude test.
Q. Do negro and white children take both of those tests?
A. Well, the mental maturity, first of all the reading-readi
ness and the pre-school and three times during the 11-12
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
43
year period the survey type tests are given throughout the
school system, and those are the achievement tests, and then
there are the mental maturity tests that are given at other
[65] times or at selected spots for all. Some of the other
testing that is done maybe for a group who wants to be
tested on vocational aptitude and things of that kind, but I
have given you the basic structure of the universal testing
program in the system.
Q. Now, do you have any schools in the system where
the basis of admission to that particular school is that the
students pass a particular achievement test or some other
kind of test! A. No. Our promotion basis and admission
to the school would not be based on the achievement test,
standardized, that is.
Q. Do you have any schools to which admission is predi
cated upon an intelligence test! A. No.
Q. Do you have any schools to which admission is predi
cated upon the mental maturity test! A. No. We have
special types of offerings where those would be used as fac
tors in assigning them to the groups, mentally retarded
groups, for example.
Q. Do you have any mentally retarded white students!
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any mentally retarded negro students!
[66] A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any gifted white students! A. Yes.
Q. Intellectually gifted! A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any intellectually gifted negro students!
A. Yes.
Q. I can’t hear you! A. Yes.
Q. Do you want to enumerate now what administrative
problems, in your opinion, would preclude the de-segrega-
tion of the schools in Chatham County at this time! A. I
have never attempted to list them one, two, three, four, and
we would certainly face the problem, in grouping children
by grade levels and so forth. There are differences that
may exist and grouping them by grades and following your
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
44
same promotion policies and so forth, would probably dis
organize a good many people, for one type of thing, taking
the level of achievement as one basis. I am not an expert in
that field and can’t give you details on it, but that would be
one of the problems. I think one of the administrative prob
lems would, of course, be the social aspects of mixing them
in the sense, since we would be unaccustomed to having them
do [67] that, and I think it would therefore require a lot of
personal adjustment on the part of all students involved.
I think, generally, it is felt that from the standpoint of dis
ciplining there would be problems which would come under
the phase of the administrative problem.
The Court: Wouldn’t there be some financial
problems involved! Wouldn’t you be confronted
with building new buildings! Wouldn’t you be con
fronted with that, or would you not!
The Witness: I think, Your Honor, that is a mat
ter that would have to be studied very carefully.
The Court: You had a big bond drive. I just read
it is all. I believe it was in the defendants ’ answer
where I read it, that they had a big bond issue over
there and that has not been finally consummated.
That is where I got the idea was from the defend
ants’ answer, something about a sixty million dollar
bond issue, and first they defeated it and then it
was carried by a small majority. I think that is what
was alleged in the answer. Wouldn’t that have some
thing to do with it, the new buildings erected or being
erected!
The Witness: Well, the total program, roughly,
ten million dollars worth of buildings, we are com
ing to the final stages of completing those buildings
with the exception of the two trade schools, as
pointed out in the answer, and I think it would have
to he studied in the light of the change [68] before
specific answers could be given to that to deter
mine the extent of problems.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
45
The Court: Where I got that was from your an
swer, I think. I read that over and that is where
I got the impression.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have any other administrative problems
which you are facing? A. There are probably others that
just don’t occur to me rather quickly.
Q. Can you think of any others? A. I would think that
teachers would have to make some very severe adjustments
to the new situation from the standpoint of instruction it
self. I think further there would be a problem of learning
to work together on common problems in planning programs
and so forth.
Q. Any other problems? A. Not as I know of for the
moment, no.
Q. Now, let’s take your first problem, grouping of stu
dents, you mean in desegregation you would institute some
new kind of groups of students which do not now exist?
A. No. I had reference to two types of grouping. One is
grade level grouping, that is, whether a person is a second
grader or a third grader and so on. Still the other [69]
type of grouping, which we do, and it is designed for better
instruction, we group somewhat on a basis of ability to
move, in a sense there are slow readers, for example, and
there are people who read pretty fast. We, actually, in a
school may have three third grade classes and have three
groups but at different levels and travelling at different
levels of speed in their program. We go beyond that point
and find that even though and say—and still I am no expert
in this—we may say that the lower group and some of the
average will be in a section, and that the top group and
some of the average will be in a section and that maybe a
group of average students will be actually in the sections,
the classes, on that particular level. Then in each of those
we will find, normally, that you have still a rather wide
range of ability to read, as one example, and the teacher
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
46
would group them iu the class, so that each group, so far as
we could make it happen, could move at its own potential
rate of speed.
Q. Well, all of that happens after the student is admit
ted to the school, doesn’t it? A. Yes.
Q. That doesn’t have anything to do with admission to
the school, does it? A. It would have something to do with
the assigning of them, the way you organize a school.
[70] Q. You mean you now assign children on the basis
of their grade level with some other grouping, other than
geographical zones ? A. When students are in a school we
group, hoping to do so—I mean to achieve better instruc
tions as a result of the grouping.
Q. What I want to clear is that happens after they are
admitted to the school, doesn’t it? A. That is correct.
Q. Now, you spoke about your building program, what
building program do you have? A. Well, that is pointed
out in the answer. We had a total of something under a ten
million dollar building program, which we have been work
ing on since 1960, and the buildings are practically complete
in a number of them and we will complete the others, we
hope, during the summer, and in addition to that the Trade
Schools, or the Technical Vocational Schools, they are
called, two of those will be built but they are on the drawing
boards, but otherwise from the standpoint of grades one
through twelve in the regular school the building program
is expected to be completed this summer.
Q. Well, that doesn’t have anything to do with desegre
gation, does it? You did not draw up that building program
with relation to desegregation, did you? [71] A. No. We
put buildings where we thought they were best needed in
our system.
Q. But your building program was not designed to meet
any problem of desegregation, was it? A. No.
Q. So you would have this building program whether
you had this de-segregation or integration, would you not ?
A. We have the buildings.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
47
Q. And if yon were to have a sudden influx of white
children into the Chatham County School System, you would
accommodate them in those white schools which you have
in existence, wouldn’t you? A. We have done that in the
past.
Q. Now, these trade schools that you spoke of that are
on the drawing hoards, they are negro trade schools, aren’t
they? A. One white and one negro.
Q. One white and one negro? A. Yes.
Q. And that would he financed by the state, did you say?
A. From the standpoint of construction cost, the state is
matching 50-50, and they are paying on the two about [72]
$779,000.00, and the local community is matching that, and
then largely the salary cost, the staff salary cost, will he
borne by the state with a good deal of the equipment com
ing from the state, and they will serve areas that extend
beyond the borders of the county.
Q. And those will be under jurisdiction, however, as to
the administration ? A. They will be under the administra
tion of the Chatham County School Board.
Q. And you are planning those for the future, right? A.
As I say, the plans are on the drawing boards now.
Q. And these future plans contemplate that these two
schools be segregated, is that right? A. That is right.
Q. Now, another administrative problem you said you
thought you had would be the instruction on the part of the
teachers. Did I understand you to say that the curriculum
was the same for both negro and white schools? A. Yes.
Q. Then what instruction problem would a teacher have?
A. I would think that teachers would have to make [73]
adjustments to a new situation, where they were all brought
together. Now, what they are, I am not sure that I can
identify it, but I do believe it would be a problem for them
to adjust.
Q. You can’t be any more specific than that as to what
the problem is ? A. Well, if I was a sociologist I probably
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
48
could make some guesses or estimates on it, but I do feel
that because of tradition and because of the fact teachers
of each race have taught students of their own race only,
that both would have adjustments to make. I am afraid
that I can’t identify them in a scientific manner.
Q. But these are all in the area of sociology and not in
education, are they not? A. Well, I could not say that edu
cation and instruction problems can be approached regard
less of sociological consideration with anybody, with any
group.
Q. But all of these problems which you are now talking
about would be social problems that you say arising from
the fact that negroes are now attending schools with white,
is that it ? A. I wouldn’t mean to say that all the problems
I see are in that area. It may be that when you analyze
them in detail you will see elements of sociology implication
all the way through.
[74] Q. All right, then you said you would have disci
pline problems. Do you have any discipline problems now?
A. Yes. But I think that anytime that you would mix
two races it would be my guess that there would be more
problems and problems of a different nature.
Q. That is just a guess. You don’t have any experience
in mixing schools, do you? A. No. I testified to the fact
that I had not had the experience with them.
Q. So, you are ĵ ŝt guessing at that, aren’t you? A.
I suppose that is the word, or assuming, perhaps.
Q. And then the final problem, which you said you
thought you would have, would be social problems, what do
you mean by that? A. Well, we are back to the same word.
I would think that from the standpoint of various things
that young people do in school, even their lunching, their
parties, and in various ways I think there would be some
adjustments necessary. If you are referring to teachers,
I think there again that teachers of both races would have
to make some adjustments to co-ordinate their efforts in
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
49
the same sense they do now, and we certainly have some
very fine work from both groups from the standpoint.
They simply have to do a lot of planning and [75] work
together to make adjustments.
Mrs. Motley: I think those are all the questions,
Your Honor.
The Court: All right, we will take out for five
minutes, and then if you all want to cross question
him some more, you can do so when we take back in.
The Marshal: Take a five minutes recess.
(Note: At this point a recess was had accord
ingly from 12:05, P. M., 12:18, P. M., at which time
the proceedings were resumed as follows.)
The Court: All right, I believe you said that you
had finished with the witness!
Mrs. Motley: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right, anything else for this wit
ness!
Mr. Leverett: Yes, sir, I have a few more ques
tions.
The Court: All right.
Recross Examination By Mr. Leverett:
Q. Mr. McCormac, isn’t it true that as Superintendent
of Schools the policy matters of the Board are not for you
to determine! [76] A. That’s right.
Q. Do you recommend policies or matters to the Board
when they do not request you to do- so! In absence of a
request from the Board do you undertake to advise and
instruct them on policies! A. Say, if we had a problem,
where there was no policy in it, and it was apparent that
we needed one, we would recommend to the Board that a
policy he adopted on it, but the Board would adopt the
policy and may or may not ask for advice.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
50
Q. Mr. McCormac, you were questioned about some Geor
gia law, you were aware, were you not, of the existence of
the Georgia laws in existence prior to January of 1961,
which provided for the cutting off of funds of any school
system that was de-segregated? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether or not your board was aware,
of those laws at that time? A. Yes, sir, I am sure they
were.
Q. Do you specifically recall that they had been men
tioned from time to time? A. Yes.
Q. Now, these administrative problems that counsel has
referred to, isn’t it true, Mr. McCormac, that this special
study committee was undertaking to determine, assess [77]
and consider those very problems when these hearings were
cut off by the filing of this law suit? A. Yes.
Q. Now, you went into one or two particular problems.
I will ask you this, Mr. McCormac, you have brought these
maps into court pursuant to subpoena, would you look at
plaintiff’s exhibit No. 1, which is the map—is that Chatham
County or is that Savannah? A. Chatham County with
nothing indicated for the city.
Q. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 is the map of Chatham County
showing the school districts of the county, excluding the
City of Savannah, for negro pupils, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Would you just count the number of such districts
on that map and state for the record how many there are
in order to simplify consideration of this matter? A. There
are 43, according to my count. I can’t be, sure that I have
the exact number.
Q. All right, let’s take plaintiff’s exhibit 2, which is
the map of the City of Savannah, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. For attendance areas for negro pupils? A. Yes, sir.
[78] Q. Would you, if you can, count the number of
such districts in the City of Savannah? A. I count 75, but
I). L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
51
I am not sure there are not duplications on this end of the
map.
Q. Then how many did you say there were with respect
to the county? Did you count forty something a moment
ago? Well, the record will speak for itself. Now, looking
at Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, which is, as I recall, the map of
Chatham County, showing attendance areas for white stu
dents, is that correct, sir? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Without counting the number of such districts, would
you say it seems to be comparable as far as numbers are
concerned to the number of such districts for negro? A.
Approximately.
Q. Now, the zones, or attendance areas on Plaintiff’s Ex
hibit 3 do not coincide with the zones on Plaintiff’s Exhibit
1, is that right? In other words, you do not use the same
zone arrangements on your map for Chatham County for
white students that you use for negro students? A. No.
Q. Now, is that true with respect to the City of Savan
nah also? A. Yes.
[79] Q. The map here of the City of Savannah, which
is plaintiff’s exhibit 4, for white students, that also has a
large number of such districts that would appear to be in
the neighborhood of 60 or 70 districts, would it not? A.
Yes.
Q. In other words, Mr. McCormac, isn’t it true that it
would enormous administrative problems in any effort to
sudden change from a biracial system to an integrated sys
tem? You would have to completely re-do all of these maps
if there was a sudden and abrupt change on a wholesale
basis? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any idea that that could be performed—
or do you have any idea about the period of time that would
be required to make such a change ? A. I don’t know, but I
have a good estimate on it, but starting from scratch on it
certainly would take a good long time, but how long I do not
know.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs-—Recross
52
Q. Your transportation, if you were to undertake to
completely change over, would you have to completely re
route all of your buses, all of your existing buses! A. I
imagine it would call for a change in the route in every
case.
Q. The specific detail of that problem is assigned to
someone else in the school system, some other official in [80]
the school system! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall his name! A. Benny Smith.
Q. In other words, you have one man that doesn’t do
anything except to deal with this problem of transporta
tion! A. Including the service garage.
Q. Are there two or more basic types of tests that you
administer to pupils to determine their educational abili
ties! A. Yes.
Q. What are those! A. Well, at the very beginning
there is the reading-readiness when the first graders come
in, and then grades three, eight and ten. There is the sys
tem wide test for all students on those grade levels.
Q. Do you have a type of test that is referred to as
mental maturity! A. Yes.
Q. Now, is there another general type of test of a differ
ent character that seeks to determine different qualities of
a student, if so, what is it called! A. In the sense of
achievement.
Q. Achievement? [81] A. Yes.
Q. In other words, let me see if I understand you, are
there two types of tests given, a mental maturity test and
an achievement test? A. Yes.
Q. Does the mental maturity test reflect the inept, or
does it reflect what he has gained from his education? A.
Theoretically, and again I am no expert in testing the men
tal maturity that would indicate the development of the
mind to this point, irrespective of subject matter context.
Q. What about the other tests that you referred to?
What does it do? A. The other tests determine the stand
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
53
ing of students with regard to what they have mastered in
the various subjects, mathematics, English and so on.
Q. Mr. McCormac, first, let me ask you this: Have any
such tests been performed at the Savannah Chatham Sys
tem? A. Have they been administered?
Q. Yes, sir? A. Yes.
Q. Now, isn’t it true that these tests always show a
greater disparity with respect to the negro as compared to
the white that you find within the white grouping alone?
[82] A. Yes, those that I have seen, the results that I have
seen.
Q. So, where you have an existing white school you
already know generally the range of deviation from the
norm within that particular school as it is presently con
stituted, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Suppose all of a sudden you should completely change
the complexion of that school by bringing in, say, 20 or 30
or 40 percent of negroes, would that radically change the
composition of that school so far as the result of these tests
norms and criterion that you have ? A. It would widen the
range.
Q. Would that make it necessary that you know in ad
vance of assignments to that school, what levels of achieve
ment, mental maturity, you would have in that school so
that you could make your assignments with that fact in
mind before you make the assignments? Do you under
stand what I am trying to get at? A. Yes, by assignment,
do you mean organization within the school and assignment
to class? Whatever grouping we would do that would have
to be taken into consideration.
Q. In other words, Mr. McCormac, there is a different
between the problems of assigning pupils with a view to the
achievement levels in maturity composition that will [83]
develop as between the existing system and this proposed
radical change that the plaintiffs are asking to be made?
A. Yes.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
54
Q. Now, with respect to discipline, yon stated that you
had not had any experience with discipline problems that
would occur in transition from a segregated to an inte
grated situation! A. Yes.
Q. Now, Dr. McCormac, I will ask you whether or not
you have read in the U. S. News & World Report and other
publications of similar problems that have transpired and
occurred in such places as New York and Washington,
D. C.f A. Yes, sir.
Q, Let me ask you this, Mr. McCormac: Isn’t it true
that the public school system has, over the years, evolved
into not only an educational institution, but by virtue of all
the other hereto considered curricula activities hasn’t it
evolved into somewhat of a social institution, as well! A.
Yes.
Q. With regard to dances, parties, athletic activities
and social affairs! A. Yes.
Q. Does the presence of this new complexion in the edu
cational system, does that present any additional problems
[84] that otherwise would not be there! A. I would think
so.
Q. Now, with regard to curriculum, would you explain to
the court, Mr McCormac, how you go about determining
what subjects will be given at a particular school! A.
Well, it is a long story, maybe I can start—
The Court: —a long story. That reminds me that
it is 12:30. I usually take out at 12:30 and come back
at 2 :30, but I am going to knock off a half hour this
afternoon and come back at 2 :00 o ’clock, rather than
2:30.
Now, I notice there are some people in the court
room without their coats. Of course, we don’t allow
that. You people that are in here without your coats,
be sure to get your coats on before you come back
in here this afternoon. You are welcome, but you
must come in proper regalia. We can’t have people
in here with their coats off. All right.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
55
The Marshal: Take a recess until 2:00 o ’clock
this afternoon.
(Note: At this point a recess was had from 12:30
P. M. until 2:30 P. M., of the same day, at which
time the proceedings were resumed as follows.)
Q. Mr. McCormac, I believe you stated that you would
have some curriculum problems in connection with any
transition irom a segregated school system [85] to an inte
grated school system? A. Yes.
Q. Would you elaborate on those for the court? A.
Well, although the subject offerings in our school are the
same for all schools, there are some variations, due to lack
of demand, and those vary from school to school.
Q. Let me see if I get you straight; does the Board pre
pare a list of approved courses, selected courses, which
may be offered in any of the schools in the system? A. Yes.
Q. Does it also have another list of required courses for
graduation which must be offered in any school system?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, with respect to these elective courses, what
determines whether or not a particular elective subject
will or will not be given in a particular specific school? A.
The demand in the school for it.
Q. How is that demand determine and by whom is it
determined?
Mr. Motley: We object to this, your Honor. This
is not relevant as to whether the schools are oper
ated on a segregated basis.
The Court: What do you say ?
[86] Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, I quite agree
with counsel. I was going to reserve my own objec
tion, but here is the posture that we were placed in.
I think that this testimony that I am bringing out
now would be relevant only with respect to the ques
tion of a plan. It is the contention and position of
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
56
these defendants that no plan is proper because
the defendants are not in default in any constitu
tional obligation imposed upon them and therefore
we should not get into it, but we are in the position,
this matter has been gone into by counsel for the
plaintiffs, and was gone into to some extent by
counsel for the interveners, and for fear that our
silence might be construe—
The Court: —I see what you are driving at. Go
ahead.
Mr. Leverett: All right, sir.
Q. The last question was how and by whom was the
determination made as to whether a particular elective
course would be given in any specific school? A. Students
with their counsellors and parents are permitted to make
choices from among the elective subjects to complete their
programs, that is, beyond the required subjects that all
have to take on each grade level.
Q. I f a sufficient number of students in a particular
school request a certain elective course that course [87]
is given there at that school? A. That is correct, without
special permission. I mean they are approved courses
and it is determined at the local school levels as to whether
they develop or not.
Q. All right, sir. So, the demand determines whether
or not a particular course, an elective course, is given in
that particular school, is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, sir. Now, in your experience with the
Savannah-Chatham County School System, do you find that
there are any disparities as between the courses, the elec
tive courses that are most frequently requested by the
negro race as compared to the courses that are requested
by members of the white race? A. There are some varia
tions.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
57
Q. Do you recall any particular courses? A. I can
give you an example. Three years in Latin would be
acceptable and three units of credit in Latin could be
counted toward graduation. In one school we may have
only two years in Latin offered, and in another three
years, and a third year develops usually in most schools
the enrollment dwindles when you get into the third year,
as one example. When you get into the trades, those
courses, for instance, if we are talking about brick masonry
you may have one group that demands [88] it with a good
strong program and another one that doesn’t demand it
at all.
Q. By one group, do you mean one race as opposed to
another? A. It could be either way, among or between.
Q. So, in going from a segregated to a desegregated
situation would that necessitate some redetermination or
re-assessment of this matter of curriculum development
in each school? A. It would likely do it at several points.
Q. Under your existing situation you sort of know
what to expect from each school? A. That is right, and
while we change from year to year in enrollments and
choices certain patterns do develop that are fairly reliable.
Q. So, if you change the composition of your school
attendance structure, would you then know equally to the
extent that you know now what to expect in a particular
school? A. We would not without considerable study.
Q. All right, sir. Now, I think you may have men
tioned personnel problems, would you state to the court
very briefly what you had reference to in regard to
personnel problems depending upon any change? A. As
I believe I stated, it would require adjustments [89] to the
job, the instructional problem, and we would find in any—
or rather we would find in either race that the teachers
had no experience in teaching students of another race,
and so I should think that it would require a great deal
of adjustment, which some may not be able to do.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
58
Q. In other words, I believe yon have previously testi
fied up to this point that white teachers have taught in
the white schools and the colored teachers have taught in
the negro schools? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And which necessarily means that none of your
teachers, so far as the Savannah-Chatham School System
is concerned, has had experience in teaching to members
of the other race, or teaching mixed schools? A. That’s
correct.
Q. And you think some re-orientation and perhaps
briefing and programs of study might have to be conducted
in your system in order to acclimate these teachers in
such a new situation? A. It would seem so to me very
definitely.
Q. Now, Mr. McCormac, do you know of any other
problems that might be faced by your board with reference
to any proposed change? A. Well, I am sure that there
are many problems [90] that would be involved. I am
not prepared and did not come prepared to itemize those
or to interpret them, but I am sure that there would be,
and I am sure that it would require work with a number
of members of our staff even to determine or isolate the
problems and then to point toward solutions of them, to
assess the situation.
Q. Did you come prepared at this trial anticipating
that this matter would be considered at this time? A. I
did not.
Q. At the appropriate time that it does become more
relevant, would you be in position at that time to have made
further studies and consultations with the members of
your staff? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Leverett: May it please the Court, that is
all we have, and again I would like to state that
it is our opinion that this evidence is not relevant
at this junction, but we offer it, not knowing whether
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
59
the court is going to rule out all of this other evi
dence of a similar nature that has been gone over
by the plaintiff on cross-examination.
The Court: I will admit it, subject to objection.
The Court: Have you gentlemen quit talking
over there by now. Now, listen, gentlemen, I can’t
let this keep going on, when I am trying to talk
to you all and you all carrying [91] on a long con
versation. I don’t know whether it is about this
case or about baseball or what.
Mr. Pittman: We are trying to determine if we
will use this witness now, or wait until they rest
and then put him back up, and so I believe we will
just let him come down.
The Court: All right, do you have any further
questions !
Mrs. Motley: No further questions, your Honor.
The Court: As I understand, Mr. Leverett, you
want him to get additional information and be sub
ject to recall with the information that you request,
is that correct?
Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, our position is this:
So far as today is concerned, we did not anticipate
that we would get into this line of evidence.
The Court: I just asked you the simple ques
tion.
Mr. Leverett: I am coming to it, but I think in
order to understand my answer the court needs to
be apprised of one or two other things, and that
is this: We do not come prepared on this particular
issue, but since it has been gone into we felt that
it was necessary that we go into it also in order to
avoid any implication that our silence could be con
strued as an admission that there are no problems
as of now, but if at any future time the Court should
feel that this matter is relevant, and I think it will
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
60
be revelant only as to a particular [92] plan, if it
was before this Court, and if this Court should
determine and we do not concede that the court
should, but should the Court determine that the
defendants are in default and that they should be
required to present some form of relief, then I
think this type of evidence would be very pertinent,
and I want to make it plain that we will have a
great deal more such evidence.
The Court: You haven’t answered my question
yet. You have been going round and round, but
you have not answered my question yet.
Mr. Leverett: All right, sir, I will try to answer
it.
The Court: Do you want this gentleman, who
has testified, to get the required information that
you asked him about that you could get, that he
could get for you, whether you want him to get
that information and return back later as a witness?
Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, that would require
two, three or four weeks study—
The Court: —I am not asking you that. I just
asked you a simple question which requires only a
simple answer.
Mr. Leverett: At the proper time, yes, sir.
The Court: Well, I haven’t got it yet. I f you
will, Mr. Witness, please get the information, which
he suggested you [93] get from your staff. You
have got that clear, haven’t you?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right, call your next witness.
Mr. Motley: We would like to call the Reverend
Stell.
The Marshal: Reverend Stell, come around to
the witness stand.
D. L. McCormac—for Plaintiffs—Recross
61
[94] L. S cott S tell, J r ., Sworn for the p laintiffs,
testified.
Direct Examination By Mr. Bell:
Q. State your full name and address, please? A. L.
Scott Stell, Jr., 1116 West 51st Street, Savannah, Georgia,
Minister of the Bethlehem Methodist Church.
Q. Keep your voice up, please. How long have you
lived in Savannah, Georgia! A. Eleven years.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in this case? A. I am.
Q. And you are also a negro, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Will you explain to the Court when you first became
interested in the desegregation of the Savannah Public
Schools? A. After the May 17, 1954, decision of the Su
preme Court, and when one of my kids became interested
in ROTC training.
Q. When did you first make known to the Board of
Education your desire that your child have a desegregated
education? A. In July of 1955.
Q. How did you make your desires known to the Board
of Education? [95] A. By a petition to the Board of
Education.
Q. By a petition to the Board of Education? A. Yes.
Mr. Leverett: May it please the Court, we object
to that testimony on the grounds that the, petition,
itself, would be the highest and best evidence.
The Court: Well, he can testify to it if he knows.
I will let him answer it.
Q. What did this petition seek?
The, Court: Now, you are getting into the peti
tion. I don’t think you can get into the contents of
the petition at all. He can state that he presented
L. Scott St ell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs-—Direct
62
a petition, but you can’t go into the merits of it.
I think your objection would be good on that. The
petition would be the highest and best evidence as
to that.
Mr. Bell: We merely asked, Your Honor, what he
was petitioning for.
The Court: Well, the petition would be the
highest and best evidence on that. He can say that
he filed a petition, but he can’t say what it was for
or anything about it, because the petition would be
the highest and best evidence.
Q. Well, did you file a petition with the School Board
in 1955? A. Yes.
[96] Q. That petition was in connection with your desire
for school desegregation? A. Yes, sir.
The Court: Now, you are getting right back into
it.
Mr. Bell: I didn’t ask him the contents of the
petition, Your Honor.
The Court: What did you ask him?
Mr. Bell: Whether this petition was in connec
tion with his desire which he has already given.
The Court: Well, that is getting right back into
it. He can state that he presented a petition.
Q. Did you receive any response from the Board of
Education concerning this petition? A. I did not.
Q. Do you know whether anyone else that signed the
petition received any response? A. As far as I know, they
didn’t.
Mr. Leverett: If it please the Court—
The Court: —well, he has answered the question.
He said that as far as he knew, he didn’t know.
Isn’t that right?
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
63
The Witness: I don’t know of anyone.
Q. Have yon filed any subsequent petition with the
School Board? [97] A. Yes, I did.
Mr. Bell: I will ask the Court Reporter to mark
this as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5.
(Note: Accordingly, same was then marked for
identification as Plaintiffs’ Eshibit No. 5.)
Q. I show you this petition, marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit No. 5, and ask you if you can identify that petition?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. What do you recognize it as? A. I recognize it as
a petition that was filed before the Board of Education in
October of 1959.
Q. And what does that petition call for?
Mr. Leverett: May it please the Court, the peti
tion will speak for itself.
The Court: I think so.
Q. Would you read—it is a very short paragraph—
would you read the substance of the petition? A. “ We,
the undersigned, are adult citizens of the State of Georgia
and residing in the City of Savannah and the County of
Chatham, Georgia. Each of us is a parent of children
presently enrolled in the public schools of the City of
Savannah, Chatham County, Georgia, or a parent of chil
dren who will be eligible to enroll in such schools in Sep
tember of 1960. Each of us herewith petitions the Board
of Public [98] Education of the City of Savannah and the
County of Chatham, Georgia, to prepare and adopt a plan
for the reorganization of the entire public school system
of Savannah and Chatham County, Georgia, on a non-racial
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
64
basis as required by a decision of the United States Su
preme Court in the school segregation case, which will
become effective with the beginning of the September 1960
school term. We, the undersigned, sincerely believe that
with proper guidance and leadership on the part of the
Public Board of Education such a plan could be put into
effect in our community, and that such a plan, if conceived
and executed in good faith, would be supported by all citi
zens of good will.”
Q. Did you sign that petition! A. Ldid.
Q. Do you note qh the petition that there are other per
sons who are plaintiffs in this suit! A. Yes.
Q. Would you read their names, please! A. David
Nicholls, Clifford Spikes, Mrs. M. J. Brown, Mrs. Catherine
Pearson, Mrs. Cornelia J. Powell.
Q. I only wanted you to read the names of the plaintiffs
in this suit, only the names of those who are plaintiffs in
this suit! A. Rev. Stell, Hosea Williams, Leo Garrison,
Mrs. [99] Ester F. Garrison, Mrs. S. T. Hunter, Mr.
Hezekiah Hudson.
Q. Are all of those names that you mentioned, that you
read, who are plaintiffs in this suit, are they marked with
a “ check” on the copy of the petition! A. Yes.
Mr. Bell: Your Honor, plaintiffs move to intro
duce Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5, which is a copy of
the petition.
Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, we object to it and
I will make my objections known by asking this wit
ness some questions.
The Court: All right, then just hold it in abey
ance until you all finish with this witness.
Q. Following the filing of this petition with the Board,
Rev. Stell, what action did the Board take in response to
the petition! A. If the Board took any action it did not
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
65
so inform me or any other members who signed the petition
to my knowledge.
Q. Let me ask you this: Did you, or any of the other
persons, who signed the petition, take further steps to
get the Board to began desegregation of the schools? A.
Yes, we made repeated appearances in meetings with the
Board of Education and asked on many occasions if any
thing had been done, or any plans worked out relative to
the [100] petition. We had a series of meetings with them.
Q. When did these meetings take place? A. We had
successive meetings during 1960. I would not be, able to
recall the exact dates.
Q. Did you ever get any final word as to whether the
Board would or would not honor your request for segrega-
gation ? A. The Board informed us that it was turned over
to the counsel and as soon as their attorney made such a
report to them, or such recommendation, they would so
inform us.
Q. Approximately, when were you advised that your
petition, your request, was being turned over by the Board
to its attorney?
Mr. Leverett: May it please the Court; at this
point I think he ought to specify how he was advised,
because if it was by letter then I think the letter
would he the highest and best evidence.
The Court: I think you are right. You may ask
him how he was advised.
Q. I will first ask you how you were advised? A. During
the period while the Board was in session there was a
representative group who approached the Board and when
we asked the, question, it was simply turned over to the
attorney.
Q. You were advised this by the Board? [101] A. In
the Board meeting.
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—■for Plaintiffs—Direct
66
Q. When did your groups stop going to the meetings
and making requests?
Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, that question on its
face is leading, and it presupposes they stopped
going and is putting words in the witness’ mouth.
The Court: What was the question?
Mr. Bell: Let me re-state the question, your
Honor.
Q. You indicated, Rev. Stell, that during 1960 yon and
other members of your group went to the Board Meetings
with the hope of persuading the Board to initiate school
desegregation. Now, did these meetings continue up until
the time this suit was filed? A. They did, yes.
Q. Now, when did you say these meetings began? A.
I can’t he positive, but I am sure it was early 1960 that we
started meetings with the board asking for answer hut I
can’t say as to the exact month.
Q. You say the meetings began in 1960? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember when the suit was filed? A. The
suit was filed in January of 1962.
Q. And did the meetings continue until such time as
the suit was filed? [102] A. Yes.
Q. Let’s make one thing clear for the record—we have
been talking in terms of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 as the petition.
Look at that. Do you recognize it as a copy of the petition
you filed? A. Yes, this is a copy.
Q. You first became interested in desegregation of the
schools when your son indicated interest in ROTC? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Can you explain that to the court, please? A.
Nothing other than he said that he wanted to become identi
fied with the armed forces, and he would like to have ROTC
training and, of course, there was none available, and then
thinking in terms of the, Supreme Court Decision of May,
L. Scott St ell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
67
1954, I felt that he should be able to get that training since
he wanted it.
Q. I understood you to say that there was none avail
able, which school was your son attending at the time? A.
Alfred E. Beach High School.
Q. Is that a negro high school? A. Yes.
Q. Was there any ROTC training available at any of
the white schools? A. Yes.
[103] Q. You mean by that he could not be admitted
to the white high school? A. That’s correct.
Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, at this point, we
would like to object to that testimony on the ground
that it is irrelevant and immaterial and has no point
in this case at this time.
The Court: Well, it might or might not. You
will have him on cross-examination.
Q. When was the last meeting, Rev. Stell, you attended
with the Board of Education, concerning desegregation
matters? A. Late, 1960.
Q. In late 1960? A. Yes, probably the last meeting
that the Board had in 1960.
Q. To your knowledge, has there been any meeting
since? A. To my knowledge, no. I presume they have
monthly meetings, but not with reference to this petition.
Q. Have there been any other meetings concerning the
school desegregation since 1960? A. If so, I was not noti
fied.
Mr. Bell: No further questions, your Honor.
The Court: All right, you may proceed. Let
me see [104] that petition. You may proceed with
the cross-examination.
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct
68
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
Cross-examination by Mr. Leverett:
Q. Reverend Stell, I didn’t get your address. Would
you mind repeating that to me? A. 1116 West 51st Street,
Savannah, Georgia.
The Court: This petition isn’t signed by any
body.
Mr. Leverett: Yes, sir. We are going into that.
The Court: All right.
Q. How long have you lived at that address, Rev. Stell!
A. Approximately eight years.
Q. Is your wife living? A. Yes.
Q. Is she living with you? A. Yes.
Q. You are suing in this suit as next friend to your
son, Ralph? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what grade is he in now? A. Twelfth grade.
Q. He is in the 12th grade? A. Yes.
[105] Q. Does he graduate this June, or this May? A.
Scheduled to.
Q. Do you have any other children? A. Yes.
Q. How many? A. Two others.
Q. Of course, their names do not appear in this suit, do
they? Now, you stated on direct examination, at the outset,
that this was the petition you signed. The truth of the
matter is nobody signed this petition, did they? A. This is
a copy of the petition.
Q. Then why did you state on direct examination that
you signed it? There is no signatures on there, is there?
A. I signed a petition. This is a copy of the petition.
Q. That was not what you said when you were asked
the question, was it?
69
Mrs. Motley: That is arguing with the witness.
It is obviously a copy, your Honor. He testified that
he signed a petition.
The Court: Well, I think that is argumentative.
Mr. Leverett: The point is, your Honor, this
witness testified unqualifiedly that this is the petition
which he signed.
[106] The Court: Yes, and further in the peti
tion, as I recall this lawyer here, after consulting
with another lawyer there, asked him if it was a copy,
and he said yes, it was a copy, as I recall it.
Mr. Leverett: All right, sir. We therefore move
to strike from the record all references to this petition
on the ground that the original would be the highest
and best evidence, it having been shown conclusively
that this is a copy, not even a carbon copy.
The Court: Well, there is not the signature of
anybody on there. It is typewritten. I will sustain
your objection. However, I will hear from you first.
Mr. Bell: Well, your Honor, this again is kind
of time wasting. We could go into an argument
about it and we could cite cases on both sides as to
the admissibility of the document, such as this. Cer
tainly the cases in the federal court—
The Court: Well, here is a petition that is not
signed by anybody. It is a typewritten copy, just
like you take Sam Jones or Bill Smith and type it in
there.
Mr. Bell: The witness had not indicated it was
anything other than a copy. He recognizes this as
a copy of the petition which he signed in 1959.
The Court: Wait a second, if you will. He did at
[107] first until you asked him if that was a copy
rather than the original and he said yes, but—
Mr. Bell: —well, your Honor—
The Court: —well, I rule against you.
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
70
Mr. Bell: Well, let me say this:
The Court: No, just don’t say anything more.
Just set down. I rule against you.
Q. Now, Reverend Stell, you stated that you first be
came interested in seeking desegregation of the schools in
1955, following the Brown decision. I ask you whether or
not you were familiar with the fact that at that time there
were Georgia laws which cut off funds to any school system
operating on a desegregation basis'? Were you familiar
with that fact in 1955! A. Yes.
Q. Were you also familiar with the fact that the General
Appropriations Act of the General Assembly of Georgia—
Mrs. Motley: —He is arguing with the witness
about what the laws are.
Mr. Leverett: Well, if he is familiar with it,
your Honor—
The Court: —I guess it is to show the intent, but
you are certainly arguing with the witness.
Mr. Leverett: All right, sir. I think this will
terminate that, your Honor.
[108] Q. In view of your knowledge of those laws, Rev.
Stell, are you telling this court that you wanted the Savan
nah Board of Education to proceed to desegregate although
it would resulted at that time in all the students being de
nied an education in Chatham County! A. No, it wasn’t at
that point, but it was the point that a higher law than the
law of Georgia had spoken, which I considered to be the
law.
Q. Even thought it would have meant the depriving all
of the students in Chatham County of an education, you
wanted to proceed to violate the Georgia law?
Mrs. Motley: That’s arguing with the witness,
your Honor.
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
71
The Court: Well, I think you have answered
the question three times, and I do think it is argu
mentative. Just don’t ask any more of that.
Q. You stated, Rev. Stell, that you appeared before some
meetings of this committee considering this problem that
had been created by the board, did you actually appear
yourself and present any plan? A. That was not my state
ment.
Q. I am asking you, did you ? A. Did you say the Com
mittee or the Board of Education?
[109] Q. The Board or the Committee, or either one?
A. I appeared before the Board of Education, not before
the Committee.
Q. Who was present at that Board Meeting? A. I
couldn’t name them all.
Q. Was the entire hoard membership there? A. At
least a larger portion of them.
Q. What is the first date on which you attended a meet
ing of the hoard? A. That, I can’t he positive as to the
date.
Q. Well, what year was it in? A. 1960.
Q. In 1960? A. Yes.
Q. You say that was a meeting of the hoard and not a
meeting of this special committee that had been created
to study the problem ? A. That’s right.
Q. Were you aware of the fact that a special committee
had been created with Mr. Myrick in charge of it, Chairman
of it? A. I was not.
Q. You don’t recall seeing the public announcements
in the newspapers to the effect that such a committee would
[110] hold public hearings and for interested parties that
had any suggestions to come in and present those sugges
tions and to assist the board in the solution of this problem ?
A. No, sir.
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—■for Plaintiffs-—Cross
72
Q. Well, at any time did you go before the board with
any plan to assist them! A. I simply went to the board
and asked them if they had reached any decision as to our
petition, and the board did not ask for my help or my plans,
they did not indicate that they had gone far enough to even
think in terms of a plan, so I didn’t offer them my plans.
Q. Of course, you were aware of the fact, were you not,
Eev. Stell, that Mr. Alexander, the Board’s attorney that
initially started considering this question passed away and
Mr. Morris was appointed to take his place, isn’t that true!
A. Yes, but he didn’t pass until he had the petition in his
possession for some time.
Q. Of course, you don’t know what study he had made
with respect to it, or whether he had completed his study of
it, do you! A. All I know is that he reported to the board
in one of the meetings where we were that he had not gotten
to it.
Q. Also, Reverend Stell, isn’t it true that [111] around
in 1958 or 1959 that the entire Board of Education in
Chatham County resigned en masse because of the failure
of a bond issue that was needed in order to construct neces
sary schools to accommodate children! A. I remember the
board resigning.
Q. And then a completely new board was appointed!
A. Yes, sir.
The Court: When was that now! What year
was that!
Mrs. Motley: The answer says January 1st,
1959.
Mr. Leverett: The Board members resigned,
your Honor, for the Court’s information on Decem
ber 1st, 1958 and the new board took over in 1959.
The Court: All right.
L. Scott St ell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
73
Q. Now, following the inauguration of the new hoard in
due course, isn’t it true, Rev. Stell, that a comprehensive
building program was commenced after another bond issue
succeeded? A. Yes.
Q. And are you aware of the fact that that necessitated
tremendous expense, tremendous expenditure and energies
of the hoard and its attorney in acquiring the sites and
getting the bonds validated and getting the contracts for
the schools and otherwise?
Mrs. Motley: We object to this, your Honor. It
[112] does not have anything to do with this case.
The Court: I think it would have something to
do with this case because of the reason to show the
extent of the Board of Education, or the intent of
the Board of Education, to proceed with the matter.
It might or might not.
Mrs. Motley: This witness doesn’t know any
thing about the intent of the hoard.
The Court: Well, he certainly did. He said that
he knew the new hoard had come into effect. That
was what he just testified to, as I understood him.
Mrs. Motley: I don’t believe this witness can
testify to what the board intended to do.
The Court: Well, he couldn’t, but the Court
could from the information or from his testimony,
maybe.
Mr. Leverett: Your Honor, we were simply try
ing to show some of the problems and if this witness
was aware of them.
The Court: Go ahead.
Q. Would you answer the question, please? A. Will
you restate it, please?
Q. Were you aware of the fact that after the inaugura
tion of the new Board of Education that that Board was
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—•for Plaintiffs—Cross
L. Scott St ell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
finally successful in getting a bond issue approved, follow
ing which it had to devote a tremendous amount of efforts
and time [113] to the new building program? A. I would
not know of the intimate working forces and obligations of
the board. I do know that we did have a new board, but
just what they had to do and what they had to do it with
and all of that, I wouldn’t know.
The Court: I think that answers it.
Q. You are aware, though, that there was a comprehen
sive building program that took place after the new board
went into office, are you not! A. There were some buildings
going on, yes.
Q. Now, on how many occasions did you appear before
the Board? A. Roughly, six or seven times.
Q. The first time was in 1960? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who accompanied you to that meeting? A.
Rev. Curtis J. Jackson, Rev. Patterson—well, I don’t know
as I can call all of the persons’ names that were there.
There were quite a number of negro citizens there.
Q. Now, isn’t it true that Rev. Jackson, himself, did
not have any particular plan, or any suggestion to help the
board—he just asked the board if they had taken any action
on the petition? A. I would not know what Rev. Jackson
might have [114] known about that.
Q. No. I asked you what he did? A. I wouldn’t know.
Q. You said that you were there with him. I want to
know if he presented any plan in your presence? A. I
wouldn’t know whether he presented any plans to them or
not.
Q. If he had presented them and you were there, you
would have known about it, would you not? A. Possibly.
75
Q. Did you listen to all of the discussions that went on
at the meetings? A. There were several times that I
couldn’t hear.
The Court: What?
The Witness: There were times when I couldn’t
hear, but I was listening, but there were times when
I couldn’t hear what was being said.
Q. Now, when was the next time that you went to the
board meeting? A. I can’t cite the dates of the appear
ances before the board.
Q. Would you say there were five or six? A. Six or
seven.
Q. But at none of these meetings, though, did the
[115] board advise you that they would not do anything,
did they? A. Nor did they advise me that they would do
anything.
Q. Now, isn’t it true, Reverend, that they told you the
matter was being studied and considered? A. They told
me that they had turned it over to the attorney and that he
was to report to them on it.
Q. Now, right there, isn’t it true that was in 1959 that
the attorney was considering the matter? A. Perhaps so.
That was why I said a few minutes ago when you said that
this attorney who was studying it had passed, that’s why I
said that he didn’t pass until he had the petition for some-
Q. Isn’t it a fact, Reverend, that at one of those meet
time in his possession.
mgs that you said you attended the board asked for a report
from Mr. Alexander and he stated that he had been study
ing it but that the problems were so immense, that there
were administrative problems and that he needed the assist
ance of some members of the board and that pursuant a
committee was appointed? Were you present at that meet-
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
76
mg? A. I was either present or I read about it, I am not
sure which.
Q. That was Mr. Alexander at that time? A. Yes.
[116] Q. All right, now, do you recall that in 1959 such
a committee was appointed with Mr. Myrick as chairman?
A. I don’t remember when it was appointed, hut I remem
ber he was chairman of the committee that was supposed
to look into it.
Q. Do you recall that that committee actually held some
hearings? A. I do not know whether any hearings were
held.
Q. You didn’t attend any of them? A. No, sir, I didn’t
attend any of them.
Q. Rev. Stell, have you, or your son, in whose behalf
this suit is brought, have you ever sought for admission
to any particular school, or sought transfer to any other
school? A. I did not.
Q. Now, what school did you say he was attending?
A. Alfred E. Beach High School.
Q. Is that the school that he has attended ever since
he was in the Chatham County High School System? A.
Yes.
Q. You have never applied for him to transfer to an
other school? A. Only through the Board of Education
for this plan of desegregation, that is the only method that
we have [117] used.
Q. But you have never asked that he be transferred to
any other school, any particular school, have you? A No,
sir.
Mr. Leverett: That’s all.
The Court: I just want to ask counsel. I cer
tainly want to be considerate, but don’t argue with
the witness and when I go to rule don’t keep on
waving your arms and objecting because I have al
ready made up my mind. I don’t want to be dis
courteous. Let’s just go along and try the case in
an orderly manner. All right.
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
7 7
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
Cross-examination by Mr. Leonard:
Q. Mr. Stell, what grade did you say your son was in!
A. In the 12th grade.
Q. How old is Ralph! A. Seventeen.
Q. Do you have any other children at this present time
in school! A. No.
Q. Does the Savannah School Board have a 13th [118]
grade! A. No.
Q. To what school or grade under the defendant School
Board are you attempting to send your son! A. He wasn’t
in the 12th grade when the petition was filed.
Q. As of the present time, there is no relief asked in
this action to which you would be a party? A. Except for
others of my race.
Q. For yourself or for your son there is no specific
relief being asked! A. No.
Mr. Leonard: I would move for a dismissal of
this plaintiff at this time, your Honor, because he
is not a party to the prayer which is being made for
relief in this action.
The Court: You mean he should he dismissed
as a petitioner because he is not a party to this case?
Mr. Leonard: Yes, sir.
The Court: What do you say?
Mrs. Motley: Well, his son has not graduated
yet. His son may fail and be there for another year.
The Court: Well, I will take that under advise
ment also.
Q. Mr. Stell, who determines whether ROTC training
[119] will be given, the Army or the School System? A.
The School System as it relates to the Chatham County
School System, and perhaps in conjunction with the Army.
78
The Court: That was what I was thinking about
now whether the Chatham County Board of Educa
tion or the Army had charge of the BOTC.
Q. Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Stell, that you contend
that the Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education
can determine whether it will put BOTC in any school it
wishes?
Mrs. Motley: He said he didn’t know, your Honor.
The Court: All right.
Q. Mr. Stell, did you testify that the reason you first
went into this matter in 1954 was because you wanted your
son to have BOTC training? A. There are BOTC Units
in Savannah.
The Court: That isn’t answering the question.
He asked you didn’t you testify that the reason you
went before the Board of Education was to see if
you couldn’t get your boy into the BOTC, as he
wanted to get in it? He asked you if you testified
to that?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. Now, are the admission requirements to BOTC gov
erned by the School Board? A. I would think so.
[120] Q. Don’t you think there would be Army stand
ards, perhaps, which would be applicable in such cases?
A. Well, if we felt that he could meet the other require
ments.
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
The Court: Let me make a suggestion. You all
can get that evidence as to whether the BOTC is
under the government regulations or whether it is
under the Board of Education jurisdiction and then
you can renew your objections as to his testimony
79
after you get that information as to whether or not
it is under the jurisdiction of the Government be
cause he did say that the reason he went before the
Board of Education was to get his son into the ROTC.
So, you can get that information and present it to
me before the case is over.
Q. The son to which that had reference is no longer in
school, is he, Reverend Stell? A. That’s right.
Q. With respect to your son, Ralph, how is he doing
in school? A. He is scheduled to graduate.
Q. Has his marks been good enough? A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything in Ralph’s education that you feel
is less than what he would have had in a mixed schools by
the way of subjects? [121] A. Yes.
Q. What subjects? A. For instance, he would have had
the advantage of a superior typing class and he was inter
ested in typing.
Q. Do I understand that he went to a school that didn’t
have typing available? A. Oh, yes, they had typing with
approximately one typewriter for every six students in
the class.
Q. Then do I understand that the basis for your applica
tion here is the inequality of the facilities? A. Yes.
Q. Then it is not based upon a constitutional right. It
is based upon the fact that you wanted a better education
for Ralph? A. No, I would not say it was based solely on
the fact that I wanted a better education for Ralph, but
that is included, and also upon his constitutional rights.
Q. Well, tell me, Reverend Stell, in what respects do
you think his education has fallen down in the Savannah
Schools? A. In what respects has his education fallen
down?
Q. Yes? A. I would not be able—
Q. —what has it lacked?
L. Scott St ell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
80
Mrs. Motley: May it please the Court: The
plaintiff [122] says that he has brought this suit
to desegregate the schools, and he is now trying to
have this man testify as to the lack of certain things
in the child’s education which this man, obviously,
not being a school teacher or principal or an educa
tor is unable to say. It is clear as to what his suit
is brought for, and the complaint says what it is
brought for, and his petition says what it is brought
for, and he said it was for his constitutional rights,
and the petition or complaint says so, too.
The Court: Well, read that portion of the peti
tion to me.
Mr. Leonard: “ Plaintiffs allege that as a result
of the operation of the school system on a racially
segregated basis many courses of the school cur
riculum are open only to white pupils and white
teachers.” That was paragraph 8.
Now, paragraph 9: “ Plaintiffs, and members of
the class which they represent, are injured by the
refusal of defendants to cease operation of a com
pulsory biracial school system in Chatham County.
—The plaintiffs, and members of their class, are
injured by the policy of assigning teachers, princi
pals and other school personnel on the basis of the
race and color of the children attending a particular
school and the race and color of the person to be
assigned.
The injury which plaintiffs and members of their
class suffer as a result of the operation of a compul
sory biracial [123] school system in Chatham County
is irreparable and shall continue to irreparably in
jure plaintiffs and their class until enjoined by this
court. ’ ’
The Court: It says to compel to attend. Didn’t
you read that?
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
81
Mr. Leonard: That is correct, your Honor.
The Court: Well, I think, under that, I will let
him go ahead and ask the question.
Q. Will you state, please, Eeverend Stell, what injury
to Ralph’s education has occurred! A. I would not be
able to point out all of the particulars in which he was
injured, but the dual system of education, itself, has a
tendency to suppress the ambition and the desire of the kid.
Q. Mr. Stell, are you giving that as a general opinion
or in the case of Ralph alone? A. I think it could be ac
cepted as a general opinion.
Mr. Leonard: Then I move to strike the answer,
your Honor, as this witness is unqualified to express
a general opinion on the subject.
The Court: Well, I will let it go in. I am letting
everything else go in. I just as well let that go in
also.
Q. Mr. Stell, will you come down to grips with [124]
this for a moment? You are alleging, as a plaintiff, on
behalf of your son, that he has been injured by this school
system, not by being in one school rather than another, you
say that it is a system which has injured him, that he has
been denied courses in the curriculum which are opened to
whites. What courses has he been denied? A. If we can
go back to the ROTC training course.
Q. You consider that a course? A. It is a training
offered by the Savannah School System.
Q. Outside of the ROTC possibility, are there any other
courses? A. Off hand, I can’t remember all the courses.
I am far removed from the school, as such, in that sense.
Q. Your present testimony then is that you know of
no courses that he has been deprived of? A. I couldn’t
say that.
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
L. Scott Stell, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Cross
Q. Well, if you know them, will you state them?
Mrs. Motley: He has just testified, your Honor,
that he doesn’t know all of the courses.
The Court: I will withhold admitting or reject
ing his testimony until you can get the records to
show whether the ROTC is under the supervision
of the Chatham County School System or under the
jurisdiction of the United States. You can present
that [125] at sometime before the closing of this
case, and I will rule on it at that time as to whether
to dismiss his testimony in its entirety or not.
Mr. Leonard: I only wanted to bring out this
point, that as to the future, of course, there can be
no injury because there is no school to which Rev
erend Stell’s son can go under the jurisdiction of
the Defendants. As to the past, we have yet to find
an injury except this question of the ROTC which
your Honor has just ruled on.
The Court: Well, I have ruled on that, but you
can get the other and present it at the proper time.
Mr. Leonard: Thank you, sir.
The Court: Anything else for this witness, any
body?
Mr. Leonard: That’s all, your Honor.
The Court: All right, you may go down.
Mrs. Motley: May it please the Court: We have
several other plaintiffs in this case in addition to
Rev. Stell, who have children in the public schools
of Savannah. I was wondering whether the defend
ants would be willing to stipulate to that, or whether
we will have to put up all of these plaintiffs to show
that they have children in the public schools of the
City of Savannah and Chatham County and is oper
ated on a segregated basis.
The Court: What do you say?
8 3
[126] Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, I would be
willing to stipulate to the presence of some of the
plaintiffs in the school system and their probable
attendance in the next fall, and that—
The Court: —I didn’t get what you said.
Mr. Leonard: We will concede their physical
presence in the school and their probable attendance
in the coming fall, however, we will not concede that
the existence of the dual school system is injuring
them.
The Court: I am sure you wouldn’t admit that.
But what you want is simply an admission that
they are present and would testify, in substance, to
what the preacher just on the stand testified?
Mrs. Motley: Yes, that they have children pres
ently enrolled in the school system. He testified
that his son was in the twelfth grade, and there are
other plaintiffs in the case that we could call who
will say that they have children presently enrolled,
all of which would just consume time, and all we
want is a stipulation that these other plaintiffs
have children presently enrolled in the school sys
tem.
The Court: Well, unless you want to cross-
examine some of these.
Mr. Leonard: Well, if paragraph 8 and the
injuring paragraph 9 can be withdrawn, I don’t
think we will have to cross-examine them.
[127] The Court: Then I gather by that that
you would like to cross-examine them.
Mr. Leonard: I would like to cross-examine
them in view of that.
The Court: Well, that is your privilege, I think.
Mrs. Motley: Well, he can call them, your Honor.
I am not trying to preclude him from calling them.
Colloquy
84
The Court: Well, now, I may be in error. I
want to be sure I understood you. What you want
to do is to cross-examine them!
Mr. Leonard: That is correct, your Honor. It
is our point that the allegation as to injury in the
complaint has not been shown.
The Court: Well, I think, under that, you had
better present them then.
Mr. Leonard: Since conferring with other coun
sel, we will stipulate that the plaintiffs will be in
school next fall, and we will not ask to cross-examine
them.
The Court: All right, that eliminates that then.
Mrs. Motley: That was all I was trying to get,
your Honor. I didn’t want to preclude them from
calling the plaintiffs, but I just didn’t want to have
put each one of them up and have them name their
children and the grades they are in.
The Court: All right, they agree to the stipu
lation, so that’s that. Anything else!
[128] Mrs. Motley: Well, that’s all for the
plaintiffs, your Honor.
The Court: All right, now you may proceed,
gentlemen, for the defense.
Mr. Leverett: May it please the Court, on be
half of the defendants, we would like to introduce
into evidence the certified answer, which is a mo
tion for a preliminary injunction and which serves
the same purpose as an affidavit, as I understand.
Mrs. Motley: I don’t understand him introduc
ing the pleadings into evidence, your Honor.
The Court: I don’t either. What was it!
Mr. Leverett: We have a verified answer, your
Honor.
The Court: I know, but the pleadings are never
evidence. That is what I charge the jury, that they
Colloquy
85
will have the pleadings out with them, not as evi
dence, for them to read over, if they so desire, to
get the exact contentions of the respective parties.
That is what I always charge the jury. The plead
ings are not evidence, of course, unless the counsel
agree to it.
Mr. Leverett: Let me explain my position. I
am not trying to argue with the Court. This is a
motion for a preliminary injunction. Under federal
practice, your Honor, affidavits are admissible, and,
therefore, this is a verified answer, which [129] is
no different, in substance, from an affidavit, by the
way of opposing the motion for preliminary in
junction, and we wish to offer it into evidence for
the court’s consideration.
Mrs. Motley: Your Honor, we don’t have any
objections.
The Court: Well, if you don’t have any objec
tions, that’s that. It is admitted without objections.
All right, now who is going to have charge of present
ing the evidence for this array of lawyers over
here.
Mrs. Motley: Excuse me, your Honor. Is Mr.
Leverett through.
Mr. Leverett: I was conferring with my asso
ciate counsel. May it please the Court, that is all
the defendants have, hut we would like to reserve
the right to bring in additional testimony following
whatever else takes place here.
The Court: That’s all right.
Mrs. Motley: Now, before the others proceed,
Your Honor, I would like to make a motion.
The Court: All right.
Mrs. Motley: And that is we would like to move
the court to require the defendants to bring in a
plan of desegregation in the next two weeks, based
Colloquy
86
on the testimony already in the record. Now, as we
understand this, this is not a trial on the merits of
this ease. It is a trial of a hearing for a preliminary
injunction, and we think that there is now [130]
before the Court conclusive evidence that the schools
of the City of Savannah and Chatham County are
operated on a racially segregated basis. There is
no controversy as to that. Secondly, as your Honor
knows, the law is settled by the Supreme Court in
the Brown case that segregation itself injures negro
children in the school system. That is what the
Supreme Court’s decision is all about, so we do not
have to prove that. The Court has already held
that as a matter of law, that segregated facilities
are inherently unequal, so there is no dispute as
to the facts of this case, and there is no controversy
as to what the law is, and so we think that we have
made out a case for a preliminary injunction. There
is no dispute as to the facts or as to the law,
and so we ask the Court at this time to require
the defendants to bring in a plan within the next
two weeks. Now, that is the alternative prayer
of our motion for a preliminary injunction. We
ask the Court to enjoin the system of operating
the schools of the City of Savannah and Chatham
County on a segregated basis and to enumerate those
things which it wants specifically enjoined. In the
alternative we have prayed that the defendants be
required to submit a plan and at this time we move the
Court, on the basis of the testimony already before
the Court, for an order requiring the defendants to
bring in a plan.
The Court: Just a minute. I have a memoran
dum here [131] that I want to get. This is it.
Now, as I understand, your motion that a biracial
school system exists in Savannah-Chatham County,
Colloquy
87
Georgia, under the jurisdiction of defendant board.
The plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunc
tion requiring desegregation of the schools in the
county at the opening of the schools in the fall of
1963, unless at the trial of this case—in other words,
that is your motion, in substance!
Mrs. Motley: Yes.
The Court: Now, I will say that perhaps you
would be entitled to an injunction unless at the trial
of this case commenced before this Court on today
at Brunswick, Georgia, either the plaintiffs shall
fail to sustain by proof the allegations of injury
to them as asserted in their petition, or if the de
fendants and/or interveners shall sustain by proof
averments of their pleas and answers and the amend
ments thereto justifying the operation of a biracial
system.
I will say, unless the defendants prove either
one or both of these answers or pleas, that you would
be entitled to your preliminary injunction; but if
the plaintiffs, as I have said, in the trial of this case,
either the plaintiffs shall fail to sustain by proof
the allegations of injury to them, as asserted in
their petition, unless they do that, or if the defend
ants and/or the interveners shall sustain by proof
averments [132] of their pleas and answers and the
amendments thereto justifying the operation of a
biracial system, unless they prove that, you would
be entitled to an injunction. I am going to hear
evidence on that now.
Mrs. Motley: The defendants are through with
their evidence, your Honor.
The Court: The interveners are not. But you
can renew your motion when they get through, if
you so desire. All right, you may proceed.
Colloquy
88
Mrs. Motley: Are yon denying our motion!
The Court: Yes, unless they meet these two re
quirements. If they don’t meet these two require
ments, then you would be entitled to your prelimi
nary injunction.
Mrs. Motley: Well, we think that the interveners ’
testimony, as they have already indicated, is not
on the issue.
The Court: That is what I said this morning,
when we started, that if you have any objections to
the interveners’ pleas or evidence or statement—
that I am going to hear the evidence and then you
make your motion after they complete their testi
mony. You can make your motion at that time.
And you can renew this motion too, and then I can
take it up at that time, but I do want to get all the
facts of the case on both sides, so if you all will
proceed, I think that will be the best thing.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, speaking for the in
terveners [133] this afternoon I would like first to
say to the attorneys for the plaintiffs that it was my
understanding that this is a trial on the merits, on
this action, and not merely on the motion.
The Court: Well, it looks like I am proceeding
on that theory of hearing it all.
Mr. Leonard: I believe that is so, your Honor.
However, if we have by that deprived the plaintiffs
of any proof, which she would have put on in support
of her complaint, I think the plaintiffs would be
entitled on that basis to put in such additional proof
that she might feel was necessary.
The Court: Well, under your statements, as I
recall, you think you have made out your case under
the decision of the Supreme Court, as you say?
Mrs. Motley: Yes.
The Court: And I say that you have, unless they
can prove one or two of these matters that I have
Colloquy
89
just stated. That’s your issue. So, you may pro
ceed. I think I made that statement at the begin
ning this morning, that I would hear the evidence
and then if you had any objections to any of it, which
I presume you will have, then you make that at the
conclusion of their evidence. Then you certainly
can’t be hurt on the record, and they can’t he hurt
on the record. So, I think that’s fair.
[134] Mrs. Motley: I may have misunderstood
this gentleman, hut our contention is that this is
not a trial on the merits, and we don’t agree to have
a trial on the merits at this point. We think our
only burden is to make out a prima facie case that
the schools are operated on a segregated basis, and
we feel that we have done that.
The Court: That follows Judge Tuttle,’s decision
when he overruled your plea. I think he used that
same language, when you all said you thought they
ought to have another judge in here to complete this
case, so you all could get your people in at this term
of court, and he made that statement somewhere
in his opinion, what you said just now, but I never
could understand, when he is just one Judge, could
pass upon the merits of the case. He will read this
in the, record, I guess, and I hope he does. It is not
a question of doubting him in any way, but I don’t
think that would be binding, frankly, but that is
neither here nor there. That’s the language he used.
All right, you may proceed. That was not said in
disparage of Judge Tuttle, who is my personal
friend.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, if I may make a very
short statement of the interveners ’ position, contrary
to the statements made by the plaintiffs.
The Court: All right, go ahead. This is a novel
defense, if I do say it, like I said before, and I am
Colloquy
90
glad to [135] get any light that I can, or any further
light on it, I might say.
Mr. Leonard: I am sorry to say, your Honor, this
defense was not made in the Brown case, apparently,
because at that time the law appeared to be to the
contrary and appeared to be unnecessary.
The Court: In the Brown case, the defendants
didn’t put up any evidence at all, did they?
Mr. Leonard: They put up some, your Honor,
but it was just nominal.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Leonard: The Supreme Court, in the Brown
case, held that there was in fact injury shown by
the evidence in those cases and they cited a long foot
note of the evidence on which they were relying to
the effect that the segregation and a dual school
system of white and negro students injured the
negro students. That was at that time a finding of
fact. There has now been, since that time, three
decisions, two of them in Circuits, to the effect that
that was based upon the, facts then before the
Supreme Court.
We are coming in this case, before this Court,
upon the facts as they apply to the Savannah-
Chatham area. Some of those facts have universal
application but to a more limited extent they apply
to a particular situation which exist in this [136]
county and which has been studied very thorough
as Mr. McCormac, this morning, indicated.
It is our position on the law that if the negro
students in the Savannah schools are injured by
the maintenance of a dual school system, in fact both
groups would be even more greatly injured by the
congregation which the plaintiffs are seeking; that
the end of this action, the entire purpose, of the
Colloquy
91
request made to this Court for an injunction is to
secure the maximum educational benefits for the
students who are involved in the schools of this
Board of Education.
It is our contention that we can and will show
that the dual school system gives the greatest
possible consideration to the differing abilities of the
two groups of students; that they differ funda
mentally in their natural abilities and they differ
fundamentally in their interest and characteristics
to such an extent that as a homogeneous social group
they have today what amounts to the maximum
system under the selection of course, choice, which
Superintendent McCormac has described. In other
words, we have a system which doesn’t try to he
separate hut equal. It is deliberately separate hut
unequal in its intent to try to fit the educational
requirements of the two separate groups, and to
match the teaching and to match the schools and to
match the curriculum to the needs of those two
groups.
[137] Our entire evidence will go to the point
when the Supreme Court found that injury occurred
solely from a division into a dual school system, the
Supreme Court was acting on evidence which was
based entirely upon results taken from integrated
schools in the north which had never been segre
gated, and we intend to show in this case that forced
congregation has in every single instance known
resulted in a type of rejection or compensation by
violence and anti-social behavior, which we have
seen in the; other cities, and which we hope to go
on and prove here.
Essentially, that is the case of the interveners,
namely, that the maximum educational benefits is
the basis for the proper constitutional distinction
Colloquy
92
into groups. It is not a question of color. We agree
completely with the plaintiffs that a division which
is based entirely upon the color of the individual
concerned is unconstitutional. We no longer argue
that question. We argue that there has been a
fundamental recognition of the difference in the
educational requirements of the two groups, and that
today in Savannah-Chatham County you have, in
effect, that kind of a recognition in the dual school
system which is run, and that this causes less injury
in the long run and the greater educability of the
individuals in the two groups than you would have
if you had forced congregation.
I would like to call as my first witness—
[138] The Court: —excuse me just one minute.
What I passed on just now—I want to get it straight,
however, I think you all understand it.
Now, here is the order that I am passing on your
motion:
It appearing that a biracial school system exists
in Savannah-Chatham County, Georgia, under the
jurisdiction of the Defendant-Board, the plaintiffs
are entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring
the desegregation of the schools in the County at
the opening of the, schools in the fall of 1963, unless
at the trial of this case, commenced before this
Court on the 9th day of May, 1963, at Brunswick,
Georgia, either one, the plaintiffs shall fail to sustain
by proof the allegations of injury to them, as asserted
in their petition.
Two, the defendants and/or interveners shall
sustain by proof the averments to their pleas and
answers and/or amendments thereto to justify the
operation of a biracial school.
I am sure that is right. I just wanted to read it,
and I will sign it after awhile.
Colloquy
93
Mrs. Motley: Will you just reread the last
sentence, your Honor?
The Court: Yes. The defendants and/or inter
veners shall sustain—in other words, you are entitled
to your preliminary injunction—unless the defend
ants and/or interveners [139] shall sustain by proof
the averments of their pleas and answers and/or
amendments thereto to justify the operation of a
biracial system.
All right, any objections to that?
Mrs. Motley: You mean they are entitled to put
on—•
The Court: —No, I say that you are entitled to
an injunction unless they can prove their contentions.
That’s the whole, thing.
All right, file that, Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Leonard: Mr. McCormac, will you take the
stand again?
Mr. Bell: Excuse me, your Honor. I am sorry
to interrupt. I had been informed and had forgotten
that Rev. Stell, who testified a little while ago, is
to take part in a convention back in Savannah, and
he would like permission to leave at this time.
The Court: All right, tell him to be back in the
morning. But if you are not going to need him, I
would not want him to come back, unless you want
him. Do you all want him back in the morning as a
witness?
Mr. Leonard: No, your Honor, I will not need
him.
The Court: Well, here is what I am getting at is
this: Now, I am not telling you how to run your case,
or you how to run your case, but suppose they show,
and I of course [140] don’t know what they are
going to show, but suppose they show that the Gov-
Colloquy
94
ernment has jurisdiction over the ROTC, and if you
want him back here on that, of course, he will have
to come, but as far as you are concerned, you don’t
think you will need him?
Mr. Leonard: No, your Honor.
The Court: And you don’t think you will need
him?
Mr. Bell: No, sir.
The Court: How about you all?
Mr. Leverett: No, your Honor.
The Court: Then there is no use for you to come
back in the morning. All right, you may proceed.
D. L. McCormac—for Interveners— Recalled—Direct
[141] M r . D. L. M cCormac, recalled by the Interveners,
testified as follows:
Direct examination by Mr. Leonard:
Q. Mr. McCormac, if I may, I want to run over some of
the areas which you took up this morning in connection with
the Savannah Schools—
The Court: —you don’t think anything was left
out, do you?
Mr. Leonard: I don’t think it was, but merely
as a basis for my questions I would like to bring it
back up to date.
The Court: Go ahead.
Q. How long have you been in the Savannah schools,
one way or the other? A. I am completing my 8th year
there.
Q. And prior to that time you had teaching and educa
tional experience about how long? A. About 86 years.
95
Q. Now, would that be a total of 44 years that you have
been in teaching! A. Yes.
Q. Connected with secondary and elementary schools
basically! [142] A. Yes, especially on a secondary level.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, Mr. McCormac was
qualified this morning as an expert in the field of the
Savannah Schools. Do you have any objections! I
will go through his qualifications, if necessary!
Mrs. Motley: No.
Q. Mr. McCormac, to what extent do you attempt to fit
your schools to the educational requirements for students!
Is any effort made at all to fit their educational needs and
to give them maximum progress!
Mrs. Motley: We object to this, your Honor, on
the grounds that it doesn’t have anything to do with
whether the schools are segregated or desegregated.
The Court: I don’t know. You all got all kinds
of testimony from this gentleman this morning. It
is like I said, I have admitted everything so far. I
will admit it for the time being. Now, when we get
through you can object, which I presume you are
going to do, you can object to all of this testimony.
You can put down the different items that you want
to object to when we get through with the evidence.
I presume they are going to continue along this line.
Mrs. Motley: Excuse me, your Honor. I think
the plaintiffs in any case have a right to a speedy
hearing free from the introduction of a lot of irrele
vant testimony, which [143] has nothing to do with
the central issue. Now, I can see exactly where we
are headed with two or three weeks of testimony on
how negroes are inferior to whites, and the point is
that is irrelevant, even if negroes are inferior, the
D. L. McCormac—for Interveners— Recalled—Direct
96
constitution says that the schools cannot be operated
on a segregated basis.
The Court: I don’t think you are going to have
any two or three weeks. I have been on the Bench
seventeen years and I have never had a case to run
over three or four days and I have tried a lot of
cases. I don’t think you are going to have any two
or three weks trial. I am sure of that.
Mrs. Motley: Well, we don’t see the necessity of
even two or three days with something that is totally
irrelevant.
The Court: I have always found that I could do
better after I heard the evidence from both sides
and then make my ruling. I am going to hear the
evidence. Like I said this morning, I am going to
hear the evidence.
Mrs. Motley: Then may I just make this state
ment for the record? We object to the introduction
of this evidence because it is irrelevant. What he is
attempting to prove is that negroes on the achieve
ment test are two years behind whites, and all of
this mental maturity test business and all of these
other kind of tests we say is irrelevant to the issue
as to whether or not the schools are presently oper
ated on a segregated [144] basis. We are trying to
preserve the plaintiffs’ rights to a speedy determi
nation on his motion. Now, maybe on the trial of the
case they can introduce all of this, but this is preju
dicial to the plaintiffs’ rights to a speedy determi
nation of this motion. They are just going to intro
duce a lot of evidence that has nothing to do with it.
The Court: Well, it isn’t going to hurt you. I
mean you can object to it, and if it is illegal you can
raise your objection when we get through with the
evidence. I am going to hear the evidence. I want
D. L. McCormac—for Interveners— Recalled—Direct
97
to hear it myself. I think I can do a better job by
hearing all the evidence.
Mr. Leonard: I would like to say at the outset,
your Honor, that I hope we can get through with this
case without using the word “ inferior” again or
“ superior.” The two groups we are talking about
have entirely different abilities, and entirely differ
ent characteristics, and whether one is superior or
one is inferior is a value judgment based upon the
standard of either one or the other.
The Court: All right, go ahead.
Q. Mr. McCormac, you gave a series of four different
tests, as I understand it, in the schools of Chatham County.
Are these pre-school reading readiness tests, vocational
aptitude test, the achievement test and the mental maturity
tests! [144A] A. I mentioned all four of those, yes.
Q. What is the purpose of your giving those tests to
the children! A. Well, the primary purpose in giving them
is to be of assistance to the teachers in instructing the
children.
Q. Assistance in what regard, sir! A. Well, in our
system, for example, I testified that we do attempt to group
on the basis of ability, to some extent. It is not complete
ability grouping, but nevertheless we would use, for example,
reading and readiness expression as a basis for grouping
and on different levels to determine as best we can the best
approach in the instructional program for individuals and
groups.
Q. Do I understand, Mr. McCormac, that your intent in
using these tests is simply to gain the maximum educa
tional benefit from the teaching in the school? A. Yes.
Q. Is that true of the white and negro schools both?
A. Yes.
Q. Are different patterns developed in connection with
these tests in both sets of schools? A. Patterns in what
sense?
D. L. McCormac—for Interveners— Recalled—Direct
98
Q. You stated that the electives tended to fall [145]
into patterns by student demand? A. The word “ pattern”
may have been mis-used, but I am referring to the fact that
a school would usually have certain offerings, or usually
would not have certain offerings, but there was nothing
static from year to year.
Q. Was that based on the demand of students, did you
say! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do students, in your experience, tend to demand
different things in different areas of the city and different
sociological groups and in different races! A. I think that
we could say that the socio-economic conditions in certain
areas would cause variations from what would exist in
other areas.
Q. Have you ever made a report on the extent of those
electives in their relation to any of the other factors in the
education of these schools? A. A report in the sense of an
analysis of what we are talking about that would be por
trayed to show differences in areas and differences in
schools, I believe not.
Q. You stated that you could predict the type of electives
which would be required in any given school area accorded
by its school population? A. I don’t recall that statement.
I certainly [146] could say that past experience in a com
munity would give us guides to it, which would be in part
a prediction or forecast of enrollment and early estimates
of the courses that would be offered in the type of staff
that we would need, that is, a staff with the necessary appro
priate training for instruction that we could predict to a
certain extent, but certainly not positively.
Q. Now, in this connection, do you use the tests which
you have previously described? A. If I say yes to that
question it would mean that a score on a standardized test
would determine whether or not a person would be per
mitted to elect a certain subject. I would not say it in that
D. L. McCormac—for Interveners— Recalled—Direct
99
sense, but to the extent that we, ourselves, would attempt
to group for better instruction we would want to know, and
then in our individual guidance with individual students we
would like to have that type of information about it.
Q. Has the result of those tests ever been published to
your knowledge! A. Periodically there is information given
out that would indicate growth perhaps over a period of
time in comparative scores. From the standpoint of an
nouncing publicly the status on all levels, I think not, not
from my office, certainly.
Q. Do you know of any studies which have been made
from those results outside of your school system? [147]
A. I could not cite specifically.
Mr. Leonard: That’s all.
The Court: All right, any questions!
Mrs. Motley: No, sir.
The Court: Any questions from you all?
Mr. Leverett: No, sir.
The Court: All right, you may go down. Call
your next witness.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
[147A] Dr. R. T. Osborne, sworn for the Interveners,
testified as follows:
Direct examination by Mr. Leonard-.
Q. Dr. Osborne, would you state your present employ
ment? A. Professor of Psychology and Director of the
Student Guidance Center at the University of Georgia.
Q. What does the Guidance Center at the University of
Georgia, do, sir? A. It ’s provided for the benefit of the
students to help them make their education plans and long
range vocational and educational plans.
100
Q. And, does this involve testing, achievement testing,
any other form of testing! A. Aptitude interest.
Q. Would you give me some idea of your qualifications
for this portion, Dr. Osborne? Where did you take your
Bachelor of Arts degree? A. University of Florida.
Q. Did you have a major at that time? A. Yes.
Q. What was that? A. Mathematics and English.
[148] Q. Did you take any graduate degrees? A.
Master’s Degree at the University of Georgia and a Ph.D.
at the University of Georgia.
Q. Do you presently hold a Doctorate in Psychology,
Dr. Osborne? A. Educational Psychology.
Q. Educational Psychology. Are you licensed as a Psy
chologist by the State of Georgia? A. That’s correct.
Q. Are you a member of any Honorary Societies? A.
Yes, Sigma Chi.
Q. Are you a member of any Associations, or Pro
fessional Associations? A. American Psychological Asso
ciation, and the Georgia Psychological Association.
Q. Any others? A. Southeastern Psychological Asso
ciation.
Q. Have you done any actual teaching yourself, Dr.
Osborne? A. Public schools of Florida and Georgia and
at the University of Georgia.
Q. How many years altogether? A. 1936 to the pres
ent, taking out four years in the Navy.
[149] Q. 1936 to the present, taking out four years
in the Navy? A. Yes.
Q. That makes 23, is that correct? In your field, have
you published any research? A. Yes, related to the area
of my professional interest.
Q. Please raise your voice a little, Dr. Osborne. A.
All right, sir.
Q. I ask you again, have you published any studies in
your professional area? A. Yes.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
101
Q. In 1949, did you publish a study entitled “ Multiple
Choice Rorschach Responses of College Achievers and Non-
Achievers” ? A. I was the joint author, yes.
Q. Did this deal with the question of achievement in
the educational process? A. That’s right, yes.
Q. In 1950, in July, in the Journal of Clinical Psychol
ogy, were you the author of an article entitled “ The Pre
diction of Academic Success by means of ‘ Weighted’ Har-
rower-Rorschach Responses” ? [150] A. That is correct.
Q. And did that deal with the question of Academic
Achievement? A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. And the interpretation of tests to determine whether
such achievement was at a maximum? A. Yes. I think
I was the author of this one.
Q. Now, did you make a study between two groups in
“ School and Society” entitled “ Do Disabled Veterans Dif
fer Significantly from Non-Disabled Veterans in Back
grounds, Potentialities, and College Achievement” ? A.
That’s correct.
Q. And did this again deal with the question of achieve
ment in two groups? A. That’s correct.
Q. And in October, 1950, in the “ Journal of Educa
tional Research,” did you publish “ The Differential Pre
diction of College Marks by A. C. E. Scores” ? A. Yes.
Q. And does that deal with the question of achievement
and the measurement of achievement by testing? A. At
the college level, yes, sir.
Q. And in 1951, in June, in the “ Journal of Experi
mental Education,” did you print an article of your [151]
authorship entitled “ The Preferential Training Needs
Records: A Study of In-Service Educational Needs of
Teachers of the Atlanta Area Teachers Education Serv
ice” ? A. That’s correct.
Q. And in “ College and University” in 1951, did you
make a study of “ Course Difficulty: A Neglected Factor
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
102
in the Registration of Freshman Students and in the Pre
diction of Academic Success” ? A. Yes.
Q. And in March of 1952, did you study the difference
between “ Urban and Rural Differences in Personality
of College Students as Measured by an Adjustment Inven
tory” ? A. Yes.
Q. Now, was this a personality measurement type of
test? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it have to deal at all with the question of aca
demic achievement? A. As it related to—
Q. —the relationship between personality and academic
achievement! A. Yes.
Q. And in the “ Journal of Gerontology” in April of
1954, were you the author of an article entitled “ Variations
[152] in Graduate Record Examination Performance by
Age and Sex” ? A. Yes.
The Court: Read that again.
Mr. Leonard: “ Variations in Graduate Record
Examination Performance by Age and Sex” ?
The Court: Go ahead.
Q. And did this again deal with academic achievement
of different groups? A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. And in the “ American Psychologist” in August of
1954 was an abstract published under your authorship en
titled “ Age, Sex, and Other Factors Associated with Grad
uate Record Examination Performance” ? A. Yes.
Q. And did this again deal with the question of academic
achievement by different groups? A. That’s correct.
Q. In the “ Journal of Educational Psychology” were
you the author of an article entitled “ Comparative Decline
of Graduate Record Examination Scores and Intelligence
with Age” ? A. Yes.
Q. And did that deal with the question of academic
achievement by different groups? A. Yes.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
103
[153] Q. In 1954, in the “ Journal of Chemical Edu
cation,” did you attempt an article called “ Chemistry
Profile of the Graduate Record Examination” ? A. Yes.
Q. And, again, did this deal with achievement in tests?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in 1955, in the “ Journal of Genetic Psychol
ogy,” were you the author of an article entitled “ Differ
ential Decline in Graduate Record Examination Scores
with Age” ? A. Yes.
Q. In the “ Journal of Education Research,” in No
vember of 1955, an article appeared under your authorship
called “ Intelligence and Academic Performance of College
Students of Urban, Rural and Mixed Backgrounds.” Is
that your study? A. Yes.
Q. And did that deal with the question of achievement
of different groups? A. Yes.
Q. In “ Journal of Counseling Psychology,” did you
write an article in 1956 entitled “ MMPI Patterns of Col
lege Disciplinary Cases?” A. That’s correct.
[154] Q. Would you please explain to the Court what
MMPI stands for? A. It is a name given to a clinical
diagnostic test which yields scores in terms of clinical syn
dromes or patterns.
Q. What is the name of the test? A. Minnesota Multi-
phasic Personality Inventory.
Q. And does this again deal with the question of relation
ship between personality patterns and academic achieve
ments ? A. That particular study had to do with adjustment
of students on the campus, not necessarily achievement.
Q. Then, Dr. Osborne, in “ Psychological Reports” for
1960, did you publish a study entitled “ Racial Differences in
Mental Growth and School Achievement—A Longitudinal
Study” ? A. That’s correct.
Mrs. Motley: May it please the Court, I don’t
think we have to know everything that this man has
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
104
ever written or accomplished or studied. I think he
has shown enough to qualify him for what he is
attempting to qualify him for. We will be here a
week while he reads everything this man has wrote
or accomplished.
The Court: Well, what do you say to that?
Mr. Leonard: If the Plaintiffs are willing to
concede [155] that Dr. Osborne’s opinions in this
field are unquestionable I will stop reading his arti
cles.
The Court: Will you do that?
Mrs. Motley: Am I willing to concede what?
Mr. Leonard: That his opinions are not open to
question, that the opinions he expresses are authori
tative.
Mrs. Motley: I think you have qualified him in
educational psychology, if that’s what you are at
tempting to do. I will concede that he is an expert
in educational psychology, but in order to do that;
I don’t think you have to read everything that he has
ever written.
The Court: Well, what do you say to that?
Mr. Leonard: I will accept the concession that
he is qualified as a psychologist in education and an
expert in this field.
The Court: All right.
The Witness: Your Honor, several of these arti
cles were joint-authorships.
The Court: You said that just now. All right,
then you may proceed.
Q. Are you aware of the fact that tests were being given
to students in the Chatham County Schools? A. At the
present time?
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
105
Q. No. Have you been at any time in the past aware
[156] that such tests were being given as Mr. McCormac
described! A. Yes.
Q. Have you had any connection at all with such tests!
A. I assisted in 1954 in establishing the tests, yes.
Q. And just what duties did you perform in connection
with those test results! A. Provided an analysis for the
Superintendent for his use in the educational system.
Q. And when you say you provided the analysis—were
the test results sent to you at the university or what was
the actual process involved in it! A. The test records were
sent to us at the University for processing.
Q. Did this happen in the winter of 1953! A. It was in
the winter of 1954, I think in February or April of 1954
when we started.
Q. And was that at the request of the then Superintend
ent of Schools in Chatham County! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you help plan the testing program at all!
A. As a consultant, yes.
Q. Did you assist in the training of any of the [157]
teachers! A. Yes.
Q. Who were to administer the tests! A. Yes.
Q. Did you assist in the training of any of the coun
selors who were to administer the tests! A. The teachers
and counselors together—all of them.
Q. And what was the purpose of this testing program,
Dr. Osborne! A. To evaluate present level of achievement
of the students in Chatham County and to provide informa
tion for the counselors, teachers and administrators.
Q. What different tests did you consider necessary for
this purpose! A. I presented to the Committee several
alternatives, several different batteries. From those pre
sented, the present battery was selected.
Q. And what was the battery selected! A. The Cali
fornia Achievement Battery and the California Mental
Maturity Test.
Dr. R. T. Osborne-—for Interveners—Direct
106
Q. Now, what is the California Achievement Battery!
A. It is a standardized test of achievement in [158] the
area of reading, mathematics, and language skills.
Q. What is the test in reading? A. Knowledge of vo
cabulary and reading comprehension.
Q. And in the mathematical area? A. Mathematical
fundamentals and mathematical reasoning.
Q. Now, what does mathematical reasoning amount to?
A. The application of mathematical concepts to arithmetical
problems as opposed to the use of numbers.
Q. And you said language skills also ? A. That test was
not continued after about the third or fourth year of test
ing.
Q. And you say that the tests were continued. To
whom were they given in the first place, to what classes?
A. I believe we started in ’54 with the 6th, 8th, and 10th
grades.
Q. And this was in 1954? A. That’s right.
Q. Have any such tests been given since? A. They
have been continued every year, except I believe the fifth
grade is examined now rather than the sixth grade, some
minor change.
Q. You have retained the examination then on an [159]
annual basis with the same grades with the exception of
one being changed? A. I haven’t changed it, but the
school system has.
Q. Now, have the results of the successive years been
made available to you as with the original results? Have
you been receiving the results every year? A. Every year,
yes, sir.
Q. And have you tabulated these results from any par
ticular point? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And have you published those results? A. Yes, but
not identifying the school systems. The school system has
not been identified in the publication.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
107
Q. But, I am now talking about the test results from
the Chatham area, the Chatham County Board of Educa
tion, and under what title were those published? A. The
one you read a few moments ago in “ Psychological Re
ports” . It came out in 1960.
Q. There is only one such report? A. No. There are
three.
Q. Could you name the three? A. I don’t have my
brief case.
Q. Is your brief case here? A. Yes, sir.
[160] Q. Suppose you get it. A. The “ Psychological
Reports” article, “ Racial Differences in Mental Growth
and School Achievement: A Longitudinal Study.” That
was published in 1960. Then there was another one. There
was another one published in “ The Mankind Quarterly”
in 1960 “ School Achievement of White and Negro Chil
dren” and, finally, “ Mankind Monographs” published last
year, “ Racial Differences in School Achievement.”
Q. Are any of these three a comprehensive survey of
the whole field ? A. The latter, the last.
Q. Dr. Osborne, I show you a copy of a re-print entitled
“ Mankind Monographs” , Number III, “ Racial Difference
in School Achievement” by R. T. Osborne and ask if you
can identify that ? A. That’s the last publication I referred
to.
Q. And is that your authorship? A. Yes.
Q. And are the statements in there the statements
which you have made about the Savannah-Chatham County
Board of Education area? A. Savannah-Chatham County
was not identified.
Q. The figures in this study are those taken from Savan
nah-Chatham County? A. Yes.
[161] Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, I would like to
offer this Monograph at this time in lieu of bringing
Dr. R. T. Osiorne—for Interveners—Direct
108
out the details which we would otherwise have to go
through in bringing it out.
The Court: Submit it to counsel. Any objec
tions ?
Mrs. Motley: We object to the admission of
that, your Honor, on the grounds that it is not rele
vant or material to the issue in this case. Now, the
Superintendent has already testified that no tests
are given to students to determine their admission
to any school, so what is the relevancy of this test?
He doesn’t apply these tests to anybody. He ap
plies those to school zone lines, if I understood him,
which are already in evidence, the only basis on
which anybody is admitted. We are trying to get
the admission policy changed, not the test admin
istered changed. We are not concerned with any
test they give in the school. They can give any
test they want. All we are trying to get this court
to do is to change the racial admission policy and
that does not have one thing to do with any kind of
test that is administered in the school system and
for that reason we object to the admission of that
and all the testimony of this witness along that
line.
The Court: This is the same objection we have
had all along, and like I said before, I am going
to hear all the evidence and then you can raise your
objections and I will determine the whole matter
at that time. You may proceed.
[162] Mr. Leonard: I will offer Defendant’s
Exhibit in evidence, your Honor.
The Court: All right, it is admitted over objec
tions.
Mr. Leonard: At this time, if the Court please,
I would like to hand to the plaintiffs’ counsel a copy
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
109
of this document that I will ask the witness to
direct his attention to. Would the Court care to
have a copy!
The Court: No, I don’t care. I couldn’t under
stand it no way. Now, I didn’t mean that in an
offensive manner. I just said that in a facetious man
ner to my friends out there who were looking like
they were kind of stupid about it, some of my
lawyer friends over there.
Q. Dr. Osborne, would you state to me what it is that
this study of yours shows!
Mrs. Motley: I think the study speaks for itself,
your Honor, and for the same reason that we were
not permitted to read something in the record which
is already in evidence, and I don’t think this man
should be permitted to read this study into the
record.
The Court: He is not going to read it, I don’t
think.
Mr. Leonard: I asked him what conclusions he
came to in this study.
[163] Mrs. Motley: It shows on the study what
conclusions he reached.
The Court: I will let him answer that. I am
not going to let him read that book though.
The Witness: Repeat the question again, please !
Q. What conclusions did you come to in this study! A.
At all levels in the educational program there are differ
ences in achievement between the white and negro pupils.
The differences are noticeable at the pre-school level and
persist throughout the entire program in the Chatham
County Schools through the 12th grade.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
110
Q. Are the differences of a particular type only or do
they vary in patterns or according to schools! A. The
differences are found in reading, achievement, mathe
matics, mental maturity.
The Court: What maturity?
The Witness: Mental maturity.
Q. Dr. Osborne, would you please turn to figure 1, which
is on page 4 of your Monograph, and explain to me what
those graphs entitled “ Vocabulary” , “ Comprehension”
and “ Total” mean? A. That is figure 1, on Page 4?
Q. Figure 1, on Page 4, entitled “ California [164]
Reading Test” ? A. The graphs show a longitudinal study.
We started with children in the 6th grade in 1954. We
examined them again when they were in the 8th grade in
1956, the same children again when they were in the 10th
grade in 1958, and then in the 12th grade in 1960.
Q. Now, is that true as to each of these three items under
California Reading Test? A. That is correct.
Q. And is there a distinction between vocabulary and
comprehension? A. Yes, vocabulary is a test of word
knowledge, the gross number of words—
The Court: —would you do this for me? Would
you give me one of those. I see my good friend, Dave
Robinson, from the adjoining state of South Carolina.
Would you give him one of those. I thought per
haps you might want to look at one of them, Dave. I
saw him looking over somebody’s shoulder, and I
never did like for somebody to look over my shoulder.
Q. Now, could you give me, from those tables, any quanti
tative differences in vocabulary and comprehension by
years?
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
I l l
Mrs. Motley: May it please the Court, he has
already stated his conclusions. Now we are going
into details.
[165] The Court: Now, I think he did state his
conclusions, as I recall.
Mrs. Motley: —that negroes were not achieving
the same as whites. We said in the beginning that
that was all he was going to say.
The Court: I know, hut as I said, if you will
just let him alone, let him get through with his evi
dence, and then raise your objections and I will rule
on it. I want to hear it all.
Mrs. Motley: What we are objecting to now,
your Honor, are the detailed conclusions of the wit
ness, a detailed statement of his conclusions.
The Court: He said he was not going to have
any detailed statement of his conclusions, as I recall.
Isn’t that right!
Mr. Leonard: I wasn’t going to have him read
but he has to explain what amounts to the technical
points of this so they can be understood by the Court.
The Court: Well, go ahead. You can raise your
objections when he gets through. I now begin to
see what the evidence is going to he, but you raise
your objection when he gets through with all the
evidence, and I will rule on it at that time.
Mrs. Motley: Your Honor, I would just like to
repeat [166] that our objections are all directed
toward saving time. He has already said what his
conclusions are, and all of these details will just go
to clutter up the record.
The Court: Well, somebody will get some good
out of it. I am not saying who. I am really refer
ring to the Court Reporter.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
112
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, as I have previously
stated, these differences are the basis of requiring
different educational treatment. It doesn’t do us
any good merely to take a generalization that there
is a difference. The burden that the intervenors are
bearing in this case—
The Court: —well, I told you to go ahead.
Mr. Leonard: Thank you, sir.
Q. Would you turn, Dr. Osborne, to the three graphs,
which are shown in Figure 2 on Page 6, entitled “ The
California Arithmetic Test,” and explain to us what those
graphs show? A. In Figure 2, Page 6?
Q. Yes. A. It shows the difference again, a longitudinal
study of children from 1954 through 1960 as they were
examined during successive stages in their educational pro
gram. Differences in mathematical reasoning skills which
were of the magnitude of a year at grade 6, continued to—
Q. —I am sorry. I couldn’t hear you on that. [167] A.
I say, differences in 1954, at grade 6, which were of the
magnitude of a year, or a year and a half, increased until
at the 12th grade the differences were of the magnitude
of three to four years, as is seen by the graph that you
have there.
Q. Now, when you say the differences involved, you
are talking about the difference between white and Negro
pupils? A. Yes, as is shown.
Q. And this graph also shows the differences between
the sexes as well? A. Yes.
Q. Are those the same or smaller differences? A. The
differences are smaller, the sex differences are smaller.
Q. What are the “ Fundamentals” under the California
Arithmetic Test which is diagrammed in the center of that
figure? What is the meaning of “ Fundamentals” ? A.
Arithmetical skills, adding, subtracting, multiplying and
dividing.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
113
Q. And are the differences there the same differences
as in mathematical reasoning? A. They are greater in the
latter case.
Mrs. Motley: Now, your Honor, we are going to
[168] object to this unless the witness can show that
these differences are in the race and not in the char
acter of the curriculum in the schools.
The Court: Well, I have already ruled that I
am going to let him introduce the evidence and when
the evidence is all in you can then raise your objec
tion. I have stated several times that I am going
to hear all the evidence, and when we get through
with the evidence, you can then raise your objections,
and I will rule on them at that time. Go ahead.
Q. Turning now to your Figure 3, on Page 7, entitled
“ California Test of Mental Maturity,” “ Language,” “ Non
language” and “ Total.” Would you please state to me
quantitatively, if possible, what those three graphs show
in terms of difference between white and Negro students?
A. Because the form of the test was changed in 1957, I
think, the Language and Non-Language Test scores are
not available, were not available at that time. However,
the total scores were, and if you look at the total score graph
it probably would be more meaningful. This is on Page
7, Figure 3, the total score there. It shows in terms of
mental maturity the two groups differed by a grade, a
grade and a half at grade level six. The differences were
a magnitude of three grades at grade level twelve.
[169] Q. Would this indicate different progress rates?
A. This is not an achievement test, it is a test of mental
maturity or so-called intelligence.
Q. Is this a measure of progress—rate of progress with
respect to their arithmetical needs? A. No. Mental ma
turity rather than arithmetical. That’s correct.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
114
Q. Well, what I mean is the relation between the mental
maturity in the individual and his chronological age! A.
That is correct.
Q. So, that the extent to which he keeps up or falls
behind or goes ahead of his chronological age is a dropping-
back or going-ahead in these figures that you have put down
here? A. Yes.
Q. In that sense, it is a progress rate? A. That’s cor
rect.
Q. If there is a difference of one year at one time and
two years at another, there is a difference in progress?
A. That’s correct. The rate of growth is different.
Q. Now, would you turn to Table 1, on Page 9, please,
and explain to us the significance of that table? A. This
is a distribution of intelligence quotients [170] on Table 1,
a distribution of I.Q.’s for the two groups for one year.
This was 1958.
Q. And what is the difference between the two groups
as you have them? A. Unless you are looking at the table
it is not easy to explain, because you have got to read the
text to get that information, but basically the overlap is
very slight, in the neighborhood of 5 to 10% for this group,
that is, the median of the negro group overlaps the median
of the white group about 5 to 10%, I think, in this case.
Q. Now, would you explain to us what you mean by
median and what you mean by the percentage ? A. Median
is a measure of central tendency, in general, it is a middle
most case in a distribution.
Q. Are you talking about a group? A. That’s right, yes.
Q. And, how is the group distributed? In other words,
does it have high, low and median taken as a single group
for the purposes of this table and your study? In other
words, are the whites taken as a group and distributed?
A. From high to low.
Q. And then a median figure taken, and you say the
median was the center of that curve? A. That’s correct.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
115
[171] Q. And that the same was done for the negro
students in Savannah-Chatham and the median was taken
for that group! A. That’s right, yes.
Q. And the comparison between those two medians was
what! A. For the whites, the median was 103. For the
negro group the median was 81.
Q. Now, what does the 103 and the 81 mean! A. Well,
an I.Q. of 103 for the white group, and an I.Q. of 81 for
the negro group.
Q. And what does an I.Q. mean! A. An intelligence
quotient.
Q. How is that measured! A. Intelligence quotient is
a term used by psychologists to describe the mental
potential, if you will. It is determined by dividing the score
made by a child in one particular test which is mental age
by his chronological age which is in years and months. The
test score is converted to years and months and the age is
converted to years and months and then that division yields,
when the decimal point is moved two points to the right,
yields an I.Q.
Q. Now, let me give you an example: If a 14 year old
boy has the intelligence of an average 14 year old, [172]
what would his I.Q. be! A. That would he a 100.
Q. And if a 14 year old has the I.Q. of an average 15
year old, what would that be! A. The 14 has the average
of a 15!
Q. Yes! A. That would he somewhat below, about 93.
Q. I mean if a 14 year old had the average mentality of
a 15 year old! A. Oh. That would be in the neighborhood
of 106 or 107, somewhere in that area.
Q. And if he had the average mentality of, say, a 13
year old, it would be an I.Q. of what! A. In the low 90’s.
Q. So the measurement we are talking about here is
from one to years essentially in the median that you have
just referred to? A. Yes. It would vary from different
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
116
ages. Say, at age level 6, the percentage in the number of
years would he less.
Q. What were your two figures again—103 and what!
A. 81.
Q. And the difference in terms of years approximately
[173] would be what! A. Let’s see, this is 10th grade
pupils, so it would probably be the figures you mentioning,
about two to three years of mental age group difference.
Q. Now, would this confirm the graphs that you have
made in terms of arithmetic, mental maturity and reading
tests! A. That’s correct.
Q. In terms of differences! A. Yes.
Q. Under what conditions were these tests taken to
eliminate the problems of schooling, or change in courses
or just education, as far as the I.Q. tests are concerned!
I am not talking about achievement test! A. Oh. Tests
were given under standard conditions as prescribed by the
test maker.
Q. What are the conditions which are used in connection
with those tests to avoid the effects of mere learning and
placement within the achievement test! A. You will have
to explain, sir.
Q. In other words, does the I.Q. measure the same
things as the mental maturity, the arithmetic test, and the
language test! A. There is a good correlation between
them, yes. [174] They are not independent.
Q. Have you equated the scores on the reading tests,
arithmetic tests, and the mental maturity tests with the
intelligence quotient between the two groups! A. No, but
we did experimentally—physically. We did that, yes, that’s
correct.
Q. Would you turn to figure 5 on page 14 and explain
to me what that comparison meant! A. First, it will be
necessary for us to look at figure 4 on page 12. Two
groups of children were matched in terms of mental ability
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
117
at grade 6 in 1954. Numbers are indicated in this figure
4 on page 12. Children were matched in terms of their
intelligence, general ability, and then we watched their
mental growth, their achievement growth through the nest
six years of school experience, giving the two groups the
benefit of the same score on the intelligence test in ’54,
and then we studied them carefully through the next six
years. The graphs show the differences which are, by
the way, reduced now from the original but still are
apparent.
Q. Does this graph, figure 4 on page 12, show that with
persons of the same intelligence level in both groups, there
is a difference in mental maturity? A. Well, in 1954 there
were, not, because they were matched experimentally for
that, but as they continued to [175] grow, the differences
show up, slight in ’56, more in ’58 and then more appreciable
in 1960.
Q. In other words, there was a lag for about two years
when they dropped back and then they came up again, is
that what your figures tend to show? A. Yes. That could
be an odd fact in the test. I think if the lines were straight
between—I am looking again at 12, figure 4—probably
would be a better estimate to draw to have to draw—to
have those straight lines rather than broken as they are.
Q. Well, if you will turn to figures 5 and 6 in the reading
test, arithmetic test, and assume that these are also studies
made from the same proposition? A. Same children.
These are the same children but they—
Q. -—but there are distinct differences between the read
ing on the one hand and the arithmetic on the other in
children of the same I.Q.? A. The same initial I.Q. They
started out the same, that’s correct.
Q. Now, would you give me some idea as to the quantita
tive differences which developed and the time over which
they developed, starting with the group exactly the same?
A. Take arithmetical reasoning, figure 6, page 15, [176]
Dr. R. T. Osborne—-for Interveners—Direct
118
the difference was slight. The magnitude maybe only a
quarter of a grade in ’54. Still only slight in 1956. In
1958 the difference between seems to get greater, and then
in 1960 the difference is of a magnitude of a year, maybe.
It is more pronounced in the fundamentals.
Q. Does that indicate a difference in ability among
students of the same I.Q. in white and negro races? A.
The same initial I.Q.
Q. In effect, it indicates that there is a distinction in
their various abilities? In their varying abilities? A.
These particular children, that’s correct.
Q. These children over this period of time? A. That’s
right.
Q. What was your summary, Doctor, of these studies?
Mrs. Motley: Your Honor, he has already given
it.
The Court: I don’t know. He said something
about the inferiority, just made a broad statement.
I f you have got something additional I will hear
from you. Go ahead.
Q. Go ahead, Doctor? A. In terms of school achieve
ment and in terms of mental ability, the two groups differ
significantly.
Q. When you say significantly, do you mean significantly
in an educational sense ? A. And in a statistical sense, that
the differences [177] couldn’t be attributed to chance.
The Court: Couldn’t be attributed to what?
The Witness: Chance.
Q. To what extent did you examine the factors existing
in the Savannah Negro Schools to make certain that they
were of a quality which would not affect your results, or
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
119
did you know of any previous studies that had been made
on this point ? A. I participated in the training and briefing
of all the teachers who were to administer the tests, that
is, both white and negro.
Q. Did you make a report in 1957 at the American
Psychological Association Convention in New York about
a study of the training and qualifications of more than 800
white and negro teachers in Chatham County? A. That
is correct, but it wasn’t for the particular purpose of
administering tests, it was just another study.
Q. And are the six points made on page 16 of your
study, the report which you made at that time? A. Yes, top
of page 16.
Q. And what were your conclusions on the difference
between white and negro teachers ? A. In terms of training
and experience, background and salary, the negro teachers
were better prepared than the [178] white teachers.
Q. How about their equipment in the class room? A.
I have no knowledge of that.
Q. Tell me, Dr. Osborne, are the differences to which
you have just testified, sufficiently significant in an educa
tional sense that different curricula, different standards,
training and otherwise could he reasonably expected to be
given to the two groups? A. Yes.
Q. Are you in a position to state or even approximate
what such differences would be ? A. Differences in achieve
ment?
Q. What differences in curricula, for example? A. No.
That would be out of my field.
Q. Is there still a testing program going on in the
Chatham schools, as far as you know? A. It was completed
last week, I think.
Q. Have you seen those results ? A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you heard from those tests? A. Yes, they
were processed through my office but we are talking now
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
120
in the neighborhood of ten thousand children or more,
and—
Q. —you say they were processed; what does this
[180] processing consist of on which you got the figures
about which you have testified ! What do you do with these
scores! A. Test scores are brought into the office by
the counselor from Chatham County and the data processed
electronically, we have a computer that makes the scores
on a test scoring machine and the data is processed through
the I.B.M. computer.
Q. In other words, this is basically a computing type
of arrangement! A. That’s right. It is mechanical.
Q. Do you weight these scores at all or change them
from the way they are received! A. No. The scores are
handled according to standard procedures, prescribed in
the manual.
Q. Now, when you say in the manual, what manual are
you talking about! A. The manual that accompanies the
test. The teachers used it to administer the test.
Q. Is it a nationally used test! A. Yes.
Q. Are they used by other schools! A. Yes.
Q. Are there any studies which have been made of
their effectiveness in disclosing achievement! [181] A. Yes.
Q. And are you familiar with that study! A. Other
studies outside of Chatham County!
Q. Yes! A. Oh, yes.
Q. And, in general, do such studies have any connection
with that in Chatham County in terms of results! A. The
evidence here is not new evidence. I mean—that’s correct.
Q. —I mean, in general, the studies with which you are
familiar, are they in accord with the studies which you
made! A. Yes, sir.
Q. In your opinion, Dr. Osborne, did the results—or
would the results of these studies which have been made
and the tests and differences which you have testified to,
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Direct
121
indicate the desirability of separate educational treatment
of the two groups? A. This is an opinion, now?
Q. It is purely an opinion? A. Yes.
Mi. Leonard: Thank you.
The Court: Are there any questions?
Mrs. Motley: I don’t know that he is through.
[182] The Court: He said he had finished.
Didn’t you say you had finished?
Mr. Leonard: Yes, I have finished.
The Court: He said he had finished.
Cross-examination by Mrs. Motley:
Q. Now, have you made any studies of the achieve
ment of negro and white students in an integrated school?
A. No, I have not, with the possible exception recently
at the University of Georgia. We have recently been
desegregated there but the number is so small.
Q. You say at the University of Georgia you have
made a study? A. Yes, but I mean the number is so
small that it wouldn’t be a study.
Q. Are you referring to Hamilton Holmes who is gradu
ating Phi Beta Kappa at the University of Georgia? How
do you explain him? A. The same way, I suppose, you
would explain the overlapping of the others.
Q. He went to a segregated school in Atlanta, didn’t
he? A. I think so. I don’t know.
[183] Q. You think? A. Yes.
Q. I thought you said you studied it? A. At the Uni
versity, after the student came to the University.
Q. Well, if you studied Hamilton Holmes and the two
or three you have got there, then you know that he went
to a segregated school, don’t you? A. Yes, I do know
that you said he went to a segregated school.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Cross
122
Q. That he transferred to the University of Georgia
from a segregated negro college, didn’t he? Didn’t he go
to Morehouse College in Atlanta? A. That’s right. Char
lene Hunter came from Wayne State which is—
Q. I am not talking about that. He went to a segre
gated college, didn’t he? A. Yes, I think so.
Q. And now he is graduating Phi Beta Kappa from
the University of Georgia, isn’t he? A. Yes.
Q. Well, now, how do you explain him? A. The same
way, I suppose, you would explain the overlap of the
children in Savannah-Chatham County.
[184] Q. In other words, there are negro children who
excel white children, aren’t there, in intelligence and in
achievement? A. Yes.
Q. Even in the segregated schools of Georgia, isn’t that
right? A. Even in Chatham County.
Q. So that these differences you are talking about don’t
have anything to do with race, do they? A. Yes, the
differences are shown in terms of race.
Q. But they don’t have anything to do with the fact
the man is a negro, does it? Those who excel whites,
obviously? A. I don’t understand the question.
Q. This study that you have made that you have just
gone over shows that negro children are not achieving as
well as whites in some instances in Savannah, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. But that don’t have anything to do with race, does
it? A. You mean the etiology of the difference has nothing
to do with race?
Q. The origin of the difference? [185] A. That’s right.
Q. That’s right. It has nothing to do with race, does
it? A. I claim no knowledge of the origin or the etiology
of the difference between the two groups.
Q. That shows the difference? A. That is the dif
ference.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Cross
123
Q. It may be the result of the inferior education in the
negro schools or the negro environment, right? A. Either
one. That’s right.
Q. Then it can’t be attributed wholly to race, by our
study, right? A. Not wholly to race.
Q. Then your study shows the negro teachers in
Savannah are better qualified than the white teachers,
doesn’t it? A. In terms of the factors that you mentioned
there, that is, in terms of—
The Court: —in terms of what?
The Witness: In terms of the recency of training
and the number having Master’s Degrees and in
terms of salary.
Q. In other words, negro teachers in Savannah and
Chatham County are better trained because they have
gone to better northern white schools than the white
teachers, isn’t [186] that right? A. That’s right.
Mrs. Motley: That’s all, your Honor.
The Court: Any other questions for this wit
ness?
Mr. Leonard: Yes, your Honor.
Redirect examination by Mr. Leonard:
Q. Dr. Osborne, in your opinion, if Mr. Holmes’ studies
at the University of Georgia were sufficient to earn him
a Phi Beta Kappa and he came from a segregated negro
school, would it tend to indicate to you that the negro
schools which he attended were capable of developing his
full potentialities for study? A. Yes.
Dr. R. T. Osborne—for Interveners—Redirect
124
Dr. R. L. Osborne—for Interveners—Re-redirect
Recross-examination by Mrs. Motley:
Q. How do you know that! A. It is my opinion.
Q. You don’t know anything about the negro school he
attended do you! [187] A. No, I don’t. It is my opinion.
Mr. Leonard: You have suggested a question
about the teachers in the negro schools going to
northern white colleges, do you know that for a
fact!
Mr. Motley: His report says it.
Redirect examination by Mr. Leonard:
Q. Were they all, or a part, or how many! A. Most
of the teachers.
Q. Went to northern schools! A. That’s right.
Q. And it is in terms of those qualifications that they
are better trained, more M.A.’s and higher pay! A. That’s
correct.
Mr. Leonard: That’s all.
The Court: All right, any other questions! All
right, you may go down. Now, let’s take out for
about five minutes.
The Marshal: Take a recess.
(Note: Accordingly, a recess was had from
4:30 P. M., until 4:42 P. M., of the same day, at
which time the proceedings were resumed as fol
lows:)
[188] The Court: All right, you may proceed.
Mr. Leverett: May it please the Court, before
proceeding, the defendants, the main defendants,
125
Colloquy
have just been served with a subpoena by the plain
tiffs, which seeks to require us, or rather is directed
to Mr. McCormac, one of the defendants in this
case, which seeks to require him to present at the
courthouse at 10:00 o ’clock in the morning; number
1, a petition filed in July, 1955, by L. S. Stell, Jr.,
and other negro citizens of Savannah, Georgia, re
questing the Board of Education of the City of
Savannah and County of Chatham to formulate
and put into effect a plan to desegregate the public
schools of Savannah and Chatham County.
Two, a petition filed in October, 1959, by L. S.
Stell, Jr., and other negro citizens of Savannah,
Georgia, requesting the Board of Education of the
City of Savannah and County of Chatham to formu
late and put into effect a plan to desegregate the
public schools of Savannah, Chatham County.
The Court: That was two petitions that were
filed against the Board of Education asking the
Board of Education to put into effect the desegrega
tion order as of September, and you asked them to
bring it into court. You will admit that they were—
Mr. Leverett: No, sir, they served this subpoena
on us, and at this time, in order not to he charged
with being [189] dilatory, I would like to move to
quash this subpoena on the grounds that it is too
late and it ’s unreasonable and places an undue burden
upon the defendants.
The Court: Does the Code section give the time
that you have to serve a subpoena of that kind upon
the defendants?
Mr. Leverett: My recollection is it is something
like 3 days, hut I can’t recall without getting the
rules. Your Honor, I would like to state this, we
have no objection whatever to endeavoring to call
126
Colloquy
Savannah and try to get whatever we have in our
files mailed down here. Now, this subpoena under
takes to require Mr. McCormac to leave here tonight
and go hack to Savannah and bring them back from
Savannah.
The Court: I tell you what you do, you go
ahead and call the Board of Education and ask them
to mail those to you tonight so they will be here
tomorrow at 10:00 o ’clock. I think that’s fair
enough.
Mrs. Motley: Thank you, your Honor. That’s
fine.
The Court: You do that. You call up and tell
them, and if it is not here, I will protect you on it.
I am not going to put you and Morris in jail about
that. I think you are entitled to time, I don’t think
there is any question about that. It is just one of
those things, but you call them right now, or get
this gentleman here to call and tell them to put
it in the mail tonight, so they will be here in the
morning. This [190] case is not going to be com
pleted tomorrow, so you will have plenty of time.
Mr. Leverett: Mr. McCormac advises that the
office is supposed to be closed at this time, your
Honor.
The Court: Well, call your wife and tell her to
go down and tell somebody to get it done. You
can get somebody over there in Savannah. All right,
you may proceed.
Mr. Leonard: All right, sir.
The Court: I just meant that as a figure of
speech. Get the secretary or somebody.
127
[191] Dr. H enry E. G a r r e t t , sworn for the Inter
veners, testified as follows:
Direct examination toy Mr. Leonard-.
Q. You were sworn this morning, weren’t you, Doctor!
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Garrett, would you state your present employ
ment? A. Visiting Professor of Psychology at the Uni
versity of Virginia.
The Court: The University of Virginia?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been a visiting Professor of
Psychology at the University of Virginia! A. Well, six
years. Before that I was Professor Emeritus of Psychol
ogy at Columbia University, where I was for 30 years.
Q. At Columbia University for 30 years as Professor
of Psychology? A. Right.
Q. Are you a member of any professional societies,
an officer in any? A. Well, I am not an officer now. I am
a member [192] of the American Psychological Associa
tion. I was president in 1945-46, and I am a member of
the Psychometric Society, the Eastern Psychological Asso
ciation, Southeastern Association, and a lot of things like
that.
Mrs. Motley: Now, may it please the Court, we
are willing to stipulate that this man is a qualified
psychologist. We don’t need to hear all about that.
The Court: Well, I think the gentleman, we will
say the gentleman and not the man. I will say that
Gentleman. All right, if she admits it.
Mrs. Motley: Also, your Honor, we are willing
to stipulate that he is going to testify to the same
things as the previous—
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
128
The Court: —What?
Mrs. Motley: If he is going to testify to the
same thing the previous witness did, we are willing
to stipulate that his testimony will be the same thing.
The Court: Do you agree to that!
Mr. Leonard: Well, I always will accept a stipu
lation but I have other things that I am going to
ask him.
The Court: All right, you can go ahead. I
didn’t think you would agree to that. It is not my
case. You may go ahead.
Q. What has been the field of your interest in psychol
ogy, Dr. Garrett? [193] A. Mostly experimental and
what’s called differential psychology, which is the psy
chology which deals with people, groups, and individuals
and the differences among them with respect to a variety
of traits.
Q. And does this field of psychology have anything to
do with testing, with education, and the effect of differences
in the various subjects that are tested? A. Well, it is
directly concerned with the field of mental testing, because
most of the instruments that we use in getting differences,
of course, are mental tests, and it is concerned with differ
ences as between the sexes, the differences in racial groups
in this country—that means negro-white mostly, most of
the time.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
Mrs. Motley: Here we go, your Honor. We
are going over the same thing.
The Court: I will make the same ruling I did
on the others. I am going to hear all of this evidence
and you can make your objections when we get
through with the evidence and then I will hear both
sides.
129
Mrs. Motley: Well, your Honor, the point is
that these witnesses are prejudicing the right of the
plaintiffs to a prompt determination of this case.
The Court: I have got to tile my judgment by
Monday, but I don’t see now how I am going to be
able to do that, [194] because as I understand this
case is not going to be completed by that time.
Mrs. Motley: Your Honor, I think that what the
plaintiffs are going to have to do is to go to the fifth
Circuit, or some other court, and get a Writ of
Prohibition, or something, against this kind of tes
timony.
The Court: I have already ruled on that. I
said that I was going to hear the testimony, and
then after I hear it, then you raise your objections.
It certainly is not going to prejudice me. I am sure
of that.
Mrs. Motley: I think there should be a time limit,
your Honor, on how many witnesses can be called
to testify to the same thing.
The Court: There wasn’t any stipulation to
that effect this morning. I said I had all of next
week, if necessary. I have recessed my Savannah
court to get rid of this case.
Mr. Leonard: I offered this morning, your
Honor, to stipulate with the plaintiffs that if they
would concede that the forced congregation of the
two races in the schools, which they are asking for,
would cause injury to both student groups, we will
not go on with any more testimony. If they will
so concede now, we will be through with the ques
tioning of this witness and through with expert
testimony. This is what I am going to prove.
[195] Mrs. Motley: What kind of injury?
Mr. Leonard: What kind of injuries does the
segregation cause?
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
130
The Court: Well, we won’t get into all of that,
hut it is not going to do anybody any harm to hear
this evidence.
Mrs. Motley: It is delaying an adjudication of
this case, your Honor.
The Court: The adjudication of the case will be
delivered promptly, I will assure you of that, be
cause Judge Tuttle has ordered me to file it by
Monday, but if I can’t file it by Monday I am sure
he wil understand that I am still in the trial of the
case.
Mrs. Motley: Well, he has already ruled, your
Honor, that this kind of testimony is not going to
he considered by any court. He has tried to make
that plain.
The Court: Well, he is just one Judge, you know.
Mrs. Motley: Well, I am as sure as I am stand
ing here that the United States Supreme Court, after
three times ruling that segregation is unconstitu
tional, is not now going to reverse itself on this
man’s testimony or any other testimony.
The Court: Well, let’s don’t bring it up any
more. I have determined that I am going to hear
this evidence, and after the evidence is concluded
if you want to raise an objection [196] at that time
I will hear from you, but I have determined that
I am going to hear this evidence. I have stated that
three or four times. I am going to hear it. I think
it is material.
Mrs. Motley: Then we would like to make this
motion—
The Court: —All right.
Mrs. Motley: The Rules provide, the statute
provides that we can take an appeal by a certificate
from this Court to the Court of Appeals as to
whether this kind of evidence is admissible.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
131
The Court: No, I am not going to do that. You
can take it up in the regular course, if I decide
against you. I have not decided against you yet,
but if I decide against you, why, you can take it
by the regular course, but I am not going to certify
to the Court of Appeals or anything.
Mrs. Motley: Well, the point is we want this
question determined before all of this evidence is
put into the record.
The Court: Well, you seem hard to convince,
but I am trying to convince you that I am going
to hear it, and that’s that. So, you may proceed.
I don’t mean to be discourteous but I said that to
start with, that I was going to hear it all. This is
an important case. It is a novel case. All right,
you may proceed.
[197] Q. What type of testing have you, yourself, done,
Dr. Garrett? A. Well, I have never done a great deal
myself personally, but I have worked with students over
a period of 30 years. I expect I have had as much ac-
quaintence with mental testing as almost anybody alive
today.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
The Court: What kind of cases?
The Witness: I have worked with students in
all sorts of cases, measuring all sorts of people and
all sorts of conditions. Is that your question, Mr.
Leonard?
Q. That was my question. And have these tests
which you have taken, or which the students have taken
before you, led you to any conclusions as to whether there
are differences between varying groups? A. Yes, it cer
tainly proved differences.
132
Q. Are these statistically explainable? In other words,
are these things which can be measured and determined?
A. Yes.
Q. With some accuracy? A. Bight.
Q. Has there been, for example, at any time any study
made in an effort to equate social and environmental fac
tors between two groups? A. There are in the literature
six cases which [198] deal with comparisons of negro chil
dren and white children, and only one of these cases from
the south in segregated schools deal with the comparison
of negro and white children when they have been equated
for social economic status. The claim has been made that
in random groups the white children do better than the
negro but, of course, the usual answer is that as soon as
you can equalize the environment the negro does better.
Well, he doesn’t do better. That’s the upshot of it. He
doesn’t do better whether he is integrated or segregated.
Q. Have you at any time ever reported on those studies?
A. I have. I have a paper in the “ American Psychologist” ,
oh, August of last year, called “ The SPSSI and Bacial
Differences” and those cabalistic letters mean “ The Society
for the Psychological Study of Social Issues” .
Q. And, are your conclusions from those studies con
tained in that article? A. Yes, they are.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, I offer this article
in evidence as Intervenors’ Exhibit No. 2.
The Court: Submit it to counsel.
The Witness: It is tied in with a few other things
there, but you will have to take off the first two
sheets.
Mr. Leonard: You mean it starts here. (Indicat
ing)
[199] The Witness: It starts there, yes.
Mr. Leonard: Page 260.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
133
The Witness: Yes.
Mrs. Motley: Now, your Honor, he has stated
in the record his conclusions, that negroes never
do better than whites, and to put this in the record
would just clutter the record. He has already stated
his conclusions.
The Court: Let me see it.
The Witness: I didn’t say that, if I may inter
ject. I didn’t say that whites always do better than
negroes.
Mrs. Motley: What did you say?
The Witness: I said, in general, the whites do
better. The overlap is 10%, 15%, 25%.
Mrs. Motley: That’s the same thing the previous
witness said, isn’t that right?
The Witness: Well, he was speaking of a spe
cific case, Savannah-Chatham, which fits in with the
data you get from the country wide. I am talking
about the country from Canada down to the Gulf of
Mexico, not just Chatham County.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, I wonder if we could
postpone the cross-examination until the end of the
direct.
The Court: End of what?
Mr. Leonard: If we could hold Mrs. Motley’s
cross-examination until the end of the direct exam
ination.
[200] Mrs. Motley: I am objecting to that state
ment.
The Court: She is objecting to this statement
here and that is what I am reading over.
The Witness: If she hasn’t read it over, how can
she object? How can you object to something that
you haven’t read?
The Court: Well, don’t you all get into an argu
ment.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
134
The Witness: Well, she hasn’t.
The Court: Well, listen, we are not going to get
into any argument. That is my prerogative. Well,
you sure have not testified to all of it. I am going to
admit it and you can raise your objections, as I have
been saying from time to time, when the evidence is
completed you can raise your objection and I will
rule on it.
Mrs. Motley: I would like to say this, in addition,
your Honor: If this man is going to testify that
negroes, generally, on achievement tests, do not per
form as well as whites, the same as the previous
witness, we will stipulate that. He doesn’t have to
testify to it. We will agree to that.
The Court: Agree to what?
Mrs. Motley: That these tests, which have been
administered, show that negroes, generally, do not
perform on the achievement tests as well as whites.
Now, if that is all he is going to show, we will stipu
late that, because the other [201] witness has already
said that.
The Court: What do you say to that?
Mr. Leonard: Mrs. Motley has avoided, of course,
the principal point here that these results are equated
on the basis of social and environmental factors be
fore the tests are evaluated. There is quite a differ
ence. In other words, it is not merely a repetition of
the Savannah-Chatham Special Study. This con
firms it first, in a general sense and, secondly, it does
it specifically by equating the outside environmental
factors which might otherwise affect the results. In
other words, these rentals are independent of the en
vironment or social conditions which Mrs. Motley
will raise as being the cause of the differences.
The Court: What do you say to that?
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
135
Mrs. Motley: I did not understand what he was
talking about.
The Court: Well, I will admit this, subject to her
objections, and you may proceed with your examina
tion.
(Note: At this point the document was then
marked for identification as Intervenor’s Exhibit
No. 2.)
Q. Dr. Garrett, would you tell me what conclusions you
came to with respect to these studies! A. Well, the con
clusions are stated in one sentence at the end, Mr. Leonard,
that when you equate conditions, [202] as well as they can
be equated, that is, the objective things, that the overlap
of the negro and the white median is no greater than it is
in random studies, which means that the environmental
factors cannot explain the differences.
The Court: All right, anything else!
Mr. Leonard: Yes, your Honor.
Q. Dr. Garrett, will you tell me whether the differences
to which you have testified, and which are independent of
the social and environment factors, are significant in an
educational sense ? A. They are very significant.
Q. Will you please state in what way! A. If you find
that a group of children is one to two to three grades be
hind another group, and you put them together in the same
class room, you pull the level of the class down, so that the
better children are not getting a fair shake, they are not
getting a good education, and the poorer ones are just
being frustrated.
Q. Now, do these differences show any significant differ
ence in general abilities, or merely what we call general
intelligence! Is there any distinction in ability, generally,
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
136
Doctor! A. Well, general intelligence is so nebulous a term
that we don’t use it any more. The differences between
[203] the negro and white are mostly within the realm of
what you’d call abstract intelligence, that is, the ability to
deal with numbers, pictures, diagrams, blueprints, words,
things of that sort, those things which made European
Civilization and never have made a civilization in Africa
in five thousand years. That, I call abstract intelligence
and that is where the negro falls down.
Q. In other words, in the various capabilities, there are
different levels. This is not a single difference with respect
to all characteristics? A. Well, no, we try to figure intelli
gence as being on what you might call the abstract or scho
lastic level. And then on the social level the ability to get
along with people, and then on the mechanical motor level,
the ability to deal with things with your hands. Those
things are not completely independent but they are rela
tively independent.
Q. Could you approximate for me the differences be
tween the two groups so far as your experience goes in
those three fields? A. Well, I think the great difference
comes in the abstract and the verbal side. In social adapta
bility I don’t know of any specific studies but my guess,
maybe it ’s educated, I don’t know, would be there isn’t any
great difference. In the mechanical-motor, I just don’t
know. I have read a lot [204] of stories about how Africans
fail to put oil in the motors and ruin them and all that
kind of thing. I don’t know how much that means.
Mrs. Motley: Your Honor, we object to this testi
mony as completely irrelevant. We are not dealing
with Africans. We are dealing with American citi
zens in Chatham County.
The Court: Well, like I have said, I keep on say
ing I am going to hear all the evidence. I have tried
to make it plain. I am going to hear all the evidence
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
137
and then you raise your objections to it when we get
through. If I find that it is irrelevant I am going
to rule it out; if I don’t, I am going to let it stay in.
Now, that’s the whole thing. I tell you, if you will
just object to all of it, it will keep you from getting
up and down.
Mrs. Motley: Well, I think we have a duty to
try to—
The Court: -—well, certainly you have a duty—
Mrs. Motley: —not just sit here and listen to this
kind of thing all day.
The Court: Well, that might not appeal to you,
but it might appeal to somebody else, you know. As
far as I am concerned, it isn’t a question of whether
it appeals to anybody or not. I am going to hear this
evidence and then I am going to hear from you and
then I am going to render my [205] judgment.
Mrs. Motley: But this witness—
The Court: —I know, but I keep on telling you.
Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make any
difference to the court.
Mrs. Motley: Excuse me, your Honor, all I am
trying to say is I want to save the time of the Court,
because this man has written extensively on this sub
ject and it all says the same thing, that the negroes
are inferior to the white. Everybody knows his
reputation, nationally, preaching that negroes are
inferior.
The Court: I know, but you keep on raising the
same objection, and now finally once and for all I am
ruling that I am going to hear all of this evidence
and then I am going to render my judgment after
that. That’s final. You may go ahead.
Q. Would the differences in these three types of ability
you have discussed, Hr. Garrett, indicate to you the de
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
138
sirability of any different educational treatment in negro
schools as against white schools! A. Well, I am not an
educator and I can’t say. I think I know what I might do
if I had a free hand, but I would prefer to let somebody,
who is an educator, testify on that. I will say that if you
should integrate massively that [206] you ruin the white
schools and I don’t believe the Supreme Court, when it said
that color was not to be the sole criterion, said that you had
to ruin the schools.
Q. Well, in what way would it ruin them! A. It would
pull the achievement level down one to three grades through
the elementary school and it would do so in the high school.
Q. In other words, your congregated schools would be
pulled back from one to three grades on the average! A.
And neither group would be happy. One group would be
challenged above its ability level and the other group would
not be challenged enough.
Q. In psychology is there many normal reactions to that
type of congregation, where you have two socially coherent
groups mixed together! A. I t ’s frustration, of course, and
frustration leads to aggression and aggression leads to
broken windows and muggings and crime.
Q. And this effectively is the result of bringing the
groups together! A. Eight.
Q. Under class room conditions! A. Eight.
Q. And would this, in your opinion, Dr. Garrett, [207]
create a condition in which the educational opportunities
of both groups would suffer! A. Look at Washington, D. C.
Q. Well, leaving Washington, D. C. out for the moment,
as a general statement would it, in your opinion, as a psy
chologist! A. Yes, it would.
Q. And adversely affect the education of both groups!
A. Yes. And I would like to say, too, that I am a friend
of the colored man. I have never said that he was inferior.
I say that he doesn’t do some things as well as the white
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
139
man, and I think these people are doing him more harm
than—
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
Mrs. Motley: -—your Honor, we object to his
speeches on segregation.
The Witness: You made a speech just now.
The Court: Well, she is hired to do it. I will
overrule your motion. I want to hear it all.
Q. Tell me, Dr. Garrett, what evidence is there that
segregation per se causes injury to the negro students? A.
There is no evidence.
Q. Do you recall that such evidence, or such studies
were, in fact, quoted at one time by the Supreme Court?
[208] A. There was only one experimental study quoted
and that was from Kenneth Clark, who was a student of
mine at Columbia University. I knew him very well, and
that study was so equivocal and so ambiguous that it proved
nothing.
Q. As far as you know, are there any other studies
which have attempted to show that injury occurs by reason
of segregation? A. No, except by asking questions. You
ask a child: “ You don’t like your school, do you?” . He
says: “ No, I don’t,” that is, if he thinks that is what you
want him to say, or he will tell you that “ I love it” , if he
thinks the other is what you want. That kind of evidence
is not worth a nickel.
Q. Dr. Garrett, referring to the Intervenors Exhibit
No. 2, which was your article, I wonder if you would identify
the studies which you commented on at that time, and give
us as to each an approximation of who the authority was
that made it and what his conclusions were? A. I don’t
have the, paper now. Somebody took it.
The Court: Here it is.
140
The Witness: Thank you. Well, this paper was
done to show that this matching of two groups with
respect to social economic status does not reduce the
overlap, or increase the overlap, rather, of the negro
and white, that is, make more negroes go above the
median of the whites. And, one study was [209]
made in New York by Shuey with college students.
Another second study was made in rural Virginia,
based upon public school children. A third study
was made in Canada, and that’s a very interesting
study because—
Q. -—Dr. Garrett, I wonder—
The Court: —wait a minute. He hasn’t finished
yet. He started to say something about Canada.
Go ahead.
The Witness: Canada. May I finish that?
The Court: Yes, you go ahead.
The Witness: This study tested negro and white
children in seven grades in Kent County, Ontario,
and it is particularly interesting because most of
those negroes got into Canada through the under
ground railroad, and there had never been any segre
gation whatever, and still they were 10 to 15 points
below the white children in I.Q., and their overlap in
different tests, that is, the extent to which they ex
ceeded median was 13 to 20%.
Q. I wonder, with these articles, if you will identify for
us, as well as you can, the authors? A. Well, now that was
Tanser. A second study is Bruce.
Q. Well, who is Tanser? A. Tanser was a psychologist,
I think, or superintendent of schools. In 1939, this study
was in Kent County, [210] and I don’t remember exactly—
I never met the man, so—
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
141
Q- •—In other words, he was the superintendent of
schools in the Canadian city you referred to! A. Yes, I
think so. Then Miss Bruce—
Q. —Did you say 1939, Doctor, or 1959 ? A. 1939, that
59 is a mis-print. The Bruce study was 1940. Is that
enough! Is that all you want!
Q. Well, who is Bruce! A. Well, she is a woman, who
made a study of the standard tests in a rural county in
Virginia.
Q. Do you know anything of her qualifications! A.
She had a Doctor’s Degree in Psychology.
Q. And you also mentioned a Dr. Shuey, I believe! A.
She made a study in New York City. That was in 1942,
and these were college, students. Then the fourth one was
McGurk, a very extensive study of 3,000 high school seniors
in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, all in integrated schools.
Q. And what were the conclusions of that study! A.
That even when you match the children for the cultural
background the negro children still fell behind the whites
by almost as much as they do in random studies. Let’s see
then there were a number of Army results, of course. The
Army tests given in World War I and World War II
showed that from 10 to 15 percent of negro soldiers do
as well as the white [211] soldiers on a verbal, an abstract
type of examination.
Q. Well, when you said before there was an overlap
of 13 to 20 percent, that is the overlap of what! A. It
means the median is the 50% point, the median divides
the distribution into 50% here and 50% there, and that
would be the white distribution, and if you have 15% of
the negroes going above the median it means they scored
as well as the upper half of the whites. They exceeded the
median white, the average white.
Q. You are saying that from 13 to 20% of all the
negroes were superior to the average white, is that right!
A. That’s right.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
142
The Court: That’s on the lower group of the
white, an average, is that Avhat you mean?
The Witness: No. That’s in general, your
Honor.
Q. Well, that compares with the fact that 50% of all
whites were above the same point! A. Well, that’s right,
that’s your comparison point.
Q. That’s your comparison, 13 to 50. A. An overlap
of 50% means identity. The two are congruent there.
Q. In other words, the overlap is the amount measured
against the 50% above the center? [212] A. That’s right.
Q. Now, you mentioned Dr. Shuey’s studies. Did she
write a book on those? A. She wrote a book published in
1959, I believe, which reviewed 240 studies made in the last
40 years, all dealing with the comparison of negro and
white, practically everything that has ever been done.
Q. Well, are you familiar with the book? A. Very.
Q. Is it an authoritative work, in your opinion? Is it
in accord with present psychological doctrine, to the best
of your knowledge? A. Well, it is in accord with psycho
logical doctrine of some people. There would be others
who wouldn’t agree.
Q. Are the test results reported—my question really
is: Are the test results reported reliably reported? A.
The test results are reported in great detail and are very
reliably done, excellently done.
Q. Are you familiar with the fact that Exhibit No. 11
to the papers of the Movant in this case is Dr. Shuey’s
book? A. Am I familiar with the book?
Q. No. Do you recall that the book itself was [213]
put in before this court as Exhibit No. 11? A. Yes.
Q. On the motion to intervene. Now, was the McGurk,
which you referred to, the one which he made in the U. S.
News and World Report? A. That’s it.
Q. And you recall that this was put in on a motion to
intervene as Exhibit No. 13A? A. That’s right.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
143
Q. In your opinion, does that article accurately describe
the material that it purports to give? A. It does.
Q. And are its conclusions in accord with your own,
your own opinion? A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Garrett, in connection with your work, have you
kept up with the literature of the actual effect of congrega
tions in cities where integration has either taken place,
or has always been the normal standard? A. You mean
with respect to relative achievement or the well being of
the children and general state of happiness?
Q. General class room conditions, general rate of
progress, general educational achievement, and so on?
[214] A. Well, I know New York fairly well. I lived there
30 years and I know Washington.
Q. What do you know of the effect—I won’t say of
integration, hut of the usual grouping of congregation in
New York Schools?
Mrs. Motley: We object to that, your Honor.
What happens in New York doesn’t have anything to
do with Chatham County. I think this witness can
only testify to the problems or the effect of these
tests in Chatham County.
The Court: Well, you may proceed. I am going
to hear all the evidence.
A. I don’t have any quantitative data, Mr. Leonard, on
the New York situation, only what information I have from
talking to teachers, many of whom were students of mine
when I was in New York and, of course, in Washington, I
have visited there several times.
Q. Well, have you made it a part of your duties or your
work to follow the conditions in the class rooms? I mean
in those two cities? A. Well, not specifically, not in detail.
Q. Well, are there any conclusions that you can come
to validly on the basis of what you do know about them?
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
144
Mrs. Motley: He just said he didn’t know any
thing about them, your Honor. How can he make
a conclusion based on [215] something he doesn’t
know anything about?
A. Yes, I think, from talking to various people who do
know the situation intimately, I could say that in Washing
ton it was a most unwise thing to do. It has led to a
steady deterioration in the educational level of the Wash
ington schools.
Mrs. Motley: We object to that as hearsay.
The Court: All right, the objection is noted.
Q. Do you know of any reports on the subject? A. Well,
there have been a number of reports in the U. S. News
and World Report, and there is a great deal contained in
that Williams Investigation, of course, which was made
in the Washington schools.
The Court: I think your objection just now about
that he got his information from what other people,
told him, I think, perhaps, that motion is good, and
I will sustain that objection, about some report he
got in Washington. I think that’s hearsay.
Q. Are you familiar with the Report of the Sub-Com
mittee that investigated the condition of the Washington
schools? A. Yes.
Mrs. Motley: I think the Report will be the best
evidence, your Honor.
[216] Mr. Leonard: The report is in evidence
before the Court at the present time.
The Court: Now, let me get this straight. You
say this Report is before me at the present time?
Mr. Leonard: The Report is before you as an
exhibit to the Movants’ papers as Exhibit No. 16.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
145
The Court: All right.
Mrs. Motley: Well, that is not in evidence.
The Court: She is correct on that. The plead
ings are not in evidence.
Mr. Leonard: That’s quite correct, your Honor.
I will offer it in evidence. Actually, the Court may
take judicial notice of the House of Representatives
Report. If the Court cares for a case on that, I will
be glad to have it tomorrow morning.
The Court: Well, suppose you do that. I think
you are right on that. I think I have had it up before
about the House of Representatives.
Mr. Leonard: Yes, sir, I will bring in a case,
on that.
The Court: Well, you do that.
Q. Dr. Garrett, to the best of your knowledge, are the
conditions which are, reported in that particular Report,
the conditions which have existed in the Washington schools
as [217] a result of integration! A. I don’t see how you
could conclude anything else. They didn’t exist before
1954.
Q. Dr. Garrett, are you familiar with the study made,
by the Department of Health and Education and Welfare
on standardization of the standard intelligence scale of
negro elementary school children? A. Yes.
Q. And may I ask you to state what the objectives of
that study were? A. Well, the idea was to get a test which
would be fairer to the negroes and would have norms for
the negroes, and I have the study here, a copy of it, a
digest of it, and I think there have been a lot of complaints
by various people that the tests have all been standardized
on white American school children and are not fair to
negroes or to the Indians or Orientals and so forth, so this
test was constructed for these children. Now, the average
intelligence quotient of the southern negro on the standard
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—-for Interveners—Direct
146
is around 80 where a 100 is the norm, and there is good
reason, I think, for having a test pitched to the lower level
for these children.
Q. Well, it differs in its norms entirely from the previ
ous! A. Yes.
[218] Q. What were the results of such a test! Did it
show any difference from the— A. —No, the norm, the
average, well the average intelligence quotient would be a
100, of course, since you set it at that, but the test stand
ardized for white children, the mean intelligent quotient
is 100, and on the same test for negro elementary school
children is 80, nearly 81, and with a less of a range. It is
a general conclusion you find always.
Q. Were there any others made to eliminate social and
environmental factors in the giving of that test and the
taking of these results! A. Well, the children were sam
pled in such a way as to run the gamut of the social and
economic backgrounds, so that it wasn’t overweighted with
professionals and underweighted with business people. If
the professional peoples’ occupations in this country, say,
4%, you wouldn’t want more than 4% of the children in
your sample to be from professional classes. That was
done. Every safeguard was exercised.
Q. Were the groups so taken separately tested or were
they simply tested as a single group! A. You mean negro
and white!
Q. No. You said they took groups from various eco
nomic levels! A. Oh, they were all tested with the same
test.
[219] Q. But did they tabulate the results at all accord
ing to the tests! A. Yes.
Q. Were there any significant difference by reason of
the social and economic status of the children! A. The
higher groups, those from the better social and economic
levels get the higher I.Q.’s. That is not always true, but
in general it is. And then you get the question of which
is a cart and which is a horse. Did the high status cause
the I.Q., or was the I.Q. which lead to the higher status.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Direct
147
Q. In other words, the question is whether the economic
status is gained by reason of the higher I.Q.? A. That’s
right.
Q. Dr. Garrett, did you, yourself, write a hook in the
field of Psychology, known as “ Great Experiments In Psy
chology” in 1957? A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware of the fact that a copy of that hook
has been placed before this court in connection with the
Movant’s papers? A. I think so.
Q. And does that book cover the material which you
are now testifying to? [220] A. A good deal of it, yes.
Mr. Leonard: Thank you, Dr. Garrett.
The Court: All right, you may proceed.
Cross-examination by Mrs. Motley:
Q. Now, according to your testimony, 15 or 13 to 20%
of the negroes excel the whites in these tests? A. Excel
the median.
Q. The median?
The Court: I didn’t understand what you said
about the median?
The Witness: The median is the mid-point.
The Court: The mid-point?
The Witness: Yes. And if 50% go above the
median then 50% go below the median by definition.
Now, if the other groups send 15% above the median
of the white group, it means 15% in the upper half
of the better groups.
Q. Now, is that also true of Chatham County, Georgia?
A. Chatham County, Georgia, is worse than that, if I
interpret Dr. Osborne’s figures correctly, in educational
achievement. The overlap is not more than 2 or 3%.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Cross
148
[221] Q. Two or three per cent? A. Yes. It is a chasm.
It is not a gap, it is a chasm.
Q. What do you think accounts—
The Court: — Excuse me. What did you say
that was?
The Witness: I said it was not a gap. It was a
chasm.
Q. Now, why is there such a tremendous difference be
tween the overlap in other parts of the country and Chat
ham County? A. Well, I can only hazard a guess at that.
I think the southern negro is mostly rural or agricultural.
He is not very selective. The selective ones probably have
gone north. He is unmixed, generally, and I think a lot
of those factors come in.
Q. So, it doesn’t have to do with race, necessarily, does
it, just environment? A. I think it has to do with environ
ment. It has to do with race, too.
Q. Well, what does quotient have to do with race? A.
Because the difference is one where the race is concerned,
and if you make studies of the performance of the negro
child—it was found in a study of 8,000 children in [222]
Chicago not long ago, and they were able to find 103 chil
dren, negro children with intelligence quotients above 120,
that is very bright. Now, they had to look through 8,000
to get them, and in a comparable group of 8,000 white
children you would get 800 with I.Q.’s above 120 which,
to me, shows that the incidents of high intelligence is about
7-8 to 1.
Q. What about the 120 negroes that do? A. 80% of
them are mixed blood.
Q. How do you know that? A. They said so. I don’t
know whether they knew it or not, but that’s what they said.
Q. Who said it? A. The children, or their parents. It ’s
reported in the report.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Cross
149
Q. Now, this 2% in Savannah, Chatham County, Geor
gia, would you he in favor of putting them in the white
schools! A. No.
Q. That’s what I thought! A. Do you know why! You
didn’t ask me why.
Q. I think that’s obvious. A. Because I think they
would be miserable and I ’m a friend of the children. I
don’t want to put them in there and hurt them.
[223] Q. Did you ask them whether they would be mis
erable or not? A. No, and you didn’t either.
The Court: Let’s don’t have any argument.
The Witness: I just answered her question.
The Court: All right.
Q. So, you wouldn’t put them in there because they
would be miserable. Suppose they should say to the Court
that they won’t be miserable, that they wanted to go there,
whether they would be miserable or not, what would you
say to that? A. Well, I would maybe try it. I maybe
wouldn’t try it either on the experiences I have seen in
Lane High School in Charlottesville, Virginia, where they
have 20 negro children in a white school of 1200, and four
of them have dropped out and gone back to the negro high
school and I have been down there and observed them. I
have walked through the halls. I have talked to the teachers,
and you see one little flock, four less, of these children to
gether, isolated, shut off on the playing field. There they
are. Nobody can change their color and their parents.
Why do they want to expose themselves to the high school.
They don’t want to do it. Their parents want it. And
why do their parents want it! Prestige, they think.
[224] Q. In other words, you don’t think negroes want
to go to school with whites under any conditions, is that
right? A. I think they are happier not. They have their
own teachers. They have their own associates. I had
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Cross
150
rather go to school with white people. Wouldn’t you rather
go to school with negroes!
Q. In other words, you are just a segregationists!
That’s all there is to that, isn’t that right! A. Well, I
don’t know whether that’s all. I believe in segregation as
being the best way of working it out.
Mrs. Motley: That’s all.
The Court: All right, any other questions!
Mr. Leonard: Yes, I have got just two questions,
your Honor.
The Court: All right. I usually take out at
5 :30, but I will run on another half an hour.
Redirect examhuition by Mr. Leonard:
Q. Was the Kenneth Clark you previously identified as
your former student who was cited by the Supreme Court
in [225] Brown decision! A. The same one.
Q. The same one, and that’s the same study to which
you referred to before in your testimony! A. The same
one.
The Court: He was your student!
The Witness: He was at one time.
The Court: All right.
The Witness: We are very good friends, inci
dentally, too.
Q. Mrs. Motley cut you off when you said that you
were for segregation, and you started to give a reason
for it. Do you want to state that reason now! A. Well,
I think that in elementary school and through the high
school, in the formative years of young people, it is better
to let each group mingle with its own, those of its own
race and its own sort, because I am strongly opposed to
inter-marriage, not only for the sake of the white man, but
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Redirect
151
of the negro, and in college and in graduate school it is a
very different proposition. I have had graduate students,
negroes, in Virginia. Some of them very good. I have
had them at Columbia. Of the two doctoral candidates at
Columbia in 30 years, who were negroes, one worked with
me—came to me because I was a segregationist, I suppose.
[226] Q. I believe you said that Dr. Clark was one of
your students, also! A. Well, he didn’t do his thesis with
me, hut we were quite friendly, and he took my courses.
Q. So, if I understand you correctly on this, Doctor,
you believe in the separation of the two races for elemen
tary and secondary schooling, is that right! A. Yes.
Q. And that you don’t have just a fixed feeling that
there has to he segregation in all schools! It is only where
it has a particular advantage! A. That’s right.
Mr. Leonard: Thank you.
The Court: It is now about six o ’clock, and I
am going to take out now until tomorrow morning
at 10:00 o ’clock.
The Witness: Am I excused!
The Court: No, sir, I would like to see you hang
around awhile.
The Marshal: Take a recess until 10:00 o ’clock
tomorrow morning.
(Note: According the proceedings; were then
recessed from 5:55, P.M. May 9th, 1963, until 10:00
o ’clock, A.M. Friday, May 10th, 1963, at which time
the proceedings were resumed as follows on the
next page.)
[227] The Court: All right. Now, I am going
through this afternoon. This is Friday, and then I
am going to recess over to Savannah on Monday
morning and keep on trying this case until I finish it.
Now, they wanted to try it, and I am going to keep
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Redirect
152
right after it. I have got court over there but I am
going to recess everything in court, and I am going
to follow this thing through until we get through
with the evidence.
And now on Monday morning, or just as soon as
possible, if each side would give me a proposed judg
ment, findings of fact and conclusions of law and
judgments, sustaining your contentions. I want one
by the Board of Education separately, and I want
one by the Intervenors, and then I want one by you
all. You will know how the evidence goes by Mon
day, and try to get it to me as early as possible. I
want to have it so I can study it and make such
corrections I feel might be necessary, but you get
me your contentions which are different from the
Intervenors, get me your proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law and final judgment, which you
think I should sign. You do the same thing, the
Intervenors, and you do the same thing for the plain
tiffs. I just wanted to make that statement, so you
would know what I am going to do. I am going to
take out this afternoon. Tomorrow is Saturday and
then is Sunday and I will be in Savannah on Monday
morning at the regular term of court, but I am going
to recess my regular [228] term of court and go
right into this case. I might take a few pleas over
there, but nothing else. Now, with that, you may
proceed.
Mrs. Motley: May it please the Court, before we
proceed, I think, when we ended yesterday, Dr. Bar
rett was on the stand.
The Court: Yes, he was.
Mrs. Motley: I would like to recall him and ask
him one or two other questions.
The Court: All right, is he here, Dr. Garrett?
The Marshal: Yes, sir. Dr. Garrett.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—■for Interveners—Redirect
153
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Recross
Recross-examination by Mrs. Motley:
Q. Dr. Garrett, did you testify in the Prince Edward
County case? A. I did.
Q. Now, that was one of the original school segregation
cases resulting in the decision of the United States Supreme
Court in Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka
in 1954, wasn’t it? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, your testimony in that case was similar [229] to
your testimony in this case, wasn’t it? A. No.
Q. How did it differ? A. Much more detail this time.
At that time it was largely concerned with what the effect
would be of immediate desegregation for in Virginia
schools, whether it would cause disorganization, social dis
ruption and things of that sort.
Q. Well, what was your opinion then? A. I said that I
thought it would.
Q. And didn’t you have some testimony in there similar
to what you put in here yesterday about negroes don’t
score as well on these tests as whites? A. I don’t believe
that came up at all, no question of race differences were
raised.
Q. You just testified that if there were integration in
Prince Edward County it would result in what? A. In a
general—not a particular breakdown—hut a disorganization
of the schools.
Q. And that was the extent of your testimony in that
case? A. Yes.
Q. And that case has been reviewed by the United States
Supreme Court, hasn’t it? [230] A. I suppose so. I have
no way of knowing.
Q. You don’t know that that is one of the original school
segregation cases? A. I know it went up to the Supreme
Court, yes. But you asked me whether they reviewed it, I
don’t know what they did with it.
154
Mrs. Motley: That’s all.
The Court: Any further questions ?
Mr. Leonard: Yes, your Honor.
Redirect examination by Mr. Leonard:
Q. Dr. Garrett, what were your recommendations to the
effect of segregation in the Virginia Schools? A. I sug
gested that it would be very unwise at—this was 1952 at
that time—because of the general tradition and background
and customs which had grown up in that state. I was not
at the time a resident of Virginia. I was living in New York
City.
Q. Now, since that time, you have been a resident of
Virginia, have you not, Dr. Garrett? A. Since 1956.
Q. And integration has taken place in some of [231] the
Virginia schools, has it not? A. Yes. Token.
Q. And have you observed any results which accord
with your prior prediction? A. Well, fortunately, there
hasn’t been any actual disorder, such as fighting and mug
ging and that sort of thing, hut there has been, as I recited
the other day, or told the other day, in the Lane High School,
there has apparently been considerable unhappiness on the
part of some of the colored children who were put into that
school. Four of them withdrew and went hack to Burley,
and the others stick very closely together.
Q. Did your predictions include the effects in Wash
ington? A. No, sir.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, in the questioning-
yesterday we talked a good deal about the question
of the overlap between the two groups, what these
percentage figures meant, and overnight we have
prepared merely a chart which will try to show what
we meant by this term “ overlap,” because it is
important to the concept of this case, namely, that
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
155
we are dealing with two groups which overlap each
other to a given degree and we can measure that
degree for educational purposes.
The Court: Let me see if there are any objec
tions. [232] Are there any objections to that from
the gentlemen from Savannah?
Mr. Morris: No, sir.
The Court: Any objections from the plaintiffs?
Mrs. Motley. Well, I didn’t know that he was
calling him back to the stand. I thought they were
through with this witness on yesterday. He just
asked permission to call him back for one question.
Now, he is going over the same thing again.
The Court: I know, but you called him back
yourself this morning.
Mrs. Motley: Well, he has already introduced
that kind of thing yesterday when this blue book
was here. He went over seven charts, which showed
the same thing, Your Honor.
The Court: You think it is a repetition.
Mrs. Motley: Just cluttering up the record.
Mr. Leonard: I think we have this confusion—
or rather confused with Dr. Osborne who had the
book.
Mrs. Motley: Well, his chart shows the same
thing.
The Court: Well, I will let him go ahead. You
may proceed.
Mr. Leonard: Mrs. Motley has this confused
with Dr. Osborne who had the book on the stand
yesterday.
[233] The Court: Well, I will let him go ahead.
You may proceed.
Q. Dr. Garrett, would you show that chart to the court?
A. The purpose of this chart is simply to clarify the con
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
156
cept of overlap. The red curve depicts the general range
of intelligence quotients of the negro group. This was made
in 1960.
The Court: Now, the rate is what?
The Witness: The range. The red from down
here and on up to there shows the range of intelli
gence quotients in the negro group, the red does.
Q. What do those numbers stand for on the left-hand
side, Dr. Garrett! A. The left-hand side, percentage that
attained in that particular group.
Q. Percentage of Avhat! A. The percentage of the
total group. Oh, the number. I am sorry, the number per
centage.
Q. Now, that’s the number of students achieving a given
figure on these tests! A. Yes.
Q. And are the figures on the test, the figures along the
bottom of the chart! [234] A. These are intelligence quo
tients. They run from 40 up to 140, and the red is the
mean of the negro group.
The Court: Say that again now. The red is
what ?
The Witness: It runs from 40, which would be
the low end of the scale, to a 140 up here. This is the
mean or the median. It doesn’t make any difference
which, of the negro group, and it shows that it shows
that it is located a very media of 82. That was the
general, the average, on typical score. Now, the
white group is represented by the black curve, and
their typical score is a 100, and they go from here up
to there.
The Court: Up to where!
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
157
The Witness: Up to the end of the curve and
off. There were a few that went over, above 140, but
they were so few it is not represented on the chart.
Q. Dr. Garrett, would you say that the high and the
low of those groups, of both groups, the extreme indi
viduals, have approximately the same as this chart shows?
A. Yes.
Q. That the distinction is basically where the majority
of the group falls'? A. That’s right.
Q. And not in the extreme individuals, either high or
low? [235] A. The only possible way of comparing two
groups is in terms of the typical person. You can always
find somebody who is outstanding in a group that is less
capable. You might find one or two.
Q. Now, for record purposes, would you describe to us
a person who had an intelligence quotient of 40? How
would you describe it? A. Well, he would be psychometri-
cal, that is, he would be feeble-minded.
Q. And at 140? A. I don’t like to use the term “ genius”
because I don’t think every bright child is a genius, but
he would be a very bright youngster.
Q. In other words, these two curves, which you have
shown, go from the feeble-minded to the genius, both in
the negro and white? A. That’s right.
Q. A high and low is the same, but the shape of the
curve is different, and the overall composition of the group
is different? A. Right.
Q. Do you have another chart on that point? A. May
I just say that as far as overlap is concerned, your Honor,
this part of the curve shows the part [236] of the negro
distribution which goes beyond the middle white, see. This
is the mean of the white. Now, that overlap would be
maybe, oh, 10 to 15%. I can’t tell exactly from the chart
but it would be no more than 15%, probably as small as
10%. Those are the negro children who achieve at a level
equal to, or better than, median, the middle, white students.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
158
Q. Now, would you give us the median of the two figures
and the difference between them? A. The difference is 20
points, 80 to 100.
Q. Is twenty points significant educationally speaking
Dr. Garrett? A. Right.
Q. In what sense? A. Well, if two children—
The Court: Don’t you want to sit down?
The Witness: I beg your pardon?
The Court: Don’t you want to sit down?
The Witness: Well, I have been sitting a long
time. The—
The Court: —All right.
The Witness: A difference of twenty points can
be observed by teachers. If children differ by as
much as ten points and one of them is a docile, well-
behaved child, and the other one is a demon, why,
the teacher might reckon the [237] less able child is
better, but if the gap gets to be 20, there isn’t any
foolishness about it. The teacher can tell.
Q. Now, would you give me the actual median scores
now for the negro and white as this chart shows? A. 80
negro—100 white.
Q. Now, the 100 white, does that have any reference
at all to the progress which the class should be making
in order that the median individual, or students in the class
should succeed and have the feeling of success? A. Well,
the middle child in any grade ought to have a 100 I.Q.
Q. Well, should the curriculum be so arranged and the
progress of the studies so arranged that it meets his re
quirement of progress and interest? A. Well, I think that’s
what the educators attempt to do, try to hit the middle of
the group.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
159
Q. Now, what would happen if you gave a progress
suitable to a 100 I.Q. rate to a group having a median of
80! A. 85% of them would have trouble, because they
would be below that level.
Q. Now, would this affect the students in any way?
A. Would they have any feelings about the fact that they
were not keeping up with the work? A. Well, my guess
would he it would affect them [238] very markedly.
Q. Is that just a guess off-hand, or is it an informed
guess based on your experiments? A. It is an informed
guess based on 30 years, hut I can’t look inside of any
youngster. You can only tell—you can’t really tell by
what he says. You can tell by what he does, his behavior,
and so on, whether he is discouraged, or unhappy, and
so forth.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, I offer in evidence
the chart which Dr. Garrett has just identified.
The Witness: There are two more that really
tell the same story—
Mr. Leonard: Dr. Garrett, I wonder if we could
take those up after we first get this admitted.
The Court: Any objections to that?
Mrs. Motley: Yes, sir, we object on the grounds
that this is all irrelevant. The question is whether
it is an admission policy based on race in Savannah,
because the Superintendent testified that no tests
of intelligence or anything else is used as the basis
for admission in the Chatham County Public Schools.
The Court: Well, I will go right along with my
previous rulings, that is, you can raise all of your
objections when we get through with the evidence,
and nobody will he prejudiced. [239] We have not
got a jury and it certainly is not going to prejudice
me if it is not relevant, but I will admit it.
jDr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Re-redirect
160
Mr. Leonard: Only as a caveat on the part of the
Intervenors and will come at the same place in the
record as the statement just made by counsel for
plaintiffs, we would like to say that it is the defend
ants’ position that the concept of admission to a
school is the concept of putting a student in a school
where he can succeed. This is the entire basis of
our case.
The Court: All right.
Q. Do you have another chart? A. These other two
charts—
Q. —let me get that identified. A. These two were
charts from Dr. Osborne’s work with the Savannah group,
the Savannah negro and white groups.
Q. Were they the same material that were admitted
yesterday? A. Yes. Now, the overlap here is denoted
by this little piece here. This is the median score—what
was this? This was the total score on arithmetic. Median
score for the white group in this proportion, oh, maybe
8 or 10% of the negroes do as well as the average of the
white group. Here, the overlap, “ Reading” , just about
the same.
Mr. Leonard: I offer in evidence the two charts
[240] which Dr. Garrett has identified.
The Witness: Would you like to take these?
Mrs. Motley: Same objection, your Honor.
The Court: All right, and I make my same ruling.
Q. Dr. Garrett, you have spoken here several times of
this overlap which these charts show. You may recall
that yesterday the point was made that all of those in the
overlap are equal to or more advanced than the median of
the other group, and that therefore they are capable,
potentially capable, of doing the same school work. Do
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
161
you recall that statement yesterday? A. Who made that?
Was it Dr. Osborne?
Q. No. A. Oh, counsel.
Q. Now, what, in your opinion, what would he the effect
of taking off the brighter students from one of these
groups and transferring them to the other group? A. I
think it would he, very hard on the children who were left
and on the negro teachers who had to instruct them, because
the most promising of the students would be drained off.
On the other hand, the few that are drained off and put
into the white schools, are, put into a situation which is
alien to them; they are surrounded by a sea of white faces,
and my feeling would be that they would work much less
well [241] than they would in their own group, provided
their own group supplied what they needed in the way of
instruction and equipment.
Q. Would there be any loss of group identification in
this case? A. Well, as far as you can observe, yes. I don’t
think the child would describe it in those terms, but I think
an observer could tell that there was a loss of cohesion
within the group.
Q. Is it possible that such an individual could lose his
right to excel, or to stand out in his own group ? A. I think
he would probably be very miserable. I know of one case
where a girl put in the Lane High School was capable of
doing the work but she had a so-called nervous breakdown
and withdrew because of the stress of the situation.
Q. This would be the type of stress that you are now
talking about? A. That’s right.
Q. Where a superior individual is moved from one to
the other? A. Yes. It wasn’t a question of doing the,
work, but it was the conditions under which it was done.
Q. One other point that came up in the cross examina
tion yesterday, Dr. Garrett, was this question of the [242]
social conditions affecting your testimony. Do social condi
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Re-redirect
162
tions, does the, environment, the society in which the indi
vidual is raised, control his intelligence quotient? A. To
a slight extent.
Q. Are there any studies which tend to evaluate to this
effect? A. The best studies, of course, are studies of iden
tical twins. Identical twins are born at the same time.
That would seem to be redundant somewhat, but they have
the same heredity, and if you study these children, when
they have been reared apart and reared together you get
some idea of the effectiveness of the environment in mak
ing for differences between the two.
Q. When you say reared apart, you mean a different
environment? A. Brought up in different homes.
Q. With different backgrounds? A. Brought up in
different homes, yes.
Q. While identical twins at birth? A. Identical twins.
Q. Precisely the same inheritance characteristics? A.
As far as we know, yes, except for some slight changes
maybe.
Q. And what have those studies shown? [243] A.
Well, the two best ones, I think, are the Newman Hol-
zinger Study in 1942 in Chicago, and a recent study by
Sir Cyril Burt, a British Psychologist, in 1960, and they
jive almost perfectly. I might summarize, it this way; that
the children who are brought up together, side by side,
with the environment presumably equal, differ on the aver
age of about five points of I.Q., which is within the area
of the test. In other words, they don’t differ at all, actu
ally. If they are reared apart, they differ about eight
points. The environment is able to change that three
points. Children selected at random, unrelated children,
differ about 15 points, fifteen to sixteen. Now, the Geneti
cists have worked out what they call a Concordance Index,
which shows the extent to which—or the degree to which
the likenesses and differences are attributable to common
inheritance and how much to environment. Buit repro
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Re-redirect
163
duced a lot of those figures from other people and some
he did, and the general consensus is that 75% of what makes
people differ is due to their inheritance, their ancestry,
about 25% to the environment. Now, you would have to
change that figure a little, Mr. Leonard, if you have an
extremely restrictive environment. If, for instance, if the
child is brought up by a grandmother way out in the, coun
try somewhere and never sees a book, the measurement
of that child’s intelligence would be depressed by virtue of
this restrictive environment. I have [244] seen children
brought into feeble-minded institutions increase in their
I.Q. 20 points after six months of good treatment, kind
treatment, food and clothing, but nobody thought that child
was any smarter, you just couldn’t get a measure of him
when he first came in.
Q. And this requires a very special restrictive environ
ment, does it not! A. It has to be quite restrictive. During
the War when I was acting for various things, we found
that out in Kansas they would bring in a boy from the farm
who would be feeble-minded by all the tests we could give,
and he might, according to reports, be a normal boy, and
then you look into it and you find that he has been brought
up on a farm, and all he has done is to carry out a few
chores which his father told him to do and in that very
simple restricted environment he was normal, say.
Q. In other words, no reading, no— A. —No anything.
He didn’t have to read.
Q. But that requires virtually isolation? A. Right.
Q. Now, in these identical twin studies, have there
been any comparable studies made of non-identical twins?
Mrs. Motley: Now, may it please the Court, I
think we are getting very far afield now on studies
about identical [245] twins and feeble-minded per
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
sons.
164
The Court: That was an illustration of certain
phases of—I will go right along with my original
ruling. I want to get all the evidence I can. I will
admit it.
Mr. Leonard: Anytime the Court has a question
on the purpose of the examination I will he glad to
state it.
The Court: I think I know what it is.
A. The non-identical, or the fraternal twins resemble each
other. Fraternal twins are simply twins that are brothers
and sisters or brothers and brothers born at the same time,
they don’t have the same complement of genes, and they
differ much more than do the identical twins.
Q. Now, when you say they differ much more, are you
talking about different environments, or are the studies
made of non-identical twins brought up in the same house
hold! A. Well, in the same household they differ more
and then when they are brought up in different environ
ments they differ more. I could state it in the form of a
correlation, and I doubt if it will mean very much, but if
they are brought up in the same environment the correla
tion for the identical twins is around .94 which is quite
high, with one as the top. And the correlation for fraternal
twins would drop to about .80, point eight 0.
Q. Now, does this confirm the prior conclusion [246]
which you based on the identical twins? A. Yes.
Q. And that conclusion is that environment does not
play more than a small part in these differences which
were observed? A. Maximally, about a fourth.
Q. Now, you said maximally about a fourth. Is there
any possibility that the difference observed in Dr. Osborne’s
figures in Savannah-Chatham County, the differential he
showed between the white and negro group is due to the
environment in Savannah-Chatham County? A. I don’t
think there’s a chance.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
165
Q. Scientifically speaking, is it possible? A. I don’t
think so.
The Court: What is that last question, sir?
Q. Scientifically speaking, is it possible that the differ
ences between the white and negro student groups, as
tested by Dr. Osborne in the Chatham County Schools, is
due to their environment, and I understand the answer is
it was not. Are you familiar with any testing studies which
have been made in Wilmington, North Carolina? Have
you seen any results of those? A. Those data have been
collected by Mr. Roland, who is retired superintendent of
schools there.
[247] Q. Do you know Dr. Roland? A. Very well.
Q. Is he an authority in his field? A. As an Educator,
yes, a man of great experience.
Q. Over what period of time has he worked with these
testing programs? A. Well, I think the first data he had
was in 1925, and the last was when he retired in about
1960, thirty-five years or so.
Q. And did he in 1925, and did he in 1960, make tests
of the kind we have been discussing, that is, as to the
I. Q. differences between the negro and white children
in the schools of Wilmington, North Carolina? A. He
did.
Q. And over that period of 35 years, what was the
difference that he found?
Mrs. Motley: May it please the Court, I think
that Dr. Roland ought to be here to testify to what
he found.
The Court: I think she is right on that.
Mr. Leonard: The point I offer is this, your
Honor: That once an expert is qualified he may
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—■for Interveners— Re-redirect
166
speak of the studies which have been made in his
field.
The Court: I am afraid you are right. I re
member that.
[248] Mr. Leonard: In other words, he may
speak of the literature, or he may adopt it as being
of his own opinion.
The Court: All right, I will overrule the objec
tion.
Mrs. Motley: The studies are the best evidence,
your Honor.
The Court: Yes, but on this the rule is different,
where they are experts.
Mrs. Motley: Your Honor, again we are going
over the same territory we went before.
The Court: Well, you have raised the same ob
jections, and I make the same ruling. At least, I
am going to be consistent. I am going right on ruling
the same way until we get through. All right.
The Witness: I might say, Mr. Leonard, just
by way of explanation, perhaps that Mr. Eoland
did this work at my suggestion. I followed it very
closely. I ’ve helped him get a grant which covered
the cost of some of it, so I think I know it just a
little more than hearsay.
Q. Well, is the study sufficiently authorative in the
field for you to express an opinion that it is accurate? A.
I think so.
Q. And what were the conclusions of that study in the
Wilmington schools? A. The difference between the
negroes and the [249] whites in 1925 and in 1960 was
approximately the same.
Q. Do you recall how many points that was? A. By 19
points.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
167
Q. In 1925 and in I960! A. Yes.
Q. Of your knowledge, Doctor, has the social and
economic conditions of the negroes in Wilmington improved
any between 1925 and 1960? A. I would say tremendously.
Q. How about the quality of their schooling and their
schools ? A. Excellent.
Q. And, nevertheless, there is no difference between
the testing of the two groups over the 35-year span?
A. That’s right.
Q. Dr. Garrett, are you familiar with the work of Dr.
Burt in this field on the inheritance and natural ability?
Mrs. Motley: Now, your Honor—
The Court: Same objection and same ruling.
The Witness: I gave a little of that just now.
The Court: I presume that was the same ob
jection.
Mrs. Motley: I think, your Honor, there has
to be a limit to the testimony that one witness can
give on the same [250] point.
The Court: Well, who is the judge of that?
Mrs. Motley: Well, we are asking the Court to
make a ruling.
The Court: Well, I have already made a ruling
all yesterday and all this morning and I am still
ruling the same way. I am going to be consistent.
I am going to let both sides go into it thoroughly
on both sides, and I have got all of this week and
next week to hear it.
Mrs. Motley: Well, your Honor—
The Court: —They were raising cane about me
not hearing it. I don’t say you were, but the plain
tiffs were that I didn’t give them a hearing, and
brother I am giving them a hearing.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
168
Mrs. Motley: Well, your Honor, I would like
to say this then: Judge Tuttle has said that we
can renew our motion on Monday for the appoint
ment of another Judge to hear this case, and on
Monday we plan to do that. We don’t plan to
appear in Savannah on Monday. We plan to file
that motion in the Fifth Circuit.
The Court: That’s your privilege. However,
I think that is more or less a threat, and let the
record show that, but that isn’t bothering me a bit.
I am going to do what I think is right, and I am
sure Judge Tuttle will agree with me [251] that
is right.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, I would like to point
out that the evidence is not cumulative or repetitive,
except to this extent; that prior to the Brown case
there was no necessity to develop this evidence what
soever, and it was not done, as Dr. Garrett has
pointed out. He was a witness in one of the cases
leading up to the Brown case. The plaintiffs in
this case, or at least the organization, which is be
hind them, prepared and presented in those four
cases exactly the type of evidence which we are
now doing, and they presented to the Supreme Court
the type of document which is called the “ Brandeis
Brief,” which was loaded with the types of authority
on which they relied on these very points, and they
attempted to show injury to the pupils by segrega
tion. All we are trying to do is to prove that in
jury to the pupil is unavoidable in a congregated
situation. Now, we have asked the plaintiffs to
stipulate this, and we could have avoided all of this
testimony. They claim that it is legally irrelevant.
If it is legally irrelevant they can have no objection
to conceding that both groups of children would
be injured in the Savannah-Chatham County Schools
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
169
by congregating them as they request being done.
Now, if they will make that admission we will be
through with our proof. Until they have made it,
I have to prove it.
The Court: Well, I think she said yesterday that
[252] she couldn’t admit that, is that right?
Mrs. Motley: I just understood him to say that
we put in all of this testimony in the Brown case,
and if that’s the case, the Supreme Court has al
ready ruled on it. That’s our point. He is going
over something which the Court has already re
viewed and decided against them.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, we are engaged here
on a factual problem, not on a legal problem. Yester
day counsel for the plaintiffs stated that the Brown
case was decided as a matter of law that segregation
was physically harmful, or mental or psychologically
harmful to the negro students. Now, this is a mat
ter of fact, a provable fact, and we are here to
show, as a matter of fact, that it isn’t so, and that
the information which went before the Supreme
Court in that case was not valid, scientific informa
tion.
The Court: Well, here is the way I figure the
entire matter, I have stated that at the conclusion
of the evidence that she could raise her objections
at that time as to any or all parts of the evidence
and I would rule on it at that time, which would
protect her rights. And I didn’t appreciate, of
course of being threatened with Judge Tuttle, that
doesn’t make any difference to me, because I am go
ing ahead and do my duty as I see it, and hear this
evidence just like I said I was going to do when
I started out in this case. I am [253] giving her
ample protection to raise her objections at the con
clusion of the evidence. There will be no prejudice.
l)r. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-redirect
170
We have no jury here, I am trying to hear it on a
legal situation, and I think the best way I can do
that is to hear the evidence and then rule on it,
and not rule on it before I hear the evidence. That
is what I am doing. And knowing Judge Tuttle,
knowing him like I do, I don’t think he would
appreciate very much of being threatened with him
by what he is going to do. I haven’t got any fears
about that. All right, you may proceed.
Q. Dr. Garrett, I will repeat my question. Are you
familiar with the work of Cyril Burt in the field of
“ The Inheritance of Mental Ability” ? A. I mentioned
it briefly just now in connection with the identical twins
studies. He published a paper in 1960 in which he re
viewed some of the recent material and gave his own
data.
Q. Are you familiar with his article from The Ameri
can Psychologist of January 1958 entitled: “ The In
heritance of Mental Ability” ? A. Yes.
Q. Which was filed as item No. 24 of the Movants’
papers? A. Yes.
Q. Are his conclusions in that article in accord [254]
with the consensus of authoritative opinion in your field?
A. It is hard to know what the consensus would be, Mr.
Leonard. I think it is in accord with the consensus of
perhaps of 15%. It would be strongly opposed, perhaps,
by 15% and the rest of them wouldn’t know one way or
the other, or care.
Q. Are you in accord with Dr. Burt? A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with the work of the Doctor McGurk
you mentioned yesterday? A. Yes.
Q. And, are you equally familiar with the article which
he wrote which was published in the U. S. News and World
Reports? A. Yes.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Be-redirect
171
Q. And filed by the Movants before this court? A. Yes.
Q. And are his conclusions the conclusions which you
have stated here? A. Yes.
Q. And do you agree with those? A. I do.
Q. And to the best of your knowledge, are they an
authoritative expression on the subject? [255] A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Garrett, did you review a chapter from Kline-
berg on “ Race and Psychology” ? A. Yes.
Q. And did you publish that in “ The Mankind Quar
terly” ? A. I did.
Q. And do you recall if that was placed in by the
Movants as their exhibit No. 9 to their papers? A. Yes.
Q. And are you still of the same opinion which you
stated at that time? A. I am.
Q. On these tests? A. Yes.
Mr. Leonard: That’s all I have, Dr. Garrett.
The Court: Anything else?
Recross examination by Mrs. Motley:
Q. Your views on this question are the minority views
of your profession, isn’t that right? A. Yes, I think, per
haps, that’s right.
[256] Mrs. Motley: That’s all.
The Court: All right, you may step down. Any
questions from the Savannah counsel?
Mr. Morris: No, sir.
Mr. Leonard: I have a question following that
one, Your Honor.
The Court: Oh, I thought you were through.
Mr. Leonard: I had, but this question raised
another one.
The Court: All right.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-recross
172
Redirect examination by Mr. Leonard:
Q. What do yon mean by this question, Doctor? On the
inheritance of intelligence? A. I think that the question of
genetic differences between races, the notion that such
exists is held by perhaps 15% of fairly inarticulate people.
They are afraid to speak out now. They are afraid of the
atmosphere. It is voiced very vociferously by perhaps 10 or
15%. The majority of experimental psychologists don’t
care one way or the other. So in that sense—
Q.—On this question, when you said this question, [257]
when you answered it— A. —on genetic differences, yes—
Q. —you were talking only about the genetic differences
involved here, not the group differences which have been
measured? A. That’s right.
Mr. Leonard: That’s all, Your Honor.
The Court: All right, any other questions for
this witness? Any question from the Savannah
Counsel?
Mr. Leverett: No, sir.
The Court: All right, any other questions for
this witness from the plaintiffs?
Mrs. Motley: No, sir.
The Court: All right, you may go down, Doctor.
[258] The Court: All right, call your next wit
ness.
Mr. Leonard: Dr. Armstrong, will you take the
stand, please?
Mrs. Motley: Now, may it please the Court, this
witness has been sitting in the courtroom all day dur
ing the testimony. They didn’t swear her yesterday
and they didn’t tell us they were going to bring in
this woman and she has heard the statements and
testimony of the prior witnesses in this case.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-re-redirect
173
The Court: I understand this lady wasn’t here
yesterday.
The Witness: I was in New York yesterday.
The Court: Ma’am?
The Witness: I was in New York yesterday. I
just got here at 3 :00 o ’clock this morning.
The Court: You say you got here at 3:00 o ’clock
this morning?
The Witness: Yes, 3:00 o ’clock this morning.
The Court: Well, I don’t think anybody would
appreciate being called up at 3 :00 o ’clock and told
they had just got here. I will overrule your objec
tion. She wasn’t here yesterday. She got in here at
3:00 this morning. She couldn’t have heard any of
the testimony because she was in New York yester
day, and I don’t see where you are hurt a hit [259]
by it. It is discretionary with the court anyway.
The Witness: And I have just come in here.
The Court: She has just come in the door.
Mrs. Motley: If there are any other witnesses,
Your Honor, we want them outside.
The Court: Well, the Marshal is very efficient,
and I am sure he will look after it.
The Marshal: You asked yesterday and they said
they did not want the witnesses under the rule.
Mr. Leonard: The plaintiff waived the rule on
the witnesses yesterday, Your Honor.
Mrs. Motley: Yes, the witnesses that you had
sworn.
The Court: That’s correct. The Marshal just
called my attention to the fact that it was waived
yesterday. I asked if you all wanted the witnesses
placed under the rule or not, and it was my under
standing that you said no, that you didn’t care for
them to be placed under the rule.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners—Re-re-redirect
174
Mrs. Motley: Yes, those they were going to in
troduce but they have got some more witnesses now
that are supposed to be surprise witnesses. We
couldn’t have known about them.
The Court: Well, Mr. Marshal, will you tell all
the witnesses in this case—do you want them all
placed on the outside1?
Mrs. Motley: Yes, sir.
[260] The Court: Now, yesterday morning, as
I recall, you didn’t want them under the rule. Now,
this morning you do. Well, that’s all right. That’s
your privilege.
Mr. Leonard: We have three, your Honor.
The Court: You have what?
Mr. Leonard: We have three, Dr. Armstrong,
Dr. George, and Dr. van den Haag.
The Court: There are three additional wit
nesses?
Mr. Leonard: That’s correct, sir.
The Court: Well, let them all stand up and be
sworn.
(Note: Acordingly, all witnesses then in the
court room, expected to be used by either side, were
called and sworn by the Clerk.)
The Court: Now, let me ask you, do you want
all the witnesses placed under the rule, or these
three people here? Do you want them all under the
rule?
Mrs. Motley: We want all witnesses under the
rule.
The Court: Both sides. All right, all witnesses
on both sides of this case will please retire to the
jury room. We have a comfortable jury room and
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-re-redirect
175
you all retire and go to the jury room and remain
there until you are called, all the witnesses, and we
will take a five minutes recess.
(Note: Accordingly, a recess was had for about
five minutes, after which the proceedings were re
sumed, as [261] follows.)
The Court: Just as a matter of curiosity, you
said you got up here at 3:00 o ’clock this morning.
How did you get up here? Did you fly in here?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: You flew into Jacksonville and then
took a Baker Flying Field plane into Brunswick.
That’s what I call service.
The Witness: And then they put the plane
away, locked it up, turned off the lights and then
the pilot drove us in, and so I got my lights out at
3:00 o ’clock this morning. That’s the point.
The Court: That’s all right. I was just wonder
ing how you got that rapid transportation. I knew
we had the Baker Flying Field Service here. If
you ever come hack again, and I hope you do, and if
I am still here, which I hope I am, you can get a jet
out of New York and come down to Jacksonville and
a plane from the Baker Flying Field in Brunswick
will meet you in Jacksonville and pick you up and
bring you up to Brunswick.
Mr. Leonard: That’s the way Dr. Armstrong
got here, your Honor.
The Court: That’s what I was asking her about.
I asked her how she got over here, and she said the
Baker [262] Flying Field brought her over here.
You came down on a jet, didn’t you?
The Witness: Yes, sir, in two hours and ten
minutes.
Dr. Henry E. Garrett—for Interveners— Re-re-redirect
176
Mr. Leonard: We are trying to get this case
tried by Monday, your Honor.
The Court: That’s all right. I know they filed a
petition with Judge Tuttle to get another Judge
down here. I know they did, because Judge Tuttle
turned it down, and so I am going to stick right with
this case until I get through with it, and in my own
way.
Mr. Leonard: We were expecting Dr. Armstrong
to come down to Savannah toward the end of next
week.
The Court: Well, I am so glad you came down.
All right, you may proceed.
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong—for Interveners—Direct
[263] D r . C l a i r e t t e P. A r m s t r o n g , sworn for the inter
veners, testified as follows:
Direct examination toy Mr. Leonard:
Q. Dr. Armstrong, would you state your background
and employment up to the present! A. Well, do you want
curriculum data, or what! I have a Ph.D. in Psychology.
Mrs. Motley: May it please the Court, as in the
case of the other witnesses, we will stipulate that
this witness is qualified to testify to whatever she
testifies to.
The Court: All right, what do you say!
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, I would like to have
in the record some of Dr. Armstrong’s qualifications.
The Court: If he wants it for the record in the
event it goes to the Appellate Courts to show them
who this lady is, her background, I think they are,
entitled to do that.
177
Mr. Leonard: I won’t exhaust the qualifications
in view of the concession but I would like to get
some of them, at least a sketch of her background.
The Court: All right, go ahead.
The Witness: Well, I ’ll begin with the Profes
sional Chief Psychologist at Bellevue for two years,
having interned for a whole year before, and then
passing the Civil Service [264] Examination.
Q. What Degree do you hold? A. A.B. A.M. and Ph.D.
Q. Where did you take your Doctorate? A. New York
University, finally.
Q. In what subject? A. Psychology.
Q. And did you take a Master’s in the same subject?
A. No. School of Political Science, the School of Social
Work, counting as two minors.
Q. You’ve done both social work then and—- A. —Well,
no, I didn’t do much in the line of social work, because my
family objected.
Q. What were your fields in Psychology? A. Clinical.
Clinical and consulting and research more recently.
Q. And what does Clinical Psychology mean? What
does it cover? A. You are applying psychological laws to
deviates of all sorts, or even normal people, of all ages, to
diagnose what the trouble is and how they compare with
normal people, so they can make a normal adjustment.
Q. Now, does this include work with students at [265]
all? A. You mean normal—
Q. —Does this cover the adjustment of a student to
his class or to his group? A. Well, as a private case, hut
you would expect people to be normal if they are working
for college degrees or that sort of thing, if that’s what
you mean.
Q. All right, now, in primary and secondary schools?
A. Young children.
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong—for Interveners—Direct
178
Q. Would the question of a person who doesn’t fit his
class group be a problem within the clinical psychology?
A. Yes.
Q. That’s what you are talking about? A. Yes.
Q. And, have you, in this field, published a number of
studies in this area? A. Yes.
Mr. Leonard: Excuse me, Dr. Armstrong. I just
wanted to say that, in view of the concession, instead
of reading these, Your Honor, I will offer the list of
Dr. Armstrong’s articles in evidence as an exhibit,
so they can be printed in the record and that will
save time.
The Court: Any objections?
[266] Mrs. Motley: Well, I think he could put
all of their testimony in and—
The Court: —I mean, do you have any objections
to that particular evidence?
Mrs. Motley: No, sir.
The Court: All right, it is admitted without
objections.
Mrs. Motley: Since all of his testimony as to
this witness is all written out, why can’t he just put
that in evidence? Why go through all of this.
The Court: It is in evidence.
Mrs. Motley: What I am saying is that the evi
dence she is now going to testify to is all written out.
The Court: Is it written out in some report?
Mr. Leonard: This is just an outline for exam
ination.
The Court: All right. He said he didn’t have
anything written out.
Mrs. Motley: What I am getting at, Your Honor,
this list, as I understand it—
The Court: —her qualifications.
Mrs. Motley: Her qualifications, yes.
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong—for Interveners—Direct
179
The Witness: Publications.
The Court: Publications.
Mr. Leonard: These are her publications in this
[267] field, your Honor.
Mrs. Motley: Publications on the subject to
which you are now testifying!
The Witness: Not entirely.
The Court: All right, you may proceed.
Q. They are, however, publications within your general
field of study! A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. Where did you take your B.A.! A.
Barnard College, New York.
Q. And are you a member of any professional societies
or a Fellow! A. I am a Fellow. Do you want a list. I am
a Life Fellow of practically all of them in my field,
Academy of Medicine, Association of Mental Defectives
and all of those things.
Q. Thank you. Now, have you ever done clinical work
actually on boys of student age, class room age! A. Yes,
at the Childrens’ Court.
Q. Now, based upon that experience and upon your
studies, Dr. Armstrong, can you state what, in your
opinion, would be the effect of congregating negro and
white students in the same school!
Mrs. Motley: We object to that, your Honor.
[268] The Court: That is the same objection,
is it not!
Mrs. Motley: I would like to have my objections
in the record, your Honor.
The Court: I made a ruling to start with that
you could raise your objections at the conclusion of
the evidence and I will pass upon it at that time.
Now, you talk about killing time, if we went into
detail on this with every witness it would kill
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong—for Interveners—Direct
180
some time. You will be amply protected on that, and
you can raise your objection after all the evidence
is in and I will rule on it. I have made that ruling
five or six times.
Mrs. Motley: Your Honor, it is going to be im
possible for me to write down every question and
answer of all of these witnesses.
The Court: I think you are capable of writing
them down. You may proceed.
The Witness: Now, what was the question? I
have forgotten the question.
The Court: I have forgotten the question, too.
Just ask the question over again.
Mr. Leonard: Will the Reporter read my last
question, please?
The Reporter: “ Now, based upon that ex
perience and upon your studies, Dr. Armstrong, can
you state what, in your opinion, would be the effect
of congregating negro and white [269] students in
the same school and in the same class?
A. I think it is very detrimental to the negro child.
Q. In what way, Dr. Armstrong? A. Scholastically,
from the point of view of age, from the point of view of
school abilities, and even though these children, the whites
and the negro children are very low in their intelligences,
the mental ages of the negroes is further below their
chronological age than are the whites.
Q. In other words, when you take the lower end of the
range you have— A. —the differences.
Q. Still a difference existing? A. They are all bad,
but some are worse.
Mrs. Motley: I move that that remark be
stricken.
The Court: What was that?
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong—-for Interveners—Direct
181
Mrs. Motley: Her remark “ They are all bad
but some are worse” , referring to negroes.
Mr. Leonard: I am sorry, but weren’t you re
ferring to both negro and white?
The Court: That’s the way I understood it.
Mrs. Motley: I am sorry, but I thought you were
referring to negroes only.
The Court: I understood she was referring to
both. [270] Didn’t you refer to both?
The Witness: Yes. You get the lower end of
the scale.
Q. You are talking about delinquent boys, taken as a
whole? A. Yes, the lower end of the scale.
Q. Your work has been done in the field of delinquent
boys? A. And girls.
Q. And have any of those delinguents had school prob
lems and has their delinquency been related to their school
problems? A. Yes. Truancy, a tremendous proportion
of the children in the children’s court are truants, which
means that there is some trouble there in the schools. They
run away from home and a large proportion of them, 37%
in the study I did of them, said they left because they
couldn’t get along in school, and then when you study their
scholastic abilities on reading tests, arithmetic tests, you
find them quite far down, quite far below their mental ages,
five years below in some cases. These boys of fifteen
couldn’t even read a line and so you can see why they
would run away.
Q. Tell me, Dr. Armstrong, you mentioned a figure
there, did you question negro boys who were truants as to
the cause of their truancy, or to the cause of their running
away? [271] A. Yes, I asked a lot of them.
Q. And, what was that figure you gave? A. 37% of
660 runaway boys were negroes and that 30% of the
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong—for Interveners—Direct
182
children, of these negro boys, had run away because of the
school situation.
Q. In other words, one-third of the negro truants were
truants because of the situation existing in the school room?
Now, where were these school rooms located? A. New
York.
Q. New York City? A. Yes.
Q. And this is where your study was made? A. Yes.
Q. And this is the condition that exists in the New York
City Schools where there are mixed classes? A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you say by their situation in the classes,
do you mean the inability to keep up with the others, or
what ? A. Inability to learn. Teaching may be . in the
picture, hut they just can’t read and don’t figure at the
average for the age that these tests are standardized on.
You see, they are way below.
Q. Well, what’s the effect of that on the [272] students
who are in a class with others who do? A. I have had
them to tell me with tears in their eyes that they can’t get
along in school, that they know they are the dunces, so they
run away. And, half the time, the families are bad, too,
they have nothing.
Q. Would it have made any difference to these children,
in your opinion, as a psychologist, if they had been in a
class in which they were in a homogeneous group progress
ing at a rate which they could match? A. Oh, yes. And
some of them are a little bit better in manual things, at
that. In mechanical ability, they weren’t normal. They
were all far below, but they were better than in durable
situations and scholastic situations.
Q. In other words, there is a difference in abilities here,
which would have indicated a difference in course struc
ture or treatment or trade school versus clerical school?
A. Yes, but first, it is a regular pedagogical education. If
they had manual training they might have done better,
but even so, that wouldn’t have prevented their running
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong—for Interveners—Direct
183
away, I suppose, because they were not just up to an aver
age at that entirely.
Q. In other words, this was a school which was running
ahead of their ability to learn! [273] A. All the schools
are running ahead of the ability of a great many children.
Q. If you take a classroom which has identifiable groups
of white and negro students, with different progress rates,
would the type of reaction which you have just described
tend to result! A. I think so, yes.
Q. Would there be any extent to which there would
be a group identification with this result! A. I don’t
think so.
Q. To what extent, for example, would the individual
feel a sense of frustration in his ability to do at least
median class work! A. Well, it depends how many in
ferior children happen to be in that class, how many
couldn’t learn normally. You see, if they are conspicu
ously poor, if they can’t read and they can’t figure at all,
can’t add or subtract, that makes it very hard for them.
Q. What you are saying, essentially, is that failure to
keep up with a class is a psychological cause for truancy
and anti-social behavior, is that correct! A. Yes.
The Court: Is that correct!
The Witness: Yes.
[274] The Court: Talk so the Court Reporter
can hear you.
The Witness: Yes.
Q. Now, have you at any time made a study in this field
which you have reported in an article, or a book! A. Yes.
Q. And would you simply give us an identification of
that, Dr. Armstrong! A. “ A Note on the Attainments of
Delinquent Boys,” a study of 400 delinquent boys exactly
15 years of age, 200 whites and 200 negroes.
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong—for Interveners—Direct
184
Q. And this is listed in— A. —Yes, and then there is
another one, too, and then there is “ 660 Bunaway Boys.”
That book is out of print now.
Q. These are the two articles you are referring to
among the bibliography which was just published! A. Yes,
and there is one I call “ A Psychoneurotic Beaction of De
linquent Boys and Girls,” which is another study of run
away girls, comparing them with runaway boys, but not
taking it racially, necessarily, though. The figures are
there.
Q. Is there any difference between girls and boys! A.
Yes, the girls are older for one thing, a [275] year older
than the boys.
Q. Physical age, or chronological age ? A. Physical age.
They are older than boys. The boys were quite inferior.
They averaged 15, and the girls averaged 14 years, very
young to run away.
Q. Any difference in their mental ages! A. Oh, yes.
Their average I.Q.’s are around 81 or 82, something like
that, very near normal, but not between the boys and girls,
there was no difference, about the same.
Q. That would be true. In other words, along with
their chronological, or except for the difference in the
chronological age! A. Yes.
Mr. Leonard: Thank you very much, Dr. Arm
strong.
The Court: All right, you may cross-examine.
You may proceed.
Cross-examination by Mrs. Motley:
Q. Dr. Armstrong, am I correct in understanding that
your studies, to which you have just referred to, are studies
of delinquent boys in New York City! A. Yes.
[276] Q. Am I correct in understanding that both negro
and white boys were involved! A. Yes.
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong—for Interveners—Cross
185
Q. Have you ever made any studies of intellectually
gifted children? A. Not to write them up as my own pri
vate cases.
Q. I see! A. I have seen a great deal of them and the
differences are astonishing.
Q. Differences between what? A. Between the mentality
of the gifted and bright. Would you like to have a case
in point ?
Q. No. I ’m going to ask you another question. Is it
your testimony that these intelligence differences are due
to race? A. Well, it depends on what you mean by race?
Q. Well, it ’s er— A. —Race is defined so differently
in the courts’ statistics, for instance.
Q. Well, let me ask you this: Is it your testimony that
negro children in Chatham County, Georgia, should not be
admitted to schools with white children because negroes are
inherently inferior? A. Well, the results show that they
can’t keep [277] up with the averages of the whites, don’t
they?
Q. That’s right, but what’s the reason for that? A. I
am strongly on the organic side. I think it ’s an innate,
intrinsic ability. Of course, if they were brought up in
a vacuum, even the bright ones wouldn’t succeed either,
but in an average school situation the bright ones show
their metal as a rule. The bright ones succeed as a rule.
Q. Do you think that negroes are innately inferior to
whites, is that your testimony? A. There is a spread, of
course, from lowest to highest, but the averages, on the
average, the means are different, so that from my own
experience, I would say that it is an inferiority.
Q, And on what do you base your conclusion that this
is due to race? A. The mere fact that it occurs in all the
literature and all the statistical studies, in all research, and
in my own experience.
Q. Now, have you made any tests yourself which would
show conclusively that this is race alone? A. I just said
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong—for Interveners—Cross
186
“ yes.” I would say it is race. There is nothing else that
you can attribute it to. The study of 400 delinquent boys
that I have quoted, 200 black and 200 whites, or 200 negroes,
200 whites, have shown it right [278] through scholastically,
intelligence, and so forth.
Q. Now, do you know anything about the curriculum
in the schools in Chatham County? A. No.
Q. So that you don’t know whether the negroes are
getting an inferior education in Chatham County Schools
or not, do you? A. I know that a child, a bright child,
can teach itself to read, irrespective of anybody and every
thing. I have seen that happen.
Q. So, there is no need for any schools at all? A. Prob
ably not, if they are bright.
Q. But the answer to the question is you don’t know
anything about the Chatham County Schools, the type of
education presently afforded to negroes in Chatham County,
do you? A. My answer is that the bright child learns
anyway.
Q. You said that before; but I want to know whether
you know anything about the quality of education afforded
negroes in Chatham County? A. No.
Q. Now, isn’t it a fact that students who get a poorer
quality education, whether negro or white, will perform
[279] on these tests in a poorer fashion than children in a
superior quality school? A. That is so difficult to define
that I don’t think I know what you mean by poor quality
or superior quality because literature is full of criticisms
of the way children are not taught to read today. So,
probably your schools aren’t any worse than other schools.
Q. Well, what I am trying to get at is whether education
in the schools has any effect on the achievement level?
A. Could be.
Dr. Clairette P. Armstrong—for Interveners—Cross
Mrs. Motley: That’s all.
187
The Court: All right, any questions from you
Savannah people!
Mr. Leverett: No questions.
The Court: All right, you may step down.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, at this time, I would
like to call on Mr. Cowart to answer the Court on
the question of the ROTC.
The Court: Yes. That’s what I asked yesterday
to find out. The question was raised by one witness
who stated that his purpose in going before the Board
of Education, as I recall, the preacher, was to get
his boy in the ROTC; that was his prime purpose,
as I recall his testimony. Then the question was
raised whether the Government had charge of the
applicant [280] for the ROTC, whether it was under
their administration, or whether it was under the
administration of the Chatham Board of Education,
and I asked some of you all to find out something
about that by this morning.
Mr. Cowart: May it please the Court: I at
tempted to determine, and it is my information that
they do not have any ROTC in Glynn County, and
so I called Savannah and the information I have
obtained was by telephone. I spoke to Major Myers,
in Savannah, who is in charge of the Savannah area
of the ROTC. He stated that the final decision was
with the Department of the Army, as far as whether
ROTC would go into a school or not. He stated that
there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000
schools in the United States who have made applica
tion, individual schools, who have made application
for the ROTC Program and they have not been able
to place ROTC in those schools.
The Court: Well, do they have ROTC in Savan
nah Schools!
Mr. Cowart: They do.
Colloquy
188
The Court: Who has charge of the applicants
as to the admissibility or admittance to that school!
Mr. Cowart: It would be through Major Myers
in Savannah.
The Court: That would be true whether it would
[281] be the government or the Board of Education.
Mr. Cowart: He stated that the school would
make application and the ROTC people would come
in, would observe the plant, and set it up and they
have the final determination.
The Court: That’s all I want.
Mr. Cowart: Yes, sir.
The Court: Now, if you all want Major Myers
in court on Monday, we can have him there on Mon
day for cross-examination.
Mr. Cowart: He gave us the name of the Atlanta
head office and the officers in case anyone would want
them.
The Court: All right, then if you all want him
in court, because it was more or less hearsay evi
dence, but if you all want him in court to testify to
those facts, why, you be sure and get him there in
Savannah Monday.
Mr. Cowart: He stated that in Chatham County
no school had been taken in, to his knowledge, since
1946, into the ROTC Program.
The Court: Well, what I want you to do, I will
just say to all counsel that if they desire any further
information as to that particular point, give it to
our friend over here, and he will have the evidence
in court on Monday morning. All right, because that
may become a vital part of the case, as far as the
testimony of the preacher is concerned, because as
[282] I recall, he stated that he went there for the
purpose of getting his boy in the ROTC; that is the
Colloquy
189
reason lie said he went before the Board of Educa
tion, and the record, of course, will show just what
he testified to. The admissibility of that particular
evidence might be questionable by the time we get
through, so I am just saying that if you all want any
further information on that point, why, you all can
get it through our good friend over here. All right,
you may proceed.
Mr. Leonard: Yesterday, I promised to bring to
the Court a citation on the admissibility by judicial
notice are in evidence of an official report.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Leonard: And I would like at this time to
refer to the case of Stasiukevitch v. Nicholls from
the First Circuit at 168, Federal 2nd, 474, and I will
read from page 479 of that decision:
“ The official report of a legislative or congres
sional committee is admissible in evidence in a judi
cial proceeding, as an exception to the hearsay rule,
where the report, within the scope of the subject
matter which is at issue in the judicial proceeding.”
And they quote Wigmore.
“ Indeed, the court could properly take judicial
notice of the report, without its formal introduction
into evidence. But though the court may receive the
report in [283] evidence, or may take judicial notice
of its existence and contents, this does not mean that
the court must accept the findings in the report as
indisputable truth; the findings are merely evidence
of the facts asserted.” Then there are the citations
which the court gives.
“ The credibility of such evidence will vary ac
cording to the thoroughness and impartiality with
which the committee conducted its investigation, the
fairness of its procedure, the fullness of the oppor-
Colloquy
190
tunity it afforded accused individuals or organiza
tions to develop their side of the story; and, of course,
the other party may introduce evidence tending to
prove the contrary of the facts asserted in the official
report.”
Accordingly, your Honor, I would like to offer at
this time as Intervenors exhibit, first, the hearings
themselves, which back up the report.
The Court: The hearings of what?
Mr. Leonard: The hearings of the Sub-Commit
tee to investigate public school standards and condi
tions and juvenile delinquency in the District of
Columbia. This was a Sub-Committee of the Com
mittee on the District of Columbia of the House of
Representatives. These hearings were held before
the Second Session of the 84th Congress and were
published in Washington in 1956. On the basis of
those hearings the Sub-Committee, [284] which I
have referred to, published a report, which was in
troduced with the Movants’ papers as item No. 16,
and to which we referred yesterday, and that report
contains the conclusion of the Committee to the effect
that it was the integration in the Washington Schools
which created the disciplinary and anti-social diffi
culty with which the Washington Schools were then
having. Now, since the authority provides that the
value, as evidence, of the committee’s conclusions
may be investigated upon the evidence on which it
rested, and I am offering as the Intervenors Ex
hibit, not only the report itself, but the official hear
ings which back up the report.
The Court: What do you say to that?
Mrs. Motley: We have the same objection, your
Honor. This is all irrelevant. What happened in
the District of Columbia doesn’t have anything to
do with Chatham County, Georgia.
Colloquy
191
The Court: Well, I will admit it temporarily, and
as I have said all the way through, at the conclusion,
if you have any objections you can make it when we
conclude all the evidence. All right.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, at this time, may I
ask for a five minutes recess?
The Court: Yes, I will grant a five minutes
recess.
The Marshal: Take a five minutes recess.
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
[285] Dr. W esley Critz George, Sworn for the Inter-
venors, testified as follows:
On direct examination by Mr. Pittman:
Q. Your name is Dr. Wesley C. George? A. That’s
right.
Q. Dr. George, what is your present vocation? A. I
have been a Professor in the University of North Caro
lina for many years. I am now emeritus.
Q. In what area, what field, was your teaching? A. I
was Professor of Anatomy. My teaching has been mostly
in the field of microscopic anatomy and embryology.
Q. Were you professor of anatomy at the School of
Medicine at the University of North Carolina at the time
when you became emeritus? A. Yes, I was. My title was
not Professor of Anatomy. It was Professor of His
tology and Embryology in the Department of Anatomy.
Q. Where did you get your professional education, Doc
tor? A. At the University of North Carolina, and Prince
ton University.
Q. Where and when did you begin your teaching? A.
In the University?
Q. Yes? [286] A. Well, I first taught in the Univer
sity of North Carolina as an Assistant, and then as an In
structor as a graduate student. Subsequently, I taught at
192
Guilford College, assisted in the general biology course at
Princeton. I taught for one semester at The University of
Georgia, and then for a year at the University of Tennessee
Medical School, and have been at the University of North
Carolina since then except occasional brief leaves.
Q. Were you in the Liberal Arts School, or in the
School of Medicine at North Carolina? A. As a graduate
student and instructor, I was in the Liberal Arts School.
Since 1920, I have been in the Medical School.
Q. You have been regularly on the staff of the Medical
School at the University of North Carolina since 1920?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Dr. George, are you a member of any associations of
professional men? A. Yes, a number.
Q. Will you state some of them for the record? A. I
am a member of the American Association of Anatomists; of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science;
American Society of Human Genetics; The North Carolina
Academy of Science, which I was president of at one time;
the [287] Society of Sigma Chi. There may be another one
but it just doesn’t come to mind.
Q. Are you on any Zoological Societies? A. I used to
be in my earlier years, a member of the Zoological Society,
but I dropped my membership in that when my interests
and connections became more strictly medical.
Q. Are you the author of any articles or works of
any nature? A. Yes, I have published quite a lot of articles
in the Scientific Journals of the United States and England.
Q. And England? A. That’s right.
Q. For the record, would you state the title of some of
those articles? A. I don’t know whether I remember them
or not. I published a number of papers in the field of com
parative history of Invertebrates. I have published a num
ber of papers in the field of embryology and anatomical
record and in the “ Carnegie Contributions to Embryology” ,
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
193
and I have published articles in the “ Anatomical Record
and the Biological Bulletin” , in the “ American Journal of
Mental Deficiency” , in the “ North Carolina Medical Jour
nal” , in the “ Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society Journal” ,
oh, various of them.
Q. Are all of those you have mentioned scientific
[288] journals? A. All of those that I have mentioned are
scientific journals, yes.
Q. Doctor, are you the Wesley Critz George, who made
a study, on employment by the State of Alabama, last year,
entitled “ The Biology of the Race Problem” ? A. I am.
Q. Was that study published? A. Yes, it was. It was
published in booklet form.
Q. I will show you a copy of that study and I will ask
you if that is what you now speak of as the study that was
made and published? A. It is.
Q. You were employed by the State of Alabama to
make this study? A. That’s right. They proposed to pay
my salary for a summer, if I would prepare for them a
study on the genetics of the race problem.
Mr. Pittman: Mr. Reporter, will you please iden
tify that, please?
(Note: Accordingly, same was then marked for
identification as Defendant’s (Intervenors) Exhibit
No. 8.)
Q. Dr. George, are the views expressed in that [289J
study your views? A. They are.
Q. Are they your views now? A. They are.
Mr. Pittman: We tender in evidence Defend
ant’s Exhibit No. 8.
The Court: Any objections?
Mrs. Motley: Yes, sir. We object to anything
that was paid for by the State of Alabama, which was
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
194
obviously a document which is not objective. It was
obviously to enforce segregation, and we object to
anything like that admittedly paid for by a Govern
ment Agency seeking to uphold segregation.
The Court: Well, I will admit it. I think I can
decide on that. The case is being heard before me
without a jury, and I will admit it, subject to your
objections.
Q. Dr. George, has your study, your profession— A.
-—just a moment, I would like to say at this point, if I may.
The Court: Go ahead. I was waiting for you to
do that. Go ahead.
The Witness: I would like to say at this point,
that the State of Alabama, or no representative of
the Governor of Alabama asked me to bring in any
opinion. They simply asked me to make a study, and
this study was entirely on my own [290] initiative
and my own opinions without influence by the State
of Alabama.
The Court: All right, go ahead.
Q. In connection with your profession, have you had
occasion to become familiar with the facts and with the
literature dealing with the facts of racial differences? A. I
have undertaken to survey the literature of the world, so
far as it is possible for me to do, during the last dozen
years bearing on that point.
Q. With respect to a more narrow question, Doctor, I
will ask you if you have made studies of the human brain ?
A. Well, I have during fifty years in the course of my work,
yes. I have studied the human brain and a whole series of
vertebrate brains.
Q. Have you in class room work taught somewhat in that
area? A. Although neuro-anatomy was not the area in
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
195
which I was, or had a particular teaching assignment, on a
few occasions, in an emergency, I have taken over and taught
the course in neuro-anatomy.
Q. I will ask you, Doctor, if, in your opinion, there is a
correlation between brain weight and intelligence!
The Court: Between what now!
Mr. Pittman: Correlation between brain weight
and [291] intelligence.
The Court: All right.
The Witness: In a general way, yes.
Q. Will you explain! A. Yes, I will be glad to do so.
When one—I will make it a little broader than simply
human.
Q. All right! A. When one surveys the animal king
dom, one finds that the brain, as well as other significant
organs, vary in size, depending upon their significance to
the ecology or living conditions of the animal. For in
stance, the eye of the eagle, which is a part of the nervous
system, the eye of the eagle is one-eightieth (1/80) of the
total weight of the body. The eye being tremendously im
portant. The eye of the turtle is one sixteen-hundreds
(1/1600) of the total weight of the body. The turtle has
little use for eyesight. To cite another example, the brain
of the alligator of 400 pounds is about 15 grams. Did I say
the eye. I mean the brain.
Q. You said the brain. A. The brain of the alligator
is about 15 grams. The brain of a man is about 1400 grams.
The brain of the porpoise is about 1700 grams, so, you see
the range of sizes there.
Q. Now, is the brain weight related to body [292]
weight! For that correlation does it have anything to do
with intelligence! A. Yes, sir, a great deal. Brain weight,
coming back to man, brain weight, as between two indi
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
196
vidual eases, is not alone a criterion and measure of intelli
gence, because there are other factors than amount of nerv
ous tissue which play a part in intelligence. One is, of
course, the quality of the nervous tissue. Brain weight,
also, is largely related to the body size for the reason that
the larger amount of nervous tissue is required to activate
the sensory surface of a big animal than the sensory sur
face of a little animal, and the larger amount of nervous
tissue is required to activate the great mass of muscles than
a small mass of muscles. Does that make the point clear!
Q. Yes, sir. Now relate, if you will, brain weight to
body size. For example, you said that the average brain
weight of a man was 1400 grams. Is that for for a man of
average weight, or what! A. Well, that figure is an aver
age. That figure is an average of a large number of ordi
nary individuals.
Q. And what is the average body weight of a large num
ber of individuals! A. About 150 pounds.
Q. What is the average body weight of the porpoise!
[293] A. About 300 pounds, as I understand, at least those
that have been studied and had their brains weighed.
Q. Now, will you continue with your testimony and
illustrate it, make it clear, what relationship there is be
tween brain weight and intelligence, when the brain weight
is correlated or rather related to body weight! A. Well, er—
Q. —In other words, is a porpoise more intelligent than
man! A. To answer that question specifically would be
difficult. I think this point, there is no way of measuring,
but this fact is true that—
Q. All right, go ahead and make it clear what you mean.
A. This fact is true that in the evolution of the porpoise
he is not only twice the size but he has a larger amount of
nervous tissue because he has a skin surface quite exten
sive, which is in contact with the water and that whole
sensory area is a highly sensitive organ, is a sensory organ,
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
197
and requires a large amount of nervous tissue to activate it.
Now, carrying that a bit further I think, from what we
know about the porpoise, I think one could say that in those
areas in which the cerebral cortex of the porpoise is greater
than that of the man he is more able, but there is this differ
ence: [294] In the porpoise and that group of aquatic mam
mals the evolutionary increase of brain size is in the sensory
lobes, not in the frontal lobes.
Q. And what is the significance of that! A. The sig
nificance of the parietal lobe is that it ’s primarily devoted
to these someosthetic sensibilities which are related to
touch, deep sensibility, and all that sort of thing, which
have predominated in the porpoise, in that group of animals,
whereas, in man, the evolution is not in the someosthetic
area so much as it is in the frontal area which all authorities
who have studied the matter considered to be devoted pri
marily to the higher intellectual factors.
Q. Now, getting back to the eagle, would you say that
the eagle, whose eye is one-eightieth (1/80) of his body
weight, is superior to man in ability to see and distinguish
at long distances? A. He has to be to survive. Flying in
the air he can spot a rabbit 100 or 1000 feet, I don’t know,
yes, I do, and, incidentally, in that connection, not only is
the eye of the eagle greatly enlarged but the optical lobes
of the brain are greatly enlarged.
Q. Ho you care to illustrate further the point you made
there, or do you believe that is sufficient, Doctor? A. With
regard to the significance of the size [295] of the brain?
Q. Yes? A. Well, I think it’s important and construc
tive to realize that the other parts of the brain also vary
greatly with regard to the capacities of the particular type
of animal. For instance, the cerebellum is an important
area of the brain which varies greatly in different groups
of animals. In an animal without much muscular skill and
co-ordination, like the lamprey eel or like the common bull
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners-—Direct
198
frog, the cerebellum is a very small narrow ledge of tissue
in the brain. No one with the cerebellum of a frog would
succeed in being a steeplejack or a high rise steel worker.
Q. The brain structure does have a relationship to the
physical and mental functions! A. That’s right. Now, in
contrast to those groups, to the frog, specifically, in an
animal like a hawk or like the dog fish or the shark, or like
most of the mammals, the cerebellum is highly developed in
association with their possession of skill and co-ordination
and muscular activity.
Q. You speak of the shark. Is there anything pecu
liar about the shark’s brain? A. Well, the shark has a
well developed cerebellum.
Q. What’s the significance? [296] A. Well, because
the shark, in order to survive in its mode of life must have
great muscular skill in maneuvering through the water.
In addition to that, the shark finds eyesight quite impor
tant and the optic lobes are noticeably enlarged in the
dogfish or shark.
Q. Now, in connection with brain weight, Doctor, is
the weight of the brain of the average man greater than
the weight of the brain of the average woman? A. Yes,
there is a variation there.
Q. Will you explain why that is true? A. Well, be
cause of difference in body size, presumably. That’s sup
posed to be the reason. A man has more muscle to activate
and he has more skin to activate.
Q. Doctor, have you made any study of the comparison
between the brain weight of negroes and of whites? A. I
have not, myself made such measurements, but I have
undertaken to find out what has been done throughout the
world.
Q. Are you familiar with the literature? A. Yes, I am.
Q. In that field throughout the world? A. I have tried
to find pretty much all of it, and I have most of it, I think.
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
199
Q. In your opinion, is there a significant difference
[297] between the brain weight of the average negro and
the average white man! A. Yes, I think so, and I don’t
believe that there is any real dispute of that question
among people who have investigated the matter.
Q. Do you know of any study anywhere in the world
that indicates, or rather that shows anything to the con
trary to what you have just now stated? A. I know of only
one study and that is a very restrictive number in which
the brain weight of a group of negro brains averaged
greater than the brain weight of a group of white brains.
That was a difference of three (3) grams. In Bean’s study
and those based on about six brains and those white female
brains were gutter women who were picked up—well, they
were the lowest grade of white women whose bodies were not
cleaned got into the anatomical laboratories of Johns Hop
kins University. Very few people if any—the white people,
generally—bury their dead, and only these abandoned dere
licts are—-
Q. —Are you familiar with the study made by Raymond
Pearl on “ The Weight of the Negro Brain?” A. Yes, I
am.
Q. Are you in agreement with the findings made in that
study? [298] A. Yes, I am.
Q. Will you state for the record what that study by
Raymond Pearl uncovered in connection with the weight of
the negro brain?
The Court: Well, who is Raymond Pearl?
Q. I will ask you, Doctor, who is Raymond Pearl? A.
Raymond Pearl is not now living. He was a professor in
Johns Hopkins University and in his time was a highly
regarded man, and he surveyed the evidence in regard to
white and negro brains and reached a conclusion that there
was this difference in weight.
Q. Will you state, Doctor, what the differences are be
tween the weight of the average negro brain and the weight
Dr. Wesley Crits George—for Interveners—Direct
200
of the average brain of the white man? A. Well, there
has been a great many of those studies. I think they all
might be pretty well summarized in the statement of Pro
fessor Mall, who was head of the Department of Anatomy
at Johns Hopkins University in the early nineteen hundreds,
a very eminent man. He said that, in general, the brain of
the negro was about 100 grams less than the brain of the
white man, average, that is.
Q. In percentages that would be eight or nine percent?
A. That’s right. Now, since that time there [299] have
been a good many other studies made, which I can cite if
you wish, and the gram weight varies a little from group
to group, study to study, but in general they show the same
picture.
Q. Doctor, what is the significance of that difference in
brain weight between the average negro and the average
white person? A. Well, the significance is that nearly all
neurologists who have studied this matter, say that brain
weight in large groups of people is indicative of the relative
capacity of those races or groups for learning in the higher
mental processes.
Q. What are the higher mental processes, so regarded
among scientists? A. Well, would you let me read?
Q. Yes sir. A. A statement here.
Q. Yes, sir, anything with which you agree. A. Well,
I read recently through my interest in this matter to see
what the latest studies by competent neurologists had to
say about this. Now, this is a statement from the test
book “ The Neuro-anatomical Basis for Clinical Neurology” ,
published in 1961, by Talmadge Peal, who is Neurologist at
Duke Medical School. Now, it is the pre-frontal [300]
portion of the frontal lobes which are primarily concerned
with these higher mental activities according to the evidence
that we have. Now, he says: “ The pre-frontal portion of
the frontal lobes, while contributing to the elaborateness of
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
201
movement, bestows upon an individual an ability to plan
and to look ahead, a capacity for perceiving a stimulus or
problem, not only as an event of the present, but in relation
to past experience and anticipation of future possibilities
and the ability to maintain a steadfastness of purpose in the
face of distractions and an ability to adjust himself agree
ably to his neighbors and to control his emotional reac
tions.” Now, there is Peal’s statement, which answers
your question and I accept it as mine.
Q. You adopt that as your own? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, what, if any difference is this between the negro
brain and the white brain in the area of the frontal lobe!
A. Well, according to the rather extensive investigation of
Bean, which was done at Johns Hopkins University, these
pre-frontal areas, which Peal talks about, are on the aver
age more extensive in area in the white than they are in
the negro. Now, on the microscopic side, there have been
studies made of the histological structure, the microscopic
[301] structure of the cortex, and it has long been known
that this cerebellum, or cerebral cortex has well recognized
stratifications which vary in different regions of the brain,
depending upon the functions which are performed there.
Now, there have been a good many studies made of that in
different animals of the relative thickness of these layers
in different animals, in different people, and in the negro
race. I mention now the studies by Dr. Vint, made in
Kenya, Africa, involving, as I recall, the microscopic study
of hundreds of brains of Kenyan people as normal as he
could find, excluding people from prisons and mental hos
pitals, and he found that the total cortex of the negroes
was about 14% thinner than in the whites, and that what
are called supra-granular layers, layers two and three, the
most superficial, layers of the cortex, in the negro were
thinner than they are in the whites, except in two or three
specified areas, whereas the deeper layers did not show so
marked a reduction in thickness.
Dr. Wesley Critz George—■for Interveners—Direct
202
Q. Did he relate that to any particular function per
formed by the brain? A. Well, I don’t recall whether he
related that in his report or not, but that has been related
in a number of studies.
Q. Will you tell the court about that relation? A. Dr.
Bolton, an Eng'lish Neurologist, a number [302] of years
ago, made an extensive study of the thickness of the supra-
granular layers, the outer layers, in people of different
capacities and he found that in what he called, well, people
of lower mental capacity, that the supra-granular layers
were definitely thinner than they were in people of higher
learning capacity, or higher intelligence, and that in im
beciles there was a very marked reduction in the thickness
of the supra-granular layer.
Q. Do you agree with those studies, Doctor? A. Yes,
I do.
Q. I show you the article you mentioned by Dr. Vint,
“ The Brain of the Kenyan Native” , is that the article to
which you referred a moment ago? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, Doctor, I will ask you whether or not these
differences in brain structures are inherited or are they the
result of environment? A. Well, in my mind, there is no
doubt that they are inherited.
Q. Can those differences, in your opinion, be modified by
environment? A. To a minimal degree.
Q. Over what period of time? A. Well, I think that it ’s
possible in the course [303] of a lifetime. Our experiences,
of course, affect our brains to some extent. But to increase
the inherited basis would require, perhaps, a hundred
thousand years to allow time for the concurrences of muta
tions and the survival of beneficial mutations. We all have
brains which we subject to experience and to education and
it is reasonable to suppose that education and that experi
ence influences to some extent the structures of the brain
but there is no evidence that it increases its mass in any
significant degree.
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
203
Q. Now, Doctor, yon, I am sure, are familiar with the
contentions of equalitarians ? A. Yes.
Q. To the effect that environment controls and makes a
man and not heredity? A. Yes.
Q. What is your opinion of that doctrine of equalitari
ans? A. Well, I think that there is a dogma which has
been devoted—or promoted, I mean, during recent decades,
and that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,
that you get black gum sprouts from a black gum stump, as
some of my friends expressed it. I am not sure that I—-
Q. —well, let me be specific. If two idiots wed and
produced a child, are the chances as good for that [304]
child to be a genius as if two brillant people should marry
and have a child? A. I have here in my notes a recent
study bearing on that particular point.
Q. Would you give us the benefit of that study? A. I
don’t know how long it will take me to find that particular
paper, but the fact of it is this, that where two feeble
minded people marry there is a high percentage of feeble
mindedness in the off-spring. A study has also been made
in which the parentage, the ancestors of feeble-minded
children have been searched out and there is a high per
centage of feeble-mindedness in the ancestry of feeble
minded children.
Q. Are those facts consistent with the holdings of the
equalitarians or inconsistent with those? A. I would con
sider them quite inconsistent.
Q. Doctor, what relationship does the nervous system
bear as to human intelligence, if any? A. Well, of course,
the nervous system is the thing we think with. Now, I
think we all should recognize this, that we think as indi
viduals, whereas a bird flies with his whole body, but he is
not going to do much flying without wings. Now, we think
with our whole body, but our thinking apparatus, our
thinking mechanism is the nervous system. It is influenced,
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
204
the nervous system is influenced, of course, by [305] the
gland of internal secretion and various factors.
Q. Have you, in your studies, Doctor, or do you know
of any cases in which the nervous system, or those con
trolled by the frontal lobes, have been affected by surgery?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell the court what the effect of surgery
is on the frontal lobes of the brain? A. Well, the effect of
surgery on the frontal lobes of the brain has been very
varied in different studies by different people for the rea
son you can’t usually be sure of the extent of the damage
that you have had. Now, I have just finished reading yes
terday a very interesting article by Dr. Marion Hines, a
Neurologist, in which she discussed that question, and she
finds a great deal of evidence for a deterioration in the
learning capacity and in the higher intellectual processes
when these traumas to the frontal lobes occur. She says
that there are some people who say there is no change,
but it is to be hoped that in the future when they make
such a statement that they will qualify it with the phrase
“ In my experience,” and says the real meaning of my
experience is likely to be their inability to recognize it.
Q. What relationship, in your opinion, does the frontal
lobe have to instability? A. I think it has a great deal of
influence, a [306] great deal. It plays a very large part as
is indicated by this summary on that point which I read
from Talmadge Peale.
Q. Doctor, is there any difference between the sulcifica-
tion of the whites and the negroes?
The Reporter: What is that?
Mr. Pittman: Sulcification. (Spelling)
The Court: Well, kindly explain what that means
first.
Q. Doctor, will you tell us what that means?
Dr. Wesley Crits George—for Interveners—Direct
205
The Court: What that word means.
The Witness: Sulcification means the formation
of convolution of grooves and ridges throughout the
brain. Now, to explain what that means: In the
lower vertebrates, like the rabbit, for example, the
surface of the cerebral hemisphere is smooth. As
you ascend the animal scale you find shallow grooves
and then deeper grooves developing and converting
the snrfaces of the brain into ridges and grooves.
In the case of man, that ridging and grooving has
been carried to a very high degree. Now, what it
actually does is to increase the surface of the brain
and consequently the area of the cerebral cortex.
It has been estimated by measurements that there is
twice as much surface in the tissues as there is on the
surface. In other words, this development of sul
cification in the brain has multiplied the surface area
of the cortex by three. Does [307] that answer your
question?
Q. Yes, sir. Then the skull holds more brain surface
if there is sulcification so there are ridges and valleys. A.
It holds more cortex.
Q. More cortex. Now, has there been any studies made
as to the difference between the sulcification of the negro
brain, as compared with the white brain? A. Yes, there
has been.
Q. What have those studies shown? A. Well, those
studies have shown that there is a—what shall I say?—there
is a difference in frequency of these convolutions.
Q. By the way, who made the studies to which you refer ?
A. Well, one was made by Bean and one was made by
Connolly, who was anthropologist at the Catholic Univer
sity of America. Bean was at Johns Hopkins at the time.
And one was made by Poynter.
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
206
Q. Who was he! A. He was Professor of Anatomy, and
subsequently Dean of the Medical School at the University
of Nebraska, I believe. He is dead now, I think.
Q. Now, Doctor, state what those studies revealed
and whether or not you agree with them! [308] A. Well,
I accept the fact of the relative frequencies.
Q. Belative frequencies of what! A. Of variations in
the nature of these convolutions.
Q. As between negro and white! A. As between negro
and white. Now, I should say, perhaps, that Poynter’s study
reported a simpler convolutional pattern in the negro than
in the white.
Q. What is meant by simpler convolution! A. Well, he
didn’t define that, and I will undertake to. I would assume
that he meant, and I get that impression from reading other
articles on the convolution of the brain, that the convolu
tions are simpler and would, therefore, provide less com
plex sulcification and a smaller surface area. That’s the
inference.
Q. Then, you would say, Doctor, that the amount of sur
face area of the brain has a significant relationship to in
telligence! A. I would definitely say that, yes.
Q. Would you say that it has a definite relationship to
the educability!
The Court: What do you mean by that!
Q. Ability to receive education! [309] A. Well, I think
the amount of cerebral cortex has, in general, a relation to
educability, yes.
Q. Now, Doctor, are you familiar with the works of
Professor Earnest A. Hooton, former chairman of the De
partment of Anthropology at Harvard University! A.
Yes, I am.
Q. In what area, if any, did he make studies, or did he
publish any works of anything! A. Well he was one of
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
207
those people who made a study of racial differences. He
published a good many statements in regard to racial dif
ferences.
Q. In 1946, was he the author of a widely read and ac
cepted hook? A. Yes, he was.
Q. With the unfortunate title of “ Up from the Ape” ?
The Court: Up from what?
Mr. Pittman: “ Up from the Ape.”
Q. Of course, he was referring to both whites and blacks,
hut some people like to think the other way. Now, Doctor,
have you read his summary of racial differences, physical
differences, physical characteristics of whites and negroes?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Will you state for the record whether or not [310]
you agree with it? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you have a memo before you whereby you may
state to the Court and for the record some of those dif
ferences between the white and colored that may or may
not have significance? A. Well, here are some of the
criteria for judging whether a person belongs to the white
or colored race. The most obvious one, of course, is his
skin color, which varies from light brown to pale white.
Hair color is a racial character.
Q. Are you noting now those of the white or the negro?
A. These are sorting criteria. The skin color in the negro
is brown or black—really not black, but sometimes almost
black, whereas, in the Caucasian it ’s white or ruddy or
pink or some other modification. Hair color is also a sort
ing character, differing in the white and the colored, and
hair form is a more specific sorting character because in
the black it is crinkled.
Q. First give the characteristics of the white and then
give the characteristics of the colored, and I believe then
Dr. Wesley Crits George—for Interveners—Direct
208
we can keep it clearer. Does your memo give you the
characteristics of the white first? [311] A. Yes, it does.
Q. All right, just give those characteristics first and
then go to the negro? A. Well, without sorting them out:
Nose form is one of the characters of all races and in the
white man it is usually long and narrow, sometimes medium,
nasal index usually leptorrhine, never platyrrhine. Some
technical words that are not necessary to go into. The
white man has more body hair, and what we call progna
thism, or facial protrusion, is not evident in the white.
The lips are membranous, that is they are thinner, medium
to thin, very little eversion of the lips. The chin is
prominence, or prominent, I should say. The hair texture
is usually medium to fine, rarely very course, and the pelvis,
that is, across the hips, the body, is generally fairly broad.
And these are other characteristics of the white race. Do
you want all of those ?
Q. Yes, sir, for the record? A. Now, the breast form
in the female is usually hemispherical. The buttocks in
the female are usually prominent, and the blood group
usually much higher in what is called “ A ” than in “ B ” ,
and then the Palmar main line formula—well, it wouldn’t
mean anything, I guess, is most commonly 11.9.7, and so
on.
Q. Now, go to the negro. [312] A. All right. These
are the Negroid characteristics, which have been picked
out as easily discernible by anthropologists. The hair
form : wooly or frizzly. Skin color: dark brown to black.
Hair color: black. Eye color: dark brown to black. Nasal
index: 85 and over.
Other characteristics are: Nose form: bridge and root
usually low and broad; short, profile concave or straight,
rarely convex; tip very thick and usually elevated; alae
thick and flaring; septum usually convex.
Now, the lip form: integumental lips thick, upper con
vex; membranous lips usually puffy and everted, marked
lip seam.
Dr. Wesley Crits George—for Interveners—Direct
209
Facial protrusion, or prognathism, often marked in
the subnasal region. The projection of this part of the
face. (Indicating.)
Face form: usually somewhat short in unmixed forms,
with malars more prominent than in whites, chin rounded
and receding.
Head form; prevailingly dolichocephalic with project
ing occiput and rounded forehead; brow-ridges small.
Hair quantity: usually short on head, sparse heard,
little body hair.
Ear form : usually short wide ear, with narrowly rolled
helix and little or no lobe.
[312A] Upper extremity: relatively long forearm; rela
tively short thumb.
Lower extremity: usually a relatively long lower leg,
poorly developed calf, projecting heel, long foot arch.
Pelvis: relatively narrow.
Breast form of the female usually conical.
Buttocks of the female usually less projecting than in
whites.
Blood group: usually very high in 0, low in A and B.
Sweat glands: more numerous than in Whites.
Palmar main line formula: usually 7.5.5, and so on.
Q. Now, just as an example, without going into the
significance of all of these, will you look at the 19th
characteristic of the Negro: “ Sweat glands more numerous
than in Whites” , and state for the record the significance
of that, if any? A. Why, yes. In explaining the—realiz
ing the significance of the more numerous sweat glands
in the Negro than in the Whites, one needs to remember
than the negro race apparently developed in and certainly
has lived in for ten of thousands of years the tropical and
semi-tropical hot humid climate. As a result of the develop
ment of mutations, sweat glands have been developed of
an abundance and [313] character to provide sweat for
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
210
perspiration and evaporation and so cooling of the body
in order to survive in the torrid climate.
The Court: Well, it is now 12:30, and I always
take out at 12:30, and so I will take out now until
2:00 o ’clock at which time you can resume your
examination.
Mrs. Motley: May it please the Court, at 3:00
o ’clock, Mr. Bell and I will have to leave. Mr. May-
field will he chief counsel for the plaintiffs. We
have a case in Mississippi in the morning.
The Court: Well, if you want to he excused, that
is perfectly all right, and I will he glad to have
Mayfield. That is perfectly all right. All right, we
will recess until 2:00 o ’clock.
The Marshal: All right, take a recess until 2 :00
o ’clock.
(Note: At this point a recess was had from
12:30 P. M., until 2:00 o ’clock of the same day at
which time the proceedings were resumed as fol
lows :)
The Court: All right, when we adjourned, I
believe the Doctor was on the stand, and you were
cross-examining him, is that right?
Mr. Pittman: He was on direct, your Honor.
The Court: All right, you may proceed then.
[314] Mr. Pittman: If I may, your Honor, I
would like to state for the record, for the sake of
clarity, that the purpose of showing the bodily dif
ferences by this Avitness this morning was to show
the evolutionary developments of intrinsic inheritable
differences in brain structure and consequent in
herited differences in learning and behavior patterns.
That was the purpose of the references to the bodily
differences this morning.
The Court: All right.
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
211
Q. Now, Doctor, are you familiar with, the writings
or some of the writings of Dr. Carleton Coon! A. Yes,
I have read his “ Origin of the Races” with a great interest.
Q. Is that the book that was published last year? A.
That’s right.
Q. Who is Dr. Coon? A. Dr. Carleton Coon is, I would
say, the leading or almost the top Physical Anthropologist
in the United States. He was, at one time, Professor of
Physical Anthropology at Harvard. He left that job to
take a post in Philadelphia, the exact title I don’t recall.
He is Director of the Museum there, I believe, and Pro
fessor in the University of Pennsylvania.
Q. Are you in agreement with the conclusions reached
by Dr. Coon in that work “ The Origin of Races” ? [315]
A. I am, yes.
Q. If I may, Doctor, I will read to you an excerpt from
pages 115 and 116. You will find that on page 8 of your
Memo, and after reading it I will ask you if you agree
with him, at the bottom of the page on page 8: A. All
right.
Q. “ Human beings also vary in temperament. It is a
common observation among anthropologists who have
worked in many parts of the world in intimate contact
with people of differences—people of different races that
racial differences in temperament also exist and can be
predicted. Races also differ in the size and weight of
endocrine glands, and in the substances carried in the
urine. The study of these variations has just begun, and
many readers who believe in the current dogma that all
behavioral differences are due to man’s unique capacity
for learning will find this unpalatable, but the burden of
proof is on them. If such differences are not related to
the endocrine system, then man is indeed a unique animal.
Do you agree with that statement, Doctor? A. I think
that is very fundamentally sound, yes.
Q. And on page 337 of that book by Dr. Coon, I read:
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
212
‘ ‘ The seat of intelligence is the central nervous system.
The regulation of self control is the combined task of [316]
the brain and the endocrine system, and indeed the brain
and endocrines act together in many ways and influence
each other by a complex feedback system.
The size of the human brain is related to a capacity
for performance in thinking, planning, communicating, and
behaving in groups, as leader, follower, or both. But
brain size is a sum of the masses of that organ’s com
ponent parts, including the medulla, hypothalamus, cerebral
hemispheres, and cerebellum. The hemispheres are divided
into lobes, and their surfaces are covered with a wrinkled
skin of gray matter, the cortex, which contains neurones.
In living individuals and populations, differences are found
in the relative sizes of the lobes and in the surface areas
of the cortex; the size of the surface area varies with the
complexity and depths of the folds on the inner and outer
surfaces of the hemispheres. The larger a brain is, the
greater the cortical surface area, both proportionately and
absolutely. ’ ’
In your opinion, is that a correct statement? A. Yes,
it is.
Q. Dr. George, I believe this morning, and this is on
10 of the Memo. I believe I mentioned to you Dr. Raymond
Pearle, and who, I believe you stated, was at Johns Hop
kins? A. That’s right.
Q. I would like to read a very short excerpt, [317] if
I may, from an article by Dr. Pearle, entitled “ The Weight
of the Negro Brain” , to which reference was made this
morning, and ask if you agree with it, and it is as fol
lows :
“ The mean brain weight for the black series is 92.1
per cent of that for the white series. The approximate
agreement of this with Morton’s, Peacock’s, Duckworth’s,
and Vint’s results is clear, and may reasonably be taken
to lead to the conclusion that the Negro brain is, on the
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
213
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners— Direct
average, from 8 to 10 per cent lighter than the fairly
comparable white brain.”
Is that true, Dr. George? A. That has been supported
by a number of investigations.
Q. And do you agree wholly with that statement? A.
Yes, I do.
Q. Now, Doctor, I would like to call your attention to
a statement by Dr. James H. Sequeira, which appeared
in the March, 1932 issue of The British Medical Journal,
and ask if you agree with that? You will find it on page
12 of the Memo. Are you familiar with Dr. Sequeira’s
writing? A. Yes, I have read it in the Journal.
Q. I will read, now, a portion: “ The average cranial
capacity of the European is 1,490 c.cm, while that of the
East African is only 1,310 c.cm. The average weight of
the brains is set out in the following table:
[318] Caucasoid (meaning white) 1,380 grams.
Mongoloid (yellow-brown)
East African
Negroid
Australoid
1,300 grams.
1,280 grams.
1,240 grams.
1,180 grams.”
Do you agree with those findings by Dr. Sequeira? A.
Yes, I do, give or take a few grams here and there, they
have been confirmed by many other studies.
Q. Now, in that same article, Doctor, and it is quoted
on page 12 of the Memo, I will read this to you; Sequeira
says that, according to his findings and that of Dr. Yint’s
observations, the frontal cortex may be summarized as
follows:
The infragranular layer, East African 106. European
100. The granular layer, East African, 98.7, European,
100. The supragranular layer, East African 92. European
100. Does that, Doctor, in your opinion, correctly state
the difference in measurements of the frontal cortex as
214
between the East African and the European according to
your studies! A. That is the correct statement that Vint
made, and I can only accept his statement, and I have no
reason to consider it wrong.
Q. I continue one further paragraph: “ The infra-
granular layer is held to be the seat of the representation—•
the physical basis—of the animal instincts, reproduction,
[319] self-preservation, etc., the granular layer that of
the perception of sensations; while, the supra-granular
layer is concerned with will, intellect, control, etc. The two
latter may be looked upon as the physical basis of mind.
In the East African, therefore, animal instincts are pro
vided with 6 per cent more physical basis than in the
European, but the physical basis of ‘mind’ shows a pre
ponderance in favor of the European of 9.3 per cent.”
Now, do you agree with that statement? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, are you familiar with the writings, or par
ticularly one book “ Human Genetics” by Professor Bug
gies Gates, Professor Emeritus of Botany at the Uni
versity of London, England? A. Yes, for a number of
years that has been our principal reference book in Human
Genetics.
Q. Is it used in colleges and Universities? A. Oh, yes.
I suppose it is in every medical library—many others in
the country.
Q. In his work, entitled “ Human Genetics” which was
published in 1946, this statement is made on page 1137, I
believe:
“ It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that the
brain of Negroes in America and of East Africans is some
[320] 10 percent less than in Europeans. This conclusion
is unpalatable to those who affect to think that all races
are equal in an evolutionary sense, but mere denial of the
facts will no longer meet the case.”
Do you agree with that statement? A. I think it is
very sound.
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
215
Q. Now, Doctor, in this equalitarian dogma to which
Professor Ruggles refers there, is it not true that there
are many, even in the teaching profession, who have
adopted the dogma of human equality and who will dispute
the facts as to human heredity? A. There are a great
many people who are reluctant to accept the facts, and try
to support by words some other point of view. In my
judgment, they are not very successful.
Q. In the teaching profession today, Doctor, what hap
pens to a young man who openly proclaims the facts about
human heredity? A. Well, they don’t expect to get much
advancement in most of our colleges.
Q. In order to get rapid advancement this day and time,
is it necessary that they feign that they believe in human
equality, whether they do or not? A. Well, I think he is
handicapped if he doesn’t accept the equalitarian view.
[321] Q. State for the record whether or not that
equalitarian view has a basis in fact, or whether it is
merely a basis in ideology? A. Well, I think I think it has
no basis in fact. It is widely promoted as an ideology. I
think that the brain is a very precisely organized mass of
nerve cells, which can operate only on the basis of that
organization.
Q. Are there any Galileos? A. I beg your pardon?
Q. Are there still Galileos? A. (Laughter).
The Court: What do you mean by that?
Mr. Pittman: Those, your Honor, who would
suffer as a result of believing the truth.
The Witness: I am sure there are some around
who are willing to be harried by the church or by
other members of the academic profession, but they
don’t relish the role.
Q. Now, Doctor, I will ask you to state whether or not,
in your opinion, differences between whites and negroes
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
216
in intelligence and in ability to absorb an education are due
to genetic factors? A. That is my belief.
Q. Doctor, in your opinion, would the placing of
negroes in an environment created by white children and
[322] white teachers or, in other words, mixing them in the
schools, would that eliminate innate differences in intel
ligence and in behavioral traits? A. Not in the hereditary
traits. The hereditary traits are the basis of our behavior.
Q. Where two distinct races of mankind are unalter
ably different, as you say they are, is there any way that
those, by mixing the groups together, that those differences
can be changed to the benefit of both groups? A. None
has ever been demonstrated and I don’t think that any
exists.
Q. Are the differences to which you testify significant
in learning rates and in ability patterns to such an extent
that no educational program suited to one would be also
suited to the other? A. I think that is a sound proposi
tion.
Q. In other words, those differences are so significant,
you say, when related to race and ability of learning pat
terns that no educational program can be devised suited
to one which would also be suited to the other, is that a
correct statement? A. I think it is.
Q. Are you familar with a study—one further ques
tion that I overlooked, Doctor, are you familiar with the
[323] studies of Penfield? A. Yes.
Q. Who was Penfield? A. Penfield was a Canadian
doctor who is perhaps our most notable brain surgeon on
this Continent and who is also recognized as an important
contributor to the science of neurology.
Q. Has he written any works with which you are
familiar? A. Yes.
Q. Could you very briefly give the results, or sum
marize for ns some of his findings? A. He has written a
good deal and he has contributed through his experience
Dr. Wesley Critz George—for Interveners—Direct
217
as a surgeon to the functions of the brain through
techniques of stimulation of patients when the brain was
exposed and through observing the results of removal of
areas of the brain through surgery, and he has reached
the conclusion, and has so stated, that damage to the brain,
damages the capacity of the individual to carry out the
intricate processes of living, which were possible before,
including learning.
Q. Are his findings consistent with the findings of the
other authorities about which you have testified? A. Yes,
they are. There is a great deal of [324] evidence along
that line, I might say.
Q. Now, these authorities, from which I have quoted
and concerning which you have testified this morning, have
they been involved in any of the racial controversies that
have arisen in the South or over this Nation since 1954?
A. So far as I can recall, none of them have.
Q. Are they pure scientists, rather than ideologists?
A. Well, in the sense that I assume you mean that term, I
would say yes.
Mr. Pittman: That’s all, Doctor.
The Court: Any questions?
Mrs. Motley: No questions, your Honor.
The Court: Any questions from the Savannah
people?
Mr. Leverett: No, sir.
The Court: All right.
Mrs. Motley: Before we proceed, your Honor,
you will recall that yesterday we subpoenaed the
Superintendent to bring the petition presented by
the plaintiffs, Bev. Stell and others, and they advise
me that they cannot find the originals of those peti
tions, and we just want the record to show that they
can’t find them.
Dr. Wesley Grits George—for Interveners—Direct
218
The Court: Well, let me ask them about it.
What about that, Mr. Morris?
Mr. Morris: Your Honor, the Secretary of the
[325] Board is on vacation. She returns either to
morrow or Sunday, and on Monday we will have
either located those petitions or we will have photo
static copies.
The Court: That’s all right. Suppose you have
them there Monday morning.
Mrs. Motley: Then can we stipulate that they
will just be entered into the record as the original
that were filed by the Rev. Stell.
Mr. Morris: We prefer not, until we can ex
amine the originals.
The Court: Then suppose you let that pass over
until Monday morning and then on Monday morning
you can submit them to counsel.
Mr. Morris: All right, sir.
The Court: Anything further for the Doctor?
Mr. Pittman: No, sir.
The Court: All right, Doctor, you may step
down. Call your next witness.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
[326] D r . E rnest van den H aag, sw orn fo r the inter-
venors, testified.
Direct examination by Mr. Leonard:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please? A.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag, 58 Morton Street, New York 14,
New York.
Q. What is your present employment, Dr. van den
Haag? A. I am Professor at New York University, and
a lecturer at the New School for Social Research.
219
Q. What are the subjects which you teach! A. Socio
logy and social philosophy, and I may add that I am also
a psychoanalyst in private practice.
Q. What is your background and training, Dr. van den
Haag! A. I studied in Europe, at the University of
Florence, the University of Naples, at the Sorbonne, I re
ceived a Degree of Master of Arts from the University of
Iowa and a Doctor of Philosophy from New York Uni
versity.
Q. Sorbonne at the University of Paris! A. That’s
right.
Q. Have you taught elsewhere than at the New York
University! A. I taught in the Graduate Division of
Brooklyn [327] College, at City College in New York, and
the University of Minnesota.
Q. Have you lectured at other Universities! A. I have
lectured at Harvard, to the Psychiatric Faculty, and at
Yale, and a number of others.
Q. Are you the author of any books!
Mr. Mayfield: Your Honor, I think we can
stipulate that the Doctor is eminently qualified to
testify to whatever he is going to testify to.
The Court: All right, then that eliminates that.
Mr. Leonard: I have just a few more of his
qualifications I would like to get into the record.
The Court: You just want to get it into the
record.
Mr. Leonard: Just for the record.
The Court: Well, make it brief then, because
I think that is sufficient.
Q. Were you the author of a book in 1956 entitled
“ Education as an Industry” ! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you the co-author of a book entitled “ The
Fabric of Society” ! A. Yes, sir.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
220
Q. And were you the author in that book of a chapter
about prejudice? [328] A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you written a number of scientific articles in
the general field in which you work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Just to mention two—are you the author of “ Psycho
analysis and its Discontents” in Psychoanalysis, Scientic
Method and Philosophy, printed by the University Press?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And “ Genuine and Spurious Integration” in
Psychoanalysis and the Social Sciences in New York last
year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you had articles in magazine and other profes
sional publications abroad as well as in this country? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Has your background and experience, Doctor, given
you any basis, in your opinion, for expressing a judgment
on the matter of the effect on classrooms of the integra
tion of white and negro pupils? A. I believe so, sir. I
have taught both quite a bit.
Q. And I ask that you relate your opinion only to
primary and second grade school levels. To what extent,
Doctor, are school pupils grouped in their own conscious
ness? To what extent do pupils identify themselves with
other pupils [329] or other groups? A. Well, my answer
here would rest partly on observation, and partly on the
literature. My own observation is that members of each
group tend to identify with their groups, or group mem
bers, and are selective in their associations. On this point,
a number of studies have been made, which I would like
to call to your attention.
Q. Would you please do so? A. It is a study by Pro
fessor George A. Lundberg, called “ Selective Association
Among Ethnic Groups In a High School Population. ’ ’
Q. Who is Lundberg? A. He is a Professor at the
University of Washington, and is a past President of the
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
221
American Sociological Association, and I think in academic
and scholarly circles he is regarded very highly.
Q. Is he an authority in the field in which he writes, to
your knowledge? A. To my knowledge, he is, yes.
Q. The conclusions which he states, do they express
the burden of authority in this field? A. I think so, and
moreover I am not aware of anyone having attempted
to contradict him.
Q. Are you in agreement with him? [330] A. Yes.
Q. Do you adopt those conclusions as your own? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Will you please state what Dr. Lundberg’s con
clusions are? A. In brief, he found in both observing and
interrogating high school populations in various places
and integrated high school that there is a preferential pat
tern of association, that the white pupils tend to associate
with other white pupils, and negro pupils with other negro
pupils, and he expresses the view that this is in the nature
of the matter and not due to prejudice.
Q. Now, when you say in the nature of the matter, Doc
tor, what do you mean by that ? That it is an innate or in
herent characteristic of the individual? A. I would prefer
to say inherent rather than innate. What he means to say
is that the pupils do not learn this or is driven to this by
prejudice, but that they have a spontaneous tendency to
behave in this pattern of selective association.
Q. As I understand, you are saying that this is not a
learned reaction? A. No. I think you understood cor
rectly, and if I may turn to this. (Indicating document)
There are a number of studies which indicate that the same
pattern exist in pre-school [331] children. This, I think,
would indicate that it is spontaneous.
Q. In other words, this pattern exists at the time they
reach the school age? A. Yes.
Q. Now, you said there were other articles coming to
these same conclusions? A. Yes. I have in mind an
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
222
article—just a minute and I will quote it exactly—“ Racial
Attitude Of Children” by Marion Radke, and other co
authors.
Q. Will you identify the others, please? A. Gene
Southerland and Pearl Rosenberg.
Q. Would you identify the authors in her field? A.
Marion Radke is Professor of Social Psychology at the
University of Denver, Denver Colorado. Gene Souther
land at Wheelock in Boston, and Pearl Rosenberg, I do not
know her academic status.
Q. Have you read that article? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And know its conclusions? A. Its conclusions, if I
may—-
Q. Well, before you get to the conclusions, Doctor, are
they conclusions with which you agree? A. Yes, sir.
[332] Q. Are they conclusions which are in accord with
the general trend of knowledge in that field? A. Yes, the
pattern of selective association is generally admitted, and
I don’t know of any evidence to the contrary.
Q. And, in addition to agreeing with, do you adopt
those conclusions as your own? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state what those conclusions are, please?
A. May I quote a sentence from the article, which states
it very clearly?
Q. Yes? A. “ The white children in all situations and
at all ages express strong preference for their own racial
group. This is particularly the case when the choice is
between negro and white children.”
Q. Now, is this in accord with the previous statement
that you made that this attitude develops at the pre-school
age, or at least exist at a testing age prior to school? A.
Will you repeat the question?
Q. Is this in accord with, or is it the same attitude as
the one which you previously stated existed at pre-school?
[333] A. Yes, sir.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
223
Q. And this refers to school? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was the study made ? Do you know, Doctor ?
A. Yes, in Pittsburgh.
Q. Have there ever been a segregation of the schools
in Pittsburgh, as far as you know? A. Certainly not a
legal one.
Q. In other words, these attitudes exist in a city or
cities which did not have a dual school system? A. Cor
rect, and the studies were made in schools which had a per
centage not below 20 percent of negroes.
Q. Now, in terms of this group identification, I would
like to ask you to turn your mind, Doctor, to the individual
who is superior within this group, and considering him,
considering the individual, who is fully capable of handling
class room work of a caliber which is at or above the median
of the white group, say, from the negro group to the white
group. Does the group identification he makes with the
slower moving group affects his own progress, or theirs?
A. Well, there are three points I would like to make. The
first is that although such a superior pupil might possibly
identify with other superior pupils of a different [334]
group, as a matter of fact, in my experience, the pupil re
tains his identification with his own group. This identifica
tion may lead to certain psychological consequences, some
of which may affect achievement level.
Q. Would he be conscious of the group, of the progress
taken as a whole of the group with which he identifies him
self or lack of progress? In other words, would he contrast
the two groups in his own mind in making his identification ?
A. Yes, he would, of course, and this is one of the things I
mentioned that may affect his own achievement level and
psychological welfare. He will remain conscious of his own
achievement.
Q. To what extent would it affect the achievement level
which he would otherwise reach within his own group? In
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
224
other words, if he moves from a lower group to a higher
group, although he is perfectly competent to achieve the
work of the median of that group? Does it, in any sense,
in your opinion, deprive him of the extent to which he
should excel in the group with which he identifies himself!
A. Now, you have lost me.
Q. I may have lost myself. I will withdraw the ques
tion. In short, a superior pupil in any group secures a sense
of achievement by excelling within that group. Am I cor
rect? [335] A. Yes.
Q. If you move him to another group in which he does
not excel as much, even though he is quite competent to do
the work, does that deprive him of any stimulus or achieve
ment to any extent within the educational process? A. I
would not say that it deprives him of a stimulus. What do
you have in mind? Let me see if I understood the question
—that the superior pupil, who was superior in his own
group and then is moved to a group in which he is not
superior to the same extent, is that you what mean?
Q. Correct? A. This would not, I think, adversely
affect his ambition, but what it probably would do is to
discourage his ability to pursue this ambition for the very
simple reason that having had a record in school, as the
authorities call it, which permitted him to excel, he is now
transferred to a school which his position will he, compara
tively speaking, low and the effects of that tend to he usually
some sort of psychological injury, I would say. This is a
vague term, and I may add that I am speaking here in
large terms, and it may not affect every single individual
in the exactly the same way.
Q. Now, as to the group, if we have two groups, one
more advanced, one less advanced, in any particular range
of ability, what happens to the lower of the two groups, if its
[336] higher members are stripped off and transferred to
the other? Is there any psychological effect from that?
A. Yes. I think it demoralizes the lower group as it is
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
225
deprived of its leadership, although the cream of that
group that has now been removed, according to your ques
tion, to another group, may still feel identified with the
lower group from which that cream has been removed, it
has no more—shall I say, leadership, toward which to strive,
so the effect of that is the lower group will be below the
achievement level that it could have had had the cream,
as it were, not been removed.
Q. Now, would this tend to increase to any extent any
feelings of inferiority which might otherwise have been in
the lower group? A. It will certainly increase feelings of
inadequacy, and these feelings may adversely affect the
lower group, if I understood the question.
Q. Would it tend to contrast and heighten the contrast
or the comparison between the two groups in the minds of
the lower group? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, if we were to take at the present time, Dr.
van den Haag, as this complaint has it, and make the schools
of Savannah-Chatham County 60 percent white and 40 per
cent negro, would these effects, which you have discussed in
terms of [337] group identification, occur within the class
room? A. Well, I think the major effect, as I can see it,
would not be so much on the pupils that you mentioned
before, those who are above the average achievement level,
but the reversed effect would be for those whose achievement
level is average, for they will attach to a group, the achieve
ment level of which, for whatsoever reasons, is considerably
above the one to which they are accustomed, that is, the
gulf between what they expected to achieve and what they
can achieve, would be greatly increased. Now, a strong
increase of such a gulf leads, usually, to discouragement and
inadequacy and inferiority, and so on, or frustration, if you
wish, which tends to be expressed in hostility toward the
group that is doing better than they can manage to do.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
226
Q. Then, in such a situation, if this feeling of hostility
developed, Doctor, what would be the effect upon the su
perior pupil of the lower group! A. It would be torn, be
cause, on the one hand, as we said before, we change his
identification with the lower group. On the other hand,
his own achievement may not be below the expected stand
ards, if he is a superior pupil, so that he would be torn
between his loyalty to the group with which he identifies
and there is a gulf that is established between him and the
others according to his achievement level. This would
lead to [338] a situation which leads to considerable psycho
logical conflict within the pupil in many cases and this, in
turn, though his intelligence will not suffer, would probably
prevent full utilization of his gifts.
Q. In turn, with the frustration, which you have dis
cussed, would that affect the larger group to any extent at
all, or would it be ignored, educationally speaking! A.
Eestate that, please. I didn’t get it.
Q. If you have a 60-40 group, biracial group—but first,
Doctor, at this point, will you tell me what constitutes a
group! In what sense do individuals recognize themselves
as a part of a group! What make a group for individual
identification! A. Well, if I understand the question, there
are various definitions, but in society it is defined as a
number of people who have more and more frequent rela
tions with each other in terms of association than they have
with outsiders, or other groups or individuals, and the
result of that, or associated with that, they have a feeling
of solidarity as a group toward other group members, a
group feeling toward other group members, and an alien
ness toward the out-group, other groups. I think that is so
for any group.
Q. Would this, for example, Doctor, be grouped around
the group consciousness of sex between boys and girls!
[339] A. At certain ages, that is certainly the case. At a
later age it may change.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
227
Q. They are conscious of their own grouping! A. Cer
tainly.
Q. Could this group form itself, say, around a common
language! A. Yes. It is very true that frequently children
actually invent common languages for the purpose of form
ing such a group. Also, let me say that professionals and
various other groups tend to invent a language of their
own partly for the purpose of group formation. The
language itself later on leads to further group formation,
I would say.
Q. Now, in addition to sex and language, do charac
teristics, not held in common, tend to form such groups!
A. Often, they do, yes. For instance, athletes may group
together, and non-athletes may fall in somewhat different
groups, and so on. Groups may vary according to interest,
physical characteristics and mental characteristics and so
forth.
Q. Does racial distinction constitute such a basis for
grouping! A. Well, racial is a little vague.
Q. Physical characteristics commonly recognized as
such! A. They do, particularly at an early age. The
[340] earlier the age the more the recognition and identi
fication with similar looking people. As one grows older
other matters, such as profession, income, culture, and so
on, tend to play a greater role.
Q. Now, the original admission into school, a racial
distinction in the sense of obvious physical characteristics
are fundamentally a form of group identification, is that
correct! A. Yes.
Q. Has this matter been treated in any study, to your
knowledge! A. In the studies I have already quoted, and
if you will give me a moment I might find some more.
Q. Well, let me ask you this: Is there an article by
Goodman, for example, on the question of evidence as to
at what age the racial preference patterns are established!
A. Yes, sir. The article in question is called “ Evidence
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
228
Concerning the Genesis of Interracial Attitudes” , and it
appeared in the American Anthropologist, October-Decem-
ber, 1946.
Q. Who was the author? A. M. E. (Mae) Goodman.
Q. And what is her position? A. I frankly, do not know.
I have read the article but I am not acquainted with the
author.
[341] Q. Are you familiar with the conclusions! A.
Yes, and if I may, let me briefly indicate them.
Q. Well, before you indicate them to the Court, do you
agree with them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are they, to the best of your knowledge and opinion,
Doctor, in accord with authority in this field? A. All the
studies, with which I am familiar, have come, and I believe
I am familiar with the literature, have come quite to the
same conclusion, namely, that children in this case of
approximately three to four and a half years are in the
process of becoming aware of race differences and of its
implications, and this is apparent in the observations of the
subjects of the study in their rejection of cross-racial hospi
tality and association and in the vernacular group names
they tend to use and so on.
Q. Is there an article in the same field on the question
of the subsequent change of attitude in school by a gentle
man by the name of Ichheiser? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state who Ichheiser is, Doctor? A. Yes.
And I am going to try to find the article. His name is
Professor Gustav Ichheiser and he used to teach [342]
sociology at the University of Chicago, and the article in
question appeared as a special supplement to The Ameri
can Journal of Sociology, which is published by the Uni
versity of Chicago. In this article, Professor Ichheiser
investigates the formation of groups on the basis of phy
sical characteristics and comes to the conclusion that this
is a universal phenomenon, not caused by any specific his
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
229
torical attitude in any particular country but rather it
occurs anywhere where there are physically distinguishable
groups.
Q. Is his information general? Does it include schools
to any extent? A. Yes. It does include schools; but may
I add that the way he formulated his information is some
what more controversial than the conclusions of the au
thors that we have discussed so far. He insists that the
group formation is not learned on any level whatsoever,
but inherent, where some of us feel that he has not proved
this particular point.
Q. Now, I will read yon from Professor Ichheiser’s
conclusions and ask you whether you agree with this:
“ And, second, if the negroes would refuse to identify
themselves consciously with other negroes as a sub-group,
then they would develop a kind of collective neurosis, as
to other minorities, too, for the conscious “ we” would in
case of such an attitude be persistently in conflict with the
unconscious “ we” , [343] and this inner split would inevi
tably reflect itself in different pathological distortions of
the Negro personality.” A. I am in full agreement with
that.
Q. In more of laymen’s language, Doctor, is Doctor
Ichheiser saying that the aims of negro education should be
the development of Negro abilities, attitudes and goals in
place of white? Are those synonymous? A. No. I think
what Dr. Ichheiser is saying, primarily, in the things that
you have quoted, that the aim of Negro education should be
to permit negroes to identify this group and prevent them
from attempting to identify with groups other than their
own for that would lead to pathological effects. Now, it is
a conclusion, which I don’t think Dr. Ichheiser makes ex
clusively, but it seems quite warranted, that that involves
the kind of education that would develop those characteris
tics that are specifically inherent in the group, just what I
understood you to say.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
230
Q. Dr. van den Haag, are you familiar with the fact
that the article which you have just made reference was sub
mitted to this court as an attachment to the intervenors’
papers on their motion to intervene ? A. I am familiar with
it now.
Mr. Leonard: For the record, this was number
30-A in the attachments to the Intervenors’ papers.
Q. Now, you previously stated, Doctor, as I recall, that
this whole question of attitude is one which had been sub
ject to various tests, and you have given us some authority
on the general effect of it. However, we are dealing here
with a specific effect in the field which you are now dis
cussing. And if the Court would permit I would like at this
time to hand the witness an extract from Brown v. Board
of Education, containing the statement which is an issue
in this case, that the educational and mental development
of negro children is adversely affected by the continuance
of the segregated school system, because I would like for
the witness, if possible, to comment now upon that state
ment.
Mr. Mayfield: I have no objections, your Honor.
The Court: All right.
Q. Dr. van den Haag, I ask you to read that portion of
the opinion of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of
Education which states that the separate education facili
ties afforded to white and black had been found in a Kan
sas case by a court to have a detrimental effect upon the
colored children. The court also noted in the Delaware
case, which was heard at the same time, that the Dela
ware Court had stated:
“ I conclude from the testimony that in our Delaware
society that state-imposed segregation in education results
in negro children, as a class, receiving educational oppor
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
231
tunities [345] substantially inferior to those available to
white children otherwise situated.”
Then the Supreme Court stated, and this is the portion
on which I ask your comment:
“ Whatever may have been the extent of psychological
knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson” —and for
your information, Doctor, I will state that Plessy v. Fer
guson is a decision of the Supreme Court holding that sep
arate but equal facilities was valid constitutionally—
Mr. Mayfield: If your Honor please, I think
counsel here can take cognizance of the fact that
Plessy v. Ferguson decision has been overruled by
virtue of the Brown decision, and is not valid law
now.
Mr. Leonard: I will concede for the record that
Plessy v. Ferguson to the extent that it is not based
on facts has been overruled by the Brown case.
The Court: All right, let that be noted in the
record.
Q. In making that statement, Dr. van den Haag, the
Supreme Court referred to what it called, or stated that its
findings were amply supported by modern authority, and
listed in a footnote a group of references on the point.
Are you familiar here with those references? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Would you please tell us, or describe those [346]
references for us and tell us what their contents are? A.
Well, I think it is footnote 11 of the decision. There are
a whole number of books quoted rather indiscriminately,
and I say so because one of the books quoted, I believe, Wit-
mer and Kotinsky, “ Personality In The Making” , comes
to a conclusion which is directly contrary to the one the
Supreme Coui't assumes that it comes to ; but as far as the
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
232
other books are concerned they do state what the Supreme
Court indicates they state, namely, that segregation is
harmful to the segregated negro children, and they state
that on the basis of a variety of types of evidence which,
if you wish, I would like to comment on at this time.
Q. I would like to ask you, first, do you agree with the
statement of the Supreme Court? A. No, sir.
Q. That it is harmful? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you agree that congregation would be more harm
ful? A. Yes, sir, particularly, compulsory congregation.
Q. Now, would you please go into this evidence which
was offered to the contrary in its present state? A. Well,
there are nearly a dozen works quoted, but the type of
evidence is pretty much the same in all, very [347] largely
based on several works of Professor Kenneth B. Clark,
which are quoted in the footnote of the Supreme Court,
which he again used also in an appendix to the brief sub
mitted to the Supreme Court by the plaintiffs in the case.
Professor Clark undertook a number of experiments and
submitted them to the court. Now, do you want me to de
scribe his experiments, sir?
Q. Yes, would you describe particularly whether they
were proper scientific experiments? A. Professor Clark
undertook one series of experiments, which is in northern
unsegregated schools, and asked a number of pupils certain
questions by first showing them dolls, colored dolls and
white dolls. He then asked them which of these dolls were
nice and which were bad dolls. He asked a number of other
questions to make sure that the dolls were properly iden
tified and continued to ask which dolls were nice, and
which one would you prefer to be with, to play with, and
finally which doll is most like you, yourself. Now, I will
come to the results of his experiments in a moment, but
now let me point out that a little later, well, about ten
years later, exactly the same sort of experiment wms re
peated by Professor Clark in segregated schools in the
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
233
south. As a result of that experiment there were submit
ted to a variety of courts in the south in which anti-segre
gated suits were then being tried. These experiments
were taken with a small number of children. I [348] de
scribe in a part of my book, “ The Fabric Of Society” , that
which you have mentioned before, and if I may, I will quote
from it.
Q. This is your own language? A. Yes.
Q. All right, sir? A. First, Professor Clark, later on,
answered my allegations, but he did not, in his answer,
deny that I correctly quoted him. Professor Clark tested
16 children between the ages of six and nine in Clarenton
County, South Carolina. He presented drawings of dolls
to the children, identical, except some dolls had dark skin,
others white skin color, and after making sure that the
children had noted the difference he questioned them as
to which doll was nice, or which doll was had, and as to
which dolls were like themselves. The majority of the
negro children found the white dolls nice, and about half
of them picked the nice white dolls as being like themselves.
Professor Clark concluded therefrom that prejudice and
segregation had led these segregated negro children to
identify the white dolls despite the fact their own skin
color was dark. He concluded that this involved a confu
sion and I quote: “ confusion of identity.” Here are his
actual words:
“ My opinion is that a fundamental effect of segregated
schools, segregation, is basic confusion in the individuals
[349] and their concepts about themselves conflicting in
their set images.” I apologize for the sentence. That seems
to be supported by the results of these 16 children, these
things that I have quoted. Now, you asked me to comment
on the scientific methods involved.
Q. You mean this entire statement is based on the state
ment of 16 children? A. This statement is, though there
is a reference to a previous experiment with about 300
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
234
children, but the reference omits the fact that the outcome
of these 300 children was exactly the opposite of the 16
children. What Professor Clark said in his testimony is
that this is consistent with the previous result which we
have obtained in testing over 300 children.
Q. Well, are you saying that the previous result of the
300 was to the contrary? A. Exactly. I looked up the
article and I will quote in a moment Professor Clark him
self indicating that the results were quite the opposite of
those he first presented.
Q. All right, sir ? A. May I say, just briefly, as to these
16 children, that the fault with this experiment is a double
one, a triple one. First, if you ask children which doll is
nice, and then you ask them which one they identify them
selves with, having [350] declared the white doll to be nice
they would have to declare themselves to be un-nice to
identify themselves with the doll that they had previously
called bad, and the logic of the first choice would compel
the children, if they want to refer to themselves as nice, to
identify with the white doll, and so this is an error in the
position of questions.
The second point is that Professor Clark assumed,
without any further investigation, that the preference for
white dolls, and also in some cases the drawing of dolls,
involved an identification and a preference by people owing
to prejudice. Now, it seems to me from a common sense
inspection that it is very likely that children, generally,
prefer the white doll, the white color to the black color.
Not only in our culture, but almost all cultures the world
over, including societies where white people are practically
unknown, and others where negroes are practically unknown,
not only children, but other people, too, prefer the white
or light color rather than the black color. In most countries
that I am familiar with white stands for innocence, purity,
joy, particularly anything that is pleasant, whereas, in these
same cultures, in these same countries, many of which have
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
235
no race problem whatsoever, black stands for terror, evil,
death, things bad and so on; and children are generally-
terrified by night and prefer the sunlight and so on. So,
my first point here is very simple that the preference of
[351] children for light skin dolls may not indicate any
sort of confusion or anything in particular, but simply a
general preference on the part of children for lightness.
Now, an experiment to be scientific usually involves
controls. In the case in question, Professor Clark’s con
clusions might have been either affirmed or contradicted
had he undertaken controlled experiments. He might
have, in the New York Schools, done in the same manner,
that is, whether they preferred dark dolls or blond dolls
or teddy bears. Now, suppose the outcome would have
been that children, generally, would have said, since they
think the teddy bears are nicer than either doll and possibly
even have said they are like teddy bears, if you follow
Professor Clark’s theory then we would have to conclude
that in the New York Schools the pupils are suffering from
prejudice and teddy bears are preferred. This conclusion
is clearly observed.
To come a little nearer the subject, if the same type
of thing would have been done, say, in Hawaii-—I mean
Haiti, or in Liberia, or in any country where there is no
question of segregation, the outcome had been the same,
why, Professor Clark would have learned from this that
the outcome, contrary to what he referred to, had nothing
to do with segregation. The outcome would have been
different and Professor Clark might have come to at least
suggesting some support for his own conclusions.
[352] Now, as you mentioned, sixteen children are not
very many, and in particular in an experiment of this kind.
Now, there is a second type of control, usually in sociological
experiments, namely, you tend to try to either randomize
your population, both of which you experiment, that is,
you try to be sure that the members of both groups are
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
236
represented in the proportions in which they exist in the
actual population and you take into consideration such
things as religion, age, sex, economic, residential and en
vironments which may influence the responses, and you
make sure that the group is randomly selected. So far
as I know, Professor Clark did neither, that is, not as far
as I know.
But, as I mentioned before, Professor Clark did test
about 300 children in the north, who were unsegregated, in
unsegregated schools, and I will quote Professor Clark, as
follows:
“ The children in the northern mixed school situation
do not differ from children in the southern segregated
schools in either their knowledge of racial differences or
their racial identification. ’ ’ Except that, and I quote again:
“ The southern children in segregated schools are less pro
nounced in their preferences for the white doll as compared
to the northern unsegregated children’s definite preference
for this white doll. Although most are in the minority,
a higher percentage of the [353] southern children, com
pared to the northern children, prefer to play with the
colored doll, or think that it is a nice doll.” And Professor
Clark presents in this study, or provides you with tables
which confirms this. May I, just for identification, cite the
article in which this appears! This is Kenneth B. Clark
and Mamie Clark “ Racial Identification and Preference in
Negro Children. Reprinted in Readings in Social Psy
chology.” The first edition was in 1947 and there have
been subsequent editions.
Now, may I remind you that previously Professor Clark
had said, in his court appearance with his sixteen children
test, that the fact nine or ten out of the sixteen negro
children picked the white doll as the nice one, or as the
one they liked the best, and so on, indicate, and again I
quote: “ These children have been definitely bounded in
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
237
the development of their personalities.” So, the inconsist
ency to which I refer consist in this: That the attributes,
the mis-identification of the children in the southern segre
gated schools, their identification of the white dolls and
their preference for them he attributes to segregation and
as doing harm to their personalities; but then he finds that
in northern schools, though actually previously he found
that in the northern mixed schools a higher percentage of
negro children identified the white doll, or preferred the
white doll to the black doll, and finds the white [354] doll
prettier and better, so the proper conclusion from this
study would be, if he is right in thinking that mis-identifica
tion indicates that they have been definitely harmed in the
development of their personalities, then the proper conclu
sion would be that to avoid this harm they should remain
segregated, because the unsegregated situation, according
to the tests that he failed to submit showed that the mixed
school situation leads to far more harmful consequences.
If you wish me to, I may go one step further and point
out that since I pointed this out in an article I wrote some
time ago—if you wish me to identify it, I will.
Q. If you would, as long as you have identified the
others? A. All right, it is “ Social Science Testimony in
the Desegregation Cases. A reply to Professor Kenneth
Clark,” appearing in the fall of 1960 issue of the Villanova
Law Review. Since I wrote somewhat more extensively
along the lines that I have just testified to, Professor Clark
has admitted indirectly and without quoting me as such,
by saying ‘ ‘ One might suggest that northern children suffer
more personality damage from racial prejudice and dis
crimination than do southern negro children. However,
this interpretation would seem to be superficial and incor
rect. The apparent emotional stability of the southern
negro children may be indicative only of the fact [355]
that because of so rigid racial segregation and isolation
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
238
the negro child has come to accept as normal the fact of
his inferior social status. Such an acceptance is not symp
tomatic of a healthy personality.” Now, as I understand
it, this is an indirect rebuttal to the points that I have just
made, but I wish to state that this rebuttal means, in effect,
that either way, what Professor Clark thinks is harmful
is harmful, regardless of the evidence to the contrary, be
cause the evidence to him showed, according to his doll
test, that the negro children gave certain responses which,
according to Professor Clark, means that they are harmed,
whether they are segregated or unsegregated, and then he
turns around and says they are more harmed because they
are segregated; so one cannot but conclude, and I do so
conclude, that Professor Clark’s views that segregation is
harmful is not based on the evidence and is, in part, in my
opinion, contrary to the evidence and to his own tests and
in no way supported by the evidence.
Q. When you say it is not supported by the evidence
and contrary to the evidence, you mean the evidence which
he, himself, had at the time? A. Yes, and not only that,
he had the evidence at the time but did not mention it to
the court, nor did he mention it in the brief that was uttered
to the Supreme Court, nor is that evidence properly quoted
by the Supreme Court in [356] that footnote, so that I can
only conclude that evidence was overlooked by the Supreme
Court, and since Professor Clark was one of the main
authors of the many books quoted by the Supreme Court
I cannot help feeling that this overlooking was not altogther
accidental.
Q. Were there any other articles or reviews in the foot
note of the Supreme Court, which either adopts the state
ments of Professor Clark, or have a similar type basis? A.
Most of them, as far as I know, simply assert that segrega
tion has harmful consequences on the basis of general views
which authors do not bolster, as far as I can see, with any
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
239
data. There are, I may point out, considerable. It is not
only Professor Clark, somewhat against his will, who has
given evidence to the contrary, and I would like to mention
that—well, first, allow me to quote Professor Clark again
in another article in 1939, long before he appeared before
the court. The article is called “ Segregation as a Factor
in the Racial Identification of Negro Pre-School Children.”
It appeared in the Journal of Experimental Education in
December, 1939. The conclusion here is, contrary to the
one later on used:
“ In general the tendency to identify either the colored
or the white boy seems to approximate a chance frequency
among those negro children in nursery schools where [357]
there are both white and colored children. While trying
towards identifying the colored hoy is more pronounced in
the negro children in the semi-segregated and altogether
segregated schools.”
Now, here again he contradicts his later testimony be
fore the Court.
Here is another article I would like to mention here,
and this is by Professor Davis, an Anthropologist, called
“ Racial Status and Personality Development,” which ap
peared in the Scientific Monthly in October, 1943. Here
the major point is as follows:
“ Where the social group of racially segregated individ
uals is highly organized, as in Little Italys, or China Towns,
or as in many southern negro communities, its members
will usually have relatively less psychological conflicts over
their racial status.”
This, in effect, says, that where there is a fairly high
degree of segregation the negroes remain comparatively
conflict free. Where there is a high degree, conversely, of
integration there are various signs and indications of psy
chological and personality disorders.
Q. Are there any studies on all-negro American com
munities? A. Not that I know of.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
240
[358] Q. Are you familiar with Hill’s study on negro
communities in Oklahoma? A. Yes, sir, and I have it here
somewhere.
Q. Just state to us, generally, Doctor, just follow up
the conclusion, which you have just said; that the greater
the degree of separation will lessen the degree of conflict
in the child? A. This does not altogether regard children,
but let me state the conclusion. It is in one sentence. “ An
individual residing in an all negro society will have a much
higher regard for negroes. He will be more equally tolerant
in his attitude toward them and thus more favorable in his
expression toward his own race.” “ It appears safe to
conclude that the all negro youths have a higher opinion of
negroes due to the absence of pressure of the white man.”
This is an article called “ A Comparative Study of Race
Attitudes in the all Negro Community in Oklahoma,” by
Mozelle Hill, as appeared in Phylon, the Third Quarterly
Issue of 1946.
Q. Is there any other matter that you want to comment
on in connection with that finding of the Supreme Court?
Have you covered it as far as your present study goes?
A. There is a great deal to be said about it. I think that
there are two points that I would like to raise.
Q. All right, sir? [359] A. The first is: “ Does Inte
gration improve the attitudes of the groups toward each
other ? What evidence do we have as to that ? ’ ’ The second
would regard the compulsoriness of the integration.
Let me start with the second point, if I may. I believe
that where contact between the two groups is voluntary
and spontaneous it can be useful. I have known of inter
racial relations of such spontaneous kind, which I think has
been fruitful psychologically and intellectually on an indi
vidual basis. On the other hand, what experience I have
seems to indicate that where their association is not volun
tary, where it involves compulsory congregation, or com
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
241
pulsory togetherness, as has been decreed by the Supreme
Court, has maybe done an injury to both the negro child
and to the white child; and particularly let me point out
that although a great number of investigations have been
undertaken about the supposed damage to negro children
from segregation, I know of no single investigation that
has been even interested or undertaken in trying to find out
the effects on negro children who are asked to go into a
white school, the population of which does not receive them
hospitably. I am not referring to the matters of achieve
ment, and so on, that we have already discussed, but I am
referring to the psychological damage, in my opinion, which
arises to a child that is asked by its parents or compelled
by law to [360] go to a school where it will feel alone and
will feel in a hostile environment. If it is true, as the
Supreme Court indicates in the matter, which you have been
good enough to quote to me, that segregation is humiliating
to negro children, then it seems to me that their presence in
a white school in which the other pupils look with disfavor
on his presence in the school room he must be a hundred
times more humiliated, and if it is true that humiliation may
leave lasting marks upon the child, then I will say this
humiliation must leave far more lasting marks and injury.
Many studies have been undertaken, particularly by
Jewish Agencies, to ascertain whether there are valid ap
proaches to combatting prejudice, and whether they were,
more or less, effective. One general result has been con
curred in by practically every one involved in these studies,
namely, that forced association, or forced congregation is
not only unhealthful but tends to exacerbate an already
existing prejudice, or an existing hostility, so that if the
purpose is to reduce group tensions, as these studies seem
to indicate, those group tensions are best reduced by per
mitting the groups, each to cultivate its own identity, and
allowing them to associate voluntarily but never compelling
them to do so.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
242
Q. In summary, Doctor, your testimony is that if the
existence of separate schools, dual school systems, itself,
[361] can be viewed as creating an inferior attitude in the
students, whether or not justified, that the psychological
results, the psychological injury, if such exist, is far less
than would be the result from a forced congregation in a
single class room? A. Yes, sir, and I would like to add
one point, if I may, and that is this: There is one study, in
fact, there are two studies, which tried to compare both the
psychological well being and the achievement of negro
pupils in a segregated school with that of negro pupils
in an unsegregated school, and the studies I am re
ferring to are M. I. Ciowley’s, Cincinnati’s Experiment
in Negro Education, a comparative study of segregated and
mixed schools, which appeared in The Journal of Negro
Education, April 1932; and in the same Journal, April,
1943, is a study by W. R. Pugh, A Comparative Study of
the Adjustment in Mixed and Separated High Schools.
Both of these studies concluded that the vast negro pupils,
both in the segregated and the unsegregated high schools
in the achievement level remain somewhat below on the
average with the achievement level of the white pupils. No
difference could be detected between the achievement level
of the negro pupils in the segregated schools and the
achievement level of the negro pupils in the white or mixed
schools. The conclusion that was drawn by the authors
and which I concur with, that the differences in achievement
that do occur, to the extent to which they are not due to
congenital [362] factors, may be due to differences in facili
ties. In other words, if the material facilities in a negro
segregated school is not as good as in the white school, and
if his instructional staff is not as good as in a white school
then, indeed, some of the differences in achievement may be
attributed to these inferior material facilities, but the
studies I just quoted show that if the facilities are equally
as good in the material respects as the white schools, then
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
243
segregation, in itself, makes no difference at all in the
achievement of the two schools, whereas, there is, from the
material I quoted before, some indication that congregation
has an adverse effect on the psychological well being of the
two groups, especially if it is forced congregation.
Q. Did you testify previously, also, that it would affect,
as a result, the educational progress of both groups? A.
Yes, but I think that is mostly due to where the congrega
tion is compulsory. In the studies that I have here quoted,
made into notes, the congregation was not compulsory.
Q. It was voluntary? A. Was voluntary, and at least
from these studies there is no difference in achievement
level between the segregated and non-segregated school as
far as the negro pupils are concerned. In most eases, how
ever, the achievement level being somewhat below that of
the white pupils.
[363] Q. Would you tend to contrast that to the report
of the Washington conditions? Are you familiar with the
Eeport of the Sub-Committee on the conditions in the
Washington Schools, following integration? A. I cannot
say that I am familiar with it except from reading the
newspapers.
Q. Now, as to the footnote of the Supreme Court, could
you tell us anything about Kotinsky and the other authors
listed there? A. Well, they, as well as the authors who
subscribed to the appendix, are people in good standing
among social scientists, hut I would like to make a footnote
to this, if I may.
Q. Go ahead, Doctor? A. There is a study by a very
well known sociologist who has just received a prize from
the American Sociological Association, Professor Seymore
M. Lipset, of the University of California. Professor Lip-
set—incidentally this study is published in a hook called
“ Political Man” , and he pointed out, Professor Lipset
pointed out that all social scientists tend to be ideological
to a degree of about 80 percent, if I recall the study cor
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
244
rectly. I think that, rather than the evidence, which is quite
to the contrary, explains why social scientists, many of
them at least, despite this evidence, did [364] subscribe to
the appendix to the brief that I have mentioned before.
Q. I want to ask you a question on that, Doctor. Are
you referring to the theory, which started with Watson,
that every baby starts out in life with precisely the same
gifts and that solely the environment and education deter
mines whether it will be Einstein or an idiot? A. Well, my
only objection is that the theory did not start with Watson,
but with Pologus, who was a contemporary of St. Augustine.
But this theory, which is advocated by some, generally holds
that people are born equally endowed and that it is only
the social teachment and the opportunities offered by en
vironment which makes for the difference that we can
observe. Let me point out, however, sir, that though many
social scientists act as though they believe in the theory,
I know not a single one who would seriously wish to defend
it.
Q. What is the contrary of this theory? A. The con
trary of this theory would be that if you teach a hundred
people music they don’t all become equally good com
posers; that a Mozart is born and not made. Einstein did
not become what he was because he had particular oppor
tunities to learn mathematics. He learned mathematics
in the same way a lot of other people did; but because of
an inborn talent he became what he was. There are differ
ences, and I would [365] hasten to add that environment
does play a considerable role in the utilization of inborn
talents. If Einstein had been born in a tribe, where mathe
matics are unknown, he would not have become the Nobel
Prize Winner he did become. If Mozart had been born,
not in Austria, but in a place where music is unknown, who
knows of what would have become of him, so the environ
ment certainly leads you to utilize to a greater or lesser
degree, the inborn capacities, including the intelligence
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
245
that yon have, but at the same time environment does not
create capacities and capabilities that are not inborn. It
merely can utilize them, and such things as intelligence or
talents for various activities have, to a very large extent,
been inborn.
Q. Dr. van den Haag, it was testified earlier in this
case that in the study of identical twins, reared in different
environments, intelligence differences up to three points
have been noted, as contrasted with the fifteen point differ
ence to individuals collected at random. Would this three
points approximate what you have just said of the effect of
environment upon intelligence? A. I would think that is a
reasonable conclusion.
Q. And the balance would be fundamentally hereditary?
A. I would think that is a reasonable conclusion, but not
having made these studies myself, I don’t wish to go [366]
further.
Q. Doctor, are you familiar with Dr. Stymbeck’s book
entitled “ Education and Attitude Change’ ’ ? A. Yes, let
me find it.
Q. Is he regarded as an authority on these matters on
which you have been testifying? A. Yes. He has made
a survey of this and undertaken some personal observa
tions which are of considerable importance in this matter.
His book called “ Education And Attitude Change” , the
effect of schooling on prejudice against minority groups
was published in 1961 by the Institute of Human Rela
tions at my own New York University Press, I think, in
1961. His main conclusion is as follows:
“ Much of the research stresses that those who are 1
more educated become less prejudiced. The present study
finds no such clear-cut relationship. On many issues the
educated show as much prejudice as the less educated, and
on some issues they show more. The educated are more
likely to hold certain—or rather they are more likely to
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
246
favor informal discrimination in many areas of behavior.
As we go up the educational ladder all images of minorities
are replaced by new ones often no less harmful.”
The conclusion is then, and he quotes another author.
Q. Dr. van den Haag, I wonder if you would go a
[367] little more slower than that, please, sir? A. He
quotes Dr. Hostetter, in the Journal of Psychology in
1951. No more widespread education, nor the rise in the
standard of living affect racial discrimination directly.
It is rather a function of the relative frequency of the
element discriminated against. That is what he meant to
say, it depends on the number of contacts.
Q. Does the size of the group play any part in the
group complex or group tension which you have been dis
cussing, the relative size of the two groups involved? A.
Well, what plays a major role, I think, is the combination
of sight, size and contact. Here is a study which I would
like to quote from on this by a man named Bernard
Leander, who studied crime in Baltimore. If you will
give me a moment I will find it. I quote it myself in a
book but I will have to find it. The study deals with
juvenile delinquency, published by the Columbia University
Press in 1954. Professor Leander, who teaches sociology
at Hunter College in New York, established that crime
rates, which are one of the interests of social psychology,
rise as the amount of contact increases between racial
groups not previously in contact with one another. That
is, he found that in Baltimore, when negroes were only,
say, five percent of the population of a given census type,
the crime rate remained normal, but as they increased
[368] their percentage, owing to immigration from the
South, the crime rate increased far beyond expected pro
portion in terms of the population, and he goes on to say
that when they are once more separated from whites the
crime rate decreases again becoming very nearly normal.
What he found was that once a group becomes either 100
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
247
per cent white, or nearly so, or 100 per cent negro, the
crime rate goes below what it is when there is a contact
of sizeable groups of both sides.
Q. His conclusion then is that anti-social behavior,
essentially, is a function of the degree of contact between
two dissimilar groups? A. Yes. He states very explicitly
that it is not related to housing conditions and many other
matters to which sociologists at times have tried to relate
it, but mainly related to the phenomenon that he calls
anomie, which is a word that comes from Plato and used
by authorities ever since in a sense. There are many
things related to this phenomenon, and this phenomenon
comes about through the contact of previously alien groups
which tends, as it were, to shape each group in the accept
ance of its own rules or groups.
Q. Now, would you say that this same effect takes place,
not in a city like Baltimore, but in a classroom? In other
words, essentially, is that what you are talking about?
A. Yes, indeed, that is what I am talking about.
[369] Q. In other words, the disciplinary problem side
of the class would increase to the extent you increase the
contact between the two groups? A. Yes, because you
would have groups of very different habits.
The Court: Just what do you mean? I can’t
follow you. Propound the question again, please.
Just ask that question again.
Q. Doctor van den Haag, to take a smaller example,
you were talking about the fact that the studying of the
entire ward of the City of Baltimore—
Mr. Mayfield: —Your Honor, I am going to object
to any reference being made to Baltimore. He testi
fied that this was a study of the City of Baltimore
and it has no relevancy to this case at all, and I
move that this part of the testimony be stricken.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
248
The Court: What do you say to that?
Mr. Leonard: Tour Honor, as I understand it,
we are being told that there has been a general hold
ing of fact which is good for the entire country, that
the segregation of the white and negro children into
separate schools is harmful to the negro. It is not
isolated by any community, and I am trying to show,
therefore, that race relations, taken as a whole,
whether they are in Baltimore, or in Savannah-
Chatham, follow a pattern and [370] the pattern
that we are discussing in Baltimore can be antici
pated as occurring in Savannah, Georgia.
The Court: I see your proposition. I tell you
what you do, Mayfield, you do just like I told your
other counsel here. Any matter that comes before
the court, in order to facilitate the matter, you hold
your objections until all the evidence is in, and then
I am going to hear from you all as to the materiality
or illegality of the testimony. Just make a memo
randum or remember it when all the evidence is
closed and then you can raise your objection. If I
was to sit up here and every time an objection was
made and hear arguments on it, we would not have
been anywhere near through, and I do want to get
through with the case in a reasonable time, and I
can do a better job by you withholding your objec
tion until all the evidence is in and then you object
to it, and I will rule either with you or against
you. I think that’s the best way to handle the
situation.
Mr. Mayfield: Thank you, your Honor.
Q. To repeat my question, Doctor van den Haag, to
move from a segment of the population as large as a ward
in Baltimore and the conclusions that you have stated
about the effect of the mixing of the two groups, bringing
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Direct
249
it down to the classroom, in which you stated that a con
flict would exist between the two groups, and which you
have previously testified [371] about, is this essentially
the same effect we are talking about? In other words, what
I am getting at, Doctor, would it exist in the classrooms?
A. Yes, sir, I would say that in a classroom the effect would
be somewhat intensified for the simple reason that the
psychological phenomenon would he attributed to contact
between two different groups that were not previously in
contact. It is obvious that merely residing in the same
ward will involve less contact of a less intimate nature
than going and sitting together in the same classroom,
therefore, I think, if Professor Leander’s study is cor
rect, I would think that the effect that he found to exist
in Baltimore would be multiplied in a classroom in which
there is involuntary congregation.
Mr. Leonard: That is all I have, Doctor.
The Court: Any questions, Mayfield?
Mr. Mayfield: Yes, your Honor.
Cross-examination by Mr. Mayfield:
Q. Doctor, I am quite interested to know whether you
have ever testified in a case of this type before? A. No,
sir.
Q. Am I given to understand that you are a professor
[372] at the New York University? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I take it then that you are brought into con
tact with the mixing of the races, are you not? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Then can you tell this court whether or not this
has had any adverse effect on the students? A. Well, sir,
to do that, I would have to have a group socially and
otherwise composed as my classes are at The New York
University without the mixing of the races, and then I
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Cross
would have to make a comparative study of their behavior
when the races are mixed versus their behavior when they
are not mixed. Now, I do find in my classes at New York
University a number of things that I am not exactly
pleased with be that level of achievement or other types
of behavior. It is possible that this is applicable to the
thing that you have just mentioned, but I will not be able
to find out unless I have an exactly similar class of race
mixture that you are interested in.
Q. I will repeat my question, Doctor: Do you know
of any adverse effect on the learning abilities by virtue
of the mingling of those races in your class specifically, if
you choose to come down to that point! A. I don’t
ehoose. I will do what you want me to do.
[373] Q. Doctor, I simply want a yes or no answer, with
your explanation, if you choose to give one ? A. The answer
is I do not know of an adverse effect to be attributed to this
because I have not made a study that permits me to attrib
ute the effect to anything.
Q. Well, let me ask you again, sir: How is the relation
ship between the negro students in your class, or classes,
and the white students in your class, or classes! A. As a
matter of fact, there is very little relationship. I observed,
for instance, in the cafeteria and in similar places, that
although no segregation is imposed negro students tend to
sit at tables apart from white students and vice versa. I
am sure if there is pressure it is the other way around
toward mixing, but nonetheless anyone entering the New
York University cafeteria will observe what I have ob
served.
Q. Have you observed any inter-racial mixing in the
cafeteria, since you have chosen to move from your class
room to the cafeteria! A. I am perfectly willing to stick to
the classroom, if you prefer, but in the classroom I have had
no opportunity to observe whether they are mixing or not
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Cross
251
because I assign seats. The only opportunity that I have to
observe that are in those places where the seats are chosen
by the [374] students, and that is why I refer to the cafe
teria. Hence, for inter-racial mixing generally, I would
say that it occurs on certain officially sponsored occasions,
but it does not occur on a spontaneous basis except in some
cases where I have noticed inter-racial couples at times.
Now, this leads us into a different territory, but I am per
fectly willing to go into that, if you like for me to do so.
Q. Well, Doctor, actually, what you have previously
testified to on direct examination by Mr. Leonard, you can’t
really say that there is an adverse effect resulting to an
individual owing to the mixing of the races, can you! A. I
can, sir. I can on the basis of literature which I have
quoted at some length and on the basis of observations that
I have already presented. If your question is whether I can
by my naked eye observe the effect and the cause I would
have to make a special study which would leave all other
conditions the same and—
Q. —Well, Doctor does— A. —and that study I have
not made, but others have as I have mentioned to you.
Q. Well, let me ask you this, Doctor: Does your posi
tion, as you have testified to here today, does that reflect
the majority opinion or the minority opinion! A. Well, if
you will permit me, I will have to [375] tell you that I have
not counted heads on the matter, and the reason I have not
counted heads is that it has never appeared to me that
scientific questions are decided by a vote, and I know of no
one who would today agree to that. Let me suggest that
when Galileo decided that the earth moves around the sun
the majority opinion at that time decided or insisted that
the sun moves around the earth, but Galileo was right,
though he was a minority of one, and so should I find myself
in this minority of one I would not regret it. I have not
established what the size of the group is that shares my
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners-—Cross
252
views or what the size of the group is that holds different
views. My own feeling is and if you will permit me I will
try to tell you why it is this: I mentioned before in my
testimony that the book “ Problems of Society” wrote
briefly what seems to me to he a rather odd experiment of
Professor Kenneth B. Clark. My book was edited, among
other things, by a gentleman who was then President of
The American Sociological Association and is still a Pro
fessor and Chairman of the Department of Sociology at
Columbia University. This gentleman suggested that I
leave out this part of my book and I inquired whether he
felt that I was wrong, in which case I was quite ready to
leave it out. He did not commit himself on that. He
merely told me that it would harm the sales of my books, so
did the publisher of the book. As you may notice, by
inspection, the chapter in question has been made in the
[376] book, but I got the impression that you are prob
ably correct in your implication that a great number of
social scientists do not like the kind of evidence and the
kind of conclusion that I presented in my work. I don’t
know whether they amount to the majority, but certainly
they include a great number of distinguished men. How
ever, their behavior and my personal contact with them
has not convinced me that they have taken their positions
on the basis of what they themselves would normally con
sider as evidence and it has also convinced me that they
feel sort of a moral duty, right or wrong, to take this posi
tion, and feel apparently that to take this position that
they are considerably morally better and justifies ignor
ing and sometimes tailoring scientific evidence.
Q. Then, Doctor, not knowing whether your position
reflects the majority or the minority views, you could not
very well say then that what was experienced in Balti
more would be experienced here, I mean in Chatham
County, could you? A. Yes.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Cross
253
Q. You could anticipate that, is that your testimony, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, on what basis do you base that? A. You are
asking me to repeat my testimony, and I am perfectly will
ing to do so. The phenomenon in Baltimore [377] was
attributed by Professor Leander, who, by the way, is bit
terly opposed to segregation, was attributed to the mix
ture of two sub-cultures. As I have tried to indicate be
fore, what matters here is not whether that mixture took
place in Baltimore, or in any other place, what matters is
the mixture in itself that leads to the social consequence.
If that is true, then I think it would be equally true whether
the mixture takes place here in the South or somewhere in
the North, except that I would add if the mixture takes
place in a region where the separation has been long estab
lished and is based on a long historical tradition and where
it has been somewhat stricter than in the North, then the
sudden mixture would have probably a more intensive and
adverse effect then it would have where some degree of
mixing was always socially admitted.
Q. Now, Doctor, let me go back to a bit of your earlier
testimony in which you stated that groups were prone to
mingle with one another, that is, of their own racial identity.
Let us take, for example, a purely hypothetical situation
where there are two children in a bi-racial neighborhood
and they come up together, they enroll in school in the first
grade together, they continue through school together, would
your answer be the same under those circumstances as if
they had not been reared together? A. Well, let me see if I
understand your question [378] correctly, sir. Do I under
stand you to say that if they are accustomed to being to
gether, being brought up together, that this would tend to
modify their attitude?
Q. Essentially, yes? A. Well, I think some modifica
tion is possible under the circumstances, but there is a great
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Cross
254
deal of evidence in both, directions, but I cannot share the
optimism you seem to imply. I am thinking now of groups
which correspond entirely to your suggestion. The Jews in
Germany were indeed brought up with non-Jews from the
beginning and mixed freely and so on, but unfortunately, as
far as I can understand, that has not at the time modified
the German attitude toward Jews in a favorable sense. I
am also reminded that I have noticed in my psychoanalytic
practice that hardly have I ever found people more hostile
to each other than those who have been closely associated
over a long period of time. For instance, a married couple
that got a divorce, or is in the process of getting a divorce,
are certainly people that are quite well acquainted with
each other, but this acquaintance has not necessarily led to
friendship, so as I understand the implication of your ques
tion would it not be better to get people together so that
through their contact with each other they may lose their
prejudices, well, it is a very optimistic view but it seems to
me that the evidence is that prejudices are quite as often
reinforced and acquired through such acquaintance than
there are lost, so my answer to [379] your question about
this common upbringing is that it does not in itself guaran
tee or even make likely a friendly relationship. Now, I
think the next question would be: “ What would” ? And
to that, unfortunately, I have no very good answer.
Q. Let me ask you again, Doctor; is it your position that
association is a matter of choice? A. Actually, you mean?
Q. Yes? A. I meant to say that it should be a matter
of choice. One should not be compelled to either associate
or dis-associate with some one, and that both are likely to be
much better off if it is a matter of choice, but certainly I
could not say, in general, that association is always a matter
of choice. If you are inducted into the Army you are not
choosing your associates. If you are put in jail you are
not choosing your associates, but if you are free, normally,
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Cross
255
you are, and it seems to me that there are constitutional
guarantees that you have the right to choose your associates,
provided that they accept your association.
Q. Therefore, if the association was voluntary your tes
timony would be entirely different, wouldn’t it? A. I would
certainly feel that it would be much more favorable if it was
voluntary, yes.
Q. Now, one last question, Doctor do you know of
[380] any studies, which I am quite confident there are
many, that refutes your position entirely and emphatically?
A. If you mean to say studies that favor segregation—I am
sorry, de-segregation.
Q. Yes, sir? A. Certainly, there are quite a number
of studies and I am acquainted with some. If you mean to
say that any of these refutes the arguments that have been
elicited from me today by Mr. Leonard’s questioning, I am
not aware of any such studies.
Q. One last question, Doctor; I noticed in your testi
mony that you made reference to the fact that if a negro
was transferred to a white school, or a white student
transferred to a negro school, as the case may be, and
there was a tendency for the negro child to probably be
mentally destroyed by virtue of the superiority purportedly
of the white students. Now, would you not agree that there
is a strong inclination, where one transfers into a position
like this, that the individual would strive to emulate the
superior group? Have I made myself clear? A. Yes.
And I would agree, and that is precisely what I think might
be harmful. That is, he would identify with the superior
group at times and lose his self-identification. He would
furthermore be torn between loyalty to his own group
[381] and this attempt to emulate or identify with the
superior group. This, indeed, what Professor Clark has,
somewhat against his wishes, apparently, quite well estab
lished; that this would lead to an attempted de-identification
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Cross
256
and that this would have very bad psychological conse
quences on the person who attempts this attempt to emulate.
I am not speaking of every individual case. I am speaking
in terms of groups.
Q. Have you, or your staff, conducted any studies in
Chatham County relative to the sociological effects de
segregation would have! A. Sir, I have no staff. I arrived
in Chatham County yesterday and I expect to leave, if I
may, probably today. I have conducted no special studies
in Chatham County.
Q. So you actually know of no adverse effects, from your
own investigation, that would take place by virtue of de
segregated school system in Chatham County, have you!
A. I have not been in Chatham County long enough to know
of any effects.
Dr. Ernest van den Haag—for Interveners—Cross
Mr. Mayfield: Thank you.
The Court: You will understand that this is Glynn
County.
The Witness: I have not been in Chatham County at
all then.
The Court: All right, any other witness!
[382] Mr. Leonard: No, sir. However, your Honor,
at this time I would like to say that we all are trying to get
this case tried as quickly as possible. Our next witness is
flying here from Scotland and cannot be here at this time.
He is coming directly to Savannah and we will have him
there Monday morning and be prepared, I believe, to con
clude this case on Monday.
The Court: Well, good. Now, I will expect you all
there Monday morning at 10:00 o ’clock in the federal court
room in Savannah, Georgia.
Now, I might say this: That is my regular term of
court over there, and I have arranged with the court of
257
ficials, the district attorney to put their cases back. Now,
I am inconveniencing some people, but I have not heard
anybody fussing and saying that the world is coming to
an end by my doing that. They all have cooperated and
have moved their cases back, so I could finish this case, be
cause everybody seems to think it should be tried and I
thought it should be tried, and I am going to stick right
with this case and I will conduct it along the same lines
that I have been conducting it, and if anybody has any ob
jections—I will repeat it again—if anybody has any ob
jections to any of the testimony, when the evidence is
closed they can present their objections to any evidence
that has been introduced and I will give it due considera
tion and [383] pass upon it.
Mr. Mayfield: If your Honor please, I would like to ask
one question of the Court. You requested earlier that the
respective parties submit orders.
The Court: That’s right.
Mr. Mayfield: Would you like this Monday morning
or at the end of the evidence.
The Court: I would like to get it by Monday. I think
it would be easy to do that on the case of the Savannah
Board of Education because the evidence is all closed on
that. I am sure you could do that, and as far as this
other case is concerned, if you are in position to do so, I
would like to get it on Monday morning, if not, you can
do it sometime Monday after you close your evidence.
Mr. Leonard: Your Honor, if I understand, Mr. May-
field used the word “ order” . If I understand it, we are
to submit findings of fact and conclusions.
The Court: Findings of fact and conclusions of law
and final judgment.
Mr. Leonard: Thank you, sir.
The Court: All right, then I will see you all over there
Monday morning in Savannah.
Colloquy
258
The Marshal: Take a recess until 10:00 o ’clock Mon
day morning and reconvene at Savannah, Georgia.
[384] Note: At this point the proceedings were re
cessed from 4:40, P. M. Friday, May 10th, 1963, at Bruns
wick, Georgia to be reconvened in Savannah, Chatham
County, Georgia, at 10:00 o ’clock, A. M., Monday May
13th, 1963.
Colloquy
10:00 o ’clock, A. M. Monday, May 13th, 1963.
The Court: Well, I think we have gotten about every
thing out of the way, and we will now get back to this case.
What do you gentlemen say? Now, in order to get an
idea as to the time it will take to finish up this case. How
many witnesses do you all have?
Mr. Pittman: Your Honor, I have an announcement to
make with respect to that at this time.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Pittman: We have brought three witnesses here,
as indicated, but their testimony, however, will be cumula
tive, and in view of the lack of rebuttal we have decided at
a conference within the last 30 minutes not to use our wit
nesses on direct examination, but to save them for re
buttal.
The Court: Well, suppose there is no rebuttal, then
what?
Mr. Pittman: Then they will not be used, and since
[385] your Honor announced in Brunswick that you would
like to conclude this case today, or as soon as possible—
The Court: —if it can be done without prejudice to
anybody, if not, I will keep on trying it.
Mr. Pittman: We have decided that it will not prej
udice our case. We have established the essential allega
tions of our intervention.
259
The Court: Then, in substance, you are not introduc
ing any other evidence?
Mr. Pittman: Eight. And we desire to give the court
ample time to prepare its findings and orders in this case.
The Court: All right, what do you all say?
Mr. Gadsen: May it please the Court, during the trial
over in Brunswick the Court suggested that we withhold
our objections until now.
The Court: Yes, I am going to hear from you all on
that, because everything they made an objection I told
them to make note of it and to wait until after all the evi
dence was in and then I would give all of you ample time
to present your objections to any part of the evidence, and
that is esactly what I am going to do. But first, do you
have any further evidence to present?
Mr. Gadsen: We have no further witnesses.
[386] The Court: All right, then what do you all say?
Mr. Pittman: The intervenors now rest.
The Court: All right. Now, I believe the Board of
Education rested over in Brunswick.
Mr. Morris: If the Court please, I would just like to
make a statement for the record, if I may, on behalf of the
defendants.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Morris: The defendants adopt the evidence
presented by the intervenors which undertakes to show
that damage to both races would result from integration,
so that the Court may give it such consideration as it
deems proper in connection with any order it may render
in this case.
The Court: All right, let the record show that, Mr.
Court Reporter. Well, that’s all of the case then, besides
framing my judgment. Now, I will hear from you all. I
told you all through the trial over in Brunswick to hold
your objections and I would hear from you after the evi
dence was concluded. Now, I will be glad to hear from
Colloquy
260
you, and also opposing counsel. That’s you. I will hear
your objections now.
Mr. Mayfield: May it please the Court, since the in-
tervenors have terminated their case, or rested their case,
the petitioners would respectfully submit that we are going
to move to strike the testimony of each and every witness
that has [387] testified from Thursday through Friday. I
think Dr. Osborne was the first gentleman who testified.
Our basis for this motion is that the testimony offered by
each and every one was immaterial, irrelevant, and held no
bearing, one way or the other, upon the issue before the
Court. We contend that the evidence has shown that
Chatham County does operate a dual school system and
this selection is made on race, and the decision in the
Brown case has held that this cannot be constitutionally
done, and the evidence offered by the gentlemen for thb
intervenors should be stricken from the record on that
ground; that the matter is not such that can be classified
by this Court. The matter has already been adjudicated
by several decisions and each one of them has been con
firmed by the U. S. Supreme Court.
The Court: Well, let me ask you a question. Hasn’t
the Supreme Court reversed itself once on this? Didn’t
they hold that equal facilities, through the years, didn’t
they pass that and then changed their minds and decided
that it was illegal?
Mr. Mayfield: I take it, your Honor, that you are
referring to the Plessy v. Ferguson case.
The Court: I am referring to two or three eases from
time to time. This case went to the Supreme Court from
time to time and they said it was perfectly legal to have
equal [388] equal but separate facilities, but in the Brown
case they decided that was not the right law and changed it
and said it was illegal to operate separate schools that way,
isn’t that correct?
Colloquy
261
Mr. Mayfield: We take the position, your Honor, that
the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case super
sedes that law.
The Court: I know that, but you didn’t answer my
question. The question was, “ Didn’t the Supreme Court
reverse themselves!”
Mr. Mayfield: I have no knowledge of this, your
Honor.
The Court: For a hundred years or more, didn’t they
hold that they could have equal but not the same opportu
nities, wasn’t that true?
Mr. Mayfield: This is true, your Honor, as I indi
cated. It was held in the Plessy v. Ferguson case, but the
Supreme Court reversed itself on May 17th, 1954, in which
the Court held that there could be no equality in separa
tion.
The Court: But they did reverse themselves in 1954?
Mr. Mayfield: That is true, your Honor, and this is
the crux of our case. We maintain that by virtue of the
two school systems in Chatham County that it contravenes
this particular ruling of the Supreme Court in 1954, and
again I would respectfully submit and move that all the
testimony of [389] all the gentlemen be stricken from the
record as being immaterial and irrelevant to the issue
before the Court today.
The Court: Now, anything else? How about the
other counsel? I want to give you a full hearing. I told
you that I would. I think you have made a statement that
covers this situation, all the evidence introduced by the
intervenors, or the defendants, over in Brunswick last
Thursday and Friday on the grounds that it is illegal and
immaterial?
Mr. Mayfield: That’s true, your Honor.
The Court: All right. Is there anything that you
might want to add to it.
Colloquy
262
Mr. Gadsen: Your Honor, I have no further state
ment to add to that.
The Court: All right, then I will hear from you all.
Mr. Pittman: Your Honor, in view of the statement
made by counsel for the plaintiffs and the colloquy I would
like to ask Mr. George S. Leonard to make a brief state
ment as to the position of the intervenors.
The Court: All right, I said I would give them all the
time they wanted and I will do you the same way. I said
that I would hear all objections by either side after the
evidence was concluded. They have stated their position.
Now, I will hear from you in rebuttal to what they said.
[390] Mr. Leonard: Thank you, your Honor. The case
of the intervenors accepts, without question, Brown v. Board
of Education as the governing authority. Brown v. Board
of Education only holds one thing, namely, that separate
but equal facilities under Plessy v. Ferguson will no longer
be sustained because upon certain factual proof which was
then placed before that Court it wTas felt that certain psy
chological damage occurred to negro children from the mere
existence of segregated schools. Now, that was a holding
upon facts found in two of the four underlying cases which
were brought up under the title of Brown v. Board of
Education.
Now, when the Supreme Court said that it intended to
depart from the rule of Plessy v. Ferguson, it stated that
it did so only because of the change in psychological knowl
edge over the years since that earlier decision. We have
come forward in this case to show that, in effect, the Su
preme Court was deceived. In effect, the material put
before the Supreme Court in the underlying cases was one
sided. It was not controverted. Plessy v. Ferguson at that
time was the law of the land. Nobody had intended, nobody
thought that there was any possibility, after some forty or
fifty decisions, that there would be a change to the present
circumstance; so the result was that at no time were these
Colloquy
263
authorities, which were put forward in the so-called “ Bran-
deis Brief” before the Supreme [391] Court ever properly
answered. Now, we have come forward in this case solely
to do that. This is a question of fact. The Supreme Court,
in effect, has held that the equal protection of the law
requires that there shall not be injury to these school
children, whether they are white or black. In that particular
case, on the lack of any opposition, injury was found to
have occurred to the negro plaintiffs in those cases.
In this particular case we submit that we have supplied
unrebutted and, in fact, uneontradictable evidence that
much greater and far more severe psychological damage
would occur to both negro and white children if the relief
which is demanded by these plaintiffs was actually put
into effect.
Now, this is a question of fact. It is a question of fact
in the Savannah-Chatham County area. We are extraor
dinarily fortunate in finding that very extensive test results
had been gotten specifically in this area to determine this
question and whether the education of these two races can
be so adapted to a single classroom as to give the educa
tional process the same efficiency which it has now.
We have tried to demonstrate to this court and feel that
the testimony of these witnesses has clearly shown that to
mix the races in the present classrooms of Savannah-
Chatham County with the existing differences which do
exist and are shown on these tests, would be in effect to
destroy the educational system which exists here; and not
only the system but more particularly injure both the
[392] negro children of the plaintiffs’ class, as well as the
white children of the intervenors ’ class, and that this injury
is truly irreparable.
Therefore, your Honor, we simply answer to the objec
tion to the evidence that what we are talking about here
is matter of demonstrable scientific fact. It cannot become
a question of law until such time as it gets beyond the point
Colloquy
264
of being questioned, and in this particular case we have
attempted to question it. We submit that we have ques
tioned it sufficiently and completely, so much so in fact the
plaintiffs have put in no rebuttal of any kind to these
facts, relying solely upon the claim that it is now law that
personal injury must occur to an individual from a mere
situation regardless of where or how. Our argument is
that this is not a proposition of law. It ’s a proposition of
fact, and we have carried the burden of proving that the
true fact is to the contrary.
Thank you.
The Court: Anything else. Any of you gentlemen want
to make a statement!
Mr. Morris: If the Court please, from the standpoint
of the defendant, we feel that our proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law states the position of the school
board, and you have those before you.
The Court: I know, but let me ask you—do you [393]
mean, and I think you stated here this morning in the order
that you read to the Court Reporter, that the City of
Savannah and Chatham County is supporting the theory
that is outlined by the intervenors ?
Mr. Morris: If the Court please, the position that the
defendants have taken that and I would like to be specific as
to the language, which is important. Now that language, let
me restate it, sir:
Defendants adopt the evidence presented by the inter-
venors which undertakes to show that damage to both races
would result from integration, so that the Court may give
it such consideration as it deems proper in connection with
any order it may render in this case.
The Court: Well, that is neither yes or no.
Mr. Morris: That says, sir, that we adopt that evidence
for the specific purpose set forth here.
The Court: Well, I guess that does say yes. That is
what I have been trying to get you to say, one way or the
other. 0. K. All right.
Colloquy
265
Now, how about the State of Georgia ?
Mr. Leverett: Nothing for the State, your Honor. We
are just helping the City of Savannah Board of Education.
The Court: Well, I would like to say, regardless of
what the newspapers had to say, I have enjoyed trying the
[394] case. I think it is a question that should be deter
mined. I think whether you are right, or whether you are
wrong, I think it ought to be determined and it will be
determined, I imagine, by the appellate court. I think,
under the facts and under the order which I have passed
sustaining the injunction, unless you all could make out
your proof, all of that is a question of fact, I think, and
I am going to overrule your objections as to the testimony
of the witnesses.
What I am going to do today—I didn’t know I was
going to have all of this time. I thought we were going to
be on this case all day, but it will give me time to read
over your conclusions of fact, or rather read over your
findings of fact and conclusions of law. I will read them
over and after I read them over then I will render my
judgment.
I was surprised coming into court this morning and not
having anything to try, but I did clear the decks to hear
this case today. You didn’t want to introduce any rebuttal
evidence, but that is your business. That is none of my
business; but I will give everything consideration, and
after I read and study these over, then I will render my
judgment. But I am admitting your evidence (referring
to intervenors) for the reasons I have stated, and I am
overruling your objections for the reasons I have stated,
and with that we will take a recess until 10 o ’clock tomorrow
morning.
[395] The Marshal: Take a recess until 10 o ’clock
tomorrow morning.
(E nd of Obal T ranscript of E vidence)
Colloquy
266
Certificate of Court R eporter
I, the undersigned, Alton L. Watson, Official Court Re
porter for the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Three Hundred and Ninety-Five (395) Pages of typewritten
matter is a true and correct transcript of the evidence and
proceedings had in the trial of the heretofore stated case
to the best of my skill and ability.
Witness my hand and official signature, this 15th day
of June, 1963.
A lton L. W atson,
Alton L. Watson, U. S. Court Reporter.
Intervener’s Exhibit 1
(See opposite p p - )
Av fa /? vest/-0 4 J~ jF x Z / S / T /
MANKIND MONOGRAPHS
i n
R A C IA L DIFFERENCE IN
SCH O O L ACHIEVEM ENT
R. T. O S B O R N E
PUBLISHED BY
THE M A N K IN D Q U ARTERLY
1 D A R N A W A Y STREET, EDINBURGH 3, SCOTLAND
November 1962
| | !
:r « / ; : !k v : ;
■:■ V 1 - V : r! ‘
/ »■ i
»yiir.'
Racial Difference in School
Achievement
On group achievement tests designed to evaluate the degree of success in
learning the basic subjects taught in public schools the American Negro with rare
exception is unable to keep pace with established grade norms. In most subjects
the average Negro child falls behind the norm group at the rate of almost one-
third of a grade per year, until by the time he graduates from high school he is
in some areas four full years below the twelfth grade standard.
It is the purpose of this paper to point out some of the practical problems
for educators who are forced to balance their schools in terms of factors other
than knowledge of and skills in the fundamental school subjects.
This is the third phase of a comprehensive longitudinal study of ethnic
differences in mental growth in school achievement. Most previous longitudinal
studies have been concerned with very stable and relatively small populations
with high average to superior general ability which, for the most part, have been
drawn from high-average socio-economic levels. In addition to the problem of
small biased samples the longitudinal design is weakened by selective elimination
of subjects through death, illness, or migration. Poorly articulated achievement
tests and mental ability scales of less than perfect reliability may further com
plicate interpretations made from longitudinal data. However, in spite of these
weaknesses the genetic longitudinal approach yields patterns of growth and
trends probably more valid than those shown by data based on successive cross
sections of development.
The present paper reports patterns of test intelligence and school achievement
growth over a six-year period for more than 800 white and Negro children.
Growth curves will be described in an effort to determine what generalizations
may be made concerning patterns of mental development and learning progress
of an unselected population of public school children. From this base sample,
two experimental groups of white and Negro children were matched for sex and
intelligence and were examined for school achievement variations over the six-
year period. Variations in pupil achievement were also analyzed in terms of
teacher qualifications including both formal training and on-the-job experience.
3
A
C
H
IE
V
E
M
E
N
T
T
E
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
CALIFORNIA READING TEST
A C T U A L S C H O O L G R A D E P L A C E M E N T
Fig. 1
Average grade placements earned on California Reading Test by white and Negro pupils
tested in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12.
METHOD
This report is part of a comprehensive longitudinal study being made of
mental growth and school achievement in one county in the South-eastern United
States. The children were first examined with the California Test Battery1 during
the spring term of the sixth grade in April 1954. In 1954 the elementary levels
of the 1950 edition of the California Battery were used for the sixth grade white
and Negro pupils. In 1956 intermediate levels of the 1950 edition of the same
tests were used for the eighth grade white and Negro pupils. In 1958 the
advanced levels of the 1950 edition were used for tenth grade white pupils and
the intermediate levels of the 1950 edition were used for the tenth grade Negro
group. In 1960 the advanced level of the California test battery, 1957 edition,
was used for both groups. There were 539 white and 273 Negro children who
were tested on all four dates. The group studied includes all white and Negro
pupils of the system who were in the sixth grade in 1954 and the eighth grade in
1956 and the tenth grade in 1958 and the twelfth grade in 1960. Students who
dropped out, who were retarded, who were accelerated, or who were absent on
both the regular and make-up testing dates of any year are not included. That
is, the number of cases used represents those pupils who were tested on all four
of the test dates. Of the 1467 white and 876 Negro children who were tested
in April of 1954, 539 white and 273 Negro pupils remained in the school system,
made normal progress, and were retested in 1956, 1958, and 1960. The attrition
rate over the six-year period was 63 per cent for the white students and 69 per
cent for the Negro students.
At the time of initial testing the mean age of white children was 11 years
9 months with a standard deviation of five months; the mean age for the Negro
group was 11 years 10 months with a standard deviation of eight months. The
Negro children on the average were one month older than the white boys and girls.
RESULTS
Results obtained from repeated testings over the six-year period are shown
in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Reading test results are shown in Figure 1. Here it is
seen that the Negro-white achievement differences of almost two years at grade
'C a liforn ia A chievem en t Tests (1950 ed.); California Short Form Test o f M ental
M aturity (S-Form). Los Angeles: California Test Bureau, 1950.
5
A
C
H
IE
V
E
M
E
N
T
T
E
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
CALIFORNIA ARITHMETIC TEST
A C T U A L S C H O O L G R A D E P L A C E M E N T
Fig. 2
Average grade placements earned on California Arithmetic Test by white and Negro pupils
tested in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12.
IN
T
E
L
L
IG
E
N
C
E
CALIFORNIA TEST OF MENTAL MATURITY
13
12
I I
14
4
3
2
------------ WHITE M ALE (N=24l)
------------ WHITE F E M A L E (N - 298 )
------------- NEGRO M A L E (N-109 )
------------ N E GRO F E M A L E (N-164 )
12
(I960)
AC TU A L SC H O O L G R A D E P L A C E M E N T
Fig. 3
Average intelligence grade placements earned on California Mental Maturity Test by white
and Negro pupils tested in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12.
six increased steadily until at grade twelve the difference in reading level was
over three school grades. This widening gap in achievement between the two
groups is apparent on both vocabulary and comprehension subtests as well as
for the total reading scale.
The pattern in arithmetic (Figure 2) is the same as for reading. In the sixth
grade white-Negro differences were just over one grade for the areas covered by
the California Arithmetic Test. In the eighth grade the two groups maintained
relative positions in arithmetic reasoning but on the tests of arithmetic funda
mentals the Negro group was now nearly two grades behind the white pupils.
Six years after the first test when both groups were examined during the second
semester of the twelfth school year there was a difference in arithmetic achievement
of almost four grades between the two groups. The arithmetic grade placement
of the average Negro twelfth grade pupil was below the eighth grade national
norms while the white group tested above the eleventh grade on the same norm
group. In other words, in terms of arithmetic skills, especially fundamental
operations involving only numbers, white children in the eighth grade were not
only significantly above the eighth grade Negro group, but they were also superior
in arithmetic skills to tenth and twelfth grade Negro pupils.
Growth patterns of mental ability grade placement for the two groups are
seen in Figure 3. The difference in mental maturity of over two years at the
sixth grade (1954) was slightly attenuated at the eighth grade testing (1956), but
by the second semester of the tenth grade (1958) the means of the two groups
are separated by over three years. The same relative position of the two curves
was maintained through the last testing period of the experiment, twelfth grade
(1960). By the time the students were examined at the tenth grade there was
practically no overlap in I.Q.; that is, only one tenth grade child in the white
group earned an I.Q. below the median I.Q. of the Negro children in the same
grade. At the tenth grade only one per cent of the Negro pupils equalled or
exceeded the median I.Q. of the whites (Table I).
In an effort to determine whether the population sample used in the
longitudinal study was representative of the children in the entire country, median
achievement grade placements were determined for all (fifth and sixth),3 eighth
and tenth grade children for the period 1954-1962. Because of the weakness
inherent in the longitudinal design, all children remaining in the longitudinal group
read better and have a better understanding of the fundamentals of arithmetic
than do their age mates in the same school grade. The longitudinal group
represents those boys and girls of both races who have made normal school
progress. Selective elimination of “ drop outs,” “ repeaters,” and “ school leavers”
tends to raise the median achievement grade placement of the remaining students
2 Sixth grade testing was discontinued after the 1956 program was completed. All fifth
grades were tested beginning February 1957. Special arrangements were made with school
officials to examine all graduating seniors of the class of 1960.
8
T A B L E I
DISTRIBUTION OF INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS EARNED BY TENTH
GRADE PUPILS IN A SOUTH-EASTERN COUNTY IN 1958
WHITE NEGRO
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIV
IQ. FREQUENCY PER CENT FREQUENCY PER CENT
125-129 11 99.9
120-124 6 98.0
115-119 27 96.8
110-114 51 91.8
105-109 119 82.4 1 99.9
100-104 150 60.3 5 99.6
95-99 104 32.5 15 97.8
90-94 49 13.2 28 92.3
85-89 19 4.1 38 82.1
80-84 2 .6 63 68.1
75-79 1 .2 53 45.1
70-74 38 25.6
65-69 26 11.7
60-64 5 2 .2
55-59 1 .4
N = 539 273
Median= 103 81
9
of both groups. Thus it is seen from Table II that group achievement differences
are somewhat greater when all children are considered than when only the
longitudinal samples are compared.
It is also seen from Table II that during the 1954-1962 period the median
achievement grade placements have remained relatively constant from year to
year for both white and Negro children. In terms of school achievement sixth
graders in 1954 seem to be not unlike those of 1955 and 1956. As the selected
children progressed through school from elementary to junior high school their
achievement records were quite similar to those of other students in the same
school system. Due to the increasing emphasis on mathematics and science
throughout the entire school system there have been notable gains made in
mathematics especially at the high school level. In 1954 the average tenth grade
white student was over 1J grades below the norm group in arithmetic. His 1962
counterpart was one school month above the norm for his grade. The 1962
Negro tenth grade student has also shown improvement in arithmetic skills over
his 1954 predecessor. However, the average tenth grade Negro student is still
31 years below his grade norm in arithmetic skills and mathematical reasoning.
The arithmetic performance of the Negro student in the tenth grade was more
like that of a rising seventh grade pupil than of a second semester tenth grader.
Tenth grade reading achievement is three years below the norm for the grade.
The significant thing about Table II is not the marked group differences in median
achievement grade placement but the difference in the rate of achievement growth
for the two groups between the eighth and tenth grades. Whereas achievement
gained between the sixth and eighth grade testings is almost 1J grades for the
Negro children, their gain between the eighth and tenth grade testings is only
one-half that of the norm group. For the average Negro pupil the rate of
achievement growth appears to slow down and level off in the 14 to 16 year age
range.
In an earlier paper3 the writer compared the achievement of white and Negro
children of the same mental and chronological ages. By the method of analysis
of multiple co-variance the achievement means were adjusted so as to eliminate
the effects of differences in both mental ability and chronological age on achieve
ment. The co-variance analysis with M .A . and C .A . as control variables yielded
t-values of 13.42 for reading achievement and 12.05 for arithmetic achievement,
indicating significant racial differences in achievement in these areas.
In a further effort to understand school achievement variations two groups of
white and Negro sixth grade children were experimentally matched in 1954 for
intelligence and sex. The white and Negro male groups and the white and Negro
female groups were homogeneous and homoscedastic with respect to chronological
* R T Osborne, “ School Achievement of White and Negro Children of the Same Mental
and Chronological Ages,” the m ankind quarterly , Vol. II, No. 1, July-September 1961,
pp. 26-29.
10
T A B L E II
MEDIAN GRADE PLACEMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA ACHIEVEMENT
MENTAL MATURITY TESTS FOR WHITE AND NEGRO PUPILS
IN GRADES 5, 6, 8, AND 10
1954-1962
WHITE NEGRO
MENTAL
No. READING ARITHMETIC MATURITY No. READING ARITHMETIC
6th Grade
1954 1558 5.7 6.1 6.3 932 3.9 4.6
1955 1603 5.6 6.2 6.5 948 3.9 4.8
1956 1559 5.6 6.3 6.6 1010 3.6 4.8
5th Grade
1957 1901 5.0 5.4 — 1159 3.3 4.3
1958 2288 5.6 5.7 5.8 1368 3.4 4.2
1959 2215 5.7 5.7 6.0 1320 3.7 4.2
1960 2072 5.9 5.8 6.0 1246 4.1 4.5
1961 2039 5.9 5.8 6.0 1341 4.2 4.6
1962 1960 6.0 6.0 6.0 1283 4.2 4.6
8th Grade
1954 1206 7.6 7.5 8.1 697 5.6 6.0
1955 1399 7.7 7.8 8.2 738 5.4 5.9
1956 1526 7.7 7.9 8.4 830 5.8 5.9
1957 1544 7.6 7.4 8.2 904 5.7 5.8
1958 1637 7.5 7.6 8.2 936 5.4 5.8
1959 1673 7.8 8.2 8.0 888 5.4 6.0
1960 1850 7.9 8.6 8.4 1001 5.4 6.2
1961 2074 8.1 8.6 8.3 1140 5.5 6.1
1962 1952 8.1 8.6 8.3 1180 5.8 6.2
10th Grade
1954 919 9.1 8.8 9.4 460 6.5 6.0
1955 981 9.1 8.7 9.4 486 6.3 5.9
1956 1015 9.1 8.8 9.5 583 6.6 6.1
1957 1167 9.7 10.0 10.1 576 6.0 6.0
1958 1325 9.8 10.2 10.2 712 6.5 6.1
1959 1445 9.7 9.6 9.8 751 6.3 6.6
1960 1439 9.6 9.4 9.7 729 6.3 6.7
1961 1496 9.8 9.4 9.9 672 6 4 6.9
1962 1657 10.3 10.6 10.3 791 6.9 7.1
AND
MENTAL
MATURITY
3.9
4.3
4.2
3.B
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.4
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.1
5.6
5.7
5.9
6.0
6.7
6.4
6.9
6.2
6.8
6.2
6.4
6.6
7.0
11
CALIFORNIA TEST
OF
MENTAL MATURITY
5 3 - WHITE M ALE (N* 59)
--------------WHITE F E M A L E (N«ei)
2 N E GRO M A L E (N* 59)
------------- N E GRO F E M A L E ( N - 81)
6 8 10 12
11954) (1956) (1958) (I960)
AC TU A L SC H O OL G RAD E P L A C E M E N T
Fig. 4
Average intelligence grade placements earned on
California Mental Maturity Test by groups of white
and Negro pupils equated on the basis of intelligence
quotients earned at the sixth grade level.
12
age. For white males the mean age was 141.2 months with a standard deviation
of 6.9 months; for the Negro males, 141.0 and 6.1; for the white females, 140.3
and 6.0 and for the Negro females 140.2 and 6.3. Fifty-nine matched pairs of
boys and 81 pairs of girls remained in the school system, made normal progress
in their respective schools, and were re-tested in 1956, 1958, and 1960. In order
to match the 140 pairs of students it was necessary to select the majority of the
children from opposite ends of the two distributions. The white children in the
equated group are considerably below the average of their white classmates while
a majority of the Negro children are above the 75th percentile of their group.
Mental ability growth curves for the two matched groups are seen in Figure 4.
Here we have represented the records of two groups of sixth grade children of
the same age, same sex, and of equal initial mental test performance. When these
children were re-examined two years later, differences were slight but apparent.
When all members of the group were again tested in the tenth and twelfth grades,
the white-Negro differences in mental test performance ranged from one to two
grade placement years.
When white and Negro children were initially equated for sex, mental ability,
and school grade placement, and later examined at regular intervals of their school
history, reading achievement differences (Figure 5) are not as great as mental
ability differences. The Negro child seems to be weakest on the vocabulary section
of the California Reading Test. Comprehension and total reading are within one
grade of the matched white group at most test periods. As is the usual case,
girls in both groups tend to read better than boys.
It is in the area of arithmetic achievement that the Negro child seems to
be most deficient (Figure 6). Negro children of mental age grade placement equal
to that of white children are unable to learn mathematical skills at the same rate
as their white experimental partners. The Negro children, a majority of whom
were selected from the top fourth of their group in terms of mental age grade
placement, are unable to keep pace with the group of white children, most of
whom were drawn from the lowest fourth of their class. Over the six-year period
of the study the rate of learning new arithmetical skills for Negro children was
about 50 per cent that of the standard norm rate and about 68 per cent that of
the rate of the equated white experimental group.
This finding of higher achievement for Negro students in the so-called
culturally weighted areas than in the fundamental numerical operations of
arithmetic corroborates the careful work of McGurk and others who consistently
report that it is not the cultural but the non-cultural items which are difficult for
Negro pupils to learn.
During the early years of the present experiment a comparative study of the
training and qualifications of the more than 800 white and Negro teachers of the
county in which this study was made was reported by the writer at the 1957
13
A
C
H
IE
V
E
M
E
N
T
T
E
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
CALIFORNIA READING TEST
3 -
2-
— W H I T E M A L E ( N = 5 9 )
_ W H I T E F E M A L E (N = 8 I )
— N E G R O M A L E ( N = 5 9 )
— N E G R O F E M A L E (N = 8 I )
3-
2 -
3- •
2-
I
6 8 10 12 6 8 10
----------+ -
12 6 8 10
(1954) (1956) (1958) (I960) (1954) (1956) (1958) (I960) (1954) (1956) (1958)
A C T U A L S C H O O L G R A D E P L A C E M E N T
Fig. 5
Average grade placements earned on California Reading Test by groups of white and Negro
pupils equated on the basis of intelligence quotients earned at the sixth grade level.
A
C
H
IE
V
E
M
E
N
T
T
E
S
T
G
R
A
D
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
CALIFORNIA ARITHMETIC TEST
A C T U A L S C H O O L G R A D E P L A C E M E N T
Fig. 6
Average grade placements earned on California Arithmetic Test by groups of white and
Negro pupils equated on the basis o f intelligence quotients earned at the sixth grade level.
American Psychological Association Convention in New York. The significant
results of the previous study were summarized as follows:
Six of the ten inter-racial differences in training and experience back
ground were statistically significant. These differences indicate that:
1. The Negro teachers had completed a greater number of years of college
training than the white teachers.
2. Negro teachers had completed college course work more recently than had
the white teachers.
3. The mean yearly salary of Negro teachers markedly exceeded that of the
white teachers,
4. Negro principals assigned relatively lower competence ratings to the Negro
teachers under their supervision than the white principals assigned to the
white teachers under (heir supervision
5. A higher proportion of Negro teachers than of white teachers held
master’s degrees.
6. A higher proportion of Negro teachers than of white teachers held five-
year teaching certificates.
It should be pointed out that all teachers in the school system were used for
the teacher comparative study whereas only successive sixth, eighth, tenth, and
twelfth grade students were examined for the longitudinal study. It should also
be noted that at the time of the teacher study (1957) there was only a limited
number of integrated universities in the South-east offering graduate work in
professional education. Most Negro teachers in the study had received their
training at the better colleges of the North, East, and Mid-west. The white
teachers usually attended their state university or a local teacher training college.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The findings reported here are part of a comprehensive study of ethnic
differences in mental growth and school achievement. The populations were
unselected and represented a broad cross section of sociological and economic
aspects of a large county in the South-eastern United States. Our group was
unlike those used in most previous longitudinal studies where populations were
relatively small and considerably above average in intelligence.
The results of this six-year longitudinal growth study support McGurk’s
thesis that, contrary to the position held by the environmentalist, racial differences
are greater in non-cultural areas than in cultural areas. At the tenth and twelfth
grade levels, median scores on vocabulary, reading comprehension, and arithmetic
reasoning subtests were significantly above the mean for arithmetic fundamentals.
16
On the culturally weighted verbal tests Negro children held their own but on
non-verbal items involving only number combinations the overlap between the
two groups was virtually eliminated at the last testing.
When Negro children were experimentally matched with white children in
terms of intelligence, sex, and school grade placement, significant achievement
differences were apparent in the basic school subjects. Even for the group matched
in terms of mental ability it is in the non-cultural areas that the Negro child lags
behind.
These significant racial differences in school achievement exist in a county
where a higher proportion of Negro teachers than of white held master’s degrees
and five-year level teaching certificates. Negro teachers had also completed college
course work more recently than had the white teachers. As a result of higher
professional training and more teaching experience the mean yearly salary of
Negro teachers markedly exceeded that of the white teachers.
This report of racial differences in school achievement is not presented in
the way of new evidence but rather to point out a practical educational problem
heretofore ignored by those who demand that schools be balanced in terms of
factors other than mastery of basic educational objectives. The school adminis
trator who is charged with the responsibility of providing meaningful educational
experiences for all children in his district is not too concerned with Klineberg's
explanation that significant racial differences in mental ability and school achieve
ment can be attributed to cultural and environmental factors, nor is it likely to
be of much comfort for the school leader to know that some psychologists believe
achievement variaitions are the result of .genetically conditioned experience
producing “ drives.” What the administrator needs to know is how to assimilate
into white school systems Negro children who in spite of better trained and higher
paid teachers still learn at a rate only one-half to three-fourths that of the white
children in the same school district.
If public schools are ordered to integrate en masse there appear to be three
possible courses of action:
1. Lower the educational standards and level of instruction in the white
schools to the present passing level in the Negro schools. The net result
of this would be to maintain for Negro pupils standards now existing in
their schools, but lower expectations for the white children two to four
years below their present grade norm. If this plan were adopted, there
would be few if any failures or repeaters among the white children because
they would almost never do so poorly as to fail by present Negro standards.
It goes without saying that no reasonable citizen would sanction such a
plan to lower our educational standards at a time when there is a world
wide attempt to strengthen teaching and up-grade education at all levels.
17
2. Raise educational standards required of the Negro child to those required
of white children and maintain the present level of instruction and rate of
failures. This alternative would result in a 40 to 60 per cent Negro failure
rate in intermediate grades. At the high school level where achievement
differences are of the magnitude of three to four years, failure rate for the
Negro student would be 80 to 90 per cent with larger and larger numbers
of Negro children piling up in the lower grades.
3. The final alternative would be to maintain the two existing levels of
instruction and to apply differential marking and evaluation systems to
the two groups. This alternative would result in de facto segregation
because for teaching efficiency learners within each school are grouped
according to achievement and learning ability.
None of the proposed alternatives represents a real solution to the problem
and each would result in educational chaos and confusion and bring about an
over-all weakening of the educational system. The school administrator who has
the responsibility of providing meaningful educational experiences for all children
must have an instructional program that will provide realistic educational goals
for all boys and girls regardless of race.
In regions of the United States where the Negro population is relatively small
there may be no problem of balancing the schools in terms of race. However,
in the South-eastern United States where upwards of 30 per cent of the population
is Negro, racial differences in school achievement can no longer be ignored.
Attempts to explain the reasons for the differences on the basis of environmental
or genetic conditioning will not solve the problem. Regardless of etiology, racial
differences in school achievement do exist and must be reckoned with.
18
S u pr e m e P r in t in g Co., I n c ., 54 L a f a y e t t e S treet, N. Y. 13, B E e k m a n 3-2320