Brewer v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, Virginia Appellants Appendix

    APPELLANTS APPENDIX

In The
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

For The Fourth Circuit

NO, 9898

C A R L O T TA  M OZELLE BREW ER, et al,
Appellants,

v.

T H E  SCHOOL BOARD OF T H E  C ITY  OF 
N ORFOLK, VIRG IN IA , et al,

Appellees.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

NORFOLK DIVISION

S, W , T u ck er  
H e n r y  L. M a r s h , III 

214 East Clay Street 
Richmond, Virginia 

V ictor  J. A sh e  
1134 Church Street 
Norfolk 10, Virginia 

J. H ugo M adison  
10 Church Street 
Norfolk 10, Virginia 

Ja c k  G reenberg  
Ja m e s  M . N a b r it , III

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019

Counsel for Appellants

Hi# Press o f  Lawyers Printing Company, Incorporated, Richmond 7. Virginia



TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR APPENDIX

Page

Docket Entries ............................................. -.......-............. - 2

Motion for Further R elief.... ........................................ —  21

Answer of Defendants to Motion for Further Relief ..... 25

Answer of Defendants to Complaint in Intervention----  29

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order .......................  30

Answer to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ..... 32

Answer to Interrogatories 3 and 7 ...................................  34

Memorandum of the C ourt................................................  38

Motion of Defendant School Board for Approval of 
Certain Actions .............................................. ................. 57

Resolution of the School Board ..................................—  59

Order of the District C ourt...... ................................. .......  62

Notice of Appeal .....................................— ....................  63

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit l - A - 4 .................. ........— ....... ............  64

Excerpts from Transcript o f Hearing of December 7, 
1963 ..................... ........................................... -............. .. 67



In The
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

For The Fourth Circuit

NO. 9898

CA RLO TTA M OZELLE BREW ER, et al, 
Appellants,

v.
TH E SCHOOL BOARD OF TH E  C ITY  OF 

NORFOLK, VIRG IN IA, et al, 
Appellees.

APPENDIX

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

NORFOLK DIVISION



2

Civil Action No. 2214

LEOLA PE A R L BECKETT, etc., et al., 
Plaintiffs,

vs.

TH E  SCHOOL BOARD OF TH E  CITY OF 
NORFOLK, VIRG IN IA, et al., 

Defendants.

DOCKET ENTRIES 

[filed July 23, 1963]

Date Filings— Proceedings
1959

* * *

Mar. 6
Amended procedures relating to the assignment 

of pupils to public schools of the City of Norfolk 
filed by the defendants.

Apr. 25
Trial Proceedings: Parties and counsel appeared. 
Came to be heard on remand from Circuit Court 
o f Appeals. Argued. Court takes under advise­
ment.

Amount 
Reported in 
Emolument 
Returns



3

May 8
Memorandum of the Court filed.

May 8
Order approving action of defendants in de­

nying applications of 134 negro children for 
transfer to or enrollment in certain public schools 
in City o f Norfolk, etc. entered. Notice to coun­
sel by Court.

May 18
Order dissolving three-judge statutory court 

and directing that further proceedings be con­
ducted by resident judge without regard to the 
supplemental complaint and motions and answers 
filed in response thereto entered. Notice to coun­
sel. (Sobeloff, Haynsworth & Hoffman).

Aug. 13
Report of School Board of City of Norfolk 

regard negro children seeking transfers to or en­
rollment in predominantly all white or all-white 
schools for 1959-60 school year filed.

Aug. 13
Report of School Board of City of Norfolk 

regard 8 negro children whose applications to 
attend Norview Elementary School were denied 
on grounds of too frequent transfers filed.

Aug. 14
Order making Pupil Placement Board and 

Andrew A. Farley, Beverley H . Randolph, Jr. 
and Hugh v. White parties defendant directing 
that plaintiffs file any such motion for further 
relief, etc. or motions on or before August 19,



4

1959 at 4:45 P.M .; directing that cause be set 
for hearing on August 27 at 10 A. M. and direct­
ing that individual members of the Pupil Place­
ment Board be present in person, etc. and show 
cause why actions heretofore taken with respect 
to the applications for enrollment, etc. should not 
be reviewed or otherwise modified, etc. entered. 
Notice to counsel. Certified copies to Marshal for 
service.

Aug. 18
Marshal’s return of service of above order 

showing execution filed.

Aug. 19
Motion to intervene filed by Daphne Perimen- 

ter, an infant, by Dorothy Perimenter, her mother 
and next friend, etc., et al.

Aug. 19
Motion for further relief filed by Daphne Peri­

menter, etc., et al.

Aug. 19
Motion for further relief filed by Glenda Gale 

Brothers, et al.

Aug. 26
Special appearance and motion to abate on 

behalf of Pupil Placement Board filed by Andrew 
A. Farley, Beverly H. Randolph, Jr. and Hugh 
V. White constituting the members of the Pupil 
Placement Board of the Commonwealth of V ir­
ginia.



5

Aug. 27
Trial Proceedings: Parties and counsel ap­

peared. Came on to be heard on show cause order 
of Aug. 14, 1959. Answers of The School Board 
of the City of Norfolk et al to (1 ) Motion to in­
tervene of Daphne Perimenter et al, (2 ) Motion 
for further relief of Glenda Gale Brothers et al, 
(3 ) Motion for further relief o f Daphne Peri­
menter et al, and (4 ) Complaint in intervention, 
filed in open court as was the Motion of the 
School Board to dismiss motion for further re­
lief o f Glenda Gale Brothers. On motion of appli­
cants for intervention, Complaint in Intervention 
was filed in open court. Motion to abate heretofore 
filed by Pupil Placement Board was argued and 
sustained to the extent that Court will not issue 
any order this day directing Pupil Placement 
Board to do or not to do anything. Board granted 
20 days from today to reply or file answer. On 
motion of School Board to dismiss plaintiffs’ mo­
tion for further relief, Court deferred ruling. 
Evidence heard in part and continued to tomorrow 
at ten o ’clock.

Aug. 28
Trial Proceedings: Parties and counsel again 

appeared. Hearing of evidence resumed. Members 
o f Pupil Placement Board, having testified, were 
excused from further attendance at Court, to­
gether with counsel. Plaintiffs’ evidence con­
cluded. Evidence on behalf o f defendants, School 
Board et al, heard and concluded. Court advised 
counsel to prepare suitable able directing admis­
sion (physically) to school o f Daphne Della Per-



6

imenter, Anita B. Mayer, Reginald Young and 
Patricia Turner. Argued by counsel for plaintiffs 
on schools being constructed for Coronado and 
Rosemont. Court denied petition o f Rose Lee 
Tatem, Gladys Lynell Tatem, James Alford 
Tatem, Calvin Edward Winston, Julia Elizabeth 
Hill, Marion Scott, Wilhelmina Scott, William 
Henry Neville, Dorothy Elaine Tally and Phyllis 
Delores Russell. As to Gloria Scott and Bobby J. 
Neville, Court to enter Order admitting on tem­
porary basis, pending further order of Court. 
Gloria Scott to 7th grade at Blair Jr. High and 
Bobby J. Neville to 7th grade at Norview Jr. High.

Sep. 8
Memorandum of the Court filed.

Sep. 8
Order filing plaintiffs’ complaint for interven­

tion as of August 27, 1959; responsive pleadings 
of The School Board of the City of Norfolk, Vir­
ginia and J. J. Brewbaker, Div. Supt. filed as to 
August 27, 1959; and granting Pupil Placement 
Board and individual members 20 days from Aug. 
27, 1959 to file responsive pleadings: directing 
admission of Patricia Anzella Turner to Norview 
High School, Reginald A. Young to Maury High 
School, Daphne Perminter to Suburban Park Ele­
mentary School, Anita Mayer to Maury High 
School, Gloria Scott to Blair Junior High School, 
Bobby J. Neville to Norview Junior High School, 
Mary Rose Foxworth to Suburban Park Elemen­
tary School, etc.; and denying right to attend cer­
tain public schools for school year commencing



7

Sep. 8, 1959 to Gwendolyn Diane Smith. Kath­
ryn LaVerne Webb, Phyllis Delores Russell, 
Gwendolyn Yvonne McCoy, Dorothy Elaine 
Tally, Calvin Edward Winston, Rita Hayworth 
Osborne, Wanda Lolita Osborne, James Alford 
Tatem, Gladys Lynall Tatem, Rosa Lee Tatem, 
William Henry Neville, Betty Bonds, W'ilhelmina 
Scott, Marian Scott, Julia Elizabeth Hill, Bar­
bara Ann Cooper, Charlene L. Butts, Minnie Alice 
Green, Melvin G. Green, Jr., Clorate Harris,
Rosa Mae Harris, Glenda Gale Brothers, Sharon 
Venita Smith and Edward H. Smith, III entered. 
Notice to counsel by Court.

Sep. 16
Answer of the Pupil Placement Board filed.

Oct. 7
Notice of appeal filed by Julia Elizabeth Hill 5 :0G 

by her mother, William Henry Neville, by father, 
Marian Scott and Wilhelmina Scott, by mother, 
Dorothy Elaine Tally, by father, Rosa Lee Tatem, 
Gladys Lynell Tatem, and James Alford Tatem, 
by mother, Calvin Edmund Winston, by mother, 
Phyllis Delores Russell, by mother, Charlene L. 
Butts, by mother, Minnie Alice Green and Melvin
G. Green, Jr., mother, Cloraten Harris and Rosa 
Mae Harris, mother, Glenda Gale Brothers, by 
grandmother, Sharon Venita Smith and Edward
H. Smith, III, by father, etc. ,

Oct. 7
Appeal bond in the sum of $250, with cash surety, 

filed.



8

Oct. 7
Copies o f above notice o f appeal to Leigh D. 

Williams, Leonard H. Davis, W . R. C. Cocke, 
Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., and A. B. Scott.

Oct. 21
Testimony o f Placement Board (transcript) 

received from Court Reporter.

Oct. 22
Trial Proceedings: Parties and counsel ap­

peared.Came on to be heard on answer filed by 
Pupil Placement Board and on its denial o f ad­
mission to particular children. Evidence heard. 
Submitted without argument. Counsel to present 
Findings o f Fact and Conclusions of Law setting 
forth that application of Pupil Placement Board’s 
administration of Act to be unconstitutional.

Oct. 23
Order directing that Pupil Placement Board do 

forthwith reconsider prior action taken with re­
spect to the enrollment of certain Negro children 
and to report their actions within 10 days, en­
tered. Copies to counsel by Court.

Oct. 27
Order directing that certain bulletins of the 

Pupil Placement Board be marked as exhibits in 
this cause. Copies to counsel by Court.

Oct. 27
Pupil Placement Board’s bulletins marked as 

Court’s Exhibits Nos. 16 through 41 by Clerk.



9

Nov. 2
First report o f Pupil Placement Board filed.

Nov. 4
Order extending time for filing record on appeal 

with U.S. Court of Appeals for 4th Circuit and 
for docketing appeal, filed on Oct. 7, 1959, to 
Jan. 2, 1960; extending time for appellants to 
serve and file their designation of record to Dec. 
1, 1959; and extending time for appellees may 
serve and file designation of record to Dec. 14, 
1959, entered. Notice to counsel.

Dec. 1
Statement of points filed by plaintiffs.

Dec. 1
Designation of contents of record on appeal 

filed by plaintiffs.

Dec. 1
Certificate of service filed by plaintiffs.

Dec. 10
Designation by defendants of additional por­

tions of record, etc. filed.

Dec. 9
Findings of fact and conclusions o f law filed 

by Court nunc pro tunc as of October 22, 1959. 
Copies to counsel by Court.

Dec. 9
Order finding that no legal ground or reason­

ing has been shown for Pupil Placement Board’s 
action in denying appls. of Patricia Anzella Tur­
ner, Reginald A. Young, Daphne Perminter and



10

Anita Mayer for admission to Norf. public 
schools, as recommended by School Board of the 
City of Norfolk; directing that neither School 
Board nor its Div. Supt. shall be legally required 
to engage in any procedure involving the Pupil 
Placement Board, or justified in carrying out any 
action the Pupil Placement Board may take with 
respect to appls. o f Negro children, etc. until fur­
ther order of this Court; and directing that time 
for noting an appeal from this order shall not 
begin to run until the actual date of entry, entered 
nunc pro tunc as of October 22, 1959. Copies to 
counsel by Court.

Dec. 9
Order modifying Order o f this Court of Sept. 

8, 1959, directing that the School Board shall make 
study, etc. and at such time as proper shall enroll 
such of the 3 children, namely Gloria Scott, Bobby 
J. Neville and Mary Rose Forworth, if any, as may 
be qualified to attend schools to which they have 
been admitted on temp, basis pursuant to order of 
Sept. 8 in which event no further report need be 
made by School Board; and if any of children be 
deemed not qualified, School Board shall file re­
port with Court, etc., entered. Copies to counsel 
by Court.

Dec. 16
Order directing a map of the City of Norfolk 

showing the school districts for all elementary 
schools be marked as Court Exhibit No. 42 en­
tered. Notice to counsel by Court. Exhibit so 
marked by Clerk.



11

Dec. 30
Order received and filed from U.S. Court of Appeals 

enlarging time for transmitting record, including tran­
script and exhibits, and docketing the appeals for a 
period of 30 days from January 2, 1960, entered. 
Copies to counsel by U.S. Court of Appeals.

1960
Jan. 6

Notice of appeal filed by Pupil Placement Board. 5.00
Jan. 8

Copy and notice to opposing counsel of filing o f 
notice o f appeal.

Jan. 12
Transcript of trial proceedings 8/27/59, Vol. 1 

received from Court Reporter.

Jan. 14
Appeal bond, in the sum of $250, executed with 

corporate surety, filed.

Jan. 15
Records on appeal forwarded U. S. Court o f  

Appeals. 14.55

Jan. 18
Transcript of trial proceedings 8/28/59, Vol. II, 

received from Court Reporter.
Jan. 22

Transcript of trial proceedings 10/22/59, Vol. Ill, 
received from Court Reporter.

May 26
Report of the School Board of the City of Norfolk



12

as to Gloria Scott and motion to defer its decision in 
regard to Boby J. Neville filed.

May 26
Motion o f  The School Board of the City of Norfolk 

for approval of elimination of interviews by personnel 
o f City School Systems, etc. filed.

June 29
Supplementary report o f The School Board of the 

City of Norfolk with regard to Bobby J. Neville filed.

July 14
Notice of motion for entry of order filed by de­

fendants.

July 14
Order permitting elimination of interviews from 

procedures governing handling of applications for 
transfers to and initial enrollments in public schools 
o f City of Norfolk, etc.; directing School Board to 
file with Court its resolution amending its procedures, 
etc. entered. Notice to- counsel, 7/18/60.

July 15
Certified copy of resolution amending procedures 

filed by defendants.

Aug. 1
Mandate and opinion of U. S. Court of Appeals, 

affirming judgment of this Court, received and filed.

Aug. 16
Motion to intervene filed by Calvin E. Winston, an 

infant, by Harry Winston, his father and next friend, 
Rosa Lee Tatem, James A. Tatem and Gladys L. 
Tatem, infants, by Leonard L. Tatem, their father



13

and next friend, Deborah Pryor and Laureen Pryer, 
infants, by Laura Pryor, their mother and next friend, 
Dorothy V. Deans, an infant, by Robenia Deans, her 
mother and next friend, Helen D. Brown, an infant, 
by Nannie R. Brown, her mother and next friend, 
Juanita Brown, an infant, by Colleen Brown, her 
mother and next friend, Melvin G. Green, an infant, 
by Alice Green, his mother and next friend, Cloretena 
Harris, an infant, by Fannie Harris, her mother and 
next friend, Phyllis T. Harris, an infant, by Annie L. 
Harris, her mother and next friend, Orbina King, 
Helen G. King and Mae B. King, infants, by Mary B. 
Britt, their guardian and next friend, etc.

Aug. 22
Order permitting Calvin E. Winston, an infant, etc., 

et al to intervene in this cause and to file their com­
plaint in intervention and motion for further relief, 
and filing said complaint and motion, etc., giving de­
fendants to August 26, 1960 at 4:00 P.M. to file ob­
jections or answer; directing that all motions to in­
tervene in this cause, which may affect Sept. 1960 
school year, be filed on or before Aug. 26, 1960 at 
12:00 Noon; and setting for hearing on objections and 
merits, entered. Notice to counsel by Judge and Clerk’s 
office.

Aug. 22
Complaint in intervention filed by Calvin E. Wins­

ton, an infant, etc., et al.

Aug. 22
Motion for further relief filed by Calvin E. Winston, 

an infant, etc., et al.



14

Aug. 26
Answer to motion for further relief filed by The 

School Board of the City o f Norfolk, Virginia and 
E. L. Lamberth, Superintendent.

Aug. 26
Motion to dismiss and answer o f the defendants to 

complaint in intervention of Calvin E. Winston et al 
filed by The School Board of the City of Norfolk, V ir­
ginia, and E. L. Lamberth, Superintendent.

Aug. 26
Motion to quash or modify the subpoena for the 

production of documents served on Madge Winslow 
filed by The School Board of the City of Norfolk, 
Virginia, et al, defendants, and Madge Winslow.

Aug. 29
Trial Proceedings: Came on to be heard on motion 

of defendants to quash motion to produce certain 
school record. Counsel appeared. Argued. Counsel for 
plaintiffs may examine records of all children in certain 
schools at various schools. Subpoena so modified.

Aug. 30
Transcript of trial proceedings of August 29, 1960 

received from court reporter.

Aug. 31
Trial Proceedings: Came on for hearing on petition 

of certain persons for admission to certain schools. 
Counsel appeared. Evidence of plaintiff heard and 
concluded. Defendants offered no objections to ruling 
of Court admitting 5 children and motion to dismiss 
as to remaining intervening petitioners. Motion to dis­
miss as to remaining intervening petitioner granted.



IS

Counsel to prepare findings of fact and conclusions 
o f law.

Oct. 12
Mandate and opinion, affirming the Court’s order 

of Sept. 8, 1959, received from U. S. Court o f Appeals 
and filed.

Oct. 12
Record on appeal received from U. S. Court o f 

Appeals.

Oct. 28
Transcript of August 31, 1960, received from Court 

Reporter.

Nov. 4
Order substituting E. L. Lamberth as Division 

Superintendent of Schools of City of Norfolk in place 
of J. J. Brewbaker nunc pro tunc as August 31, 1960. 
Entered November 3, 1960.
Notice to counsel.

Nov. 25
Findings of fact and conclusions of law filed.

Nov. 28
Order directing that defendants have failed to prop­

erly apply the standards, etc. approved by previous 
order o f this Court in respect to Dorothy V. Deans, 
Helen D. Brown, Juanita Brown, Orbina King and 
Helen G. King and are required not to refuse to admit, 
etc. for school year 1960-61; and dismissing complaint 
in intervention and motion for further relief o f Calvin 
E. Winston. Rosa Lee Tatem, James A. Tatem, Gladys 
L. Tatem, Deborah Pryor, Laureen Pryor, Keith 
Turner, Melvin G. Green. Cloretene Harris, Phyllis



16

T. Harris and Mae B. King entered November 25,
1960. Notice to counsel.

1961
Aug. 3

Order fixing Monday, August 14, 1961 at 4:40 
P.M., as the last day and time within which motions 
to intervene for further relief may be filed by any of 
the applicants for admission to the schools o f the City 
of Norfolk for the school year beginning September,
1961, etc. entered. Certified copies of order mailed as 
directed i.e.— Victor J. Ashe, J. Hugo Madison, 
W. R. C. Cocke, Leonard H. Davis and E. L. Lam- 
berth, Supt. of Schools of City of Norfolk.

Aug. 11
Stipulation o f  parties for depositions filed.

Aug. 11
Motion of Steven E. Merriman, et al to intervene 

filed.

Aug. 11
Motion of Steven E. Merriman, et al to intervene 

filed.

Aug. 21
Motion to dismiss and answer of defendants to mo­

tion for further relief filed.

Aug. 21
Motion to dismiss and answer of the defendants to 

Complaint in intervention o f Steven E. Merriman, 
et als, filed.

Aug. 21
M otion. of the defendants to deny the motion of



17

Steven E. Merriman, etc., et als, to Intervene, as to 
certain of applicants for intervention; and answer of 
the defendants to the motion of Steven E. Merriman, 
etc., et al, to intervene, filed.

Aug. 21
Trial Proceedings: Came on to be heard on petition 

of certain persons for admission into certain Norfolk 
schools. Petitioners represented by Messrs. Victor J. 
Ashe, J. Hugo Madison and James Overton. Re­
spondents represented by Mr. Leonard H. Davis, City 
Attorney for the City o f Norfolk, and Mr. W . R. C. 
Cocke. On motion o f counsel, list of intervenors re­
duced from 50 children to 35 children (names read 
into record). Counsel stipulate that all testimony, ex­
hibits, etc., so far as may be relevant, may be con­
sidered a part o f proceedings this year. Testimony o f 
plaintiff heard. Plaintiffs rested. Respondent rested. 
Set for argument on Wednesday, August 23, 1961, 
at 11:30 A.M.

Aug. 23
Trial Proceedings: Parties and counsel again ap­

peared pursuant to adjournment of August 21st, 1961. 
Argued by counsel. School Board to reconsider ap­
plications of Steven Edward Merriman and Sylvia 
Rose Johnson.

Aug. 24
Letter to Court, dated August 24, 1961, with cer­

tified copy of resolution setting forth the action of 
School Board, recommending that applications of 
Steven Edward Merriman and Sylvia Rose Johnson 
be granted, filed.



18

1962
Jan. 24

Transcript o f trial proceedings of August 21, 1961 
received from Court Reporter.

Jan. 26
Transcript o f argument of counsel on Aug. 23, 1961 

received from Court Reporter, (orig. and 1)

1963
July 11

Motion of Carlotta Mozelle Brewer, et al to inter­
vene filed.

July 23
Trial Proceedings: Parties appeared with counsel. 

Order permitting intervention entered. Judge Hoffman 
advised counsel that his wife is Librarian at Taylor 
School and now with petition to mix teachers the 
parties should discuss if they desire to have Judge 
Hoffman withdraw or continue to hear case or to 
file a separate case covering teachers mixing. Counsel 
for petitioners state they think Judge Hoffman should 
continue. Mr. Davis expressed opinion that question 
as to teacher mixing should be a separate matter. Com­
plaint in intervention filed in open Court. Motion for 
further relief filed in open Court. Counsel for de­
fendants will have until................................. to answer.
Trial date set Nov. 29, 1963.

Aug. 8
Answer of defendants to motion for further relief 

filed.

Aug. 8
Answer of defendants to complaint in intervention 

o f Carlotta Mozelle Brewer, et al filed.



19

Oct. 3
Interrogatories o f plaintiffs filed.

Oct. 7
Motion of plaintiffs Greta Denise Miller, et al for 

temporary restraining order filed.

Oct. 7
Motion to intervene filed by Greta Denise Miller, 

et al.

Oct. 10
Trial Proceedings: Parties appeared with counsel, 

Came on to be heard on motion for temporary restrain­
ing order. Motion to extend time to answer inter­
rogatories filed by defendants. Granted— Nov. 1 for 
answer.

Oct. 10
Trial Proceedings: Oct 25 for filing o f objections 

to interrogatories served Oct. 3, 1963. Motion to in­
tervene granted. On temporary restraining order—  
Affidavits (5 ) filed. Motion for temporary injunction 
to be treated as complaint. Answer to temporary in­
junction to be treated as answer to complaint. Con­
tinued generally.

Oct. 10
Motion for extention of time within which to answer 

or objection to interrogatories, answer to motion for 
temporary restraining order, and answer to complaint 
in intervention filed in open Court.

Oct. 30
Transcript o f trial proceedings of Oct. 10, 1963, 

received from Court Reporter.



20

Nov. 1
Answers of defendant to interrogatories filed. (The 

School Board)

Nov. 1
Answer of defendant to interrogatories filed.

Dec. 7
Trial Proceedings: Parties and counsel appeared. 

Evidence of plaintiff heard and concluded. Defendant 
rested without evidence. Discussion about Pruden 
children not being in school, responsibility placed on 
attorneys for plaintiffs to get children in school. Briefs 
by plaintiffs to be furnished 10 days after transcript 
received. Defendant to have 30 days after plaintiff 
brief. Plaintiff afforded opportunity to reply in 10 
days. Oral argument waived.

1964
Apr. 30

Transcript o f Dec. 7, 1963. hearing received from 
Court Reporter.

June 18
Report o f School Board of City of Norfolk and 

E. L. Lamberth, Div. Supt. regard to 1964-65 school 
year filed.

July 30
Memorandum filed by Court.

Sept. 4
Motion of defendant, The School Board of City of 

Norfolk, for approval of its action in granting change 
o f choices of schools for 1964-65 school year filed.



21

Oct. 22
Order directing that plan of the defendant School 

Board for attendance of children in public schools of 
the City of Norfolk and application o f this plan are 
constitutional and approved; plaintiffs’ motion for 
further relief denied; injunctive order entered by this 
Court on Feb. 26, 1957 to remain in effect, but plain­
tiffs’ motion for an enlargement thereof denied; and 
plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction as to 
certain intervenors denied, entered Oct. 22, 1964, 
Notice to counsel by Court.

Nov. 20
Notice of Carlotta Mozelle Brewer and Demetria 

Yvonne Brewer, infants, by Oner Brewer, their father 
and next friend, o f appeal filed. Copies served on 
opposing counsel by Appellants’ counsel. Notice to 
counsel of filing of notice by Clerk.

Nov. 24
Appeal bond, in sum of $250, with cash as surety, 

executed and filed at Richmond, received.

Dec. 23
Order extending time for filing record on appeal and 

docketing appeal entered. Notice to counsel.

MOTION FOR FURTHER RELIEF 
[filed July 23, 1963]

Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the court should hold 
a hearing to examine various matters relating to the de­
segregation of the public schools o f the City of Norfolk



22

as alleged hereinafter, and that upon consideration thereof, 
the court should grant them further injunctive or other 
relief as prayed in this motion. As grounds therefor, plain­
tiffs submit that:

1. This court has, by prior orders entered in this case, 
retained jurisdiction o f the cause for such further pro­
ceedings as may be necessary and appropriate.

2. The defendants, the School Board of the City of 
Norfolk and the Division Superintendent of Schools for 
the City of Norfolk, have not completely effectuated a 
change of the public school system under their control from 
a racially segregated system to a racially nondiscriminatory 
school system. Although desegregation o f the Norfolk city 
schools began in 1959, only a small number of Negro pupils 
have received the benefit of a desegregated education under 
the practices being pursued by the defendants. The various 
practices and policies of the defendants described in par­
agraph 3 below contribute to the preservation of the racially 
segregated school system established by law, impede the 
desegregation of the school system, and are inconsistent 
with defendants’ duty to devote every effort toward in­
itiating desegregation and bringing about the elimination 
o f racial discrimination in the public school system. These 
practices thus violate plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

3. Plaintiffs complain of the following practices and 
policies of the defendants :



23

a. The defendants have failed to establish a truly non- 
racial method of routinely initially placing pupils in schools, 
but rather, the placement of pupils entering the system and 
of pupils being promoted from elementary to junior high 
schools and from junior high schools to senior high schools 
is determined upon the basis of racial considerations and 
operates to preserve the segregated system.

b. The defendants still use and maintain a dual system

of overlapping attendance areas for Negroes and whites 
in determining the assignment of pupils to schools.

c. The defendants use and maintain procedures and 
policies by which Negro pupils seeking to transfer to attend 
nonsegregated schools are subject to evaluations, criteria 
and conditions which are not employed in the routine place­
ment of Negroes in all-Negro schools or the routine place­
ment o f whites in all white or predominantly-white schools.

d. The defendants have established or altered school at­
tendance areas on the basis o f racial considerations with the 
result that the pattern of racial segregation o f pupils has 
been substantially perpetuated.

e. The defendants continue the policy of assigning prin­
cipals, teachers, and other professional personnel to schools 
on the basis of racial considerations, with only Negro pro­
fessional personnel being assigned to the all-Negro schools 
in the system, and only white professional personnel being- 
assigned to the all-white and predominantly-white schools 
in the system.



24

f. The defendants have not adopted or advised the plain­
tiffs or the Court o f any specific timetable proposed for the 
elimination o f the racially discriminatory practices followed 
in the Norfolk City school system.

4. Plaintiffs, through their attorney, filed a petition with 
the defendants on or about April 23, 1963, complaining of 
the failure of the defendants to change their school assign­
ment practices. A  copy of this petition is attached hereto as 
Exhibit A. The defendants responded on or about June 
13th, 1963, by a written statement which indicated that the 
Board would adhere to the practices complained of and 
denied some of the other practices. A  copy of the defend­
ants’ statement is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

W H EREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the court enter an 
order enjoining the defendants from continuing the various 
practices complained of above and requiring that the de­
fendants file with the court a plan for the immediate and 
complete elimination of racial discrimination in the public 
school system of the City of Norfolk which will afford all 
children in attendance the opportunity to recieve an educa­
tion on a nonracial and nonsegregated basis and be assigned 
by the school board of the City of Norfolk, Virginia to 
the school nearest the home of each child in said City not­
withstanding the race of said child. It is further prayed 
that the defendants should be required to submit periodic 
reports to the Court containing factual and statistical in­
formation as to the actual progress of desegregation under 
any plan approved by the Court. Plaintiffs pray for such



25

further and additional relief as the court may deem just 
and equitable, including the allowance of a proper fee for 
plaintiffs’ counsel as a part of the costs.

Respectfully submitted,

V ictor J. A sh e  
1134 Church Street 
Norfolk 10, Virginia

J. H ugo M adison  
1017 Church Street 
Norfolk 10, Virginia

Ja c k  G reenberg 
Jam es  M. N a b r it , III 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS TO MOTION 
FOR FURTHER RELIEF

[filed August 8, 1963]

The defendants, The School Board o f the City of Nor­
folk and E. L. Lamberth, Division Superintendent of 
Schools o f the said City, for answer to the motion for 
further relief say:

1. They admit the allegations of paragraph 1.

2. The defendants deny the averments of the first sen­
tence of paragraph 2 that they have not effectuated a



26

change of the public school system under their control from 
a racially segregated system to a racially non-discriminatory 
system. As to the averments o f the second sentence of par­
agraph 2. the defendants admit that so far a limited number 
of Negro pupils have been admitted to the previously all- 
white schools o f the Norfolk School system but in that 
respect aver that, except for the school year of 1962-63 
when no objections were interposed before this Court to 
the numbers that were admitted to previously all-white 
schools by the School Board and those whose applications 
for transfers were refused, all admissions and refusals for 
previous years since the beginning o f this action have been 
under the supervision of this Court and all practices of the 
defendants relative to the admission of Negro pupils to 
previously all-white schools have been accepted by the 
Court. Defendants deny the averments o f fact and con­
clusions of law set forth in the remainder of paragraph 2.

3. a. Answering subparagraph a. of paragraph 3, the 
defendants deny the averments thereof.

b. Answering the averments of subparagraph b. of par­
agraph 3, the defendants admit that there have been in 
certain areas of the Norfolk school system dual attendance 
areas, but aver that for the coming school year of 1963-64 
no dual system of attendance areas will control or be prac­
ticed in determining the assignment of pupils who apply for 
initial enrollments in, or transfers to, schools attended 
wholly or predominantly by children o f the opposite race.

c. Defendants deny the averments of subparagraph c. 
o f paragraph 3.



27

d. Defendants deny the averments o f subparagraph d. 
of paragraph 3.

e. Defendants admit the averments of fact set forth in 
subparagraph e. o f paragraph 3 but deny that the assign­
ments o f teachers and other personnel are in any respect 
violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States or o f any other law, or of the rights 
of any party to this action, and deny also that the plaintiffs 
in this action have any standing, legal or constitutional, to 
raise any such issue in this proceeding. Furthermore, the 
subject matter to this paragraph is not germane to the 
subject matter of this action but is wholly irrelevant thereto.

f. Answering subparagraph f. of paragraph 3, defend­
ants admit that they have not adopted or advised the plain­
tiffs or the Court of any specific time-table in respect of 
the further desegregation of the public schools o f the Nor­
folk school system but deny that the defendants pursue any 
racially discriminatory practices. The defendants aver that 
they have not been ordered or directed by the Court and 
are not under any legal or constitutional duty to propose 
or follow any specific time-table in respect to further de­
segregation of the schools of the city. Defendants further 
aver that in respect o f desegregation of the Norfolk school 
system, involving many difficult and complex elements in 
the necessary period of transition, defendants have pro­
ceeded with such convenient speed as the problem has 
allowed, consistent with the maintaining of a sound and 
efficient public school system and protection of the best 
interests of the pupils, regardless o f race or color, in respect 
o f their education and welfare.



28

4. Answering paragraph 4, defendants admit that the 
petition and response thereto which are mentioned in said 
paragraph were filed and made but the defendants deny all 
o f the remaining averments of said paragraph and deny that 
said petition and response thereto are relevant to this action.

5. Further answering the petition as a whole, the de­
fendants aver that all of their legal and constitutional obli­
gations in the premises will be complied with by the appli­
cation o f the following principles in determining the schools 
and grades which children will attend:

a. If only one school serves an area, all children living 
in the area will attend such school.

b. If two schools serve an area, all children living in the 
area may choose, subject to the approval o f their parents 
or guardians and subject to the maximum capacities o f the 
schools, the school which they wish to attend.

The choice for the ensuing school year must be made not 
later than May 31st o f the current school year, provided, 
however, that as to any child who moves into the City of 
Norfolk or from one area of the City to another and any 
child who enters the public school system of the City from 
a private or parochial school in the City subsequent to May 
31st, the choice must be made promptly after such move 
or entry is made.

c. The program of special tests will be eliminated and 
the grade levels at which the children are expected to achieve 
satisfactorily will be determined by the School Adminis­
tration, guided by the cumulative records, routine tests and 
performances of the children.



29

In considering the applications of children for initial 
enrollments in and transfers to schools attended wholly or 
predominantly by children of the opposite race for the 
school year 1963-64, the defendants applied these principles, 
and it is the intention of the defendants to continue to apply 
them unless they are disapproved by the Court.

W H EREFO RE, having fully answered the Motion for 
Further Relief, defendants pray that the same be dismissed.

T h e  S chool B oard of t h e  C it y  of 
N orfolk  an d  E. L. Lam b e r t h , D i­
v i s i o n  S u p e r i n t e n d e n t  of  t h e  
S chools of said  C it y

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS TO THE COMPLAINT 
IN INTERVENTION OF CARLOTTA MOZELLE 

BREWER, ET ALS

[filed August 8, 1963]

*  *  *

3. * * * [T]he pertinent language of the injunctive 
order of February 26, 1957, provides as follows:

“ 1. That the defendants, and each of them, their suc­
cessors in office, agents, representatives, servants, and 
employees, be, and they are, hereby restrained and en­
joined from refusing, solely on account of race or color, 
to admit to, or enroll or educate in, any school under 
their operation, control, direction or supervision, di­
rectly or indirectly, any child otherwise qualified for 
admission to, and enrollment and education in, such 
school.

** *



30

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

[filed October 7, 1963]

Plaintiffs move the Court to enter a temporary restrain­
ing order restraining the defendants, their agents and em­
ployees and assigns from refusing to permit the above 
named applicants to be enrolled in and to attend the schools 
applied for during the 1963-64 school session which com­
menced on September 5, 1963, as shown by the Resolution 
o f the School Board of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, 
attached hereto, and in support o f their said motion, plain­
tiffs say:

1. That the said plaintiffs are Negro infants and res­
idents of the City of Norfolk, Virginia and eligible to 
attend the aforesaid schools in the City of Norfolk, V ir­
ginia.

2. That prior to September 5, 1963, the first day of 
school, the said infants presented themselves for enrollment 
at the aforesaid schools and were refused enrollment for 
the 1963-64 school year. They were not permitted to enroll 
in said schools and assigned to other schools out of their 
district.

3. That the said plaintiffs were notified by the School 
Board of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, they were denied 
assignment to attend the schools requested because their 
applications were not received before the May 31st deadline.

4. That all of the said infants reside in the same area of 
the City of Norfolk in which the schools they applied to 
attend are located, but have been assigned to schools great



31

distances from their homes and subject to the hazards o f 
traffic and undue inconveniences to reach the school they 
are now assigned.

5. That the May 31st cut off date of the Norfolk School 
Board is discriminatory in that it is applied only to children 
o f the Negro race. White students merely go, at anytime 
before school starts, to the school in their new neighborhood 
and register. Students of the Negro race are required to go 
to the School Board Office before May 31 and apply for 
transfers.

6 . That information directed to the May 31st cut off 
date is not disseminated to the parents o f students or stu­
dents and is being used to deny plaintiffs their constitutional 
rights.

7. That the said infants are enrolled in the school as­
signed by the School Board, with the exception o f Bernard 
T. Pruden and Edward Kevin Pruden, who are out of 
school, and by agreement with counsel for the School Board 
the above facts do not prejudice the right o f the said in­
fants to attend the schools applied for in their applications.

W H EREFO RE, plaintiffs pray that the Court will enter 
a temporary restraining order restraining the defendants 
and each of them, their successors in office and their agents 
and employees forthwith from denying the aforenamed 
infant plaintiffs the right to be enrolled in, to attend and 
to be educated in the 1963-64 school session of the afore­
named schools and to declare the May 31st cut off date 
unconstitutional and invalid, and that after a hearing to be 
held within ten ( 10) days of the date o f the entry of the



32

order, the Court will enlarge this order into an interlocutory 
injunction granting the relief prayed herein and such other 
relief as to the Court appears necessary and proper.

/ s /  V ictor  J. A sh e

ANSWER TO MOTION FOR 
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

[filed October 10, 1963]

The defendants, The School Board o f the City o f Nor­
folk and E. L. Lamberth, Division Superintendent o f the 
schools o f the said city, for answer to the Motion of Greta 
Denise Miller, et als, Applicants for Intervention, for a 
Temporary Restraining Order, say:

1. Answering paragraph 1, the defendants say that the 
said applicants for intervention are residents of the City 
of Norfolk but deny that they are eligible to attend the 
school in the City of Norfolk, Virginia for which they 
applied.

2. Answering paragraph 2, the defendants admit that 
the infant applicants for intervention were not permitted 
to enroll in the schools for which they appleid, but the 
defendants deny that they were assigned to schools which 
do not serve the areas in which they live, and the defendants 
are without knowledge or information sufficient to form 
a belief as to whether, as averred, all of the infant appli­
cants presented themselves for enrollment at the schools for 
which they applied.

3. Answering paragraph 3, the defendants admit the 
averments thereof.



33

4. Answering paragraph 4, the defendants admit that 
the infant applicants for intervention reside in areas 
served by the schools for which they applied, but the de­
fendants deny that they have been assigned to other schools 
at great distance from their homes and that they are any 
more subject to the hazards of traffic or inconvenience than 
other children in the school system of the said city.

5. Answering paragraph 5, defendants deny the aver­
ment that the May 31st cut-off date is in any way discrim­
inatory or that it is applied only to children of the Negro 
race. They also deny the other averments of said para­
graph.

6 . Answering paragraph 6, defendants deny the aver­
ments thereof, and say further that, while individual no­
tices of the May 31st cut-off date have not been sent to 
each parent and student, such cut-off date has been for 
several years a matter of general information in Norfolk, 
o f which the plaintiffs in this action had notice, and known 
by or available to all other interested persons, and that 
such cut-off date has been reported in the press.

7. Answering paragraph 7, the defendants admit the 
same, except that they deny that said infant plaintiffs have 
the right to attend the schools they applied for.

Now further answering said motion, defendants aver 
that the applicants for intervention have not averred bv 
their pleadings or otherwise irreparable injury or damage 
or any other reason or cause sufficient for the granting of 
the temporary restraining order applied for or for any 
other form of injunctive relief. Moreover, the plaintiffs



34

seek a mandatory rather than a prohibitory restraining 
order to change the status quo, which is not the proper 
function of a temporary restraining order. The defendants, 
therefore, pray that the motion for a temporary restrain­
ing order be denied and dismissed.

T h e  S chool B oard of t h e  C it y  of N orfolk  
and E. L. L a m b e r t h , D iv is io n  S u p e r in ­
ten d en t  of t h e  S chools of Sa id  C it y

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 

[filed November 1, 1963]

5ft jfi

IN TER RO G A TO RY 3

School
White Pupils in 
Attendance Area

Negro Pupils in 
Attendance Area

Granby High 2751 150
Maury High 2488 1907
Norview High 2422 400
Washington High 7661 2457
Azalea Jr. High 1413 3
Blair Jr. High 1255 1807
Campostella Jr. High 10 1000
Jacox Jr. High 150 1574
Madison Jr. High 100 480
Northside Jr. High 1480 150
Norview Jr. High 1589 . 480
Rosemont Jr. High 1589 435



35

Ruffner Jr. High 
Willard Jr. High 
Ballentine Elem.
Bay View Elem.
Bowling Park Elem. 
Calcott Elem. 
Campostella Elem.
Carey Elem.
Chesterfield Elem.
Clay Elem.
Coleman Place Elem. 
Coronado Elem. 
Crossroads Elem.
Diggs Park Elem. 
Douglas Park Elem. 
East Ocean View Elem. 
Easton Elem.
Fairlawn Elem. 
Gatewood Elem.
Goode Elem.
Granby Elem.
Ingleside Elem.
Jackson Elem.
Lafayette Elem. 
Lakewood Elem. 
Lansdale Elem. 
Larchmont Elem. 
Larrymore Elem.
Lee Elem.

200 1473
684 0
323 0
973 0

0 1209
911 0
120 • 2

0 551
545 .784

0 o381
1036 q 0

20 o 300
1089 0

5 641
0 200

170 0
535 10
545 tfi 10

4 719
0 688

877 >- 0
508 r 5

0 I 190
339 0
846 0
862 8
727 0

1092 0
11 631



36

Liberty Park Elem 
Lincoln Elem, 
Lindenwood Elem.
Little Creek Elem.
Little Creek Primary 
Madison (Elem. section) 
Marshall Elem. 
Meadowbrook Elem. 
Monroe Elem.
Norview Elem.
Oakwood Elem.
Oceanair Elem.
Ocean View Elem. 
Pineridge Elem.
Poplar Halls Elem.
Pretty Lake Elem. 
Rosemont (Elem. section) 
Sherwood Forest Elem. 
Smallwood Elem.
Stuart Elem.
Suburban Park Elem. 
Tarrallton Elem.
Taylor Elem.
Titus Elem.
Titustown Elem.
Tucker Elem.
West Elem.

Young Park Elem.

545 784
0 697

683 904
893 0
905 0

0 330
352 200
637 35
683 904
615 39

0 722
768 0
900 0
316 0
635 0
162 0

0 383
913 0

5 592
857 0
591 10
600 4
420 0

0 716
200 476

0 521
0 585

350 837



IN TERRO G ATO RY 7

SCHOOL 1 

SENIOR HIGH

Maury

Norview

JUNIOR HIGH 

Blair

Northside

Norview

ELE M E N TA R Y

Chesterfield 7

Ingleside 1

Marshall 38

Meadowbrook 

Monroe 13

Norview 1

Suburban 8

TO TA LS 68

2 3 4 5 6

5 2 1 2

1

21 17 9 13 6

3 1 1

10 9 11 7 6

3 3 4 4 4

1 1

43 32 26 27 17

7 8 9 10 11 12

4 17 1 2

22 3 1

10 6 1

1 1

2 3 1

1

3 

1 

1

19 10 6 39 4 3

Grand Total 294



38

PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORY 

[filed October 3, 1963.]

7. State the total number o f Negro pupils who have 
been initially assigned to attend all-white or predominantly 
white schools for the first time during the 1963-64 school 
term. Give a breakdown of this total by schools and grades.

MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT 

[filed July 30, 1964]

Stripped of non-essentials the issue presented in the cap­
tioned matter is confined to the constitutionality o f a plan 
for the operation of the public schools of the City of Nor­
folk which was put into effect at the beginning of the 1963- 
64 school year, and is now functioning, and will continue 
to function unless otherwise modified by court order.

While the rig-hts of one individual child were the subject 
o f evidence before the Court,1 these issues are now moot 
and the child is about to enter upon another school year. 1

1 The testimony of Mrs. Pruden relates to one of her five Negro children. 
On the first day of the 1963-64 school year the three oldest children were in 
attendance at predominantly white schools. They had apparently been assigned 
to these predominantly white schools for the 1962-63 school year and were not 
in the category o f  being transfer students. Until April, 1963, the Pruden family 
lived in the area known as Bowling Park. During the 1962-63 school year 
Kevin, the eight year old child, attended Bowling Park School, which the 
Court understands was attended only by Negro children as it is located in an 
area where Negroes reside. The School Board has previously maintained a 
cut-off date for transfer applications as of May 31 of each year. Apparently 
the principal o f Bowling Park School advised Mrs. Pruden that it was not 
necessary to apply for a transfer for Kevin as the family moved in April, 
1963, to 1314 DeBree Avenue, which is located near the John Marshall School 
(presently attended by approximately 20% Negro children and 80% white 
children). Mrs. Pruden first endeavored to get Kevin into the Robert E. Lee



39

Much of the testimony relates to past practices and pro­
cedures of the School Board. It must be remembered that 
Norfolk was one o f the foremost battlegrounds in the fight 
to permit integration of races in the public school system. 
When 17 Negro children were finally assigned by the School 
Board to previously all-white schools in August, 1958 (fo l­
lowing a series of appeals after this Court’s determination 
of the guiding principles of law in January and February, 
1957), the Norfolk schools were closed by direction of the 
Governor of Virginia made pursuant to action by the Gen­
eral Assembly of Virginia at the Extra Session, 1956. The 
Norfolk schools were reopened on February 2, 1959, sub­
sequent to the decisions in Harrison v. Day, 200 Va. 439, 
106 S.E. (2d) 636; James v. Almond, 170 F. Supp. 331; 
and James v. Duckworth, 170 F. Supp. 342. They have 
never been closed since February, 1959, and it is a safe 
assumption that the doors of the public schools in Norfolk 
will not again be barred so as to impede the progress o f 
educating our children in this community. Norfolk has 
learned the lesson o f irreparable damage sustained by the

School but was told that the John Marshall School was the school area covering 
1314 DeBree Avenue. When she applied at John Marshall, she was faced with 
the failure to meet the May 31 deadline and the child was assigned to Young 
Park School. W hile not in the record, the mtoher of the child indicated a 
willingness to return the child to Bowling Park School, a school more suitable 
to transportation facilities, and he was admitted on the day following the hear­
ing subject to further order of court. In view of the drastic change of plan as 
submitted by the School Board, as well as the time element involved since the 
date of hearing, the validity of the May 31 deadline need not be considered 
from the standpoint of Kevin Pruden. An initial enrollee, Bernard Pruden, 
age 6, was first declined admission to John Marshall School prior to the 
commencement o f the 1963-64 school year on the basis of failure to meet the 
May 31 deadline but, prior to the opening of school and after discussion of the 
matter between Court and counsel, Bernard was permitted to enter John 
Marshall as the Court informally expressed the view that the May 31 deadline 
could not be applied to an initial enrollee.



40

victims of school-closing. That lesson, while costly, has not 
been without compensating factors. Despite a natural re­
luctance to accept racial mixture in public schools, the 
people of Norfolk and its governing body have redoubled 
their efforts to establish and maintain a more effective edu­
cational process for the betterment of our youth.

This is not to say that everything done or not done has 
met with unanimous approval as it applies to racial prob­
lems in the public school system. There are those who re­
fuse to send their children to a public school because there 
may be one Negro in a particular school; there are those 
who contend that intermixture of races in public schools 
should be required and maintained on an approximately 
equal numerical basis, and if not numerical, then on a pro­
rata basis. In short, it is impossible to satisfy all demands 
of people from varying walks o f life and different races, 
especially those who are agitating their particular cause.

In this setting the Norfolk City School Board has strug­
gled with the many problems confronting them. They have 
moved cautiously but steadily forward to the point where 
they now present, in response to plaintiffs’ motion for fur­
ther relief, a plan of operation and procedure which goes 
far— and this Court believes the entire way— in removing 
all elements of racial discrimination in the school system 
but, at the same time, affords a freedom of choice to all 
children (speaking through their parents or guardians) to 
attend the school of their choice in accordance with the geo­
graphical location of their homes.

It may be argued that the plan, even if constitutional, 
is belatedly presented. With the vast number of decisions



41

emanating from appellate courts, it would have been an 
impossible task to keep abreast of these decisions and change 
the procedures daily. What may have been constiutional 
in 1958, 1959, and 1960 is no longer recognized as such. 
Indeed, there has been no settled plan which may be adopted 
as universal to all schools. The very purpose of an interim 
transition period suggests that action should not be so hasty 
that it would unduly interfere with the efficiency of school 
administration. After all, this Court still believes that the 
primary purpose of a public school system is to adequately 
educate the children. W e all acknowledge that this process 
o f education must be consistent with the law but if the 
Norfolk School Board had changed its plan and procedure 
every time a new decision was handed down, there would 
have been a complete disruption of the educational processes. 
W e look, then, to the future and disregard the past.

At the time o f the hearing in this case the public school 
system consisted of four senior high schools, ten junior 
high schools and fifty-five elementary schools.2 Under the 
plan proposed and now in operation the system will work 
substantially as related herein.

Senior High Schools

There are, as noted, four senior high schools in the city. 
Every high school student, irrespective of race, will have 
the choice of attending one o f two schools. Granby, Maury 
and Norview have been predominantly white and, prior to 
February 2, 1959, were attended only by white children. 
In the interim period they have been substantially inte­

2 Three of the elementary schools are new and were apparently opened for 
the 1963-64 school year.



42

grated.3 Thus, every Negro child has the privilege of at­
tending either a predominantly white or Negro senior high 
school. Every white child has the corresponding privilege.

Junior High Schools

With two exceptions (Azalea Gardens and Willard) the 
same freedom of choice is extended to Negro and white 
children, that is, each child, irrespective of race, is afforded 
an election to attend one of two schools; one of which is 
predominantly attended by white children and the other of 
which is predominantly attended by Negro children. As to 
the two exceptions, while the record does not so indi­
cate, the reason for the single attendance area is probably 
due to overcrowded conditions or the obvious fact that no 
child living outside the area would elect to attend that school. 
Children of the proper grade residing in the school area 
designated for Azalea Gardens must attend that junior 
high school irrespective of race. The same is true for W il­
lard. As noted, the other school areas each afford a freedom 
o f choice.

Elementary Schools

Because of the importance o f concentrating small children 
in the area near their respective homes, the freedom of 
choice plan is more restricted in elementary schools. There 
are 37 areas where children of proper grade who reside

3 For the 1964-65 school year, under the freedom of choice plan, Negro chil­
dren elected to attend (and were admitted) as follow s: Maury 192; Norview 
104; Granby 24. These figures, while not in the record, are included as the 
Court advised counsel that the appellate court should have knowledge of the 
working features of the plan.



43

therein are required to attend a particular school irrespec­
tive of race. There are 18 areas where children of proper 
grade residing in a particular school area have a choice of 
attending one of two schools. The choice, in such event, is 
a matter of selecting a contiguous school area. If a Negro 
o f the appropriate age lives in Coronado, which is now pre­
dominantly Negro, he may elect to attend Norview which 
is now predominantly white. If he lives nearer Norview, 
he may elect to attend Coronado. The same applies to the 
white child. While there are 18 overlapping areas, many 
interchange such as Coronado and Norview, Smallwood and 
Stuart, Chesterfield Heights and Liberty Park, etc., thereby 
reducing the overall effect o f the freedom of choice plan.

Principles and Methods

The best procedure for explaining the principles and 
method of operation is to quote at length what the School 
Board has adopted. It reads as follows:

“ Principles

“ 1. If only one school serves an area, all children 
living in the area will attend such school; provided, 
that any child who at the end of the 1963-64 school 
year is/was attending a school which does not/did 
not serve the area in which he lives may, at the option 
of him and his parent or guardian, continue to attend 
such school as long as he is in a grade which such 
school has.

“ 2. If two schools serve an area, all children living 
in the area may choose, subject to the approval o f their



44

parents or guardians and subject to the maximum ca­
pacities o f the schools, the school which they wish to 
attend. The choice for the ensuing school year must be 
made not later than June 15 of the current school year, 
provided, however, that as to any child who moves into 
the City of Norfolk or from one area o f the City to 
another and any child who enters the public school 
system of the City from a private or parochial school 
in the City subsequent to June 15, the choice must be 
made promptly after such move or entry is made.

“ 3. The program of special tests will be eliminated 
and the grade levels at which the children are expected 
to achieve satisfactorily will be determined by the 
School Administration, guided by the cumulative rec­
ords, routine tests and performances of the children.

“Method

“ 1. Prior to May 1 o f each year every child in 
attendance in the public schools of the City of Norfolk 
who lives in a school attendance area which is served 
by two or more schools will be furnished a form desig­
nating the schools which the child may attend during 
the ensuing school year and on which the child and 
his parent or guardian shall select the school which 
they wish the child to attend. Such form shall be com­
pleted, signed by the child and his parent or guardian 
and returned promptly to the person named on the 
form.

“ 2. Every child who is not in attendance in a public 
school o f the City of Norfolk when the forms men-



45

tionecl in the preceding paragraph are distributed and 
who wishes to enter a public school of the City for the 
ensuing school year, and every child who is in attend­
ance in a public school of the City when such forms 
are distributed but who moves from one school attend­
ance area to another after such form is completed and 
returned, and the parents or guardians of such chil­
dren, shall complete and sign such a form for the en­
suing school year and file the same with the Superin­
tendent of Schools of the City of Norfolk, or someone 
designated by him, as soon as possible after such chil­
dren and their parents or guardians decide that such 
children will enter a public school o f the City, or move 
from one school attendance area to another, as the case 
may be, and, in any event, not later than the day 
before such children wish to enter school for the ensu­
ing year.

“ 3. Subject to the maximum capacities of the 
schools, the School Board of the City of Norfolk will 
place children who live in an area which is served by 
two or more schools in the schools which they and 
their parents or guardians select and will cause such 
children and their parents or guardians to be notified 
of the schools which such children will attend as soon 
as possible after such forms are returned or filed.

“4. The option mentioned in Principle numbered 1 
shall be exercised by a statement in writing, signed by 
the child and his parent or guardian, and delivered to 
the Superintendent of Schools of the City of Norfolk, 
or someone designated by him, at least ten ( 10) days 
prior to the opening of the public schools o f the City



46

for a school year. If the option is exercised, it may be 
subsequently cancelled at any time by a statement in 
writing, signed by the child and his parent or guardian, 
and delivered to the Superintendent of Schools o f the 
City o f Norfolk, or someone designated by him.

“ 5. Each child will attend the grade which the 
School Administration, guided by the cumulative rec­
ord of the child, his routine tests and his performance, 
determines to be the level at which he is expected to 
achieve satisfactorily.

“ 6. The School Administration will make such ad­
ministrative transfers of classes o f children and/or 
individual children as are necessary for the orderly 
operation of the public schools of the City, such trans­
fers being necessary from time to time for various 
reasons which include but are not limited to the fol­
lowing: to prevent overcrowding o f a school building, 
to comfortably fill a school building, damage to or de­
struction of a school building, disciplinary problems, 
the need of a child for special subjects, mental or 
physical disability of a child.

“ 7. The School Board of the City o f Norfolk will 
cause a copy o f this statement o f Principles and Method 
to be published in a newspaper having a general cir­
culation in the City o f Norfolk at least once during 
the month of April and once during the month of 
August o f each calendar year.”

W e need not concern ourselves with the provision at the 
end of paragraph one o f the “ Principles.”  This was neces­
sary to protect those children located at a particular school



47

at the end of the 1963-64 school year who desired to con­
tinue in attendance at that school. It does not affect the 
operation of the plan and, even as to such child, there is an 
option o f changing if such child does not reside in that 
school area.

While not in the record, but again with permission of 
counsel (see correspondence) in order to point out the 
results of operation, when the forms were distributed to 
the children living in a school attendance area which is 
served by two or more schools during the spring of 1964, 
1251 Negro pupils selected predominantly white schools, 
whereas 12,097 Negro pupils elected to attend predomi­
nantly or all-Negro schools. It must be remembered that 
every one of the 13,348 Negro children had the election 
of attending either a predominantly Negro school or a pre­
dominantly white school.

Counsel for the plaintiffs attack the plan. They contend 
that it falls short o f completely ending racial segregation 
in the public school system. The record reflects that the 
Court suggested that counsel for the plaintiff submit a 
plan, but such suggestion was not accepted— at least, no 
alternative plan has been forwarded to the Court.

An examination of the maps showing the senior high 
school areas, junior high school areas and elementary school 
areas, will not demonstrate any instances of zone boundaries 
drawn intentionally along racial residential lines. The areas, 
with minor exceptions, are compact. The vice of the plan—  
if such is a vice— is that Negro children may elect to attend 
predominantly Negro or all-Negro schools. If they reside 
in a school attendance area attended by more than one



48

school, they have the choice of attending a predominantly 
white school or a predominantly Negro school. I f they re­
side in a one area-one school category, they are, o f course, 
restricted to that one school— but so are the white children. 
This is the principle of the neighborhood school which has 
received at least tacit approval o f the United States Su­
preme Court when certiorari was denied in Bell v. School 
City of Gary, Indiana, 7 Cir., 324 F. (2d) 209, cert. den. 
377 U.S. 924. And if there is any merit to a freedom of 
choice plan, so long as all children living within a desig­
nated area have an equal choice available, it is constitu­
tional. A  racially desegregated school system was not in­
tended to correct racial imbalances in certain schools.

Obviously there will be problems which may arise under 
the new plan. As suggested by the Court, where more than 
one school serves a particular attendance area, all or nearly 
all children could elect to attend one school, thus leaving the 
other school practically vacant. While this problem did not 
arise by reason of the choice of pupils made in the spring 
o f 1964, if it does arise in the future, the School Board 
will be required to admit the children without discrimina­
tion as to race in accordance with the assurances given by 
the City Attorney.4

The explanation of the designation of more than one 
school serving a particular school attendance area is given 
by the Superintendent of Schools as follows:

“ A. The significance of the red boundary is this: 
That there are fifty-two schools pictured on this map. 
In those few instances that you have mentioned, those

4 Tr. p. 88.



49

schools are next to each other. They have a rapidly 
changing and mobile population, just as you mentioned, 
that you gave the illustration yourself of the Lee School 
District. As a result— and as a result of the gradual 
transition period we have proceeded through desegre­
gation liberalizing our original procedures. These areas 
have children who are in one area of one school district 
going to another, back and forth, across those red 
lines, and under the new principles that we gave in the 
answer to your petition to the Court, we would keep 
these lines, certainly for this time, so that no child 
would be forced out of a school where he had chosen 
to go or where the Court had put him, because we 
were— we would make those, as the other forty-some 
schools are— single schools serving single areas where 
every child would go to the school. In other words, 
this is to preserve the choice o f a child of either race 
where we have let him go in the past or where the 
Court may have sent him. It could happen— I don’t 
know that this is true— or somebody had sent him—  
that is to preserve in those rapidly changing areas 
where our past procedures have caused people to cross 
from one line to another, and that is the purpose of 
the line— to preserve freedom of choice.”

The Court holds that this plan may be constitutionally 
administered and that, thus far, it has been so applied. 
This is not a situation in which the School Board has failed 
to realistically approach the desegregation problem. Plain­
tiffs request the entry of an injunctive order. An injunction 
was previously entered by this Court in this case on Feb­
ruary 26, 1957, reading, in part, as follows:



50

“ 1. That the defendants, and each o f them, their suc­
cessors in office, agents, representatives, servants, and 
employees, be, and they are, hereby restrained and en­
joined from refusing, solely on account of race or color, 
to admit to, or enroll or educate in, any school under 
their operation, control, direction or supervision, di­
rectly or indirectly, any child otherwise qualified for 
admission to, and enrollment and education in, such 
school.”

The injunction has never been modified or relieved. While 
this Court no longer sees any necessity for continuing the 
injunction in effect, the same question arose previously in 
Brooks v. School Board of Arlington County, Virginia, 
4 Cir., 324 F. (2d) 303, and the Court of Appeals directed 
that the injunction be reinstated. For this reason—-and 
no other— the injunctive order of February 26, 1957, shall 
remain in effect.

The freedom of choice has received judicial sanction by 
the language taken from opinions in cited cases. Dillard 
v. School Board of City o f Charlottesville, Va., 4 Cir., 
309 F. (2d) 920, 923-4; Jeffers v. Whitley, 4 Cir., 309 F. 
(2d) 621, 627; Goss v. Board o f Education, 373 U. S. 683. 
While it is true that children living in an area served by 
only one school do not have a freedom of choice, this is 
not an act o f discrimination as all children living in that 
area, irrespective of race, are accorded the same treatment.

Nor does the Court believe that this is a proper case 
for the allowance of counsel fees. W e do not understand 
that such fees must be allowed in all school cases. Following 
Hill v. The School Board o f Norfolk, 4 Cir., 282 F. (2d) 
473, certain modifications of the existing plan were made,



51

perhaps not as rapidly as either the Court or counsel for 
plaintiffs may have deemed appropriate, but nevertheless 
with a steady approach to a desegregated school system. 
From a review of the more recent authorities it would 
appear that counsel fees are directed against the school 
boards practicing discrimination in a pernicious form. We 
do not believe that even counsel for the plaintiffs will con­
tend that this situation has existed since August, 1958.

The School Faculties

One final point o f major consideration is the contention 
of counsel for plaintiffs that any plan approved must pro­
vide for an integration of the faculties o f the public school 
system.

At the outset we should note that no principal, teacher, 
or other member o f the professional or administrative per­
sonnel in any school has either complained, testified, or in 
any manner sought relief.

No child, parent or guardian has testified or complained 
as to this issue. The motion for further relief, signed by 
the attorneys, makes the following allegation:

“ The defendant continues the policy of assigning prin­
cipals, teachers, and other professional personnel to 
schools on the basis of racial considerations, with only 
Negro professional personnel being assigned to the 
all-Negro schools in the system and only white per­
sonnel being assigned to the all-white and predomi- 
nantly-white schools in the system.”



52

The foregoing allegation would indicate that there are no 
white children in attendance at the predominantly Negro 
school. Such, however, is not the case; nor was it the situ­
ation in the 1963-64 school year. Understandably the num­
ber of white children attending a predominantly Negro 
school has been few in past years, but they will undoubtedly 
increase under the plan now in operation. However, this is 
beyond the subject now under consideration.

The procedure presently followed by the School Board 
is to assign principals and teaching personnel who are Ne­
groes to those schools which are attended predominantly 
by Negro children, and where the school is attended pre­
dominantly by white children the principal and teaching 
personnel have been white.

At the conclusion of the evidence the following colloquy 
took place:

“ The Court: Do I understand that the only thing 
in this record on the contentions of the plaintiffs that 
the school faculties should be integrated is Mr. Lam- 
berth’s statement to the effect that they are not inte­
grated, and you gentlement will rest on that basis, on 
the school faculty situation?

“ Mr. Tucker: I should assume that that would be 
adequate because that is all that we could prove. I 
think the better proof is contained in the answers to 
the interrogatories, that some schools have nothing but 
negro faculty and other schools have nothing but white 
faculties. This proves it.



53

“ The Court: Yes, but I don’t have any testimony 
similar to what the Supreme Court in Brown v. Allen 
based it on that this affects in any way the children 
and their rights. In Brown against Allen, as I remem­
ber, the Supreme Court placed great emphasis upon the 
testimony in some of these cases. I don’t have that. I 
don’t take judicial notice that the reaction against—  
as to Negro children is the same if they’re being taught 
by a Negro teacher or a White teacher. Do I under­
stand that is your contention; that it is the same basis ?

“ Mr. Tucker: That is not the basis o f our conten­
tion here. W e don’t have any evidence of psycholog­
ical detriment, but the thing is based on Brown versus 
the Board of Education of a transition to non-racially 
non-discriminatory school systems, and some of the 
conditions, through the court— as a matter of fact the 
Fourth Circuit has indicated that the prayer for a 
transition to a racially non-discriminatory school in­
cludes everything else.

“ The Court: In the Lynchburg case Judge Sobeloff 
said by dictum their plan did not mention anything 
about it.

“ Mr. Tucker: And other courts have—

“ The Court: But he— I don’t remember that he sent 
it back to the District Court in Lynchburg and said, 
‘Integrate the faculties,’ did he? Judge Michie may 
have thereafter done it, I don’t know. Anyway that’s 
a matter you’re willing to rest on the record.



54

“ I expected some very interesting evidence as to the 
question of the effect on children, but you are going 
to rest on the record, and the School Board rests on 
the record, and I am very much interested to see when 
the judges have got [ten] into the educating classes. 
Maybe we have.”

Plaintiffs rely upon Board of Public Instruction of Duval 
County, Florida v. Braxton, 5 Cir., 326 F. (2d) 616, cert, 
den. 377 U. S. 924. Undeniably, the foregoing authority 
(majority opinion) supports plaintiffs’ contentions. How­
ever, at the time of that decision the Court was confronted 
with all-Negro and all-white schools. Relying upon the 
Fifth Circuit’s prior decision in Augustus v. Board of 
Public Instruction of Escambia County, 5 Cir., 306 F. 
(2d) 862, the Braxton case went even further and held, 
as a matter of law, that Negro children had rights which 
were violated by the assignment of school personnel on the 
basis o f race or color. The Fourth Circuit has not, to the 
knowledge of this Court, expressly ruled upon the issue. 
In Jackson v. School Board o f the City o f Lynchburg, Vir­
ginia, 4 Cir., 321 F. (2d) 230, there is dictum to the effect 
that a plan effecting a transition to a racially non-discrim- 
inatory school system is broad enough to comprehend all 
aspects o f operations. Later, in Brooks v. County School 
Board o f Arlington County, Va,, 4 Cir., 324 F. (2d) 303, 
306, the Court points out the elimination o f considerations 
o f race in personnel actions was “ worthy o f commendation 
but, again, it is so new that there has been no implementa­
tion and no experience under it.”



55

The matter was before the Sixth Circuit in Mapp v. 
Board of Education o f City o f Chattanooga, Tenn., 6 Cir., 
where the Court intimated that a factual inquiry should be 
developed and that school children, not otherwise injured, 
cannot assert the constitutional rights o f teachers or prin­
cipals who are not parties to the cause.

It must be remembered that the Supreme Court has not 
yet made integration mandatory just for the sake of inte­
grating. This appears reasonably clear from its refusal 
to review Bell v. School City o f Gary, Ind, 7 Cir., 324 F. 
(2d) 209. If it is not incumbent upon a school board to 
“ force” integration among the pupils, why is it required 
that a school board “ force” integration upon the school 
faculties ?

This Court, while personally in agreement with the well- 
reasoned dissent o f Circuit Judge Jones in Board of Public 
Instruction of Duval County, Fla. v. Braxton, supra, ac­
knowledges that a factual situation could be presented. It is 
recognized as a fact that, in many school systems Negro 
teachers have white children in their classes and vice versa. 
Within a short period of time, as integration of the pupils 
becomes more generally accepted, the School Board of the 
City of Norfolk will probably begin integrating the facul­
ties. The Superintendent of Schools was not even interro­
gated as to his views upon this issue. To force the School 
Board to resort to a definite plan at this time will only result 
in ultimate injury to the capable Negro teaching personnel.

Aside from the foregoing, judges should not consider 
themselves as school administrators. When, in the judg­
ment of the highly qualified school administrators, it is for



56

the best interest of the children to be taught by faculties 
o f both races, then the faculties should be integrated. To 
force such action by an injunctive order at this time will 
impair the efficiency o f the school system and open the 
avenue to an endless stream of litigation involving assign­
ments of personnel. In the City of Philadelphia, where a 
system of assignment without regard to race has been in 
effect for many years, the teachers are offered the oppor­
tunity to fill existing vacancies strictly according to se­
niority. This has resulted in litigation by Negro plaintiffs 
who complain that Negro teachers universally elect to fill 
position in predominantly Negro schools. While this Court 
does not consider the Philadelphia system as being for the 
best interests o f the children being educated— as it totally 
disregards efficiency, adaptability and other factors— it is 
probably the only system which could prevent an endless 
series o f litigated cases touching upon the propriety and 
legality of teaching assignments. In short, this Court favors 
the vesting of judgment in such matters where it belongs—  
in the school administration and not in the hands of a fed­
eral judge who has no facts upon which he may determine 
what is proper and legal.

The request for an enlargement o f the injunctive order 
is denied.

Counsel will prepare and present an appropriate order 
in accordance with this memorandum.

( S gd) W alter  E. H o ffm a n

United States District Judge

Norfolk, Virginia 

July 30, 1964



57

MOTION OF DEFENDANT SCHOOL BOARD FOR 
APPROVAL OF CERTAIN ACTIONS

[filed September 4, 1964]

The defendant, The School Board o f the City of Norfolk, 
Virginia, represents unto the Court the following:

1. That certain children, numbering 195, and their par­
ents or guardians, who completed and returned choice of 
schools forms in the Spring of 1964 and thereby chose the 
schools these children wished to attend for the 1964-65 
school year, prior to August 31, 1964 requested permission 
to change their choices of schools.

2. That the majority of the requests contained reasons 
therefor and that these reasons include living nearer to 
the school now desired than to the school originally se­
lected and the elimination of a transportation problem, 
change of residence although still in the same school at­
tendance area, the school originally selected does not offer 
certain elective courses which are offered at the school 
now desired, failure to understand the choice when it was 
originally made, and change of mind.

3. That additional children, and their parents or guardi­
ans, who completed and returned choice of schools forms 
in the Spring of 1964, have requested and may in the near 
future request permission to change their choices of schools 
for the 1964-65 school year.

4. That the School Board has considered the requests 
which were made prior to August 31, 1964 and, while mind­



5K

ful of the provision in its plan1 for the attendance o f chil­
dren in the public schools of the City of Norfolk to the 
effect that children such as these must make their choices 
of schools for the ensuing school year not later than June 
15 of the current school year, is of the opinion that because 
o f the apparent uncertainties and some confusion in the 
minds o f a number o f the children and parents or guardians 
in making for the first time their original choices these 
requests should be granted, on certain conditions, if such 
granting of them meets with the approval of the Court.

5.That, by Resolution adopted on August 31, 1964, a 
certified copy of which is attached, the School Board:

a. On certain conditions, granted permission to those 
children, numbering 195, and their parents or guardians, 
who completed and returned choice of schools forms in the 
Spring of 1964 and who prior to August 31, 1964 re­
quested permission to change their choices of schools for 
the 1964-65 school year, to make such changes of choice 
and to complete, sign and file with the Division Superin­
tendent of Schools of the City of Norfolk, or someone 
designated by him, new choice of schools forms. The con­
ditions upon which this permission was granted are that 
this Court approve the action of the School Board in grant­
ing the permission and that the granting o f the permission 
does not establish a precedent and does not alter or waive 
any provision contained in the aforesaid plan1 for the at­
tendance of children in the public schools of the City o f 
Norfolk.

1 Principles T o Be Applied In Determining The Schools And Grades W hich 
Children W ill Attend And Outline O f Method O f Putting Such Principles 
Into Effect.



59

b. Made provision for the admission of these children 
in the schools which they now wish to attend, if such schools 
have their grades, pending the action of the Court.

c. Made provision for the admission in proper cases of 
additional such children, who have requested or may in 
the near future request permission to change their choices 
of schools, in the schools which they wish to attend, pend­
ing action o f the Court.

W H EREFO RE, the defendant, The School Board or 
the City of Norfolk, Virginia, moves the Court:

1. To approve its action, as set forth in its Resolution 
adopted on August 31, 1964, in granting permission to the 
195 children, and their parents or guardians, who made 
their requests so to do prior to August 31, 1964, to change 
their choices of schools for the 1964-65 school year; and

2. To approve of the School Board similarly granting 
such permission in proper cases to such additional children, 
and their parents or guardians, who have requested or in 
the near future may request permission to change their 
choices of schools for the 1964-65 school.

T h e  S chool B oard of t h e  C it y  of 
N orfolk , V ir g in ia

RESOLUTION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD 
OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

[filed September 4, 1964]

W H ER EA S, certain children and their parents or guard­
ians, who completed and returned choice of schools forms



60

in the Spring of 1964 and thereby chose the schools these 
children wished to attend for the 1964-65 school year, have 
now requested permission to change their choices of schools; 
and

W H ER EA S, the reasons given for requesting permis­
sion to change the choices, which include living nearer to 
the school now desired than to the school originally selected 
and the elimination of a transportation problem, change of 
residence although still in the same school attendance area, 
the school originally selected does not offer certain elective 
courses which are offered at the school now desired, failure 
to understand the choice when it was originally made, and 
change of mind, are such that the School Board is o f the 
opinion that the requests should be granted subject to the 
approval o f the United States District Court for the East­
ern District o f Virginia and on the other conditions herein­
after set forth; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by The School Board of the City 
o f Norfolk:

1. That permission is hereby granted those children and 
their parents or guardians, who completed and returned 
choice o f schools forms in the Spring of 1964 and have 
now requested permission to change their choices of schools 
for the 1964-65 school year, to make such changes of choice 
and to complete, sign and file with the Division Superin­
tendent o f Schools o f the City of Norfolk, or someone 
designated by him, new choice o f schools form s; provided, 
however, that this permission is granted on condition that 
the United States District Court for the Eastern District 
o f Virginia approve this action o f the School Board in 
granting the same and on condition that the granting of



61

the same does not establish a precedent and does not alter 
or waive any provision contained in the Principles To Be 
Applied In Determining The Schools And Grades Which 
Children Will Attend And Outline O f Method O f Putting 
Such Principles Into Effect.

2. That if on the opening day of the 1964-65 school year 
(September 3, 1964), the Court has not disapproved said 
grant of permission, these children shall be admitted in the 
schools which they now wish to attend, if such schools 
have their grades, on condition that the Court approve this 
action of the School Board.

3. That the Division Superintendent of Schools, or some­
one designated by him, notify these children and their par­
ents or guardians in accordance with this action.

4. That in the event there are additional children and 
their parents or guardians who request permission to change 
their choices o f schools for the 1964-65 school year and 
who have the same or similar reasons for doing so as those 
set forth in the preamble to this resolution, the Division 
Superintendent of Schools, pending action on such requests 
by the School Board, is authorized, if he deems it proper 
so to do, to admit such children in the schools which they 
now wish to attend on the same conditions upon which the 
School Board has herein granted permission to those who 
have now made such requests; provided the Court has not 
disapproved this action of the School Board and provided 
the maximum capacities of the schools are such that the 
children wishing to attend them can be accommodated.

A D O PTE D : August 31, 1964



62

O R D E R

[Entered October 22, 1964]

This action came on again to be heard on December 7, 
1963 upon the complaint in intervention of Carlotta Mozelle 
Brewer et al and the defendants’ answer thereto, the plain­
tiffs’ motion for further relief and the defendants’ answer 
thereto, the complaint in intervention o f Greta Denise Miller 
et al and the defendants’ answer thereto, the plaintiff’s 
motion for temporary restraining order, as to certain in- 
tervenors, which was treated as a complaint for temporary 
injunction and the defendants’ answer thereto, the testi­
mony, answers to interrogatories and exhibits offered by 
the parties and the record of the previous proceedings in 
this cause. Also considered by the Court, with the agree­
ment of counsel, were the report o f the defendants to the 
Court dated June 15, 1964 and the attached copy o f reso­
lution adopted by the defendant School Board on June 11, 
1964, and certain figures showing how the proposed plan 
o f the defendant School Board operated.

Upon consideration whereof and for reasons stated in 
the Memorandum of the Court filed on July 30, 1964, it is 
ADJUDGED, ORDERED and D ECREED:

1. That the plan o f the defendant School Board for the 
attendance of children in the public schools o f the City of 
Norfolk and the application of this plan, as described in 
said Memorandum, are constitutional and the same are 
approved.

2. That the plaintiffs’ motion for further relief is denied.



63

3. That the injunctive order entered by this Court on 
February 26, 1957 shall remain in effect, but that the 
plaintiffs’ motion for an enlargement thereof is denied.

4. That the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction 
as to certain intervenors is denied.

/ s /  W alter  E. H o f f m a n , 
United States District Judge

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

[filed November 20, 1 9 6 4 j

Notice is hereby given that Carlotta Mozelle Brewer and 
Demetria Yvonne Brewer, infants, by Oner Brewer, their 
father and next friend, and all others of the plaintiffs, 
hereby appeal to the United States Court o f Appeals for 
the Fourth Circuit from the order of this Court entered 
on October 22, 1964, by which order the Court:

(1 ) approved the plan of the defendant School Board

(2 ) denied plaintiffs’ motion for further relief (including 
plaintiffs’ prayer for reasonable counsel fees)

(3 ) refused to enlarge the injunction entered on Febru­
ary 26, 1957

(4 ) denied plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunction 
as to certain intervenors.

/ s /  H en ry  L. M a r s h , III 
O f Counsel



64

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT l-A-4

School Attendance Areas 
A s Shown On Maps

Senior High Schools

Granby
Maury
Norview
Booker T. Washington

Junior High Schools 
Azalea Gardens 
Blair

Campostella
Jacox
Madison

Northside
Norview
Rosemont
Ruffner
Willard

Elementary Schools

Ballentine 
Bay View 
Bowling Park 
Calcott 
Campostella

Schools Serving Such 
Attendance Areas

Granby, Booker T. Washington 
Maury, Booker T. Washington 
Norview, Booker T. Washington 
Booker T. Washington, Maury 

Granby, Norview— depending 
on residence

Azalea Gardens
Blair, Ruffner, Madison, Jacox, Campo­

stella— depending on residence 
Campostella, Blair 
Jacox, Blair
Madison, Northside, Blair— depending 

on residence 
Northside, Madison 
Norview, Rosemont 
Rosemont, Norview 
Ruffner, Blair 
Willard

Ballentine 
Bay View 
Bowling Park 
Calcott
Campostella, Tucker, Gatewood, Diggs 

Park, Lincoln— depending on resi­
dence



65

Carey
Chesterfield Heights 
Clay
Coleman Place 
Coronado 
Crossroads 
Diggs Park 
Douglas Park 
Easton
East Ocean View 
Fair lawn 
Gatewood 
Goode 

. Granby 
Ingleside 
Jackson 
Lafayette 
Lansdale L,.l 
Larchmont 
Larrymore 
Lee
Liberty Park 
Lincoln 
Lindenwood 
Little Creek Primary 
Little Creek Elementary 
Madison (Elementary 

Grades)
Marshall

Meadowbrook

Monroe

Carey
Chesterfield Heights, Liberty Park 
Clay
Coleman Place 
Coronado, Norview 
Crossroads
Diggs Park, Campostella 
Douglas Park 
Easton
East Ocean View 
Fairlawn
Gatewood, Campostella
Goode
Granby
Ingleside
Jackson
Lafayette
Lansdale
Larchmont
Larrymore
Lee
Liberty Park, Chesterfield 
Lincoln, Campostella 
Lindenwood, Monroe 
Little Creek Primary 
Little Creek Elementary 
Madison, Monroe

Marshall, Young Park, Titustown— de­
pending on residence 

Meadowbrook, Titustown— depending 
on residence

Monroe, Lindenwood, Titustown— de­
pending on residence



66

Norview Norview, Coronado
Oakwood Oakwood
Oceanair Oceanair
Ocean View Ocean View
Pineridge Pineridge
Poplar Halls Poplar Halls
Pretty Lake Pretty Lake
Sherwood Forest Sherwood Forest
Smallwood Smallwood, Stuart
Stuart Stuart, Smallwood
Suburban Park Suburban Park
Taylor Taylor
Titus Titus
Titustown Titustown, Monroe, Marshall, Meadow- 

brook— depending on residence
Tucker Tucker, Campostella
West West
Young Park Young Park, Marshall

New Schools

Roberts Park Roberts Park
Tarrallton Tarrallton
Tidewater Park Tidewater Park

December 4, 1963



67

EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 
OF DECEMBER 7, 1963

jje yfc

(tr 7) * * *

TH O M A SIN E PRUDEN
called as a witness by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs, 
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT E X A M IN A TIO N

BY MR. A S H E :

Q. Please state your name?
A. Mrs. Thomasine Pruden.

(tr. 8) Q. And where do you live, Mrs. Pruden?
A. 1314 Debree Avenue.

Q. And do you have any children?
A. I have five children.

Q. And what ages are those children?
A. Fifteen, thirteen, twelve, eight and six.

Q. Are all of these children in the public schools of the 
City o f Norfolk?

A. No.

■Q- What children are in the public schools now, in the 
City o f Norfolk?

A. The fifteen, thirteen, twelve and six.



68

Q. What Schools are they in?
A. Fifteen is in Maury High School.

Q. What is the name of the fifteen-year old child?
A. Josephine.

Q. And the next child ?
A. Thirteen and twelve are Oscar Jr., and Michael, are 

in Blair Junior High School.

Q. And the next child ?
A. Six-year old Bernard is in John Marshall school.

Q. And the other child?
(tr. 9) A. Edward Kevin is not in school.

Q. How old is Edward Kevin ?
A. He is eight.

Q. Eight years of age?
A. Yes.

Q. Has he ever attended school in the City o f Norfolk? 
A. Yes.

Q. What school?
A. Bowling Park.

Q. What year did he attend Bowling Park School?
A. Up until the end o f  the school year last year— 1963.

Q. Up until June, 1963?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you living on Debree Avenue in June, 1963? 
A. Yes, I was.



69

Q. In September of 1963, the beginning of the school 
year, why was it now that Edward Kevin was not entered 
in school ?

A. When I got ready to move in April I went to the 
school that Edward was enrolled in—

Q. What school was that?
A. Bowling Park school, and the principal informed 

(tr. 10) me that Robert E. Lee would be an all-Negro 
school in September and there would be no reason for me 
to make formal application for Edward.

Q. And where were you living at that time?
A. I was living at Debree Avenue.

Q. Well, where were you living when you made your 
application to Bowling Park school ?

A. I was living at 2941 Mapleton Avenue.

Q. Is that in Bowling Park?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. Bowling Park is a project in the City of Norfolk 
under the Housing Authority, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. If I understood you correctly, you stated that you 
talked with the principal of the Bowling Park School?

A. Yes. I did, sir.

Q. And what did this principal inform you ?
A. He told me that Edward would be transferred to 

Robert E. Lee for the coming school year and that about 
August 20th or 21st I should come to the school and get 
a transfer for Edward to take to Robert E. Lee. That I did.



70

Q. Did you take the— what happened when you took 
(tr. 11) the transfer to the Robert E. Lee school ?

A. There was a principal— another Mr. Williams there 
— and he refused the transfer and told me that my child 
should be entered at John Marshall School. I then took him 
to John Marshall School, and Mrs. Rosen, the principal, 
accepted my application. While I was in the office, she was 
taking my application, she called the School Board, and 
from what I could hear on her end and she asked them if she 
was within her right to accept the application for Bernard 
and Edward Kevin. I didn’t hear the other side o f the 
telephone, but I do know that after she hung up the tele­
phone she completed my application and told me that I would 
hear from her.

Q. Was Edward Kevin and— what is the other one?
A. Bernard.

Q. Were they admitted to the Marshall School?
A. Bernard has since been admitted.

Q. Was he admitted at that time?
A. No, he wasn’t.

Q. When was Bernard admitted to school?
A. After the other hearing.

Q. He appealed to the Court ? This was his first year in 
school ?

A. Yes.

(tr. 12) Q. And he was admitted to what school?
A. John Marshall.



71

Q. And Edward has not been admitted to the Marshall 
School ?

A. No, he hasn’t.

Q. Was Edward assigned or admitted to any school?
A. He was assigned to Young Park School.

Q. And why is he not in the Young Park School?
A. Because it is too far for an eight-year old child to go 

and I haven’t been letting him go.

Q. Is your husband with you?
A. Yes.

Q. Is he working?
A. Yes.

Q. Are you working?
A. Part-time.

Q. Part-time. Now, and you stated that you couldn’t 
take him to the Young Park School?

A. No, I couldn’t.

Q. Is there bus transportation to— from your section 
of Debree Avenue to the Young Park School?

A. No, there isn’t.

Q. No Virginia Transit Transportation?
A. No Virginia Transit bus that he could ride on or 

v tr. 113) transfer from one bus to another to get to the 
Young Park School.

Q. Then the only way he could get from where you live 
to Young Park School is to walk?

A. Yes.



72

Q. Did you attempt to get him in another school nearer 
to your home?

A. Yes.

Q. What school?
A. John Marshall, but I was refused.

Q. Did you attempt to get him in any other school?
A. I asked Mr. Lamberth would he let him go back to 

Bowling Park School, he could get a bus on the corner of 
where I live and get off at the school door, and he said that 
couldn’t be done, that he had been assigned to Young Park 
School.

Q. You are a Negro, are you not, Mrs. Pruden?
A. Yes, I am.

Q. Is the Marshall School predominantly— mainly made 
up of white or Negro students?

A. I would say white.

Q. Were you ever informed, Mrs. Pruen, as to why he 
was not admitted to the school that he applied ?

A. Yes, because I made application for Edward Kevin 
(tr. 14) after the May 31st deadline, due to the fact that 
I had been informed incorrectly by the principal of Bowling 
Park School.

Q. Was Bernard denied admittance in the beginning for 
the same reason?

A. Yes.

Q. He was later admitted under Court order ?
A. Yes.



73

TH E  C O U R T : I don’t think he was admitted under 
Court order.

MR. A S H E : I would like to rephrase that.

O. You were admitted by the School Board after you 
came into court?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you make your application to the Marshall 
School ?

A. It must have been September— it must have been 
around September 7th.

Q. Was that at the beginning o f the school term?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you appear at the school in person ?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. And how long have you lived in the area of the Mars­
hall School?
(tr. 15) A. I moved April 29, 1963.

MR. A S H E : That’s all.

MR. D A V IS : W e have no questions.

T H E  C O U R T : Step down.

(The witness stands aside.)

* **



74

E D W IN  L. LA M BER TH
called as a witness by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs, having 
been duly sworn, testified as follows:

D IRECT E X A M IN A T IO N  

BY  MR. TU C K E R :

Q. Will you state your name and address and occupation? 
A. Edwin L. Lamberth, 7421 Shirlane Avenue, Norfolk, 

Virginia, Superintendent o f Schools, Norfolk City.

=)c *  %

(tr. 17) * * *

Q. Do I understand then a white child can go to any 
high school he wants to in the City of Norfolk?

A. No, no, depending upon his residence he might 
choose either of two schools. One would be Booker T. 
Washington and the other would be Norview, if he lived 
in that general area. These lines that you see for the three 
high schools that are drawn there are lines that have been 
in existence for the older schools for generations.

Q. In other words, I understand the white child would 
have a choice to go to the school which serves his area or 
go to the Booker T  ?

A. No, because he would be in the Booker T. area— 
every child would have a choice o f two schools in the senior 
high school level.

Q. Well, a child— a white child who lived in the Norwood 
area, what would be his choice?



75

(ti. 18) A. He would have a choice of Norwood and 
Booker T. Washington.

Q. And a child who lives in the Granby area, what would 
be his choice?

A. Granby and Booker T.

Q. And a child who> lives in the Maury area, what would 
be his choice?

A. Maury and Booker T. Washington.

Q. All right. A  Negro child who lives in the Maury 
area, what would be his choice ?

A. He would have Maury and Booker T.

Q. And a Negro child who lives in Norview area, what 
would be his choice ?

A. He would have a choice of Norview or Booker T. 
Washington.

Q. That was put into effect when?
A. It was presented—-I don’t know the exact date, but 

it was in answer to some official paper from this Court.

y . Well, can we have an approximation of how many 
months ago that has been in effect ?

A. Well, we haven’t had a change of school term since 
it was presented to the Court. That is why I think it was 
presented in September and school was already open.

(tr. 19) TH E  C O U R T : The record would show. It was 
in response to a motion for further relief. Mr. Tucker, 
you filed it, you ought to know when you filed it.



76

MR. TU C K E R : I am satisfied with the-—

TH E  C O U R T : It is answered, I don’t know when they 
answered it.

BY  MR. TU C K E R :

Q. So that so far as the current school term is concerned 
this plan has had no effect upon this assignment of high 
school children?

A. Yes, it has, in that a child has moved his residence 
since school began and he has indicated his choice, he has 
been placed.

Q. Well, then, other than those who have moved their 
residence it has had no effect upon the current school term ?

A. You couldn’t— you don’t pick up children in the 
middle o f the term.

Q. Now, then, I want to refer you to the Answers to the 
Interrogatories— Number 3— I assume you are familiar 
with this document-—Answers to Interrogatories ?

A. Yes, sir.

(tr. 20) Q. In response to Interrogatory Number 3, it 
appears that there are 1589 white junior high school chil­
dren living in the junior high school attendance area— liv­
ing in the attendance area o f  Norview Junior High School.

A. This doesn’t have a copy o f the questions attached. I 
think I have a copy over there with the questions attached, 
and I’m sure I can follow you. What is Question 3? 
Question Number 3 says: “ State the number of Negro 
pupils and the number of white pupils, by grade level, 
residing in each attendance area established by the School



77

Board during the 1963-64 school term. If definite figures 
are unavailable, give the best projections or estimates avail­
able, stating the basis for any such estimates or projec­
tions.”  Here is the answer. Yes, sir, I have it now.

Q. Now, that discloses that there are 1500 white junior 
high school children living in the attendance area of Nor- 
view Junior High School, is that correct?

A. This says 1589.

Q. It also shows 1589 white children living in that at­
tendance area of Rosemont Junior High School, is that 
correct ?

A. That’s right.

(tr. 21) Q. Norview Junior High School and Rosemont 
Junior High School have contiguous areas, don’t they?

A. That’s right.

Q. Norview Junior High School is predominantly white 
and Rosemont is predominantly Negro?

A. Right.

Q. And the 1589 whites that you have indicated as 
residing in the area are the same 1589 that you have in­
dicated reside in the area of the other ?

A. That’s right, very similar situation that I described 
with the senior high school. In other words, those children 
would make a choice, that’s right, at the junior high school 
level.

Q. What I am trying to clear up is that the 1589 children 
refers to the same 1589 children?

A. That’s right.



78

Q. I take it from that then that there are white junior 
high school children living in what is designated on the map 
as the Rosemont area?

A. Well, they are living in an area, that’s right, where 
children now go to Rosemont, that’s right.

Q. So in other words we have some o f those 1589 chil­
dren living in the area that is delineated on the map as 
Norview Junior High School—
(tr. 22) A. That’s right.

Q. — area?
A. That’s right.

Q. And some of them living in the Rosemont area?
A. That’s right.

Q. All right. With reference to the elementary schools 
in this same answer to interrogatory, I think we have a 
showing 545 whites and 784 Negroes of elementary school 
age living in the Chesterfield elementary school zone, is 
that correct?

A. That’s right— 545.

Q. And we have those same figures of 545 white and 784 
Negro elementary school children living in the adjacent 
Liberty Park Elementary School area, is that corect?

A. Well, they are served— I don’t know that they live 
near the school, but they are served by the same school. 
In other words, these are two contiguous schools and chil­
dren are now crossing that line.

Q. I understand, I ’m—
A. They’re the same children, you’re right, they are the 

same children.



79

Q. And the Chesterfield Elementary School is pre­
dominantly white?
(tr. 23) A. That’s right.

Q. And the Liberty Park Elementary School is pre­
dominantly Negro?

A. That’s right.

Q. A  similar situation is true with respect to the Linden- 
wood Elementary School area? Your answer to the Inter­
rogatory indicates 683 White and 904 Negro children of 
elementary school age living in the Lindenwood area, is 
that correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. And 683 White and 984 Negro living in the Monroe 
Elementary School area?

A. That’s right.

Q. Those two areas are contiguous?
A. That’s right.

Q. And the Lindenwood School is totally Negro?
A. That’s right.

Q. And the Monroe School is predominantly white ?
A. That’s right.

Q. And the figures there are referring to the same chil­
dren?

A. Same children. In other words, an attendance area in 
this answer is an area served by a school, and these two 
areas are joint and the children cross the line between 
(tr. 24) between the two schools, that’s right.

* * *



80

(tr. 25) * * *

Q. Mr. Lamberth, we will still be referring to the An­
swers to Interrogatories Number 3 for one more compari­
son at least, and that is your answer was that in the area 
o f the Marshall Elementary School there are some 352 
white elementary school children, and in the area o f the 
Young Park Elementary School there are some 350 white 
elementary school children.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Am I correct in assuming that those figures refer to 
the same children ?

A. That’s right.

Q. The two school areas are contiguous ?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the Marshall Elementary School is predomi­
nantly white?

A. That’s right.

(tr. 26) Q. And Young Park Elementary School is 
predominantly Negro? Is totally—

A. Right.

Q. Is totally Negro?
A. Right.

Q. W e will for a few minutes be referring to the map 
showing the elementary school areas, which has been in­
troduced into evidence as—

TH E  C O U R T : Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1-A-l.



81

Q. — as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1-A -l. And 1 think another 
question will also refer to the Answers to Interrogatory 3. 
The— I believe that prior to the close of the last school 
session— that is during the 1962-63 school session— and in 
prior years, the Lee School— the Lee Elementary School 
was predominantly white as far as the student body was 
concerned ?

A. Was prior to— it was predominantly white prior to 
the present school session, yes.

Q. And the faculty and the staff was all white ?
A. Yes, sir, that’s right.

Q. Prior to that time. And I believe that now the faculty 
is all Negro?

A. Yes.

Q. When was the change made, sir ?
(tr. 27) A. July 1st, 1963.

Q. The— in earlier years the character of the neighbor­
hood surrounding Lee School was predominantly white ?

A. Yes.

Q. And in more recent years has changed to be pre­
dominantly Negro?

A. Yes.

Q. When was the present boundary for Lee School estab­
lished ?

A. It was established— I would have to look at the Board 
minute— but it was established prior to July 1, 1963. That 
is when the official school year begins. Although the chil­
dren do not start until September, business that is trans-



82

acted for that year, as much as possible, is transacted be­
fore July 1st, and it was prior to July 1st.

Q. And approximately how long prior ?
A. Not— a matter of weeks, I think, maybe a couple of 

months, that would still be eight weeks. I ’m not sure.

Q. Now, before that time did it have a definite prescribed 
boundary ?

A. Yes, it had a boundary, and there were more chil- 
(tr. 28) dren in the area that it formerly served than it 
could house.

Q. In earlier times— and by that I mean before this last 
change of the boundary, was the area which is now em­
braced in Marshall and Lee, we notice that there are two 
parts of the Marshall area— a northern part and a southern 
part, with a corridor connecting the two— was this com­
bined area o f Marshall and Lee divided into two parts or 
one— two parts or three parts as it now is ?

A. Two parts.

Q. In other words, there was— there was no corridor 
connecting two separate parts o f the Marshall School zone ?

A. Yes, sir, there always was.

Q. I see, sir.
A. Always was. The children living closer downtown 

always went to Marshall because Marshall is— lacks one 
city lot of being on Granby Street. There is only one busi­
ness— it backs up to Granby Street— and it is a natural way 
for children to get to that school.



83

Q. Now, I think your Answer to Interrogatory Number 
3 shows that there 631 Negro and 11 White elementary 
children living in the area which is now delineated on the 
map as Lee School area.

A. That was true when this interrogatory was made. I 
(tr. 29) understand there are more white children than 
that in Lee School now, so there must be more white chil­
dren there. That was the best estimate according to the 
question that I could make at that time.

Q. And your best estimate at that time as to— oh, yes,—
A. (continuing) : I think there are more white children 

than eleven in Lee School at this moment. I would have to 
go over and count them, but my understanding is there 
may be eighteen in school now.

Q. Well, at the time that you made up the Answers to 
the Interrogatories you report—

A. That’s right.

Q. — that there were 631 Negroes and 11 Whites attend­
ing the school.

A. That’s right.

Q. And you now are saying that there may be a few 
more whites?

A. That’s right.

Q. Now, returning to the map— and we notice certain 
boundaries here are marked in red.

A. That’s right.

Q. Specifically I see a red boundary separating the 
Coronado School zone from the Norview Elementary 
School zone.
(tr. 30) A. Yes, sir.



84

Q. And the Coronado School is one that is all Negro?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Norview is one which is predominantly white?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. A  similar boundary marked in red separates the 
Lindenwood School from the Monroe School areas, is that 
correct ?

A. That’s right.

Q. And Lindenwood School is all Negro and the Monroe 
School is predominantly white?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. A  similar boundary separates the Marshall School 
area from that— from the Young Park School area ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the Marshall School is predominantly white and 
the Young Park School is all Negro?

A. Right.

Q. A  similar boundary separates Liberty Park School 
area from the area of the Chesterfield School, is that cor­
rect?

A. Yes, sir.

(tr. 31) Q. And the Liberty Park School area is all 
Negro and the Chesterfield Elementary School is predomi­
nantly white?

A. Right.



85

Q. Then there are similar boundaries separating Lincoln 
from Gatewood, and Gatewood from Diggs Park, and one 
separating Diggs Park from Campostella and Tucker, and 
one separating Campostella and Tucker?

A. Right.

Q. That is correct ?
A. That’s right.

Q. And those five schools are all Negro schools?
A. One o f them is predominantly white; Campostella 

School is not.

Q. Campostella is predominantly white; the other four 
are all Negro?

A. All Negro.

Q. And 1 have covered all of the boundaries that are 
colored on this map as red?

A. I think you have. I haven’t checked it; I believe you 
have.

Q. Now, what was the significance of the red boundary, 
sir?

A. The significance o f the red boundary is this: That 
(tr. 32)there are fifty-two schools pictured on this map. 
In those few instances that you have mentioned, those 
schools are next to each other. They have a rapidly 
changing and mobile population, just as you mentioned, 
that you gave the illustration yourself of the Lee School 
District. As a result—-and as a result of the gradual transi­
tion period we have proceeded through desegration libera­
lizing our original procedures. These areas have children 
who are in one area of one school district going to another,



86

back and forth, across those red lines, and under the new 
principles that we give in the answer to your petition to 
the Court, we would keep these lines, certainly for this 
time, so that no child would be forced out of a school where 
he had chosen to go or where the Court had put him, be­
cause we were— we would make those, as the other forty- 
some schools are— single school serving single areas where 
every child would go to the school. In other words, this is 
to preserve the choice of a child of either race where we 
have let him go in the past or where the Court may have 
sent him. It could happen— I don’t know that this is true—  
or somebody had sent him— but that is to preserve in those 
rapidly changing areas where our past procedures have 
caused people to cross from one line to another, and that 
(tr. 33) is the purpose o f the line— to preserve freedom 
of choice.

Q. I believe I did omit a red boundary line here between 
Smallwood—

A. Between Smallwood and—

Q. — on the one side and Stuart and Monroe on the 
other ?

A. That’s right. Using this map, now, a child moving 
into one of these districts— or at the end of a school year 
making a choice if he’s in school— or moving into the city 
during the summer—-if he moves into a section where there 
are no red lines he would attend the school as outlined there, 
and those boundaries are generation old and have nothing 
to do purposefully except to keep the building comfortably 
and not overcrowded. If he moved into one of the areas 
that you have pointed out, he would have a choice of two 
schools, completely unfettered, and make his choice— he 
and his parents— and he would be assigned to that school.



8Z

Q. Is either Smallwood or Stuart School a totally Negro 
school ?

A. Smallwood is, I think.

Q, And Stuart School then is a predominantly white 
school ?

A. That’s right.

(tr. 34) Q. So that I take it then that any of these 
school areas, the boundary of which is not colored in red, 
that a child living in that area attends the school designated 
for that area?

A. Yes. The building— the building capacity of the 
school in that area will meet the need of that area.

Q. Are we speaking in terms of what is the present 
practice of the School Board and what has been the present 
practice— what has been the practice of the School Board 
with reference to school assignments, or are you speaking 
with reference to what the School Board is proposing to 
do in— some time in the future ?

A. I ’m talking about what we did for every child who 
applied before the May 31st deadline this past year, because 
that was still in effect last year, and I am talking about 
what we have done since May 31st with children who have 
moved into the city and have changed their school districts. 
On May 31st this year we were operating under the pro­
cedures as approved by this Court and accepted by every­
body, and we accepted applications up to that date and all 
children who applied as of that date were handled by the 
way that you have there, because during the summer we 
presented that as an answer to your plea to the Court.

* * *



88

(tr. 40) * * *
Q. I— returning to Suburban Park Area, Mr. Lamberth 

— and ask you does the fact that there is no boundary for 
that area colored in red indicate that a white child who lives 
in that area and is o f elementary school age must attend 
Suburban Park Elementary School?

A. Yes, every child in that area, yes, every child in that 
area will attend that school.

Q. All right.
A. That’s right.

Q. And the same thing is true with every other boundary 
— with every other school zone the boundary of which is 
not marked in red?

A. That’s right.

Q. That this option of a choice between one or two 
schools pertains— or will pertain only where the red bound­
ary so indicates?
(tr. 41) A. Yes, sir, and all races will choose, that’s 
right.

Q. Now, to go back to the Suburban Park— and I will 
ask you a question with reference to a White child a year 
ago, was he required to attend school in Suburban Park?

A. Unless he went through some same procedures as 
anyone else and was, through testing or adjustive services, 
determined to be better off somewhere else.

Q. But as a regular routine matter if he lived in the 
Suburban Park area he attended Suburban Park School?

A. That’s right.

Q. That’s what Pm trying to establish.
*  *  *



89

(tr. 55) * * *

Q. I see. If a parent of a White child living in Coronado 
School area carried his child over to the Suburban Park 
School and told the principal there where he lived and said 
that he wanted to enroll his child there, under your instruc­
tions to the principal what would the principal do?

A. Tell him that he didn’t live in the Suburban Park area.

Q. Where would he send him ?
A. He might send him to my office, to Moore, who 

is Pupil Services Director. He might call up and find out 
where he should— I doubt that the principal of sixty-six 
schools would know, according to the street, just what 
school he would go to.

(tr. 56) Q. I see, but eventually the administrator would 
send him to some school, would he not ?

A. Yes.

'S' 'fc ^

(tr. 59) * * *

Q. So I understand that the white person who applied 
to Suburban Park School would be told that he has a choice 
between Norview and Coronado?

A. That’s right. That’s right, because that is what that 
red line is between the two schools for. It is an area served 
by the two schools, and it would prevent us from forcing 
him to go to one school as much as it would keep us from 
forcing a Negro child to go to a certain school.

Q. Was that true as of August 6, 1963?
A. We have been following that ever since we filed this 

proposal as an answer to your attorney’s questions.



90

Q. May I finish my question?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. As o f August 6, 1963 would this white person have 
been told that he had a choice between Coronado and Nor- 
view?
(tr. 60) A. I think your reference to August 6th is prob­
ably the date of the application o f some— of the assign­
ments on some of these sheets. Well, to the best o f my 
knowledge we filed the answers in July or August and we 
perhaps hadn’t started working on them. I don’t know; 1 
can’t answer that directly, and if you were school adminis­
trator with as many assignments requested as we have you 
would understand why I would have to go to the records 
to ftnd out, but we filed that answer—

* * *

(tr. 61) *  *  *

Q. Would this white person on August 6th, who lived 
in the Coronado school zone and applied to the Suburban 
Park School, would he have been told that he had a choice 
between Coronado and Norview?

A. I think on August 6th it would have been a case 
such as the Judge said in which we weren’t doing all that 
we planned to, and we would have told him probably to go 
to Norview.

Q. You would have directed him to Norview School? .
A. Probably, probably so, that’s right ; that’s right.

Q. I thank you! Now, again referring to your answer, 
(tr. 62) your Interrogatory Number 6, we find that Rickie



91

R. Outlaw, presently attending Grade 1 in Liberty Park 
School, applied on February 6, 1963 to attend Chesterfield 
School. W e’ll assume the parents applied for him, and the 
application was denied on August 6, 1963 for reason letter 
“ G” , and the symbol indicates that that means, “ Applied 
for a higher grade than which they were qualified.” From 
that I assume his parents sought to enter him in the Chester ­
field School in a grade higher than Grade 1. My question is 
had the child been white would he not have been assigned 
to Grade 1 in Chesterfield School?

A. This was under the old plan. Yes, yes. This would 
have come before we were into the new procedures, that’s 
right.

Q. Well, as a matter of fact were it a white child and 
his parents wanted to enroll him in Chesterfield School and 
believed he belonged in Grade 3, he would have been ac­
cepted in Chesterfield School and put in the grade in which 
he belonged in the judgment of the school authorities, would 
he not?

A. The same thing would happen to the same child of any 
race today, that’s true.

Q. Could that question have been answered, “ Yes,” Mr, 
Lamberth ?
(tr. 63) A. Yes, I can answer yes, yes, that’s true.

Q. Now, the answers to the Interrogatories indicate that 
several children were denied for reason “ H ” , which is the 
symbol for “ Living at their present addresses on May 31 
and failed to submit application prior to deadline.” Now, to 
save a lot of time, let’s forget about race in this question. 
The question is has any child ever been denied the right 
to attend public school in the City of Norfolk because ap-



92

plication for attendance was not made on or prior to May 
31st?

A. May I repeat the question? Has any child ever been 
denied the right to attend school in Norfolk because he did 
not apply before May 31st?

Q. That is my question.
A. The answer is n o ; no child has ever been denied.

Q. As a matter of fact a parent of a beginner may enroll 
a child on the first day of the term that begins in September.

A. Yes, a child may enroll the first day of the term.

Q. Now, how about a child commencing Junior High 
School, a child commencing Junior High School enrolled 
in that high school on the first day of term without an 
application made prior to May 31st?
(tr. 64) A. Under the procedures we have operated un­
der, this and the case you just cited would depend on the 
race o f the child prior to this because we had special pro­
cedures for unusual cases. You are not familiar with our 
procedure evidently.

Q. I certainly am not.
A. Well, I don’t see how in the world you can ask me 

questions because you’re talking about them all the time.

Q. I asked you the question, can a child in junior high 
school, if his first application to enter junior high school 
was made at the beginning of school in September—

A. You can’t give a yes or no answer to that. You just 
can’t give it. I see you don’t know our procedures.

T H E  C O U R T : Let’s apply it as o f now, or as of the 
first day of September, 1964. Let’s get the answer in now.



93

TH E  W IT N E S S : All right. On the first day of Sep­
tember, 1964, a child could enter school by applying on that 
day.

Q. May 31st deadline won’t bother him with reference 
(tr. 65) to beginning at junior high school?

A. Beginning junior high school ?

Q. Yes.
A. Not if he— no, it wouldn’t because if he was in school 

we would know where he wanted to go. If he were in 
school we would have his choice; if he wasn’t in school—  
had come here since the May 31st deadline— so it wouldn’t 
bother him at all. If he was in one of our elementary schools 
and he went to junior high school, we would know where 
he wanted to go.

Q. How would you know ?
A. Because we would have his parent and him both 

put it down.

Q. When is that done?
A. W e’re ahead o f ourselves. That is going to be done 

at the same time they indicate whether they want to take 
Latin, French or music.

Q. Let’s see if we can get an answer as to what was 
the situation on the first day of September, 1963.

A. The first o f September, 1963 you could have two 
things happening; you could have people who were regular 
applicants before May 31st who were handled one way, and 
then you could have people who moved in the city or first- 
grader or something on August 25th that were handled 
(tr. 66) another way. You don’t know anything about it.



94

I understand it; you don’t. Because we changed it the mid­
dle o f the summer and I have been trying to tell you all 
afternoon.

Q. Let’s go back a year before that.
A. I don’t see it matters what we did in 1962. You can’t 

put me in jail for what happened then.

* * *

(tr. 68) * * *

Q. Now, then, before the answer to the motion for 
further relief, how was the junior high school to which an 
elementary school graduate would be assigned— how was 
that determination made?

A. That determination was generally made by the school 
•— elementary school he attended going into a junior high 
school, with the exception of those who chose to apply be­
fore May 31st and to avail themselves of the procedures 
which were put into force in 1959.

(tr. 69) Q. So that if a child got started into one ele­
mentary school, unless something changed him from that 
school and he graduated from that school, he would go to 
the same junior high school as all other children from that 
elementary school went?

A. That’s right.

Q. You have certain elementary schools which feed or 
satisfy certain junior high schools?

A. That’s right, and after 1959, as the desegregation has 
increased, o f course, if children of different races were in 
those schools they went on together, that’s right.



95

Q. But if a Negro child were in a Negro elementary 
school and unless he took steps to get out o f the stream, he 
went to a Negro Junior high school and thence to the Negro 
high school?

A. That was true prior to desegregation and prior to—  
well— of course— no, a Negro child could have been in an 
elementary school like Suburban Park in 1960 and gone 
on up to—

Q. No, if he started in a Negro elementary school.
A. Yes, if he went to a totally Negro elementary school, 

that’s right, he would have gone to aNegro high school 
prior—

(tr. 70) T H E  C O U R T : Unless he applied for a trans­
fer.

Q. As a matter of fact isn’t that yet true?
A. No, it wouldn’t be true now with this plan.

Q. Will you tell us when the break comes?
A. The. break comes at the end of the sixth grade or 

the seventh grade, whichever is the last grade in the ele­
mentary school, and every child, as I have explained here 
about a dozen times, who lives in an area served by more 
than one junior high school, he would have a choice. You 
have the elementary map up there now. That is the junior 
high school map. Yes, that’s it.

Q. And where do we have areas served by more than one 
junior high school delineated on this map?

A. This map-—doesn’t hardly—-this drawing— this is 
not easy, Mr. Tucker, but this map indicates, and we have 
some legend that— with me— that I could give you that



96

will help you understand both what we have been trying 
to say about the elementary and the junior and the seniot 
high, but in all but two junior high school areas, to keep 
from forcing children of both races who are now where 
they want to be from being elsewhere, children who live 
in those areas, except for those two junior high schools, 
(tr. 71) would have a choice when they finish the school. 
They have to make choices anyway, and it would be just one 
more choice; they have to choose whether they want to 
study one thing or another in high school, and along with 
that the parent would have to choose a school.

*  *  *

(tr. 75) * * *

CROSS E X A M IN A T IO N  (Continued)

BY  MR. D A V IS :

Q. Now, Mr. Lambert, with regard to these maps which 
have been introduced in evidence, the three of them, and 1 
am talking about all of them now, one that sets out attend­
ance areas for the elementary schools, one that sets and 
shows attendance areas for the junior high schools, and the 
third, which shows the attendance areas for the senior high 
schools. Will you state whether or not those various areas 
that are shown on those maps are substantially the same— 
I’m talking about their boundaries— now as they have been 
for many years?

A. They are substantially the same.

Q. Has there been any change in the boundaries of the 
senior high schools, the area serving the senior high schools.

A. None.



97

Q. Your answer is none?
A. None.

Q. Has there been any change with regard to the bound- 
(tr. 76) aries o f the areas serving the junior high school?

A. Only when new junior high schools are built.

Q. Could you tell us in what respects the boundaries of 
the areas serving the elementary schools have been changed ? 
I don’t mean necessarily in detail, street by street, but 
generally speaking I understand they are substantially the 
same as they have been for years and years. What, gener­
ally speaking, are the changes that have been made there ?

A. Generally speaking when a new school is built it is as­
signed to a certain area of the city, and that area is divided. 
That would be one change, and the other would be where, 
because of rapid change in population density that certain 
school districts had to be made smaller or larger, and that 
is the only time that they have been changed.

Q. Now, Mr. Lambert, I believe there has already been 
introduced in evidence an exhibit which has been identified 
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit l-A-4.

A. That is correct.

Q. For the purpose of the record would you explain that 
exhibit and what it shows ?

A. This exhibit is more or less a legend for use with 
those three maps which have been prepared. In the left- 
(tr. 77) hand corner it shows school attendance areas as 
shown on the maps. In the right-hand corner it says schools 
serving such attendance areas. In the case of all four senior 
high schools it shows, for instance, that a child living 
in the attendance area shown on the map marked “ Granby”



98

on the senior high school map, which is not showing right 
at this moment, would— through these principles that were 
promulgated this summer, or rather sent to this Court and 
to the attorneys here today— that the operation of those 
principles would mean that a newcomer to that area would 
have a choice of the two schools in the right-hand corner—  
Granby or Booker T. Washington, The child already en­
rolled in the Norfolk schools and now attending a school, 
but who would be by grade and residence eligible or— living 
in the Granby area as depicted on the map— and eligible 
for grades taught at Granby would have a choice of Granby 
or Booker T. Washington.

Q. This exhibit then put into words what is shown by 
the markings on the map?

A. That’s right.

Q. Or I should say maps?
A. Right. And in the junior high school the same thing 

would apply with the exception o f two areas— two junior 
high schools. In the elementary, I believe we have already 
(tr. 78) been through and shown the few contiguous 
schools where the choice would have to be made.

*  *  *

(tr. 97) * * *

REDIRECT E X A M IN A T IO N  (Continued)

BY  MR. TU CK ER:



99

Q. As I understand, you have already had the boundaries 
on paper but the controlling thing was to keep your stream 
based on racial lines?

A. You’re right; you’re right.