Lee v. O'Kelly Court Opinion

Public Court Documents
June 1, 1971

Lee v. O'Kelly Court Opinion preview

Date is approximate.

Cite this item

  • Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Lee v. O'Kelly Court Opinion, 1971. 53545516-b39a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/e6646d0d-ec75-4c4f-95c0-a2ecb9a391d5/lee-v-okelly-court-opinion. Accessed April 19, 2025.

    Copied!

    IN THE

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

N o .  3 0 4 0 4

CYNTHIA, MARY LEE, and FLORA ANN GEORGE,
ETAL,

Plain tiffa-Appellants,
versus

H. B. O’KELLY, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.

A ppeal from  the United S ta tes D istrict Court for the  
Southern D istrict of Georgia.

(June  1,1971)

B efore WISDOM, C ircuit Judge, DAVIS*, Judge, and  
GOLDBERG, C ircuit Judge.

WISDOM, C ircuit Judge: This case  deals w ith re ­
m ed ia l education p ro g ram s in  a school system  under­
going desegregation. U nfortunately, th e  plaintiffs have  
concen tra ted  too m uch of their effort here on the im ­
proper p a st actions of the school board. The righ ts 
and wrongs of the specific p a s t actions a re  no longer

*U. S. Court of Claims, Washington, D.C., sitting by designation.



2 GEORGE, ET AL. v. O’KELLY, ET AL.

the sub ject of dispute. There is, however, still a live  
issue. T hat is the p resen t and fu ture  operation of th e  
rem ed ial program . We rem and  the case to the d istric t 
court for fu rth e r consideration.

The public school system  of Oandler County, Georgia, 
is 58 percen t white and 42 percen t black. There are  
th ree  schools in the system . P rio r to the 1970-71 school 
y e a r  one of the  schools was a. tw elve-year all-black 
school; one was an overw helm ingly white e lem en tary  
school and one ,w asr ,ap overw helm ingly white high 
school. D uring the w inter of 1969-70, the school system  
was o rdered  to d ism antle  its seg rega ted  p rog ram  and 
to c luster its th ree  schools so; th a t all children in each 
grade would be in the  gam e school. H aving agreed  to 
com ply w ith the court order, the school d istric t be­
cam e eligible for federa l funds th a t had  previously 
been cut off for noncom pliance .with the desegregated  
guidelines.

i
U nder Title 1 of the E lem en ta ry  and Secondary E du­

cation Act of 1965, 20 XJ.S.C. §241ia et seq., the school
system  was eligible.for g ran ts  am ounting to $120,000
for support of p rog ram s to m eet “the special education­
al needs of educationally  deprived children.” In F eb ru ­
ary  1970 the county school board  decided not to apply 
for these funds. At the tim e of the decision the sta tu te  
provided that, if the funds w ere not used by the1 county 
for a sum m er program , they would be red istribu ted  to 
other counties in Georgia. The board ’s reasons for de­
ciding to pass up the opportunity to use these funds 
a re  uncertain. The appellants alleged th a t it was sim ­
ply because, under the board’s incorrec t understanding



GEORGE, ET  AL. v. O’KELLY, ET AL. 3

of the federa l guidelines, only black children would 
benefit from  a Title 1-funded sum m er program .

P a re n ts  of b lack children sued in federa l d is tric t
court to requ ire  the board  to apply for and m ake use 
of the funds to conduct a  su m m er program . They con­
tended th a t the board  should be requ ired  to do th is for 
two reasons: 1) the board ’s m otive in refusing to apply, 
for the funds w as unconstitutional; 2) as p a r t  of its af­
firm ative  duty to d ism antle  the  dual school system , the 
board  had a  duty to m ake use of the funds to provide 
rem ed ia l education to p rep are  black students for th e ir 
f irs t y e a r in an in teg ra ted  school system . The plaintiffs 
nam ed  as defendants the county school superintendent, 
the m em bers- of the county school board, and the s ta te  
superin tenden t of schools.

The d istric t court for the N orthern  D istric t of Georgia, 
A tlan ta  Division, w here the plaintiffs filed the action,, 
tran sfe rred  the case to the d is tric t court for the South­
e rn  D istric t of. Georgia. T hat court held a hearing  
June 10, 1970. By the tim e of the hearing, an  im portan t 
change had occurred  in the law. Money not used by 
the county for a sum m er p rog ram  would no longer 
im m ediately  be red istribu ted  to o ther counties. This 
m oney would now be availab le for the school board ’s 
use during the regu lar 1970-71 school year.

At the  hearing  the  school superin tenden t explained 
the decision n o t to have a sum m er p rog ram  with th ree  
reasons. F irst, still operating under ia m isim pression 
about restric tions on the composition of the sum m er 
p rogram , the superin tendent said  the  board  had  de­



4 GEORGE, ET AL. v. O’KELLY, ET AL.

cided th a t it would be b e tte r to spend the m oney during 
th e  school y e a r when it could benefit both b lack and 
white educationally  deprived children th an  during th e  
su m m er w hen it could be used only fo r b lack  children. 
Second, he siaid th a t renovations req u ired  by th e  change 
of g rade s tru c tu re  in th e  school buildings would p re ­
ven t the use of the  buildings for a sum m er program . 
Third, he said  th a t the  person who otherw ise would 
run  such a  p ro g ram  would not be availab le  during the 
sum m er.

The d is tric t court m ade  no findings on th e  original 
m otivation of the  board  in deciding not to have the sum ­
m e r progrtam. R ath er he view ed the  controversy  from  
the  fac ts  availab le  a t the time- of the  hearing , including 
th e  change th a t allowed the  board  to  c a rry  the  funds 
over to the  reg u la r school year. The judge sta ted  th a t 
th e  problem  in the  case- w as not w hether to have  a r e ­
m ed ia l p rog ram  but only w hen  to have  it. This, he 
held, was an  adm in istr ative r a th er th an  a  constitutional 
question. And he found th a t the board ’s adm in istra tive  
decision w as not unreasonable, a rb itra ry , or an abuse 
of -discretion.

The sum m er of 1970 is beyond our pow er to recall. 
Any possible unconstitu tional m otivation for the de­
cision not to  have a  sum m er p ro g ram  during 1970’ is 
irre lev an t now in determ ining  in junctive relief with 
resp ec t to  a  rem ed ial p ro g ram  in th e  C andler County 
schools. According to the- briefs of the- appellees, the 
school system  has used Title I funds to run  a 1970-71 
reg u la r y e a r  rem ed ia l p rog ram  -and p lans to ru n  pro­
g ram s during the sum m er of 1971 and during the 1971-



GEORGE, ET AL. v. O’KELLY, ET AL. 5

72 school year. W ithin the fac tu al context now before 
us the orig inal dispute is moot.

H ow ever we do not dism iss this case. D uring the h e a r­
ing below and in argum en t before th is Court, the plain- 
tiffs-appellantsi suggested  th a t b lack  children w ere in 
g re a te r  need of rem ed ial education because of a long 
h istory  of inferior education and they  ra ised  questions 
as to w hether the  extensive testing  conducted by the  
school board  w ith Title I funds will be  used to divide 
studen ts into achievem ent track s, which m igh t resu lt 
in  the  reestab lishm ent of segregation  w ithin the  school. 
Cf. Hobson v. Hansen, D.D.C. 1967, 269 F. Supp. 401; 
Note, “E quality  of Educational Opportunity: A re ‘Com­
pensato ry  P ro g ram s’ Constitutionally R equired?” 42 
So. Calif. L. Rev. 146, 157 (1969). Also in the  hearing  
below, the plain tiffs’ expert w itness suggested th a t inso­
fa r  as the  school board  was spreading  the  Title I funds 
throughout the system  ra th e r  th an  concen trating  them  
on those students who a re  re la tive ly  m ore  educationally  
deprived, the  board  w as stray ing  from  the  purpose of 
Title I.

On rem and, the d istric t court should hold a  hearin g  
on the operation and planning of the  C andler County’s 
Title I p rogram . The court should consider w hether 
achievem ent grouping or rem ed ial p rog ram s during 
the  reg u la r school y e a r resu lt in rac ia l segregation  
w ithin the school. If so, the court should inquire w hether 
th is resu lts  from  the county’s provision of re la tively  
inferior education to the  black com m unity in the past. 
If this should be the case the  court should consider 
w ays to achieve the rem edial p rog ram  without m ain-



6 GEORGE, ET  AL. v. O’KELLY, ET AL.

tam ing seg rega ted  classroom s. F o r instance, one w ay 
to do this wo-uld be to concen trate  rem ed ia l p ro g ram s 
during the sum m er. Also, if the  court finds th a t b lack 
children have a low er educational achievem ent level 
because of inferior education to  the  b lack com m unity in 
the  past, it should consider w hether the  board ’s alloca­
tion of Title I funds com ports with, its duty to overcom e 
any special educational deprivation of b lack children 
due to p a s t discrim ination. See Plaquem ines Parish  
School Board v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 817, 
831; United S ta tes v. Jef ferson County Board of E duca­
tion, 5 Cir. 1966, 372 F.2d 836, . , 893, aff’d en banc,.
1967, 380 F.2d 385, 394. The purpose of Title I of the  E le­
m en ta ry  and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is con­
g ruen t w ith the  affirm ative  duty of the board  to! take 
appropria te  action to overcom e any effects of p a s t r a ­
cial discrim ination. . ,

The judgm ent of the  d is tric t court is VACATED and 
th is case  is REM ANDED to the d istric t court for p ro­
ceedings consistent w ith this opinion. The costs, of ap ­
peal shall be divided equally betw een the parties.

Adm. Office, U.S. Courts—Scofields’ Quality Printers, Inc., N. O., La..

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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


Additional info

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

Return to top