Memorandum of Decision and Order

     [||7d956e3e-ed28-4bbb-99e4-c4fa9069448e||] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

ofa 

- 

Charlotte Division 

Civil Action No. 1974 
to 

. 

JAMES E. SWANN, et al, ~ Plaintiffs, 

v 
LJ 

oh 

THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD 

OF EDUCATION, et al, : 

Defendants. 

"- 

  

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION : 

AND ORDER 
04 

  

  

LJ 

James B. McMillan, District Judge 

A 
  

[Ww 

  

 



  

  

  

Page 
Te SUMMARY eee sou sume so se so in ce crore sm mc sm se ms a se ot 3. 

IT. DRIFF HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS ~—-—rsremmipiemmrmmmmm— 8, 

III. THE EXTENT OF CONTINUED SEGREGATION - AND ~~ 
ITS RESULTS —=—= === mmm mm eee eee eee 7. 

IV. THE LEGAL BASIS FOR DESEGREGATION: ———==g=mm=m—mmm-m 9. 

A. Segregated public schools are : 
unconstitutional .===—= meme m——e 9. 

B. "Racial balance" is not required 

* by this court.——=——mmmm me ~ 10. 

C. "Bussing” is still an irrelevant issue.=-=-—=—- 10. 

«+ Do This is a local case in a local court--a 
lawsuit--to test the constitutional rights 

of local people .~~wmn==nmm- rn 11. 

E. The issue is not the validity of a "system," 

but the rights of individual people.-=======—- 12. 

F. The issue is one of Constitutional Law--Not 

Politics.,—===mmmmemm mr hp. 18 

G. The duty to desegregate schools does not 
depend upon the Coleman report, nor on any 
particular racial proportion of students.---- 14. 

V. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ‘SPECIFIC METHODS AND 
THE OVERALL PLANS AVAILABLE TO DESEGREGATE THE 
BLACK CHARLOTTE SCHOOLS , == mm rm mmm mom mm oe cm om om oe mo mm em em om 16.: 

A. The facts under which any question of 
"reasonableness" must be' judged. a a ht a a le. 

Reasonableness of methods. 202023 1 221 26. 

The various plans .=====—memee nr ———————————————— 27. 

og The 5/4 Majority Board Plan.——~=—==m=—mm=- 27. 

2, The HEW plLan.,= r= =m mmmmmnym mmm. 27. 

3. The court order of February 5, 1970, 

including the Finger. Plan.==m=abweummmman 29. 

4. The 4/5 Minority Board Plan.-—======——=== oe, 

5. An earlief draft of the Finger plan.--==-- ‘30. 

VI. A RESERVATION CONCERNING REASONABLENESS VERSUS 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ——=—=—===m—m oem om mee 31, 

  

 



  

I. 

SUMMARY 

Pursuant to the mandates of the Supreme Court of the United 

States and the Fourth Circuit Court oe appeals, . further hearings 
J 

(eight days of them) have been conducted July 15-24, 1970, 

regarding methods for desegregation of the Sobilie schools of 

Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and the known 

plans for desegregation of the elementary schools have been ~ 

" reconsidered. 

The court again finds as a fact that compliance with all 
$ vv 

parts of the desegregation order for senior high, junior high 

and elementary schools now in effect will require, at the most, 

transportation of 13,300 children on 138 busses. 

The oleSentany portion of the oxaer will eanire, at the 

most, transporting 9,300 children oa 90 busses. The defendants 

‘already own or control at least 80 safely operable busses not 

“ae, on regular routes, and they oneRat early delivery of 28 

more new ones. Such busses as Ya be needed beyond these 108 

can be Boszoved for a year without cost from the State. 

No capital outlay will be Foniired this year to comply with 

the court's order. The School Board and the county government 

have ample Sulolns and other funds on hand to replace with new 

"busses as many of the used busses as 1970-71 experience may show 

they. actually need. If they Nave to buy 120 new ones, at $5,500 

each, the cost will approach $660,000, which is less than the 

cost of two days' operation of the schools. 

Regardless of any order of this court, all children assigned 

to any school more than 1-1/2 miles from home are, under state 

law and regulation, now entitled to bus transport. 

\ 

  

 



  

~ 
> 

The 5/4 School Board majority have not obeyed the orders 

of the Circuit Court to prepare a new plan for elementary 

schools in place of their rejected plan. The Snr ordered 

plan for all schools has been in effect since June 29, 1970 

under the mandate of the Supreme Court. : 

The School Board has not used all reasonable means to 
x 

desegregate the elementary schools. 

- 

At least three reasonable plans are available to the Board: 

(1) he abut ordered (Finger) plan; (2) the 4/5 minority Board 

("watkins”) plan; and (3) an earlier draft of the Finger plan. 

The Circuit Court directed this court to have a plan in 

effect for the opening of school in the fall, and the Sunrine 

Court on June 29, 1970 put this court's February 5 order eck 

into effect pending these proceedings. The court ordered 

(Finger) plan is the only complete plan before the court, and 

it is a rezsonable plan. The goakd is herein Atrsetad bo put 

the court crdered plan (with authorized modifications, if 

desired) into effect with the opening of school in the fall, - 

unless they exercise the options set out herein to adopt the 

4/5 minority Board plan (the "Watkins" plan) or an earlier 
- « : 

draft of the Finger plan, or any combination of these three 

plus excerpts pion the HEW plan, which complies with the 

directives in the February 5 order. The Board is directed 

to notify the court in writing by noon on August 7, 1970, as 

. to the course of action which it has voted to Sold 

Board plans for desegregation of the faculties of all 

schools and of the student bodies of the senior high schools 

and the junior high schools are approved. 

  

 



  

II. 

BRIEF HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS. 
  

On April 23, 1969, after lengthy hearings and research, 

an order was entered that the defendants submit a plan for the 

desegregation of the schools of Charlotte and Mecklenburg ‘County, 

North Carolina, to be predominantly effective in‘ the fall of 
\ 
~ 

1969, and to be completed by the fall of 1970. Among other 

things the court found that under North Carolina:law there is- 

no "freedom of choice” to attend any school; that the Board 

of Education has the total control over the assignment of 
v 

students to schools; and that residence has never created a 

right to attend a Th Le school. ‘It was further found 

that all the black and predominantly black schools or thie 

school system are Tilegaiiy sontesbed. The November 7, 1969 

opinion contained detailed guidelines for desegregating this 

particular group of schools, and included the following findings: 

"The black schools are for the most part in black 

residential areas. However,:that does not make their 

segregation constitutionally benign. In previous 

. opinions the facts respecting their locations, their 

controlled size and their population have already been 

found. Briefly summarized, these facts are that the 

present location of white schocls in white areas and 

of black schools in black areas is the result of a 

varied group of elements of public and private action, 

all deriving their basic strength originally from public 

law or state or local governmental action. These ele- 

ments include among others the legal separation of the 

races in schools, school busses, public accommodations 

and housing; racial restrictions in deeds to land: 

zoning ordinances; city planning; urban renewal: 

location of public low rent housing; and the actions 

of the present School Board and others, before and 

since 1954, in locating and controlling the capacity 

of schools so that there would usually be black schools 

handy to black neighborhoods and white schools for white 

neighborhoods. There is so much state action embedded. 

in and shaping these events that the resulting segrega- 

tion is not innocent or "de facto," and the resulting 

schools are not "unitary" or desegregated." 

  

  
  

      

 



      

~ 

Segregation of black children into black schools is not 

because of residential patterns, but because of assignment and 

other policies of the &chool Board, including the call upon 

segregated housing and school site selection to lend respectability 

to those policies. 

(There is attached hereto 2h 18=page exhibit listing approxi- 

mately 65 sections of the Gehsral: Shatubes of North Carolina eg 

‘ . ie 

2 sections of its Constitution under which the segregation of ‘the 
. 34 5 

black race in North Carolina has been the policy.of our Constitu- 

tion and the letter of our statutes for many years. Many of 

I 
4 

these provisions were repealed by the 1969 General Assembly, 

but most of them were still on the books when the April 23, 

1969 opinion was written.) 

A consultant, Dr. John A. Pinson, Jr» was appointed by 

the court in December, 1969, to draw a desegregation plan after 

it became apparent that the defendants had no such plan and had 

not resolved to prepare one which ‘would desegregate the schools. 

’ 

The development of the plan is described in the order of February 

'5, 1970, the supplemental historical memorandum of March 21, 1970, 

and the supplemental £indings of fact dated March 21, 1970. 

Briefly stated, the court appointed consultant prepared plans 

for the desegregation of all the black schools. Faced with the 

imminent existence of valid desegregation plans, the Board then 

went to work and prepared some plans of its own. 

This court approved the Board's plan for senior high schools 

(with one minor change); it gave the Zool Board a choice of 

several plans or procedures as to junior high schools; and it 

disapproved the Board's plan for elementary schools, because it 

      

 



  

» 

left half the black children in black schools, and ordered 

into effect one of the plans design=d by the cousuliant, Dr. 

Finger, for desegregation of the elementary schools. 

The Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay. as to the 

elementary schools and the Supreme Court left the stay in’ 

effect. The district court then, in the order of March 25, Li 

1970, postoensd until September 1, 1970, the irpleneniation 

of the plans for junior and senior high schcole because the 

« stays tosusd by. the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court had 

taken off the pressure for mid-year 1969-70 desegregation. 

Be fore the appeal to the Fourth Circuit was concluded, 

the defendants, including the Governof and the State Board: 

of Education, voiced strenuous opposition to compliance with 

the court order, basing their ohiectinhs in part upon parts 

of the 1964 Civil Rights Law and upon North Carolina's "anti- 

SuBeing law" which had been passed by the General Assembly a= 

few weeks after this court's original April 23, 1969 order. 

A three-judge court was sonvensd and has met and has decided 

that the vantiibussing law” in pertinent part is unconstitu- 

tional, and eventually issued Aroorints injunctions. 

The Circuit.Court of Appeals Stich Ledndd its opinion on 

May 26, 1970. It affirmed the principal findings OF Sack and 

legal conclusions of the district court, including the finding 

that the segregated residential housing upon which the defendants 

relied for defense was caused by forces deriving their basic 

strength from governmental action. It (1) approved the desegre- 

gation of faculties, (2) approved the plans for desegregation of 

junior high schools, and (3) approved the plans for desegregation 

senior high schools 
of/all as ordered by the district court. It expressly disapproved 

, 

S 

  

 



  

» 

the Board's plan for elementary schools Bicnuse Ae left half 

the black elementary children in "black" soho and it 

remanded the matter for the school board to prepare a new 

plan using all reasonable means of desegregation, and for 

the district court to reconsider the iostunment oe elementary 

pupils under a theory of "reasonableness." The district court 

was directed to put a plan 1nd egrecs for the fall term 1970. 

The Supreme Court on June 29, 1970, entered an order b 

reading in pertinent part as follows: 

«ee The petition for a writ of certiorari is 

granted, provided that the judgment of the Court 
of Appeals is left undisturbed insofar as it remands 
the case to the district court for further proceedings, 
which further proceedings are authorized, and the 
district court's judgment is reinstated and shall 

remain in effect pending those proceedings." 

At the July 15-July 24 hearings the defendants announced 

thal: 

(a) Faculties have been ‘assigned for all schools 

according to the February 5,°1970 order, so that when 

schools open in September all faculties will have 

about 75% white teachers and akout 25% black teachers; 

(b) The senior high schools will be desegregated 

this fall in accordance with the plan previously approved 

by the district court and by the Circuit Court; : 

(c) The junior high schools will be desegregated 

this fall in accordance with the plan previously approved 

by the district court and by the Circuit Court; and 

(d) As to elementary schools the majority of the 

defendants have no official plan and no plan of action 

for desegregation except the plan, previously rejected 

by both district court and the Circuit Court, which would 

leave half the black elementary children in segregated 

schools. EA 

  

 



  

Since the school board has refused to obey the Circuit 

Court's instructions to file a new elementary pain by June 

30, 1970, it might, were this an ordinary case, ‘have no standing 

to be heard further. However, die case affects numerous people 

who, though not Board members, are entitled to Have the matter 

further considered as fully and fairly as possible. 

This court has tried to solic faithfully the orders of 

tho Supreme cant and the Circuit Court. This presents some - 

unique piciTens, the Circuit Court's "reasonableness" order 

is vague; the Supreme Court's order allowing certiorari is 

cryptic, and raises and LeRves unanswered several major ques-~ 

tions; neither order is a clear guide’ for this court. evar, 

this court believes that, regardless of the Board's dontinued: 

default, this court's duty is to reconsider the elementary 

Basoatesstion problem in view of the questions whether the 

methods previously required by th eowet are reasonable and 

whether the Board has exhausted all sensonible methods available 
, 

£0 it, 

THE EXTENT OF CONTINUED SEGREGATION - AND ITS RESULTS. 
  

bea 

The schools are still segregated as described in this 

court's memorandum opinion of November 7, 1969. Over 9,000 

Black tan stbana schools that ave 100% black. Two-thirds 

(16,000) of the black children still attend racially identifiable 

"black" schools. Fifty-seven schools are "white" and twenty- 

five are predominantly "black." 

The tangible results of segregation continue to be apparent 

from the 1969-70 Stanford Achievement Tests in Paragraph Meaning 

and Arithmetic, given during the sixth month of school, for 

7 

  

 



  

grades 3, 6, 8 and 10. In "black" schools third graders 
1 

perform at first grade or early second grade levels, while 

their COnbeNporariny at "white" schools pensouniint levels 

generally from one to two grades higher. Sixth graders in 

the black schools (Double Oaks and Bruns Avenue, for example) 

perform at third grade levels while their contemporaries at 

Olde Providence, Pinewood, Lansdowne and Myers Park perform 

at seventh or eighth TRL ed nT eighth grade we 7 

see Piedmont Junior High students reading at early fifth 

grade levels while their contemporaries at McClintock and 
N v 

Alexander Graham read at early ninth grade levels. In the 

tenth grade, on a scale isis the sesiius de 50, the black 

high school, West Charlotte, had English scores of 38.30 and 

mathematics scores of 35.89; Harding, nearly half black, had 

scores of 42.89 and 40.76; while the obviously "white" schools 

had score henaing from 43.2 to 53.2. At First Ward- Elementary 

School only two black third graders ort ot 119 tested scored 

as high as third grade, while 100 were still at first grade 

level of proficiency as to paragraph meaning. 

Of factors affecting educational progress of black children, 

  
  

segregation appears to be the factor under control Of the state 

which still constitutes the greatest deterrent to achievement. 

  

 



  

» 

| Iv. 
{ 
| 

  

THE LEGAL BASIS FOR DESEGREGATION. 

  

A. Segregated public schools are unconstitutional .--Desegre- 

gation is based on the Constitution as interpreted in Brown v. 

  

Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), where: the Supreme Court 

said: i 

"!'Segregation of white and colored children in public 

schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored 

children. The impact is greater when it has the ’ 

sanction of the law; for the policy of separating 
; the races.is usually interpreted as denoting the 

inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority 

affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segrega- 

tion with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency 

to [retard] the educational and mental development of 
Negro children and to deprive them of some of the bene- 

fits they would receive in a racially] integrated 

school system.” bs 

  

        

  

      

    

  

*. % % 

"We conclude that in the field of public education 

the decctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. 
Separate educational facilities are inherently 

MRSaUEY.. Sede (Emphasis added.). 
  

  

Green v. New Kent County, 391 U. S. 430 (1968) placed 
e 

upon school boards the burden 

" ... to come forward with a plan that promises 
realistically to work, and promises realistically 

to work pow.” {and} . 

" ... to convert promptly to a system without a 

'‘white' school and a 'Negro' school, but just schools.” 

(Emphasis, added.) : 
  

The principal difference between New Kent County, Virginia, 

and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, is that in New Kent 

County the number of children being denied access to equal 

education was only 740, whereas in Mecklenburg that number 

    exceeds 16,000. If Brown and New Kent County and Griffin v. 

    
  

! Prince Edward County and Alexander v. Holmes County are confined 

to small counties and to "easy" situations, the constitutional 

big 

  

 



  

right is indeed an illusory one. A black child in urban Char- 

lotte whose education is being crippled by unlawful segregation 

is just as much entitled to relief as his contemporary on a 
pe F 
a 

4 

Virginia farm. 
~ 

B. "Racial balance” is not required by this court.-=~The 
  

November 7, 1969 order expressly contemplated vide variations 

in permissible school population; and the I, 5,:1970 

order approved plans for the schools whith pupil populations 

varying from 3% at Bain Elementary to 41% at Cornelius. This 

is not racial balance but racial diversity. The purpose is 
. Ld 

not some fictitious "mix," but the compliance of this school 
rane | y's 

system with the Constitution by eliminating the racial charac- 

teristics of its schools. 

C. "Bussing” is still an irrelevant issue.--Until the 
  

end of the 1969-70 school year, state law and regulations 

authorized bus transportation for Alnowi all pubis sschool 

chiloven who Lived wove than Tels miles grok the sohoolite 

which they were assigned. The excluded few were those innér- 

city children who both lived and attended school within the 

old (pre-1957) city limits. . 

If an inner-city child was assigned to a sdburbrn or 

a ural school, or if a rural or suburban child yee assibred 

to an inner-city school, he was entitled to bus transport. 

Under those regulations, virtually all the children 

covered by the court order of February 5, 1970, were entitled 

  

to bus transport under then existing state regulations even 

if the order of this court had not mentioned transportation. 
    

In Sparrow v. Gill, 304 F.Supp..86 (1969), a three-judge 

federal court ordered an end to the discrimination against the 

\ 

[0 

  

 



  

+ offered it to inner-city children. 

inner-city children (and thereby in effect ordered bus transport 

for those children) by requiring the school anthib itis to 

discontinue transport for suburban children unleds they also 

The state authorities have AnhOtsaSA intention and promul- 

gated rules to comply with this decision by providing transport 

on the usual basis for all city ohilduen who live over 1-1/2 

miles from school. | i » 

The Joual School Board, in its last plan for partial 

J 

elementary desegregation, stated that 

"Transportation will be provided to and from 

school for all students who are entitled thereto 

under state law and applicable rules and regula. 

tions promulgated by the State.” 

(Without such transportation even the Board's own plan would 

have left children, in numbers they estimate at nearly 5,000, 

assigned to schools too far away to, reach.) 

In view of the above facts, every child assigned to any 

school over 1-1/2 miles from his home is entitled to bus 

transportation in North Carolina. 

The issue is not, "Shall we bus children?" but "Shall 

we withhold transportation already available?” 
  

ha 

In Griffin v. Prince Edward County, 377 U. 8S. 218 {(1%4), 
  

[] 

the Supreme Court held that a county could be required to re- 

oasis an entire public school system rather than keep it closed 

to avoid desegregation. The same principle would seem to apply 

here. 

D. This is a local case in a local court-—-a lawsuit--to 
  

test the constitutional rights of local people.~~The principles 
  

  

which outlaw racial discrimination in public schools certainly 

  

 



  

; 

are of nationwide application, but the facts and results may 

vary from case to case. This is a local suit involving actions 

of the State of North Carolina and its local governments and 

agencies. The facts about the development of black Charlotte 

may not be the facts of the development of Yack Onlin or 

black Denver or New York or Baltimore. Some Seiiey court will 

have to pass on that problem. The decision of the case involves 

"local history, local statutes, local geography, local demography, 

local state history including half a cehtury of bus transporta- 

tion, local zoning, local school boards--in other words, local 

' ’ 

and individual merits. 
Trak oo 

This court has not ruled, and does not rule that "racial 

balance" is required under the Constitution; nor that all black 

schools in all cities are unlawful; nor that all school boards 

must bus children or violate the Constitution; nor that the   
ve 

particular order entered in this case would be correct in other   

  

circumstances not before this court. 
’ 

    

The orders of this court have been confined to the only 

area they can properly embrace, and that is the rights of thle 
m—   

particular parties represented in this case, on the particular 
      

facts and history of this case. 
    

- 

E. The issue is not the validity of a "system," but the 
  

  

rights of individual people.--If the rights of citizens are 
  

infringed by the system, the infringement is not excused because 

in the abstract the system may appear valid. "Separate but 

equal" for a long time was thought to be a valid system but 

when it was finally admitted that individual rights were denied 

by the valid system, the system gave way to the rights of indi- 

viduals. 

lis 
      

 



  

Id 

F. The Issue Is One Of Constitutional Law--Not Politics.,-—- 
  

At the hearings the defendants offered public opinion polls and 

testimony that parents don't like "bussing," and that this 

attitude produces an adverse otient ional effect pon the minds 

of the children. The court has excluded such doilense; and 

must continue to proceed unaffected, i possible, by this and 

other types of political Presse and public opinion. 

This is not out of didvenntd gor the opinions of neighbors. 

A judge oul ordinarily like to decide cases to suit his neighbors. 

Furthermore, as first suggested on August 15, 1969, it may well 
v 

be that if the people of the community understood the facts, as 

4 

the court has been required to learn and understand them, they 

would reach about the same conclusions the court has reached. 

To yield to public clamor, however, is to corrupt the 

judicial process and to turn the effective operation of courts 

» 

over to political activism and to the temporary local opinion 

makers. This a court must not do: 

In the long run, it is true, a majority of the people ° 

will have their way. The majority must be a majority of the 

pertinent voting group. As our slave-owning grandfathers of 

the South learned in 1865, the pertinent voting group on 

constitutional matters includes the people and thelr elected 

representatives from the nation at large, not just the South, 

and not just Mecklenburg County. Methods exist to amend the 

Constitution. If the Constitution is amended or the higher 

courts rule so as to allow continved segregation in the local 

public schools, this court will have to be governed by such 

amendment or decisions. In the meanwhile, the duty of this 

and other courts is to seek to follow the Constitution in the 

4 

/3 

    

 



  

light of the existing rulings of the Supreme Court, and under 

the belief that the constitutional rights of people should not 

be swept away by temporary local or national public opinion or 

political manipulation. + a 
23 

Civil rights are seldom threatened except by majorities. 

One whose actions reflect accepted local opinion seldom needs 

to call upon the Constitution. It is axiomatic that persons 

claiming constitutional protection .are often, for the time 

being, out of phase with the accepted "right" thinking of 

their local community. If in such circumstances courts look 
' v 

to public opinion or to political intervention by any other 

branch of the government Stan OE 4e the more stable bulwarks 

of the Constitution itself, we Waeeiote government of laws and 

are back to the government of man, unfettered by law, which our 

forefathers sought to avoid. 

] Lord Ecward Coke, Chief Justile of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Encland, may ave sued. Lt adi in 1616 he wrote, 

responding to a peremptory demand from the King's attorney 

general, thet he must deny the King's request because under 

his oath his obligation was that he * 

" v++ . Shall not delay any person of common right 

for the letters of the King or of any person nor for 

any other cause ... +" 

G. The duty to desegregate schools does not depend upon 
  

the Coleman report, nor on any particular racial proportion of 
  

  

students.--The essence of the Brown decision is that segregation 

implies inferiority, reduces incentive, reduces morale, reduces 

opportunity for association and breadth of experience, and that 

the segregated education itself is inherently unequal. The tests 

which show the poor performance of segregated children are evidence 

14 
      

 



  

showing one result of segregation. Segregation would not 

become lawful, however, if all children scored equally on 

the tests. | | : 

Nor does the validity of Brown depend upon whether the 

system contains ideal proportions of black and white students. 

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg he does contain 5 theoretical 

"ideal" 70-30 proportion of Whkke aha lack students. This 

has some bearing upon the reasonableness of any particular 

local plan or part of such plan. However, it does not give 
v 

$ 

rise to any legitimate contention that Brown may be ignored 
Ee . 

where you cannot have at least 60% or 70% white children in 

a school. The HEW plan providing fo 57% black students in 

a group of schools may well be Bonet Entianal in some other 

system, though unconstitutional in Mecklenburg where a scho>l 

57% black is immediately racially identifiable as a "black" 
5 os : 

school. 
» 

LJ 

( 

  

 



  

¢ 1 
2 

Ve. § 

. 

  

THE REASONABLENESS OF THE SPECIFIC : ;: 

  

METHODS AND THE OVERALL PLANS AVAILABLE 

TO DESEGREGATE THE BLACK CHARLOTTE SCHOOLS. 

x 

  

  

A. The facts under which any question of "reasonableness" 

  

must be judged.--From the lengthy and largely Sebati tion testi- 

mony at the July 15-24 Respings) and ftom provitus evidence, the 

following facts bearing on ronson eRe? are found: 

l. In North Carolina the school bus has been used for 

half a century to transport children to segregated consolidated 
[4 

  

schools, Last year 610,000 children, comprising nearly 55% of 

the state's public school population, were transported daily on 

school busses. With the 1970 extension of transportation 3 

inner-city children, the aver ads datiy school bus population 

of North Carolina this September will reach perhaps three-fifths 

of all public school children. Those eligible for transport 

are far more numerous. The vantinbunsiig Lav" has been held 

unconstitutional. 

2. Some 70. 9% of these bussed children are in the 

first eight grades. There may be more first graders than 

children of any other age riding school busses. 

3. The academic achievement tests quoted $n this 

and previous orders show that the later desegregation is post- 

poned in this school district the greater the academic penalties 

are for the black children. By the sixth grade the performance 

gap is several grades wide. By Lhe ellhith grade it may be four 

grades wide. 

4. School bus transportation is safer than any other form 

of transportation for school children. 

[ 

[6 
all SUP NSN SI SSSI SHS SLLLLLLL     

 



  

  
  

  

5. The defendants have come forward with no program nor 

intelligible description of "compensatory education,” and they 

advance no theory by which segregated schools can be made equal 

to HE oveanted schools. | B 

6. In Charlotte-Mecklenburg approximately 23,300 children 

in grades one through twelve (plus more than 700 kindergarten 

children, ages four and five) de some 280 school busses to 

school ovens day. The school bus routes for the four and five 

year olds vary, from seven miles to thirty-nine miles, ‘one way. 

The average one way bus route in the system today is about an 

[1 Ld 

hour and fifteen minutes. Average daily bus travel exceeds 

forty miles. a | 

7. Approximately 5,000 children of all ages rode pubic 

transportation (City Coach Company) every day of the 1993-70. 

school yezr at reduced fares, or 204 a day (104 each trip). 

8. The State Department of’ Public Instruction. has 

announced that it Wilk pay for Lda rorsution of children 

on city bus systems or by oinch sontTach carriers at whatever 

rate may ke approved by the North Carolina Utilities Commission. 

City Coach Company has requested a fare increase. City Coach 

has indicated a. capacity to Srbnigons between 6,000 and 7,000 

pupils daily if they get fares and routes satisfactorily 

established. 

9. There are only two adult male drivers out of some 

two hundred and eighty regular bus drivers who drove school 

busses during the 1969-70 school year, and only about seventeen 

adult women who drove kindergarten school busses during that 

year. The other 260-plus drivers are boys and girls, 16, 17 

and 18 years old. 

17 
  

 



  

  

10. There is no black residential area inthis school 

system which is 0 large that the students can not be afforded 

a desegregated education oy reasonable means. The additional 

length of travel required to su lediont the best’ available plans 

for desegregating the system is less than the Aa distance 

of bus transportation now being provided SVinageaty children 

under existing bus practices, and the travel le are less 

than times required by existing bus Foutes. ’ 

11. The offer of transportation to encourage "freedom 

of choice" is ineffectual. It was expressly ordered by this 

court on April 23, 1969, and put into effect by the defendants 

in the fall of 1969; atid it has had fio substantial effect upon 

the ar aine by black children of freedom of choice to ith 

white schools. 

12. There is no "intractable remnant of segregation" in 

this school system. No part of She svete is cut off from the 

rest of ik, ang hive is no reasonable iby to decide what 

remnant shall be deemed {Rtvariaile. 

13." The Reale bus routes are about 280 in number, 

including 17 bus routes transporting four and five-year-old 

children to child development ota (kindergartens). 

14. Up until the July 15, 1970 hearings, the defendants 

had allowed the court to believe they only had 280 busses plus 

.a few spares. On the last day of the hearing, however (July 

24, 1970), some amazing testimony was developed on cross- 

examination of the witness J. W. Harrison, the Transportation 

Superintendent. He testified and the court finds as facts that 

  

in addition to the 280 "regular" busses, the Board's bus assets 

include at least the following: 

/8 

    

 



. 
w
a
 

  

(1) Spare buSSeS——==—mm mmm ——————— em 20 

(ii) Activity busses (each driven less than : 

1,000 miles a year) —==m=mmmm— moe eee 29 

(iii) Used busses replaced by new ones in 196 9-70~-~ 30 

- 

(iv) New busses currently scheduled for replace- 

ment purposes and expected to be delivered 

in near future~====m=— ee ——— 28 

= Sil Total: 107 

15. It only requires, at the most, 138 busses to imple- 

ment the court ordered plans for desegregation of all the high 

schools, Sonide hich schools, and elementary schools in the 

eoanEy ’ 

16. In addition to this, the State School Bus Transporta- 

tion Department informed the local defendants in early 1970 that 

there were 75 new busses available to the local school system if 

they wanted them, out of the 400 new busses then held by the State. 

17. As of July 18, 1970, it was stipulated that the State 

Board of Education had 105 sin BEERS on-hand and 655 new ones 

on rade, of which some 289 had been manufactured. 

18. It was stipulated that by September lst the State 

Department of Education would have approximately 400 second- 

hand busses on hand and available on loan, without cost, for 

local school boards to use in 1970-71. : : X 

[] 

19. According to Defendants' Exhibit 35, a letter of 

July 10, 1970 from the State Superir.tendent of Public Instruction 

to the Superintendent of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system: 

"At the present time approximately 400 discarded busses 

are available at various school garages in the state 

that could safely be used, if necessary, on a temporary 

basis for the transportation of additional children.” 

(Page 4) (Emphasis added.) 

  
  

* % * 

19 

  
  C—O 

 



  

| , 

"In the event discarded busses must be used on a 

temporary basis the state will expect a local school 
unit to replace the discarded bus pressed back into 

service as early as possible and at least by the 

beginning of the following fiscal year." (Page 6) 

x * Kk 2 

"We would request school units that hold title to 

these [old] busses to transfer the title without 

| cost to the school unit needing to use these vehicles 
| on a temporary basis.” (Page 6) (Emphasis added.) 

  

  

  
  

  

* %* .% 

"It would be the responsibility of the school unit 
requesting temporary use of old busses to put the 

| old busses in good mechanical repair after they 

| receive delivery of the bus.” (Page 7) 
v 

1 

20. The testimony of Mr. Harrison was that for a 54-passenger 

bus a set of new tires, if Ronied; would cost $324; a complete 

overhaul of the brakes with sep ncomini of all rubber parts and 

working parts would cost about 25. hanes are paid on a 

salary, no: a commission, basis.) 

21. The brakes, tires, Yighbe and steering on any second- 

| hand bus which might be put TR Se can be put into first- 

class safety condition for a figure per bus not exceeding $500. 

In the case of the busses already on hand in the Charlotte- 

| : Mecklenburg system, this cost should be less, because the local 

system has an .excellent preventive maintenance and parts replace- 

ment program and according to the transportation superintendent 

anticipates and makes repairs before trouble develops, rather 

than wait for breakdowns, so that the old rolling stock as well 

as the new is kept in good condition. 

22. The transportation superintendent, Mr. Harrison, 

testified that he maintains, and now has, a manpower reserve 

of about 100 students who are qualified and available as school 

bus drivers, over and above the 280-odd regular drivers. More 

are now being trained. 

AO 

  

 



  

23. The estimated school budget for the year 1970-71 is 

approximately $66,000,000, which is $8,000,000 hots than the 

1969-70 budget. : 

20. BA OhiE 06,000,000 the shown of approximately 

$21,900,000 was allocated to the School Board by the county 

without restriction as to its use, and the School Board is 

free to use whatever part of ii hed find necessary to comply 

with court orders. (Blaisdell testimony.) | ; hs 

25. The Board's opinion evidence, including numerous 

exhibits, on numbers of pupils to be transported and numbers 
v 

J 

of extra busses required (526 for the entire system, 293 for 
rT . 

elementary schools) can not be taken seriously. The pupil’ 

count was made by counting all pupils in each zone who live 

more than a mile and a quarter (not a mile and a half) from 

each school, and (with some minor but unspecified adjustmeni:s) 

’ 

treating all of these children as requiring transportation. 

This method fails to ScUoNns for Severs factors such as (1; 

the 7% who are shan every day: (2) the pupils now riding 

City Coach Basses; 13) the pupils now already receiving school 

bus transport; (4) those who go to.school in private vehicles. 

Moreover, by cutting the nwalking distance” from the 

. statutory figure of 1-1/2 miles to 1-1/4 miles, the Board 

method reduces by 40% (from over seven square miles to just 

over five square miles) the area of the walking zone and 

thereby sharply increases those eligible for bus transport. 

In computing needed busses, the Board figures unwarrentedly 

assume: (1) that each bus can make only one round trip a day 

instead of the average of 1.8 round trips a day now made; (2) 

that each bus can only transport 46 pupils a day instead of the 

ee eee A et et ee A A re A A ee i et Ae SO tl. ee RA. Sl. let et 

 



  

 tpresent average of 84.4; (3) that busses used in the desegrega- 

tion program must be less efficient than the others. 

All these assumptions are contrary to the euidents which, 

for example, shows that one TR TT bus Au #23, 

Exhibit 54) transported 99 children daily among schools as 

Comoe as Northwest Charlotte (9th and Bethune) 4 the one 

hand and Sharon Elementary and toretly Woods Elementary, and 

Quail Hollow Junior High on the other, with the driver then - 

going on in the bus to South High School. 

The court's previous findings on these items are re-affirmed. 
v 

‘ 

Maximum numbers of pupils to be transported and additional busses 

«4 . 

needed, even if Sparrow v. Gill were not in the picture, remain: 

    

    

No. Pupils No. Busses 

Senior High 1,500 Hari a0 

Junior High : 5 2.800. 28 

Elementary k 9,300 90 

13,300 : 138. 

(Board witnesses after refining lines and making actual pupil 

assignments now say that the humber of senior high pupils 

ha 

requiring transportation is 1,815 ani the number of junior 

high pupils requiring transportation is 2,286.) 

26. All plans which desegregatz all the schools will require 

transporting approximately the same number of children. In overall 

cost, if a zone pupil assignment method is adopted, the minority 

Board plan may; be a little cheaper than the Finger plan. 

 



  

27. Mecklenburg County had a July 31, 1970 surplus ox 

"carry-forward" of approximately four million dollars, of 

which one million dollars was completely free of ai alloca~- 

tion or budgeting commitment. | | : 

28. North Carolina, whose biennial 1969-71 budget is 

$3,590,902,142.00, regularly has a biennial surplus of many 

millions of dollars. : | 

29. The annual cost of pupil transportation is approxi-- 

mately 320 a year per pupil; the state pays it all, except for 

ceviain minor local administrative costs, and the original 

purchase of the first bus 00 a route; thereafter, the state 

replaces the bus periodically. Earliér findings that the | 

cost was $40 per pupil per year were in error. 

30. NO capital outlay will be needed to supply busses 

for the 1970-71 school year. The state is ready and willing 

to lend “he few busses the Board oy Seedy replacements can 

be bought after actual need has been determined under operating 

conditions. 

3}. The $66,000,000 school budget amounts to about $366,667 

a day for a 180-day school year. IF the county eventually has 

to buy as many, as 120 new busses, their cost, at $5,500 each, 

would be $660,000, which is less than the cost ($733,000) of 

two days of school operation. 

  32. Age of children has apparently never prevented their 

school bus transportation. There are, of course, more children 

between kindergarten and the sixth Seals than there are in the 

higher grades when the dropout rate increases, and more elementary 

children, including first graders, receive transportation than do 

high schoolers. 

 



  

The longest bus routes in the entire county are the routes 

by which four and five-year-old kindergarten children are 

transported to child development centers (see Principals’ 
Pa 

Monthly Bus Report, Defendants' Exhibit 63). The Pineville 

b
o
p
 

pT 

Child Development Center has one bus, No. 297, yihich travels 

over 79 miles a day on one round trip with four. and five-year-old 

children. Another such trip S8iever 70 miles Linon. The Davidson 

Child Development Center has Live Dusshs which travel from 48’ to 

60 miles a day on one round trip with five-year-old children. 

The Bain Elementary School has a bus route, No. 115, which 
4 

L] 

travels over 61 miles on one round trip each day, requiring 

two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon with 

elementary children. Routes to AUC OuS elementary schools 

are very long in miles and elie. The more than 10,000 children 

in grades one through six who have keen riding school busses 

all these years and who now ride fe on Aiatons travel time of 

an hour and a Seinen oarh way are nob Sroun to have had their 

education damaged by the experience. 

Educationally tt appears unreasonable to postpone desegre- 

gation of small children until latex grades. The only concrete 

evidence of an _ educational nature in the whole hearing which 

rose above the level of opinion is the Stanford Allevenent 

Tests which show that the per formance gap, which is ordinarily 

noticeable in the first grade, has become several grades wide 

by the time the segregated black child reaches the sixth grade. 

The lasting effects of segregation are minimized if it is 

eliminated at an early age. 

  

33. Traffic problems.=--The county has over 160,000 

passenger vehicles and nearly 30,000 trucks registered in it. 

It is estimated that the total number of automobile trips in 

A 
  

 



  

3 

i 

| 
{ 

{ 
i 

  

  

» 

daily 
the county/other than truck trips is over 869,000. Traffic 

is heavy in most parts of the county. Since the so-called 

“cross-bussing” of the Finger plan or the minority plan will 

not contemplate pick up and discharge of pupils in the central 

business area, the busses added by the Finger plan or the 
Es 

minority Board plan will provide very little interference with 

normal flow of traffic. Sehodl russ are no wider than other 

busses (the So requires that this be 50) 3 they already use - 

all ihe madof SCoestE and traffic arteries in the county and 

city every school morning of the year. There is no evidence 

to show that adding 138 soho) busses to the volume of existing 

traffic will provide any such impediment as should be measured 

against the constitutional rights of children. It would ALS 

appear that a school bus transporting 40 to 75 children should 

reduce traffic problems by cutting down on the number of auto- 

mobiles that parents might MONE. be driving over. the sane 

roads. ] 

34. The schools already enetide on staggered sohdduies, 

Today, the pening snd closing of schools and the class hours 

of school Sie drivers are NEineled to serve the practical 

requirements Jf nensgortation’ | Plalnttose Exhibit 12 shows 

that the elementary schools already operate on a staggered - 

opening and closing schedule. Some open at 8:00; some at 

.8:05; some at 8:10; some at 8:15; some at 8:25 and some at 

8:30 and 8:45 in the morning, and the schools close for grades 

one and two at hours including 1430; 1:35; 2:00; 2:15; 2:30; 

2:45; 3:00; 3:05 and 3:10. The court finds that staggered 

opening and closing hours for elementary schools, and arrangement 

of class schedules of bus drivers for late arrival and early 

departure are facts of life which will not be eliminated by 

desegregation of the schools. 
2S 

    

 



  

35. The defendants have plenty of ney plenty of 

know-how, plenty of busses on hand or available upon request, 

and plenty of capacity to implement-the court ordered plan 

or the minority plan or any conbrinasioh of the Soe ious plans. 

Their contentions to the contrary, and their fie million’ 

dollar "estimates," when heard against the actual facts, 

border on fantasy'!* 

  

*"There was a table set out under a tree in 
front of the house, and the March Hare and 
the Hatter were having tea at it ... . The 
table was a large one, but the three were 

all crowded together at one corner of it. 

' ‘No room. No room: -they cried out when they 

saw Alice coming. 'There's plenty of room!’ 
said Alice indignantly, and she sat down in 

a large arm-chair at one end of the table." 
(Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonder- 

land.) 
  

  

B. Reasonableness of methods .-~-"Reasonable" is variously 
  

  

defined in more than 1,000 words in Webster's Unabridged 

  

Dictionary. In the context, the most appropriate definition 

seems to come from Black's Law Dictionary: "Reasonable. Just: 
  

  

proper. Ordinary or usual. Fit and appropriate to the end in 

view." (Emphasis added.) 

The end in view is the desegregation of the schools. The 
boa 

methods available include the following: (1) consolidation of 

schools (which began fifty years or Hots ago, and for which the 

school bus has been the "ordinary or usual,” as well as the 

necessary tool; (2) assignment of pupils; (3) school tussle 

(4) non-contiguous zoning (before Brown, no black child was 

allowed to attend the nearest school if it happened to be 

white); (5) restructuring of grades in schools; (6) rezoning: 

(7) pairing, clustering and grouping of schools; (8) use of 

satellite zones; (9) freedom of choice, with appropriate 

restrictions; and (10) closing of schools. 

26 
  

 



  

All of these methods have been approved as legal by the 

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and by other courts. They 

work; singly and in combination they can work tg accomplish 

the reassignment of children £6 oliiinate eagraiinion, If 

they are legal, and if they accomplish the end in view, and 

if they have been in use for half a cerlbuty, they certainly 

qualify as "reasonable" nathote.. They are A CER to 

the end in view"; they desegregate the schools in a practical- 

way. , : , 

C. The various plans.=-- 
  

v 

1. The 5/4 Majority Board Plan.--The original Board 
  

4 

plan was rejected by this court and by the Circuit Court. ‘7he 

School Board has not obeyed the order of the Circuit Cott. 

of Appeals to file a new plan, and has not drafted nor attempted 

to draft another plan. The Board majority have pot explored 

other methods of desegregation as'directed by who Circuit Court 

(pairing, clustering, grouping, rote oonEinuons zoning, re-arranging 

grade structures), except to digcusd these Raters among themselves 

and to offer Lenaihy testimony rationalizing the non-use of 

alternative methods. Although Darts oF the disapproved Board 

plan could be used in a Sin dorts Blan, the Board plan as originally 

proposed is still inadequate because it leaves half the black 

elementary students still attending black schools. The court 

does not find it to be reasonable. 

2. The HEW plan.--This plan proposes to adopt the 
  

basic zoning program of parts of the Board majority plan, and 

then to re-zone some of the black schools with some white schools, 

mostly in low and middle income areas, and by clustorisg, pairing, 

grouping and transportation, to produce a substantial desegrega- 

tion of most of the black schools. The faults of the plan are 

A 
  

 



  

i 

obvious. It leaves two schools (Double Onks tha Oslil ain) 

completely black; it leaves more than a score of other schools 

completely white; it would withdraw from numerous white schools 

the black students who were transported to thoey, sehoele during 

the 1969-70 school year. The clusters proposed by HEW would 

for the most part continue to be thought of as "black" in this 

county because the school populations of most oF the clusters 

would vary from 50% to 57% black and he lowest black percentage. 

in any cluster is 36%. Recommended HEW faculty assignments to 

these clusters of schools contemplated faculties which in the 
. v 

main would be less than half white, and this would be another 

retrogression from the arrangements aiready made Wirth School 

Board for the fall term: Contrary to the orders of the dtervict 

court and the Circuit Court, the HEW people limited their zoning 

to contiguous areas. 

All witnesses except the pew ropresentatives themselves 

joined in hearty criticism of the 'HEW 218% because of its 

ignorance of local problems, Bons of its threat of resegre- 

gation, and because' it tends to concentrate upon the black and 

low-or middle-income community a race problem that is county 

wide. itn 

In other days and other places the HEW plan would have 

looked good; and in those districts where black students are 

in the majority, much of such a plan could well be reasonable 

today. However, "reasonableness" has to be measured in the 

context; and in this context the HEW plan does not ad muster. 

It also on the facts of this case would fail to comply with 

the Constitution. 

 



  

  

3. The court order of February 5, 1970, including 

  

the Finger Plan.~-This order directs the desegregation of the 

schools. It offers the Finger plan as one way ‘to do it, and 

encourages the Board to use its vit Sotres to develop some- 

thing better. As to the Finger elementary Slnissels, the 

court, after eight days of further evidence ang extensive furehek 

study, still finds it to be a rensnains othod or collection 

of methods for solving the problem. The plan was designed 

by a qualified educator. It was drafted with technical assistance 

of the school staff. It does the complete job. It has a clear 
. v 

pupil assignment plan. It preserves a sound grade structure; 

-4 

it is adaptable to ungraded experimentation; it can be imple- 

mented piecemeal, in sections or vy clusters Of schools if 

necessary; it embraces local Sadistenes) it can be inplinented 

immediately. It uses all reasonable methods of desegregation. 

It takes proper advantage of traffic movement and school capacity. 

It passes all tests of reasonableness. | 
’ 

  

4. The 4/5 Minority Board Plan.--This plan was pradented 

intelligently and aki by Dr. Carlton Watkins, its chief 

drafter, one of a 4/5 minority of the Board. It was spared 

any aggressive attack by Board witnesses or counsel. It is 

home grown. It was conceived and drafted by four members of 

the local Board. It uses all the techniques of the Finger 

plan. It desegregates all the schools. Like the Finger plan, 

it involves all communities of the county. It appears to the 

court that it can be implemented with somewhat shorter travel 

distances for school busses, though perhaps a few more children 

might have to ride school busses than under the Finger plan. 

Its assignments are made with an eye toward the dynamics of 

7g 
  

 



  

community growth and shrinkage. It is spontaneous in origin 

and shows a willingness on the part of some of the Board to 
5. 

experiment. Its cost of implementation is roughly on a par 

with that of the Finger plan. Like the Finger Buen, it can be 

implemented one part at a time and it does not create probabilities 

of resegregation of black schools. The prineinal fault of the : 

minority plan is its present Took of a system of pupil Ss Lgnuent, 

Board witnesses were not willing to Adinit it outright, but the | 

court has the very definite impression-’that they could ‘draft a 

pupil assignment plan and put the minority plan into effect this 

fall if so directed by the Board. 

5. An earlier draft of the Finger plan.~--This draft, 
  

illustrated by Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10, is the first copenenaive 

recommendation of Dr. Finger to the court and to the school staff. 

It would require less transportation than any other plan before 

the court, and for shorter distances. It would have to be 

implemented all at once, and it does Jot involve all of the 

county in its scope. From the standpoint of economics it may 

be the cheapest Som available. From the standpoint of avoidance 

of tendencies toward resegregation: and from the standpoint of 

total community+-involvement in the total community plan it is 

not on a par with the minority plan nor the final ringed plan. 

It is, however, like the minority plan and the final Finger 

plan ordered by. the court, a "reasonable" plan. 

, he ‘ - 

  

 



  

vi. : £ 

A RESERVATION CONCERNING REASONABLENESS 
  

A : 

  

VERSUS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 

Reasonable remedies should always be sought. Practical 

rather than burdensome methods are properly required. On" facts 

reported above, the methods required by this over are reason- 

able. However, if a consti ional right has Han denied, 

this court believes that it is the constitutional right that» 

should prevail against the cry of "unreasonableness." If a 

home has been illegally searched and evidence seized, the 
v 

\] 

evidence is suppressed. 3% a defendant in a drunk driving 

case "takes the Fifth" and puts the state to its proof, the 

state has to prove its case withedt ay testimony from Biv. 

The unreascnableness of PELL the SALE to some expense 

can not be weighed against nor prevail over the privilege 

against self-incrimination or the rims of people tothe secure 

18 hele hemes. 1f, as this court and the Circuit Court have 

held, the rights of children are Seles denied, the cost and 

inconvenience of restoring those rights is no reason under 

the Constitution for continuing to deny them. Griffin v. 
, [J . 3 . g 

ww [2 

  

Prince Edward County,. supra. 

[) 

 



  

oRpopwwy Ait 
  

l. Pursuant to the June 29, 1970 mandate of the Supreme 

Court of the United States, this court's order of February 5, 

1970 will remain in effect pending these proceedings and except 

as modified herein or by later order of this court or a higher 
: £ 

court. : 

2. The action of the Board. in making faculty assignments 

in accordance with the order of February 5, 1970 is approved.’ 

3. The action of the Board in making pupil assignments 

and other arrangements to operate the senior high schools in 
v 

\ 

accordance with this court's order of February 5, 1970 is approved. 

4. The action of the Board in making pupil assignments and 

other arrangements to operate the junior high schools in accordance 
- 

with this court's order of February 5, 1970 is approved. 

5. Numbered paragraphs 10 and 11 of the February 5, 1970 

order of this court are amended by inserting the words "cumulative" 

and "substantially" at the appropriate points in each paragraph 

so that the two paragraphs will read as follows: 

"10. . That 'freedom of choice' or 'freedom of 

transfer' may not be allowed by the Board if the 

cumulative effect of any given transfer or group 

of transfers is to increase substantially the degree 
of segregation in the school from which the transfer 
is requested or in the school to which the transfer 
is desired. | 

"ll. That the Board retain its statutory power 
and duty to make assignments of pupils for adminis- 
trative reasons, with or without requests from parents. 

Administrative transfers shall not be made if the 

cumulative result of such transfers is to restore 

or substantially increase the degree of segregation 

in either the transferor or the transferee school.” 

6. As to the elementary schools: 

(a) The order entered by this court on February 5, 

1970 having been subjected to three weeks of review under the 

L} 

reasonableness test is expressly found to be reasonable, and 

of 
hy 

Fold 

 



  

the School Board are directed to put the court ordered plan of 

desegregation into effect at the opening of school in the fell 

of 1970, unless they avail themselves of some of the options 

indicated herein. 
~ 

(b) The plan for elementary school Sovnimbnntion 

proposed by a 4/5 minority of the School Board (the Watkins 

plan) has been examined and is oting to be reasonable, as 

far as it goes. It is, however, sneonplete because it con- 

tains no plan for pupil assignment. The School Board are 

authorized to prepare an appropriate pupil assignment plan 
. v 

and use the minority plan for elementary school desegregation 

4 

instead of the comparable portions of the plan previously ordered 

by the court, if they so elect. | 

(c) The School Board, if thoy sO elect, may use por- 

tions of the minority plan and portions of the court ordered 

plan, bearing in mind that the most important single element 

in the order of this court on Februery 5, 1970 is paragraph 
’ 

16, reading as follows: 

"16. The duty imposed by the law and by this 

order is the desegregation of schools and the main- 

tenance of that condition. The plans discussed in 

this order, whether prepared by Board and staff or 
by outside consultants, such as computer expert, 

Mr. John W. Weil, or Dr. John A. Finger, Jr., are . 
illustrations of means or partial means to that end. 

The defendants are encouraged to use their full 

 'know-how' and resources to attain the results 
above described, and thus to achieve the consti- 

tutional end by any means at their disposal. The 

test is not the method or plan, but the results.” 

  
  

  

(d) The Board are free to. incorporate into any plan 

they may make whatever portions of the work of the Department 

of Health, Education and Welfare staff, or such parts of the 

original partial Finger plan (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10), which 

are consistent with their duty to carry out the order to 

desegregate the schools. 

 



  

(e) If the Board elect to carry out the Finger plan, 

they are authorized, if they find it advisable), to close Double 

Oaks school and reassign its pupils in accordance with the 

general purposes of the February 5, 1970 order. 

(f) The Board are directed to file a written report 

with this court on or before noon on Friday, August 7. 1970, 

indicating what plan or combination of plans they have voted 

to use. 

(g) The Board are again reminded, as they vite reminded 

during the July 15, 1970 hearings, that since the 29th day of 

June, 1970, they have been and still are subject a the odind 
a 

of the Supreme Court, which Yeinbtated this court's February 5, 

1970 order pending these proceedings, and that this dont ATL 

be under some duty to measure the Board's performance against 

what they could have done starting on June 29, 1970. 

7. The following portion of nls orien is taken in mcdified 

form from the recommendations in ‘the proposed plan of the Lepart- 

ment of Health, Education and Welfare. It has been included in 

part in orders of district courts to various school systems, such 

as the school system in Pot haster CoAT South Carolina. It is 

included in this order not with any idea of impairing or affecting 

any party's right of appeal, but with the thought that this 

community has a difficult job of implementing a major desegrega- 

tion program and that just as in the case of Greenville, South 

Carolina, whose schools were desegregated before any final word 

came from the Supreme Court, it will take leadership to do the 

job. Some of these suggestions of the Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare are therefore dncorporated in this order 

 



  

as follows, for such aid as they may be in working through the 

difficult administrative and community problems which must be 

overcome: 

  

SUGGESTIONS FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

Successful implementation of desegregation’ plans largely 

depends upon local leadership and good faith in complying 

with mandates of the Courts and the laws upon which the 

Courts act. The following suggestions are. offered to 

assist local officials in plenning for implementation of 

desegregational orders. 3 

community 
  

l. The Superintendent and Board of Education should 

frankly and fully inform all citizens of the 

: community about the legal requirements fox 

school desegregation and their plans for com- 

plying with these legal‘requirements. 

2. The Board of Education should issue a public 
statement clearly setting forth its intention 

to abide by the law and coniply with orders of 

the Court in an effective and educationally 

responsible manner. 

3. School officials should seek and encourage support 
and understanding of the press and community 

organizations representing both races. 

4. The Board of Education, or some other appropriate 
governmental unit, should establish a bi-racial 

advisory committee to advise the Board of Educa- 

tion and its staff throughout the implementation 

of the desegregation plan. Such committee should 

seek to open up community understanding and 

communication, to assist the Board in inter- 

preting ‘legal and educational requirements ko 

the public, b 

5. The Superintendent should actively seek greater 
involvement of parents of both races through school 

meetings, newsletters, an wctive and bi-racial P.T.A., 

class meetings, parent conferences, and through home 

visits by school personnel. 

6. The Superintendent and Board of Education should 

regularly report to the community on progress in 

implementing the desegregation plan. 

 



  

School Personnel 
  

yl. 

8. 

on the members of the School Board individually, and upon all 

The Superintendent should provide all personnel 
copies of the desegregation plan and arrange for 
meetings where the personnel will have an oppor- 
tunity to hear it explained. 

- 

~ 

The Board of Education should issue a policy 
statement setting forth in clear terms: the 
procedures it will follow in reassignment of 
the personnel. 7 

Assignments of staff for the school year should 

be made as quickly as possible with appropriate 

followings by school principals to assure both 
"welcome and support for personnel new to each . 

school. Invitations to visit school before the 

new school year begins should be offered. 

The Superintendent should see that a special 

orientation program is planned and carried out 

for both the professional and non-professional 

staffs (including bus drivers, cafeteria workers, 

secretaries and custodians) preparatory to the 
new school year. He should make every effort 

to familiarize new and reassigned staff with 

facilities, services, and building policies, and 

prepare them to carry out their important role in 

a constructive manner. The Superintendent should 

direct each principal to ,sece that each teacher new 

to a school is assigned for help-and guidance to a 
teacher previously assigned to that school. Such 

teachers should have an opportunity to meet before 

the school year actually’ begins. 

The Superintendent should arrange an in-service 

training program during the school year to assist 

personnel in resolving difficulties and improving 

instruction throughout the' implementation period. 

Help in doing this is available from the St. 
Augustine College in Raleigh, North Carolina. 

a 

The Clerk is directed to serve copies of this order 

other parties by sending copies by certified mail to their 

counsel of record. 

9. 

is retained, and the attention of the parties is called to pages’ 

Subject to further orders from higher courts, jurisdiction 

27 and 28 of the order of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 

 



  

» 

respecting the duties of the court and the parties with regard 

to any desired modification of the plan or of this order. 

This the ed day of August, 1970. 

  

Anil, i / Hit 
/ James PB. McMillan 

United States District Judge 

  

aa [||7d956e3e-ed28-4bbb-99e4-c4fa9069448e||]