LDF Defends Lower Court Victory Over "Insider" New York City Principals' Examination

Press Release
February 14, 1972

LDF Defends Lower Court Victory Over "Insider" New York City Principals' Examination preview

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Volume 6. LDF Defends Lower Court Victory Over "Insider" New York City Principals' Examination, 1972. e80350c5-ba92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/f2ec475f-596b-4c8a-90aa-fc678327ea36/ldf-defends-lower-court-victory-over-insider-new-york-city-principals-examination. Accessed April 22, 2025.

    Copied!

    “PressRelease B im 
20 

efense und 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

FEBRUARY 14, 1972 

LDF DEFENDS LOWER COURT 

VICTORY OVER "INSIDER" NEW YORK 

CITY PRINCIPALS' EXAMINATION 

NEW YORK, N.Y. --- On February 15, 1972, the Legal 

Defense Fund (LDF) will defend a lower court decision which stopped 

the giving of discriminatory civil service examinations for New York 

City School principals. LDF Attorney Elizabeth DuBois will argue, 

that the decision must be upheld to permit the institution of an 

examination system which would permit selection based on merit and 

fitness for these key roles in urban education. 

LDF filed a reply brief on February 9, 1972, to answer 

charges made by the Board of Examiners, which administers the exams, 

that the injunction would create a spoils system. The brief argued 

that the present system rewards and favors those within the system 

at the expense of those who have traditionally been locked out. 

The brief, written on behalf of Boston Chance, a black, and 

Louis Mercado, a Puerto Rican, notes that Black and Puerto Rican 

children would have the most to lose from a system based on anything 

other than merit and fitness. 

On July 14, 1971, District Judge Walter Mansfield found 

that the Examiners' tests "aimed at testing the candidate's ability 

to memorize rather than the qualities normally associated with a 

school administrator." As a result of these tests, New York had 

the lowest percentage of minority principals (1.4%) among the five 

(more) 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586 

illiam T. Coleman, Jr. - President fe’ Rivoates gh 



a 

N.Y. CITY PRINCIPALS' EXAMINATION PAGE 2 

largest cities in the United States. The next lowest, Chicago, 

had five times as many minority principals. The New York City 

Board of Education has refused to defend the examination system, 

and did not appeal the lower court decision. Chancellor Harvey 

Scribner called the system "unworkable." 

The case will be heard before the Second Circuit Court of 

Appeals. 

For further information contact: Attorney Elizabeth B. DuBois 

or Abeke Foster, Public Information 

(212) 586-8397 

NOTE: Please bear in mind that the LDF is a completely separate 

and distinct organization even though we were established by the 

NAACP and those initials are retained in our name. Our correct 

designation is NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 

frequently shortened to LDF.

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