Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education Motion for Leave to File Memo Amicus Curiae and Memo for Amicus Curiae the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

    I n  t h e

0ttpmtu' (Emtrt at tip? United States
O ctober T e r m , 1969

No. 632

BEATRICE ALEXANDER, et al,
Petitioners,

HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al,
Respondents.

------------------------♦------------------------
O n  P e t it io n  for W r it  of Certio rari to t h e  

U n it ed  S tates C ourt of A ppea ls  
F or t h e  F if t h  C ir c u it

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM 
AMICUS CURIAE AND FOR IMMEDIATE 

CONSIDERATION THEREOF 
AND

MEMORANDUM AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE 
LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL 

RIGHTS UNDER LAW

J o h n  W . D ouglas 
George N. L indsay  

Co-chairmen 
B e t h u e l  M. W ebster  
C yrus R. V a n c e  
A sa S okolow  
J o h n  S c h a fe r  
L o u is  F . O berdorfer 
J o h n  D oar
R ich a rd  C. D in k e l s p ie l  
A r t h u r  H. D ea n  
L loyd N. Cu tler  
B ruce  B rom ley  
B erl  I. B ern h a r d  

1660 L Street, N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20036 

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, 
Lawyers’ Committee for 
Civil Rights Under Law

Of Counsel:
T im o t h y  B. D y k  
M ic h a e l  R. K l e in  
D e a n n e  C. S ie m e r

OrtnKpr 7 1 Q fiQ



I n  t h e

©curt nt tip TUnxtvb
O ctober T e r m , 1969

No. 632

BEATRICE ALEXANDER, et al,
Petitioners,

v.
HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Respondents.
--------------------------<.--------------------------

O n  P e t it io n  for W r it  of Certio rari to t h e  
U n it ed  S tates C ourt of A ppea ls  

F or t h e  F if t h  C ir c u it

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM 
AMICUS CURIAE AND FOR IMMEDIATE 

CONSIDERATION THEREOF
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 

hereby respectfully moves for leave to file the attached 
Memorandum Amicus Curiae in the above-entitled case. 
Petitioners have consented to the filing of this memoran­
dum. Respondent United States of America (a plaintiff 
below) has also consented. Consents have been requested 
from the respondents who are defendants below in the 
fourteen cases, but as yet consents from these respondents 
have not been received.

Since the responses in this case are due to be filed this 
Wednesday, October 8, 1969, and since this Court may 
consider this case at this week’s Conference, this motion 
and the attached Memorandum Amicus Curiae cannot be 
considered by the Court if the non-consenting respondents 
are afforded time to respond to this motion under Rule 
35(4). Moreover, we believe that their positions on the 
merits may be adequately presented in their responses to 
the petition for certiorari. Accordingly, applicant respect-



2

fully requests that this motion and the attached Memoran­
dum Amicus Curiae be considered together with the pe­
tition for certiorari and the responses to the petition, and 
that, pursuant to Rule 35(4), consideration of this motion 
and the attached Memorandum Amicus Curiae not be post­
poned pending receipt of papers in opposition from the non­
consenting respondents.

Applicant respectfully submits that the attached Mem­
orandum Amicus Curiae will be of assistance to this Court. 
The reasons that applicant believes its motion should be 
granted are as follows:

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 
was organized on June 21, 1963, following a conference of 
lawyers at the White House called by President John F. 
Kennedy. The formal organization of the Lawyers’ Com­
mittee for Civil Rights Under Law is that of a non-profit 
private corporation whose principal purpose is to involve 
private lawyers throughout the country in the struggle to 
assure all citizens their civil rights. The membership of 
the Committee includes eleven past presidents of the 
American Bar Association and two former Attorneys 
General.

Since 1964, the Committee has operated a law office in 
Jackson, Mississippi, which has handled more than 2,000 
civil rights cases. Over 150 attorneys from all parts of the 
United States have served as unpaid volunteers in the Jack- 
son office in aid of the permanent staff there. The Com­
mittee’s national and local offices have actively engaged the 
services of the private bar in addressing a range of legal 
problems in such areas as education, housing, employment, 
economic development, and the administration of justice. 
In the field of education, both the national staff and the local 
committees have undertaken well over a score of projects to 
promote quality education and to assure its availability to 
all citizens, regardless of income level or race. The Com­
mittee has recently renewed its offer to assist the Depart­
ment of Justice in carrying out national objectives in the 
civil rights area.



3

In the two weeks which have passed since the filing of 
the petition for certiorari, federal officials charged with 
enforcement responsibilities in this field have placed in ques­
tion the capacity of the federal government to enforce an 
order for immediate desegregation. The Lawyers’ Com­
mittee for Civil Rights Under Law, in the attached memo­
randum, deals directly with this most relevant issue which 
is not presented in the petition for certiorari. Moreover, 
applicant deals with an additional question—not fully 
treated in the petition—-whether community opposition is an 
adequate ground for delay in enforcement.

Accordingly, the Committee respectfully requests that 
this Court grant leave to file the attached Memorandum 
Amicus Curiae, and consider this motion and the Memoran­
dum together with the petition and responses.

Respectfully submitted,

J o h n  W . D ouglas

George N. L indsay  
Co-Chairmen

B e t i-iu e l  M. W ebster  
Cyrus R. V a n c e  
A sa S okolow  
J o h n  S c h a fe r  
L o u is  F. O berdorfer 
J o h n  D oar
R ich ard  C. D in k e l s p ie l  
A r t h u r  H. D ean  
L loyd N. Cu tler  
B ruce  B rom ley  
B erl I. B ern h a rd

1660 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036

Of Counsel:
T im o t h y  B. D y k  
M ic h a e l  R. K l e in  
D e a n n e  C. S ie m e r

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, 
Lawyers’ Committee for 
Civil Rights Under Law

October 7, 1969



I n  t h e

OXrrurt of tljo H&txxtvb &t<xhss
O ctober T e r m , 1969

No. 632

BEATRICE ALEXANDER, et al,
Petitioners,

v.
HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Respondents.
.---------- ---------- ♦------------------------

O n  P e t it io n  for W r it  of Certio ra ri to t h e  
U n it ed  S tates Court of A ppeals  

F or t h e  F if t h  C ir c u it

------------------------ * ---------------------- —

MEMORANDUM AMICUS CURIAE'
FOR THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR 

CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether, fifteen years after this Court’s decision in 
Brown v. Board of Education, enforcement of elementary 
school desegregation in the State of Mississippi should be 
further delayed.

INTEREST OF THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE 
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 
was organized on June 21, 1963, following a conference of 
lawyers at the White House called by President John F. 
Kennedy. The formal organization of the Lawyers’ Com­
mittee for Civil Rights Under Law is that of a non-profit 
private corporation whose principal purpose is to involve 
private lawyers throughout the country in the struggle to 
assure all citizens of their civil rights. The membership of 
the Committee includes eleven past presidents of the Amer­
ican Bar Association and two former Attorneys General.

Since 1964, the Committee has operated a law office in 
Jackson, Mississippi, which handled more than 2,000 civil



2

rights cases. Over 150 attorneys from all parts of the United 
States have served as unpaid volunteers in the Jackson 
office in aid of the permanent staff there. The Committee’s 
national and local offices have actively engaged the services 
of the private bar in addressing a range of legal problems in 
such areas as education, housing, employment, economic 
development, and the administration of justice. In the field 
of education, both the national staff and the local com­
mittees have, undertaken well over a score of projects to 
promote quality education and to assure its availability to 
all citizens, regardless of income level or race. The Com­
mittee has recently renewed its offer to assist the Depart­
ment of Justice in carrying out national objectives in the civil 
rights area.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The Time for Additional Delay in 
School Desegregation Is At An End.

This is not the first time elements of the school system 
of the State of Mississippi have appeared before the federal 
courts in matters of school segregation. In the fifteen years 
since the first Brown decision, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), at 
least fourteen decisions involving- Mississippi school segre­
gation have been rendered by federal courts.1 Nearly all

1United States v. Indianola Municipal Separate School Dist., 410 
F. 2d 626 (5th Cir. 1969) ; Anthony v. Marshall County Bd. of 
Educ., 409 F. 2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1969) ; Henry v. Clarksdale Muni­
cipal Separate School Dist., 409 F. 2d 682 (5th Cir. 1969) ; United 
States v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School Dist., 406 F. 2d 
1086 (5th Cir. 1969) ; Adams v. Mathews, 403 F. 2d 181 (5th Cir. 
1968) ; United States v. Hinds County School Bd., 402 F. 2d 926 
(5th Cir. 1968) ; Singleton v. Jackson Muncipal Separate School 
Dist., 348 F. 2d 729 ( 5th Cir. 1965) ; United States v. Madison 
County Bd. of Educ., 326 F. 2d 237 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 379 
U. S. 929 (1964) ; Meredith v. Fair, 313 F. 2d 532 (5th Cir. 1962), 
cert, denied, 372 U. S. 916 (1963) ; Meredith v. Fair, 313 F. 2d 
534 (5th Cir. 1962) ; Coffey v. State Educational Finance Comm’n, 
296 F. Supp. 1389 (S. D. Miss. 1969) ; Franklin v. Quitman County 
Bd. of Educ., 288 F. Supp. 509 (N. D. Miss. 1968) ; United States 
v. Natchez Special Municipal Separate School Dist., 267 F. Supp. 
614 (S. D. Miss. 1966); United States v. Biloxi Municipal School 
Dist., 219 F. Supp. 691 (S. D. Miss. 1963), aff’d, 326 F. 2d 237 
(5th Cir.), cert, denied, 379 U. S. 929 (1964).



3

have issued the same unmistakable declarations: Segrega­
tion must end, good faith compliance with this Court’s 
decision in Brown—which as an interpretation of the 
Fourteenth Amendment is “the supreme law of the land”2-— 
is constitutionally required.

As the record painfully reveals, however, good faith 
compliance h^notbegm forthcoming. Five thousand six 
hundred and /days have passed since this Court’s 
landmark decision in 1954. For those fifteen years the 
school systems in Mississippi have failed to effect good 
faith compliance. If one lesson has been learned during 
these past fifteen years, it is that the ingenuity of the 
officials of the Mississippi school system should not be 
underestimated. Now, on the eve of the first meaningful 
elementary school desegregation in the State’s history, the 
defendants have apparently succeeded in convincing the 
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, who in turn, 
has convinced the District Court, that further delay should 
be afforded because:

“The administrative and logistical difficulties which 
must be encountered and met in the terribly short 
space of time remaining must surely . . . produce 
chaos, confusion and catastrophic educational set­
back___ ”3

The ring is familiar if the source is not.
The Secretary’s reference is to the defendant’s assertion 

that the petitioners’ constitutional rights must await (1) 
the redrawing of bus routes, (2) the reassignment of 
teachers, (3) the conversion of classrooms and (4) a pro-

2Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1, 18 (1958).
3Letter of Secretary Finch to the Court of Appeals and the judges 

of the District Court. Transcript of Record in the Court of Appeals, 
Vol. IV, Document No. YY, Exhibit 2.



4

gram of preparation of the teachers and students involved.4 
This fourth ground appears to be a euphemism for over­
coming community resistance.

The supposed administrative and logistical difficulties 
asserted in support of the request for a further delay are 
wholly inadequate, particularly in the light of the long 
delay already encountered.5 There is nothing in the record 
to demonstrate that the redrawing of bus routes could take 
more than a few days. Even assuming that the second and 
third reasons (reassignment of teachers and the conversion 
of classrooms) will involve difficulties of substance for the 
school boards involved, it is scarcely credible that they out­
weigh the long overdue promise of equality or that these 
supposed difficulties cannot be adequately resolved after 
desegregation has been achieved.

4Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the District Court 
(Aug. 26, 1969), as reproduced by Petitioners in Appendix D at p. 65a 
of their Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

BAs this Court noted in Watson v. Memphis, 373 U. S. 526, 529-30 
(1963), in ordering immediate desegregation of the Memphis city 
parks:

“In considering the appropriateness of the equitable decree 
entered below inviting a plan calling for an even longer delay in 
effecting desegregation, we cannot ignore the passage of a sub­
stantial period of time since the original declaration of the 
manifest unconstitutionality of racial practices such as are here 
challenged, the repeated and numerous decisions giving notice of 
such illegality, and the many intervening opportunities hereto­
fore available to attain the equality of treatment which the Four­
teenth Amendment commands the States to achieve. These 
factors must inevitably and substantially temper the present 
import of such broad policy considerations as may have 
underlain, even in part, the form of decree ultimately framed 
in the Brown case. Given the extended time which has 
elapsed, it is far from clear that the mandate of the second 
Broivn decision requiring that desegregation proceed with ‘all 
deliberate speed’ would today be fully satisfied by types of plans 
or programs for desegregation of public educational facilities 
which eight years ago might have been deemed sufficient. 
Brown never contemplated that the concept of ‘deliberate speed’ 
would countenance indefinite delay in elimination of racial bar­
riers in schools. . . .”



5

Recent statements on behalf of the Department of Jus­
tice, if accurately reported,6 would suggest that the request 
of the United States for additional delay, which was con­
vincing to the District Court, is based, in significant part, 
upon the fourth ground—community resistance—and upon 
an asserted lack of adequate manpower in the Civil Rights 
Division to enforce immediate desegregation. The Depart­
ment’s reliance on these factors is, in our view, unwarranted 
since neither of these arguments is sufficient or even cogniz­
able by the courts.

1. This Court Has Specifically Held That Desegregation Must
Not Be Delayed Because of Community Resistance.

From the beginning of the battle for equality of educa­
tional opportunity this Court has made it clear that com­
munity resistance is not an accepted basis for delay. As 
early as 1917 this Court in Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 
60, 81, invalidating a zoning ordinance enforcing separa­
tion of the races, held that the avoidance of “race conflicts” 
was not an adequate reason for continued segregation. In 
the second Brown decision itself, 349 U. S. 294, 300 
(1955), this Court declared:

“ [I]t should go without saying that the vitality of 
these constitutional principles cannot be allowed to 
yield simply because of disagreement with them.”

Three years later, when faced with the spectre of co­
ordinated state resistance to the enforcement of desegrega-

6“Nixon Aide Warns Quick Integration Can’t Be Enforced,” 
The New York Times, p. 1, col. 3 (Sept. 30, 1969) ; “Leonard De­
fends U. S. School Policy,” The New York Times, p. 25, col. 1 
(Oct. 3, 1969). (The full text of these articles is set forth as 
Appendix A to this Memorandum.) In a September 30, 1969, state­
ment the Department conceded that, if the Supreme Court reversed 
the decision below, the Department would enforce the order entered 
pursuant to the Supreme Court’s mandate.



6

tion, the decision in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 (1958), 
was no less emphatic. Specifically rejected there was the 
very concept upon which respondents’ contentions are, in 
large part, premised: the capacity of opposition to create 
practical difficulties in enforcement and then to successfully 
offer those difficulties as proof of the prematurity of a decree 
to desegregate now.7

2. The Alleged Inadequacy of the Enforcement Resources of 
the United States Department of Justice Is No Ground for 
Further Delay.

As we have noted, the United States Department of 
Justice has publicly suggested that delay is in order because 
the Department lacks adequate resources to enforce immedi­
ate desegregation. But “it is an ‘inadmissible suggestion’ 
that action might be taken in disregard of a judicial deter­
mination.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 549 n. 
86 (1969).

“ [T]he Attorney General of the United States, has a 
constitutional obligation to eliminate racial discrim­
ination. . . . Failure on the part of any of these 
Government officials to take legal action in the event 
that racial discrimination does exist . . . would con­
stitute dereliction of official duty.” United States v. 
Fraser, 297 F. Supp. 319, 323 (M.D. Ala. 1968).

Moreover, the Department’s contentions are without 
factual foundation. The Department has great flexibility 
in allocating resources. If, at any given time, there is an 
insufficient number of attorneys in the Civil Rights Divi­
sion, the Attorney General may delegate civil rights 
functions to attorneys from other divisions within the

7See also Watson v. Memphis, 373 U. S. 526, 535-37 (1963); 
Wright v. Georgia, 373 U. S. 284, 293 (1963) ; Taylor v. Louisiana, 
370 U. S. 154 (1962) ; Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157 (1961) ; 
Brown v. Board of Educ., 349 U. S. 294, 300 (1955).



7

Department. 28 U. S. C. § 510 (Supp. I l l  1965-67). 
Should there be insufficient manpower within the Depart­
ment, the Attorney General is authorized to specially 
appoint any attorney to assist him in any proceedings, civil 
or criminal, whether or not the attorney is a resident of the 
district in which the proceeding is brought. 28 U. S. C. 
§515 (Supp. I l l  1965-67). The Lawyers’ Committee stands 
ready to assist in the recruitment of the services of as many 
volunteer attorneys as may be needed by the Department for 
the purpose of enforcement of desegregation orders in these 
and other cases.8

8The Lawyers’ Committee volunteers would offer their services 
without compensation, but token payment is required by statute. 31 
U. S. C. § 665(b) (1964).



8

CONCLUSION

Certiorari should be granted; the order of the Court of 
Appeals of August 28, 1969, should be summarily reversed; 
the order of the Court of Appeals of July 3, 1969, should 
be reinstated; and the case remanded for immediate appro­
priate action in order that desegregation may be immedi­
ately effected.

Respectfully submitted,

J o h n  W . D ouglas 
George N. L indsay  

Co-chairmen 
B e t h u e l  M . W ebster  
Cyrus R. V a n ce  
A sa S okolow  
J o h n  S c h a fer  
L o u is  F . O berdorfer 
J o h n  D oar
R ich a rd  C. D in k e l s p ie l  
A r t h u r  H. D ean  
L loyd N. C u tler  
B ruce  B rom ley  
B erl  I. B ern h a rd  

1660 L Street, N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20036 

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, 
Lawyers’ Committee for 
Civil Rights Under Law

Of Counsel:
T im o t h y  B. D y k  
M ic h a e l  R. K l e in  
D e a n n e  C. S ie m e r

October 7, 1969



A1

APPENDIX A

The New York Times, September 30, 1969NIXON AIDE WARNS QUICK INTEGRATION CAN’T BE ENFORCED
Rights Chief Says “Nothing Would Change”1 

If Court Told South to Act Now
By F red P. Gr a h a m , Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29—-The chief of the Justice 
Department’s Civil Rights Division said today that if the 
Supreme 'Court should rule in a pending case that schools 
must integrate immediately throughout the South the order 
could not be enforced.

Referring to an appeal that the Court has already agreed 
to consider on an accelerated schedule, Jerris Leonard, an 
Assistant Attorney General, declared that “if the Court 
were to order instant integration nothing would change. 
Somebody would have to enforce that order.”

“There just are not enough bodies and people” in the 
Civil Rights Division “to enforce that kind of a decision,” 
Mr. Leonard said at a news conference.

Appeal in Mississippi
The N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund 

Inc. has asked the Supreme Court to discard its “all delib­
erate speed” formula for school desegregation and to de­
mand immediate abolition of racially identifiable schools 
across the South.

The request was made in an appeal of a desegregation 
delay that was granted to 30' Mississippi school districts at 
the behest of the Nixon Administration.



A2

Mr. Leonard’s remarks raised the possibility that the 
Supreme Court could find itself, for the first time since it 
declared public school segregation unconstitutional in 1954, 
in the position of issuing a school desegregation order with­
out full expectation that it could or would be enforced by 
the executive branch.

Mr. Leonard called the news conference to respond to a 
group of dissident lawyers on his staff who have protested 
that the Nixon Administration has softened civil rights 
enforcement.

The dissident group released today the text of a state­
ment of protest that they delivered last month to Mr. 
Leonard, Attorney General John N. Mitchell and President 
Nixon.

The statement charged that the Government’s action in 
granting the Mississippi desegregation delay indicated “a 
disposition on the part of responsible officials of the Federal 
Government to subordinate clearly defined legal require­
ments to nonlegal considerations when formulating the en­
forcement policies of this division.”

The lawyers charged that by basing civil rights deci­
sions on “other considerations” than the law, the Admin­
istration “will seriously impair the ability of the Civil Rights 
Division, and ultimately the judiciary, to attend to the 
faithful execution of the Federal civil rights statutes.”

The statement reportedly bore the signatures of 65 of 
the 74 nonsupervisory “line” attorneys in the Civil Rights 
Division.

Seeks Court Compliance

Attorney General Mitchell was asked about the state­
ment today at a news conference in Miami, where he is 
attending the meeting of the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police.



A3

He denied published reports that one of the “other con­
siderations” that prompted the delay was a hint by Senator 
John C. Stennis of Mississippi that he would not give the 
Administration’s antiballistics missile project his full sup­
port unless the delay were granted.

“That is completely false,” Mr. Mitchell said. He added 
that “the objective of the Justice Department is to comply 
with the Court decision and statutory requirements.”

Mr. Mitchell said he did not “presume that there would 
be any need to take action” against the dissident lawyers. 
Mr. Leonard said he had not been embarrassed by the 
ferment within his division and said he was confident that 
the line attorneys would cease their protests now that the 
Government’s policy has been clarified.

Sources within the dissident group said that their state­
ment was released today after having been kept secret for 
a month because the group believed that Mr. Leonard had 
not given assurances that the Justice Department would 
push school desegregation vigorously. But the lawyers said 
they did not know what further protest action, if any, their 
group would take.

Request by Finch
Mr. Leonard stressed repeatedly throughout his 45- 

minute news conference that the threat of school boycotts 
and school-closings by diehard whites in the South could 
retard the pace of school desegregation. The dissident at­
torneys have charged that this official attitude could en­
courage Southern whites to defy the law.

Mr. Leonard disclosed that Robert H. Finch, Secretary 
of Health, Education and W elf are, asked the Federal 
judges who had jurisdiction over the Mississippi case for 
the delay last month without first consulting Mr. Leonard, 
who had ultimate responsibility for the handling of the case.



A4

But Mr. Leonard agreed with Mr. Finch’s opinion that 
the time was too short to implement the desegregation plans 
in the few days that remained before the start of the school 
year. The judges granted the delay, which would put off 
major integration moves in the schools for at least a year.

If the delay had not been obtained, Mr. Leonard said, 
“I think we would have been faced with massive litigation 
efforts, school closings, and massive boycotting. It would 
have taken years and years to bring these districts back into 
line.”

He predicted that with a year in which to lay the ground­
work for desegregation, it will be accomplished smoothly 
in 1970.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the legal defense 
fund’s lawyers contend that the possibility of delay has 
encouraged Southern school officials to make no plans for 
desegregation and then to plead at the last moment that 
there is inadequate time to prepare for desegregation with­
out disrupting the schools.

The defense fund asked the Justices to give the appeal 
a speedy hearing and to order immediate desegregation of 
all Southern schools. The Court promptly announced that 
it will decide soon after the new Court term begins on 
Oct. 6 whether or not it will hear the appeal.

In the past, when the Court has agreed to accelerate its 
normal procedures, it has often developed that the justices 
were impressed with the contentions of the party seeking 
the speedy hearing.



A5

The New York Times, October 3, 1969LEONARD DEFENDS U. S. SCHOOL POLICY
Says Critics ©f Rights Stand 

‘Run Off at the Mouth5

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 (A P)—Assistant Attorney 
General Jerris Leonard defended the Nixon Administra­
tion’s school desegregation policy today, calling its critics 
“a lot of people who are frankly running off at the mouth.” 

Mr. Leonard, chief of the Justice Department’s Civil 
Rights Division, also said he had no intention of quitting 
because of dissension among his lawyers over Administra­
tion policies.

Llis comments came at an impromptu news conference 
after Garry J. Greenberg, who resigned yesterday at the re­
quest of Mr. Leonard, said, he “would not and could not 
defend the Government’s position.”

Insisting that there had been no slowdown in school 
desegregation, Mr. Leonard said, “take the Mississippi 
situation out and give me one example where we have not 
vigorously enforced the civil rights laws.”

In order to accomplish what some critics propose, Mr. 
Leonard said, “no one could make a statement that didn’t 
advocate immediate, strict compliance with the law with­
out regard to educational factors.”

“I reject that 1,000 per cent,” he said. “You cannot 
desegregate a school district that is presided over by re­
calcitrant school board members by simply issuing an 
edict.”

Cites Times Editorial
Such a situation, he said, would put “school board mem­

bers in the jail houses and kids in segregated schools.”



A6

Asked about statements by Federal judges who charged 
that a July policy statement was “a red herring across the 
path of progress toward desegregation,” Mr. Leonard said, 
“I don’t care if its judges, lawyers, legislators or whoever 
disagrees.”

He took particular issue with The New York Times, 
saying an editorial yesterday was “picayunish and pusillani­
mous and written by someone uninformed.

Asked about critical statements by the Commission on 
Civil Rights and some Congressmen, Mr. Leonard re­
marked, I think you’ve got a lot of people who are frankly 
running off at the mouth who don’t know what the facts