Order for Amended Plan

     [||75a07dbe-8fd4-4b23-a25d-aaa6c70e21f5||] CHAMBERS, STEIN, FERGUSON & LANNING 

ATTORNEYS AT LAw 

216 WEST TENTH STREET 

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202 

JuLius LEVONNE CHAMBERS P. O. BOX 20428 

ADAM STEIN August 19, 1969 
AREA CODE 704 

JAMES E. FERGUSON, Il TELEPHONE: 375-8461 

JAMES E. LLANNING 

Mr. James M. Nabrit, III 
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund 
10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019 

Re: Swann, et al. v. Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg Board of Education 
  

Dear Jim: 

I am enclosing a copy of the recent Order of the Court in con- 

nection with the above case for your files. 

Sincerely yours, 

ARE, 
or  — » - y 

J. LeVonne Chambers 

JLC:3ich 

Enclosure 

 



  

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THI URITED STRTES 

FOR THRE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Charlotte Division 

Civil Action Ho. 1974 

JAMIE BE, CWANN, et al. Plaintiffs, 

THU (HARIOTTE-MECKLERBURG BOARD OF 

EDUCATION: MR. WILLIAM EE. POE, 

CEAIPMAN: MR. HERDERECN BILK; 

MR. 8 800D: MR. BUN FF. HUNTLEY: 

MRS. BUTELY KELLY: Riv. COLUMAN CRDER 

We. KERRY, JR. MRS. JULIA MAULDYS: 

iR. “AM 8&, McNIRCH, III: DR. CARLTON 

G. WATKINS: THC NORTH CARCLINA ETATE 

BOARD OF EDUCATION, a public body 
corporate; amd DR. A. CRAIG PHILLIPS, 

Superintendent of Public Instruction 
cf the Stzte of North Caroline, 

Defendonts. 

CONRAD C. PUARSON, 203-1/2 vast Chepel Hill Etreect., 
fuarh:m, Eorth Crxolina; J. levONse CHAMDERS, ALAM STTUIN, 

JAMIL OS EK, PERGUSGN, II and JAMS 3. LAENIBRG, 216 west Tenth 

ftrect, Cherlotte, Rerth cexolin: JACK GREBNRBIORG, JAMNS 

M. BARRIS, 11I, end NORMAN CHACHXIN, 10 Columbus Circle, 

New York, New York: and GASTON BE. GAGE, Law Puilding, 

Chierleotte, Rorth Cerolinc: and PAUL L. WHITFIELD, WHITPFIZLD, 

MORECLY & ECHOLS, 9201 rlizebeth svonue, Charlotte, Forth 

C:yeolina, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. 

EROCK BARKLLY, 820 Law Fuilding., Charlctte, North 
Careline; WILLIAM J. WAGGONER, WIINSTEIN, WACGCIMIR, STURGES 

& 0DCHM, 1100 Bzrringer Cffice Tower, Charlotte, Korth Cazxo=- 
lins © ROBERT MORGAN, Attorney Genexzl: RALPH MOODY, Deputy 
rttoerney Generel: nd ANDREW A. VANORZ, Staff Attorney, 

“tate of North Carcline, Raleigh, North Cerolina, Attorneys 

for Tefendents. 

  

Before JAMRS 2. McMILLAN, District Judge 
  

 



  

PRELIMINARY SUMMARY 
  

Pursuant to this court's June 20, 19% 9 crder, the 

defend nts submitted on July 29, 1969 en amended plan for 

desegregation of the Cherlotte-decklenburg scheoole, including 
= highly significant policy ststement rcecepting for the firet 
time ths Boerd's affirmative constitutional duty to Jdescgre- 

gate studente, teachexez, princioczls end steifs "at the exrliest 
nozgible dete.” Cn August 4, 1969, a report was filed in con~ 

necticn with the plan. A heering was conducted cn August 5, 
126%. "The vlan is before the court for approval. 

Because the pchoolz must open September 2, and becrusc 

the +rd's plen includes both substontisl scticn and genuine 
asSSuronce of sustnined effort towerd prompt complisnce with 

the liw of the lend, the plen of cperaticn, for 1969-70 only, 

is eonroved and eas indiceted below, the defendents are directed 

to prepare and file by November 17, 1969, detailed plans ind 
unverts Ringe for completion ¢f the job of desegregiting the 

echocls effective in feptemberx, 1970. 

THE AMPNMDED PLAN — ARD ITS RECEPTION 
  

The plan propeses, among other things, to close seven 
old sll-black inner-city schools and to assign their 3,000 

students te various outlying schools, now predominsntly white, 

moetly in high rent districts. 

“his technique of schonl closing snd recssignment has 
heen ¢moloyed in dozens ©f achool diztricts to prumete school 
esagregetion. It is not originsl with the local School Roerd, 

cheol eleeing dessus has provoked strident protests 

Lun ck citizens end frow others: sviddence showed thht én 

atin. ted 12,000 names are 2st zd on @ petition dencuncing 

the »len ¢2 unfeir and Re eRimnatocy: The signerz add their 
can bron’ of oxrotest to thet of the 21,000 whites whe last 
hn y (though protesting thaix ecceptance of the principles of 

depegregaetion) raised & "silk-stocking” community cutcery 

sgeinst bus trensportatieon except te schools of Individuzl 

choice. another 300 white Few Creek petitioners have joined 

in protest ageinst a part of the plen under which same 200 
fifth nd sixth grzde pupils would be assigned tO re-opened 

1, a now unused (and formerly black) school. Commaont 

from ocosls who have not studied the evidence tends to ignore 

the liw «= the wezsoen this cuestion is before & court for 
a -os 

decizicn =~ and €O concentrates on public acceptance or whet 

will make people heppy. A correspondent who signs “Puzzled” 
inquires: 

p
e
r
 

“If the whites don't want it and the blocks 
don't went it, why do we have to have it?” 

+ he snswer is, the Constitution of the United States. 

 



  

CONSTITUTION — Ti LeW OF THE LAND =~ REQUIRTS 
. | ¥ Toe ak) a ab. Erk ST ‘yy ty vy Laat 7 Fae > 

Dt end fn G RR) 35 4 Ji LRA ar ASL Np SCHRGOLE 

  
  

  

forth Caroline reportedly rofused to xotify the United 
en Constitution until the 2ill of Rights hed been incorporated 

inte it. The Fourteenth Mmaendxzent to that Censtitution, now 
wrt of the 3111 of Rights, guorintees to #11 citizens the 

squall protection ©f laws.” In Brown v. Roaxd of “fuccticn, 

347 U. &. 483 (1954), 249 VU. 8B, 294 (1955), the Supreme Court 

sl thet racirl segregation in public schools producer inferior 
duccticen #nd morele, restricts opportunity for assccistion, 

op thus viclates the equal protection gueranty of the Consti-~ 
tution snd is unlawful, In Green v. New Fent Ccunty Rcheol 

Posxs, 33931 U. 8. 430 (1568), and two othsr simultznecus unanimous 
= 

er
 

'%
 

  

  

  

  

cecinrions, the Supreme Court held that school boards hove the 
affirmative duty to get rid of duzl ochoeol systems, to elimincte 
blzck scheels” 8” and “white schocls,” znd to operste "just schools.” 

The burden on & s£chcol board today is to come forwerd 
with 2 plan thot promises realistically to work ond 

promises realistically t€o work new.® (Emphasis on the 

word “pow” was put in the text by the Supreme Court.) 

For yasrs people of this community snd all over the south 

hove quoted wistfully the statement in Briggs ve. Elliott by 
Judge John J. Parker {who ot his desth was one of my few 

remeining herces) that though the Constitution forbids segre- 

gotion it does not regulre integration... Passzge cf time, 
znd the revelsticn ¢f conditions which might well have chenged 
Mége Pirkos! 8 views if he had lived, have left Judlge Pzrker's 

dz 28 a landmark but ne longer ¢ guide. The latest decision 

n this gabiaos by the Fourth Circuit Ccurt of Appeals (which 

the court that first reviews my actions) contains this 

"The famous Briggs v. fllictt dictum ~ adhered to 
by this court for meny yorrs - that the Constitution 
forbids segragestion but does not reguire integra- 

tion, is now dead.” HNewthorne vv. Lunenburg. koe. | 

13,283, 13.284, Pourth Circuit Court of Appeals, | 

July 11, 1369. 

  

"Freedom of choice,” as this court hes alresdy pointed 

cut, does not legalize & segregated school system. 2 plan 
with freedom of choice must be jadged by the seme stindaxd 

3 pilin without freedom ¢f choice -= whether or not the 

desegregates the public schools. The courts ere con= 

cerned primerily not with the techniques of assigning students 

or controlling schocl populations, but with whether those 
fechn dou 28 gat rid of pegregation of children in public 
[Xd § 1 4 

  

  

The test is pregustic. not theoretical. 

   



® # 

. 

  

  

CONTINULD OPTRATION OF SFGRUGATED PUBLIC 
SCHOCLS 185 UNLAWFUL 
  

The lssue is one of law and crder. Unless 2nd until the 
Censtitution is amended it is snd will be unliwful to cperate 
segregated public scheels., Amending the Constitution tokes 
heavy me jorities of voters or lewsakers. It is difficult to 
imagine ny majority of Supreme Court, of Congress or of nouular 
vite in favor of chenging the Constitution to say thet public 
school pupils mey lawfully be kept in seperate schools bccnuse 
they =re black. A community bent cn “lew and order” should expec 

school boerd members to obey the United States Constitution, 
ir showld encoursge them in every move they make toward such 

li:nce. The call for “low and order” in the strects 2nd 
slums is necessary, but it scunds hollow when it issues from 
people content with segregoted public schools. 

  
  

  

  

  
  

Tha cuecsticn is not vhether people like descqregsted 
zublic schools, but what the lew reguires of those whe operate > 

  

  
  

TIE PUTTY TO ORSERVE THES CORSTITUTICH AND DUSTGRNIGATE TAZ SCICOLE 

CAREOT PU REDUCED OR AVOIDED BECAUSS OF SOCTHING SAYINGS FROM 
OTHUR GOVERMENT OFFICIALS NOR OUTCRIES FROM THOSE WHO WANT THE 

£9 AF AY. 

  

  

    

  

  

  

a rights and duties of the parties to this suit re in 
Fis court for decision according to liw -- not 2ccording to 

"4 guidelines or public clemer. The court #nd the school board 
ound by the Constituticn. £o zre the legislrtive znd 

excoutive branches of government. No one in Washington or 
Bzleich or local government is zbove or beyond the Constitu- 
ticn. Ione have pawer to change it except by lzwful meens. 
Hone heve cx glzim the power to interfere with the courts in 
cases like this one. The malleable HUW "guidelines" put cut 
by the President’s administrator for educetionasl] affairs, 
znd dubious inferences from statements of cther cofficiels, 
however highly placed, sre irrclevent to the constituticnal 
rights ©f the perxties in this cese. Also irrelevant 2re 
scothing scyings of the Vice President (who has no duty in 
this sxes) to black-tie politicsl cudiences, &nd the not-so- 
soothing sayings of citirens who errconecusly talk as if the 
schoel segregation issue were a gimple mstter of politiczl 

sressure nd short-term public cpinion. As for the Sredaney 
Generel ©f the United States, he hes just filed the biggest 

‘rregregetion sult of 8ll ~~ zgeinet the vhole gtate of Georg 
Stee oiaion of children in public schools, whether they be bleck 

or white, and regardless of whether they Jo or don't want to 
etoy epart, is unlzwlful. As the Supreme Court szid in Brown 
1X: 

2 

  

A 

  
  

     oN
 

r
w
 

  

  

" +e. the vitility of these constitutionsl 
principles cin not be zllowed to yield simply 
becruse of disagreement with them.” 

 



  

  I A 
iH HOGL BOARD'S HUW PLAN ROPRUEYNTS SUBSTANTIAL PROGRES, 

: | 
Agrninst this Deokground the Roerd's pew plan is reviewed: | 

1. The most chvicus end constructive element in the plan 

is thet the School Poryxd has reversed ite field end haze azccepted 

ite sifirmative constituticnel duty to desegregate pupils, teachers, 
crinciosls snd staff members "zt the e:rliest possible date.” | 
It hze recognizad thst where pecple live should nct control 
where they go to school nor the quality of thair education, 4] 

end thet transportation msy be necessary to comply with the 

law. It has recognized thot cacy mothods will not do the job. 

thet rezoning of school lines, perhaps wholesale: poiring, 
grouping or clustering of schools: use of computer technology 

and 21ll aveileble podexn business methods ¢zn and must be 
considered in the discharge cf the Board's constitutional duty. 
This ccurt doas net take lightly the Board's promises and the 

Sorrd's undertaking of its affirmative duty under the Constitu~ 

tien #nd accepts those assurances at face velue. They are, in 

fect, the conclusions which necessarily follow when ny group 
of women nd men of good falth sericusly study this problem 

with knowledges of the focte of this school system sad in light 

cf the l:w of tha ond. 
    

  

2. In the second plecee, by the following actions the 

hig deraonstrrted ite sccestence of its stated new 

2) The desegregation of faculties and the non~ 
recizsl ronsegigmuent of pripeipals and employees 

from pewly closed schools. In the formerly all- 
block feculties the Ecard has drematicelly exceeded 
its goal. It is assumed by the court thet this 
vrocess of frxoulty desegregotion will continue | 
and that the goal for 1970-71 will be that facultics 

in 211 schools will approach & ratio under which sll schools 

n ths eystem will have opproxisetely the game proportion 

Blick end white teachers. i 

b
o
n
 

0)
 

b) The closing of scven schools snd the 
ent of 3,000 black pupils to schoels offering Petter 

ucation. 

¢) The reossigmment ¢f 1.245 students from several 
overcrowded primerily block schools to @ number of 
outlying predominantly white schogls. 

d) The snncunced re-gvaluztion of the progyron 

cf locating and building »nd {improving schools $0 
thet aesch project or site will produces the “greatest 

degree of desegregation possible,” 

@¢) The Doard correctly 2nd ¢ | 

cluded thet the so-celled "anti-bussing 
bry the Ceneral Assembly of Horth Carolina cn June 24, 

1969, Joes not inhibit the Board in carxying cut its 
conrtitutionsl duties nd should not hamper the Board | 
in its future actions. leaving zside its dubicus 
constitutionality (4f it really did what its title 

claims for it), the statute contains an express 
£ i 
“* NJ { 

 



  

! 

exception which renders it ineffectuzl in thet 
it does not prevent “eny trensfer necessitated 
by overcrowded conditions or other eircumetences 
vhich in the sole discrotion of the School Borrd 
require xesgsionmepnt.” 

  

  

  

  

£) The elimination without chijection of the 
former provision which hal the effect of inhibiting 
trensfecr rights of black idee athletes. 

g) Quite significently, the Soard c»lls uncon 
the Planning Board, the ficusing ruthority. the 
Redevelopment Commission end upon resl estate 
interests, locel government snd other interested 
perties to recognize ond shore their responsibility 
for dealing with problems of segregation in the 
cemrunity at large as well ss in the school system. 

h) The propoeels for programs of “compensatory 
cducation® of students, and for teacher orientation 
nd exchange of activities amcng black and white 
students. The court assumes thet these somewhat 
vaoguely stated ideas will beccma implemented with 
cenorcte ection. 

3. Ths Seven School Prellrom. == The Bozrd plan proposes 
to close second Ward High School, Irwin Avenue Junior High Scheol 
end five innex-city elementary schools (five of which were alrezdy 
marked for eboandonment) and to resssign their 3,000 students to 
cutlying white schools. This part of the plecn hoes struck fire 
from black comaunity leaders sad samo other critics. Counsel for 
the plsintiffs contend thet it puts an unconstitutionsl znd dis- 
criminztory burden upon the black community with ne corresponding 
discomfort to vhites. One spokesman for a large group of dissent- 
ing end demcnstreting black citizens was allowed to express his 
vicws et the August 5, 1969 hearing. Thrests Gf boycotts and 
gtrikes have been publicized. 

  

This part of the plen is distasteful, because all but 200% 
of the students being rezssigred gn mosse sre black. It can 
legitimately ba said end has been eloguently s2id that this 
plen is an affront to the dignity and pride of the black 
citizens. Pride and dignity are important. If pride and 
dignity were all that are involved, this part of the Piss “ 
ought to be disapproved. The court, out of forty-yesr memory 
cf four yoaxe of transportztion on zn unheated Mode Nor school 
bur thirteen miles cech way from a distant rurzl cocomunity to 
high =chool in & "city" of 4,000, is fully swore how alien and 
strings are the =zensationa experienced by & school child who is 
heuled cut of his own comunity and into a place where the initial 
welcome i2 uncertein or coel. 

  

*The 700 students being reassigned from Paw Creek to Woodland 

- 

5. 

 



; § rE : 

nowevex, this nert of the plen iz net compulrory. Studenta 

who went to remain in the comfort of their familier sxex moy 

elect to attend the Zebulon Vance School instend: alternatives 

sr¢ oloe provided for the junior high school students. 

  

soreover, 28 che of the attorneys remarked st the first 

herring in a discussion sbout rerssignments and school busses: 

"The cuestion is really net one of '‘bussing' but whether what 

the child gets when he gots off of the buz is worth the trouble. - 

I =erscnally found the better eduction worth the bus trip. 

mescite their undoubted jimportence, pride and dignity should 

not control over the Comnatitution and should not outweigh the 
sroe sects for quality educztion of children. The uncontradicted 
evicence before the court is thet segregation in Mecklenburg 

County hes produced its inevitable results in the retarded 

esuc: tional 2chievement and capacity of segregated school 
children. By wey of brief illustroticn & toble follows show 
ing the contrasting achievements of sixth grade students in 

five of the closed schesls (Bethune, Faivview, Ieebells Wyche. 
Alexondezr Street and Zeb Vence) and in five of the schools to 

which black students are going to be transferred: 

  

= 
< Bo 

IXTH GRADE - 1968-5 
  

| ACM. WM (Word 
| HP o SIE » {Mz th) Her n ina) 

Zethune 45 3 41 41 

(Ashley Park 61 LY 56 53 

(FPeirview 45 38 42 39 

(westerly Hilla 61 61 52 57 

{Izzbelle Wyche 41 34 40 33 

{Myaxs Perk 80 34 58 73 

(Alexander Strect 45% 38 34 4G 

(Shemrook Gardens 37 G2 53 56 

(Zeb Vance 33 34 39 2 

(Park Road 71 75 58 &6 

thiz zlerming contrest in performance is cbvicusly not | 

knows to school patrons generally. 

It wes not fully known to the court before he studied the 

evidence in the csse. 

It cn not be expleincd solely in terms of cultural, racial 

cr f2mily brckground without honestly focing the impact of 

segregation. 

Tha degrees to which this controst pervades all levels of 

scedemic activity znd sccomplishment in segregeted schools is 

relentlessly demonstrated, 

6, 

 



: ® 

  

gragation produces inferior education, znd it mokes 
little cifference whother the school is hot and decrenit or 

Rodern end eir-conditioned. 

It is painfully epparent thet “"guality education™ ean 

not live in & segregated school; sogre ited iz the 
tec uality educction. 

  

  

  

Ag hopeful iin sgainst this grim picture is the 
uwncontradicted testimony of the three ox four exerts who 
testified, scme ges cach side, «nd the very interesting 

py #2 di} os > " . ww? Gf the sintatiser tore ¢f the scheols of Buff:zl 

he exnerts and administrators 211 zgreed thot 

ring wderprivileged . blsck children from blsick schools 
inte =Choolds with 70% or mere white students produced & drematic 
improvement in the rate ©f progress and an increase in the 

peolote serformince Of the lesz advenoad students, without 

nt 1 detriment to the whites. There was no contrary 
eviience. (In this system 713% of the studente 2re white 

Gs, 4, .; | ¢ CaF - 4 any and 4 are black.) 

ry cver, the Borrd's ennounced policy and the uncon- 

tredicte? testimony of the superintendent show that seriou 
rrrengements are being made to welcome, rathex thin rebuss, 
he transferees into ll school sctivities. This is some 

thing now and important. 

fo legal ruthority iz cited that the Constitution pro- 
hibits transport of consenting black children from an inferior 
educsticnel envircomont into @ hatter educational environment 
for the purccse of complying with the gonseltusional require=- 
ment of equcl protection of laws. 

Tht choice of how to do the job of desegregation is for 
the School Board ~~ not for the court. 

The Poard hes wide discretion in choosing methods: meny 
effective methods are degeribed in the evidence: the oe! % 
duty is simply €0 pass on the legality of the Board's .acticas. 
it #ppecrs to the court that the imnrovement in the education 
cf 4.200 school children iz the one most obvicus result of 

the Board's pln of action for 1969-70, énd thet this is more 

portant constitutionzlly then other considerations which 
Reve been advanced. 

It iz not the intention ¢f this court to endorse or 

enprove sny future plan which puts the burden of desegregation 
primerily upon one race. However, there is not time before 

Septerber 2, 1969 to do » complete job of reassigning purils: 

the plan is a step toward more complete compliance with the 

law: the court reluctantly votes in favor of the 4,200 school | 
children snd approves the plan on & one-year bzais. | 

 



  

  

he big job remains to be dune. After immlementaticn 
% 
4 

  

    

  

of th urrent plan, further lezrge senle feculty trenefors 

vill still be necesserxy. Bixtecn years after Brown v. foard 

of Llucrticn, scae thirteen thousand school children will 

> in black or nearly #ll-block schools. Most white 
A will remeodn in substontic tip : all-white schools. 

The | »ilure ol the plen to deal with those problems of course 
can not be approved. The failure ¢f the plon to include 2 time 
tzble fox the performance of specific elements of the progrom 
Of urse can Rot be approved, Polder, ot 2), v. Hornatt County 

Borxl of bation et 21, 403 7. 2d 1079 (4th Cir., 1969). 
These matters must be covered by specific instructions to the 

ll findings of facet in the Previous créers of April 23, 

TRhi™ = 
Ld ah SE 

3 Cm 
A. - 

pF. k | 
& A > 

» 
CUIEAS 

read 

in 

~ Ln 

snd June 20, 19%9, snd the supplementzsl findings of June 

967, tre incorporated herein ey the extent that they exe 

stent with the findings, conclusicns and orders herein 
Ad and given. All evidence ot 2ll hesrings is considered 

reaching these conclusions. 

. bo 

 



  

DRDER 
  ' 

P
o
u
t
 

o Eo
: policy statement of the Board is approved. 

co ‘The faculty desegregztion program is approved. 

4. The plen to desegregate pupils by closing seven 
ti-dleck schocls and resigning their pupils to cutlying 

white schools is approved only (1) with great reluctance, 
(2) &# & cne-year, temporery crrangement, end (3) with the 
distinct regeorvation thot "one-wea xy buesing” plens for the 
yours RItes 1269-70 will not be zccenteble. If, oz the 
pelo uverintendent tortified, none of the modern, 
fault Woh iiy expensive, “"equel™ black schools in 
the system are suitable for desegregation now, steps cen 
nd shoud be tekken to chenge that condition before the 

ef 1970. Unsuitebility or inadequacy of 2 1970 "bleck” 
5 cl to educate 1970 white pupils will not be considered by 
the court in passing wpon plans for 1970 desegregation. The 
cefendants contended and the court found in its April 23, 
1960 crder thet fereilities 2nd teschers in the varicus black 

colz were not mersuradbly inferior to those in the various 
7hite schools. It is too late now to expect the court to 
proceed upcn an opposite assumption. 

“ p
t
 

-
—
 

H ou
? al
 

The plen to reassion 1.245 students from presently 
cvercrowcaed bleck schools is zpproved. 

©. The proposals of the Board for restructure of 
sttendsnce lines: for considerztion of pairing =nd grouping 
echocls; for revisw of the construction programs; znd for 
surpert programs, student exchinge and faoulty crientation 
2re aFBroved in principle. slthough for lack of specific 
“etall and time tuble they ere not approved ss presented. 

The Poard is directed to prepare and present by 
17. 1969, the ellowving: 

(1} Plan for complete faculty desegregation 
“rr 1970-171. 

(2) Plan for student Jecegrenstion for 1970-71, 
including making full use of zoning, pairing, grouning, 
clustering, treansportotion ond other technir uég, com 
>lete with stetistice and maps end other deta shod 

~ 

cisely what (subject to lzter movement of pugsils) 
the sssigraent of pupils and teschers will be for the 
rear 1970-71, having in mind zs {ts geal for 1970-71 
the complete « Ssegeagation of the entire system to the 
meximum extent possible. (the assumption in the 
Board's ZoPorE thet a school ie desegregated when it 
hoa a8 many 28 10% of 2 minority race in ita student 

Q LJ 

 



  

* » 

bocy d= not accepted by the court, nd neither 
the Poaxd nox the court should be guided by such 

figure.) “Possible” ea used here refers to 
educational -- pot “politicel® -- possibility. 
If Anson County, two-thirds ble CR, oan totally 
‘esegregate its schools in 1969, as they heave 
now done, Mecklenburg ¢ County should be hle to 
uster the politicel will tc follow suit. 

(3) A detziled report showing, complete with 
figures and mops, the lecztion =nd neture of cach 
construction project proposed or under way, ond 
the effect this project may rezscnebly be expected 
to have upon the program of desegregating the 
schools. 

8. Since a mid-city high school muy prove most desirable, 
the Poard is directed pending further orders of court not to 
diveat iteelf of any lend, oxtionsz, rent zrrengencnts or cther 
fcress to or control over real estate which it may now heve in 
the Second Ward area. 

e 9. Jurisdiction is retained, 

This the 15th day of August, 1969. 

  

James hy Mc¥illan 
Unitec States District Judge [||75a07dbe-8fd4-4b23-a25d-aaa6c70e21f5||]