Fairfax Statement on HEW Report on Southern School Desegregation; Greenberg Statement on Integration; Pending School Desegregation Cases

    163 
STATEMENT OF JEAN FAIRFAX 

April 20, 1971 

In January of this year HEW released statisticd which indicate that 

38% of black pupils in the South wsere in desegregated schools. This was 

a far ery from HEW's announcement last fall —. of the South's 

school districts were desegregated. The Administration's statement of 
ey 

dramatic, unprecedented progress obscured the OD ginal ieee oi bd eran red bed 

no further movement has kmam taken place this year and that the situation 

in many districts has deteriorated. Using the lack of a clear mandate 

from the Supreme Court, school boards have refused to handle the continuing 

problems of discrimination in areas where they clearly have responsibility. 

black students have remained in all black schools 

white pupils have not been assigned to all black schools in situations 
where reverse integratin would clearly have tenxxthexbeskxspiukion 
promoted integration 

black schools with good facilitfes hatte been closed because boards have 
been reluctant to assign white pupils to them 

black teachers have been dismissed, demoted or given nonacademic jobs 

black students have been suspended or expelled without due process and 
offen as a result of conflicts for which white students were equally 
responsible but not punished 

Now that the Court has spoken with such clarity, we know what our job is: 

to push for the total disestablishment of the dual school system in the 

South sand to move vigorously into syskems districts outside the South which 

present the same proplems. We are concerned, however, with more than the 

mere mizing of bodies. We shall be putting more emphasis on kk@ a_process 

of desegregation whtch does hot put the whole burden on black stddents - i.e. 

we shall be insisting on two-way busing - and on a quality of integration 

which preserves the rights and the dignity of black children. and teachers. 



PRESS CONFERENCE - April 21, 1971 

Desegregation Course Charted 
By Legal Unit After Bus Ruling 

By C. GERALD oe 
There was a trace of triumph| Opelousas 

in the room. A feeling that the|a t,, La, and “all 
‘war was not yet over, but t|the major cities of Tennesse 

turned—a major battle won. |Worth, Tex; Montgomery, Bir- 
In the library _ of the|imingham, funtsville, Mobile, 

NAACP. Legal Defense and|Tuscaloosa and Annisto 
Educational Fund, ‘Inc, aw- Charles ston, Greenville, 

and staff members crowded|¢ 

P
a
 

g 

s. ‘Gs all 
ies in North Carolina; the big 

eries of tables, sur-|cities in Florida, except Miami; 
rounded by hundreds of lawland Roanoake, Norfolk, Ports- 
volumes. |mouth and ‘Newport News, Va. 

They told how they hoped What will they undertake 
end school segregation in| fj 

all of the major urban ar “You can’t draw: priorities 
Jof the South, anywhere,” Mr. Chachkin said. 

And they announced the sta SES can’t 
jot a “s ubstanti 1 des 
campaign” 
school di 

7 

pick out an: 
egregation land say they are more imp 

medium-sized] tant than any other cases. 
the North, never been a 

ax, director. of the 
t legal information 

fe being |and community services, 
Swann et te-Meck-|the fund would be concerned 
lenburg Boar dof ‘ion etal, with two major areas: one, the 

erg, director Ofjexistence of bad school deseg- 
the fund, said at ion plans—“a plan that 
ference yesterday ai and two, “the 
quarters 10 

\she said the fund would focus 
In the‘numerous cases pend-|on Seppo districts “which we 

ing all over the South, Mr-\beli 
Greenberg said, judges will beling comple 

rder Sesegrezation. tems... 

some of the ae features 
icts in the South.” sion cele busing. aul be\ as 

used t 
tion and that dges ,cou 

ine black-white pupil f flcned are per- 
in schools to determine the ef mitted to transfer out], are go- 
soot atl of desegregation|ing to be looked at very care- 

few foreseeable oe fully,” she said. Districts where 
he way of a -|she said “burden” was on 
Southern educational| black ck itera _— eae there 

ir 0 bus- 

Chachkin, lial be Pan eds 
fund case: Mount Vernon, N.Y., Morris- 

pending in Little ‘Rock, th|town, N.J., Denver, and Detroit 
Little Rock, El Dorado and oe of the Northern cit- 
West Memphis, Ark.; Atlanta, where the fund has begun 

portant comer had been] Also, Houston and Fort|! 

a toon CEotoatlo i 

Macon, Columbus and Albany,! court action, 



STATEMENT BY JACK GREENBERG - Director-Counsel 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund 

The Court has indicated that integration must work, and 

that busing may be employed to make it work, and that courts 

and school boards in making to the black-white 

ratio in the community. In effect, the Court has unanimously 

continued the country on the path to becoming a single society, 

black and white together. The Court has not been persuaded 

by those who have proposed retaining segregation because of 

fear, or physical impediments, or refusal to recognize the 

existence of segregation where it does exist, ascribing it 

instead to such things as the result of so-called “Neighborhood 

school policies" or "free choice." 

Those dire predictions that the Supreme Court would 

change and turn back and, therefore, that the nation would 

change in its fundamental approach to questions of racial 

equality have not been borne out. The United States continues 

on the path set by the Supreme Court in 1954. 



O
N
N
N
R
W
N
E
 

PENDING SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASES 

ALABAMA 

Armstrong v. Bd, of Educ. of Birmingham . 7 
Benjamin D. Franklin et al. v. The Barbour county Bd. 

of Educ. and the Eufaula City Bd. of Educ. 
Bennett v. Madison County Bd. of Educ. Se 
Brown v. City Bd. of Educ. of Bessemer, Ala. 
Carr v. Montgomery SOUaeY School Board 
Davis v, Bd. of School Commissioners of Mobile county 
Annie Yvonne Harris et al. U.S.A. to eeuvenses) Vv. 

Crenshaw County Bd. of Educ. 
Harris v. Bullock County Bd. of Educ. 
Hereford v. City of Huntsville 
Horton, Patrica Ann et al. v. The Lawrence county 

Bd. of Educ. : : 
Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Educ. 5 
Miller v. Bd. of Education of Gadsden, “ala. 

Stout v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ. Beet eS en oer; 
U.S.A. v. Wilcox County Bd. of Educ.; Gordon, et al. 

and Primm, et al. (Intervenors) 

ARKANSAS 

Bolden v. Wheatley Special School District eo ec 
Chase, Delton, et al. v. Richard Twist, et al. Aer as 
Christian v. Bd. of Educ. of Strong School District . . 
Christian v. Rhodes 4 See 
Clark v. Little Rock School District 
Daniel et al. vewagan-et‘al. . 2... Coat pl a se aes 
Givins v. Jones and Wabbaseka School Dist. “No. 7 eee 
Graves v.-Bd.of Educ, of North Little’ Reck.. . 2/2... 
Haney v.. County Bdy of Educ. of Sevier County .o2 36. i. 
Hid} wo Ba OF Raic Carthage, “Arley = 6a. eat oS aes 
Kemp v. Beasley . . . REO NES te cie aes, 
Love v. Bd. of Educ. “of Junction | city, Ark. Bh Rene te Be 
McKissick v. Forrest City Special School Dist. No. newest 
Pace v. Bd. of Educ. of McNeil School District .... 
Tate v2 Bol of Educ. Of JONESHOnOL ect «= ee nen s. = 
Williams v. Douglas . . Bes Te: 
Yarbrough v. Hulbert - West Memphis School District =| 

FLORIDA 

Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward County 
Augustus v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Escambia County. 
Blalock v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Lee County ie 
Bradley v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Pinellas County . 
Braxton v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Duval County Fla. 
Bilis vw: Earl Kipp, et al. . <= Sa Pele: Sa. Case 
Harvest v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Manatee Cty. Fla. 
Manning v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Hillsborough 

(ehh oy Pana cGlI Stam ORNS oye Dane aie in re 1 macs heme orm 
Mills v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Polk City, Fla. .. 
Sharpton v. Bd, of Public Instruction of Indian River Cty 
Solomon Lee Roberts v. Joe L. McClung, et al. a ater ee 
Steele v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Leon City, Fla. 
Tillman v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Volusia City Fla. 
Weaver v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Brevard County Fla 
Wright v. Bd. of Public Instruction Alachua County, Fla. 
Youngblood v. Bd, of Public Instruction of Bay County Fla 

Q
u
a
n
 

P
E
B
A
R
A
 

HL
 

a
n
u
n
 

a 
M
D
O
D
O
M
D
M
O
D
I
N
Y
Y
N
Y
V
I
Y
D
N
D
A
A
A
G
 



GEORGIA 

Acree v. County Bd. of Educ. of Richmond County .. . 
Pad NOUN Ne COOK ei.) GuRame cs ie aeliy Geile ese 9 ies! 6 ie 
Cobb v. Freeman”. . = So Sh al Seine ocoseeemn 
Ford v. Steward County Bd. “of LOE Veto ee Sirsa RE Ges SR AS Sa 
Gaines v. Dougherty County Bd. of Educ. ....-+-+-+-.. 
Graves v. Walton County Bd. of Educ. . ash fetes eee 
Harrington vy. Colquitt County Bd. of Educ, AOR cay ee ies 
HigntcOwerey West. 0s sau IR wets Stange s eer me ee 
Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County .. . eo 
Reeves v. Hancock County Bd. of Educ. A Darter es: 
Ridley, et al., Intervenors, and United States” v. State 

of Georgia et al... a) Sg HE Sr Seas 
Stell v. Savannah- Chatham County “Ba. 1G£ BONG. Scie coum s 
Turner v. Fouche . . . oe ale eR og Peake 

LOUISIANA 

Battise v. Acadia Parish School Bd. . nye Lait 
Boudreaux, et al, v. St. Mary Parish School Board ites es 
Boyd v. Pointe Coupee Parish School Bd. ....-+... + 

Bush v. Orleans Parish School Bd. é 
Celestain v. Vermilion Parish School Ba. 
Conley v. Lake Charles Parish School Bd. 
Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd. 
Dunn v. Livingston Parish School Bd. 5 eens 
Gordon, Marcus et al. v. Jefferson Davis Parish School Bd 
Graham v. Evangeline Parish School Bd. 
Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Bd. 
Henderson v. Iberia Parish School Bd. 
Hubbard v. Tannehill ... CE Ae, a 
Jones v. Caddo Parish School” Bd. Sate: Ses atie 
Lemon v. Bossier Parish School Bd. ... 3 
Monteilh, Marilyn Marie v. St. Landry Parish. School Bd 
Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd. . 
Robertson v. Natchitoches Parish School Bd. cha 
Thomas, et al. v. St. Martin Parish School Board” 
Trahan v. Lafayette Parish School Board 
Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board = oie 
Williams v. eee a President, School Board “of 

Madison Parish . Orso ene ere “rs eleG sane 

MICHIGAN 

Bradley vy. Midliken sco. sms) se oe se si aN isepion ae e 

MISSISSIPPI 

Adams v. Rankin County Board of Education ........ 
Alexander v. Holmes County, Miss. Bd. of Educ. ..... 
Anderson v. Canton Municipal Separate School District 

of Madison County School Board ... Sc ee ee 
Ayers v. Western Line Consolidated School District “5 ngs 
Baird v. Benton County Board of Education . . ee 
Barnhardt v. Meridian Municipal Separate School Dist. Fuels 
Bell v. West Point Municipal Separate School Dist. ... 
Blackwell v. Issaquena and Sharkey cops Bd. of Educ. . 
Brown v. Greer .. . . Me ee a 
Carter v. Drew Municipal “Separate School District Saisie! 
Coffey v. State Education Finance Commission ...... 
Cowan v. Bolivar County Bd. of Educ. ane, eo oN 
Cunningham v. Grenada Municipal Separate School Dist. 
Dean v. Clay County Bd. of Educ: ... « 5 fe oye 
Deloris Norwood, et al v. D. L. Harrison, et al ieee pete oe 
Franklin v. Quitman County Bd. of Educ. . . 
Gladney v. Moss Point, Municipal Separate School Dist. 

18 



O
M
I
H
H
G
A
R
W
N
E
 

Be
 

H
O
 

B
e
 

Nu
 

w
n
e
 

Harris v. Yazoo County Bd. of Educ., Yazoo City 
Municipal Separate School Dist. and poet Bluff 
Consolidated School Dist. .. 5 

Henry v. Clarksdale ab eles Separate “school Dist. core 
Hudson v. Brooks . nee lee Se TeeglB hag’, a 
Hudson v. Leake county “school Board ar) 
Killingsworth v. Enterprise Consolidated “school Dist. a 
Mason v. Biloxi Separate District <<) 29... = 2 Se + > 
Norwood v. Harrison... : 
Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District 
Taylor v. Coahoma County School District ~~. 1... 26s. 

NEW _ JERSEY 

Jenkins v. Morris Township Board of Education .... 

NEW_YORK 

Bd. of Educ. of the City of Mt. Vernon, N.Y. v. Allen 
ODA E Sec ay Leta keeres cuera abst | es ee a ees 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Allen v. Asheville City Bd. of Educ. Seow ik 
Battle and The North Carolina Teacher Assoc. v. The 

Pender County Bd. of Educ. we seaalne 
Broomer v. Beaufort County Bd. of Educ. 
Bowditch v. Buncombe County Bd. of Educ. 
Coppedge v. Franklin County Bd. of Educ. 
Eaton v. New Hanover County Bd. of Educ. 
Edwards v. Greenville City Bd. of Educ. ASieeh 
Scott v. Winston Salem, Forsyth County Ba. of Educ. 
Simkins v. Greensboro City Bd. of Educ. die 
Smith v. N.C. State Bd. of Educ. 3 
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ. 
Turner v. Warren County Bd. of Educ. 
Whitley v. Wilson City Bd. of Eudc. 

OKLAHOMA 

Vasquez v. Board of Education of Idabel School District 
DLO SB Sea ivd meee ales ek ae’ SR RO RST te, SONG 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Adams v. Orangeburg School Board 

Albert y peanbergs ec oe. ho, sees iets Sua 
Brown v. Charleston, South Carolina Schol Dist. No. 20 
DeLee v. School District No. 3, Dorchester County 
Drayton v. School District No. 2, Dorchester County 
McCain v. Abel e aes ie 
Miller v. School Disteiet No, 2 @lavendon county, Src. 
Randall v. Sumter School Dist. No. 2, eee 
Scott v. Lee County School District Shrsseeties 
Stanley v. Darlington County School Dist. .. . 
Wheeler v. School Dist. No. 3, Clarendon County 
Whittenberg v. Greenville County School District 

TENNESSEE 

Carson v. Bd. of Educ. of Monroe County 
Goss v. Bd. of Educ. of Knoxville . . foaks 
Kelly v. Bd. of Educ. of Nashville & Maxwell Me “Bd. of 

Educ. of Davidson County aes ae. See ees a ii 

24 

25 

2a) 



4, 

McFerren v. County Bd. of Educ. ... - 
Mapp v. Bd. of Educ. of Chattanooga . 
Monroe v. Bd. of Comm'rs. of City of Jackson 
Monroe v. County Bd. of Educ. of Madison County 
Northcross v. Bd. of Educ. of Memphis ae 
Robinson v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ. i 
Sloan v. School Dist. of Wilson County, Tenn. 
Vick v. Obion County Bd. of Educ. ... .- 

TEXAS 

Britton v. Folsom 
Flax v. Potts 
Price v. Denison Independent | School District 
Rich v. Christ 
Ross v. Eckels 

VIRGINIA 
Beckett v. School Board of City of Norfolk 
Bowman v. County School Bd. of Charles City County 
Bradley v. School Bd. of City of Richmond Pewee 
Copeland v. School Bd. of City of Portsmouth 
Crawley v. County School Bd. of Isle of Wright county 
Downing v. School Bd. of the City of euecebeate ape 
Gilliam v. School Bd. of City of Hopewell 
Green v. School Bd. of City of Roanoke 3 
Hart v. County School Bd. of Arlington County 
Jackson v. County School Bd. of Caroline County 
Jackson v. School Bd. of City of Lynchburg 
Norris v. State Council of Higher Educ. for Va. 
Thompson v. School Bd. of Newport News, Va. 2 
Walker v. County School Bd. of Brunswick County 
Wright v. County School Bd. of Greensville County 
Young v. County School Bd. of Henry County 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

A@ams v. Richardson... .. .- 
Boykins v. Fairfield Bd. of Educ. 

D. TEACHER DISMISSAL CASES 

Addie Moore, Otha Myrick, Cathryn Ellingsbery, K.S. 
Williamson, and Napoleon Cross v. The Bd. of Educ. of 
the Chidester School Dist. #59, et al. . 
Bell v. County School Bd. of Powhatan county 
Cole, Lola v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Albany 
Felder v. Harnett County School Bd. 
Hardiman & ATA v. Bd. of Educ. of the Plumerville Public 

School 
Harkless v. The Sweeny | Independent “school District 
Hatton v. County Bd. of Educ. of Maury County, Tenn. 
Head v. Blankeney ames tan Mace eet os ereigcelan oe ae De stages 
Hegler & ATA v. Bd. of Educ. of Bearden School Dist. 
Henderson v. County School Bd. of Lancaster County 
J.F. Cooley v. Forrest City School Dist., et al. 
Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo. ge 
McCoy, Gladys v. School Bd. of City of Charlottesville 
Newberne v. Suplin County Bd. of Educ. 
Noah W. Bond, Crawford A. Lucas, et al. v. “Ba. “of Educ. 

City of Memphis, Tenn., et al. 
Singleton v. Anson County School Bd. 
Stella Horton, et al. v. The Orange county Bd. of Bdue. 
Thompson v. Durham County School Bd. 
Tims & ATA v. Bd. of Educ. of the McNeil School | Dist. 
Williams v. Albemarle City Bd. of Educ. : 

This case should be listed under the Alabama School cases 

34 
34 



22. 

22. 

Thomas v. Bd, of Educ. of Plum Bayou-Tucker School District No.1 . . 
Taylor v. The Coahoma County School Distr op light Ne! sz <p 37