Southern School Integration Gets Review by 5th Circuit

    < Hon FeawivE sirens 
PRESS RELEASE Director-Counsel egal A und FoR RELEASE Jack Greenberg 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. FRIDAY Mak a Sages 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 » JUdson 6-8397 March 10, 1967 NIGHT NuMBER 212-749-8487 

‘\ SOUTHERN SCHOOL INTEGRATION 
GETS REVIEW BY 5th CIRCUIT 

LDF Argues Test Suits f 

JACKSONVILLE---The twelve judges of the U.S. Fifth Cinéuit Court of 
Appeals, in an unusual‘move, will convene here today for reargument of the nine crucial schoolintegration cases. , 

Six of these cases are being brought by attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educatiénal Fund, Inc, LDF). 2 

The underlying issue i each of these cas¢s is the pace and extent of school integration across) the South and acgeptance of the guidelines of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 
F 

The LDF cases were argued) last May and’ decided in favor of LDF clients last December by the Fifth Circuit/ by a vote of 2-1, 

The Court said that all grades, incfuding kindergarten, should be desegregated by the fall of 1967.4, p 

The cases involve school boards iin the Louisiana parishes of Caddo, Bossier, ~ and East Baton R95 a, and the Jefferson County, Fairfield, and Bessemer Boards of E ication in Alabama, 

Judge John Minor Wisdom, who grote the majority opinion, said that many school districts had sought Befuge in the federal courts by ob- taining quick decrees providing for desegregation according to plans greatly at variance with the guigeliness 

Under the guidelines, seg#egated school systems are denied federal aid. However, those school districts thatiare under federal court order to desegregate or whose officials have pledged to comply with the 1964 law continue to receive*federal aid. © 

Judge Wisdom further noted that the HEW guidelines were "substan= tially the same as the cougt's standards" and“that "courts in this circuit should give great/weight to HEW guidelines." 

The Court also direéted those school districts that have diffi- culty meeting the HEW minimum standards to ask HEW for financial assistance as provided by the Civil Rights Act of 21964, 

A battery of LDF ‘attorneys, led by James M, Nabrit, III, will 
argue that: & ¥ 

which school»boards may call "free choice" plas, but the plans approved by lower courts are not adequate to b ng about transi- tions to integrated school systems. % 

é % * These six cases demonstrate the great ice plas arrangements 

£ % * The Oklahoma City school board made most of the substantive legal arguments made by appellees here with regardito school zones, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Pesecyed them, 

The "“freédom of choice" plan can only be judgec in specific situations. School boards bear the burden of showing}that their plans are reasonably designed to reform segregated sch¥ol systens, 
A school generation has passed since the historic May 17, 1954 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Théwhole- sale failure of the school boards to assume and carry out ithe job of ending racial segregation left Negroes no alternati litigation, This litigation should not have been necessary. Once started, it should not be endless, Adoption of a unifo: decree is essential, 

but 

(more) x 



SOUTHERN SCHOOL INTEGRATION ve 

GETS REVIEW BY 5TH CIRCUIT -2- er March 10, 1967 

Among the specific barriers being*raised in the cases include: 

pupil assignments based upon racez«fnadequate notice; construction 

programs designed to perpetuaterEegregation; segregation of facilities, 

activities and programs; segrégated transportation; and segregated 

teaching and administratiyé staffs. 

A 
ie -30- 

REPORTER'S NOTE;“LDF attorneys James M, Nabrit, III, and Henry M. 

Aronson will available for comment at the Robert Meyer Hotel, 315 

Julia Street f/ Jacksonville, telephone 904-355-4411, 

(os