Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia

338 F. Supp. 67, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15644
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia
DecidedJanuary 10, 1972
DocketCiv. A. 3353
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 338 F. Supp. 67 (Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia, 338 F. Supp. 67, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15644 (E.D. Va. 1972).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

MERHIGE, District Judge.

The hearing on the issues currently before the Court in this school desegregation case, which has been before the Court in one posture or another for many years, encompassed weeks of trial, involving eight separate groups of parties, each represented by a team of lawyers, and included the introduction of more than three hundred and twenty-five exhibits.

The primary defendants in the instant issue are members of the Virginia State Board of Education; the State Superintendent of Public Instruction; and the members of the respective school boards and boards of supervisors of Henrico and Chesterfield Counties, both of which adjoin the City of Richmond, Virginia; and the School Board and City Council of the City of Richmond.

The task of complying with the requirements of F.R.Civ.P. 52 in setting out the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law requires that this memorandum be divided generally into a brief history of the litigation, general findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a section containing precise and specific findings as illustrative instances of the more general findings.

The Court has jurisdiction over all necessary parties in this appropriate class action, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Rule 23(a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Excerpts from this Court’s opinion in Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, D.C., 317 F.Supp. 555 (1970), establish the present stage of this litigation. At the time, the schools of the City of Richmond were being operated under a freedom of choice plan, and the plan was approved primarily to insure the opening of schools on the then planned date in September 1970.

History of Litigation:

[Excerpts from Bradley, supra]

“On March 10, 1970, the plaintiffs filed a motion for further relief, based upon the mandates of our appellate courts requiring school boards to put into effect school plans which would promptly and realistically convert public school systems into ones which were unitary, nonracial systems, removing all vestiges of racial segregation.

On March 12, 1970, the Court ordered the defendants to * * within ten *71 days from this date, advise the Court if it is their position that the public schools of the City of Richmond, Virginia, are being operated in accordance with the constitutional requirements to operate unitary schools as enunciated by the United States Supreme Court.’

On March 19, 1970, defendants filed a statement to the effect that ‘they had been advised that the public schools of the City of Richmond are not being operated as unitary schools in accordance with the most recent enunciations of the Supreme Court of the United States,’ and further that they had ‘requested the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to make a study and recommendation as to a plan which would ensure the operation of a unitary school system in compliance with decisions of the United States Supreme Court,’ said plan to be ready by May 1, 1970.

'A pre-trial conference was held in open court on March 31, 1970, at which time the Court having some doubt as to the effect or intent of the defendants’ statement of March 19, 1970, ‘that they had been advised that the public schools of the City of Richmond are not being operated as unitary schools in accordance with the most recent enunciations of the Supreme Court of the United States,’ inquired as to whether defendants were desirous of an evidentiary hearing as to the plan they were then operating under, i. e. freedom of choice.

The defendant school board, by counsel, advised the Court that such a hearing would not be necessary and admitted that their freedom of choice plan, although operating in accord with this Court’s order of March 30, 1966, was operating in a manner contrary to constitutional requirements.

As a consequence thereof, the Court on April 1, 1970, entered a formal order vacating its previous order of March 30, 1966, and mandatorily enjoining the defendants to disestablish the existing dual system of schools and to replace same with a unitary system, the components of which are not identifiable as either ‘white’ or ‘Negro’ schools.

The defendant school board was directed to file its proposed plan by May 11, 1970. Plaintiffs were to file exceptions by June 8, 1970, and hearings were set for June 19,1970.

The Court heard and considered motions to intervene and permitted all who so moved to intervene, pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 24(b), 28 U.S.C.

Exceptions to the H.E.W. plan were filed by the plaintiffs and those intervenors described as Northside residents.

The hearing on all proposed plans and exceptions thereto was commenced on June 19, 1970, and concluded on June 26, 1970, at which time the Court, recognizing the necessity for expeditious rulings and intending to file these more detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, advised the defendant school board that its proposed H.E.W. plan was not acceptable — a conclusion which the Court felt then and still feels should have been patently obvious in view of the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 431 F.2d [138] (4th Cir. 1970), which had been rendered on May 26, 1970.

STUDENT POPULATION BY RACE UNDER FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN EFFECT 1969-70

As of May 1, 1970, the Richmond public school system enrolled approximately 52,000 students. The racial composition of the school student population was roughly 60% Black and 40% White. The board operated 61 school facilities.

High Schools

Of the seven high schools, three were 100% Black; one was 99.26% White; one was 92% White; one 81% White and one 68% Black, the latter being John Marshall located on the Northside of the City.

Middle Schools

Of the middle schools, three were over 99.91% Black (99.92%, 100%, 100%); one was 88% Black; one 73% Black; *72 three were over 91% White (91%, 97%, 98%), and one was 69% Black.

Elementary Schools

Seventeen elementary schools were 100% Black; four others were in excess of 99.29% Black; one was 78% Black; one was 37% Black; and another was 30% Black.

Two schools were 100% White; thirteen others were 90% or better White; two others were 86% or better White; five others were between 53% and 70% White.

As to the twelve schools with special programs, two were 100% Black; one was 92% Black; one was 83% Black; two others 60% or better Black; four schools had White students ranging from 78% to 100%; two others were 53% or better White.

Faculty and Staff

Out of a total faculty and staff of 2,-501, excluding special program schools,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

(2007)
92 Op. Att'y Gen. 180 (Maryland Attorney General Reports, 2007)
Stanley v. Darlington County School District
84 F.3d 707 (Fourth Circuit, 1996)
Theodore Whitmore Stanley Kevin Barber, Minor, by His Father and Next Friend Jesse Barber Patrick Barber, Minor, by His Father and Next Friend Jesse Barber Bryan Barber, Minor, by His Father and Next Friend Jesse Barber Lurlean Bess MacK Minor, by J.W. MacK Her Grandfather and Next Friend Brian Franklin, Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend Joyce Franklin Jay Franklin, Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend Joyce Franklin United States of America v. Darlington County School District, a Public Body Corporate v. The State of South Carolina the Department of Education for the State of South Carolina the Board of Education for the State of South Carolina William P. Beckham, Iii, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Samuel M. Greer, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Joseph Peeler Stabler, Colonel, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Cleveland Sellars, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Austin Floyd, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Julian B. Wright, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Brenda K. Vernon, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Earl Bostick, Sr., in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Maxie Duke, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Laura M. Fleming, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Frank M. Hart, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Beth Pinson, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education W. Gregory Horton, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Robert W. Owen, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Ruby Matthews, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Celia Gettys, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Thomas E. McInville in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education David M. Beasley, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina Barbara S. Nielsen, in Her Official Capacity as State Superintendent of Education for the State of South Carolina, and David M. Beasley, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the State Budget and Control Board South Carolina Budget and Control Board Grady L. Patterson, Jr., in Official Capacity as Member of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina Earle E. Morris, Jr., in Official Capacity as Member of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina James M. Waddell, Jr., in Official Capacity as Member of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina William D. Boan, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina, Theodore Whitmore Stanley Kevin Barber, Minor, by His Father and Next Friend Jesse Barber Patrick Barber, Minor, by His Father and Next Friend Jesse Barber Bryan Barber, Minor, by His Father and Next Friend Jesse Barber Lurlean Bess MacK Minor, by J.W. MacK Her Grandfather and Next Friend Brian Franklin, Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend Joyce Franklin Jay Franklin, Minor, by His Mother and Next Friend Joyce Franklin United States of America v. Darlington County School District, a Public Body Corporate v. The State of South Carolina the Department of Education for the State of South Carolina the Board of Education for the State of South Carolina William P. Beckham, Iii, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Samuel M. Greer, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Joseph Peeler Stabler, Colonel, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Cleveland Sellars, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Austin Floyd, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Julian B. Wright, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Brenda K. Vernon, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Earl Bostick, Sr., in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Maxie Duke, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Laura M. Fleming, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Frank M. Hart, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Beth Pinson, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education W. Gregory Horton, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Robert W. Owen, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Ruby Matthews, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Celia Gettys, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education Thomas E. McInville in Official Capacity as Member of the State Board of Education David M. Beasley, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina Barbara S. Nielsen, in Her Official Capacity as State Superintendent of Education for the State of South Carolina, and David M. Beasley, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the State Budget and Control Board South Carolina Budget and Control Board Grady L. Patterson, Jr., in Official Capacity as Member of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina Earle E. Morris, Jr., in Official Capacity as Member of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina James M. Waddell, Jr., in Official Capacity as Member of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina William D. Boan, in Official Capacity as Member of the State Budget and Control Board for the State of South Carolina
84 F.3d 707 (Fourth Circuit, 1996)
Stanley v. Darlington County School District
879 F. Supp. 1341 (D. South Carolina, 1995)
School Board v. Baliles
829 F.2d 1308 (Fourth Circuit, 1987)
Richmond School Board v. Baliles
829 F.2d 1308 (Fourth Circuit, 1987)
Bradley v. Baliles
639 F. Supp. 680 (E.D. Virginia, 1986)
Tinsley v. Palo Alto Unified School District
91 Cal. App. 3d 871 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
Tasby v. Estes
517 F.2d 92 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)
Morgan v. Hennigan
379 F. Supp. 410 (D. Massachusetts, 1974)
Bradley v. School Bd. of Richmond
416 U.S. 696 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Uniontown Area School District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission
313 A.2d 156 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
Bradley v. Milliken
484 F.2d 215 (Sixth Circuit, 1973)
Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
359 F. Supp. 807 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1973)
Mahaley v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority
355 F. Supp. 1245 (N.D. Ohio, 1973)
In the Matter of Carolyn Bradley v. The School Board of the City of Richmond, Virginia v. The School Board of Chester-Field County, National Education Association, Amicus Curiae. American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Amicus Curiae. United States of America, Amicus Curiae. Congress of Racial Equality, Amicus Curiae. In the Matter of Carolyn Bradley v. The School Board of the City of Richmond, Virginia v. The School Board of Henrico County, National Education Association, Amicus Curiae. American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Amicus Curiae. United States of America, Amicus Curiae. Congress of Racial Equality, Amicus Curiae. In the Matter of Carolyn Bradley v. The School Board of the City of Richmond, Virginia v. The State Board of Education of the Commonwealth of Virginia, National Education Association, Amicus Curiae. American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Amicus Curiae. United States of America, Amicus Curiae. Congress of Racial Equality, Amicus Curiae, in the Matter of Carolyn Bradley v. The School Board of the City of Richmond, Virginia v. Dawn Gauldin, an Infant, by Her Next Friend and Mother, Judith Gauldin, and Others, Parents and School Children of Chesterfield County, National Education Association, Amicus Curiae. American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Amicus Curiae. United States of America, Amicus Curiae. Congress of Racial Equality, Amicus Curiae
462 F.2d 1058 (Fourth Circuit, 1972)
Bradley v. School Board
462 F.2d 1058 (Fourth Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
338 F. Supp. 67, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-school-board-of-city-of-richmond-virginia-vaed-1972.