Gordon v. Jefferson Davis Parish School Board

315 F. Supp. 901, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11420
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedJune 8, 1970
DocketCiv. A. No. 10902
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 315 F. Supp. 901 (Gordon v. Jefferson Davis Parish School Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gordon v. Jefferson Davis Parish School Board, 315 F. Supp. 901, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11420 (W.D. La. 1970).

Opinion

HUNTER, District Judge:

All uncertainty about the constitutional mandate of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) and 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955), was put to rest when in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County the Supreme Court spelled out a school board’s “affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch,” 391 U.S. 430, 437-438, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1694, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968). “Disestablish [ment of) state-imposed segregation” (at 439, 88 S.Ct. 1689) entailed “steps which promise realistically to convert promptly to a system without a ‘white’ school and a ‘negro’ school, but just schools” (at 442, 88 S.Ct. at 1696). If there could still be doubts they were answered this past year. In Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, the Court held that “[u)nder explicit holdings of this Court the obligation of every school district is to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools,” 396 U.S. 19, 20, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969). The command was once more [902]*902reaffirmed in Carter v. West Feliciana School Board, 396 U.S. 290, 90 S.Ct. 608, 609, 24 L.Ed.2d 477 (1970), requiring “relief that will at once extirpate any lingering vestiges of a constitutionally prohibited dual school system.” The plan submitted by the School Board will do just that. It does the job of desegregating the school system completely.1 We know of no plan that is more feasible or more promising in effectiveness. The plan of the School Board is attached. The alternate plan for Ward 4 is adopted rather than the primary plan; that is, Elton and Katie B. Thomas will be paired. The protracted pupil assignments under the plan approved reveal the total integration which has been effected in Jefferson Davis Parish:

PUPIL ASSIGNMENTS
School Black White
Elton High School 336 273
Fenton High School 284 153
Hathaway High School 291 24
Jennings Central Elementary 385 185
Jennings High School 716 284
Jennings Northslde Elementary 540 234
Jennings Southslde Elementary 201 91
Jennings West End Elementary 398 172
Lacassine (Grades 1-12) 426 70
Lake Arthur Elementary 489 75
Lake Arthur High School 560 100
Welsh Elementary School 536 245
Welsh High School 352 114
Welsh Roanoke 195 81
Katie B. Thomas 134 81
2,182 5,843

A formal decree is appended and made a part hereof.

APPENDIX

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

Lake Charles Division

Marcus Gordon, et al vs. Civil Action

Jefferson Davis Parish No. 10902

School Board, et al

DECREE

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants, their agents, officers, employees and successors and all those in active concert and participation with them, be and they are permanently enjoined from discriminating on the basis of race or color in the operation of their parish school system. The plan presented by the School Board to complete the conversion to a unitary system is to be effective immediately.

PUPIL ASSIGNMENT

The defendants shall assign all pupils to schools in accordance with the plan of desegregation submitted by defendants and set forth in the School Board’s plan submitted to this Court on March 20, 1970. The alternative plan will be effectuated as to Ward 4. The protracted pupil attendance at each school is set forth on Exhibit A attached.

PROTECTION OF PERSONS EXERCISING RIGHTS UNDER THIS DECREE

Within their authority, school officials are responsible for the protection of persons exercising rights under or otherwise affected by this decree. They shall without delay, take approprate action with regard to any student or staff member who interferes with the successful operation of the provisions of this decree. Such interference shall include harassment, intimidation, threats, hostile words or acts, and similar behavior.

TRANSFERS

(a) Majority to Minority Transfer Policy.

The defendants shall permit a student (Negro or white) attending a school in which his race is in the majority to choose to attend another school where [903]*903space is available and where his race is m a minority.

(b) Transfers for Special Needs.

Any student who requires a course of study not offered at the school to which he has been assigned may be permitted, upon his written application at the beginning of any school term or semester, to transfer to another school which offers courses for his special needs.

(c) Transfers to Special Classes or Schools.

If the defendants operate and maintain special classes or schools for physically handicapped, mentally retarded, or gifted children, the defendants may allow children to transfer to such schools or classes on a basis related to the function of the special class or school. Provided that no such transfers shall be made on the basis of race or color or in a manner which tends to perpetuate a dual school system based on race or color.

(d) Attendance Outside Parish of Residence.

If the Parish School District grants transfers to students living in the district for their attendance at public schools outside the district, or if it permits transfers into the district of students who live outside the district, it shall do so on a non-discriminatory basis, except that it shall not consent to transfers where the cumulative effect will reduce desegregation in either district or reinforce the dual school system.

TRANSPORTATION, SERVICES, FACILITIES, ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS

No student shall be segregated or discriminated against on account of race or color in any service, facility, activity, or program (including transportation, athletics, or other extracurricular activity) that may be conducted or sponsored by the school in which he is enrolled. A student attending school for the first time on a desegregated basis may not be subject to any disqualification or waiting period for participation in activities and programs, including athletics, which might otherwise apply because he is a transfer or newly assigned student.

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

Related

Adams v. Gaudet
515 F. Supp. 1086 (W.D. Louisiana, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
315 F. Supp. 901, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-jefferson-davis-parish-school-board-lawd-1970.