Lee v. MacOn County Board of Education

283 F. Supp. 194, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7815
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama
DecidedApril 1, 1968
DocketCiv. A. 604-E
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 283 F. Supp. 194 (Lee v. MacOn County Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lee v. MacOn County Board of Education, 283 F. Supp. 194, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7815 (M.D. Ala. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is another supplementary proceeding where the Court is called upon to deal with problems incident to the desegregation of the several public school *195 systems throughout the State of Alabama enumerated in the order entered herein on March 22, 1967. 1 This phase of the case was initiated by the motion of the United States seeking to end in the public school systems of Alabama the practice of operating dual athletic programs based upon race; the United States, now joined by the plaintiffs, also seeks an end to the practice of scheduling interscholastic athletic contests by school officials only among the high schools traditionally maintained for students of the same race. When the motions were originally filed and heard on March 9, 1968, the defendants were the State Superintendent of Education and the State Board of Education and its individual members. Subsequent to the March 9 hearing, this Court, pursuant to Rule 21, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by formal order dated March 11, 1968, added the two statewide high school athletic associations as parties defendant. The Court also added as defendants the Alabama Collegiate Conference, the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and the Alabama Junior College Conference. This order was as follows:

“As a result of the hearing of March 9, 1968, the Court will give serious consideration to disestablishing the racially dual athletic systems in the schools, junior colleges and colleges in Alabama subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. Any order which may be entered on that subject could seriously affect the two state-wide high school athletic associations, and the junior college and college athletic conferences. Those associations and conferences should be given an opportunity to be heard before any such order is entered.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
The ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and James R. Allen, J. L. Nolen, Sam W. Jones, J. T. Greene, Frank Kendall, F. T. Dobbs, W. W. Hester, and M. G. Couch, as members of the Central Board of Control of said association; and Herman L. Scott, as Executive Secretary of said association ;
The ALABAMA INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and H. L. Shaw, James Hall, Lawrence Presley, W. J. Yelder, W. F. Burns, W. E. Scoggins, R. A. Stewart, Walker Alexander, Hugh Martin, George Mosby, John Nolen, and Eugene Royster, as members of the Central Board of Control of said association; and Severne Allen Frazier, as Executive Secretary of said association;
The ALABAMA JUNIOR COLLEGE CONFERENCE, and Lathem N. Sibert, E. R. Knox, Rex Turner, James Glasgow, B. E. Lee, and Walter Graham, as members of the Executive Committee of said conference;
The ALABAMA COLLEGIATE CONFERENCE, and' Bill Short, Dallas Lancaster, Earl Watson, Ward Tishler, and Jack Powell, as members of the Executive Committee of said conference; and The SOUTHERN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC CONFERENCE, and E. L. Jackson, Julian Bell, Frank Forbes, C. Johnson Dunn, A. S. Gaither, Jay Hawkins, William Powell, W. T. Green, A. J. Lockhart, H. W. Crawford, and H. B. Thompson, as members of the Executive Committee of said conference,

are hereby added as parties defendant to this action.

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-named defendants appear in person, or through their attorneys, at 9:30 A.M., March 23, 1968, in the courtroom of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, second floor, U. S. Post Of *196 fice and Courthouse Building, Montgomery, Alabama, and show cause, if any they have, why appropriate orders should not be entered disestablishing the racially dual athletic systems in the schools, junior colleges and colleges of Alabama, and as to all matters relating to the terms and provisions of any order or orders to be entered on that subject.”

Subsequent to the entry of this Court’s order of March 11, 1968, the Alabama Junior College Association has admitted to its membership the two predominantly Negro junior colleges operated in the State of Alabama. Representatives from the Alabama Junior College Conference have formally assured this Court that no application for membership will be denied upon the basis of race or color and that its membership policies and athletic programs will in the future be carried out without regard to race or color. Upon this assurance, the United States and the plaintiffs have acknowledged to the Court that no further relief against the Alabama Junior College Conference is sought or is necessary.

The United States and the plaintiffs now take the position that at this time they do not desire any relief against the Alabama Collegiate Conference and its members, or the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and its members.

Upon this submission, this Court finds that there are actually two systems of high school athletics in Alabama — one predominantly white and the other Negro. The predominantly white schools belong to the Alabama High School Athletic Association. Their teams play only teams from other predominantly white schools. Their coaches are white and their game officials are white. They belong to conferences only with other predominantly white schools and hold their tournaments, conferences and competitions only for other predominantly white schools. The Negro high schools in Alabama belong to the Alabama Interscholastic Athletic Association. Their teams play only teams from other Negro schools. Their coaches are Negroes, officials at their games are usually Negroes, and their tournaments, conferences and championship games are participated in only by Negroes.

One of the most effective vehicles for the racial separation in Alabama athletics is these two high school athletic associations. All the accredited traditionally white high schools in the State that have interscholastic athletic programs — and there are approximately 360 of them — belong to the Alabama High School Athletic Association. All the traditionally Negro high schools in the State that have interscholastie athletic programs- — and there are approximately 195 of them — belong to the Alabama Interscholastic Athletic Association. At the time the motions now presented were filed, both associations had rules which prohibited members of one association from competing against members of the other association in any athletic contests whatsoever.

The white association, by formal resolution on March 13, 1968, amended this rule so as to allow members of its association to play members of the Alabama Interscholastic Athletic Association. The answer of the Alabama Interscholastic Athletic Association filed with this Court on March 23, 1968, now specifically waives its rule which prohibited the Negro schools which were members of its organization from playing members of the Alabama High School Athletic Association.

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

Related

Ex parte Alabama High School Athletic Ass'n
229 So. 3d 1100 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2017)
Avila v. Citrus Community College District
131 P.3d 383 (California Supreme Court, 2006)
Hartzell v. Connell
679 P.2d 35 (California Supreme Court, 1984)
Adamek v. Pennsylvania InterschoLastic Athletic Ass'n
426 A.2d 1206 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Haynes v. Louisiana Teachers Ass'n
381 So. 2d 849 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1980)
Fowler v. Williamson
448 F. Supp. 497 (W.D. North Carolina, 1978)
Chabert v. Louisiana High School Athletic Ass'n
323 So. 2d 774 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1975)
Haas v. South Bend Community School Corporation
289 N.E.2d 495 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1972)
Moran v. School District 7, Yellowstone County
350 F. Supp. 1180 (D. Montana, 1972)
Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education
289 F. Supp. 647 (M.D. Alabama, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 F. Supp. 194, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-macon-county-board-of-education-almd-1968.