Lilly Russell, Cross-Appellees v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School District, Cross-Appellants. Greenwood Municipal Separate School District v. United States

445 F.2d 388
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedNovember 4, 1971
Docket30540_1
StatusPublished

This text of 445 F.2d 388 (Lilly Russell, Cross-Appellees v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School District, Cross-Appellants. Greenwood Municipal Separate School District v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lilly Russell, Cross-Appellees v. Greenwood Municipal Separate School District, Cross-Appellants. Greenwood Municipal Separate School District v. United States, 445 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

445 F.2d 388

Lilly RUSSELL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees,
v.
GREENWOOD MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.
GREENWOOD MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.,
Defendants-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nos. 30393, 30540.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 29, 1971, Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 4, 1971.

John McCreery, Greenwood, Miss., James A. Lewis, John Brittain, Jr., Oxford, Miss., for appellant.

Hardy Lott, Greenwood, Miss., for School Board.

Ben Krage, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Washington, D.C., for U.S.

Before WISDOM, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:

The motion of the defendants-appellees to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is denied.

The judgment of the district court is vacated1 and the cause is remanded to the district court with directions that the district court require the school board to implement a plan for the 1971-72 school year which complies with the opinions of this Court and with the principles established in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 1971, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554, insofar as they relate to the issues presented in this appeal. To this end the district court is specifically directed to implement at the elementary level a plan which will accomplish a greater degree of desegregation than that achieved by the present elementary attendance zone plan.2

The district court also refused a school board motion to consolidate grades seven and eight with grades one through six at the various student attendance centers in the school district, apparently on the finding that to do so would lock junior high students into a highly segregated situation for two additional years. This reasoning was valid in view of the amount of desegregation achieved by the present elementary attendance zone plan. However, under a plan designed to achieve greater desegregation at the elementary school level it may or may not be correct that the consolidation of grades seven and eight with the first six grades will result in maintaining junior high children in a largely segregated situation for two additional years. The district court is directed to reconsider the question of consolidation of the seventh and eighth grades with the elementary grades in light of this Court's directive to implement an elementary plan achieving greater desegregation.

The district court shall require the school board to file semi-annual reports during the 1971-72 school year similar to those required in United States v. Hinds County School Board, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 611, 618-619.

The mandate shall issue forthewith.

Vacated and remanded with directions.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is denied and the Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also denied.

COLEMAN, Circuit Judge (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent.

I have refrained from recording my dissent to the previous Orders entered by this Court with reference to this Municipal Separate School District. In the face of the foregoing Order I feel that I can no longer pursue that course because I believe the results will compound an already desperate public school situation. The only way to avoid it is to refrain from interfering with the sound discretion of the District Court.

The record shows that when Greenwood fell into litigation over the dismantling of its dual school system there were 3327 white pupils. Today there are 1660. The attendance of black students has fallen off by more than a hundred.

The record further shows that there are no white students attending the seventh and eighth grades in this city. Thus there will be no white students channelled from these grades into the Greenwood high school, which is successfully desegregated at this time with 566 white students and 515 black students.

Despite the appalling facts above enumerated as to the elementary schools the majority of this panel now orders the District Court 'to implement at the elementary level a plan which will accomplish a greater degree of desegregation than that achieved by the present elementary attendance zone plan'. Past experience inexorably teaches that this Order will lead inevitably not to further desegregation but to further depletion in attendance and an even higher ratio of black students only. The public school system in Greenwood will be further weakened, with no corresponding advantages to be reaped from it.

It is obvious that the parents of approximately 2000 school children have considered past requirements so physically unreasonable or so educationally unsound that they have withdrawn from the public school system, resulting in a corresponding loss of state funds for the support of public schools. This, of course, does great harm to the educational opportunities of the black children as well as the white-- probably more so.

The situation is not answered by saying, although true, that defiance cannot be permitted to defeat constitutional objectives. The right to attend a private school, freely exercised throughout the United States, cannot be regarded as defiance.

What I am objecting to is the great damage being done to public schools through the imposition of unrealistic plans which do not accomplish what they purport to accomplish.

The problems deeply endemic in the desegregation of the Greenwood Municipal Separate School District fall particularly within the knowledge and expertise of that most able District Judge who presides over this case below and who, of course, is as dedicated to the preservation of constitutional rights as any other Judge in the federal system.

Under the teachings of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, cited in the opinion of the majority, particularly that part which alludes to the exercise of the equitable discretion of the district judges, I would leave this case to the District Judge in the belief that he, far better than we, could best find the solution, if there is one to be found.

I think we should pay more heed to the language of the Supreme Court in Green v.

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

Related

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County
391 U.S. 430 (Supreme Court, 1968)
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education
396 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board
396 U.S. 290 (Supreme Court, 1970)
United States v. Hinds County School Board, (Civil Action No. 4075(j)) Buford A. Lee v. United States v. Milton Evans, Third-Partydefendant-Appellee. (Civil Action No. 2034(h)) United States of America v. Kemper County School Board, (Civil Action No. 1373(e)) United States of America v. North Pike County Consolidated School District, (Civil Action No. 3807(j)) United States of America v. Natchez Special Municipal Separate School District, (Civil Action No. 1120(w)) United States of America v. Marion County School District, (Civil Action No. 2178(h)) Joan Anderson, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. The Canton Municipal School District and the Madison County Schooldistrict, (Civil Action No. 3700(j)) United States of America v. South Pike County Consolidated School District, (Civil Action No. 3984(j)) Beatrice Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, (Civil Action No. 3779(j)) Roy Lee Harris v. The Yazoo County Board of Education, (Civil Action No. 1209(w)) John Barnhardt v. Meridian Separate School District, (Civil Action No. 1300(e)) United States of America v. Neshoba County School District, (Civil Action No. 1396(e)) United States of America v. Noxubee County School District, (Civil Action No. 1372(e)) United States of America v. Lauderdale County School District, (Civil Action No. 1367(e)) Dian Hudson, United States of America,plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. Leake County School Board, (Civil Action No. 3382(j)) United States of America v. Columbia Municipal Separate School, (Civil Action No. 2199(h)) United States of America v. Amite County School District, (Civil Action No. 3983(j)) United States of America v. Covington County School District, (Civil Action No. 2148(h)) United States of America v. Lawrence County School District, (Civil Action No. 2216(h)) Jeremiah Blackwell, Jr. v. Issaquena County Board of Education, (Civil Action No. 1096(w)) United States of America v. Wilkinson County School District, (Civil Action No. 1160(w)) Charles Killingsworth v. The Enterprise Consolidated School District and Quitman Consolidated Schooldistrict, (Civil Action No. 1302(e)) United States of America v. Lincoln County School District, (Civil Action No. 4294(j)) United States of America v. Philadelphia Municipal Separate School District, (Civil Action No. 1368(e)) United States of America v. Franklin County School District, (Civil Action No. 4256(j))
417 F.2d 852 (Third Circuit, 1970)
United States v. Hinds County School Board
433 F.2d 611 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
445 F.2d 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lilly-russell-cross-appellees-v-greenwood-municipal-separate-school-ca5-1971.