Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky, John L. Haycraft v. Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky

489 F.2d 925, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6241
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedDecember 28, 1973
Docket73-1403, 73-1408
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 489 F.2d 925 (Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky, John L. Haycraft v. Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky, John L. Haycraft v. Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky, 489 F.2d 925, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6241 (6th Cir. 1973).

Opinion

WILLIAM E. MILLER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a dismissal by the district court of two class actions concerning school desegregation in Jefferson County, Kentucky. In Newburg Area Council, et al., v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, No. 73-1403, the plaintiff challenged certain practices of the Jefferson County School Board with respect to its elementary schools. Later another action, Haycraft, et al., v. Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky, et al., No. 73-1408, was filed against the Louisville Board of Education and the Jefferson County Board of Education, seeking the desegregation of the Louisville school system with a plan that included disregarding the Louisville and Jefferson County School District boundaries. The two suits were consolidated but the Court directed separate trials as to the status of each district.

The district court dismissed both actions, holding that the Jefferson County School District and the Louisville Independent School District are unitary systems in which all vestiges of state-imposed segregation have been eliminated. The actions have been consolidated for appeal.

We decide three issues on this appeal: (1) Whether the district court erred in holding that the Jefferson County School District is a unitary system in which all vestiges of state-imposed segregation have been eliminated; (2) whether the district court erred in holding that the Louisville Independent School District is a unitary system in which all vestiges of state-imposed desegregation have been eliminated; and (3) whether a federal district court has the power to disregard school district lines within a single county in formulating a school desegregation plan.

The Jefferson County School District embraces all of Jefferson County except that portion included within the Louisville Independent School District and the Anchorage Independent School District. 1 It has close to 96,000 students, approximately 4% of whom are black. 65% of all students are bussed to the schools they attend. The Board operates 74 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, 18 combined junior and senior high schools, and 6 special schools.

Prior to the decision in Brown v. Board of Education of. Topeka, 347 U. S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), the Board maintained a racially-segregated school system in accordance with the requirements of Kentucky law. It did not provide a high school for black students and arranged for their attendance at Central High School, the black high school operated by the Louisville Board of Education. It oper *928 ated the Newburg Elementary school, grades 1-9. Newburg was located in the one area in the county outside of Louisville having any substantial black population. It was a pr e-Brown black school, and has remained black until the present day. Newburg is surrounded by a number of all-white or virtually all-white elementary schools. Within a distance of three miles from Newburg, there are, in addition to Price Elementary School, which will be discussed subsequently, nine substantially white elementary schools.

In 1969 Price Elementary School was constructed within a mile of Newburg. When Price opened in 1969-70, 33.1% of the students were black. The percentage increased to 40.2% during 1970-71, to 43.9% during 1971-72, and now stands at 54.3%. It is practically an all walk-in school, with about 3% only of the pupils being bussed.

Cane Run Elementary School is located in the northwest portion of the District close to the Louisville city limits. In 1966-67 the black student population of Cane Run was 1.2%. In 1967-68 it increased to 6.2%, in 1968-69 it increased to 11.5%, in 1969-70 it increased to 25.5%, in 1970-71 it increased to 36.7% and in 1971-72 to 45.-5%. In 1972-73 it stood at 49%. Cane Run was rebuilt on the same site during 1972.

The evidence shows that Newburg, Price and Cane Run contain 56% of the black elementary students in the Jefferson County School District.

The district court held that the existence of an all black school, Newburg, in the Jefferson County School District was not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court stated in Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg School District, 402 U.S. 1, 26, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1281, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971), that the “existence of some small number of virtually one-race schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation.”

As this Court noted in Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis City Schools, 466 F.2d 890, 893 (6th Cir. 1972), this language in Swann is “obviously designed to insure that tolerances are allowed for practical problems of desegregation where an otherwise effective plan for dismantlement of the school system has been adopted.” The Jefferson County School District thus has three elementary schools that either are or are rapidly becoming “racially identifiable.” As stated, Newburg School, a pr e-Brown black school, is racially identifiable, while Price and Cane Run Schools are rapidly becoming racially identifiable as black schools. The duty of the school board is to “eliminate from the public schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation.” Swann, supra, 402 U.S. at 15, 91 S.Ct. at 1275. Until the dual system is eliminated “root and branch,” Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968), the school district has not conformed to the constitutional standard set forth by Brown nearly 19 years ago.

The Board urges that “white flight,” not school board policies, has been responsible for the shift in the racial composition of the Price and Cane Run Schools. The district court found that the attendance zone for Cane Run had remained constant over the years and that as blacks moved into the attendance area, the school would naturally become “blacker,” particularly since whites would “flee.” Although the decisions with respect to Cane Run attendance zone and the rebuilding of Cane Run on the same site, considered alone, might not compel the conclusion that the Board fostered segregation here, its decisions with respect to Cane Run must be related to the circumstances surrounding the Newburg and Price Schools.

The evidence shows that in 1969-70 Price opened with an enrollment of 560 and a capacity of 756. Newburg, with a capacity of 1242 had an enrollment of 620. Although these schools *929 were underutilized, several “racially identifiable” white schools were operating with enrollments greater than capacity using either portable classrooms or operating double shifts. During the 1972-73 school year Newburg’s enrollment had declined to 340, and Price’s had declined to 620, while some of the nearby "white” schools were operating over capacity. The district judge found no significance in the under utilization of neai’by white schools.

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

Related

Hampton v. Jefferson County Board of Education
102 F. Supp. 2d 358 (W.D. Kentucky, 2000)
Stotts v. Memphis Fire Department
679 F.2d 579 (Sixth Circuit, 1982)
Janice Adams and Jack Adams, Jr., Minors, by Jerrianne Adams, Their Natural Guardian and Next Friend, and Jerrianne Adams Catherine M. Neel and Camille A. Neel, Minors, by Catherine Neel, Their Natural Guardian and Next Friend, and Catherine Neel Mary Edington and Susan Edington, Minors, by Horace Edington, Their Natural Guardian and Next Friend, and Horace Edington, the Concerned Parents for Neighborhood Schools v. United States of America, Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, and Daniel L. Schlafly, Fredericke. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. Joycebowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),mrs. Erma j.lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, Charlesharris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David j.mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(superintendent Ofschools), United States of America v. City of St. Louis, Janice Adams and Jack Adams, Jr., Minors, by Jerrianne Adams, Their Naturalguardian and Next Friend, and Jerrianne Adams Catherine M. Neel and Camille a.neel, Minors, by Catherine Neel, Their Natural Guardian and Next Friend, Andcatherineneel Mary Edington and Susan Edington, Minors, by Horace Edington, Theirnatural Guardian and Next Friend, and Horace Edington, the Concerned Parentsfor Neighborhood Schools, Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, and Daniel L. Schlafly, Fredericke. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. Joycebowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),mrs. Erma j.lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, Charlesharris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David j.mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(superintendent Ofschools), Earline Caldwell, Lillie Caldwell, Denise Daniels, Dwane Daniels, Cedricwilliams, Stephanie Williams, Gloria Williams, Janis Hutcherson, Leehutcherson, Robert Smith, Eddie S. Willis and the National Association for Theadvancement of Coloredpeople v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis and Daniel L. Schlafly, Fredericke. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. Joycebowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),mrs. Erma j.lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, Charlesharris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David j.mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(superintendent Ofschools) and the State of Missouri, Arthur Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the Stateof Missouri, the State of Missouri Board of Education, Craton Liddell, a Minor, by Minnie Liddell, His Mother and Next Friend, Andminnie Liddell, Joanna Goldsby, a Minor, by Barbara Goldsby, Her Mother Andnext Friend, and Barbara Goldsby, Deborah Yarber, a Minor, by Samuel Yarber, Her Father Andnext Friend, and Samuel Yarber, Nathalie Moore, a Minor, by Louise Moore, Hermother and Next Friend, and Louise Moore, Rachelle Legrand, a Minor, by Loislegrand, Her Mother and Next Friend, and Lois Legrand, on Behalf of Themselvesand All Otherschool-Age Children and Their Parents Residing in the Metropolitan Schooldistrict of the City of St. Louis, Missouri v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, and Daniel L. Schlafly, Fredericke. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. Joycebowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),mrs. Erma j.lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, Charlesharris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David j.mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(superintendent Ofschools), and the State of Missouri, Arthur Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the Stateof Missouri, the State of Missouri Board of Education, City of St. Louis v. United States of America, Board of Education of the City of St. Louis and Daniel L. Schlafly, Fredericke. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. Joycebowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),mrs. Erma j.lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, Charlesharris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David j.mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(superintendent Ofschools)
620 F.2d 1277 (Eighth Circuit, 1980)
Adams v. United States
620 F.2d 1277 (Eighth Circuit, 1980)
Haycraft v. Hollenbach
606 F.2d 128 (Sixth Circuit, 1979)
Haycraft v. Hollenbach, III
606 F.2d 128 (Sixth Circuit, 1979)
Ross v. Houston Independent School District
457 F. Supp. 18 (S.D. Texas, 1977)
Carroll v. Board of Education
561 F.2d 1 (Sixth Circuit, 1977)
Cunningham v. Grayson
541 F.2d 538 (Sixth Circuit, 1976)
Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Gordon
521 F.2d 578 (Sixth Circuit, 1975)
United States v. State of Missouri
388 F. Supp. 1058 (E.D. Missouri, 1975)
Board of Education v. Newburg Area Council, Inc.
418 U.S. 918 (Supreme Court, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
489 F.2d 925, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newburg-area-council-inc-v-board-of-education-of-jefferson-county-ca6-1973.