Ross v. Eckels

317 F. Supp. 512, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11527
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedMay 30, 1970
DocketCiv. A. 10444
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 317 F. Supp. 512 (Ross v. Eckels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ross v. Eckels, 317 F. Supp. 512, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11527 (S.D. Tex. 1970).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:

CONNALLY, Chief Judge.

This is another chapter in the effort presently to create a unitary school system, and further to disestablish the dual school system maintained by the defendant Houston Independent School District prior to 1954. This action was filed in December, 1956. Any number of hearings have been held, and orders have been entered, over the intervening years. Beginning with a one grade per year desegregation plan; followed by an acceleration of this to a two grade per year plan; followed by the integration of athletics and other extracurricular activities ; and culminating with the freedom of choice plan 1 presently in operation and initiated pursuant to order of this Court of September 5, 1967, Houston has, in my judgment, come a long way along the road. Substantial integration has been achieved in many areas; 2 and, of almost equal importance, has been achieved without incident or racial confrontation.

To bring what has been done, and what remains to be done, into proper perspective, these facts should be borne in mind. The Houston Independent School District is the largest in the South, and is the sixth largest in the nation. It covers 311 square miles. It has a student population of 238,460, of *514 which almost exactly two-thirds (66.9%) are white and one-third (33.1%) black. It employs 9,624 teachers, of which approximately two-thirds (68%) are white, one-third (32%) black. It operates 230 schools on 225 campuses, 3 of which 170 are. elementary schools, 36 are junior high and 24 are high schools.

Pursuant to a motion by the plaintiffs for further relief, a hearing was held June 14-23, 1969. At that time I found, and so advised the parties, that the incidence of integration, both of faculty and student body, under the present plan did not meet the requirements of the recent cases. [Green v. County School Board of New Kent Co., 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968); Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969); Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, “Singleton III”, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969). The School Board was directed to devise a new plan and to submit same for consideration by January 1, 1970. 4

The Board of Trustees of the Houston Independent School District is composed of seven members, all elected. An election was held for members of this Board in December, 1969. Four members of the Board were replaced by the same number of new members. The new Board took office January 10, 1970. Almost immediately the firm of attorneys who had represented the Board during the 14 years of litigation in this matter withdrew from the case, and new counsel — theretofore completely unrelated to this litigation in any fashion — was employed and entered an appearance. The new counsel requested, and was granted, a matter of a few weeks to familiarize himself with the litigation. At the request of new counsel, the defendant Board has hastily prepared detailed student locator maps showing the residence, race 5 and grade standing of each of the almost one-quarter million students in the School District. Thus, now, for the first time, one may forecast accurately the effect of any new plan of integration which may be invoked.

The opinion of the Supreme Court in Green, supra, and of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Singleton, supra, have been cited in cases too numerous to mention as furnishing the criteria which a school district is required to meet to establish the desired “unitary” system. The conversion involves the merger of faculty and staff, students, transportation, services, athletics and other extracurricular school activities (Singleton, supra, and Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, 423 F.2d 203 (1970). There is no controversy here except as to the means to be used for increased student integration. While the integration of faculty and staff today does not meet the two-thirds white — one-third Negro ratio required by Singleton, the defendant Board recognizes its obligation in this respect and does not contest the issue.

In all other respects (transportation, services, facilities, athletics and other extracurricular school activities), the defendant Board is presently in compliance with the Green and Singleton requirements. 6

The only question which remains is that of student integration. The question is not easily resolved. New meaningful guidelines have been established *515 by the appellate courts. In the great majority of cases, without saying what is required, the appellate courts have simply said to the District Courts, “This is not enough.” (See the opinion of Judge Coleman, dissenting in part, in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 425 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. en banc, January 21, 1970).

In approaching the problem I consider it to be the duty of this Court to adopt a plan which will serve realistically (a) to bring about now a high degree of overall student integration,

(b) to assure that every student, if not receiving his education in an integrated atmosphere today, soon will do so, and

(c) to do this in a manner which is consistent with good education, good administration, and with sound economic practices.

Presently there are seven plans before the Court for consideration. They will be denominated hereafter as follows:

1. The plaintiff’s plan;
2. The Intervenor (U.S.) or the Stolee plan;
3. The Ted-Tac plan;
4. The freedom of choice plan ;
5. The neighborhood zoning plan;
6. The equi-distant attendance plan; and
7. The geographic capacity plan.

Numbers 4 and 5 were filed herein December 31, 1969, by the outgoing (1969) School Board. Numbers 6 and 7 have been recently filed by the new (or 1970) School Board. The plans will be briefly summarized hereafter.

1. THE PLAINTIFF’S PLAN.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
317 F. Supp. 512, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-eckels-txsd-1970.