Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

318 F. Supp. 786, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10704
District Court, W.D. North Carolina·Decided August 3, 1970·No. Civ. A. 1974·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

McMILLAN, District Judge.

I. SUMMARY _________________________

II. BRIEF HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS_______

III. THE EXTENT OF CONTINUED SEGREGATION —AND ITS RESULTS_________________

IV. THE LEGAL BASIS FOR DESEGREGATION: -

A. Segregated public schools are unconstitutional. _________________________—

B. "Racial balance" Is not required by this court. __________________________

C. "Bussing" is still an irrelevant issue.____

D. This is a local case in a local court — a lawsuit — to test the constitutional rights of local people.__________________—

E. The issue is not the validity of a "system," but the rights of individual people.____—

F. The issue is one of Constitutional Law— Not Politics._____________________

G. The duty to desegregate schools does not depend upon the Coleman report, nor on any particular racial proportion of students. __________________________

V. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE SPECIFIC METHODS AND THE OVERALL PLANS AVAILABLE TO DESEGREGATE THE BLACK CHARLOTTE SCHOOLS.________________

A. The facts under which any question of “reasonableness" must be judged.______
B. Reasonableness of methods.___^______
C. The various plans.__________________
1. The % Majority Board Plan._______
2. The HEW plan.________________

3. The court order of February 5, 1970, including the Finger Plan.___________

4. The % Minority Board Plan._______

5. An earlier draft of the Finger plan. _ _ -

VI. A RESERVATION CONCERNING REASONABLENESS VERSUS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ___________________________

ORDER____________________________

*788 I.

SUMMARY

Pursuant to the mandates of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, further hearings (eight days of them) have been conducted July 15-24, 1970, regarding methods for desegregation of the public schools of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and the known plans for desegregation of the elementary schools have been reconsidered.

The court again finds as a fact that compliance with all parts of the desegregation order for senior high, junior high and elementary schools now in effect will require, at the most, transportation of 13.300 children on 138 busses.

The elementary portion of the order will require, at the most, transporting 9.300 children on 90 busses. The defendants already own or control at least 80 safely operable busses not in use on regular routes, and they expect early delivery of 28 more new ones. Such busses as may be needed beyond these 108 can be borrowed for a year without cost from the State.

No capital outlay will be required this year to comply with the court’s order. The School Board and the county government have ample surplus and other funds on hand to replace with new busses as many of the used busses as 1970-71 experience may show they actually need. If they have to buy 120 new ones, at $5,500 each, the cost will approach $660,-000, which is less than the cost of two days’ operation of the schools.

Regardless of any order of this court, all children assigned to any school more than 1% miles from home are, under state law and regulation, now entitled to bus transport.

The Vi School Board majority have not obeyed the orders of the Circuit Court to prepare a new plan for elementary schools in place of their rejected plan. The court ordered plan for all schools has been in effect since June 29, 1970 under the mandate of the Supreme Court.

The School Board has not used all reasonable means to desegregate the elementary schools.

At least three reasonable plans are available to the Board: (1) the court ordered (Finger) plan; (2) the % minority Board (“Watkins”) plan; and (3) an earlier draft of the Finger plan.

The Circuit Court directed this court to have a plan in effect for the opening of school in the fall, and the Supreme Court on June 29, 1970 put this court’s February 5 order back into effect pending these proceedings. The court ordered (Finger) plan is the only complete plan before the court, and it is a reasonable plan. The Board is herein directed to put the court ordered plan (with authorized modifications, if desired) into effect with the opening of school in the fall, unless they exercise the options set out herein to adopt the % minority Board plan (the “Watkins” plan) or an earlier draft of the Finger plan, or any combination of these three plus excerpts from the HEW plan, which complies with the directives in the February 5 order. The Board is directed to notify the court in writing by noon on August 7, 1970, as to the course of action which it has voted to follow.

Board plans for desegregation of the faculties of all schools and of the student bodies of the senior high schools and the junior high schools are approved.

II.

BRIEF HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS.

On April 23, 1969, after lengthy hearings and research, an order was entered that the defendants submit a plan for the desegregation of the schools of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, to be predominantly effective in the fall of 1969, and to be completed by the fall of 1970. Among other things the court found that under North Carolina law there is no “freedom of choice” to attend any school; that the Board of Education has the total control over the assignment of students to schools; and that residence has never created a right *789 to attend a particular school. It was further found that all the black and predominantly black schools of this school system are illegally segregated. The November 7,1969 opinion contained detailed guidelines for desegregating this particular group of schools, and included the following findings:

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

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 318 F. Supp. 786, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10704 (W.D.N.C. 1970).

318 F. Supp. 786 (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
269 F.3d 305 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Terry Belk Dwayne Collins, on Behalf of Themselves and the Class They Represent, William Capacchione, Individually and on Behalf of Christina Capacchione, a Minor Michael P. Grant Richard Easterling Lawrence Gauvreau Karen Bentley Charles Thompson Scott C. Willard v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Boardof Education Eric Smith, Superintendent, in His Official Capacity Arthur Griffin, Chairman of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board, in His Official Capacity, United States of America North Carolina School Boards Association National School Boards Association, Amici Curiae. William Capacchione, Individually and on Behalf of Christina Capacchione, a Minor Michael P. Grant Richard Easterling Lawrence Gauvreau Karen Bentley Charles Thompson Scott C. Willard, and Terry Belk Dwayne Collins, on Behalf of Themselves and the Class They Represent v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Boardof Education Eric Smith, Superintendent, in His Official Capacity Arthur Griffin, Chairman of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board, in His Official Capacity, United States of America North Carolina School Boards Association National School Boards Association, Amici Curiae. William Capacchione, Individually and on Behalf of Christina Capacchione, a Minor Michael P. Grant Richard Easterling Lawrence Gauvreau Karen Bentley Charles Thompson Scott C. Willard,plaintiffs-Appellees, and Terry Belk Dwayne Collins, on Behalf of Themselves and the Class They Represent v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Boardof Education Eric Smith, Superintendent, in His Official Capacity Arthur Griffin, Chairman of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board, in His Official Capacity, United States of America North Carolina School Boards Association National School Boards Association, Amici Curiae. William Capacchione, Individually and on Behalf of Christina Capacchione, a Minor Michael P. Grant Richard Easterling Lawrence Gauvreau Karen Bentley Charles Thompson Scott C. Willard, and Terry Belk Dwayne Collins, on Behalf of Themselves and the Class They Represent v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Boardof Education Eric Smith, Superintendent, in His Official Capacity Arthur Griffin, Chairman of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board, in His Official Capacity, United States of America North Carolina School Boards Association National School Boards Association, Amici Curiae
269 F.3d 305 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Fourth Circuit, 2001
Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
57 F. Supp. 2d 228 (W.D. North Carolina, 1999)
Martin v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
475 F. Supp. 1318 (W.D. North Carolina, 1979)
Milliken v. Bradley
433 U.S. 267 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
67 F.R.D. 648 (W.D. North Carolina, 1975)
Hart v. Community Sch. Bd. of Brooklyn, NY Sch. D. 21
383 F. Supp. 699 (E.D. New York, 1974)