United States v. Choctaw County Board of Education

310 F. Supp. 804, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 610, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13811
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama
DecidedAugust 8, 1969
DocketCiv. A. No. 4246-66
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 310 F. Supp. 804 (United States v. Choctaw County Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Choctaw County Board of Education, 310 F. Supp. 804, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 610, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13811 (S.D. Ala. 1969).

Opinion

ORDER

PITTMAN, District Judge.

On the 5th and 7th of August, 1969, the parties together with their attorneys of record appeared in Court, evidence was taken and arguments made on objections and suggestions to the plan for desegregation of the Choctaw County schools in pursuance of a mandate from the 5th C.A. of June 26, 1969, 417 F.2d 838, and case taken under advisement.

Upon due consideration of the facts and law, the Court finds as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

The 5th C.A. decree dated June 26, 1969, was received by this Court on June 30, 1969, and an order was entered in pursuance of that mandate.

On the same date, June 30, Dr. Gregory A. Anrig’s Office, Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (hereinafter referred to as HEW) Washington, D. C., was informed by telephone of the 5th C.A. mandate and the role of HEW. On the same date a letter to Dr. Anrig, included and made a part of this decree as Appendix B, and a letter to Mr. J. J. Jordan, Senior Program Specialist, HEW, Atlanta, Georgia, included and made a part of this decree as Appendix C, was informed of HEW’s role.

On July 2, a schedule of weekly conferences was set up between HEW and Choctaw County Board of Education and the Superintendent of Education. A copy of that letter is included and made a part of this decree as Appendix D.

On July 10, the defendants filed a letter with this Court. The letter was treated as a motion and its thrust was to waive the defendant Board’s right to present a plan. It requested HEW to present a plan as soon as possible. At the first scheduled conference on July 11, a modified time schedule of compliance with the 5th Circuit mandate was entered. That order is included and made a part of this decree as Appendix E-l.

Beginning at the first conference the Court urged HEW and Choctaw County defendants to establish communication so an intelligent plan could be presented to the Court. The weekly conferences were held in the Court’s chambers. At the Court’s suggestion, a skeleton plan was submitted by HEW on July 17, which was identical with the plan filed July 24, except for instructions for its implementation, and details on school housing, population, etc.

[806]*806From statements made in chambers during these conferences, it was obvious there was very little communication between HEW and the Choctaw County defendants. It would serve no useful purpose to assess the blame, suffice it to say, communication was practically non-existent except at the conferences. HEW had been working and met the Court’s deadlines. The Choctaw County Board defendants had been working but the detailed information concerning the school system was largely in their possession and not in HEW’s.

As a result of the July 24 conference, communication was finally established between HEW and the Choctaw County defendants and on July 30 HEW was granted leave to amend the plan submitted July 24. The final plan was submitted August 1, 1969.

In open Court it was agreed that the August 1, 1969 plan was submitted after full consultation by HEW with the Choctaw County Board and Superintendent, and was formed from full familiarity of all facts presented by the Board and Superintendent.

All attorneys were notified by telephone and copies were delivered or made available to all attorneys the same day.

On August 4, objections and suggestions to the HEW plan were filed by the Choctaw County defendants.

On August 5, 1969, with parties and attorneys present in open court, the Court asked if there were any objections to the HEW plans by the plaintiff U. S., or the plaintiff-intervenors Hampton, et al., to which each stated there were none.

The only evidence offered in support of the Choctaw County defendants’ objections and suggestions to the HEW plans was addressed to the problem of not allowing high school seniors to graduate in the 1969-70 school year from the schools attended by them in the northern zone in past years (see objections, page 10).

The Court finds from the evidence that there would be a total of 55 seniors, 17 white and 38 Negro, who could possibly be affected. They are located in the following schools:

Choctaw County (formerly all white) 0 white, 17 Negro Lisman (formerly all Negro) 10 white, 0 Negro East Choctaw (formerly all Negro) 7 white, 21 Negro.

The Court further finds that the number of students involved is minimal and would in no way materially affect, dilute, or defeat HEW's plan as submitted from disestablishing the dual school system and the establishment of an unitary one.

It is this Court’s opinion that it is a poor judge with crass feelings and lacking in sensitivity who would ignore a teenager’s emotional attachment to a school in circumstances such as this and where more than 50% of them will receive their highest educational diploma or certificate. If exceptions of this nature can not be tolerated, it appears to me that probably computers could better serve as judges.

The only plan before the Court for its consideration is HEW’s amended plan filed August 1, 1969.

There is no other evidence before the Court to support any other of the defendants’ objections.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Under the mandate of the 5th C.A. in this ease dated June 26, 1969, wherein this Court was directed to request the Office of Education (HEW) to collaborate with the School Board in preparation of a plan and if there was no agreed plan submitted, HEW was to submit a plan in- accordance with the authorities set out in the 5th C.A. mandate, and the School Board having waived the [807]*807filing of a plan, the plan filed August 1, 1969, by HEW is adopted with the following modification.

The plan is amended in accordance with the objections and suggestions of the defendants as follows:

OPTION OF SENIORS OF THE 1969-70 GRADUATING CLASS IN THE NORTH AREA AS DESIGNATED IN THE HEW PLAN.

Any high school student who will be a senior during the 1969-70 school term in the north area and who for the school year 1968-69 attended a state accredited high school in Choctaw County different from the one to which he is assigned for the 1969-70 school term, shall have the right to graduate, hold his class ring and receive his diploma from either the high school he attended in his junior year (11th grade) or the one he attended in his senior year provided, such student successfully completes all requirements for graduation at the school he elects to graduate from; provided however, that no student otherwise assigned to the same school will be displaced, and, provided further, that such student exercising this option must provide his own transportation if the regular transportation routes and services will not meet his transportation requirements. It is incumbent upon the defendants to provide space for all students in their respective schools to meet this modification and in the event that can not be accomplished the modification will not apply to such students wherever the failure occurs.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the school plan herein referred to filed by HEW August 1, 1969, be incorporated and made a part of this decree in the appendix marked Appendix F, together with the modifications set out above.

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

Related

United States v. Moss-American, Inc.
78 F.R.D. 214 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1978)
United States v. Hangar One, Inc.
406 F. Supp. 60 (N.D. Alabama, 1975)
Wilkinson v. Skinner
312 N.E.2d 158 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
310 F. Supp. 804, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 610, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-choctaw-county-board-of-education-alsd-1969.