# Opposition Brief — Los Angeles Herald Examiner v. San Francisco-Oakland Newspaper Guild > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0961%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1968 - **Citation:** 393 U.S. 926 ## Text to Reda PE eve A tea SW hae tae in bigtit is | oe LIBRARY Supreme Court, U.S. ~UPREME COURT, U. S. FILED 1970 IN THE E ROBERT SEAVER, CLERK Supreme Court of the United States Octoser Term, 1970 No. 409 THE Boarp or Epucation or THE LITTLE Rock Scnoot District, et al., Petitioners, —V.— Detores Cuark, e¢ al., Respondents. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CERTIORARI JoHN W. Wa.LkeER Waker, RorenBerry, Kap.an, Lavey anp Ho.iurncswortH 1820 West Thirteenth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 JACK GREENBERG James M. Nasait, III Norman J. CHacHKIN 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Attorneys for Respondents nd INDEX PAGE Citation to Opinions Below 1 Jurisdiction ............. on Questions Presented ah a ae Statement . The Little Rock School District The Oregon and Parsons Plans .............. 9 Development of the Plan Rejected by the Court of Appeals .... woe | Alternatives Available to the District 16 haa i OT EE TIN SETS 19 ConcLusion ...... ecient ainatptibeabibeabientetndsetitdel sais 26 APPENDIX :— Defendants’ Exhibit 24 0c ccceeeceeeccoo la Defendants’ Exhibit 25 0 2a Defendants’ Exhibit 8 0... cccccccccccccseeeeeccccs 4a Defendants’ Exhibits F and @ ...... 6a POINTE TE sedis Riticlen sien seen ae 8a Chit & Ba SO eet DE AIS ’ Bla RE DP Isha Ne il TABLE oF CASES Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (B.D. Ark. 1956), aff'd 248 F.2d 361 (Sth Cir. 1957) ; 2 Race Rel. L. Rep. 934-56; 988-41 (E.D. Ark. 1957), aff'd 254 F.2d 808 (Sth Cir, 1958); 156 F. Supp. 220 (E.D. Ark. 1957), aff'd sub nom. Faubus v. United States, 254 F.2d 797 (Sth Cir.), aff'd 358 U.S. 1 (1958), 261 F.2d 97 (8th Cir. 1958); 169 F. Supp. 325 (.D.- Ark. 1959) _..1, 2, 4,5 Aaron v. Cooper, 163 F. Supp. 138 (E.D. Ark. 1958), cert. denied 357 U.S. 566 (1958) was reversed 257 F.2d 38 (sth Cir. 1958), aff'd sub nom. Cooper v. MI I a a aan dadecs 4 Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Ark.), aff'd sub nom. Faubus v. Aaron, 361 U.S. 197 (1959) 2,5 Aaron v. Tucker, 186 F. Supp. 913 (E.D. Ark. 1960), rev'd sub nom. Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798 cass setenecnicandnsninnesatcarscensh 2,9 Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 SC ne ae 24 Andrews v. City of Monroe, No. 29358 (5th Cir., April ON a goettinas a SOE SiN en pao ae oop OTERO 21 Bivins v. Bibb County Bd. of Educ. and Thomie v. Houston County Bd. of Educ., No. 29,121 (5th Cir., Pam 3 dere? ae 5 EA Ra ORO OOO ok NOT 20 Brewer v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, Va., No. 14,544 (4th Cir., June 22, 1970) cert. denied 38 USinwW. meee taeme Se, 3970) | on 20, 21 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) ....4, 24, 26 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) ... 4 Byrd v. Board of Directors of Little Rock School Dist., Civ: No. LB 65-C-142 (E.D. Ark. 1965) .................... i) Caddo Parish School Board v. United States, 389 U.S. 940 (1967) ...... siren eee 23 PAGE Christen +. Board of Education of Strong, Civ. No. EDG405 (W_D. pore 4g ISR 24 Chak wr. oe of Edueetion of Little Bock Schoo] District, 369 F 2d 1 (Sth Cir. 1966). 1, 2, 5, 8 Comper vr. pene 22% TS. 1 (1958) mathcihanbiisincinia toca 4 Davis +. Board of School Comzr’s of Mobile, No. 436 OF BR sabbsheidaimasaoaes 22 Davis +. Seaoel Dietrie of ity of Pontiac, 309 F. Sue. 142 (ED. Mich 1979) ___ Hise cotton SAAN 25 Elis +. Buerd a wae Inetruction of Orange County, $23 F224 a Kf: a | ENS ee 21 = eves +. Boerd of Baue of North Little Bock, C. A. ». LB64-151 (ED. Ark) SRE AE 20 Green +. Countr Schoo] Board of ew Kent County, Va, 21 US 439 (1968) Bs hy ie | Heary +. Clarksdale Mumucipze] Seperate School Dis- L, MG P26 G2 (Sh Cir.) cert denied, 296 U.S. 3 ISG) _ 22 Hilson +. Ourte, No. 23691 (5G, Cir, April 23,1970) _. 20 Jackson +. Marvel] Sauap] Llistrict Xo. 22, 416 F.2d 380 Ce WD) 22 Keller +. Metropolitan © outs Board of Educ. of Nash- ville, Cor. No. Die | WD. Tem, July 16, 1970) beets 23 Mannung: +. Boerg Public Instruction of Hillsbor- ong Couutr. Xo. 2642 (Sth GH Cir. May 11, 1970) _. 29 Monarve +. Buerd of Comm'rs of Jackson, Xo. 19720 Sm Cor. June 29, 1970) ao Se tA hedge: Actes aE A Pel Sn ee eee eet re ee ee eC | iv PAGE Northeross v. Board of Education of the Memphis City a, Ge Sl ee CT sree 20 Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S.W. 2d 3 RINNE? Whodisedarsskawideneobasaseuiia sapeidubaidandsacemnuess 8 Swann vy. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., No. 14,517 (4th Cir., May 26, 1970), cert. granted on other issues, 38 U.S.L.W. 3522 (June 29, 1970) ........ 21, 22 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., No. 14,517 (4th Cir., May 26, 1970) cert. granted on other issues, 38 U.S.L.W. 3522 (June 29, 1970) ........ 21, 22 United States v. Board of Educ., Independent School Dist. No. 1, Tulsa, No. 338-69 (10th Cir., July 28, RUD seinsdeniiy tac ciincih ing aeaeienakasahaanensayaialiaaemeentedainins 20 United States v. State of Georgia, No. 29067 (5th Cir., UE Sis BUPOTEE etadasctcdn corte ceeceenneietia 20 State STATUTES Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.A. §$3601 et: seq. CR, BUTTE subdacbnn lade eitaeceacin eanindencdeecaseeaimentiee 25 OtrHER AUTHORITIES Abrams, Forbidden Neighbors, 233 (1955) .........0.......... 25 Racial Isolation in the Public Schools, A Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 201-02, 254, Legal I TE RI Kec iidinccnepcnadiiddeiauanicaeniandesesiocinns 25 Race and Place—A Legal History of the Neighborhood School, Weinberg, (U.S. Gov’t Printing Office, Cat- alogue No. F'S 5.238 :38005, 1967) ..................c.cccscseeeseee 19 Weaver, The Negro Ghetto, 71-73 (1948) -...00.000.. 25 In THE Supreme Court of the United States OctoBer Term, 1970 No. 409 THE Boarp or Epucation or THE Littte Rock Scuoon District, et al., Petitioners, —V.— Detores Cuark, et al., Respondents. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CERTIORARI Citation to Opinions Below The opinion of the Court of Appeals issued May 13, 1970, of which review is sought by Petitioners, is not yet re- ported; it is appended to the Petition at pp. A-1 to A-25. The opinion of the district court was unreported and appears as an Appendix to the Petition, pp. A-27 to A-57. ‘Prior reported opinions in this case and its predecessor action’ appear as follows: Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956), aff'd 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957) . ’ *The district court and the Court of Appeals recognized that Clark v. Board of Educ. of Little Rock was but the continuation of the original Aaron v. Cooper suit brought in 1956 to desegregate the Little Rock public schools. See Joint Appendix below, at p. 7; Appendix to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, pp. A-2 to A-3. ~ SRA Rie th, SR REE RM AS so SER ee eS ads, ae ae bis kr einai (ohn aie es 2 2 Race Rel. L. Rep. 934-36; 938-41 (E.D. Ark. 1957), aff’d 254 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1958); 156 F.Supp. 220 (E.D. Ark. 1957), aff'd sub nom. Faubus v. United States, 254 F.2d 797 (Sth Cir. 1958) ; 163 F. Supp. 13 (E.D. Ark), rev’d 257 F.2d 33 (8th Cir.), af’'d 358 U.S. 1 (1958); 261 F.2d 97 (Sth Cir. 1958) ; 169 F. Supp. 325 (E.D. Ark. 1959); Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Ark.), aff’d sub nom. Faubus v. Aaron, 361 U.S. 197 (1959); Aaron v. Tucker, 186 F. Supp. 913 (E.D. Ark. 1960), rev’d sub nom. Nor- wood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798 (8th Cir. 1961); Clark v. Board of Educ. of Little Rock, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). Jurisdiction The jurisdictional prerequisites are adequately set forth in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Questions Presented Respondents are unable to agree that the five “Questions Presented” in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at pp. 4-5 appropriately describe the issues posed by this litiga- tion. Each of the “«)uestions Presented” described by Peti- tioners assumes “fairly drawn attendance zones” although respondents contended, and the Court below found, that in the context of the forms discrimination and school seg- regation took in Little Rock, the school board’s zoning plan was not fairly or constitutionally drawn. The following statement of the Questions Presented is adapted from Respondents’ brief in the Court of Appeals: 1. Does a school district formerly segregated by law fulfill its constitutional obligation to convert to a uni- tary system by adopting an assignment plan which conforms to racial residential patterns and which fails 3 to appreciably alter the pattern of racially separate school attendance characteristic of the dual system? 2. Can such an assignment plan be justified on the ground that it is a “neighborhood school” plan where the school district formerly assigned students to schools outside their “neighborhoods” in order to pre- serve segregation? 3. Can such an assignment plan be justified on the ground that changing the Segregated attendance pat- terns in the public schools of the district may require the expenditure of funds to provide pupil transporta- tion? Statement The Petition for Writ of Certiorari does not contain a reasonably detailed statement of the facts, the pleadings, or the desegregation plans presented to the district court; petitioners do not substantially rely upon the facts of rec. ord as grounds for review. Yet the decision of the Court of Appeals is founded upon an assessment of the practical effects of the zoning plan in the light of the history of desegregation or the lack thereof, in this district since 1954, and not upon abstract discussions of “racial balance.” See Appendix to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, pp. A-13, to A-16. Accordingly, and in view of the lengthy record, we think it appropriate to make available to the Court the following detailed recitation of the facts adapted from our Brief in the Court of Appeals.’ * We have also reprinted as an Appendix to this Brief some of _ the trial exhibits reprinted in our Court of Appeals brief. The parties agreed that the joint Appendix would contain only the pleadings and the transcript but that either party might put before the Court of Appeals in the form of an appendix to its brief, such trial exhibits as it desired. + The current proceedings* were formally commenced in Juy 1968 with the filing of a Motion for Further Relief * After Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Little Rock school board adopted a plan of very gradual integration. When that plan was not implemented, Negro students and their parents brought suit in 1956. The initial plan, calling for complete desegregation by 1963, was approved by the district court that year, Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956). The Court of Appeals rejected arguments that more rapid desegrega- tion should be required, in part for the reason that the first plan had been voluntarily adopted by the school board even before the second Brown decision (Brown v. Board of Educ., 349 U.S. 294 (1955)). Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). Subse- quently, when white parents obtained a state injunction to prevent implementation of the plan in 1957-58, the district court restrained compliance with the order of the Arkansas court and mandated execution of the plan. Aaron v. Cooper, 2 Race Rel. L. Rep. 934-36, 938-41 (E.D. Ark. 1957), aff'd 254 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1958). The Governor of Arkansas then took measures to prevent Negroes from attending classes at the previously-white Central High School, in- cluding the stationing of National Guardsmen with fixed bayonets at the school with orders to prevent the entry of Negro students. This conduct was enjoined in Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220 7 D. Ark. 1957) aff'd sub nom. Faubus v. United States, 254 F.2d 7 (Sth Giz. 1938). However, intervention by federal troops under ‘eens soles of the President of the United States was required to effectuate compliance with the district court’s orders and with the Constitution. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 12 (1958). After the conclusion of the 1957-58 school year, the board sought to delay implementation of the plan for at least three additional years because of the extent of white opposition to integration. The district court’s order approving a delay, Aaron v. Cooper, 163 F. Supp. 13 (E.D. Ark. 1958), cert. dented, 357 U.S. 566 (1958), was reversed, 257 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1958), aff'd sub nom. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). Pursuant to emergency measures passed by the Arkansas Legisla- ture in special session, the Governor of Arkansas then ordered all Little Rock high schools [the desegregation plan at that time ex- tended only to the high school grades] to be closed indefinitely. Thereupon, the board undertook to lease its high school buildings to a segregated private school corporation. The district court denied an injunction against the leasing of the facilities, but the Court of Appeals reversed and required issuance of the decree, Aaron v. Cooper, 261 F.2d 97 (8th Cir. 1958). However, Little Rock public high schools remained closed during the 1958-59 school year, see ) based upon Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) and companion cases. In that Motion (A. da-l4a),* plaintiffs sought—and plain- tiff-intervenors sought in their Complaint (see A. 27a-31a) —an order requiring the Little Rock School District to abandon its free choice plan of desegregation and to adopt and implement a plan of desegregation which “promises realistically” to convert now to a unitary school system. Aaron v. Cooper, 169 F. Supp. 325 (E.D. Ark. 1959), until the Arkansas school closing legislation was declared void by a three- judge district court in Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Ark. 1959) (per curiam), aff'd sub nom. Faubus v. Aaron, 361 U.S. 197 (1959). The board then assigned pupiis during the 1959-60 school year on the basis of regulations adopted by it pursuant to the Arkansas Pupil Placement laws, which required consideration of a multitude of factors other than residence (e.g., “the possibility of breaches of the peace or ill will or economic retaliation within the community”). An attack upon these laws was rejected by the district court, Aaron v. Tucker, 186 F. Supp. 913 (E.D. Ark. 1960), but its judg- ment was reversed in Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798, 802 (8th Cir. 1961), where the Court said, “[w]hile we are convinced that assignment on the basis of pupil residence was contemplated under the original plan of integration, it does not follow that the school officials are powerless to apply additional criteria in making initial assignments and re-assignments.” The board’s use of the pupil piacement laws was “motivated and governed by racial considera- tions,” id. at 806, said the Court, and the board’s “obligation to disestabiish imposed segregation is not met by applying placement or assignment standards, educational theories or other criteria so as to produce the result of leaving the previous racial situation existing as it was before.” Id. at 809. The Clark plaintiffs in 1965 complained of continued manipula- tion of the Pupil Placement laws to limit the movement of Negroes into previously all-white schools. The district court so found. See Clark v. Board of Educ. of Little Rock, 369 F.2d 661, 665 (8th Cir. 1966). While the district court’s opinion in that case was being prepared, the board determined to abandon the Pupil Placement laws in favor of a “freedom of choice” plan, subsequently approved by the district court and by the Eighth Circuit with ‘certain di- rected modifications. Clark v. Board of Educ. of Little Rock, supra. * Citations are to the Joint Appendix below. 6 After further proceedings, the district court approved a geographic zoning plan submitted by the board. The Little Rock School District At the present time there are five high schools, seven junior high schools, and thirty-one elementary schools (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 24, p. la infra)® in the Little Rock School District, which served an estimated 1969-70 student enrollment of 15,377 white students and 8,281 Negro students (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 25, p. 3a infra). As the Court of Appeals noted in its opinion (See Appendix to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, p. A-6), the district generally forms an irregular rectangle with the longer side running from east to west along the Arkansas River. The most prominent exception to this pattern is the extension of the district in two finger-like projections at its northwest end. These have resulted from the district’s annexation, since 1956, of the white residential subdivisions of Walton Heights and Candlewood. Between the two “fin- gers” lies a Negro residential area known as Pankey (A. 485-509). Since 1956 the district has expanded almost exclusively to the west.® ()f thirteen new school facilities opened since 5 See note 2 supra. 6 Expansion of the district has not benefited both white and Negro citizens of Little Rock. Various urban renewal projects since 1954 have eliminated areas of Negro residences near the present Hall High School (A. 289), and in Pulaski Heights (A. 290-91). Of more than one hundred and seventy-five subdivisions developed in Little Rock between 1950 and 1968 ( Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 4), only two—Granite Mountain and University Park—have Negro res- idents (A. 746). On the other hand, William Meeks, a member of the Little Rock School Board and Little Rock “Realtor of the Year” in 1967, testified of discrimination against Negroes in the sale of housing (A. 743-44). He said that he knew of no Little Ma DP BR Sb 7 that year, only three have been located in the east-central section of the city: Booker Jr. High, Ish and Gillam Ele- mentary Schools. All were named for prominent Negroes (A. 473, 482); all were initially opened as Negro schools (A. 473, 477, 482) with all-Negro faculties (Ibid). On the other hand, the district built nine schog]s? in West- ern Little Rock between 1956 and 1969: Parikview High School, Henderson Junior High and Southwest Junior High Schools, Bale, McDermott, Romine, Terry, Western Hills and Williams Elementary Schools. In each instance, these schools were initially filled with an all-white faculty (A. 154) and they have remained identifiable: as “white” schools. The district court accepted “as obvious the proposition that the Little Rock District located new schhools in the center of concentrations of one race and limitecd the capac- ities of those schools to service only that partticular com- munity” (A. 155-56). Faculty assignments to tthese schools were then based on the racial composition of thhe neighbor- hood (A, 153). Schools built since. 1956 h , nearly all-white or all- Negro (Ae 158); they. been either been located so as to promote desegregation and achieve- iment of a unitary school system (A. 476, 486, 5008), although the district has been aware since 1956 of the trrend of popu- lation movement, including the tendency of whhites to move Rock realtor, even up to the time of the hearing in this case, who would knowingly sell a lot in a “white” subdivisioon to a Negro (A. 294). Newspaper advertisements reflecting listinggs of sale prop- erty by race were also introduced in evidence (Plajintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3). "The thirteenth facility opened since 1956 was; Metropolitan High School, a vocational-technical school serving bo?th Little Rock and the Pulaski County Special School District, It jis located out- side the district’s boundaries. PS IRON TIE TER AYN LOG TINE” ATE IL 8 OO TIE AN IE COTE 8 west and of Negroes to remain in the center or castern section of the city (A. 286-296, 637).° § Between 1956 and 1969 there were many instances of specific actions taken by the district which developed or reinforced the racial identifiability of its schools: Bale and Williams Elementary schools were constructed prior to 1961 in all-white neighborhoods and staffed with all-white facil- ities. In 1961, the district decided to “convert” the previously all-white Rightsell elementary school to an all-Negro school in order to relieve overerowding at nearby all-Negro elementary schools. No consideration was given to the possibility of operating all schools in the area on an integrated basis (A. 166-67; Safferstone V. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S.W. 2d 3 (1962) ). In 1963-64, while Henderson Junior High School was under con- struction, white pupils living in the far western section of the city were transported by school district bus past West Side and Dunbar Junior High Schools to attend the previously all-white East Side Junior High (A. 171). No attempt was made to bus these students to the nearest “neighborhood school” and/or to in- tegrate Dunbar. When construction of Booker Jr. High was com- pleted and East Side closed, however, only the Negro East Side students were assigned to Booker; the white students went to West Side (A. 478). Booker also drew students from overcrowded Dunbar Jr. High (A. 496). Thus, the district did not make use of an op- portunity presented to it in 1964-65 to disestablish the identities of West Side and Henderson as white junior high schools and Booker and Dunbar as Negro junior high schools. j “+ 2000 Fe at. YS atie awonod Ailiam Flementary Sehool. located in an all-Negro area, as a Negro school with an all-Negro faculty (A. 473). Gillam was constructed nearly adjacent to the existing Negro Granite Mountain Elementary School. Both schools are pres- ently operating under capacity, but when the district contemplated construction of Gillam, no consideration was given either to ex- panding existing capacity at other elementary schools or to locating a new facility so as to promote desegregation (A. 474). In 1965 another primary school named for a Negro citizen was opened with an all-Negro faculty—Ish Elementary School (A. 481- 52). At the same time, all-Negro Capital Hill Elementary School was closed and its students assigned to other all-Negro schools, in- cluding Ish, rather than to nearby white elementary facilities (A. 482). Although the district was supposed to be operating under freedom of choice at the time, see Clark v. Board of Educ. of Little Rock, supra, 369 F.2d at 665, students assigned to Ish were not afforded a choice of schools until the district was ordered to permit 9 The Oregon and Parsons Plans Tn 1966, the school board contracted with a team from the University of Oregon to prepare a long range plan of desegregation for he district (A. 61-62). The findings of that team were reported in early 1967 and became known as the “Oregon Report” (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 7). Ba- choice in Byrd v. Board of Directors of Little Ruck School Dist., Civ. No. LR 65-C-142 (E.D. Ark. 1965). When all-Negro Pfeifer and Carver schools became overcrowded, the district did not offer Negro students a second choice of schools (A. 315-16), but moved portable classrooms to the site to expand the eapacity of the schools and contain the Negro student popula- tion (A. 498-99). In contrast, Hall High School was declared over- In addition to staffing new schools with all-white or all-Negro faculties, the district hired teachers on a strictly racial basis through 1964-65 (A. 28) ; thereafter, all attempts to achieve fac- ulty integration were on a purely voluntary basis only (A. 255). And prior to July 1968, except for two white principals at Negro schools, the district maintained a racial allocation of principalships, with white principals at traditionally white schools and Negro principals at “Negro” schools (A. 121-22), In 1966, the district purchased a school site in Pleasant Valley, the racial composition of the neighborhood or the past history of Segregation (A. 486). Any school constructed on the site (there is still a sign announcing that a school will be built on the site) would be all-white; were Pleasant Valley, Walton Heights and Candle- wood subdivisions not within the Little Rock distric*. the closest school a be a predominantly Negro school in the Pankey area Finally,—and this list is by no means exhaustive of the means by which this district maintained the Segregated character of its system—the school district undertook to build a new senior high school ( Parkview) in the far western section of the city in 1967 ow at a 10 sically, the report recommended abandonment of the neigh- borhood school concept and restructuring of the district’s schools through a capital building program combined with pairing to create an educational park system (/bid). The cost of implementing the “Oregon Report” in its entirety was estimated to be some ten million dollars; however, as the chief author and director of the study (Dr. Goldham- mer) explained, much of this amount would have had to be expended for building replacement and remodeling anyway (A. 367). The Oregon Report would also have required a transportation system for the school district (/bid). Following issuance of the Oregon Report, a school board election was held in November 1967. Two incumbent mem- bers of the board who supported the recommendations of the Oregon Report were replaced by candidates who cam- paigned against it (A. 416-18), and the vote was interpreted as an indication (a) that the public would not support implementation of the recommendations, and (b) that the public would not vote bond monies or tax levies sufficient to implement them. The school board then directed the Superintendent and his staff to prepare their own recommendations of a deseg- regation plan for Little Rock (A. 69). The Superintendent’s proposals quickly became known as the “Parsons Plan” (A. 70). The Parsons Plan proposed measures to deseg- regate Little Rock high schools and two groups of elemen- ‘ry schools, but made no proposals for other elementary schools or for junior highs. In March 1968, the board placed a $5 million bond issue for implementing the Parsons Plan on the ballot (A. 73-74). The millage increase for the bonds was rejected (A. 75) and again, candidates favoring no change in the status quo defeated incumbents who sup- ported the Superintendent’s plan (A. 180-81. See also, A. 417-21). oe 2d! as eel a tee 5S 5, 6 ne ii Camrt of Appeals Atter the seus) district bad responded to the Motion foc Purther Bele the district court set a bearing for Augue 15, 14% end euggesied that the Board devise a SouErepiut woe pian A 222). The district did present & SevErepiue etieudens zone plan et the August hearing 4. 7%). However, thie plan was characterized as an “in- term” memeure A 220, whieh reguired further study (A. 21): the chetract oppused making avy change from freedom- otis for 1H0E-49 and the peering was limited to whether Or Iti 2 suctt ougnt to te reguired for 1968-69. After the wenme Gey of testimony. the bearing wae recessed in order ty allow the district to develop and present a final plan tumbguetely cisestavlieh tue dua] system effective with te THRO chou] reer (A 402-06). That plan was sub- mutied Movember 15, 196 (A 405d 405g). ASbonrk cost wet 2 mejor factor im the decision to SIUM & Bele ple uy covet auelysic of various alterna- Ur? 2ppreaciet wee ever reguesied or made (A. 913-14, The piew of the sehowl boerd established mandatory at- Temes Bree for all ectwule except the district-wide vo- ‘acuta ete) faciity Metropolitan High School. The DUES WETt BpPTUTes et sulmitied except that the district Pe a 02 =o tT 62 6t ‘TE zg 02 3g j t ‘ j : 62 tL St 19 + ) ; St SA 5 ae —— oe Wid 99/TT sweuustssy Amory Tw 1T6 fe) €Tg | 7 106 9S 69 S6E S67 | QL6 99 2s 62L " TIET Te" LT 29 659 2 908 ) 906 S9 79 g6€ =o TAN 216 sc E2 9S £98 € gOrT MT = 6NzT & APF MEPL RATT FY HM Rw - -_ - - > Uetd 99/TT 89/8 $0U07 seu0Z (i A4PTD ) S90T 996 €g9 L€6 6LL - 22 6SE gSTT $002 "8 998 0 092 a €g2 20g $Se 0 SSC 3 ee 0 SER ete LOT2 x - - wid 9S6T om Dg ee gy > oF WO ORY CT ie ceiaememenene lz 296 rd 766 (e) gt6 --- --- qsamyyznos 9T 228 q 2s" oom coo ore ooo uoszepueLy ~ on0T | 7 SL6 0 "S98 0 9l9 | siuFtey 4s5.043 se to fat oog | 0 ogg | 0 Egy PIVFIEH PiseT 4 gt€é L489 | 9€ 416 | 0 900T | O g92T aPTS 3Sey, en ior w-- 1 0 909 | 0 258 apts sskg Tite SOO HOIH “uD Tog oO 6€2T 0 Teg 0 29S 0 WUE ‘OTFON " 6G iw“ — | se 8 06se fe | one MOPAXIEG n get} at onst] s neg | = <= TTeH eT 2st | 92 9022 | 2 989T ry Sinz TezqUeD sOT TUM STOOKOS HOIH At a Se Woy ~To.muy ~Torug ~Torug ~ Tory 69-896T SO-N96T T9"O96T 9S6T (@OFOUD Pers) (SOTO eerg (jUeWeONT, (UOTINFe13Eg pea TeTT) Trang) TT 13 — » weatroks OL 6T2 Ol gt2 ol al $6 QTT 0 NES 0 nes g2 Td 29 o2 l €T2 R2 el 19 92S 19 92S 62 u T OLE x OLE €€ 49 0 L22 fe) 222 €" ds Tez 60T 6"T 62T ze 989 0 S99 0 S99 €€ L9 pg T9" be a 19" TT 9S PATA 68 SOL 9€T €" LS TL d2 00g =6L b % N. 4 Nom a Td 99/TT uetd uetd sqwaustssy 99/TT 99/9 AymMoeyz sau0z sauoz (II ATeTO ) 2 ‘d pe ee Re ON ACL TE RT RTO Per aads a teanane LOSES @ cme cpregpeny "T L92 £9 6€T 0 €29 68 0S2 T €92 9S 09 0 TS" 0 g02 62 Lt2 0 Ls9 ) 6n€ GEL 2s2 "99 692 Sst Oz 2 9l€ 9 T6 ) €9z fe) €TS fe) 219 —— — € RL2 St €92 ) ue Tt TIS fe) 619 2 eae ) TS ) €S2 ) 992 202s GET OT 90€ T 699 ) 699 eS ee a <6 9sL 0 du €gz S99 0 2s6 60 wid qUeUT queUT 9S6T ~ Tomy “Tory 907 69-996T S9-796T (uc zey) (9° TOYD 8027) (@OTOUD cer Pez TwTT) (Penutquos) | aTaVL uu een dn€ 229 Nz So S| T9"096 (queweceTy : T Trdng) | (UOTIZez30g oo7 coure ry Ws res jer wsyoer PUueT IED ut Tyue.g YIed 3 se104 yIed Teg Tetuusezues Apeig o a og Ol ce a9 ce lg or Om 62d x mw @ ar) ce lg lz él te 69 ae. eee Bein Ay AyTMoeg — i ae: | EO eae —