# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — County Board of Education of Richmond County v. Acree

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_1328%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari
- **Published:** January 1, 1972
- **Citation:** 409 U.S. 1006

## Text

7 sol 79-7940 | FILED

D
JuL 14 wre

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1972

No.

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
RICHMOND COUNTY, GEORGIA, ET AL.,

Petitioners
versus
ROBERT L. ACREE, ET AL.,
Respondents
versus
ANN GUNTER DRUMMOND, ET AL.,
Respondents

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

INDEX
sthite: fi»
TO PETITION
Opinions Below tote eeeeeeeeeece
Jurisdiction oe
Questions Presented ee ease neces
Statement +2. 22. 68/22 ee Be!

Reasons for Granting
This | ee aS

Conclusion

TO APPENDIX
Order of District Court
Opinion of Fifth Circuit..

Denial of Motion for
Rehearing

Page. -

TABLE .OF CASES

Acree v County Board of Education
of Richmond County, et al., 458 :
F.2d 486 ee 2 A-34 0

Swann Vv Charlotte-Mecklenburg _ 2s
County, etc., 402 U.S. 1;.91....-.. +}
S Ct. 1267; 39 Law Week 4437......2, §

Winston-Salem/Forsyth Board
of Education v Scott, et al ESees?.
404 U.S. 1221; 92 S.Ct. 1236......5, 8

IN, THE.

SUPREME COUNT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term 1972
NOL 28 Gi

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ‘OF
RICHMOND: COUNTY, GEORGIA, ‘BT: AL.

- Petitioners
: versus went ge
ROBERT. ‘L. “ACREE ; ‘BT. AL.
Respondents

versus

ANN GUNTER DRUMMOND, ET AL.,

Respondents

PETITION FOR-A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES ‘COURT “OF : dy all
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT’

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

The Petitioners, County Board of
Education of Richmond County, Georgia,
respectfully pray that a writ of certiorari
issue to review the judgment and opinion

x

of the United States Court of Appeals

for. the Fifth Circuit entered March 3], 1972; .
cohearigg, aie April 18, 1972 (Appendix
B. Dp. ;

OPINIONS BELOW

The basic decision involved here is that
of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, 458 F.2d 486 (Appendix
B, p. A-34).. The District Court establish-
ed and approved a plan for the desegregation
of the County School System insofar as the
elementary schools were concerned. At the
time of the decision which is here con-
plained of, no plan for desegregation of the
secondary schools had been adopted by the
District Court (Appendix A. p. A-1 ). The
District Court had been ordered on July 1, B71
to put into effect a plan that compiled with
the principles established in Swann v
Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, ete., 402 U.S,
1; 91 S Ct. 1267; 39 Law Week 4437. All
parties appealed from the decisionof the
District Court, each relying on an interpre
tation of Swann. The Fifth Circuit affine
and remanded the case to the District
Court on the basis of its interpretation of
the requirements of Swann.

_ JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this court is
invoked under 28 USCA Sec. 1254 (1).

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

«$.

A. Whether the Fifth Circuit has
correctly interpreted the intent of this
court as set out in Swann?

B. Whether the Fifth Circuit has
correctly interpreted that portion of Swann
which states as follows:

"An objection to transportation of
students may have vitality when the time
or distance of travel is so great as to
risk either the health of the children
or significantly impinge on the edu-
cational process... It hardly needs
stating that the limits on time of travel
will vary with many factors, but proba-
bly with none more than the age of the

students."

C. Whether the Fifth Circuit has erred
in affirming a partial. plan of desegregation
affecting only elementary schools insofar,
as it could not be determined at the time
of the decision whether the elementary plan
when combined with the secondary plan
would be constitutional.

D. Whether the present elementary schodl
plan should be reversed and remanded insofar
as the present elementary plan is adminis-
tratively and financially impossible to
perform and does not meet the guidelines
laid down in the Swann decision.

STATEMENT

This case has been in the courts since
1964 at which time a freedom of choice plan

~f-

was in effect in Richnons County, Georgia.)

eae
&

Subsequent to 1964, ‘the plan has been
refined and modified several times. The
issue in question before this court’is‘a ©
result of the Order of January 13; 1972 of «.
the District Court (Appendix A, p. A-1 ):
and the last decision of the Fifth Circuit
(Appendix B, p. A-34) in which the decision
of the District Court wa: affirmed and ~. -
remanded.

4
«EE

Petitioner believes that the Fifth
Circuit has misconstrued the intent of :
Swann and that their decision oversteps: the
bounds of latitude and guidelines presented

in Swann. This is the thrust of this
petition.

oh.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS WRIT

The granting of the writ of certiorari
offers this court an opportunity to (1)
refine its decision in the case of Swann v
charlotte-Meeklenburg Board of Education,
402 U.S. 1; 91 S.Ct. 1267; 39 Law Week
4437; (2) to determine the limits and
requirements set by Swann relating to the
distances Of bussing allowed; (3) to
determine and define when the transportation
of students significantly impinges on the
educational process; (4) to determine the
limits to which bussing may be consti-
tutionally used as a tool of desegregation
if other workable tools of desegregation
are available to the court; (5) to refine
the decision in the case of Wineton-Salem/
Forsyth County Board of Education v Scott
et at 404 U.S. 1221; 92 S.Ct. 1236

The petitioner contended on appeal
before the Fifth Circuit that its school
system meets constitutional standards.
Petitioner further contended that Swann
did not require extensive transportation
of students as proposed by the District
Court. Therefore, to decide the basic
legal issue presented by this petition,
it must be determined whether the Fifth
Circuit has misconstrued the intent of this
Court in Swann, an important Federal
Question within the meaning of Rule 19 (1)
(b}). Furthermore, there is an overwhelming
necessity to determine and define exactly
when the transportation of students impairs
the health and welfare.of such students and

is.

significantly impinges an the

process.

Paradise s Cho Oper arte iy hie 2
--( ke fe ‘of:Petitioner hat
trans pian impose
upon » whem. i @

by any standard: | ocomparsion j
more severe than’ the Plan approved by t
Comenewares afst4 dn dae wid Choa

averaged “about seven miles and would
“not over 35 minutes at the most.” '
ly, both transportation times and dicta
in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County actually) i)
decreased with implementation of court .;cl»
ordered desegregation. Such is not the «at»
situation in Richmond County, Georgia. - §/ ft»
ton eE
Prior to the implementation of the onder)
of the District Court, bus routes in’ Richemd
County were of reasonable distances and fabs
travel times. Rural school district routes:
were somewhat longer, but took less time to.
travel because of open roads and an absence:
of traffic congestion. The rural school :+
districts are not affected by the Court’s §-
order as they already meet Cons ti tutional: «:
Standards. rm

: ers + %

as

clustered tH a — bee 5)
and Nati sat ils (arades e ted

|

in a. arene area. | Flora oF. -7).is

located in, the asenke ro

distance .o of otreved between. Floyd 7ouane Garrett

is 6.4 miles each way. distance mee

not take Pe Be feldovea He i: eaejectue

route tha . followed to a tf ay “of
he scdent ve6 be _and @livered

to se echoal . tote eee ‘trip. sions the

actual route will be. somewhat more than

12.8 miles. See Se

In addition to the distances stated
immediately above, the bus routes would.
have to be made thr h congested downtown
traffic and intersections which would add
considerable travel time to each Erdp
There are no freeways or interstate hi
as were available in Charlotte upon which
the students could be transported to
shorten travel time.

Anotkes-sisiiar example of the severity
of the court-ordered trans sperrsssen plan
is Zone B of Phase III. is Zone

poxse

involves the clustering and pairing of four
elementary schools. Walker (grades 5- site.
Lamar (grades 1-3), Monte Sano [( pea -
and Lake Forest Drive (grades 1- tas”
Forest Drive School is located 2 a surburban

area while Walker is located in the cent
of Augusta. The distance of bepeta --
tween Lake Forest Drive and Walker is
miles each way {round trip 11.8 aites);°2
This does not take into consideration.
actual bus route which in this instance _
will oS Sealstasec, longer because of
pick- rements, . oo

Again, as in the ‘T aatee ex te, bus
routes of necessity will be th
gested downtown traffic and intersections?
which will add considerable travel cing

All of the bus routes explained above
will be much longer than any previously .
operated under the old theapportetion se
system. Many of the students affected by ©
the order of the District Court had not iat
previously been transported,

*
i?

y
~

;
.
»

The two examples above explained are
not peculiar. All of the Zones pose
Similar severe problems.

The bus routes illustrated above will
each take an average daily travel time of
approximately two hours. Although all bus
route distances and travel times have not —
yet been computed, the examples above cited
are sufficient in and of themselves to
allow this Court to determine‘whether the
poder. 3 (0 in Richmond County, Georgia,

téhtly offensive to constitutional
standards as school facilities are avail-
ablé at lesser distances. Winston-Salen/
Foreyth County Board of Education v Seott
et al. 404 U.S. 1221; 92 S.Ct. 1236.

-~

-9-

The above examples also present the
legitimate questions as to whether the
linits of Svann have been atecees
and misapplied in our case. s is
patently clear in considering the length
of time involved, the length of the bus
routes, the fact that the bus routes are
through heavy traffic and the fact that
the students involved in this massive
transportation are the youngest children
in the school systen.

Similarly, this Court in Swann held
that “the constitutional command to
desegregate schools does not mean that
every community must always reflect the
racial composition of the school system
as a whole.” Yet in the affected elemen-
tary schools in Richmond County, Georgia,
that is exactly what has happened.

The racial composition of students in
Richmond County is approximately 60% white
and 40% black. Under Plan III, adopted
by the District Court for the elementary
schools, however, this ratio is expressly
fixed. The ratios of black students in
each of these schools are as follows:

Zone A 40.8%
Zone 46.1%
Zone 44.4%
Zone 43.7%
Zone 44.0%

Zone 30.2%

Zone 38.8%

Zone H 43.1%

Zone I 40,18
by Phase III for coming school term =i:
will be $218,420.00, not including the « +)

cost of additional buses. AW
> eye

Although Phase III, is based on >i qm
estimates, it is noted that all estimates «1.
have been proven accurate by actual : om

experience in Phases I and II, with any
miscalculations resulting in under-
estimates rather than overestimates. bi

Phases I, II and III Combined

The combined increased operating costs,
not including the purchase of new school
buses, is $278,920.00.

If the schools are to operate on a
normal opening time schedule, the total
costs of new buses needed for all three
phases is $787,500.00 (Phase I, $175,000.00;
Phase II, $87,500.00; Phase III, $525,000.00%

7
7

-13-

This sant Se
iders at entire transportation
codget for the 1971-72 school term was
$617,000.00. The transportation budget
for the coming school year is $905,000.00,
almost a 50 per cent increase. s figure,
however, barely provides mfficient funds
to cover the added operation costs of
$278,920.00.

Although the school board has been and
is making attempts to obtain additional
funds, it has been unable to do so.

If the schools in the system operate
on @ regular basis with all schools in the
system Opening at the same time, the cost
of new buses needed to implement the
integration plans will be $787,500.00.
If the schools operate on a staggered

opening schedule, the total cost of new
buses needed for implementation of this
plan will $525,000.00.

If school hours were staggered, however,
the results would be disasterous to the
students and violate the principles laid
down in Swann.

The school hours, however, will have
to be staggered if some assistance and
relief is not given the school system
because the school system simply does
have the funds or means available to
purchase the buses that the new plan
would require. All of this is unnecessary
in the light of the fact that there are
other methods of desegregation that would

-14-

accomplish the constitutional results: ..7

required yet still leave room for. @ ©) %biem
reasonable desegregation plan that’ (0) fsb).
provided for and allowed quality education,:

The following hours would be those pets:
in operation if staggering the opening 364
hours of school’occurred, ae

Take In Let Out

High School 7:30 a.m. 2: 15. P.M .
Junior High 8:30 a.m. 3:15 Pa.
Upper Elementary 9:30 a.m, 4:15 p.m, |

Primary Elementary 9:30 a.m, 4:15 Ps,

It is obvious that the staggering of
opening hours would create overwhelming
problems for the students, their parents .-
and the Board of Education. Yet, if the
elementary plan is implemented, the
board would have no alternative but to
stagger the hours and to stagger them
at least to the extent stated above.

Some students would have to board their
school bus by 6:30 a.m., while others
would not arrive home until 5:30 p.m.
Additionally, parents of more than one
child in school may have as much as a
three hour lapse between the time a bus
picked up their first child and their
last. There may also be a difference
of two hours in the times the children
arrived home from school.

Petitioner can find nothing in the
constitutional cht pee mon dit that would
envision nor require such hardships.
Such a result aS enviSioned by this’ plan
would without doubt affect the healt
and welfare of the students involved and
would very significantly impinge on the
educational process.

One other undesirable feature of the
adopted plan is that under it students
must attend a multitude of schools to be
eligible for graduation, Under the old
system, a child attended a minimum of
three schools Soigecnserz: junior high
and high). Under the present plan, ele-
mentary school children alone will have
to attend a minimum of three elementary
schools with many attending a minimum of
four elementary schools. Under Zones A and
B of the elementary plan, each student in
these Zones will attend a minimum of four
elementary schools. No stability for either
the student, teachers or administration of
educational programs is allowed.

Had the secondary schools been clustered
and paired, the results would be even more
disastrous because a secondary clustering
plan would have required that a student
attend a minimum of seven or eight schools
before earning a degree. Fortunately, the
secondary plan approved by the District Court
does not have many of the constitutional
infirmities and drawbacks found in the presat
elementary plan. It is for this reason that

other methods should be examined to determine

i? +
s
Se:

yet Sig iethe’,
chmond County. es -

“CONELUSTON

This case is of paramount public. ...
importance.. The dementary plan ordered ‘
into effect is severe and goes beyond what |
petitioner contends to be the limits of
Swann. od ;

The ues tions presented in this petition.
will, if favorably decided, enable not only
this *$chool system, but other school relat
under court order to aetely implement .
desegregation ‘plans with clear cut.
“€onstitutional standards that define

-17-

specifically’ thei limits on) the: use of
transportation of Students for the purpose
of ochievink racial balance; define when

the use’ of) transportation: as: a means: of « |
desegregation: has .a, de: ntal; effect, upon
the health, and: welfare! of: the: students;.....
define when vthe” Of. transportation, as a.
tool of 4 a pec aenee om + ca rd ni
impinge) upon: ‘the e ational process; and,
would present: guidelines: that. would. allow.
increased use Of more reasonable methods...
of desegregation, © 4660 2S} syeu

BL; 33
%

It is the’ desire of this school board to.
be able to operate under a constitutional
plan that is reasonable and which preserves
quality education for all students and it is
in the public interest that definite guide-
lines be set in this case.by this Court.

“Resp ctively submitted,

Big.

FRANKLIN H. PIERCE
Southern Finance Building
Augusta,. Georgia 30902

ONARD O. FLETCHER, JR. J
McGAHEE , PLUNKETT, BENNING
§ FLETCHER
P. O. Box 1661
Augusta, Georgia 30903

RaBAsie et ig tartadk £ Bettis: Sota
. .
where the highest Court that -free-
dom of choice must be an effective de-
vice p ng "meaningful and immediate
pogress towa disestablishing state-

sed segregation." The Court said that
The burden on a school board today is to
come forward with a — that promises
realistically to work, and promises real-
istically to work now.”

I did not rule out freedom of choice
altogether but stated that I would "give
consideration to a plan formulated by
the Board which ines automatic assign-
sent of pupils within designated geograph-
ical zones and a limited freedom of choice

rected that a
zone or attendance area system be put into
effect for the 1969-1970 school year.

of schools." See Acree v. County Board
of Education of Richmond County, Georgia,
a F. Supp. 1034. T di ted

On June 16, 1969, a hearing on the
Board's plan was held at Augusta. Plain-
tiffs objected to it in toto. On July
14, 1969, I approved the plan presented
as a temporary expedient. See 301 F.
Supp. 1285. I pointed out:

"The decisions of the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit say that _
graphic zones are acceptable on y

if they tend to disestablish rather
than reinforce the dual system of
segregated schools. Davis v. Board
of School Commissioners of Mobiie
ounty, ° ; United States

and ccenbetines sesere sued ebreate ora
to move boundary lines and ch > Sed apt
feeder patterns which tend to p Tve o>
segregation.' See 393 F.2d at 694." 73 g0

Cts
i?

I further stated:

ee
“I think the wisest thing to do at this«.
time, certainly the most expedient, is):
to approve abioeaans the Board's new
zone system Tmit same to go into)
effect at the bepianite of the c
(1969-70) school year. We will soon ~
thereafter be able to judge its effects ai:
Because of possible constitutional
informities of the zoning plan it will «>:
not be permanent and this is not a
final order."

My Order of July 16, 1969, directed
the School Board and Superintendent to
apply immediately to the Office of Educa-
tion, H.E.W., for professional counselling
and assistance looking to development of :«/
, satisfactory and legal plan at an early § |:
ate. sf

(fol. 3) Before such a plan could be
developed and presented the
plaintiffs filed an appeal to

the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

This was in March, 1970. On July list of

that year that Court remanded the case.

See 443 F.2d 1360. The higher Court said:

“Having examined the record and the
briefs of counsel in the above styled

A-4-!

and numbered cause, this Geustesoctott > ey
with «very definite and indelible sey
a a a ae ee re ot? ,wal
—s iecscSoolks are eidenti-
fiab = seSuGhs 2Sn0dl Ofse08 sthe : 3
a enadl othe ‘respective student
bodies. -/8f*there-ts ‘femsining
for the Richmond County schools
to operate as nant
commencement of the new school-year +0}
(b):22A student. assignment plancie ‘not
eccoptehbewanaly because it appears to. .
be ‘neutral, for sucha plan may fail to.
counteract the ‘continuing effects of past.
school segregation. The pairing and eto
_ of eho visieu" vie zones abe! a . Ht
Ce. x00 OF e; si¥s

seer 4). Ac) “the District Court's ; con-. ‘
effectively dismantle the dual school gn ide
system is supported by the record, and | «4.
the «remedial technique of requiring bus i,
transportation as a tool of school deseg- ..
regation was within that court's power to 4
provide equitable relief.

On July 1, 1971, the Court of Appeals
for this Circuit disapproved the plan
which this Court had spoons in a
1970, ‘to be put into effect during the

1. The Fifth Circuit has been telling us,
for years that "if in a school district
there. are still all-Negro schools or only
a small fraction of Negroes enrolled in
white schools... then as a matter of law
the existing plan fails to meet consti-
tutional standards established in Green."
Adams v. Mathews, 403 F.2d 181.

A-6

current ‘school: ae Temanded the
case, “svating?:
S a 2 > sf : 23 [8
"The: fd ts er taal distinc court as
clears see
ne case is
with direction that the dis-
trict tourt require the school board
forthwith to’ constitute’ and implement
a student and faculty assignment plan
that complies with t pelecipise
established in Swann Vv otte-

_&

. z 4 i ° 2d
aia 307 Law. Week. 4437E er v. West
Feliciana’ Parish School Boar -

relate. rye the issues
presented in this case."

The Court of Appeals has said that
the prevailing system is a dual and an
unconstitutional one. The racial statis-
tics bear this out beyond all doubt. They
reveal that in the elementary schools dur-
ing the 1970-1971 year seventeen were
predominantly white and nine predominantly
black. There were four all-black elemen-
tary schools and one ali-white. In eleven
elementary schools the minority attend-
ance was S% or less of the whole and in
three other schools the minority ratio
was 10% or less of the entire school

2. I have used an 85% ratio as illustra-
ting a predominantly white or predomin-
antly black school.

Ar Jy,

wan A pe

schools, 2. there was es

> a : As)
effect)- the same segregated cture;
projected ctfondence indicated that. —
are forty-one schools in pages white =»
students predominate. They haye a total,
enrollment of repidag of whom 20,648 OFS...
white and 4,073 are black. Ine
black schools..in the ersten, which h %
total enrollment of 12,941 there are 60.
white students (2.8%).

(fol. 5) Following the decision of the aa
Circuit Court of Appeals.on .....,
July 1, 1971, I.promptly. order- .
ed the Board to present a student and...
faculty assignment plan to this Court not.
later than July 21, Pio7i. I assigned a...
hearing on it for July 28th... Subsequent-...
ly, upon oral request I extended to
August 26th the time. for presentation.of
— a plan. A hearing was held on that
te.

To my amazement, the H.E.W. officials
did not show up at the August 26, 1971,

3. For example, at Southside this year,
these are 680 students of whom 8 ire
lack.

uggest “to the Court for the integ- ~~
ration the school system and his ‘reply
was, "Freedom of Choice.” The plan pre-
sented by the School Superintendent at
the “hearing™ on August 26th last was to
keep the ool zones as they were except
for two or three minor changes as to
boundaries. One of them would have trans-
ferred about 100 white students to an all-

black high school. This plan, so learned
counsel for the Board informed me, made the
system a unitary one, if it was not al-
ready such.

In Acree v. County Board of Education
of Ri r J . e
Court of Appeals said: "We think it not
necessary to do more than call the atten-
tion of the respondent here to the ex-
tremely important obligation which is
once more placed on the Board to assume
its full responsibility to do all that is
reasonably feasible, and now, to bring an
end to the dual system of white and Negro
schools in Richmond County." The Richmond
County Board and its Superintendent have
abdicated their responsibility. They
have been contemptuous and intransigent.
They have chosen to ignore the Constitu-
tion and the courts. Apparently, they,
together with a segment of the population

A-9,

of Richmond County, deem,themselves above...

and beyond the law, .The. Fourteenth Amend-

ment is not to.a opp }y.: to. sehete. who Had at§ 2:
not to. their lik E> cturacwaiy :

At the. ‘conclusion of epee ners "pidiieg”
I stated that this Court would employ its.
own experts at the Board's $s expense to do ..,

what it and the school.officials refused...
to do in the way of devis aplanof .
desegregation. Five days later the Court
obtained the services of two well-known
educators, experienced in desegregation
planning, Dr. J. Howard Munzer and Myrl G.
Herman of the faculty of Rhode Island
College.

*1
il

(fol. 6) Alternative plans were present-
ed in the Munzer-Herman sugges-
tions which were filed in this

Court on September 27, 1971. . The several

Plans do not set out to establish any set

numerical ratio of blacks to whites. How-

ever, through clustering and pairing it
achieves a not dissimilar result.

Four elementary school plans are pro-
posed. Plan I involves an unacceptable
minimum amount of integration. Plan II
involves more desegragation and Plan III
(which I am adopting) even more. Plan IV
would provide for maximum desegregation
embraced and involved all but two elemen-
tary schools.

Two plans were presented for desegre-
gation of the secondary schools. The
plan is the same for the following schools:
Josey, Murphey, Butler, Tutt, Langord,
Richmond Academy and Laney. "Under both
Plan I and Plan II at the secondary level
the schools mentioned would house the
following grades.

A-10

‘| Josey ’= Grades 8-9
oO» Murphey»- Grade 10
Butler ‘= ‘Grades 11-12
' Tutt + Grades ‘8-9 |
Langford - Grades 8-9
' Richmond Academy - Grades 11-12
Laney - Grade 10:

In both Plan I and Plan II Tubman will
house grade 8 and Johnson grade 9. How-
ever, under Plan I Tubman would have 511
students, 50% black, and Johnson would
have 492 students, 45% black, whereas
under Plan II Tubman has 461 students, 45%
black, and Johnson has 442 students, 39%
black. The basic difference in the two
secondary school Plans is that Plan I
does not involve Sandbar Ferry or Sego
whereas under Plan II these two schools
are paired in such a way that Sandbar
Ferry is grade 8 and Sego is grade 9.

After the plans were filed, I asked the
parties for their analysis, comments and
criticisms. The plaintiffs complained,
among other things, that presently all-
black Laney and Josey were reduced in sta-
tus from graduating high schools and that
this was not done in the case of any pre-
dominantly white senior high school.

The Board's response was of expected
quality and content. It raises every
carping, contumacious objection conceiv-
able. It is a mishmash and embranglement
of letters from individual members of the
Board, the Superintendent and principals
opposing desegregation of the system.
There are resolutions, letters, speeches,
newspaper clippings, et cetera. The res-
ponse contributes less than nothing to
the difficult problem the Board faced
but fled.

A-+11

BALD Peeve lo October j’ 19725**
mitted sa -group»
People of Richmond County, Georgia." The.
plan is nothing more than Freedom of: Satay
both for students and faculty. Since the -
Intervenors. have a right of appeal from niet
this Order the higher court can enlighten

us as to my evaluation of the “plan” pro~
posed... Anyone who has even casually
examined the decisions of the. United States.
Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals
for this Circuit must know that choice
plans are not constitutionally acceptable

in a case such as this. In fact, the

latter Court said exactly as much con-
cerning the Richmond County system. See

399 F.2d 1582.

On October 8, 1971, Dr.Munzer and Mr.
Herman returned to Augusta to confer
with the Court concerning-—the proposed
desegregation plans. On the same day,
with counsel and the Superintendent of .
Schools present, the plans were explained...
and discussed by the experts in. the ah
courtroom. ee

A full evidentiary hearing was held on». 4

Ab 12

December: 16-17), for the purpose» of! con-">
sidering @, plan» and: for hedring: evidence...
Intervenors testified as to the effect’ .--
of the: Munzer-Herman> plans. on»the: R.O:T.C. |
programand on-the exceptional children ~~
and model» reading» programs, The- Director |
of Transportation stated: that: the Rich-» .
nond County school system has: 97-buses,
including’ four: assigned: to: special educa+
tion. ‘Bighty-three operate daily and.
there are 10 spdre buses:. In ‘the: last
school year more than 12,000 students of
a total of 34,619 were bussed. It was
estimated that under the proposed plan 27
new buses would be required: at a-cost of
$12,400 each with an engtiel “operational
cost of $5,000 per buss4. Under Plan III,
5,681 additional* elementary students
would be transported. On the secondary
level, Plan .I contemplates bussing of
1,664 additional high school and junior
high students. Plan II (secondary).
calls for the transportation of 2,150
more students than are now being bussed.
The estimates of increased transporta-
tion
(fol. 8) needs are possibly over-
estimated by Dr. Munzer and
Mr. Herman.

4. The same objection as to cost of in-
creased transportation was made in the
Savannah case. With staggered bus sche-
dules, the increased needs have been hand-
led (though with difficulty) by the exist-
ing equipment. The Chatham County system
has approximately the same number of buses
as Richmond County and about the same en-
rollment. . | cs

ARIS

Counsel ‘requested the Court to delay*o%
pice penne eh ete A erent ge BoB
cussions’ among ‘the parties as: to devis-: 9 /¢:
‘ing’ one’{particularly on’ the secondary =::
any’ agreement ‘being reached,* Of course, ©.
in any’‘event, the parties would not:be:' '
permitted to stipulate away the mandate
of the Consittution as’ to establishment :
of a unitary school system - one in which
there are neither white nor black schools; '
just schools. ony

On July 1, 1971, the Fifth Circuit :
ordered that this Court require the Rich-»
mond County School Board "forthwith" to ,
constitute and implement a constitutional:
student assignment plan. That means now,
at once, without delay or interval. Be-
cause of the Board's wilful failure to
carry out its constitutional duty the
mandate of the higher Court could not be
complied with. To obviate the system
being closed down indefinitely I permitted
the carrying on of a dual system at the
beginning of the year. It is still in
effect.

Last June I handed down an Order which
fully integrated the secondary schools
in the Chatham County system (with one
necessary exception). I delayed action
on the elementary level as the Board wish-
ed more’ time and had not been able to
agree on a plan. My decision was appealed
and the ruling reversed. This Court was
instructed to "forthwith" desegregate
the elementary as well as secondary
schools. This was done by the Court
early in September, 1971. The situation

A-14

in the Chatham County school case differs
only from the Richmond County case in. . ifr. . e

A-33

School Board is directed to file simi-«»
annual reports during each school year .
similar to those required in United ,

States v. Hinds eounty School Board (s
ir. > > . J .

(8) The pending motions filed by the
plaintiffs for appointment of a receiver
for the Richmond County system and for
adjudging the defendants in contempt
will be held in abeyance, at least for
the present.

(9) The evidence at the hearing on
December 16, 1971, indicates that there
are numerous instances where pupils are
attending schools in zones outside their
actual residence. The Board, Superin-
tendent and school officials are order-
ed promptly to undertake corrective
measures in respect to boundary obser-
vance. A report in that respect shall
be furnished not later than February 1,
1972.

(10) The motion for award of attor-
ney's fees to plaintiff's counsel is
granted. The amount of the fee will be
settled on affidavits or, if necessary,
following a hearing on the subject.

(11) The defendant Board will, as
a part of the costs in the case, pay
the compensation and expenses of
Messrs. Munzer and Herman for their
services to this Court and same are
assessed as costs against defendants.

This 13th day of January, 1972.

ALEXANDER A. LAWRENCE

DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

A-34
APPENDIX B

United States Court of Appeals

“Ne. 72-1211

ROBERT L. ACREE, ET AL.,
Cross Appellees,

| ANN GUNTER DRUMMOND, ET AL.,
Intervenors-Appellees-
Cross Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia

(March 31, 1972)

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, MORGAN and
INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

and of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa-
tion, 402 U.S. 1 (1971), the Court made quite clear that
bussing is an available tool for use by district courts
in achieving school desegregation. In the instant case
the district court utilized this tool along with the pair-
ing, clustering and zoning methods long authorized by
the Supreme Court and this court. Swann v. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education, supra; Davis »v.
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 402
US. 33 (1971); Boykins v. Fairfield Board of Educa-
tion, ___. F.2d _____ (5th Cir., 1972) [No. 71-3028, Feb.
23, 1972]; Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate
School District, 432 F.2d 927 (5th Cir., 1970).

142 U.S.C. § 2000c.

The argument that the equity powers of federal dis-
trict courts have been limited by Title IV of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 has been rejected in Swann, where
the Court found no intent on the part of Congress to
restrict the powers of federal courts to enforce the
equal protection clause or “to withdraw from courts
their historic equitable remedial powers.” 402 U.S. at
17.

The board and intervenors contend, however, that
the district court’s order irreparably harms “quality
education” in Richmond County. The district court
should not, and did not, permit the use of such plati-
tudes to perpetuate a dual school system, nor could
it permit defendants to rely on the inferiority of cer-
tain school facilities to which children were to be trans-
ferred as a justification for continued racial discrim-
ination. The Court in Swann stated unequivocally:

“In default by the school authorities of their
obligation to proffer acceptable remedies, a
district court has broad power to fashion a
remedy that will assure a unitary school sys-
tem. 402 U.S. at 16.”

The Richmond County Board of Education has operat-
ed and continues to operate a de jure as well as a
de facto segregated system, and has long been under
order to desegregate. See Acree v. County Board of
Education of Richmond County, Ga., 399 F.2d 151 (5th
Cir., 1968). Despite a clear duty, the board has offered
No viable constitutional alternative to the plan imple-
mented by the court below, but instead has engaged

in oundnet only. Sesiened. $e dierupt and delep- thn

% is

Nig Sie fat ni es ana ge lal
court and the evidence presented, we are of the firm
view that there is no indication whatsoever that the
transportation required as a result of the court’s plan
would adversely affect the health of the children-or
impinge on the educational process. We are also con-
vinced that a good faith effort. by the school board
will overcome any logistical problems that might .a-

The issues raised by plaintiffs have been dealt with
by our prior order of February 8, 1972, in which we
required the district court to consider plaintiffs’ alter-
nate plan along with those submitted by the court’s
experts in the development of a unitary system for
the secondary schools of Richmond County.

We too recognize the practical problems. which
forced the district court to delay implementation of
@ plan for the secondary schools, and there are now
little more than two months remaining in the school
year. However, in view of the serious delays which
have occurred in this case over past years, we order
that a plan be developed immediately for the secon-
dary schools, that some demonstrable progress be
made now* and that a schedule be adopted forthwith
in order that a constitutional plan will be implemented
at the beginning of the 1972-73 school year.

2For example, transportation facilities needed as a result of the
plan should be arranged, funds applied for, budget changes
contemplated, etc.

Fe ee a nel Deans days eamneent anys
pliance and cooperation from, the school board in im-
plementing a plan for the secondary schools and in
carrying out the three phases of its desegregation plan
for the elementary schools of Richmond County.*

The order of the district court of January 13, 1972
is AFFIRMED as modified herein.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

1972) [No. 71-2561, March 8, 1972].

A-39°
APPENDIX C

>t s0%3

SIN THE b UNITED STATES: COURT OF PREALS
| “POR THE FIFTH ‘erreur’ ae
ae IBIS ¢

“ F , ve chee Peete
= = FY Ko, a ” ae 8S oe or ne
5 ‘ 7 34 ry ees ee Soak
— — atss Sg57 Se ee

a 9? ~ ey i+ 3 “ORT ,

ROBERT L. ACREE, Er. Abe, *
Piaintiffs-Appellants-

Cross Appellees, —..
versus |

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF RICHMOND

COUNTY, GEORGIA, ET AL., |
Defendants -Appellees-~

Cross Appellants,

versus

ANN GUNTER DRUMMOND, ET AL.,
Intervenors -Appellees-

Cross Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District
of Georgia.

(April 18, 1972)

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, MORGAN and
INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

Py tery a gt Ee Neen ee

A-40

oa Pann > nugget ee ia

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for
rehearing and motion for a more definite
ruling filed by the County Board of
Education of Richmond County, Georgia,
in the above cause is hereby denied.

Filed April 18, 1972

EDWARD W. WADSWORTH,
Clerk

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_1328%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.