Appendix — United States v. Scotland Neck City Bd. of Ed.

Supreme Court brief1972

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.70187 2

PAT BLACK COPTON, BF Ala tee ticy

aoe cog : oe Petitioner

_Soomanp NECK: Crry Boar OF Epucation, ET. AL,

: R

Ol WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT

OM APERALS FOS THE VOURTH Cigcyr

A *

‘Mmows ron wars OF cHRTIORARI FILED APRI. 2 it te ee

_ AND MAY 20, 1971 |

(CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 12, 1971

pO an S

ME ee

“UNITED STATES oF Anca, es a

ae Ete, ad ies

poman Neck crry BOARD .OF EDUCATION, ET AL,

: | "Respondent,

ete No. 70.187 re

"PATTIE Brack Corton, ‘er Me

: Pe : _ Petitioners. Z

: —V— ae ‘

% ON WRIT. OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED ‘STATES COURT .

: 7 Page

| “Certified copy of doeket entries: denies entnndtapeed Seabee tab

oom ee ine

| fre Ge at St

esisosme: TERM, 1971.

_‘Scomaxo Neck Crry BoanD OF Bpvcamton, ET AL.,

. on APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH specu

: are INDEX TO APPENDIX

_. Plaintiff's ‘notice of motion ‘ink motion for a preliminary er

Ee OEE Scere Dace ea te es 39 -

-, Phintiff’s notice. of Rito and sieotScinn for a to-join an _

party er semgie and . to file an amended mee

Plaint __ 6 sie

« Reponse to plaintift’s. motion for a silainaits injunetion, :

- Motion for leave to join an. additional’ party defendant,

and motion to file‘an ‘amended complaint - i | i

haewes of all defendants with the exception of Halifax eed 7

County Board of Education : ie AT

' aK s

er NRC ea INDEX TO APPENDIX. aes

| eee ee ee

Response to plaintiff's ‘motion foe’ a preliminary injunction, :

* motign’ for .teave ‘to join: an .additional party. defendant,

» and motion .té fife an amended complaint... ES

Answer of. Halifax CountysBoard of Edptation wo ictinigs 56—

: oe Notice of, hearing by Judge Butler, pene Ts ee

: ON Order that. ‘Clerk ‘file’ amended complaint ce Fe "U.. S. Marshal - ce

. 7 “serve copies upon defendants _ anc eye

$. * amended com ME a eda fp: : * 69

| Answer ‘t@ amended complaint. by all defendantstexcépt Hali, is

oy. fax County: Board of Education . Ss eats 69

/ Answer’ of defendant Scotland Neck Board of. Education eens

Transcript of hearing on August 21-22, 1969 Liss . 4G

Deposition of Ferd Harrison OES SC Ae ) 96

. Deposition of €. M. Moore, Jr. 2 ie o/.. nt :

™ . Deposition, of Craig Phillips —_— | : - . : "153. *

Deposition of. W. Henry Overman « es oe | “918

_ Deposition, of Henry Harrison ener ne)

aa Deposition of. Frank P: " Shields ... : -_ ar eee a)

| Deposition of Aubrey Powell — er enar a 460.

Beposition. of F. “Boyd Bailey _ ee <—m 493

Affidavit of J. L. Pierce a < ee a 580

- Plaintiff's Exhibit #1 2° 585

"Plaintiffs. Exhibit #2 —-— aie BRT

. Plaintiff's E Exhibit #3 2 ee ae _ 679

_ Plaintiff's Exhibit #5 Ses aR eee er eer pn OO

. Plaintiff's Exhibit #7 - , - 683

Plaintiff's Exhibit #8 —- 684

‘Plaintiff's Exhibit #9 —— er gee 686

* Plaintiff's Exhibit #10 02 687

_ Plaintiff's Exhibit #11. ees

‘Plaintiff's Exhibit #13 aE ee er eS. 2

‘Plaintiff's Exhibit #14 2. CR ROS |

Plaintiff's: Exhibit #17 00k

Plaintiff's Exhibit #18

- Order dismissing certain defendants ee

Merhorandum opinion of Judge Larking ee

a Amended. answer of thé Scotland Neck City Board of: Edu-

" «pation eed 8

2 ; " e

TO wr

; Motion of defendant Scotland Ne City Sand of Bauei-

. tion that order be entered a temporary. wninte- ne

- tion

: ai (te

Order allowing ° Scotland ‘N eck City Boaind of Education. to

use private donations for expenses and fees incurred :

Motion of Robert Morgan, Attorney General o€ North Caro-

‘lina, to intervene in: this action in oaks of the state of

North. Carolina, as party defendan ~.

‘Qrder allowing intervention ‘of- Robert’ ea Aitorney a

General of North Carolina, in behalf of the state of North

Carolina . ‘ci -

saint of Robert ikea Attorney Ganieal of N orth Caro:

liria, in behalf of the state of North Carolina.

. Order allowing motion of Halifax County to be dismissed

as td the question of aetna of the Act cooneing os

“Scotland Neck Unit

"* “Answer to plaintiff’s interrogatories by defendant ‘Halifax

' ° County ‘Board of Education :

‘Memorandum opinion and order of Judge Larkins cat

Order amending order of 11/24/69 _.

_ Motion for leave-to intervene by additional plaintiffs Pattie

Black Cotton ang Edward M. Francis, public school teachers

-of Halifax County, and others =.

= Transcript ‘of hearing on December 17, 1969. ae Pome nd

Memorandum opinion and order allowing motion to inter-

vene x. sores nictieasgla ccsinsenndl nlsepieuanncccgennen .

~ Complaint in Ps Yael es, Sen na eT

Answer of defendant Scotland Neck City Board of Educa-

tion ta the complaint ip intervention

_ Answer to complaint in- intervention: by board of county |

commissioners of Halifax County...

Answer of defendant Halifax County Board of Education

‘tothe complaint in'‘intervention _—=_ —_

Order that motion of deferidants that effective date c of f imple-

mentation be delayed until on or about 6/1/70 is allowed;

“Proposed Interim Plan” of defendant ‘ Halifax ‘County

Board of ~icraetcgy be Acoma by board no. later

. than. 6/1/70: _- _

Opinion and onder’ that 4 farther inal cnaaita ine of Chapter

31 of the 1969 ‘Session Laws .of North Carolina is perma-

— enjoined a eel Screens Serpents eet

1058. ‘

;

1062 .

Midia Year

Cera mie mary .

ad . J he ae

Sata

4 .

SENET ARN ape IR EE fon

iv. * > INDEX TO APPENDIX

-Jadgment that Chapter 31. of ‘the 1969 Session -Laws of

North Carolina —— Scotland Neck Administrative —

. Unit is declared to,be unconstitutional and null and void.

Defendants, their respective officers, agents, ete., are

permanently enjoined from all ‘further Proceedings pur.

suant to said. statute_ Sic ccs siohanipcgen ncabsucaginsandaceiaisaat

Amended order, amending order: of district court dated

5/18/70 se ge Poa

- Notice of appeal ‘by Scotland Neck City ‘Board of Edueation-

"Notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for

the Fourth Circuit by Robert Morgan, Attorney .General

of North Carolina,. North Carolina State Board of Educa-.

tion,-and Dr. A. Graig Phillips, State Superintendent of

Public Instruction - cacaed

~ Motion of defendant Halifax County Beara. ‘Edtication for

- further amendment to “Proposed Interim WUE cnnibebccue

Plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion to amend interim

desegregation plan approved May 19, pened recur ae sa

Defendant Scotland Neck City Board of Education’s Answer

to motion-of Halifax County Board of Education . he

_ Plaintiffs’ in intervention opposition to defendant’s Yiotion

to.-amend interim hE ES ak ——— = 19, |

Order dang 1 motion of. didindebite to ‘aiinaa ee ies

of May 19, 1970, with respect to the operation of aaa “*

Neck School ahd Brawley School (Judge Larkins) _.

Affidavit.of W. Henry Overman dated ae 15, 1970

(Enrollment Statistics) - sicslpssstaesntedinendadicaacs

Affidavit of W. Henry. RENNES “dated December’ 2, 1970

(Enrollment. Statistics) — PS SEs Sat eaten soe

Opinion and judgment of the ‘United States Court of dae

for the Fourth Circuit dated March 23, 1971

Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit in Wright v. Council sid the: os of asian: —

Gy TIA ee ea,

Order staying the iuniahe a dated re 21, 1971.

Order of Supreme Court of Octeber 12, 1971 allowing certi- :

eg | enone

Order of Supreme Court of October 12, 1971 slowing certi-

orari in No. 70-187... soaks . None

. Affidavit of W. Henry (aaa dated October 14, 1971 (En-

RI TION occas eee

Halifax County map indicating the pained: districts and dif-

‘ferent —

2 [Caption Omitted).

io ae

LARKINS, District J are

- This cause coming on to be heard: before ‘a Court on.

a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plain- . :

tiff pursuant to the provisions of Sections 407(a) and —

(b). of the Civil Rights Act of. 1964, as codified, 42

US:C.A. §§2000c-6(a) and (b) seeking to restrain -the

- defendants: from giving any force or effect to the provi-

sions of Chapter 31 of the North Carolina Session Laws.

of 1969, an Act to establish a separate administrative

unit for the operation of the public schools of the Town

of Scotland Neck, North Carolina; and due notice hav-

_ ing been given to the defendants; ‘and cn oer having ~

considered the evidence and the argument counsel and

being fully advised ‘in the premises; and it appearing to

the Court that effectuation of’ the terms of the Act will

result-in the operation of the schools of Scotland. Neck,

North. Carolina, and ‘Halifax County, North Carolina, on

a-racially: discriminatory basis to the irreparable dam-

age of the United States and the Negro pupils of Halifax.

County; and it. further appearing to the Court that no

injunctive relief as ‘to. effectuation of the provisions of

Chapter 31 is being sought against the defendant Hali-.

- fax County Board of Education; and that the defendants ° -

‘Ferd. L. Harrison, as Mayor of the ‘Town of Scotland ©

- Neck, J. A. Andrews, F. G. Shearin, J. I. Walston, D. E. .

Josey, Jr.,‘as: members of the Board of Commissioners of

the Town of Scotland Neck, and the Town.of Scotland

. a body corporate, are ‘hot ‘proper ‘parties to this |

on; *

It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED. and DE-

CREED:

‘THAT the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the de- -

_fendants Ferd L, Harrison, as Mayor of the Town of

* Seqtland Neck, J. A. Andrews, F. G. Shearin, J. I. Wal-'

. ston, ». E. Josey, Jr, as members of the Board of Com-—

_ 789 .

* Raleigh, North Carolina. ~

‘missioners of the Town of Scotland Ned, and: the Town.

of Seotland Neck, a body corporate, be, and “the same

. hereby is allowed; and

THAT. the defendant Scotland. Neck City Bone of

Education and its officers, agents,, employees and suc-

cessors are hereby enjoined from giving any force or

. effect to the provisions of Chapter 31 and from. taking.

any action pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 31 pend.

ing a-.final determination on the merits. of the issues.

| raised in the present action; and

THAT pursuant to the provisions of Rule 65(¢) af

_. the’ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no security shall’

'. be required of the a United States of Ameren,

and .

-THAT this ORDER shall betome effective as of 12 0.

Noon on Monday,. August 25, 1969; and

THAT a Memorandum _— os will be

filed in this action; and

THAT the Clerk shall serve copies of this ORDER.”

upon all counsel of record, and the defendants.

‘Let this ORDER be entered forthwith.

/s/ John D. Larkins, Jr...

_JOHN D. LARKINS, JR.

- United States .District Judge —

_ /8/ Algernon L.-Butler |

' ALGERNON L; BUTLER — .

United States District Judge

August 25, 1969 (4 in He

a p 790

[Caption Omitted] -

"| MEMORANDUM OPINION: -

GARKINS, District. Judge: ti Sy

‘This Court entered its ORDER on August 25, 1969, —

* ‘effective at /12:00 noon. ‘The Clerk served copies of said

ORDER upon all defendants ad counsel of record. . _

Pursuant to said ORDER this MEMORANDUM

OPINION is filed in support of said ORDER and is in-

cluded therein by: reference: , ee

;; This =: coming on to-be.heard before the United |

States District Judges for the Eastern District. of North

‘Carolina, and being heard upon the motions of plaintiffs

_ and additional plaintiffs for a preliminary injunetion

and for a declaratory judgment; and due notice having —

_ been given to: all defendants; and the Court having con- |

sidered the evidence, the stipulations, the briefs and argu-,

‘ ments af counsel, and being fully advised in the premises,”

makes the following: a

_ FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. On March 3, 1969, the General Assembly of North ~ . -

Carolina ratified a measure designated Chapter 31, Ses-—-—=~ ~

sion Laws of North Carolina 1969, creating the Scotland

Neck City Administrative Unit in Halifax County to

operate the. public schools in said unit; providing that

all public school: property located within the unit should

become the property of the unit; providing for a ‘sup-

‘Plemental tax. levy, and directing -a special election to

authorize the establishment of said unit and the levying.

of said tax. The voters approved said proposals, ~

2: The Board of Education of the Scotland Neck City

_ unit permits transfers of students in and out of .said

units. Scotland Neck City has established a_ tuition

charge of $100.00 a year for the first child in a family,

_ $25.00 for the second child, $25.00 for the third child, —

and each subsequent child per family free, for all “stu-

dents transferring into said unit. _ - 2, ;

- 38. During the school. year 1968-69, .all- the public

_ Schools of Halifax County were operated by the Halifax

- ad . .

POR OS ERC So een pearance Re ep corppy-e.y ae

County Board of education: There was a total of 10,655

students. The racial composition ‘of the county school -

' system was approximately as follows: White, . 2,357

(22%); Negro, 8,196 (78%), and Indian, 102.-°-

tt i The: Scotland Neck City unit has approximately -

695 resident students: _ White, 399 (57.4%); Negro, 296

(42.6%). The school facilities within the unit will ac |

commodate approximately 1,000 students. Since the cre:

ation of the City unit under the 1969 Act, 350 “@

and 10 Negroes’ have transferred from the county schools

into the City unit; 44 Negroes %m the eleventh and twelfth -

grades have transferred from the city to the Brawley

' High School iri ‘the county system. The net effect on the _

City. unit for the school year 1969-70 is as follows: .

White, 759 (74%); Negro, 262 (26%). .

5.. The racial composition of the county school syste

as a result of the creation of the administrative unit, and

king into consideration the net effect of the transfers.

- In and out of the systems, ‘is as follows: White, 1,598

‘AT%): grees 2) | (83%); Indian, 102. -

192

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This Court has jurisdiction of the ‘sails and. of 5

the subject matter of this proceeding. R eS

2. Without determining the constitutionality of Chap-. :

ter 31 of the 1969 Session Laws of North Cerolina, the’ ,

Act in-its application creates a refuge for white stu-

dents, and promotes segregated schools in Halifax County.

_ -8, The Act impedes ‘and defeats the Halifax County

‘ Board of Education from implementing its plan to.com- .-.

pletely desegregate all of the public schools: in Halifax

County by the opening of the school year 1969-70. a

~4. Unless the defendants are“ enjoined, the’ plaint ntiffs

will suffer immediate and. irreparabi injury By the de- 3

——— of their constitutional righfs. ac

of e

' /s/ Johy D. Sicritiie ‘Tr.

Ao D. LARKINS, ,)

ited. States District J udge

‘Raleigh, North. Carolina

_ August 25, 1969 —

PR Ro et ss Ee

| [Caption rerun ae

‘AMENDED ANSWER

The adeaslilink The Scotland Neck City Board of Edv-

’ eation; a body corporate, snewrering the Amended Com ‘

plaint, alleges and says: © :

1. That as to the allegations contained in pee

1, Claim One, the answering defendant is not Sufficient-

ly. informed concerning the. averments contained therein .

from which to form a belief and /hence_ denies Same,

- 2. That the allegations contained in ‘Paragraph 2 of

Claim One are admitted. :

3. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph

3, Claim One, it is admitted that the defendant Halifax

County Board of Education (hereinafter the Halifax .

“County Board) is a body corporate, organized and exist-

. ing. under the laws ‘of the State ‘of. North Carolina, and

it has a duty under North Carolina law to operate a

' public school system in Halifax County, North Carolina

-' .other' than in the Town of. Scotland Neck.

4, That the allegations contained in | paragraph 4 of

Claim One are admitted.

- 5. That the allegations eomtningn’ in Paragraph 5 of

Claim One are admitted. —

6. That the allegations eontained in ‘Paragraph 6 of .

Claim One are admitted. — ‘

7. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph |

7, Claim One, the answering defendant ‘is not sufficiently -

LP seek concerning the averments contained therein

from which to.form a belief and hence denies same.

' 8. That the. allegations ‘contained in saris 8 of

Claim One are admitted. '

9. That the allegations contairied in Paragraph 9of

Claim One are admitted.

-10. That the allegations, contained in Paragraph 10 -

of Claim One are admitted. ts |

- 11. That the allegations contained ‘in Paragraph 11 ©

of Claim One are admitted. |

_ °12.. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph

12 of Claim One it is admitted that the Scotland Neck |

to open its schools: for students on August 28,

9, and itis further admitted that the vast majority -

‘ ae students: who will attend the schools of ,the Scot-

Jand Neck City Administrative Unit during the 1969-70

school year attended schools operated by the Halifax

County Board during the previous year; all other alle- _

gations contained in Paragraph 12 are denied.

18. The allegations and averments contained. in- Para-

graph 18, Clairn One are denied..

"14. The allegations and: avexments contained in ‘Para-

graph 14; Claim One are denied. . —

15. The allegations and averments contained in. Para-

graph 15, Claim One are denied.

| 16. It is.admitted that unless restrained by order of

_.the Court this answering defendant will continue to give

full force and effect-to the provisions of Chapter 31; all .

other allegations contained in Paragraph 16 are denied.

17. That.as to the allegations contained in Paragraph

1? of Claim Two, which realleges Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7

“and 8 of the Claim’ One, this defendant :answers said

paragraph in the. same manner as above. .

_ 18. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph

. 18, Claim Two, the answering defendant; is not suffi-

ciently informed concerning. the averments contained

therein from which to form a belief and henee denies

same.

19. That as to the allegations. contained in Parairaph

19, Claim Two, .the answering defendant is .not suffi-

: ciently informed concerning the averments ‘contained

therein. from which to form a belief and ‘hence denies.

' game.

20. That as to the allegations contained in Paravrech

20, Claim Two,’ the answering defendant is not suffi-

| ciently informed concerning the averments contained

_ therein. from which to form a’ belief and hence . denies

- game, -

21: The allegations and averments contained in Para-

' graph 21, Claim Two are denied. - ;

Pn ey The allegations and averments contained in Para-

graph. 22, Claim Two are tated.

| :

: “04 :

; Board has hired a. Daneaiedidaid of Schools and is pre- . ; é

PV eae eee

+ 96"

FIRST FURTHER ANSWER ~ ~

For a First Further Answer. to. the Plaintiff's amend- .

_ ed complaint this Defendant alleges and says: :

1. The Statute (North Carolina Session Laws i969,

Chapter 31) -hereafter called’ the “Statute,”: the consti.

e _ tutionality of which is here challenged. by the Plaintiff,

followed a long established North . Carolina legislative

precedent and pattern of the formation’ of a special ad-

ministrative school unit within a county consisting usual

ly of a municipality. There are in North Carolina, ex-

clusive of Scotland Neck, fifty-two special municipal ad

ministrative school units. i , rae

_. 2. The Statute created a special school administrative

unit; the boundaries of which were designated as the -

municipal boundaries of the Town. of Scotland. Neck ~

Within the geographic boundaries of the Town of Sct-

‘land Neck there now reside approximately 751 students

: _. .0f school age; 56.86. percent of which are white and

438.14. percent of ‘which are negro. Classroom facilities -

within the town: limits can accommodate approximately -

812, students; 784 of which are accommodated by per-

"manent facilities and 28 of which are accommodated by

- . @ mobile ‘classroom, na Li ae

_ _ 8.. The Statute provides, -as conditions. precedent to -

the formation of the unit,;'a vote of the people in Scot- ’

land ‘Neck approving both.the formation of the unit and -

- the imposition.of a school fax.of 50 cents on the dollar”

of taxable property. valuation in the town. |

4. By election held pursuant to the Statute, the peo.

ple of Scotland. Neck approved both ‘the formation and

the. imposition of the special school tax. ~~ AG

- 5. The resident school population is sufficient. to con-

stitute an efficient separate school administrative unit, -

and the special tax funds will, enable the Defendant to

' Offer. to its resident students an educational system

Which is greatly superior to that heretofore enjoyed by

_ them and: superior to that which would be available to

them if there were no such tax. Defendant made ar- -.

. ’ i : . , A giao

‘ 2 ? F

. o Z g : . J , ae ; eee ES 5 » . : . :

_rangements to operate such an ‘improved’ school system -

"in Scotland Neck for the school -year 1969-1970. 7

6. On August 25, 1969’ there was issued a tempo a

" jnjunction in this-cause, preventing Defendant from tak-

ing any further steps in connection. with the operation :

of a school unit until the final. determination of. the

merits of this cause. = = i ti eS

1. The single issue in this case is the’ constitutionality :.

of the Statute. The issue is not the propriety ‘or the i

legality of whatever might, from time to time, be the -

plan or plans of operation under the Statute. . ee

_ 8 It is the present intention of: this, Defendant, and

this Defendant makes this. continuing representation, _ .

that, if and when there is. removed the’ temporary in-

junction. barrier preventing operation under the Statute,

. Defendant will confine its student’ body to those students

_ residing within the geographical limits-of the town of .

Scotland Neck, plus or minus such student transfers as:

_may be.in conformity to the law and/or Court ordér or

‘orders applicable to Defendant, and in conformity toa =Ss-

_ plan’ of limitation of. transfers to be prepared by De- .

- fendant and submitted to this Court. we ey

_ WHEREFORE, this Defendant : respectfully prays

that:

1. The Court declare to be constitutional Chapter 31

- of the 1969 Session Laws of North Carolina;-

-. 2.° The Court dissolve the temporary injunction bins

—tofore issued in this cause on the 25th. day of August

1969; | .

3.. The Court retain ‘jurisdiction of this” cause for the

receipt of a plan of transfer to be submitted by the

_—-Befendant to the Court and for the — of any ‘ob «

1* 2 ection that may’ be filed thereto.

es oe "6. _ Krrcin Josey

bs) William ‘T. Joyner

cre! WILLIAM T. , JOYNER

—/8/ Walton K. ‘Seyne. -s

| as WALTON K. JOYNER .

oo, oa Attorneys: for the defendant,

“ : Scotland: Neck City Board

: _ _ of, Education,: a body cor-

- — .

t —

gs ~

i :

[Caption Omitted]

‘MOTION: S&S

Now -comes the defendant, the Scotland ' Neck City

Board. of Education, a body corporate; by and through

_ its attorney, €. Kitchin Josey, and respectfully shows

unto the Court: . - ae _—

7 That at 12 o’clock noon on the 25th day of August,.

: 1969, an order was entered in this ¢ause enjoining this

defendant “from taking any action pursuant to the pro-

‘visions of Chapter 31 (of the 1969 Session Laws of»

North Carolina): pending a final determination on‘ the |

merits of the issues gaised in’ the present action.”

That prior to the entering*of the above mentioned

- order ‘this defendant in its official capacity and in ac- °

cordance with the laws of the State of. North Carolina.

under its then“ policy: accepted students that lived out- —

administrative unit boundaries on a tui- --

‘side the schoo

tion basis receiving approximately ‘$11,656.53 from the

parents of. such tuition: students. Of this amount, $2,-

970.66 was expended by this defendant for obligations

incurred prior to the entering of the above ‘mentioned

. order. |

- 3.

That the defendant, the Scotland Neck City Board of..

Education, desires to repay in full- the parents of the

, Students who have previously paid in these tuition funds. -

| ee? 4 4 ahs a

That the Scotland Neck City Board ‘of Education has

heretofore incurred certain legal expenses in connection

-with the defense of this cause and the said defendant _

expects: to incur certain additional expenses until this

matter is finally determined. a ,

798

799

;

_ That this defendant has been” offered certain’ private

donations from citizens in this, area’ and particularly the -

citizens of the Town of Scotland Neck for the purpose -

of repaying the parents of the tuition students and for

the purpose of defraying expense of defending this law

suit. wo a

WHEREFORE, this defendant prays the Court that

: an order be entered modifying the temporary injunction |

order of August 25, 1969, to the effect that the defent.

ant, the Scotland Neck ‘City Board of. Education, -be al.

lowed to receive donations from’ private: sources and to

use such funds, together with the tuition funds now in

its hands, for the repayment of the amounts heretofore

paid by parents of ‘tuition students, and further that

said Board: be permitted to use -said privately donated

_ funds for the purpose of ‘legal expenses and. fees in-

eurred and to be in¢urred ‘until this matter is finally

determined. . :

This the 12th day, of September, 1969.

/s/ C. Kitchin Josey |

©. KITCHIN JosEY, William T.

Joyner and Walton K. Joy-

_ ner, Attorneys for the Scot-

‘land Neck City Board of

Education

800 -

: [Caption Omitted] |

«ORDER ©

This cause coming on: to ‘be héard’on a Motion by the’

defendant, the Scotland Neck City Board of Education,

a body corporate, for a modification of the order of pre-

liminary injunction heretofore entered by this Court at

- 12 o'clock noon on August 25; 1969, to the effect. that

ertain funds now. in said defendant’s hands and certain

private donations be authorized for use by said defend-

* ant to repay certain parents of ‘tuition Students and for |

authority to use said privately donated funds for’ the |’

purpose of defraying legal expenses in connection with

the defense of this cause; _ _ Sh Te os

_ And it appearing to the Court that the ‘requested modi-

fication of said temporary injunction is proper and said

Motion should be’allowed; «°° ' :

IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJ UDGED

AND DECREED that the defendant, the Scotland Neck

City Board of Education, be allowed to receive dona-

‘tims from private: sources and to use such funds, to-

gether with the tuition funds now in its hands, for the

repayment of the amounts heretofore paid by parents of.

tuition students, @ad further that said Board be per-

- mitted to use said privately donated funds for the pur-

pose of legal expenses ‘and fees incurred and to be in-

curred until this matter is finally. determined.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk: shall

_ Serve copies of this Order upon all counsel of. record.

- Let. this Order be entered. forthwith. - °

_ {s/ Algernon L. Butler .

CHIEF UNITED STATES

DISTRICT JUDGE.

~ /s/ John D. Larkins, Jr.

| * "UNITED: STATES

y DISTRICT JUDGE

801

. [Caption Omitted]

. MOTION. OF ROBERT MORGAN, ATTORNEY Gey. _

_ ERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO INTERVENE -

IN THIS .ACTION IN BEHALF OF THE STATE. -

OF NORTH CAROLINA, AS PARTY. DEFENDANT.

Robert. Morgan, Attorney General of North Carolina,

in behalf of the State of North Carolina, hereby moves

_ the Court for leave to intérvene in this action in order

-to assert the defenses of the State of North Carolina,

as set: forth in the proposed Answer of which a copy is.

hereto attached, on the grounds and for the reasons, as

follows: | |

"1. That Applicant, Robert Morgan, is the duly .elected

and qualified Attorney General of the State of North

Carolina, and makes this application to intervene in this

--action in behalf of said State of North Carolina; that.

North Carolina is one of the States that compose the

United States of America and exercises such powers and

duties as set. forth in its Constitution and Laws enacted

by its General Assembly and in. accordance with the

Constitution of the United States. — - 4 at

2. That this motion. to intervene in this’ action by the

Attorney General of North Carolina is made in behalf

of said State of North Carolina (hereinafter referred .

to as:.Applicant) pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

‘Procedure, the same being Rule 24; that this application

is made as a matter of right in that the constitutionality

eof one of the acts or statutes of said State is involved

in said action; that applicant may be bound by any judg-

ment -entered by the Court in this action, and_ applicant

is entitled to adequate representation on the question of

the constitutionality of said State act or statute; that

applicant is also entitled to intervene in this action in

the discretion of the Court and as a permissive interven-

-tion in that the plaintiff-relies upon the allegation of the

unconstitutionality of an act’ or ‘statute of this State as

a part of its claim; that there is a: common question of

law and fact as the constitutionality of said State law or

~ 802.

; act is drawn into question and if-said intervention is. al-

Jowed, as herein requested, the same will not unduly de-.

lay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the

es, ; . =

8. That ‘the att of the General Assembly drawn in

question. as to its constitutionality in this action is. Chap-

ter 31.of the Session Laws of. 1969, which became effec-

_ tiveon the 8rd-day of March, 1969; that-a copy of. said -

"act is attached to the amended complaint of the United

States of America and is hereby referred to as‘a part ~

of this motion; that the plaintiff alleges that said act —

_and its implementation is in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and

this is denied by the applicant; that applicant, if allowed -

' to intervene in this’ action,. will allege and assert that.

said act is valid and that its result ‘is to establish a city

' board of education similar to many other city boards of

education throughout the State of North ‘Carolina and -

which have been established for many years; that if said

act is held by the Court to be invalid and unconstitutional

the status and establishment of all other boards of edu-

cation, both city and county, will be put in jeopardy.

4. That applicant accepts the status of this action as

" heretofore developed but reserves the right to except to

any evidence orders, rulings or proceedings that may he

made oy~entered, or heretofore made and entered, con-—

trary to the constitutional validity of said act. or statute,

and the right to argue in support of the validity of said

‘act or statute; that applicant agrees-to be bound by the ~

temporary injunction heretofore entered in this cause but

ccs tke right to move that same be vacated by the

5. That annexed hereto, in accordance with ‘Rule 24

(e) of the Federal Rules.of Civil Procedure is ‘a proposed

Pleading entitled: “Answer of Robert Morgan, Attorney

General of North Carolina, in behalf of the State of

North Carolina, in Intervention.” The applicant moves

the Court that said pleading be deemed .the appearance.

of applicant in’ support. of the constitutionality of the

act of the General Assembly of North Carélina, and in

_pposition to all pleadings and motions of the parties

803

hereto that have been or may be made herein insofar as

said pleadings and motions are based on the contention’

that said act of the-General Assembly of North Caroling

--is -in-any respect, or in any application, unconstitutional,

WHEREFORE: Applicant prays. the Court that an

order be entered herein allowing. applicant to -intervene

in this. action as a party defendant and that his Proposed -

answer be filed as a pleading. in this action; that this .

motion be brought on before the Court for hearing on

_October 24, °1969, at the Federal Courtroom in ‘Raleigh,

North Carolina, or at such other time- as may be con. .

venient and as ordered by the Court. =<

/s/ Robert Morgan 7

Attorney General of —

_ North Carolina.

#8/ Ralph Moody 7

Deputy Attorney General of

_ North Carolina

— : - P. O. Box 629

tet Justlee Building ©

; ~ . Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. .

* [Caption Omitted) a8 |

:-@RDER-ALLOWING INTERVENTION OF ROBERT

NORTH CAROLINA. | |

/ This cause coming on to be heard upon the Motion of

lowed to intervene in ‘this action as an Intervenor-De-

fendant in behalf of the State of North Carolina; and .

It appearing to the Court that there is involved in this

action 4 question as to the validity, and constitutionality

of.an Act’ of the General Assembly of North Carolina;

that this is a question of public interest throughout the

State and involves the right of the State to create a pub-

lie school. administrative unit; that it is a legal possibil-

‘ity that the State of North Carolina. may be bound by

there is a common question as to the validity of a similar

_ Statute involved in the Warren County case which is con-

solidated with this case; that the defendants in this ad-

' Laws of 1969, enacted by the Genéral Assembly of North

Carolina: | as RY 6 es , |

cause with: the right to adopt the objections, .excéptions

and motions in this cause that have heretofore been en-

; 7 -_ : 804

MORGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL—OF. NORTH ~

- CAROLINA, IN BEHALF OF THE STATE: OF

the Attorney General of ‘North ‘Carolina that he be al-- .

_ the judgment entered by the Court between the parties

_ Plaintiff and defendants as this action now stands; that

‘tion rely upon the validity of Chapter 31 of the Session ©

IT IS, ‘THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED’ |

BY THE COURT: That as a matter of right, or in the .

2 ORIN ’

SPN aos) ee trae Stata

805 | ee

tered by. the other defendants and to support the Validity

of Chapter 31 of the Session. Laws of 1969, as enacteg

- by the General Assembly. of North Carolina. -

= IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE couRr:

That the Plaintiff be allowed to file such responsive plead- _~

ing to the Answer of the Interv enor-Defendant ; as it t shal

deem to be advisable> ~

This the 81 day of Oetober, 1969.

/s/ Algernon L. Butler

Chief Judge of the District

’ -Court of the United States

_. for the Eastern .District of :

™” | North Carolina ak :

| . /s/ John ‘D. Larkins, Jr.

mam . + Judge of the. District. Court -

_ . . of the United States for the

Eastern District of North

Carolina

A True Copy, Teste:

SAMUEL A. Howasp

~ Clerk

By /s/ [Illegible]

Deputy Clerk ©

B06

[Caption Omitted]

"ANSWER OF ROBERT MORGAN, ATTORNEY GEN-

_/ BRAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, IN BEHALF OF

- THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA—INTERVEN- |

. .ORDEFENDANT.-

The Intervenor-Defendant, Robert Morgan, Attorney

General of North Carolina, in behalf of the State of ‘

North Carolina, answering the. original and amefided

‘complaints, filed herein, alleges:

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT an

1, The Intervenor-Defendant has not knowledge or- in-

formation. sufficient to forma a beliéf ‘as to the truth of \

Paragraph 1 of the original cqmplaint, and, therefore,

denies the same.

2. The alleg»tions of Paragraph 2 of the original com-

plaint are denied. - 3 4

3: The allegations of P aragraph 3 of the original com-.. .

plaint are admitted. —_

6. That the Intervenor-Defendant is not concerned ~

Paragraph 6 of the qriginal |

e Intervenor-Defendant is not concerned with the

rs alleged in Paragraph 7 and is not required to

<2 & ‘The Intervenor-Defendant is not concerned with the

¥ er alleged in Paragraph 8 and is not required to

mart . The allegations of Paragraph 9 of the original com-’

Plaint’ are admitted. ae |

4 dons 6 bee meget ™ — PE ee, oe a eS

SER AAR yada A TA SN URC AUE Rivka heey

> 807

‘11. ‘The allegations of Perseeueh 11 are sihiati

12.” The Intervenor-Defendant for lack of knowledge

or information to.form a belief -as to the truth of Para. .

graph 12 of the original complaint denies the same.

' 13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 are denied.

_ 14. The allegations of .Paragraph 14 are. denied,

15.- The allegations. of Paragraph 15 are sha

~~ CLAIM.TWO

are re-alleged as Answers to this Claim /and. ineorpo-/

rated herein by reference as if fully set forth and all

herein. —

16. That Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 of; this Answer /

17. For lack of - ‘Mnow latino. or information. suftciente

- to forfn a. belief as to the truth of allegations 11,

are denied.

they

18. The intervenor-Defendant alleges: that he is not

required to answer, Paragraph 18 ‘of the original

com-

. plaint since they are concerned with matters ; f adminis-

tration.

19° Answerihg the aiacations of Parherath 19 of: the

original complaint: the Intervenor-Defendant alleges

that

neither the State, the State Board of Education, or the

State Superintendent of. Public Instruction has any

legal

authority: to fix attendance areas, assign pupils ‘to the

various facilities of the pyblic school system, dr to adopt.

or implement plans of: de¢e segregation ; and except as

alleged said paragraph is denied. |

here ~

20. On information and belief, ‘said Paragraph is de. “

_ nied.

21. The allegations of Paragraph 21 are denied.

‘AMENDED COMPLAINT

|B Answering Paragraph 1 of the amended complaint,

it is’ admitted that the Attorney General of the United

States attached to the original complaint his certification

as therein shown; that itis a condition precedent ‘to the

bringing of this action that there shall be secret com-

plaints made te the. Attorney General of the United

‘States; that any action -based: upon secret — is

° .

. void, invalid and. unconstitutional and a Violation of the

due process clause and the equal protection ‘of’ the law.

cause. of the’ Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

of the United States; that the provisions of 42 USC .

2000c-6¢a) and (b) are unconstitutional and void in that.

said ‘provisions purport to confer jurisdiction, upon Fed- a

- eral Courts .to- entertain actions based upon secret com- F

plaints, discriminate in favor of one -ethnie group as y

" against another ethnic group by furnishing government _£

attorneys to one group as against. another group, fur- . i

nish costs and expenses in favor of one group as against - _,

another group, and thus create an ‘invidious discrimina- i/

tion in favor of one group of citizens as against another — . f |

group of citizens in violation ‘of the Fourteenth Amend- te. a

ment of the Constitution of the United States; and ex-. .

cept as herein alleged said paragraph 1 of amended fom-

plaint is untrue and'is denied... =, . -° é

2. The allegations of Paragraph 2 of the amended

‘- complaint are untrue and are denied. pi a te a 7

_ 3. The allegations: of Paragraph 3 are admitted. _ ae

4. The allegations. of Paragraph 4 .are.admitted eX- “|

cept it is denied that such action should lawfully be main- og

5. The allegations of Paragraph 5. are admitted. oa f

6. The allegations of Paragraph 6 are admitted.

7. That ‘the Intervenor-Defendant has not knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief. as to the truth

. Of the allegations of Paragraph. 7, and,, therefore, denies —

Ft, ng, ae ee oes : 3

_ _8.. The allegations of Paragraph 8 are denied for lack eo

of knowledge or. information sufficient. to. form a belief

as to the-truth of same. > — | Bie

9. The allegations: of Paragraph 9 are admitted. =

10. The allegations of Paragraph 10 are aren ee a"

11. The allegations of Paragraph 11 are admitted,. --

12. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 12 on in-

TREN Roget ST

. perintendent of Schools and: prepared to open its Schools

for the school year beginning in the Fall of 1969; ‘that >

‘ - ss ” ep | re : i

- £809 oo i ae)

. except as herein admitted the-‘allegations of Paragraph

12 are denied. - : & tg Oe

_ 18. The allegations of Paragraph 13. are denied,

_ 14., The allegations of Paragraph 14 are untrue and

-are denied; further answering said paragraph; Inter.

venor-Defendant alleges. that it is untrue that’ the ‘size |

and pupil enrollment shauld control: the size of the -edy-

‘cational administrative unit; that- large‘ educational units.

/ with marching bands, football teams, gymnasiums and

many social and ‘athletic events and numerous extracur-

rieular activities are desired by those who stil] worship

- + the outworn creed 4nd bankrupt philosophy: of ‘so-called.

.. progressive educatior\in which system actual imparting q

of knowledge and insthuction of the pupil “is lost in. the

shuffle; that.in many cases the smaller unit furnishes

. better financing, better instructors: and graduates a stv.

. dent of high caliber ‘who completes is. college education;

_ it is further alleged that _the\peoplé_ have the constitu.

tional right to. determine the type, of administrative unit .”

they desire and ‘not theoretical. scaled educators who

desire a bureaucratic, dictatorial. pwdlic school system

_ under their ‘complete control; that. the ‘Rederal’ Govern-

~ ment has no constitutional’ right, under theguise of con-

_ , Stitutional interpretation, to determine the typecand size

of the school administrative unit that the people of, the

State shall have and use. _ Pre, - TN,

_‘ 15. The allegations of Paragraph 15 are untrue and _

years; that the Scotland Neck City Board of- Education

has never had the chance to administer its school system - _ oe

~ and aos -coamplirg its proposed or future ad-

‘ministration is nothing but speculation and conjecture;

‘that no constitutional attack of this nature can ‘be made

until. the practical: results of such administration are

available; that if Chapter 31 of the Session Laws of 1969,

is unconstitutional and irfvalid then the stability of every

* school administrative unit in the State- of North Caro-

lina is endangered and subject to attack if the members

of the black race are dissatisfied and displeased with its.

boundaries ‘and enrollment limitations and it will take a

Federal decree to settle every boundary and ¢ttendance

area; it is again denied that Chapter 31 of the Session

Laws of 1969, is unconstitutional and invalid or that it

- Violates any provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to

‘the Constitution of the United States and it is alleged.

‘that those who pay the largest part of the taxes that

- support the public school system of the State should have —

: some voice in public school administration. .

§ = AG. The allegations of Paragraph 16 are. untrue and —

aredenied- - re ee

CLAIM TWO. 4

_ 1t. That the answers to Paragraphs 1, 2, 3,7 and.8 —

of Claim-One of this Amended Complaint are here re- ~

alleged in’ this Claim and are made a part hereof by ref- |

erence, 2° oe, , _

| That the Intervenor-Defendant has_not knowledge

or Jif ation’ sufficient to form a belief as to the truth |

of the allegations of Paragraph 18; _and,. therefore, de- ©

. Mies the same. _ .

19. That:the allegations of Paragraph 19 relate to the

Halifax County Board of Education and this Intervenor-

Defendant does not know what alternative ‘methods ‘of

pupil ‘assignment are available for this.county unit, and,

» therefore, denies ‘said’. Paragraph 19. Soe

20. That Intervenor-Defendant does “not know what’

the Halifax County School Administrative Unit has failed

and refused to do nor what plan of desegregation it has

- failed to adopt, and, therefore, denies said paragraph 20.

roy * . “

. .

. . ; « .

. ° "° ak

: .

OOF Eppa re wm. ty " _ _ a ‘ -_

am Y . a ;

7 4

\ id °

’

811 | .

21: The allegations of Paragraph 21 are untrue ai

are, therefore, denied. . -. ae

22. -The-allegations of Paragraph -22 are untrue ‘and

are denied. |

WHEREFORE: having fully answered, the Interveno.

Defendant prays the Court:: © pot

(a) That Chapter 31 of the Session Laws of 1969,

enacted by the General Assembly of North Carolina, be

declared ‘to be constitutional and valid. -

_ (b) That this action be dismissed and the Temporary

Restraining Order. heretofore entered in this cause be

dismissed: Fo, ae |

(ce) That, such other and further relief be granted by.

the Court as -may be proper and just. 3 _

’ be

/s/ Robert Morgan _

Attorney General of:

_ -North Carolina

/8/ Ralph Moody .

. Deputy. Attorney General of

North Carolina *

P. O. Box 629 .

Justice Building © |

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

[Caption Omitted]

-* ORDER

This cause coming on to be heard. befbre the Court on

a motion for a preliminary injuriction filed by the plain-

tiff seeking to restrain the defendants from: giving any

- force or effect to the provision of Chapter 31 of the

. North Carolina Session Laws of 1969, an Act to “estab-

lish a separate unit for the operation of the public schools:

of the town of Scotland Neck, North Carolina and _there

-. being also before the Court a. motion by the defendant,

_ Halifax County Board of Education, that it be dismissed

from that portion of this action dealing with the consti-

tutionality of the Scotland Neck Act as said defendant

was not.a party to the creation, of said Scotland Neck

_ Unit; and it: appearing to the Court that said .defend-

ant, since it was not a party to the creation of said

Act, should not be put to the expense of defending this

action in this Court or ‘in any subsequent appeals, if any

there be, as said defendant is already before the ‘Court

charged with violation of the Civil Rights Act and will

be bound by the orders of this Court to comply: with all

the laws, state and federal, affecting the public schools

- in Halifax County. ;

It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DE-

CREED; ee!

THAT - the ‘motion ‘of the | defendant that ‘it: be dis-..

missed from this action is allowed insofar as the ques- —

tion of the constitutionality of the Act creating the Scot-

_ land Neck’ Unit is concerned. Said defendant will no

’ longer be réquired’ to defend or. appear in subsequent. °

_ actions, involving enly - the constitutionality of: the Act

creating ‘said unit, but ‘said defendant is not® relieved.

from the other parts of this action involving its violation

of the Civil Rights Act, but shall comply with the orders

of this Court, and orders of any Appellate Court or the

Supreme Court of the United States of America, as they

‘may effect the operations of the publie schools of Halifax

- County, LF us a

nn ——

ee |

813

THAT this. ORDER shall become ‘effective: ‘S$ soon as

it is executed by the Court. :

Let this ORDER be entered forthwith.

This the 3rd day of. Moremi, 1969.

‘October ..

- Raleigh, N orth Carolina

pee

| /*/ John D. Larkins, ie

‘JOHN D. LARKINS, JR.

United States District Judge

ALGERNON L. BUTLER }

United States District Judge

814

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT #38

Civil Acton No. 1128

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES | TO

DEFENDANT HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF -

_ EDUCATION |

October 28, 1969

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

NORTH CAROLINA

- WILSON DIVISION

Civil Action No, 1128 |

- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,

Vv.

HALIFAX County BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body - corpo:

rate, and the SCOTLAND NECK CITY BOARD OF EDvu-

CATION, a body corporate, DEFENDANTS,

‘ANSWER. TO PLAINTIFF’S ere nkoestonns 4 TO

DEFENDANT HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF -.

EDUCATION

_—— oe hiatal, |

. :

815.

APPENDIX

exeveseroe.. |

a ie

: 816

1 Please state the name, location, brates served, “date -

of construction and any substantial additions; and at-

tendance zone lines for each" school in defendant’s school

mit for the 1969-70 school year. If there are no present.

attendance, zones, describe the lines for the zones for the

last year before: they were eliminated, and state what

t year that- was. If possible, please show as much of this

information as‘practicable on a map, such asa general

highway map prepared by the North Carolina Highway

Department.

1. The names of schools, ‘grades served, -date of con-:

_.struction and substantial. additions for - the ‘schools . in

_ Halifax County Unit in the 1969-70 school unit are

shown on the attached form. ( See attached sheet No. 1).

~ The location of these schools are shown .on the attached

map (See attached map No. 1).

There were no attendarice zones during’ the 1968-69

‘school year except for pupils in grades 7 and 8 who were ©

transferred to predominantly white schools as follows:

. Grades 7 and 8 from John A. Chaloner School to.

William R. Davie School.

. Grades 7 and 8 from McIver School to Aurelian

Springs School.

| . Grades 7 from Inborden Elementary School to En- |

field School. -

. Grades 7 aid 8 from —— School to Scotland

Neck School.

There are no attendance ‘zones for the 1969- 70 school

year.

_ 3

Ee PRT LPC a

af in oe : . ;

>t ve snags 5 pe a ltt " “ . 7 . . ‘ ~ , .

aera Nai MAN ED SAMI aN lb iANRIMLSSLIZ IGA Ls) wagon IW oy esdelaaid a guacdatauiats Bsa, Ph aaa 255 a ll okt ssitauatdintes es

z : é . SL aE INAS RRR UR TI eR AEN FM DL CESS RIES SENOS Tt TM NNT BOE SRN AN ANON Rie in NT

é - * . e . . : .

a .* 2

School. Grades Served - Date of Construction - Date of substantial. additions 00

‘ ‘ : \ 7 , . . a 7 i . # 7 , ~—

Aurelian Springs : 1-12 _ 1922—4 classrooms . 1925—4 classrooms, 1 library’

Route 2; ° . Auditorium ‘ 1929—5. classroon\s, library -

Littleton, N: C. ; ‘ 1984—6 classrooms

; ; 1935—1. classroom; 1 -shop

1948—Gym-Cafeteria

. 1959—3 classrooms

al e 7 t °

Bakers Elem. , . . 1-8 1959—10 classrooms — 1961—3 classrooms, 1 Cafe-

Route 1, Box 103 a a . 1 Library. torium .

Scotland Neck, N.C. , — : :; a

Brawley School | “,° 4-12 + 1926—8 classrooms 1937—8 classrooms :

; . Scotland Neck 74 . 1 Library ‘1942-2 classrooms, 1 shop-

: ; -. North Carolina + ae are a ; 1951—5 classrooms, 1 library .

. 1955—5 classrooms ,

1960—Gymntorium, 4 class-

rooms _

, 1968—Cafeteria

Dawson Elem. 18 —. ' 1938—4 classroom -.. ° *1957—6 classrooms a

Scotland Neck — ' yO 1 Music Room 1960—10 classrooms, 1 li-

North Carovlina : _ brary, Cafetorium

* Eastman “sy 1-12. 1947—1 cl. srucm _ 1949—Gymtorium

Route 2, 1 sh . 1953—5 classrooms, 1. library *

Enfield, N:C:-. _ , oe ; ' “ » 1956—7’ classrooms |

: ; 1959—13 classrooms, 1 li-

_ : brary *-

= a : 1968—Cafetorium .

Enfield Graded : 1-12 = 1948—20 classrooms 1952—1 classroom, 1 shop

Enfield, N.C. : ; Library ,

are ‘ : : . , Auditorium

si ; 7 : . Cafeteria

Par : Gym

_ School

Everetts Elem.

sgh ‘ Route 1,

we Roanoke Rapids, N.:C.

: : . Holhster Elem,

3 Holli El

we Hollister, N.C.

- Inborden Elem,

.. Enfteld, N.C.

Inborderr Hi h-:

Enfield, N.C. ~

J. A. Chaloner |

Roanoke’ Rapids

North Carolina

’ Melver High

_ Littleton, N.C.

: *

ee Seay PRRs Ce er i Vries ey perme tansy PRN

5 aad

Grades Serve

1-8

9-12

1-12 ...

1-12

Date of Construction .

Date'of substantial additions

1958—14 classrooms

Library

1960—13 classrooms

1948—12 classrooms

cafeteria

1951-—5 classrooms”

library

1924—-5 classrooms

library:

auditorium

1925—6 classrooms

TURN RR MR ert Sonate RH Ce Ret cot

1960—6' classrooms, Cafe- —

torium’* rr

1966—Cafetorium, Library

1954—2 classrooms

1956—2 classrooms, library

1960—12 classrooms

1969—Cafetorium

1955—3 classrooms, Gym-

~ torium ..

_ 1961—1 classroom, 1 slop

1988—4 classrooms on

1940—-1 classroom, 1 shop

-1941—7 classrooms, caf@eria

1942—1 classroom |

1944—-1 music room

1945—Gymnasium

1950—2 classrooms

1955—6 classrooms .

1958—9. classrooms, library

19380—4 classrooms _.

'1941—band room, 1 class-

‘room, 1 shop’ |

1948—Gymnasium

1954—-2 classrooms, library

-1959—8 classrooms .

1964—6° classrooms

1968—cafetorium .

School ae . | Grades Served

Pittman Elem. | ot : 1-8

- Route 8, : >*s 7

Enfield, N.C, s. | ;

Scotland Neck School _ . 1-12

‘ Scotland Neck, N.C. _ -

Thomas Shields . SO ; 1-8 a

Hobgood, N.C.

Tillery. Chapel Elem. _ rae <o

> N.C, a. z ’

Route 2,

Enfield, N.C.

~ Wm. R. Davie Pa . . ‘ 1-12

Route 1,:

“ Roanoke Rapids, N, Cc.

Date of Construction

1959—15 classrooms

‘library

1908—12 Sinstionede. i

library

ay s

-1957—6 classrooms

1932—4 . classrooms

1959—10-elassrooms

1940—11 classrooms

1 library

auditorium

. ‘e

- . » bd ‘

Pas

Date o 2 of stantial additions _

- 1960—eafetorium, 1 ‘class-

room

1923—cafeteria, 3 class-

rooms, library

1939—1 Home Ec. Lab, 2

classrooms, 1 shop,

Gymnasium

1949—1 classroom .

aa en auditor- =

1960—4. Georedeia” cafe-

teria, library

_1958—4 classrooms

1961—library, cafetorium

1957-6 classrooms :

1962—1 classrooms, library,

cafetorium,

1966—1 classroom, library,

cafetorium.

1952—4 classrooms, library

1953—1 shop, cafeteria, gym- ;

“ ‘nasium,

1955—5 classrooms

1958-—4 classrooms

1961—2 classrooms

— J - * wv _

stale Ake seins diy Caiomata commited

618

miy~

POMP HE VR MEO

—

‘

. 7

. -

. .

- « 7

; : .

; . ERRNO ERP etaE scieccones

' he

pees

6 me

eam aX: Sy

AR ag

? « \ -

— i

‘

, \

‘ '

. ne

ie »

oy ae

‘awe

ieOetarion

° atv

eke or

7 .

PY ‘

e\ .

\ .

‘

”

HALIFAX COUNTY

toy

aA rear cae.

we aa “———__g04

2. Please describe any changes in. the number, names,

locations, grades served or attendance zone lines of the _

schools in defendant’s. school unit since the beginning of

the 1964-65 school year. | _S 7

2. Changes in school organization since the beginning

~ a. John Armstrong Chaloner School formerly in -

noke Rapids City School Unit and the Halifax County” |

School Unit, and by action of the State Board of .

- Education began operating as a part of the Halifax -

County School Unit at the beginning of the 1966-67 —

. school year. This school had been operating to serve

approximately 80% who were living within the Hali-

County at the beginning of the 196’ -68 school year.

€ elementary department of the Haliwa Schoo}.

. Was closed at the end of the 1968-69 school year and

approximately 140 students grades-1-8 who live in

Halifax County: transferred to schools in Halifax .

County. : red, Die Same ? :

2, (4) Upon closing grades 1-5 of the Littleton School

: In Warren County at the close of the 1968-69 schoo! term -

‘s

822 -

approximately 60 students who live in Halifax County

- Were transferred to Halifax County Schools. (See at.

— map No. 1).

(a) Please state the enrollment in each school by

tai and race for the 1964- 65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967.

68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 school years, and for. any other’

- school year in which there - ~was any Clesegregation of

pupils in the system.

. HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

: Halifax, N. C.

Enrollment. by Race and Grade. for the . Following Years

SCHOOL: | Aurelian. ‘Springs . 3 | .

1964-65 - 1965-66 _. 1968-67 1967-68 1968-69 _ 1969-70

GRADE W NW W NW.W Nw W NW W NW Ww NW

- eg) —ettton =

1. 80 20 25 26 20 4863 «16. ~~ (20

. 2 21 28 17 28 25 25° (17)1

8 23 23 25 1 16 1 28 19 (21)

‘ 4 26 28 20 1 28° 1° 20 23 (19

5 31 ' 27 23 21 1 29 1 48 . (28)1

Py 6 29 33 © 23 1 25 19 27 =(15)1

7 36 28 80 1 24 1 25 5318 (12)

¢ : 8 7 39 26 29 2 -22 64 25 (15

Spec. Ed. ’ : (12

9. 38 46 38 17 31 22 «31 23 «(14 (22)3

10 27 33 42 14 29 17 26 18 29 (14)4 .

11 33 25 85 11 38 13 81 138 25 (16)3

*. 12 24 30 23 12 26 14 36 10 24 (12)1

TOTAL 865 860 8260 «BB O21 72 817 186 263 232

W-=White - . .

ss NW=Negro or Indian ° |

-% .

. ee )=Indians in Predominantly Negro. Schools .

; Enrallment figures were determined at different times during the school year.

COMMENTS: ° 7 | . : . 90

. : a) - |

bs Yeas De een * mere w at : -_ . ‘s s —n * Lin? egos:

; Be BE epee nae rege sans = Weates . ws = ; . Sepang P ‘ ; MRM erpe OHTA

. . . of : ? -. - .

. ? , ™ e

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

: Halifax, N: C.

_. .Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years

SCHOOL: Bakers | :

1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 - 1969-70

GRADE. W NW W NW W NW W NW W. NW .W. NW

(.)==Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools \ ;

Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year,

COMMENTS /?. ; ——

1 49 42 39 36 27 36

2 44 49 87 42 34 29.

3 62 39 41 31 36 39

4 ¥ 47 41 36 37 29 39.

5 45 41 33 39 43 27

6 . 48 49 41 34 38 45

q 43 47 56 86 33 34

8 42. 87 44 49 34 85°

Spec. Ed. 18 18 20 15 9

: . 12 = . . . ye ss \

TOTAL 383 | 863 . 847: - $19. 283 —(«, 284

W=White

NW==Negro.or Indian ° “\

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS ,

; - Halifax, N. C, _ @ or, oe

. Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years -

SCHOOL: , Brawley Pa - ; .

. | on a _ 1964-65 — 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 __-1968-69 | __ 1969-70

| . GRADE W NW W NW W NW W NW W. NW W NW

1 65. . “61 63. 48 Ct 60 » 50

’ -" 2 67 61 52 50. 59 ba

3 70 62 ° 54. 49 - 54 ‘53

4 71 66 55 56 49 55

° 5 72 70. . BR -° 6B. 66°: 42

6 66 | 74 1 58 a) ry) oe

rn: 68 73 2 = 48 - ie ft

7 61 -6F = 9M 80°C: 56.

Spec 18 18 ‘ -18 8B - s¥¥% , .

: 221 234 218 282s ~ 247

1 =--* 161. 170 192° * 157 182 184

> i ae 112. °* WWd-) 148 4. 154 12 ,

; 12 *. 104 9% |. 106 108°. 118 124 | ae i

on eS TOTAL | 11575977 1151. . 1106 © 1117

*'; “W=White BAP | | Co

: NW=Negro or Indian .

< )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools

_ Enrollment figures were Seterinined at different times during the school year. Co

COMMENTS: x

& SRP ke ganmncy yee ane

‘

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS | . me, @

Halifax, N. C, OB

| Enrollment by Race and. Grade for the hiataiiedl Years

oe ees. - SCHOOL: Basen. |

7 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67, 196768 1968-69 .- 1969-70

GRADE W NW W: NW. W NW W NW -W' NW W: ‘NW

yee 80 Je 56 49 “39

o eS i he Waeeees - 56 51 42... ;

3 se oe ane 67 «OB . 61 41

4: 83 : aes 59 48 - 48

. 77 : Set 62 55 59 39

SS “7 Sis ~ 60 50 ~ 62

7 54 55 66. 63 — o- 48

a ee "64 8. gg 52° 56 63 «B4

Spec. Ed. 16 a 16 > 2% . - 99

. 9 , Pe . .

° ~— a -

at 11 ;

“ae ce , a i <

ee TOTAL =—s5 62 886° 822” 459 390

| W=White | 2

NW=Negro or Indian oa : “ . -

( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools

Enrollment figures were determined at diferent times during the school year.

COMMENTS: ‘ a

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

Halifax, N. C,

Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following ‘Years

SCHOOL: Eastman. , ‘

1964-65 —§ 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 . 1969- 70

GRADE Ww: NW W NW Ww Nw W NW W NW w NW.

’ 1 71 61 54° 67 50 46

2 63 62 . 68 50 58 56 (1)

: 3 76 62 53 68 41

4 59° 63 65 42. 65 49(1) ‘

5 74 50 59 55 46

6 75 63 54 63 54 46

af J min Ot * 69 65 55 59 54

. 8 54 56 63 (7) 64 59 59

Spec. Ed a . a - 42

ee 147. -- 138 158 (1) _ 158(8). 167 (2) .~- - 187

10 ’ 118 124 : ‘118 ; 139 (3) 146 158 (1) a

ll 9 « 92 104 107 108 122

12 76 88 . 88 101 97 105

TOTAL _ 968 928 952 965 952 976

J =White

NW=Negro or Indian ‘

( )=Indians in Predominantly Nesro Schools

Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the school year..

COMMENTS:

‘188

ee eS eee Udon SagiehAblasa dt

, .

ovis eee |

ya a oe “HALIFA COUNTY SCHOOLS

alifax, N.C. .

Seiceinitens by. Race and Grade: for the Following: Years”

SCHOOL: Enfield Graded | ;

1964-65 1965:66 {1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70

GRADE -W -NW W NW W NW W NW W. NW W_) NW.

er toe Gee | 4 26 3 . 30 6 3 2 15 1

co @ 8 Ry; we 5 24 7 27 & -20 4.

8 @- ae : 3 9 30 7. 27 5 18 7

ea as a 4° 8 9 31 ‘6 18> ° - 6

5. 45 3) a 3) 29 4 37 (6-84-10 19 7

6 °..42 ee 5 30 5 82 -7 2g 8

: ee ee ae | 47 4 42 7° 81 .128 . 23 20

ee a 37 1-40 2° 47:. ..7 47°. 6 16 17

Spec. Ed: 11 © aes ~ Seen x :

ee eee ite a a so a ee | 5 26 9

1. Gwe 8 Me ge. 5. 81. 2 82 7

11 40 i @ 4.9 32 85 T™ & 1 «17 3

ie ae aos. 8 10° 96 -10 .-g 5

TOTAL 606" 6 456 69 419 .. 67. 404 (77-408 177 256 @ 89

W==White i : : :

NW==Negro or Indian

*<( )==Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools Secs

Enrallment figures were determined at different times, during the achool woul

COMMENTS: : .

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

’ > Halifax, N. Cc,

“Minvoliendas by Race” and . Grade for the ‘Following Years

SCHOQL: Everetts

1964- 65 1965-66 - 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70

GRADE Ww wid W-.-NW. W NW; W. NW ww. Nw W soNW.

ees "89° 96 76 i tree ame 57

ee 66 a . ee 66 - 46

3 .,. oes. eo) 62 66.

i Se ‘91 58° ae 67 “+ ae

: em 69 es 57 a>

ae ee 70 " 73: eo a 50. or

ay ee. ee 7 64 es 60 -~ 50

ec 70 . 56. : 62: i? 55

Spec. Ed. : 18 ee alee: 5

. * 9 . ae = :

10.

, W=White -

NW=Negro or Indian ~ 2

waee: : > | ot . ; 7

TOTAL ‘598 614 -. * 647 ; 20 478 _ 460

C joe =Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools .

Enrollment figures were determined at di

COMMENTS:

erent times Surte:# the school year, wy

: leigh Neins & Observer 9 ie 08), 3 ae

, | ANNOUNCES. SCHOOL PLAN

|. HALIFAX—The. Halifax a ty. Board of Education ,

announced. a ‘desegregation. plan Tuesday affecting its 18

. . ‘public schools, four of which are. predominantly white

and 14 all-Negro. . ©

~C. M. Moore Jr., chairman, said’ the. plan resulfed. from

demands by the U. S. Department of Justice in July, 1963

- that ‘a dual system be eliminated and .that the: Halifar ff

schools be in full compliance with: the? Civil Rights Act

of 1964 at the beginning of the 1969-70 School year,

Halifax was ordered to submit its plan to the

ay ‘ment of Justice not later than March-15, 1969.-

_-*, The plan ‘specifies that any student assigned to a school -

' where there is less than 15 per cent of his race or les

. than 15 per cent of a race different from his own, may

be assigned to. a School where such a situation ‘does. not -

exist. /

.. A student: desiring such a: transfer must make a

_’ “timely-request”. and furnish his own transportation to

the school to which he transfers. ;

. Staff. and faculty, according to the plan, shall be as *

signed as far as possible to constitute the. same ratio be:

tween white and Negro races as exists in student body. -

The plan further states; however, that. no’ school fac-

~ ulty shall be comprised .of less than: 12 per ee: of either ”

- Negro or. white.

‘The dual bus system now- “used. to transport students

and from school will be eliminated. ‘The buses = be

- operated without regard to racé,. .

. There are approximately 10,655 students in. the Hal

fax school system, including 8, 196 Negro students, 2,357

whites and 102 Indian students. ere are’447 teaehers,

. = 322 t Negro, 123 white and two Indian. r

: a oe ae

aon & Observer, 2/14/63) s :

- RUSH TO THE REAR

. One of the ‘most. astute comments so far on the Scot-

land Neck school separation moyement came from a local ©

foe who called it “a- ad backward when we:should be

“ping forward. roe ON vo

Instead- of.-Striving . to strengthen all Halifax County

- ghools' through consolidation, Scotland Neck people -sup-

porting an independent school unit for their town limit

a Shere for better education to municipal. boundaries. _

‘They: want town money confined to town schools. Pre

sumably, the rest of Halifax could just go begging. |

_ Shrewd strategists are at work arguing through. the

General Assembly ‘the bill permitting a local referenduni

m the separate unit idea. They claim that there’s no a

hope.for passage of a countywide school tax, while Scot- :

land Neck people probably would support a..town levy.

_And as Rep. .Thorne. Gregory said on behalf of the refer-

- ndum ‘bill he introduced, “the — of. Scotland Neck ‘

know what’s best for us. ae

‘What Scotland Neck seliesetiote paeee believe best Ae

for them is' an educational island dominated by whites. -

Statistics make this clear. The Halifax County school

system now has about 8,100° Negroes and. 2,300 whites;

i Scotland Neck’ unit would have some. 736, Writes and

: mt Ne oes. The. county. school system must fully: inte- |

September. Undouhtedly, Scotland Neck would ©

ie td. do its own integrating. By creating a sharper .

racial imbalance in_municipal schools, the town would: °

promote a sharper imbalance—in reverse—out in the

county, ,

~ ‘The forgotten. ones in this matter ¢ are the children who: —

would‘remain in the Halifax County school.‘system. If

Stand Neck pulls out, county schools. will be left with

just 37 per cent of Halifax’s taxable property from which

to draw support for educating roughly 67 per cent of —

Halifax children. The State, furthermore, would have’. .

lo subsidize this inequity by footing a $22,000 bill for

Scotland Neck’s school’ administrative offices. ax ee

a a 3 ae . j : . a.

- , P . . : , =

3 : - . . ® ™ % .

786 sae santas wee

. : : : ‘ 2 Ss

= a ‘ 3 ,

| The separation bill got sedis the House on Wednes.

’ day, aided by .an incredible argument that Sitice it was

*, Jocal -legislation, balking gt it would be a personal. in- *

sult to the sponsor. Surely: the Senate will. display 3.

more responsible concern over this . measure, which is

local in name only and far removed from the usual pay

hike or dog tax ‘proposal. It suggests a- precedent whic

truly would be a rush.to. the rear, and. North Carolina

‘~~ could pay for it with inferior county. — _ ica

; orating r race relations. . es ae

7 [Raleigh News & ; Observer, February ‘22, 1969]

ee NEW STATE POLICY? oe

If the State Senate approves the. Séotland Neck seo .

_.... bill, it will. do more than separate the present Halifar

pga. County School System into two units—with most of the

_county’s white pupils in a new Scotland Neck unit. . Ir

* disputably the Senate+also will set a new State policy

contrary‘ to thé’ desirable trend toward consolidation and

, contrary to the spirit if not the letter of federal law.—

This i8 no simple matter of acceding to a local goven-

ment request, of letting the people involved have the kind

- Of school structire they want. The State legislature wil

.be giving official endorsement and $22,000 in State funds

. for the fragmentation of a-school system now so small it

is lacking in some aspects of educational soundness and:

efficiency. 7

. The example will not be lost on. ‘other school items

- confronted with similay racial problems. They will sek

—and how. can the legislature deny them?—

-. gourse of least resistance,‘ the-same creation of new schod

- + . units with less. racial accommodation. . And in each it

stance the State will be footing the bill for new admit:

istrative costs and putting its stamp of acceptance on the

_.educational inefficiency and racial jl will created ~

This would be new State policy of. using the legis

-+, ture to evadé national policy. If it failed—if the court

- struck it" down—it ‘would create new and unnecessaly

ry it wind encourage more racial apartness and dis- ;

trust. Negro North Carolinians would be given an —

lesson in White Power, and a oo example

ff Law and Order with Justice.

~The Halifax County school system may have ‘special

The legislature could provide. the education .

tools and money to help meet them. It still could/post--—

action until it researched such: possible alternatives.

‘The Scotland Neck ‘school bill is.a. change in State’policy, —

with far reaching consequences. It ought not: to be en-

acted without further search for a. wiser, less harmful!

-answer to the concerns’ of Scotland ‘Neck people.

. ,°

eithip our gvitrniientat Selatie: If” it. a ee oe

|N WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT

patience! ce. cake Naianceedl

_Pmons rou. wairs oF césnonant YUED APRIL, Wt

eae AND ‘MAY 29, 1971 |

_ GRIMIORARI GEAWTED OcTomEE 18, 197

™~

UNITED STATES OF: AMeRICA, = 9, =~

: eS ss | ella,

"Soman ‘Neck Crry BOARD OF: -EDUcaTion, ET AL.,

«Soomas Noo. Car. Boao oF EovcATIon ET AL;,

-ON wait OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT

ig ON APPEALS FOR THE abe ci CIRCUIT

INDEX T6APPENDIX _ :

) 5 . & ‘ ? ; ‘ n a : ( . ¥g ° - . : Page 4

_ artified copy of docket entries ie *

_. Plaintiff's hotice of motion and motion for 3 a » preliminary ee ee

injunction | 39

" Plintit notice of sib and motion ‘te leave to join an

"edna party defendant and to file an, amended com-

plaint - 41

: “Response te plaintiff’s motion for a saicitecheni ‘deajeeetion,

motion for leave to join an additional party casieuenie:

* and motion to file an amended complaint soacaduag 43

; Answer of all defendants with the exception of ‘Halifax :

: —— Board of Education iia mee

ee ie Ne. ; - * ,

‘ 4 TO APPENDIX eZ ee

{ i

Response to plaintift’s motion for a pasthitadey tinimetion

7 motion for leave to join an additional party ———

. _ and. motion to file'an amended complaint 28 gs

ens Answer of Halifax County Board of Bducation ) — 5

Notice of hearing by: Judge: ‘Butler: if, ie rm &.

~Order that Clerk: file.-amerded saoeneai and U. 8. Marshal

'* - ‘serve copies upon defendants - onder

_Amended complaint ss, SSN ‘ i a

, Answer. to amendéd ATER by all defendants except Hali-

. fax County Board of. Education... {

peees of defendant Scotland Neck Board of Education _

Transcript: of hearing on August sien 1969 -

“Deposition of Ferd Harrison piSucs oa

* Deposition of C..M. Moore, Jr. ae

- Deposition of Craig Phillips’ é : .

Deposition of W. Henry Overman 0

‘Deposition of Henry Harrison —_ : Seer :

Deposition of Frank P. Shields ..

Deposition of Aubrey Powell!

Deposition of F. Boyd Bailey

Affidavit of J. L. Pierce :

” Pintle Sghiblt #1

- Plaintiff's Exhibit’ #2 _ oO tae

- Plaintiff's Exhibit #3 : : |

” Plaintiff's . Exhibit #5. Wate BERTI ae

"“Plaintiff’s Exhibit #7 - pies: ogee.

ae Exhibit #8 .

Plaintiff’s~ Exhibit #9

Plaintiff’s ‘Exhibit #10 — Scalia reetieaares

- Plaintiff's Exhibit #47)

Paletits Mae Oe

” Plaintiff's Exhibit #14. Bae

__« Plaintiis Expt $17

Plaintiff's Exhibit #18 __ paige eee.

ERE REREASRERARARS Snr

Order dismissing certain defendants - EEO C5 Ale Pe Dine

Memorandum opinion of Judge Larkins ee

* Amended answer of the Scotland Neck. a Board. of Edu- :,

cation ; . anne js

So aes Rac

° ae ce ‘

INDEX TO — \ *. fii ‘&

oo. oy ste Page’

"Motion ‘ diteeieat Seotland Neck City Board of Edues- ge

* tion’ that - onder be entered modifying ‘teenporary injunc-

. tion - 798

~ Order g Scotland Neck City Board of Education —

use pri te donations for expenses and fees incurred_..____ 800 3

+ Maio of Robert Morgan, Attorriey General of North Caro- . .- , |

_ lina, to intervene’in. this action in behalf ‘of the state of pe Ee

‘North Carolina, as party defendant fats Comes? a _ 801 ‘

. “Order allowing intervention: of. Robert’ Morgan, Attorney. gs

' General of North Carolina, in’ 1 behalf of the state of North egg.

| Answer ¢ Robert Morgan, Attorney General of ' North Caro- by

: lina, in behalf of the state of North Carolina “* 806

“Order allowing motion of Halifax County © to be: diguitenes BLA?»

;. as to th® question of constitutionality “of = Act creating os

. * Scotland Neck Unit —-___-* 812 |

\, Answer to, plaintiff's interrogatories. by defendant Halifax Sid

County Board’ of Education..__-_.. \. 814

Memorandum opinion and order of Judge Larkins 2. / 92S ae

- Order amending order of 11/24/69. oe a

- Motion for leave to intervene by additional plaintiffs Pattie

_ Black Cotton and Edward M. Francis, , public el ee cone

_ ‘of Halifax County, and others : : 926

— of hearing on December 17,1969 othe OSL.

. Memorandum eine and order allowing - motion to. inter-

- ¥ene . : =; m- CE

_ Complaint i in intervention is Ke Om é a ees

Answer of, defendant Scotland Neck City Board of/Educa- ~~

“tion to. the complaint in intervention _ aie 1029

’ Answer -to complaint in intervention by board: of county ee

-. commissioners of Halifax MR es

Answer of ‘defendant Halifax County | Board of | Education i :

* to the complaint in: intervention 2... 1051. '-;

; Order that motion of defendarits that effective date of. lei. Sees

mentation be delayed until on or about 6/1/70 is allowed; oe.

“Proposed Interim Plan” of defendant: Halifax County .

. Board of Education be —— by board no later

‘than 6/1/70 ___.. eae hai 1058

- Opinion and order that further haepheaninatalton of. Chapter

31 of the 1969 Session Laws of ‘North a is perms- a ee

’ nently enjoined wsaeee ”

. .

. . Mess .

-4 - st ae

é ° ia, ‘ ;

oe : :

~ a]

See eee INDEX:TO APPENDIX ..

‘Judgment that Chapter 31 of: the 1969 Session Laws of .

North Carolina creating Scotland Neck Administrative

- Unit is declared to be unconstitutional and null and void.

Defen their respective. officers, agents, etc, are

‘perman -é@njoined ‘from all further Proceedings ‘pur- ee.

suant to said statute : 1085

ror - Amended order; ‘amendin - order of district ‘court dated

5/18/70 ba i stl cebunaicatice air a

: a otice of appeal by Scotland N eck City Board of Education 1087

Notice. of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals dos Se

the Fourth Circuit. by ‘Robert’ Morgan, Atterney General’

can of North Carolina; North. Carolina: State Board of Educa-

tion, and Dr..A. Craig —* State Superintendent of

Public Instruction _ 1088.

"Motion of defendant Hajitax County" Board of ‘Education for --

. further amendment to “Proposed Interim Plan”. _ 1089

Plaintiff's response to.defendant’s motion to amend interin

... , desegregation plan. approved May 19, 1970-- istintinawapeet.” WSS

Defendant: Scotland Neck City Board ‘of Education’ 8 s Answer a

to motion of Halifax County Board of Education __ — 1% .&

Plaintiffs’ in intervention opposition to defendant's 1 mition

to amend —— a a approved May 19,

1978: 3) + __.....* 1996

“Order aenvite motion of defendasite to mes the. pa:

’ of May 19, 1970, with respect to the operation of Scotions ;

Neck School and Brawley School (Judge Larkins) _ 1098

Affidavit of W. “oar 3 Overman dated ‘September 15, 1970

A (Enrollment StatfStics) = 1100

7 Affidavit ‘of W. Henry Overman dated eceuiee: 2, 1970

(Enroliment Statistics) — ene: 118

' ‘Opinion and judgment of the. United d States C Coirt et f Appeal

for thé Fourth Circuit dated March 23, 1971 - 1104 -

Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth |

Circuit in — v. Council - the City of Emporis, March

23, 1971 meee siete _ «19

. Order re the mandate dated April 21, 1971___. 1151

Order. of Supreme Court of October 12, 1971 allowing certi- ~~:

orari in No. 70-130. ert ene deo RNAS ON «me.

‘e Order of Supreme Court of October. 12, 1971 —— certi- 208d

’ orari in No. 70-187 _.- — tet eas

Affidavit of W. Henry eae dated October 14, 1971 (En-

, °. rollment Statistics) =. MB |

Halifax County niap. indicating _ school districts and aif-

ferent hemmnins —— eae 115.

{Caption Omitted]

o*,. ORDER

: LARKINS, District icles:

This cause coming on to be heard before the Court or: :

: a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plain-

tiff. pursuant to thé provisions of Sections 407(a) and.

“(b) of the Civil Rights ‘Act -of 1964, .as codified, 42 .

- USCA. $§2000c-6(a) and (b) seeking to restrain the

defendants from giving any force or effect: to the provi-

sions of Chapter 31: of the North Carolina Session Laws

‘of :1969, ‘an Act to establish a separate administrative

unit. for the operation of the public schools of the Town

“of Scotland Neck, North Carolina; and due notice hav- |

ing been given to the defendants; ‘and the Court having

considered the evidence arid the argument of counsel and

§ : being fully advised in the premises; and it appearing to :

the Court that effectuation of the terms of the Act will °°

result in the operation of the schools of Scotland. Neck,

North Carolina,-and Halifax County, North, Carolina, on

a racially discriminatory basis to the irreparable dam-

age of the United States-and the Negro pupils of Halifax

“County; and it further appearing to the Court that. no —

‘ injunctive relief as to effectuation of. the provisions of. .

_ Chapter 31 is being sought against the defendant Hali-

fax County Board of Education; and that the defendants |

Ferd L; Harrison, as Mayor of the Town of Scotland’ ™:

Neck, J. A. ‘Andrews, F. G. Shearin, J. I: Walston, D. E.

_ Josey, Jr., as members of the Board of Commissioners of

the Town of Scotland Neck, and the Town. of Scotland

Neck, a body corporate, are not proper. =, to this

action ;

It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUNGED . and ‘DE-

CREED: Pa

THAT the n motion to dismiss filed on behalf as the de-

"fendants Ferd L. Harrison, as Mayor of the Town of

“ Scotland Neck; J.-A. Andrews, F. G. Shearin, J. I Wal-

_ Son, D. E. Josey, Jr., as members of the Board of Com-

(

0 an a Ne til AA Bel at i a Sisk ic aa Ce apa abbigicnh das nade ae PE a? i eho pity ee ce le

—

Raleigh, North Carolina —

erate

missioners of the aoe of Scotland Neck, ‘ind the Nei

‘ of Scotland Neck, a° body corporate, be, and the same, ’

hereby is. allowed; and

' THAT the defendant Scotland Neck City beat of

Education and its officers, agents, employees and suc

-eessors are hereby’ enjoined from giving any ‘force or

effect. to the provisions of Chapter, 31 and from taking

any: ‘action pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 31 pend.

-ing ‘a. final. determination on the merits of the Issues

‘ raised in the present action; and

.THAT pursuant-.to the provisions of Ruie 65(c) of

‘the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no security shall

be required of the oe United States of —_—

. and:

THAT ‘this ORDER shall: become effective as of 12:00

~Noon on Monday, August. 25, 1969; ‘and

THAT a Memorandum Opinion subsequently vil be

filed in this action; and . )

‘THAT the Clerk shall serve copies of this ORDER

upon all counsel of record, and the defendants.

Let this ORDER be entered. forthwith.

/sf John D. Larkins, Jr.

* JoHN D. LARKINS, IRe .

- United States District iy

'/s/ Algernon L. Butler - 2

- ALGERNON’ L. BUTLER

United States District Judge

August,25, 1969 _

790.

. [Caption Omitted].

* MEMORANDUM OPINION |.

LARKINS,: District’ Judge: E: hoa ,

_ This Court entered its ORDER on August 25, 1969, ,

effective ‘at 12:00 noon. The Clerk served copies of said

ORDER upon all.defendants and counsel of record... ‘

Pursuant to said ORDER this MEMORANDUM |

‘OPINION is filed in support of said ORDER and is in-

cuded-therein by referenée. = | : ;

This cause coming on to be heard before the United

States District Judges for’ the Eastern District of North

Carolina, and being heard upon the motions of plaintiffs

and additional plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction &-

and for a declaratory . judgment; and due notice having - ©

_ been given to all:defendants;. and the.Court having con- .

_ sidered the evidence, the stipulations, the briefs and argu-

ments of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises,

_ makes the following:: -

FINDINGS OF FACT , = 4

_ 1. On March 8, 1969, the General Assembly: of North ©

Carolina ratified a measure designated Chapter 31, Ses--.~ i

_ sion Laws of North Carolina 1969, creating the Scotland =~ ©—

Neck City Administrative Unit in Halifax County to

operate the public’ schools in said unit; providing that |

all public school property located: within the unit should —-—-

become the property of the unit; providing for a sup- —- °

plemental tax lévy, and‘-directing a special election to

authorize the.establishment of said unit and the levying

of said tax.: The voters approved said proposals. -

2. The Board .of Education ‘of the Scotland Neck City

unt permits ‘transfers of students in and out of- said

units. Scotland ‘Neck City has established: a- tuition: © ©

charge of $100.00 a year for the first child-in a family, .° ©

$25.00 for the second child, $25.00 for the third. child,

. and each subsequent child per family free, for all stu- © |

fents transferring into said unit. ) ae :

8. During the school year 1968-69, all the public’

< schools of Halifax County were operated by the Halifax —

Pee yo ue

UE AID RN aN

Wena tae Ns | RNC MSR RH

“at yeh MR agi eis

791

z County aia of ‘Rdusation. “There was a total of 10, 655

students. The racial composition of the.,county schodl

Ko! was approximately .as follows: “White, 2,351

- (22%); Negro, 8,196 (78%), and Indian, 102.

Mt... ‘The Scotland Neck City unit has " approximately

"695 resident students: White, 399. (57.4%) ; Negro, 296

(42. 6%). The’school facilities within. the unit will ac.

- commodate approximately 1,000 students. Since the cre.

ation of the City unit under the 1969 Act, 350. White,

and 10 Negroes have transferred from the county schools... .

into the City unit; 44 Negroes in the eleventh and twelfth

‘grades have transferred from the city to the Brawley

- High School in the county system. The net effect on the _-

City unit for the school year: 1969-70° is as follows:

White, 759 °(74%) ; Negro, 262 (26%)...

. 5. The racial: composition of the county school system: -

as a result of the creation of the administrative unit, and -

taking into consideration the net effect of the transfers

in and out of the systems, is as follows: White, 1,598 .

' (17%); Negroes, 8,186 (83%) ; Indian, 102.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

+ This. Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of

the subject matter of this proceeding. —

2. Without-determining the constitutionality of Chap- —o

ter 31 of the-1969 Session Laws of North Carolina, the .- -

Act in its. application creates a refuge for _ white stu-

dents, and promotes segregated schools in Halifax County.

3. The Act impedes and defeats the Halifax County.

Board of Education from:implementing its plan to com-

- pletely desegregate all of the public schools. in Halifax

~ County by the opening of the school year 1969-70.

4. Unless the defendants’ are enjoined, the. plaintiffs

will suffer immediate and irreparable injury by = de-

privation of their constitutional rights. 7

/s/ John 'D. .Larkins, Jr.

JOHN D. LARKINS, JR.

United States District Judge

ee ee

Raleigh, North Carolina | * ee

August 25, 1969 |

793. }

. (Caption Omitted]

AMENDED ANSWER ~

The defendant, The Scotland Neck City Board of Edu: a

- éation, a body corporate, : ahswering the Amended Com

plaint, alleges and says: ~ ;

‘ 1. That as to the allegations cnetained in. Paragraph

1, Claim*One, the answering defendant is not sufficient. .

ly. informed concerning the ayerments contained therein. ©

from which to form a belief and hence denies same,

, 2. That the allegations contained i in Paragraph 2 of

Claim One are admitted. .

3. That as to the allegations contained in Parag

3, Claim One, it is admitted that the defendant Halifax

County Board: of Education “(hereinafter the Halifax

—s County Board) is a body’ corporate, organized ‘and éxist-

ing under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and

7 it has a duty under North Carolina law to Operate a

public school system ‘in Halifax County, North Carolina

other. than.in the Town of Seotland Neck.

: 4. That the. allegations contained: in paragraph 4 of a

Claim One are admitted. :

5.’ That the allegations contained ‘in _ Paragraph 5 of

-Claim One are admitted.

6. That the gilegations contained in Paragraph 6 of

Claim One are™@dmitted. —

- 7 That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph -

7, Claim One, the answering defendant is not sufficiently- .

informed ‘concerning the averments contained therein

from. which to form a belief. and hence denies same.

8. That. the allegations: contained in Paragraph 8 of

Claim One are admitted.

9. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of

- Claim One are admitted.

10. That. the allegations contained in Paragraph 10

of Claim One are admitted. 7

~-. 1. That the allegations | contained in Raragraye |

of Claim One are admitted.

12. That as to the allegations sontained in Paragraph

_ 12 of Claim One it is admitted that the Scotland Neck

| Board has hired a Superintendent of: Schools and is pre-

pared to open its schools for students on August 28,

of the students who will attend the-schools of the Scot- .

Jand Neck City Administrative Unit during the 1969-70

school year attended schools‘ operated by the Halifax

County Board during the. previous. year; all other alle.

_ 18. The allegations and averments contained

ph. 18, Claim One’ are denied."

gt ‘The allegations and-averments contained in Para-

graph 14, Claim\One are denied.

oe, The allegati ons and averments contained in- Para-

graph. 15, Claim. ‘One are denied.

other ee contained in Paragraph 16 -are ‘denied.

17 of Claim Two, which realleges Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7

cand 8 of the Claim One, this defendant answers. said

- ‘paragraph in the same manner as above..

_ 18, Claim Two, the answering defendant js not suffi-

‘ ciently informed concerning the averments - contained

_ therein from which to form é belief and hence denies

same.

-’ . 19. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph

19, Claim Two, the answering defendant is not suffi-

ciently. informed concerning the. averments: contained .

. therein from which to form a belief and hence denies

same.

20, Claim Two,. the answering defendant is not suffi-

_ Gently informed concerning the averments. contained |

therein from: which to’ form a belief and hence denies

‘ iaine:

_ graph 21, Claim Two are denied.

a «A The allegations and averments contained in Para-

graph 22, Claim Two are denied.

794

969, and it is further admitted that the vast majority -

gations contained in Paragraph 12 are denied. inp

16. It is adrnitted that uriless restrained by order of

_ the Court this answering defendant will coritinue to give —

full force and effect to the provisions. -of Chapter 31; all ~

at as to the allegations contained in Paragraph ° =

18. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph .

20. That as to the allegations Sefestast in Paragraph

21. The allegations and sccement contained in Pard-

; them if there were no such tax. Defendant : — ar-

FIRST FURTHER ANSWER

| For a First Further, Answer’ * the Plaintif?’s amend-. :

ed complaint this Defendant alleges and says: .

1: The ‘Statute (North Carélina Session Laws 1969,

Chapter 31) hereafter called the- “Statute,” the consti...

‘tutionality of which is here challenged by the Plaintiff; .

followed a long. established North Carolina legislative

precedent and| pattern of the formation of a: special ad. -

ministrative school unit within a county consisting usual-

ly of a municipality. There are in North Carolina, ex. °

_ elusive of Scotland Neck, ore special municipal ad- ~

‘ministrative school units. od

2. The Statute created a special school administrative

‘unit; the boundaries of which were designated as the

municipal ‘boundaries of the Town of. Scotland Neck

Within the geographic boundaries. of the Town of Scot-

land Néck there now’ reside approximately 751. students - |

of. school’ age; 56.86. percent of which .are -white and

ie “43.14 percent of which are negro. Classroom facilities -

within the town limits can accommodate approximately .

812 students; 784 of which: are accommodated by per-

manent facilities and 28 of which are accommodated ' by

a mobile classroom. |

. 3. .The Statute provides, as conditions precedent to.

tis formation of the unit, a vote of the people in Scot-

land Neck approving both the formation of the unit and -

the imposition of a school tax of 50 cerits on: the dolla

_ of taxable property valuation in the town..

4. “By election held pursuant to the Statute, the pee

‘ple of Scotland Neck approved both the formation and

‘the imposition: of the. special school tax. |

5. The resident school population is sufficient to con-

stitute ‘an efficient separate school administrative unit,

and the! special tax funds will enable the Defendant to -

offer to its resident ‘students. an: educational system

which § is greatly superior to that heretofore enjoyed by

them and superior to that which would be. available-to

rangements to operat woth an improved, pray system

in Scotland Neck for the-school year 1969-1970.

rT. On August 25, 1969 there-was issued a temporary

injunction in this cause, preventing Defendant from ‘tak- .

_. ing any further steps in connection with the operation -

‘of a school unit until the. final: determination of the -

merits of-this cause. = -- ©

1. The single issue in this case is the: constitutionality.

of the Statute. The issue is not the propriety or, the ©

legality of whatever might, from time. to time, be the-

plan or plans: of operation under the Statute.

‘. 8 It.is the present, intention of this Defendant, “a.

this Defendant makes this . continuing representation,

that, if and. when ‘there is. rémoved the temporary in- ~

. junction barriér preventing operation under the Statute,

Defendant will confine its student body to those students -

residing within the geographical. limits of ‘the town. of

_ Scotland Neck, plus or minus ‘such student transfers as

'~-may be in conformity: to fhe law and/or Court order or

. 196 :

“~~ ’

orders applicable to Defendant, and in conformity to a.

- plan of limitation of. transfers. to be prepared by De-

fendant.. and submitted .to this Court. |

. WHEREFORE, “this Defendant respectlly Pra

_ that:

1. The Court etic: to be conisiitutional: Chapter 81

of the 1969 Session Laws of North Carolina; a

) 2. The Court dissolve the temporary injunction reg

“tofore issued in bone cause on ‘the: 25th day of f August, :

i eee

3. The Court me jurisdiction of this. cause for the

receipt of a plan of transfer to be submitted by the .

_ Defendant to the Court. and for the hearing of any ob-

os jection that may be filed thereto. 3

2. a

mr - _ KitcHin. JOSEY

/s/ William T. ‘Joyner

‘WILLIAM T. JOYNER

/3] Walton K. Joyner. ¢

WALTON K. JOYNER

Attorneys for the defendant,

;, Scotland Neck City Board ~

/ - °° +. Of Education, a Body. cor-

Ye "porate:

[Caption Omitted] f i ee

‘MOTION. ee

Now comes ‘the defendant, the Scotland: Neck. City |

Board of Education, a body, corporate, by and through

its attorney, C. pe J ONY 5 —_— Son widiaad shows |

“unto the Court: .

That at. 12 o’clock neon on the 25th we of Arg,

1969, an order was entered in this cause enjoining this

defendant. “from taking any action pursuant to the pro-.

visions of Chapter 31 (of the’ 1969 Session Laws of ee

~ North Carolina) "pending a final: determination on the

merits of the issues raised in the present action. ‘a8

pu 7 ee ae o eS

That prior to the. entering of the above ‘mentioned

order this defendant in its official capacity and in ac-

cordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina.

under its then policy accepted students that lived out-

_ side the school administrative unit boundaries on a. tui- °

tion basis receiving approximately | $11,656.53: from. the ©

"parents of such tuition students. Of this amoun ‘$2,-.

~ 970.66 was expended ‘by this defendant for obligations.

-. ineurred prior to, the ite of the above mentioned

} » order. Os of a q ;

, 3. Me,

“That the detenditan. the Scotland Neck: City Board of :

Education, desires to repay in full the parents of- the

"Students who: have previously. paid in these tuition funds.. -

: \

That the + Sota. Neck City Board of Rdttation has

- heretofore incurred certain legal expenses in connection ©

‘withthe defense of. this cause and the said defendant

expects to incur certain additional _—— until | ‘this |

- Matter is iyeara A Pekermined.. Wee

me 7 te

donations from citizens in this area and particularly the

citizens of the Town of Scotland Neck for the purpose

_of- repaying’ the: parents of the tuition students and-for/

a lowed to receive. donations from private sources and to

_., use ‘Such funds, together with the tuition funds now in

funds for the purpose of legal. expenses arid fees in-

curred and to be kpeeeee ‘until this matter is finally

determined. _

_ - . — /s/ C. Kitchin 1 Jone

That this defendant has been offered certain private

the purpose of defraying expense of ae this law

suit.

WHEREFORE, this defendant prays ‘the ‘Court that

an order be- entered modifying the temporary injunction.

order of August 25, 1969, to the effect that the defend-

‘ant, the Scotland Neck City ‘Board of° Education, be al-,

its hands, for the repayment of the; amounts heretofore

paid by parents of tuition students, and further that

said Board be permitted to. use said privately donated

"This the 12th day of September, 1969.

‘C. KITCHIN JOSEY, William T.

Joyner and Walton K. Joy-

ner, Attorneys for the Scot- .

land Neck City Board of.

. Education

[Captien Omitted] . -_—

ORDER

This cause coming on to be heard.on a Motion by the

| defendant, the Scotland Neck City Board of Education, .

a body corporate, for a modification ‘of the order of pre--

liminary injunction heretofore entered by this Court at

12 o'clock ndon on August 25, 1969;.to the effect that

certain funds now. in said defendant’s hands and certain

- private donations be authorized for use by said défend-

ant to repay certain parents of tuition students and for .

authority to use said privately donated funds for the

purpose’ of defraying legal expenses in connection with

_ the defense of this cause; a

_ And it appearing to the Court that the requested modi-

fication of said temporary 5 aaeeaitaal is proper and ‘said

Motion should be allowed;

. ITIS NOW, THEREFORE, ORDERED, -ADJUDGED.

AND DECREED that the defendant, the Scotland Neck

~ City Board of Education,’ be allowed ‘to _recei¥e . dona-

tions from .private- sources and to use such funds, to-

gether with the tuition funds now in,its hands, for the

_repayment of the amounts heretofore paid by parents of

tuition students, and further that said Board be per-

mitted to use said privately donated funds for the pur-

pose of legal expenses and fees incurred and to be in- - ie

~scurred until this matter is finally determined. ;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that’ the. Clerk: shall -

servé copies of this Order upon all counsel of record.

let this. Order be entered forthwith.

| " Js/ Algernon L. Butler ee

' CHIEF UNITED STATES

DISTRICT JUDGE _ an

‘Ys/ John D. Larkins; Jr, :

UNITED STATES | - * & 1

DISTRICT JUDGE . |

- applicant is also entitled to intervene in this action in

801

- [Caption Omitted] -

MOTION OF ROBERT MORGAN, _ ATTORNEY ¢ GEN.

ERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; TO INTERVENE |

IN THIS ACTION IN BEHALF OF THE STATE

OF NORTH CAROLINA, AS’ PARTY, DEFENDANT.

- Robert Morgan, Attorney General of North. Carolina,

in behalf of the State of North Carolina, hereby. moves.

- the Court for leave to intervene in this action in order

_ to assert the defenses of the State of North Carolina,

as Set forth in. the proposed Answer of which a copy is

hereto attached; on the dere and for the reasons, as

follows:

“1. That Appkeant, Robert Morgan, is the duly elected

and. qualified Attorney General of the State of North |

Carolina, and makes this application to intervene in this

action in behalf of said State of North Carolina; that

North Carolina-is one of the States that- compose the

United States of America and exercises such powers and

duties as set forth.in its Constitution. and Laws enacted .

by its General Assembly and in accordance with the

Constitution. of the United States.

2. That this motion to intervene in this action by the

‘Attorney General of North Carolina is made in. behalf

of. said State of North Carolina (hereinafter referred

to as: Applicant) pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the same’ being Rule 24; that this application

is made as.a matter of right in that the constitutionality

. of ene of the acts or statutes of said State is involved |

in said action ; that applicant | may be bound by any judg-

_ment entered by the Court in this action, and applicant

is entitled to adequate: representation on the question of

the constitutionality of said State act or statute; that.

the discretion of-the Court and as a permissive interven-

_ tion in that the plaintiff relies upon the allegation of the &

-unconstitutionality of an act. or statute of this State a +™

a part of its claim; that there is a common question of

law and fact as the constitutionality of said State law or:

802

act is drawn. into question and if said’intervention is al- |

lowed, as herein requested, the same will not unduly de-,

lay or prejudice the adjudication.,of the rights of the

- narties.. Js Ss a,

a That the act of the General Assembly drawn in

_ question as’ to its eonstitutionality in this action is Chap-

ter 31 of the Session Laws of 1969, which became effec-

tive on the 8rd day of March, 1969; that a copy of said

- act is attached to the amended complaint of the United -

States of America and is hereby referred to as a part -

.of this motion; that the’ plaintiff alleges that said act

and its implementation. is in violation of: the Fourteenth

Amendment. to the Constitution of the United States and

this is denied by the applicant; that applicant, if allowed

to intervene in this action, will allege and assert that .

said act is valid and that its result is to establish a city —

board of education similar to many other city boards of

education throughout the State-of North Carolina and

-. which have been established for many years; that if said.

-act is held by the Court to be invalid and unconstitutional

the status and establishment of all. other boards of .edu- |

cation, both city and county, will be put in jeopardy. .

4. That applicant a¢cepts the status of this action as

__ heretofore developed but reserves the right to except to

. any evidence orders, rulings or proceedings that may be

-made or entered, or heretofore made and entered, .con-

trary to the constitutional validity of said act or statute,

and the right to argue in support-of the. validity of. said

act or statute; that- applicant agrees to be bound by the . °

temporary injunction heretofore entered in this cause but

neal tke right to meve that same be vacated by the

urt. . ‘ ‘ . . : a

_ 5. That annexed hereto, in accordance with Rule 24

-(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a proposed --

pleading entitled: “Answer of Robert Morgan, Attorney

General of North Carolina, in behalf of the State of

North’ Carolina, in Intervention.” The applicant moves |

' the Court that said pleading be deemed the appearance

of*applicant in support of the constitutionality of the

act of the General Assembly of North Carolina, and in

position to all pleadings and motions of ‘the parties

> 803

“hereto. that have been or may be made herein insofar as

‘said pleadings and motions are based on the contention

‘that said act of the General Assembly of North Cardlina

is in any respect, or in any application, unconstitutional, °

; WHEREFORE:”’ Applicant prays the Court that an

-. order be entered herein allowing applicant to intervene

in this action as a party defendant and that his proposed

answer be filed as a pleading in this action; that this

_ motion be brought on before the Court for hearing on

*October; 24, 1969, at the Federal Courtroom in Raleigh,

North Carolina, ‘or at such other time as may be con-

venient and as ordered by the Court.

/s/ Robert Morgan

Attorney General of

North Carolina

‘/s/ Ralph Moody - ;

Deputy Attorney. General of

North Carolina

*P. O. Box 629

Justice Building .

Raleigh, North Caro ae 7602

804

[Caption Omitted]

“ORDER ALLOWING INTERVENTION OF ROBERT

MORGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH

CAROLINA, IN BEHALF OF THE STATE OF

NORTH CAROLINA. ° a |

This cause coming on to. be.heard upon the Motion of — | :

the Attorney General of North Carolina that he be al- =— \

“lowed to intervene in this action as an Intervenor-De- _

fendant in behalf of the State of North Carolina; and

It appearing to the Court: that there is involved in’ this

action a question’ as to the validity and constitutionality . .

of an ‘Act of the General Assembly of North Carolina; a a

that this is a- question of public interest throughout the

‘State and involves the right of the State to create a pub-,

lie school administrative unit; that it is a legal possibil-—

ity that the State of North Carolina may be bound by '

the judgment entered by the Court between the parties

plaintiff and defendants as this action now stands; that

there is a common question as to the validity of a similar

statute involved in the Warren County. case which is con

- slidated with this: case; that the defendants in this ac- ©

" tion rely upon the validity of Chapter 31 of the Session

Laws of 1969, enacted by the General Assembly of-North |

Carolina: — | |

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED .

BY THE COURT: That as.a. matter of right, or in the - ©

alternative, in the discretion of the Court, as a permis-

sive right, thé Attorney Genéral of- North Carolina, in

_ behalf of the State-of North‘Carolina, be, and he is here-

by allowed, to intervene in this action as a. party inter-, °

_ Venor-Defendant, and-that he be allowed to file -his An-

‘Swer which is attached to the ‘Motion herein filed.

TT I§ FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT: .=©- +

That said Intervenor-Defendant shall accept the status Pp

of this action as it now stands and: shall be bound by the

Temporary Restraining Order heretofore entered in this.

Cause with the right to adopt’ the objections, exceptions

- and motions in this cause that have-heretofore been en--

SSRI ETO Re Rah oe

é . -- &

805 ee

“2

tered by the other defendants and ‘to support the validity,

of Chapter $1 of the Session Laws of 1969, 48 enacted _

~~ by the General Assembly of North Carolina.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE: COURT:

- That the Plaintiff be allowed to file such responsive plead-

ing to the Answer of the Intervenor -Defendant as it shal}

deem to be- advisable.

This thie 31 day of cde ten

‘/s/ Algernon L. Butler _..

_ Chief Judge of the District —

' ..Court of the United States

_ for the Eastern District’ of

orn Carolina

/8/ John D. avian: Jr.

Judge of the. District Court

of the United States for the .

Eastern District of North

Carolina

A True: Copy, Teste:

SAMUEL A. HowaRp

Clerk

7 os me By /s/ [Illegible] |

| Deputy Clerk

- [Caption Omitted]

XSWER-OF-ROBERT. MORGAN, ATTORNEY GEN-

ERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, IN BEHALF OF

“THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA—INTERVEN-

* . OR- DEFENDANT. |

The ‘intewwente: Defendant, ‘Robert _Morgan, ioe

‘General of North Carolina, in behalf of the State of

North Carolina, answering the original and amended

_ complaints, filed herein, alleges:

‘ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

1. The Intervenor-Defendant has not knowledge or in-

formation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth .of

Paragraph 1 of the original complaint, and, therefore,

‘denies the same..

2. The allegations of Paragraph 2. of the. eriginal-com-

plagat are denied. :

3. The allegations of Paragraph 3 ot the original’ com-

plaint are admitted. |

4. The allegations of Paragraph 4 of the original com-

“plaint are admitted. _ 7

5. The allegations of Paragraph 5 of the original com- .

plaint are admitted. °

6. That the. Intervenor-Defendant is not concerned

__ with the matters alleged in Paragraph 6 ‘of the original

_ answer and neither admits or denies the same.

_. 1. The Intervenor-Defendant is not concerned with the

matters alleged. in Paragraph 7 and is net _Tequired to

answer same.

8. .The Intervenor-Defendant i is not soneened with the

matters alleged in Paragraph 8 and is not required to .

_ answer same.

9. The allegations: of paraerape 9 of the original com-

plaint are admitted. ;

‘10. The Intervencr- Defendant has ‘not knowledge or

| information sufficient to ‘form a belief as ta the truth of ©

Paragraph 10 of the a complaint, and, therefore,

denies the same.

: .

eth UU, tip ge), enilaia 4

4 .

_ aH. The allegations of Para

alae. '

RAR at shueiclesine bs ted

807

11. The allegations of Paragraph 11 are admitted.

12. The Intervenor-Defendant for lack -of knowledge —

or information to form a belief as to the truth of Para-

graph 12 of the original complaint denies the same.

13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 are denied.

ibe 14 are denied.

\ 15. -The allegations of bi sail 15 are. Gented.

CALM TWO

16. That. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 of this Answer

are re-alleged as Answers to this Claim and ineo

rated herein by reference as if fully set forth and alleged

: herein.

17. For lack of: knowledge or information sufficient

to form a beliéf as to the truth of. allegations 17, they.

are denied. :

18. ::The Intervenor-Defendant alleges that he is not

required to answer Paragraph 18 of. the original com-

plaint since they are concerned with matters of adminis-

tration.

19. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the -

original complaint the Intervenor-Defendant alleges that -

neither the State, the State Board of Education, or the

. State Superintendent of Public Instruction has any legal.’

authority to fix attendance areas, assign pupils to the

various facilities of the public school system, or to adopt .

or implement plans of desegregation ; and except as. here |

’ alleged said paragraph is denied.

nied.

ZA; The allegations of Faragraph. 21 are pened

“20. On information and. belief, said paragraph is de

“AMENDED COMPLAINT...

1. Answering Paragraph 1 of the amended coniplaiil \

it is admitted that the Attorney General of the United ©

States attached to the original complaint his certification

__ as therein shown; that it is.a corfdition precedent to the

_ bringing of this action that there shall be secret com- .

plaints made to the Attorney General of the United .

States; that any ‘action based ” upon secret complaints is

808

void, invalid and unconstitutional anda violation of the.

due process clause and the equal protection of the law ©

- cause of. the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

of the United Statés; that the provisidns of 42 USC

" 9000e-6(a) and {b) are unconstitutional and.void in that = |

‘said provisions purport to confer jurisdiction upon Fed- = -_—|,

eral Courts to entertain actions based upon secret com- -

plaints, discriminate in ‘av Otago one ethnic group as

against dnother ethnic group by furnishing government

attorneys to one group as against another group, \fur- —E

‘nish costs and expenses in favor of one group as against . &§

another group, and thus create an\ invidious discrimina- - ~- :

tion in favor of. one. group of citizens as against another | ‘

- group of citizens in violation of the, Fourteenth Amend- 7

ment of the Constitution of the United States; and ex- |

cept as her€in alleged said paragraph 1 of amended com- =

plaint is untrue and is denied. —— |

2, The allegations of Paragraph 2 of the amended

complaint are untrue and-are denied. . |

3.. The allegations of Paragraph 3 are admitted.

_ 4, The allegations of Paragraph 4 are admitted ex-

- “eept it is.denied fhat, such action should lawfully be main-

tained. _ eee Gu? at * =

5. The allegations of Paragraph 5 are admitted.

.6: The allegations of Paragraph 6 are admitted. .

7. That the Intervenor-Defendant ‘has: not knowledge -

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of Paragraph 7, and, therefore, denies

the same, . |

-8. The allegations of Paragraph 8 are denied for lack - -

of knowledge or informatien sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of. same: a . . *4

9. The allegations of Paragraph 9-are admitted. | ive

_ 10. The allegations of Paragraph 10 are admitted. — ms

‘ ll. The allegations of Paragraph 11 are admitted. —

12. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 12 on in-

formation and belief, Intervenor-Defendant admits that.

the Scotland .Neck City Board of Education hired ‘a Su- j

—. Perintendent ‘of Schools and prepared to open its: schools” i

FP © for, the school year beginning in the Fall of 1969; that

PRO NT AEE IT Ley INS True oN

. tional right to determine the type of administrative unit :

_ "under their complete control; that the Federal Govern-

809°

except as herein admitted the allegations of Parag

12 are denied.

13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 are denied,

14. The allegations of/ Paragraph 14 are untrue and

are. denied; ‘further - ‘answering said paragraph, Inter-

venor-Deferidant alleges’ that it is untrue that the-size

- and pupil enrollment should control the size of the edu.

cational ring en unit; that large educational units

- with marching band football teams, gymnasiums and —

many social and athletic events and nurherous extracur.:

-ricular activities are desired by those who still worship

' the outworn creed and bankrupt philosophy of so-called

progressive education in,which system actual imparting .

.of knowledge and instruction of. the pupil is lost in the

shuffle; that ifi.many cases the smaller unit furnishes

better. financing, better instructors and graduates a stu-

dent of ‘high taliber who campletes his college education;

it-is further. alleged that the people have the constitu:

_ they desire and not theoretical so-called educators. who

.. desire a bureaucratic, dictatorial public school system

ment has no constitutional right, under the guise of con

stitutional interpretation, to determine the type and size

of the school administrative unit that the. people of the

_ State shall have and use. ;

15. The allegations of: Paragraph 15 are untrue a

are denied; ‘further answering said paragraph, the In- -

. tervenor-Defendant alleges that Chapter. 31 of the Ses

sion Laws of 1969, is a constitutional and valid act of

the .General Assembly of North Carolina and is: within .

the scope and: authority of said. General Assembly; that

county and city boards ‘of educdtion as the proper ager-

- eies of administering the public schools of the State have

-been.in force and effect since the School Machinery Acs

of 1933 and 1935 and there is some 160 to 180. such ab

_ ministrative units established in the State; that there

are administrative school ‘units in the State that are as

‘small, and some Slightly larger, as. the Scotland Neck:

City Administrative Unit and they have operated for some

ee that the eee Neck _ Board of Education

810

“has never had the chance to’ admimister its school system

ministration is nothing but speculation and conjecture;

until the practical. results of such ‘administration are

‘available; that if Chapter ’31-of the Session Laws of 1969,

is unconstitutional. and invalid then the stability of every

school administrative unit. in the State of North Caro-

- Jina is endangered and subject to ‘attack if the members

’ of the black ‘race are dissatisfied and displeased with ‘its

area; it is again.denied that Chapter ‘31 of the Session

Laws of ‘1969, is. unconstitutional and invalid or that it

violates .any provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to

that those who pay the largest’ part of the taxes that

support the public school system of ‘the State should have

“some voice in public school administration. .

aredenied).- :

CLAIM TWO...

erence, . -

or information sufficient to form a belief. as to the truth

° of the allegations of Paragraph 18, and, : therefore, de-

_ Mies the same. . ; ee Le

, 19. That the allegations of Paragraph 19 relate to the

Halifax County. Board of Education and this Intervenor-

Defendant does not know: what alternative methods of

_ stherefore, denies said Paragraph 19. | ee

20, That Intervenor-Defendant .does ‘not know what

and refused to-do nor what plan of, desegregation it has

and constitutional attack on its proposed or future ad-—

that no constitutional attack of ‘this. nature.can be made —

- boundaries and’ enrollment limitations and it will take a

:- Federal deeree to settlé every boundary and gttendanée-

the Constitution of the United States and it is alleged. ~

16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 are untrue ‘and

17. That the answers to Paragraphs 2, s 3, 7 and 8 |

of Claim: One of this Amended. Complaint are here re- —

alleged in‘ this Claim and are made a part hereof by ref-" :

18. That the Intervenor-Defendant has not knowledge-

‘pupil assignment are available for: this county unit, and,.

" the Halifax County School Administrative Unit has failed © -

failed to adopt, and, therefore, denies said paragraph 20. ~

| a a

4 The si aco of Paragraph 21 are ‘untrue and

_are, theréfore, denied. |

' 92. The as of Paragraph 22 are untrue and

" are denied.

WH EREFORE: has ing fully ayer the teen

Defendant prays the Court: ”.

(a) That Chapter 31 ‘of the Session ‘Laws of 1969,

enacted by the General Assembly of North Carolina, be.

\ declared to be constitutional and valid. ;

\, (b) That this action be dismissed and the Temporary

estraining Order heretofore . entered in this eause be

diNnissed. :

(@ That such other and further relief be granted by

the Court as may be proper and (uae

eS — /s/ Robert Morgan

\: Attorney Generél of |

Noxth“ Carolina “ast

sc Balt Moody -

| Rebuty Attorney General of

~ | ote Carolina.

629 is

Taste Biiding =.

‘Raleigh, Nor “Caroling 27602

-) Pa _

. . - : . ° é é ; . : . bes

[Caption Omitted]

‘ORDER >

force or effect to the provision of Chapter 31 of the

lish a separate unit for the operation of the public schools

of the town of Scotland N@ck, North Carolina and there

was not a party to the creation of said Scotland Neck

ant, since it was not a party to the creation of said

‘Act, should not be put to the expense of defending: this

there be, as said defendant is already,before the Court

_ the laws, state and federal, sein the public schools

- in Halifax County; | |

CREED:

@ THAT the motion. of the defendait that it be dis-

#. . missed from this action. is. allowed insofar as the quies-

. tion of the constitutionality, of the Act creating the Scot-

land Neck Unit is concerned. Said defendant -will no

actions involving only the constitutionality® of the Act

creating said unit, but said defendant is not relieved

of the Civil Rights Act,: but shall comply: with the orders

of this Court, and orders of any Appellate Court or the

Supreme Court of the United States of America, as they

rad effect the operations of the public schools of Halifax

County.

‘This. cause coming on to be heard before the Court on |

-g motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plain-

tiff seeking to restrain the defendants from giving any’

North Carolina Session Laws of 1969, an Act to estab- -

being also before the Court a motion by the defendant,

Halifax County Board of Education, that it be dismissed.

from that portion of this action dealing with the consti-~

tutionality of the Scotland Neck Act as -said defendant. .

Unit; and it appearing to the Court that .said defend- .

'.action,in this Court or in any subseqtient appeals, if any 7

charged ‘with violation of the Civil Rights. Act and will |.

be bound by the orders of this Court.to comply with all

It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DE-

longer be. required to defend or’ appear in subsequent

from the other parts of this action involving its violation’

— eae th 2 LEONE MI SI TON ET Rs Pi

813

" THAT. this ORDER shall become effective as soon as

it is executed by the Court.

Let this —— be entered forthwith.

This the 3rd day of November, 1969.

-/s/ John D. Larkins, Jr.

‘JoHN D. Larkins, Jr

United States District Judge

| —_ _. ALGERNON L. BUTLER

are | : United States District Judge

Raleigh, North Carolina :

October _, 1969 —_. ‘

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT #38

sas Action’ No. 1128

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO

EDUCATION |

October 28, 1969 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF .

os “NORTH CAROLINA

WILSON DIVISION

Civil Actiori No, 1128

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,

_rate, and the SCOTLAND NECK CITY BOARD OF EDU-

CATION, a body corpor ate, DEFENDANTS.

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES TO

DEFENDANT HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF

EDUCATION ,

B14

DEFENDANT HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF

HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, -a body corpo-

AHR ee |

815

. »

Questions

i mo © vu

BSse¢eeen... |&

BB of construction and any substantial additions, and. at-

. tendance zone lines for each school ‘in defendant’s schéol

| ynit for the 1969-70 school year. If there are no present

attendance zones, describe the lines for the zones for the

t year before they ‘were eliminated, and state what

highway map prepared by the North Carolina Highway

* Department. .

stryction and substantial additions for the schools in

-lalifax \County Unit in the 1969-70 school unit. are

shown on\the attached form. (See attached sheet No. 1).

map (See attached map No. 1).

There weke no attendance zones during the 1968-69

transferred to\predominantly white schools as follows:

Grades 7

William R.

. Grades 7 an

Springs Schoo

. Grades 7 from \Inborden Elementary: School to En-

field School.

avie School.

8 from McIver School to Aurelian

- Neck School.

There are no attendance zones for the 1969- 70 school

year. ; ;

816

L Please state the name, locatton, ‘grades served, date

that was. If possible, please show as much of this .

information as practicable on a map, such as a general

1..The names of: schools, grades served, date of con-

The location of these schools aré shown on the attached |

shool year eXcept for pupils in grades 7 and 8 who were

d 8 from John A. Chaloner School to

. Grades 7 ‘na 8 from Brawley School to Scotland

URC EEO ERR -

AOR Rare ett age uae cays

. F

Lie oleh duck ae Voda aaa ee

co es NONE MD iy e ny O "a

School

Aurelian Springs

Route 2, ° -

Littleton, N. C.

Bakers Elem. |

Route 1, Box 103

Scotland Neck, N.C.~

Brawley School ©

-Scotland Neck

North Carolina

Dawson Elem.

Scotland Neck .

North Carolina

' . Eastman.

_ Route 2, -

Enfield, «N.C.

Enfield Graded

Enfield, Nic...

Grades Served

1-12

1-12-

1922—4 classrooms

Auditorium

1959—10 classrooms

1 Library

1926—8 classrooms

1 Library

1988—4 classroom

1 Music Room

1947—1 classroom

' 1 shop

1948—20 classrooms

Library ,

Auditorium

Cafeteria

Gym

‘Date of Construction.

" Date of substantial additions

a ~ so ne

1925—4 classrooms, 1 library

1929—5 classrooms, ‘library

1934—6 classrooms :

1935—1 classroom, 1 shop —

1948—Gym-Cafeteria

1959—3 classrooms .

1961—3 classrooms, ‘1 Cafe-

torium ;

1937—8 classrooms

1942—2 classrooms, 1. shop

1951—5 classrooms, 1 library

* 1955—5 . classrooms .

1960—Gymntorium, 4 class-

rooms , ‘

1968—Cafeteria .

1953-6 classrooms

1960—10 classrooms, 1. li-

brary, Caf etorium

'1949—Gymtorium

1953—5 classrooms, >? library

1956—7 classrooms

1959—13 classrooms, 1 li-

brary.

1968—Cafetorium - *,

1952—1 classroom, 1 shop

“LIS”

: School

Everetts Elem.

_ Route 1,

- . Roanoke Rapids, N. c.

Hollister Elem.

Hollister, N.C.

Inborden Elem.

_ Enfield, N.C.

Inbordeff High

Enfield, N.C.

‘J. A, Chaloner

Roanoke Rapids

North Carolina

McIver High

Littleton,’ N.C.

Grades ‘Served

1-8,

1-12

Date of Construction

1958—14 stanatGouna

Library

1960—18 classrooms

- 1948—12 classrooms

cafeteria.

1951—5 classrooms

library

~ 1924—5 classrooms

library

auditorium

1925—6 classrooms

Date, of substantial additions

—_—

1960—6 classrooms, Cafe-?

torium

1966—Cafetorium, Library.

1954—2 classrooms

1956—2 classrooms, library

1960—12 classrooms

1969—Cafetorium

1955—3 classrooms, Gym- .

torium.: ,

_1961—1 classroom, 1 shop

19388—4 classrooms

1940—-1 classroom, 1 shop .

1941—7 classrooms, cafeteria

1942—1 classroom

1944—-1 music room

1945—Gymnasium

1950—2 classrooms

1955—6 classrogms

1958—9 classrooms, library

'1930—4 classrooms

1941—band room, 1 class-

room, 1 shop

1948—-Gymnasium

1954—2 classrooms, librarye

1959—8 classrooms

1964—6 ° classrooms

1968—cafetorium :

School

" Pittman Elem.

_ Route 3,

infield, N.C, .

Scotland Neck School

Scotland Neck, N.C.

Thomas Shields —

Hobgood, N.C.

“Tillery Chapel Elem,

’ Tillery, N.C, oo

White Oak

Route 2, .

Enfield, N.C.

Wm. R. Davie

Route ‘1,

Roanoke Rapids, N.C:

Grades Served

1-8

1-12

1-8

| :

Date of Construction -

1959—15 classrooms

library

1903—12 classrooms

library

1957—6 classrooms

1932—4 classrooms

1959—10 classrooms

1 940—1 1 ‘classrooms~

_ 1 library

- auditorium

eee 2 ~ ee eng

Date of substantial additions

1960—ecafetorium, 1 class- °

room —

1923—cafeteria,. 8 class-

rooms, library

1939-1 Home Ec. Lab.) 2...

‘classrooms, 1 “shop,

Gymnasium ;

.1949—1 classroom

1954—4 classrooms, auditor-

on ium .

1960—4 classrooms, _ cafe-

teria, libraty

1958—4 classrooms

1961—library,: cafetorium

1957—6 classrooms |

1962—1 classrooms, library,

cafetorium,

.< 1966-1 classroom, library,

cafetorium.:

1952—4 classrooms, * library

1953—1 shop, cafeteria, gym-

nasium, ;

1955—5 classrooms

1958—-4 classrooms

1961—2 classrooms

a - seen

618

a ae. ee ae

, baad

v . : .

; : Fy =

, = aoe

. ; 7 .

e . -°--_ > .

‘ . . |

. , ,

. e be 7 .

. : : .

‘+ bd : :

. , , .

. . | |

. . . . :

. .

; .

7 . q . . ®

e .* = . °

. .

. . , |

; ; . . .

. . 7 .

. : . |

®: _ | | |

. . . * . : ‘ . |

> Y

° , . )

Od 7

. : . e

. . 7 ;

. : .

. 4 °

. : .

rd = e .

. . ;

. .

. , ,

- e 7

. . ; |

. . .

aM Me LAAN ¥¢

‘} fea

? = >

39s rORTANIONM Any

armTeneanecs Cert

‘nap sarnetesere net

’ yw \

HALIFAX COUNTY *

Orrums . Onees bs

- .

Se CARA ie MRP Aa

he 8

' ‘

® .

‘

7. e

. tek

\ 2 .

*\ ’ :;

. e .

. .

_——~

° 6 « .

‘

‘ :

_- 4 - 8 ° . : :

». : ne : -* ©

> = ae »

. ‘ 7 in. sg

. . : + ° :

. e ~ ad o

- s ,

; . e .

. _ _ ’

=e? » \

Cy 1 8 ' .

' .

ae ° ( . oe .

ee .

- 7 e

. ‘ ° . ° .

o% - . . ‘.

, yj , . . oy

- i @ . a \

‘a ben's e ° ” \

ae . . -

. . . a ‘

‘ - s . ;

® . . e -

. . R . . .

. . . .

as - . ° .

. “ .

. a °

. : «

wey t ‘ Ps .

e =m % 7 ;

. Q

° . ‘ e- .

* .

. °

+ » . . e *. e

. .

« ‘ . . ‘

. ° 8 ; e

. .

e ‘

. »

’ .

. : ° ° :

. ’ . evs

: , ~ " ~ ° .

“See . 7 * \

‘

bad an te.

‘ | ‘ ' A

e a . ¥ » *%

os : bd iz

* « rs /

. .

“ ° vole . . .

bd ® - .

‘ . .

S ° ? ~~

— / . ‘ .

bad .

3 . . ' .

: "8 - ° . x .

se A .

° : . iS

. ° . = .

”

, e? , - .

- . . ad e

. i o-% :

= ° ~-.

-'% .

. a .

7 .

- t

. * —s ‘ ‘. e .

‘ . \ . . ‘ .

« P .

. . 7

7 . » > .

° ‘ ‘

« i =

° * ‘

. ‘

. ¢

> .

® .

: -

. a .

“ss

2. Please dente any. changes in the eumber: names, |

\, - jgcations, grades served or attendance zone lines of the

schools in defendant’s school unit since the beginning of

the 1964-65 school year.

- 9 Changes in school organization since the beginning

of the 1964-65 ‘school term are as follows:

a. John Armstrong Chaloner School formerly in ~\

- ¢ials of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. De-:

-. > partment: of Health, Education. and Welfare, by

agreement between the Boards of Education of Roa-

* noke Rapids City School Unit and the Halifax County

- Schoo! Unit and by action of the State Board of.

Education began-operating as a part of the Halifax .

County School Unit at the beginning of the 1966-67 .

approximately 80% who were living within the-Hali-

‘fax County: Unit. Approximately, 190 students or-.

20% living, within the boundaries of Roanoke Rap-

. ids. City Administrative Unit transferred to: other

schools ‘in the. Roanoke: Rapids Unit. -

b. Hobgood School, grades 1-8, was closed at the. — }

end of the 1966-67 school year. By. choice, elemen- >

.tary students have been attending Scotland Neck |

School from the beginning of the 1967-68 school ‘year.

The Scotland Neck School attendance area for grades

. .1-12° became the same as the attendance: area for

the grades 9-12. (See map attached, No. :1).

"> e. Upon closing the high school department of the

. Haliwa School in Warren County, approximately 70

‘students in grades 9-12 who live near Hollister in

- Halifax .County transferred to schools in Halifax

_. County at the beginning of the 1967-68 school year. —_-

_ The elementary department of the Haliwa School. *

was closed at the end of. the 1968-69 school year and

3 approximately 140 students grades 1-8 who live in -

Halifaxe County transferred to schools in “Halifax f

,County.

2. (d) Upon closing grades 1- 5 of the Littleton School -

ih Warren County at, the close af the 1968-69 school Cer Te

822

. approximately .60 students who live in Halifax County ;

were transferred to Halifax County Schools. (See at. -

tached map No. 1).

8. (a) Please state the enrollment in each school b

-grade and race for the 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967.

68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 school years, and for‘ any other

_ school year in which there was any desegregation of .

pupils in ‘the system.

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

7 4 Halifax, N. C.

Enrollment by Race and :Grade for the Following Years’ -

SCHOOL: Aurelian Springs .

1964-65 1965-66 ; 1966-67 .1967-68 1968-69 1969-70

GRADE W NW W NW WNW. .W NW W NW W_ NW

1 30 20 25 26 25 38 16 (20)

4 21 28 17 .28 43) 25 (17)1

13 23 23 25 1 16 1 28 19 (21)

4 26 _ 28 20 1 28 1 20 23 «+ (19)

5 81 27 23 21. ‘1 =. 29° 1 18. (28)1

6 29 33 23 1 25 19 27 (15)1

7 36 28 30 1 24 1, 25 53 «18 (12) .

37 39 26 29 2 22 64 25 (15)

Spec. Ed : : (12)

38 46 38 17~—s 3 22 31 23 14 = (22)3

- 10 27 33 42 14 29 17. 26 18 29+ (14)4.

11 33 25 35 11 38 13 = 31 138 25° §«(16)3

12 24 30° 23 12 26 14. 36 10 24 (12)1

TOTAL — 365. _ 860 . 826 °58 321 72 317 186 263 . 2382

_W=White

NW=Negro or Indian .

( )= Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools

Enrollment figures were determined at different times during the schoal year.

COMMENTS: | e.

% P)

€28.

panes oe saz Aides SER SP SRN

‘HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS fsa * 8

Halifax, N.C. es le 4

Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years.

SCHOOL: Bakers an |

1964-65 °1965-66 1966-67 _ 1967-68 1968-69 . 1969-70

EPS TEP UTI. RR eT qr De uss

, GRADE wo NW W NW W NW W NW W NW W_) NW

1 49 42 39 36. TS 36

2:. 44 49 37 42 “. 34 29

3 52 39 41 31 2 86 39 |

4 AT . 41 - 86 |. 87 - ° 29 39 F

5 a5 41 33 39 48 oe 1: QF.

6 43 49 41 34 38 45 J

7 43. oT 56 36 33° 34. y

; 8 42 37 Ad 49 #4 35 : |

_ Spec. Ed. 18 18 20 15 9 _ ~ |

9 |

12 . Lo ;

TOTAL, "38g 863- 347 = 319 28388

— = er os =

W=-White

NW==Negro or. Indian

( )=-Indiangs in Pre ‘dominantly Negro. Schools : .

Enrollment figures, were dete rmined ae diffe rent times during the scheol year.

COMME N’ rs:

HAL IFAX COUN TY SCHOOLS F

Halifax, N. C.

Surana by Race and Grade for the Following: Years

- SCHOOL: . Brawley

NW=Negro or Indian

( )==Indians in. Predominantly Negro Schools’

Enrollment figures were dete

- COMMENTS:

”

1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 _ 1968: 69 1969-70 >

GRADE WwW NW \ we NW W NW w NW _W NW Ww NW

1 65 61 63 48. 60 50

2 67 61 ‘52 50 - 59 54

3 70 62 54 49 54 53.

4. 771 66 65 56 49 55

5 72 “70 58 55 66 42

6 66 14 - 76 +58 61 52

7. 69 68. 73. 82 48

8 : 61 - 68 70 80 56

Spec. Ed. 18: 18 18 35 £15 ,

9 221 234 218 232 288 247

10 161 170 192 157 182 184

11 112 111 143 141 154 152

12 104 96 106 108 118 124

TOTAL 1157 1159 1177 1151 1106 1117

W=White ‘

rinined at different times during the school year,

628

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

Halifax, ‘N.C.

Enrollment by Race and Grade for the Following Years

-* SCHOOL: Dawson . on |

1964-65 1965-66 1966- 67 1967-68 - 1968-69 ' 1969-70

. GRADE W NW W.NW W NW W NW W NW W NW

2 70 74, 62 56 51 ee

3 7. . 68 . 67 54 bl 41.

4 88 61. 60 59 48 — | 48

5 UT 7° 95 62 ; 55 59 39

6. 62 a a 73 60 -- 50 °* 62

a 54 + 65 66 63 62° 0 48

Spec. Ed. eee | Sree ¢ cae 16. 4 26 . 27°

TOTAL . 662, ° 536 | 522 ATS 459 390.

W==White’ :

NW=Negro or Indian

( )==Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools

Enrollmént figures ware de termined at different times during the “achool year.

COMMENT gs: °* os .

928

WREST Ry

HALIFAX COUNTY.SCHOOLS

‘ Halifax, N. C. .

Pnroliment by Race. and Grade for ‘the _ Following Years

‘SCHOOL: Eastman

1964-65 1s 65-66 1966-67 - 1967-68 1968-69. 1969-70

__ GRADE WNW W NW WNW. W. NW W NW W Nwe

:* me: 61 ‘6400 BT 50 46

2 63 62 63 50 58 56(1)

3 76 62 53 68 41 _ 48

4 59 63 65 42 65 49(1) ?

5 74 50 59 55 46 51

6 75 63 54° 63 b4 46

7 67. 69 65 55 59 54

8 54 56 63(7) 64 59 59°

Spec, Ed. ' ‘~ . Tita 42

Oe AE 8B. > 8802) 158 (3) /167(2). 137

10. «1138 + 4 118 - 139(3) 146.» 158(1) -

11 93 92 104 107 108 122

12. 76 | 88 88 101 97 105

‘TOTAL... 008 -. * OM 952. «965, 952 976

=White

_NW=Negro or Indian

( )=Indians- in Predominantly Negro Schools

Enrollment figures were determined at*different times during the schoot year.

COMMEN TS:

L28.

. . Halifax, N. C,

Enrollment_by Race and Grade for the Following Years

SCHOOL: Enfield Graded

"HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

1967-68 .

1968- 69

1969-70

828 |

1964-65 1965-66 1966-67

GRADE W NW. W NW W Nw W NW:W NW W_ NW

es ee ya eee ee A ee ee 1

: ° ' 33 12 «29 5 24 7. 27 5 20 4

3 42 37 1.33 9 '80 7 27 5 18 7

4 44 36 31 4 33 :9 381 6. 18 6

5 45 42 29-4. 87. +6 384 10 19 7

6. 42 44 37 = «5s 80 5 32. 7 28 8

7 35 ai: .)0 47) 4D BL 1238 20

8: 41 37 1.40 2 47 7 AT 6 16 17.

Spec. Ed. 11 10. eo : . a

me _. $89 .. 8 +85 3 40 1 (45 5 ..26 9

10 52 - 2 2 11.3838: 6 30 5 ..81 2. 32 1

11°. 40 °1 48° -14 28 12 85 --°7 .84. 751 1 3

18 4) 87 - 85 8 40 10 26 10 28 5 24 :

TOTAL 505 6 456. 59 419 67 404° 77 402 177 256 89

W=White |

. ¢ )==Indians in Predominantly Negro Gabvecili

erent wreiad during the sohbet year.

Enrollment figures were determined at di

COMMENTS:.

eae ee ee ee

HAL IFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

‘ Halifax, N. Cc,

Enrollment by Race and Grade for ‘the Following Years

SCHOOL: Everetts * ,

1964-65 1965466 1966-67 _ 1967-68 1968-69. - 1969-70 - eo

GRADE W .NW.W NW W NW W NW W NW WwW NW -

1 89 ~~ 96 76 — 838 + 56 57 -

- 2 66 ~ 7% “gg °. 68 66. 46

3 86 70 65 47 62°..." «66

5°. 82 69. 67. 55 57 sy

6 70° 8 58 61. 50 47

7 67° | 67 : 64 “61 60.- ° 50

8 71 70 °° 66 62 3860 55

Spec: Ed. . er (ie 16. 24 ul

. 9 . - : . : : . ‘ ~

10 | ,

a1.

| 12 . 4 a . |

TOTAL .-. 698 614 | 547. 520. 478 460

W=White - 7 = Woo os

NW=Negro or Indian . _¢

-( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schools eo ;

; Enrollment figures: were determined at different times daites the school year. - 7 - 4 6o

COMMENTS: _ Me OP ee a ng km Bl

HALIFAX COUNTY SCROLLS 4

Halifax, N. C. Oo

"se *arglisaent by Race ‘and Grade for the Following Years — .

SCHOOL: Hobgood. sg , Pca a ‘

: 1964-65. 1965-66 1966-67 *1967-68. 1968-69 1969-70

GRADE Ww. Nw” Ww: NW W NW_ w NW. W NW Ww NW

ee. ee | “

* Mm. > 3/3 9 as A, se e

3 10 << 8 Pea. ,

co.) aie Caer 2 - ’ : |

5: 15 15 a ee ae : _

a a se. Gene aa ; : 3 -

ee see ee. ae 13- 3 : Ce eee aa

‘ f . 8.7 we 3 ms re \ ;

° : Spec. Ed n \ 12 : fi . : Py

: “ Qe ; > <

eee : ,

> . 11 : ° \ :

« = j2 )

as .. * Se

“W=White : ogee ; »

- NW=Negro or Indian — oy; J f 3

\ : ( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Schoola, :

RS . + AF arta figures | were determined at different times during the sient yeag. :

wa Ne . : *COMMENTS: School closed and pupils attended Seotland .;Neck School.

e °

BRturax COUNTY SCHOOLS

. ‘Halifax, N. Cc. .

Enrollment by. Race and | Grade ‘for the Following Years

SCHOOL: Hollister’ :

sn Me “1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69. 1969-70

: GRADE TB kde AON OO Ie. OR BE EE EE ee

oe 53 46. 38(8) 51 81(5)* ° 45(5)°

2 55 42 41(5) 80(3) ~ vax 42(8) ¢ 743)

3 44 57 32(5) 44 BG @ ) 40(4

4°: 57 46 59(4) 45 (4) 40(4) 44

5 58 . 56° — 48(6) --42(5) 37 (2) 30(3)

6. 44 48 38(6) -° 58(2) .. 36/6 25(7)

Ag 45 43° '41(4) 87(3) 45 (2 35 (6)

8: 35 39 38 (2) 40(2) ° 36,4) 82(10)

Spec. _ 13 (2)

11 .

12. oF :

TOTAL” 386 877. - *:~ 876 361. * 381 831

W=White, / ay.

NW=Negro or Indian

g ge ( '}=Indiang in Predominantly" Negro Schools

’ Enrollment figures were detormirted at different ime

COMMENTS:

e°

8 during the school year. °

Tes

: " HALIFAX. COUNTY SCHOOLS

i? Pa, Sg ae Halifax, N. Gr mh

Enrollment “e Race and Grade ~ the Following Years -

SCHOOL: Inborden. ea

ee Me ae 1965-66 1966-67 Y 1967-68 ef 1968-69. 1969-70 o:

: GRADE WNW Ww NW:W NW W NW W.NW W_ NW.

SOPAL °° 3000: 008 UE 1418

“W=White - ee eae 2 ee

.NWs=Negro or Indian” es

()==Indians in nantly Negro Schools oot s

_ Enrollment figures were determined at inane times” during the school ‘year.

: _ COMMENTS: : a

e .

' *e :

oe ‘

e 7

rg teat

e ..

® .

HALIFAX. COUNTY SCHOOLS :

' ‘Halifax, N. C.. ’

Enrollment by, Race and Grade for the Following Years :

SCHOOL: John Armstrong. Chalo:

1964-65 1965-66 ek

GRADE i. NW _W NW’ WNW W NW’ W NW WNW

1 Es: ton lS

: he 61 ee. Oe, 52

* g-f 76. 54 70 57

H 51 - 75 | 62

5 $7 “ 67 6 Pes

g 59 61 62 59

7 84 73 ‘oe 55

64 71: » 42

it > 74 a

11 Pash ‘- 62 72 6 «69.

he 7. 57 ke b+

TOTAL gee Ae 852 °° 887 680 712

.W=White = 9 .7' . a ke sees

NW=Negro or Indial ei Rae es ges

. ( )s= Indians. in Predotananty Nears nia: on i

. Enrollment figures were determined at diferent times during the schoo! year, .

hota axel "

4% : i . 2 id : ‘ Py “| ‘ ts 2 me 2 ase Me ae

‘ . ‘ Bi:

ad . es _ ; } ‘ “

Bots ee oe sie ee HALIFAX. cour ‘SCHOOLS: Py Bi eh ee

vat ree , - + Halifax, N.C. Soe.

pe eee Peregrine gee ttal Enrollment by Race and Grade tor the Following Years,

eS ; SCHOOL: ‘Melver - Bt ete ee aoe oe

a 1964-65 1965-66 “delet . 1967-68 .1968-69 1969-70 ae

ee GRADE Ww_NW -W NW W NW W NW W NW W. NW

2S a ge a OR a ae ae oo Bree

Ree) ee , ee a so * MRS.

lo) aa ae ha 682 sé 72 a ee

Te gg BR a ae

NW=Negro or Indian a : per.

( oo in Pretembiently Negro “achools

' Enrollment figures were becca at different times during the school year,

COMMENTS: : picyar: scare eee! 3

ile ion : OAD cts Wests anni pseiion unas Nena nas ey inate a

ieee | "HALIFAX COUNTY scnoorg™

: yah . Halifax, N. C. ae. Z ~

- Enroliment, by Race and Grade for the Following ‘Years

SCHOOL: Pittman” 2 ee a ee gee

| 1964-65 * 1965-66. _ 1966-67 __ 1967-68 - 1968-69 1969-70 Noe ge

GRADE- W_NW W Nw W_ NW_W NW WNW WwW NW

es 80 a 6 | RL 14 58 39

. 81 Re Cas 68 56. > 47. ‘

3 67 73 70 68 58 61 : ;

ee! 74 Oct ee 50. 56 43

5 er x s eee Y 45 52 \

6 3 78 75 61 62 - 67. 85 >

oe * 68 15 - 68 69 83 89

8. ra 60 69 61 46. 85

Spec. Ed. | , 18 ee. eine me Be °

11 \

a ast cls oe eee

DORAL. eas 6 a ae, 420 866 :

. : W=White| oe | rvs - |

_ NW=Negro or Indian. He Re ° eae

¢ )=Indians in ‘Predominantly Neerd Schools" eae ee

' ‘ e

ra Enrollment by Ri

a Scotland Neck *

HAL AX COUNTY SCHOOLS

Meta: Halifax, N.C."

and Grade for the ¢ Following. Years:

1906-67. —

$$$

aa 1968-69 1969-70

W=White

NW=Negro or Indian

¢ )sindians in Predominantly Ne

Schools

COMMENTS: se

ae &

. ee

——_———s,

1964-65, ‘ 1965-66 |

| RADE WwW Ww Nw| W NW W NW.W NW W NW

60 a ee ie ae, ee Ce eae ce “e

. 50 ee i ae ee ee ee Ss:

67 58 54 3 59 hie Woes Se ee ee

ae 4 61 71 61 2 -65 4. ox @% 2:

5 OT 71. , 89 8 °.64 ‘ 8°. 8 Se

o> oe 71 - fe” Betas Gee ee Bee 3° 77 ”

1° 71 ae ee ae 1 8.8 :-a@: 8

8| 72 69. | 64 ‘8. ££ OQ ew CS

Spec. E ; % a | ‘ es ‘ . - Sa : » a re ae

: 85 Phe ee eee lay 5 78 4 67 13.

10|. 65 - ea | 8 14 $ ee a SS

11|. 71 61 @ 1% .-2..80.. 19..° 0 .66: ae

18) 6 C4 1 Be 8 Re

TOTAL | 797 g "80 829. 46 786 198 741 18

_. TOTAL 7 0 Sees ee ee ee

GRADE W -NW

‘COMMENTS: fas) ee ee

‘Halifax, N.C.

es thesia’ ‘by Race and Grade for the” Following Years

: SCHOOL: _\ Thomas Shields

1964-65 1965-66 viler 1967-68 eee “1999.00

\ . ‘ a

ae HALIFAX COUNTY. - SCHOOLS ee. Z

Ww NW WNW WNW WW

OID lm coe

a |). ' gen a2 eas

NW=Negroor Indian). | a ne

( )=Indians in Predo

Enrollment figures w

ainantly Negro Schools : a ' o

determined at difecent. times Pee the school 0

e fs

ae : 4

"oe

: - | 3 . ne ; : ) ; na a : :

HALIFAX COUNTY: SCHOOLS

‘Halifax, N..C,

“~ : Enrollment by face and Grade -for the Following Years”

SCHOOL: Tillery Chapel - | ee

wo, 1966.65 1965-66 1986-87 1967-68 | sn 1969-70 *

GRADE W NW. wv. NW. Wy om. WwW NW W. NW -W NW

Cee oe 9, 49 \; Poke

ee a

+ ae

— Oe

[BE

We eee ae 386 —S~«CSRS

EE Oe ee Prat

ate Pe NW=Negro or Indian - EP net te A

ue ‘6 - : ( )=Indians in “Predomiriantly ioe | Schools’ :

[Ne Oe _ Bnroliment fowreswere dterminad ot aiforeit tinan during th, )

: St COMMENTS: i

Sp hog Se Ne a St i SCHOOLS .

, a : ae Nets He . . Halifax, N.. C. ‘ on

« "Enrollment by Race and Grade dee: t: Following Years.

SCHOOL: White Oak : Sn aa

\ ee . 1964-65 1965-66 ‘ 1966-87 1967-68 __ 1968-60

en GRADE. .W NW WNW we NW _ me NW Ww .NW W NW ..

: ede 68 \ 49 48

2. 89 46 * @.

. 8 47 58 36 $8(2)

me 85 89 5 81

5 . 59 41 84 88:

8. 47 ‘55s _46 - 89

o ee 45 34 58 24

d 8 28 89 82 . BQ

Spec. 7 ‘ 16

.10 : *

“1

Sr ok ea hes 12 ° Mee SCORN Taegen AN een oe

ao CS eae 884. 804

‘Wawa items ‘

7 ‘NW= Negro or Indian

( )=Indians in Predominantly Negro Sehooie:

_ Enrollment owe were determined at different time ding the sohool yeor

COMMENTS:

Wee HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

Halifax, N. Cc.

tareibuans by Race and Grade: for the Following, Years.

‘William R. Davie

“1965-66 °

- SCHOOL:

1964-66

1966-67‘

1907-68 |

* 1968-69

“1968570

W.~NW W

WwW

GRADE W NW: W

° @-sam =380 worrw

)

92 12(1)

86 6(1)

Ww NW

712

719

_W==White . 3

NW=Negro or Indian

COMMENTS:

( -)=Indians in Predominantly ‘Negro Schools

Enrollment figures were datorminel. at at times uring. the school year.

. «€ \,

cae “b) ‘Please ‘le Ge. average ‘ile Gites

g. each school by grade for the year _ 1968-69 ana the wan

Ze reporting period of 1969-70.

each school in the system for-each of the years 1964-65.

~~ through 1969-70, and’state whether said figure is based

: on Bae cg or. average daily attendance.

(b) Average daily attendance in each school by:

oul for the year 1968-69 and the first Keposting period.

oe of 1969-70. (See attached Sheets),

ae ey ‘HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

ok, he lie, He Bo:

: Average Daily Attendarice by Grade for the Following Years

SCHOOL ‘Aurelian Springs . .

a eee oe | Kirst Month

posen sews :

= ‘tec ‘Education

ig ie

RSS HELEEESSS

12 -

te \842. As teas _ eek oN :

en fe ae _fattrax county scuoots.

_ Average Dall Attendance by Grade forthe Following Years oe

3 SCHOOL” takers Eine ee > te

Se ee

“GRADE oo. a

- »Segeeses|

| SEBRSSBe

= “HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS |

. Halifax, .N. C. -

aS : ‘Reeas Daily ‘Attendance by. Grade for the Following 3 Years

Sac unncted _ oe

: _—

3 A * .. & First Month

“GRADE + 1968-69 . 1969-70 -

eee

BRRRER

_ Special Edueation °

|EESS../ | eaebas

gaebets

Tot BR

% .*

"HALIFAX COUNTY. scHooLs’

Halifax, N. _ eee

Average Daily ‘Attendance by Grade for the Following Years.

_ SCHOOL, Dawson ‘mod.

"First Month _

1969-70

3 ¥

eeeaeaess

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS =

"Halifax, N. C.

Average Daily Attendance by Grade sin the Following Years.

~ SCHOOL Eastman —

y First Month

GRADE 1968-69 . 1969-70

a os i

oe ‘ 58 62

8 88 | 47

4 8. 46

sg 40 45

6 _ 49 : 41

i ‘ 68 - 62

Special Education — ae

9. soa 140 | =) 182

ee me 122 129

"es ae 93 106

ys . 89 95

‘Total 832 857 |

'§

HALIFAX COUNTY ee %

= Halifax, N. C. aoe e

Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following onate

"SCHOOL Enfield Graded

co - First'Month

GRADE. 1968-69 - 1969-70

a | ae . a

eo i. gg 24

8 - 80 24

+ 85 23

2. 87 20

ae 138 42.

8 ware? 48 33

" figectal Béwation oe _—

0 wae 46 - 80

10. 82. 3s.

11 83 20. .

- 12 > 29 . 8g.

BMGs

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS Ee

‘Halifax, N. C. :

Average Daily Attendance by Grate for the Following Years

SCHOOL, -Everetts Elementary

GRADE _ oa ae

onan © hd

Bereseses

|\eaagseae

Special Education

> ous

First Month |

‘HALIFAX “COUNTY ‘SCHOOLS ~

“Halifax, N.C.. °

_-Average,Dally Attendance by Grade for, the Following. Yeas =

SCHOOL Hollister Elem.

. First Month

1968-69 - 1969-70

1. 34 45.

*®. 42 29

3° 85 42°

4 41 40

5 84 80

6 86 80

7 41 i 36

2 ay | 84 37

gg. ¥

- 10

' G = ee ee

. 12 . wae

| HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

: ‘Halifax, N. C.

es 4

"Average Daily Attendance by. Grade for the Following Years bs,

‘SCHOOL Inborden Elem:

a in

2 Om OD

rer

‘Special Education : eee re tts : 14

_ &

| 12

~ Total

me ae 1968-69 —«-. ._: 1969-70

SR ne eS 63

849

HALIFAX ‘COUNTY SCHOOLS :

: Halifax, N. oe 4

Average Daly Attendance by Grade forthe Following Youre

SCHOOL Inborden High =.

OVA Tm we

‘Special aoa : :

9 160. oc 177

11. o 3 5s 57

Total” | " - $55 ” Eons ee

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS.

Nae /Halifax, N. C.

Average Dally Attendance by Grade for the Following Years

SCHOOL John A. Chaloner

’

re)

fon)

DT im oO

Ss = |

"Special Education

oN ee:

NG,

“Si poe

{mam

Total

Rgaeseraragas |

Ejssgsel | sseeee

ae )

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS ~

| Halifax, N.C. oe

~ Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the Following Years

SCHOOL Mclver

O2NA TAPE wOND

Special Education .

“-9

then,

|Z|sgaal)iseeeas

Bleaeaesgsessss

Total

ee HALIFAX COUNTY. SCHOOLS.

Stee _ Halifax, N.C. Pe

"Average Dali Attendance by Grade fr the Following Yeas

‘SCHOOL Pittman Elem.

1969-70

onraanrk ON

SSSERBASE

Reeeseeeg:

rg Ge Pe | ‘Halifax; N. C. a A EE

"Average Daily Attendance by Grade for thi Following Years

- SCHOOL ‘Scotland Neck ' eae ay) ie ees sg

eee ee

a Om &

be Se

Pal , .

. .

‘ $e

; é

' A ¢

ye A

w ,

. ) Ne

‘

e a

: \ :

é eee

.4 §.

;

e a 2

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

‘ax, - C.:

‘Average Daily. Attendance he. Grade for the Followinig Years

SCHOOL Thomas Shields Elem. ol

wo et Month

= Ne _ . a

2 ,

(40m=m oy. + 7 a ‘

x Sere aC .

SSRRBREER |G

~ Total . | — B26 174

on ee

awh nN allege

CI eT eee ee Rete

————————————————— errr errr eee

First

GRADE — 1968-69

1 ‘25

: 39

8 ae 85

4 . 88

§ < OF.

6 25

7 87. .

8 28 ;

Special. Education

an)

13 :

; Total 249

4 °

; HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

Se : Halifax, N. C. -

"Average Daily Attendance by Grade’ et the neatens Y

SCHOOL ‘Tillery ress Elem.

| ‘HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS ~ .

- Halifax, N.C. — 7 — ee ve.

Average Daily Attendance by Grade for” the Following } —

SCHOOL _— Oak

First Month

1969-70

SERBSBERE é

eQSSSeRe5.

ecial Education

Soh

er)

BE:

Total oo 264 296

ia ey » ‘

NARI S Si bie rea tee hte 2 HCG! Cid ebebibiCel oh sth wwe yas 0 tithe se te i MeO ap

i i RRL SNOB L sta hiaine Dike

857

HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS

Halifax, N: C.

Average Daily Attendance by Grade for the — wel

SCHOOL William R. Davie

First Month

‘GRADE . . - 1968-69 1969-70

1 79 75

2 .. 96 14

i 4 ; “B86.

5 86

6 8i

c * 159

Special Rancation :

10 -

“1

"42

Total

' 858

.(c) Please state the total expenditure per pupil in each

school in the system for each of the years 1964-65 through

1969-70, and state whether said figure is based on enroll- |

ment or average daily attendance... :

3. (c) The total expenditure per pupil in \ each school in

_ Halifax County Unit for each of the years 1964-65:

-* through 1969-70 is not available. There-are no records’

. «kept of expenditures by school. This task would be im-

possible. The: total expenditures per pupil average daily

ataGdanee are as follows: . .

- ‘State - Federal - Local . Total

1964-65 - 266.78 11.74 =| 8269. = 801.12

1965-66 279.79 30.12 . 87438 - 847.34

, 1966-67 = 807.66 97.74 39.29 444.68 .

- 1967-68 = = 828.39 _——= 121.70 42.58 492.67

1968-69 ' 321.82 12081. ° — 84.02 — 626.69

1969-70 865.28 111.67 80.45 557.40

: Apokoxlinated from approval ‘local budgets eatimated Federal

_ESEA Title I Funds, and estimated State Funds.

3. (d) Please state for each of the school years 1964-

65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 .and 1969-70, the .

~ number by race of pupils (I) who ‘reside outside of the

defendant’s school unit arid attended school within the -

_. unit, and (II) .who reside within the unit and attended

school outside the unit. For each such inter-unit trans-

.. feree, please state the school unit of residence, the school

unit of attendance, ‘and, for such transferee during the

present year, the school said pupil would attend should -

the jnter-unit transfers cease. Please state a brief sum-

_ mary of any agreement under which. inter-unit -pupil

transfers occur, and the location of any correspondence,

- notes, miriute entries or other writings comprising,. or

containing information =e anid oe |

(a) ANSWER:

Approximate Number of Students. Who Reside

- Outside of the Halifax Courity School Administrative

“Unit and Attend School Within the Unit

(white)

- “ - RIO LOL EIA SOL

A BEALE EG OE aa ae i ea ald .

No. of Pupils - * Hekieal Unit -

Year by Race ' of Residence

_- 1964-65 75 (white): Roanoke Rapids City

40 (Negro). Martin County

20 (Negro). Martin County

10 (white) Martin County

4 (white) Martin ‘County .

1965-66 75. (white) .. Roanoke Rapids City |

“*.- 80 (Negro) . Martin County”

' 10 (Negro) Martin County

5. (white) Martin County

1965-66 75 (white) Roanoke Rapids City

10 (Negro) Martin County -

5 (Negro) Martin County .

7 (white) Martin County. _.

10 (Negro) Martin County +s

5° (Negro) -. Martin County

oe 7 (white) Martin County -

-. 1968-69 75. (white) | Roanoke Rapids City

10 (Negro) Martin Courity

‘5 (Negro). Martin County ;

1969-70 ' Roanoke Rapids City

_ Thomas Shields

' Scotland Neck

Thomas. Shields .

Brawley . ;

‘Wm. R. Davie

"859

School

Attended

Wm. R. Davie

Thomas Shields

Brawley

‘Hobgood

Scotland Neck

Wm. R. Davie ©

Brawley

Scotland Neck +

Wm. R. Davie.

Thomas. Shields.

Brawley

Wm. R. Davie _

Thomas Shields

Brawley |

Scotland . "Neck

Wm. R. Davie

3. (a) ANSWER (Continued) :

“Appetatilians Mather of Students Who Reside

OR ee Petites Was ated , Gate

" ., -Sehool: Outside of the “Unit

‘Year by Race - - of Residence’ = Attended -

1964-65 220 (Indian) Halifax County _ Haliwa-Warren County

"+ 160 (White) Halifax County Littleton-Warren County

| ~ Ne af Papits’ _- School Unit Sehool and School Unit is

800 (Negro) . Halifax County Chaloner-Roanoke nant

. ; City

1965-66 220 (Indian) Halifax County . Haliwa-Warren County —

155. (White) Halifax County Littleton-Warren County

| 190 (Negro) Halifax County Chalonér-Roanoke Rapids

_ City

1966-67 215 (Indian) Halifax County. -Haliwa-Warren County

1565 - (White) ; Halifax County Littleton-Warren County

1967-68 150 (Indian) ‘Halifax County Haliwa-Warren County |

et ; 150 (White). -. Halifax County Littleton-Warren County

1968-69 140, (Indian) Halifax County Haliwa-Warren County

«150 (White) Halifax County _Littleton-Warren County

; Bens 75 (White) Halifax County - _ Littleton-Warren County

“Te the inter-imit-pupil- transfer policy would ‘cease the a

approximately 75 white pupils who live in the Roanoke.

Rapids City School Unit but are attending school at Davie

School in Halifax County’ would be required required to attend .a

':. school in the Roanoke: Rapids —_ ‘The school to

which they would be robably Rosemary

School, since this school i the nearest tothe residence of

et the the elementary pupils.

the inter-unit pupil transfer policy would cease the

school in Hailfax County. It cannot be de-

in operation.

- Most of the inter-unit tranafers dev ayer historically

available. Récords of the closing down of the Haliwa

records or agreements are

~ School in Warren - County would be, given a choice of —

any

what school in the County they would attend o

'.. High School at the close of the 1966-67 school year and

. the closing down of the Haliwa Elementary School at the-

i .. ' Close of 1968-69 school year are a part of the records

a aan ,-have_beenforwarded to the U.S. : Department ° of

ee Health, Education and Welfare. . The transfer-of Chaloner

School from the Roanoke. Rapids City Administrative‘

: ae _ Unit to the Halifax County Unit occurred at the close of

e & '.- the 1965-66 school year and all records of this transfer

: | which enabled students residing in Halifax County to |

attend a school within the County are a part of the rec-

ords of the U. S. Department of Health, Education and

Welfare.. cs oh aie pleat hee ao

_ _ The students attending Littleton School have historical- -

ly attended this. school (30 years or more) and agree

' ments between the two Boards of Education or school

_ Officials are not readily available. In the case of the Mar-

_ Schools, this situation developed because of the proximity -

_ of our schools to the. Martin. County ‘line. The same

would be true concerning students attending Littleton ..

School, since the Littleton School is ted on the line.

e courses, and the capacity of each of these rooms.

(See attached forms)

_ 4 (a). Attached are floor plans of each school showing |

the grades or subjects taught and the capacity of ‘each

The capacity of each classroom is relative to the type

_ _ Of elass used in each,: The county sets as a maximum the _

idelines set up by the North Carolina Department of .

blic Instruction in its standards for accreditation

though the, rooms may be.able to hold many more stu- .

' dents. The primary gradeg usually hold (30):thirty, the

elementary grades contain (35) thirty-five, the. high

demic. classes and as many as, (50) fifty in band or —

. At 2

g61

tin. County students attending the Halifax: ‘County 7

school classes usually have (35) thirty-five in the aca-

chorus, pagsicsl otoegtian, or typing or any other special

4, ) QUESTION: »

Please state whether the school unit . has used

mobile classrooms at any time since the beginning of the

1964-65 school year, and, if so, state the number and ca-

pacity of the mobile classroom used at. each sehool . for <<

‘ — yout since that time. | es .

ran te J ;

/ /

oF A

4, (b) ANSWER: Fy etn

Mobile units have been used +e: the Halifax Coun- |

ty School System for the purpose of relieving the over-

crowded classroom circumstances .of many of the schools.

_,» These mobile units have been transferred from. one school

_ to another and in accordance to their needs...

(Attached is a form showing the location, dates

of use and: ee of each | mobile amt)

f°

"fe

——— we «

~ : , ; . . a :

‘MOBI CLASSROOMS USED BY HALIFAX COUNTY SCHOOLS FROM 1964-65—1969-70

si ee] 1964-65 —-1965-66 1966-67 - 1967-68. 1968-69. 1969-70

3 Capacity Capacity Capacity - Capacity - Capacity. “Capacity

Schoo! No. ofeach No. ofeach No. of eacl® No. ofeach No. ofeach’ No. ofeach .

Aurelian Springs Bo: AR an / 2 40 1 - 40

Bakers . : ee. Pkt h, ; os .

Brawley | oe, ee 40° 10 40 11 40 4 40 9 40

Chalon , - 2 40. 2° 40 .

Dawson - ‘ “a

Davie ° 4 es | 40 8 40 9 40 14 40° 18 “40

Eastman a. aR. 6 40 40 10° 40 8- 40 1} a 40

Enfield a 8. 40 oe See, ee a

Everetts a ths mF s 7 :

Hovster "ke , | ae re ; 1. 40.

‘Inborden Elem. 1 40 10 40 18 - 40 18 4 440-— 4 40 6°. 40~

- Inborden High . (ex 4 sue 6 40 6 “AO

_ McIver 2 40 2 eee : . @. uly: @

Pittman sis 1: @.-2. .@ 1 40 ae we Bee

-» Scotland Neck Ys 9 Ae

* Shields. - hes ee

sO TGR Care eee : '

.White Oak See Sa Ea Rae, | a ee

Total".

5 (a) Attached is a list of the total number of full-

_< time teachers, by race, at each school in the unit for each

school year from 1964-65 to 1969-70. - ;

{

* 3 | /

7 he

ao J:

READERS LRRD ts DE RiP Wn bc Aenea ata .

ei NUMBER OF FULL TIME TEACHERS : ;

SCHOOL :

ay “1964-1965 "1965-1966 ~~ 1966-1967 "1967-1968 * 1968-1969 1969-1970

ine N W NWI... °N Ww N v.28 EK Be Se

‘Aurelian Springs. . --.- 16... 17. =; ae 17 2 eee Lee 20

Bakers. ; a y See 12 12 SRS ine

Brawley 89 40 42 (43°. 40 :

Chaloner . * 84 83 29 29 ..

Dawson | 15 18 17 16 su. 2 ce 2

Eastman 81 82 85 3 86... .2(f) 88 2

Enfield - 25 25 Ses eee ee 20

Everetts * 16 21 19 18. 19 A eons tee

Hollister - 11 11 11 2 mee) Gee tee: Ge We

. * Inborden Elem. 80 ae 8 86 oe > : Sao amr

. -Inborden High - -— Se ofr 14 Ss eS

. Melver és ee 23 26 \ 29

—-—— Pittman: 16 17 18 17 vw. = 15 “oe

: Scotland Neck ** 80 1 $2 1 82 4 S&-- 10 84 ee.

Thomas. Shields 11 10 11 Q Pe Ses 1

“Tillery Chapel . oe SE 10 10 Re ees +

te,Oak 10 cee 11” 11 Sees sek

Wm: R. Davie - _-— eet ee cere 42 ee Q | Rae eee

Hobgood = oo eS eg Siena CLOSED...

TOTAL - —- Si - 100° 984. 117 299 .. 121. , 209. «138. 812——s«8. 288, 119

: I Indian,

e . - i ey eo

. : eee. fk : : @

5 (b) Please state the number of other professional

personnel, teachers’ aides, par-time teachers, secretaries,

- eafeteria employees and janitorial personnel by race at

; each school for each of the school years 1968-69 and -

= Se oe 3 . |

_ SEE ATTACHMENTS

' y —

> : a

| Question 4 Pa ee | .Part (B) i. ; /@

f 2 att ae aie y ate 1968-69 | ars Os }

|" “School; : PL Ates —.P.T, Teachers Jasiitorial. Secretaries Cafetarla ‘Tol:

B . Ww ‘| N WwW isthe AR oi N Ww N° en ae ~~ ;

- A. Springs 1 . - none 3 2 Ae ; 7 7 2 :

4 - Bakers , '8° none Wee 2 ry | 18

: Brawley \8 ° none- 8. , 1 oe. - 22

_| . Dawson 5° ‘none 8 1 1 5 1 14

7. Eastman ’ ss 7... Mone - 8 1 12 . 28 °

Enfield Graded eee | none 8 . 1 1 5. 8 9

* _ Everetts $e he ae none 8 | . 6 18

| ~ Hollister . . 8 noné + 1 5 11 .

:. ‘Inborden High 2 none 1 1 - i

’ ‘Inborden Elem, 7 none 8 1 11 22

J. A. Chaloner - 5 none 8 1 7 16

McIver ‘- -. | 5 none 8 1 8 ° 17

. Pittman . 4 none a ho “s 5 12

# - Scotland Nek #4... 2. na 1 et KE SEE 1 8 8 .. ae

\. Thomas Shields 8 none Re a 1. 5: ey

| _- Tillery Chapel "8+. none ron. 1 5 1m . -

‘White Oak ‘ ees | none | “2. te 6 See

William R. Davie . : 1 Pa none os | . <> a Se a

S Teta ci ce, eee 2 * 46 4 14 25 104. ‘87 + 229. ra

° . = r . r ° «J ;

: z ;

————————— = oo . i aa

998°

Question 4 a ' ‘Part (B)

Se Sate 196870 Soin RE

| School "tM Aides —-&P.T. Teachers §—_—Janitorial_ Secretaries Cafeteria ‘Total

: . WwW N:. W [N+ OW N w nN Ww. =N -G ®

A. Springs ~ 2 vee none. : ¢ te 1. 7 1 5. De

| Bakers : 8 none ae a? oe 5 _

. Brawley — i none 8 1: 11: 1"

>. Eastman 6 none — 4 | 1 9. 19

Enfield Graded =. si 1 none an ome | ) 1 5 8 8.

P. Everetts. . A none 8 ee | 5 13

Hollister 8 none | 2 7 1 11

. Inborden High 1: none st ee 1 7 5>

Inborden Elem. 7 ° none 8 1 12 23

J. A. Chaloner . 8 none ‘ ~ 8. 1 7 14

; «+ Melver 8 none = 7 So 6 -18

‘ . Pittman _ . 8° none 2 1 ae ' 11

a - Scotland Neck none - 4 1 i 6 4 10

Thomas’ Shields 8. ~ none | 2 1 | ' 6 12

Tillery Chapel . 8 none’ 2 1 | 5. 11

White. Oak _ 8° none 2 - 6 12

William R. Davie 8 1 -.none | 8° 1 11 16 4

“Total « . * -6 54 none ssiy 1. 45 4 14 = 28 99 84 212

6. Please state the teaching schedule for each member.

of the faculty at each school for the 1969-70 school year,

“his race, his certification, and his score on the National

Teachers’ Examination. This schedule should include the -

‘Subject’ and grade taught and ‘the hour of the class. -

Please state the number of-students enrolled and, if pos-

sible, the average daily. attendance for each class. ae

(See Portfolio)

7. Please state the number of Sedchies’ by race and |

by school, who have been newly hired . and -who have

started. teaching in the defendanit’s school unit eath of

the school years from 1964-65 to 1969-70, the certifica-

_. Ofe’

each teacher has been assigned. State also the number

of teachers, by race and by school, who have left employ-

. ment, or who -have been transferred ‘from one school to

- another, in the defendant’s school unit for each-of the

above school years. Please deseribe the manner.in which |

new teachers are employed including full details of the —

recruiting program and the nature.of any authority

- given to or used by principals, school a or

others in the hiring process. |

(See Portfolio)

8. (a) Please state the name of each tincher and staff

. member’ (even though no longer employed by the defend-

ant’s school unit) who indicated a willingness to teach or

_ work across racial lines and. the steps taken to assign

each such teacher across racial lines. Please state what

steps, if any, have been taken to encourage teachers and

staff members to teach and work across racial lines (in-_

cluding polls), the name of each teacher so encouraged,

by whom encouragement was given and the results there-

ANSWER: Beginning in the fall of: 1964, _teachers :

_and other staff members were approached by the Halifax

County Central. Office’ Staff and encouraged to teach

': across racial lines.- In 1965 and in at least one succed-

ing year a survey was conducted to determine the will-.

ingness of the teachers to teach across racial linés. Few

teachers indicated a willingness to change schools. (Ap-

- 870.

proximately 6 senile year stated. en would anenk such

_ assignment, but would not volunteer). Both direct and

.. indirect approaches were: made to encourage teachers to -

* choose to teach children of a race different from their.

Own.

It: is ‘impossible “ give the names of the. teachers ap-.

_ proached.or the person whom they were approached by

- during the past .6 years, since no records were kept of

the conversations. Every new: teacher employed ‘was ask-

ed whether he or she would be willing to accept a teach-

ing assignment in ‘a school of a different race.

The results of the concentrated effort are shown by the

steady increase in the number of teachers teaching across

: racial . lines: S a* 4. .°% |

Teachers Employed in a School. *

Yer Where Their Race in in Minority.

1964-65

1965-66

1966-67

1967-68 _ -

1968-69

_ 1969-70

- Halifax County

8. (b) QUESTION::

_. Please state the number of workebeiie, meetings,

7 training institutes or similar programs, attended by the

school unit’s teachers and other .professional staff mem-

bers of both races, and for each such program, its loca-

“BRE awe

- race in attendance, the topic matter or purpose of such

‘program, and the abonact (5)

8. (b) ‘ANSWER: 2

ae The Halifax ‘County School System } has aaliekad

. well planned: in-service education. programs for its pro-

‘fessional and non-professional staff. Each program has

- been developed. to increase their understanding of issues —

and problems of education, to. improve their methods of.

teaching v various — and in — to keep their

en PERLE GES AEE ALIEN EE EIEN STEEL SEN SE PEC IIE BE RON FR APM » a

. thinking and their teaching effective. These programs in- _ ‘

volved the Negro.and Caucasion races. (Please ‘see at-

tached ‘sheets for ariuahetione and descriptions of, In-

-_ Service Programs).

8. (c) QUESTION:

_. . Please state the aumber of : ead thectings,

’ training inst

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.