Christmas v. Board of Education of Harford County, Md., Civ. No. 15532.

• Decision Date: 23 June 1964
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 15532.
• Citation: 231 F. Supp. 331
• Parties: Jo Ellen CHRISTMAS and Joel L. Christmas, minors, by their mother and next friend, Mary E. Christmas, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND, Charles F. Reed, Mrs. Jason H. Pate, Mrs. Robert Fletcher, Clark Connellee and Thomas Galbreath, Members of the Board of Education of Harford County, and Charles W. Willis, Superintendent of Schools of Harford County, Maryland, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

231 F. Supp. 331

Jo Ellen CHRISTMAS and Joel L. Christmas, minors, by their mother and next friend, Mary E. Christmas, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND, Charles F. Reed, Mrs. Jason H. Pate, Mrs. Robert Fletcher, Clark Connellee and Thomas Galbreath, Members of the Board of Education of Harford County, and Charles W. Willis, Superintendent of Schools of Harford County, Maryland, Defendants.

Civ. No. 15532.

United States District Court D. Maryland.

June 23, 1964.

Juanita Jackson Mitchell and Tucker R. Dearing, Baltimore, Md., and Frank H. Heffron, New York City, for plaintiffs.

John F. King, Baltimore, Md., and Edward C. Wilson, Jr., Bel Air, Md., for defendants.

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

In this class action filed on May 1, 1964, Negro plaintiffs seek an injunction restraining defendants, the Board of Education of Harford County and the Superintendent of Schools, from: (A) refusing to adopt and implement a plan providing for the elimination of segregated schools in Harford County by September 1964, rather than in four steps ending September 1967, as proposed by defendants; (B) discriminating on the basis of race in hiring new teachers; and (C) continuing to assign Negro teachers exclusively to Negro schools solely on the basis of race.

The background of the case is set out in Moore v. Board of Education of Harford County, D.Md., 146 F.Supp. 91 (1956), Moore v. Board of Education, D.Md., 152 F.Supp. 114 (1957), aff'd sub nom. Slade v. Board of Education, 4 Cir., 252 F.2d 291 (1958), cert. den. 357 U.S. 906, 78 S.Ct. 1151, 2 L.Ed.2d 1157, and Pettit v. Board of Education, D.Md., 184 F.Supp. 452 (1960). Briefly, a modified plan for the desegregation of the Harford County schools was approved by this Court in the second Moore case, affirmed by the Fourth Circuit in Slade. It provided for step by step desegregation, with transfer of qualified students in high school grades during the transition period. The plan was found still acceptable by this Court in Pettit, from which no appeal was taken. Thereafter the Board of Education accelerated the plan by one year, so that from September 1962 to the end of the 1963-64 school year in June 1964, the situation described in the paragraph from Pettit, set out in note¹ has applied in all grades, and will apply until the new plan adopted by the Board in March 1964 takes effect, except as modified by the new plan or by court order.

During the transition period certain restrictions were placed on transfers, but since 1962 Negro children have been able to transfer to another school or to enter any school on the same basis as white children.²

The experience under the plan has shown that some Negro parents desire their children to attend desegregated schools, while some prefer them to attend schools where all the pupils and teachers are Negroes. There are about 19,000 pupils in the Harford County schools, of whom about 2,100 are Negroes. During the last school year 500 out of the 1,100 had entered or transferred to formerly white, now desegregated schools; the remaining 1,600 attended the Central Consolidated School, near Bel Air, or the Havre de Grace Consolidated School, both of which are staffed and attended solely by Negroes.

No Negro teachers have ever been transferred to or engaged to teach in the formerly white, now desegregated schools, and no white teachers have been assigned to the Negro schools.

(A)

Various groups and individuals in Harford County have been urging the complete desegregation of the county schools by the elimination of the two consolidated schools. In the summer of 1963 the Board of Education appointed a committee of teachers, principals and supervisors, who met twelve times, considered various proposals, and in February 1964 recommended a plan under which the schools would be completely desegregated by the elimination of the two Negro schools in four phases, as follows:

1. The discontinuance of the ninth grade³ courses in the Negro schools in September 1964, together with the transfer of each ninth grade pupil to the desegregated junior high school servicing his neighborhood, and the transfer of selected Negro high school teachers to positions for which they are qualified in desegregated high schools.

2. Similar action with respect to the remaining senior high school grades in September 1965, together with the reassignment of all Negro teachers affected thereby.

3. Elimination of all first grade classes in the Negro schools in September 1966, the registration of each first grader, regardless of race, in the desegregated elementary school which serves his neighborhood, together with the reassignment of Negro teachers affected thereby.

4. Complete desegregation in September 1967, when the Negro schools will become neighborhood schools with attendance areas similar to those prescribed for other schools of similar size, each child will attend the neighborhood school serving his attendance area, and all teachers in the public schools of Harford County will be assigned in accordance with the concept of total desegregation and the policy statement attached to the plan.

The general policies referred to and included in the report include those set out in note.⁴ The report stated that the advantages of the proposed plan included the items set out in note.⁵

The Board of Education adopted the plan in March 1964, by a vote of three to two. The President of the Board favored the adoption of a speedier plan, eliminating the third step and certain statements of policy which he felt were offensive to some Negroes.

The decision to limit or discontinue during the interim the application of the existing policy for pupil transfers (item 8 in note 4) met with instant opposition; it was promptly changed, on advice of counsel, and the existing policy was reinstated before this suit was filed. An additional 340 Negro pupils have requested transfers for the year 1964-65; all of the requests have been granted.⁶

Nevertheless, the complaint filed herein on May 1, 1964, contained a prayer that defendants be restrained from "refusing to adopt and implement a plan providing for the elimination of segregated schools by September 1964, or in the alternative, from refusing to allow transfers in all grades from the Central Consolidated School and the Havre de Grace Consolidated School in 1964-65 and subsequent schools years".

At the trial, plaintiffs pressed their demand for the complete elimination of the Negro schools in September 1964 despite the fact that their alternative demand had been met by the modification of the plan and the granting of all 340 requests for transfer. Defendants contend that the plan is fair and educationally desirable, and that it complies with the constitutional requirements prescribed by the controlling authorities.

Both sides have cited cases in support of their respective positions. Each case presents its own facts, and each plan must be considered in the light of the situation in the particular school district involved. The applicable authorities do not require immediate and complete elimination of Negro schools in every case. Harford County has lived up to, indeed has accelerated, the plan approved by this Court and the Fourth Circuit. Without further court action, the Board of Education has proposed a new, four-phase plan leading to the elimination of all segregated schools by September 1967. Good reasons for some delay and for some parts of the plan have been presented to the Court. The opening this fall of the ninth grade in the first Catholic high school in Harford County, and the opening of the tenth grade therein next fall, will aid the problem of overcrowding in some of the public high schools, and is a reason for handling the high school transfers in two steps. A delay in the transfer of other grades than the ninth will permit in-service training programs for both Negro and white teachers, who have never had the experience of teaching desegregated classes. The transfer this fall of a number of Negro elementary teachers to the formerly white, now desegregated schools, will enable them to participate helpfully in such programs.

One of the reasons plaintiffs seek the elimination of the Negro schools is that some courses, especially science courses, in the Negro schools are less advanced than similar courses in the desegregated schools. The proposed delay in the total elimination of the Negro schools has not prevented and will not prevent those who wish the richer curriculum from transferring promptly to the desegregated schools. On the other hand, it will permit special courses or programs in the Negro schools during the year 1964-65 to ease the transfer problem for some slow Negro students who did not wish to transfer but who, after transfer, will be forced to compete with students, both Negro and white, who have heretofore chosen the more advanced curriculum and have become accustomed to the greater pressures.

One reason advanced for transferring all the high school pupils first is that the pupils in those grades meet several teachers each day, while the pupils in the elementary grades have the same teacher all day. This reason has some educational and administrative merit, but it must be recognized that "constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion or exercise." Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526, 535, 83 S.Ct. 1314, 1319, 10 L.Ed.2d 529. See also Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5, 19; Jones v. School Board of City of Alexandria, Va., 4 Cir., 278 F.2d 72, 76; Northcross v. Board of Education, 6 Cir., 333 F.2d 661, June 12, 1964.

The report stated that the plan is carefully coordinated with existing facilities and currently proposed construction. See note 5 above. This point was neither supported nor challenged by testimony at the trial.

After considering all the circumstances shown by the evidence, the Court is...