Henderson v. Iberia Parish School Board, Civ. A. No. 11126.

• Decision Date: 06 July 1965
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 11126.
• Citation: 245 F. Supp. 419
• Parties: James H. HENDERSON, Jr., Edythe Jeannelle Henderson and Eryn Janyce Henderson, minors, by their father and next friend, James H. Henderson, Sr., Alice Perry and Antoine Perry, minors, by their father and next friend, Tom Perry, Raymond Boudreaux Derouin, a minor, by her mother and next friend, Ethel Derouin, v. IBERIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, a corporation, and F. F. Wimberly, Superintendent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

245 F. Supp. 419

James H. HENDERSON, Jr., Edythe Jeannelle Henderson and Eryn Janyce Henderson, minors, by their father and next friend, James H. Henderson, Sr Alice Perry and Antoine Perry, minors, by their father and next friend, Tom Perry Raymond Boudreaux Derouin, a minor, by her mother and next friend, Ethel Derouin, v. IBERIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, a corporation, and F. F. Wimberly, Superintendent.

Civ. A. No. 11126.

United States District Court W. D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division.

June 23, 1965.

Supplemental Opinion July 6, 1965.

A. P. Tureaud, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.

Knowles Tucker, Dist. Atty., Iberia Parish, New Iberia, La., for defendants.

PUTNAM, District Judge.

This class action is brought by plaintiffs, Negro children residing in the Parish of Iberia, Louisiana, against the School Board of the Parish, its members, superintendent, agents and employees and all others acting in concert with them, seeking to enjoin what is alleged to be a biracial or segregated school system. The defendants have answered, denied the allegations of the complaint, and while admitting that the school system of the parish is biracial, have affirmatively advanced the contention that it is nondiscriminatory and have attached to their answer and made part thereof a statement of the operational procedures employed by the Board in assigning pupils to the schools under their administration.

All minor plaintiffs being properly before the Court, issue being joined, the parties have, by stipulation of counsel entered into at a preliminary pretrial conference held in Lafayette on June 21, 1965, submitted all issues for adjudication by the Court on the face of the pleadings and defendants' attached exhibits.

It would appear from the procedures presently in use by the Board that, in theory at least, the system is nondiscriminatory. This plan has been in operation in Iberia Parish for the past ten years, and no applications for registration by Negroes in any all white schools have been received during this period. The application forms, with the exception of Form C, which is a request for original admission to the public schools, provide for selection of the school to be attended by the applicant accompanied by parental request therefor. Assignment is made by the Board through its Superintendent and his staff, after meeting with all principals of the Parish schools, and all applications processed according to accepted criteria in general use in the field of education.

A majority of the Board, the Superintendent and his assistant, Mr. Knowles Tucker, District Attorney of Iberia Parish, in his capacity as legal advisor to the Board and Mr. A. P. Tureaud of New Orleans, counsel for plaintiffs, attended the pretrial conference mentioned above. The Court was impressed by the conscientious attitude of those present, the desire of all to frankly discuss the problems involved in this delicate area and to anticipate problems that might arise during any period of transition. While the general discussion was not recorded (the conference was informal), the Court makes these observations as a part of this record because the good faith of the Board and its supervisors and an impartial consideration of the rights of all people affected is essential to the success or failure of the plan hereinafter envisioned.

One basic proposition now established beyond dispute is that there is no Louisiana law presently in effect which requires any school board to maintain segregated schools. In Lemon v. Bossier Parish School Board, 240 F.Supp. 709, 713 (W.D.La. Apr. 13, 1965), this is concisely stated by Chief Judge Ben C. Dawkins, Jr., as follows:

"All Louisiana laws providing for segregation in public schools were declared unconstitutional in Orleans Parish School Board v. Bush, 242 F.2d 156 (5 Cir. 1957) cert. denied, 354 U.S. 921, 77 S.Ct. 1380, 1 L.Ed. 2d 1436 (see also Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F.Supp. 916 (E.D.La.1960), aff'd per curiam 365 U.S. 569, 81 S.Ct. 754, 5 L.Ed.2d 806). These Louisiana laws subsequently were repealed. See La.Acts 1960, 1st Ex.Sess., Nos. 3-9 and La. Acts 1962, No. 128, § 1. We find no Louisiana law presently in effect which requires the school boards of this State to maintain segregated schools."

This decision further emphasizes that under Louisiana law, responsibility for the administration of local school districts rests exclusively with local school boards.

The School Board of Iberia Parish, while following procedures which are nondiscriminatory, has never officially adopted a basic plan for the desegregation of the public schools of the parish. Therein lies the rub. It is the opinion of the Court that the rules of law evolving from Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), as expressed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its decisions since the opinion in that case, require formal adoption of such a plan by the Board. See: Calhoun v. Latimer, 321 F.2d 302 (1963); Hall v. West, 335 F.2d 481 (1964); Armstrong v. Board of Education, 333 F.2d 47 (1964); Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County Board, 333 F.2d 55 (1964); Lockett v. Board of Education, 342 F.2d 225 (1965); Bivins v. Board of Public Education, 342 F.2d 229 (1965).

While the principles announced in the foregoing cases are by now well known to counsel and the Court, we hereafter briefly review them for the benefit of the Board Members and other school officials for guidance in formulating the plan to be adopted by them pursuant to the order which will be entered this day.

In the Armstrong and Lockett cases, supra, the following propositions were established: (1) the responsibility for providing a constitutional plan for desegregation lies with the School Board; (2) a plan based on freedom of choice (such as we find in the procedures used here), must provide for adequate notice to be given so that Negro students are afforded a reasonable and conscious opportunity to attend any school to which they are otherwise eligible, without regard to race; (3) the abolition of dual systems, zones, separate attendance areas, etc., at the same time as the plan becomes effective as to any grade when reached by it, is required, as well as the elimination of administrative procedures for hearing of complaints arising from the operation of the plan as applied to individual applications and requests for transfer. These are the basic guide lines for any plan to be advanced by defendants.

In Calhoun, supra, the Court struck down testing criteria based upon personality interviews, etc., and stated that no standard requiring that an applicant score a grade on scholastic ability and achievement tests equal to the average of the class to which transfer is sought, might be utilized, nor any other requirement used where the same is applied only to Negro students seeking transfer and assignment.

The jurisprudence in this and other circuits is exhaustively reviewed in the Stell case, supra, decided July 24, 1964. In that case with reference to freedom of choice, it is said:

"This freedom of choice, with schools no longer being designated as white or Negro, in the grades to which the plan of desegregation has reached means that each child in the system may attend the school he chooses to attend, without regard to race so long as space is available in the school, and where it is not available to all it is to be awarded on the basis of the proximity of the residence of the pupil to the school. * * *" (333 F.2d 55, p. 65)

The foregoing brief comment upon the case law is by no means to be taken as complete and all inclusive. The cases cited are considered by us as being those which, in more recent months, have spelled out in unmistakable terms the minimum requirements of any plan for desegregation, and the standards by which the operation of such plan is to be judged. Precedents can be found to fit almost any conceivable situation that may hereafter arise and the defendants in this case should work closely with their counsel in resolving future issues.

Plaintiffs and other members of the class affected must also realize that with recognition of their rights, guaranteed to them by the Constitution and now expressly enacted into law by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV, Secs. 401-410, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000c thru § 2000c-9, insofar as obtaining federal funds for the operation of public school systems is concerned, they will be entitled to no extra privileges or favored treatment. Restraint will be required, good judgment is demanded. While judicial review of denials or requests for transfers and admission will be available, frequent appeals to the Courts for redress of imagined wrongs will be disruptive of the orderly administration of the school system and, in consequence, detrimental to the progress which is sought by all. In this regard, counsel for plaintiffs also have their work cut out for them.

Paragraph 4 of the prayer seeks to require that assignment of teachers, principals and other professional personnel of the public schools on the basis of race or color be discontinued. We will defer action on this portion of the complaint at this time for the reason stated in Lockett, supra, and Bivins, supra.

A decree will be entered accordingly.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

Pursuant to our Order dated June 23, 1965, enjoining defendant School Board and its agents and representatives from continuing the operation of a biracial public school system in Iberia Parish, Louisiana, the defendants filed a plan with the Court for the desegregation of said schools. The plan is a brief statement of the procedures used heretofore by the Board for the placement of pupils attending schools under its supervision and control, and the criteria applied to all applicants.

It was the Board's position originally that the procedures in question were nondiscriminatory and that, up until the filing of this suit there had been no applications filed...