Lee v. Macon County Board of Education

Decision Date01 April 1968
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 604-E.
Citation283 F. Supp. 194
PartiesAnthony T. LEE et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor and Amicus Curiae, Alabama State Teachers Association, Inc., Intervening Plaintiff, v. MACON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

Fred D. Gray and Solomon S. Seay, Jr. (Gray, Seay, Langford & Pryor), Montgomery, Ala, Jack Greenberg and Melvyn Zarr, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Stephen J. Pollak, Atty. Gen., and Charles Quaintance and Frank D. Allen, Civil Rights Division, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Ben Hardeman, U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for the United States.

Solomon S. Seay, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for the Alabama State Teachers Association, Inc.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Gordon Madison, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., Hugh Maddox, Legal Adviser to the Governor of the State of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., Maury D. Smith and T. W. Thagard, Jr. (Goodwyn, Smith & Bowman), Montgomery, Ala., and John C. Satterfield, Yazoo City, Miss., for defendants.

Oakley W. Melton, Jr., Montgomery, Ala. (Steiner, Crum & Baker), Montgomery, Ala., for defendant state officials and for Alabama High School Athletic Assn.

Before RIVES, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON and GROOMS, District Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is another supplementary proceeding where the Court is called upon to deal with problems incident to the desegregation of the several public school systems throughout the State of Alabama enumerated in the order entered herein on March 22, 1967.1 This phase of the case was initiated by the motion of the United States seeking to end in the public school systems of Alabama the practice of operating dual athletic programs based upon race; the United States, now joined by the plaintiffs, also seeks an end to the practice of scheduling interscholastic athletic contests by school officials only among the high schools traditionally maintained for students of the same race. When the motions were originally filed and heard on March 9, 1968, the defendants were the State Superintendent of Education and the State Board of Education and its individual members. Subsequent to the March 9 hearing, this Court, pursuant to Rule 21, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by formal order dated March 11, 1968, added the two statewide high school athletic associations as parties defendant. The Court also added as defendants the Alabama Collegiate Conference, the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and the Alabama Junior College Conference. This order was as follows:

"As a result of the hearing of March 9, 1968, the Court will give serious consideration to disestablishing the racially dual athletic systems in the schools, junior colleges and colleges in Alabama subject to the Court's jurisdiction. Any order which may be entered on that subject could seriously affect the two state-wide high school athletic associations, and the junior college and college athletic conferences. Those associations and conferences should be given an opportunity to be heard before any such order is entered.
"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
The ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and James R. Allen, J. L. Nolen, Sam W. Jones, J. T. Greene, Frank Kendall, F. T. Dobbs, W. W. Hester, and M. G. Couch, as members of the Central Board of Control of said association; and Herman L. Scott, as Executive Secretary of said association;
The ALABAMA INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and H. L. Shaw, James Hall, Lawrence Presley, W. J. Yelder, W. F. Burns, W. E. Scoggins, R. A. Stewart, Walker Alexander, Hugh Martin, George Mosby, John Nolen, and Eugene Royster, as members of the Central Board of Control of said association; and Severne Allen Frazier, as Executive Secretary of said association;
The ALABAMA JUNIOR COLLEGE CONFERENCE, and Lathem N. Sibert, E. R. Knox, Rex Turner, James Glasgow, B. E. Lee, and Walter Graham, as members of the Executive Committee of said conference;
The ALABAMA COLLEGIATE CONFERENCE, and Bill Short, Dallas Lancaster, Earl Watson, Ward Tishler, and Jack Powell, as members of the Executive Committee of said conference; and
The SOUTHERN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC CONFERENCE, and E. L. Jackson, Julian Bell, Frank Forbes, C. Johnson Dunn, A. S. Gaither, Jay Hawkins, William Powell, W. T. Green, A. J. Lockhart, H. W. Crawford, and H. B. Thompson, as members of the Executive Committee of said conference,
are hereby added as parties defendant to this action.
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-named defendants appear in person, or through their attorneys, at 9:30 A.M., March 23, 1968, in the courtroom of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, second floor, U. S. Post Office and Courthouse Building, Montgomery, Alabama, and show cause, if any they have, why appropriate orders should not be entered disestablishing the racially dual athletic systems in the schools, junior colleges and colleges of Alabama, and as to all matters relating to the terms and provisions of any order or orders to be entered on that subject."

Subsequent to the entry of this Court's order of March 11, 1968, the Alabama Junior College Association has admitted to its membership the two predominantly Negro junior colleges operated in the State of Alabama. Representatives from the Alabama Junior College Conference have formally assured this Court that no application for membership will be denied upon the basis of race or color and that its membership policies and athletic programs will in the future be carried out without regard to race or color. Upon this assurance, the United States and the plaintiffs have acknowledged to the Court that no further relief against the Alabama Junior College Conference is sought or is necessary.

The United States and the plaintiffs now take the position that at this time they do not desire any relief against the Alabama Collegiate Conference and its members, or the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and its members.

Upon this submission, this Court finds that there are actually two systems of high school athletics in Alabama—one predominantly white and the other Negro. The predominantly white schools belong to the Alabama High School Athletic Association. Their teams play only teams from other predominantly white schools. Their coaches are white and their game officials are white. They belong to conferences only with other predominantly white schools and hold their tournaments, conferences and competitions only for other predominantly white schools. The Negro high schools in Alabama belong to the Alabama Interscholastic Athletic Association. Their teams play only teams from other Negro schools. Their coaches are Negroes, officials at their games are usually Negroes, and their tournaments, conferences and championship games are participated in only by Negroes.

One of the most effective vehicles for the racial separation in Alabama athletics is these two high school athletic associations. All the accredited traditionally white high schools in the State that have interscholastic athletic programs —and there are approximately 360 of them—belong to the Alabama High School Athletic Association. All the traditionally Negro high schools in the State that have interscholastic athletic programs —and there are approximately 195 of them—belong to the Alabama Interscholastic Athletic Association. At the time the motions now presented were filed, both associations had rules which prohibited members of one association from competing against members of the other association in any athletic contests whatsoever.

The white association, by formal resolution on March 13, 1968, amended this rule so as to allow members of its association to play members of the Alabama Interscholastic Athletic Association. The answer of the Alabama Interscholastic Athletic Association filed with this Court on March 23, 1968, now specifically waives its rule which prohibited the Negro schools which were members of its organization from playing members of the Alabama High School Athletic Association.

The evidence is clear—and actually uncontroverted—that it is the policy of the State of Alabama, acting through its various school principals and coaches and the Alabama Interscholastic Athletic Association and the Alabama High School Athletic Association—both of which are State agents2—to operate completely separate athletic programs based upon race or color throughout the schools in the State. The only desegregation of the athletic programs which has occurred in Alabama has been minimal and has occurred through some Negro athletes exercising a freedom of choice to attend predominantly white schools. The evidence is also clear that it is the policy of the State, acting through these various State agents, not to schedule athletic contests between a team from a traditionally white school and a team from a traditionally Negro school.

It is without serious...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Hartzell v. Connell
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 20 d5 Abril d5 1984
    ...which constitute an "essential component of an education." (Id., at p. 196.) Similarly, the court in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education (M.D.Ala.1968) 283 F.Supp. 194 invalidated Alabama's system of segregation in interscholastic athletics partly because such activities are "integral" t......
  • Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education, Civ. A. No. 2072-N.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 22 d3 Maio d3 1974
    ...Educ., 253 F.Supp. 306 (M. D.Ala.1966). 53 Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Educ., 267 F.Supp. 458 (M.D.Ala.1967). 54 Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Educ., 283 F.Supp. 194 (M.D.Ala.1968). 55 Carr v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 289 F.Supp. 647 (M.D.Ala.), aff'd as modified, 400 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 19......
  • Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 6 d4 Abril d4 2006
    ...258 Cal.Rptr. 101; Kelley v. Metropolitan County Bd. of Education (M.D.Tenn.1968) 293 F.Supp. 485, 493; Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Education (M.D.Ala. 1968) 283 F.Supp. 194, 197. 5. Taking the allegations of the complaint as true, it is clear Avila's injury occurred during a school-sponsore......
  • Smith v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Montgomery
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 14 d3 Junho d3 1972
    ...Terminal Co., 5 Cir. 1971, 451 F.2d 418; see also Hicks v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., E.D.La.1970, 310 F.Supp. 536; Lee v. Macon County, M.D.Ala.1968, 283 F.Supp. 194. Since we hold that such relief is not necessary in this case we note these precedents as indicating current developments of th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Attorney Fred Gray: another drum major for justice.
    • United States
    • Faulkner Law Review Vol. 3 No. 2, March 2012
    • 22 d4 Março d4 2012
    ...F. Supp. 117 (M.D. Ala. 1966) (one of the first civil actions brought to remedy systematic exclusion of blacks from jury service). (11) 283 F. Supp. 194 (M.D. Ala. 1968) (integrating state institutions of higher learning under the Alabama State Board of Education and 104 of the then 121 ele......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT