Nesbit v. Statesville City Board of Education, 13229

• Decision Date: 02 December 1969
• Docket Number: No. 13229,13626,13803.,13582,13583,13229
• Citation: 418 F.2d 1040
• Parties: Harriett D. NESBIT et al., Appellants, v. The STATESVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a public body corporate of Statesville, North Carolina, and A. D. Kornegay, Superintendent of Statesville City Public Schools, Appellees. Herbert ZIGLAR, Jr., Minor, by Herbert Ziglar, Sr., his father and next friend, Earl Ray Pass, Minor, by George Pass, his father and next friend, Omat Bosal Thomas, Minor, by Evelyn Rudd, his guardian and next friend, Lillian Bell, Minor, by Charles Bell, her father and next friend, Appellants, v. REIDSVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Reidsville, North Carolina, a public body corporate, Appellee. Clarence THOMPSON et al., Appellants, v. DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body politic of Durham County, North Carolina, and Charles H. Chewning, Superintendent of the Durham County Schools, Appellees. Brenda Lee TRAYNHAM et al., Appellees, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF HALIFAX COUNTY and the Committee For Control and J. L. Link, Paul C. Beatty, Edwin Conner, Armistead Traynham, George P. Smith, Logan Young, T. K. McDowell, Thomas E. Bradley, Frank M. Slayton, and Udy C. Wood, Division Superintendent of Schools, Appellants. Thomas TUCKER, Jr., et al., Appellees, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF AMHERST COUNTY, VIRGINIA, et al., Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

418 F.2d 1040 (1969)

Harriett D. NESBIT et al., Appellants, v. The STATESVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a public body corporate of Statesville, North Carolina, and A. D. Kornegay, Superintendent of Statesville City Public Schools, Appellees.

Herbert ZIGLAR, Jr., Minor, by Herbert Ziglar, Sr., his father and next friend, Earl Ray Pass, Minor, by George Pass, his father and next friend, Omat Bosal Thomas, Minor, by Evelyn Rudd, his guardian and next friend, Lillian Bell, Minor, by Charles Bell, her father and next friend, Appellants, v. REIDSVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Reidsville, North Carolina, a public body corporate, Appellee.

Clarence THOMPSON et al., Appellants, v. DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body politic of Durham County, North Carolina, and Charles H. Chewning, Superintendent of the Durham County Schools, Appellees.

Brenda Lee TRAYNHAM et al., Appellees, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF HALIFAX COUNTY and the Committee For Control and J. L. Link, Paul C. Beatty, Edwin Conner, Armistead Traynham, George P. Smith, Logan Young, T. K. McDowell, Thomas E. Bradley, Frank M. Slayton, and Udy C. Wood, Division Superintendent of Schools, Appellants.

Thomas TUCKER, Jr., et al., Appellees, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF AMHERST COUNTY, VIRGINIA, et al., Appellants.

Nos. 13229, 13582, 13583, 13626, 13803.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued December 1, 1969.

Decided December 2, 1969.

J. LeVonne Chambers and Adam Stein, Charlotte, N. C. (Conrad O. Pearson, Durham, N. C., Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit, III, Robert Belton and Norman Chachkin, New York City, on the briefs) for appellants Harriett D. Nesbitt and others.

Don P. Bagwell, Halifax, Va., and Frederick T. Gray, Richmond, Va., for appellants County School Board of Halifax County.

J. B. Wyckoff, Amherst, Va., for appellants County School Board of Amherst County, Va., and others.

Robert A. Collier, Sr., Statesville, N. C. (Collier, Harris & Homesley, Statesville, N. C., on the brief) for appellees Statesville City Board of Education and others.

William F. McLeod, Reidsville, N. C. (McLeod and Campbell, Reidsville, N. C., on the brief) for appellee Reidsville Board of Education.

Jerry L. Jarvis, Durham, N. C. (Watkins & Jarvis, Durham, N. C., on the brief) and James L. Newsom, Durham, N. C. (Newsom, Graham, Strayhorn & Hedrick, Durham, N. C., on the brief) for appellee Durham County Board of Education.

S. W. Tucker, Richmond, Va. (Henry L. Marsh, III, Hill, Tucker & Marsh, Richmond, Va., Ruth L. Harvey, J. L. Williams, Danville, Va., Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit, III, Norman Chachkin, New York City, on the brief) for appellees Brenda Lee Traynham and another.

David L. Norman, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen. (Jerris Leonard, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Brian K. Landsberg, David D. Gregory, and Charles K. Howard, Attys., Dept. of Justice, on the brief) as amicus curiae for the United States.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, SOBELOFF, BRYAN, WINTER, CRAVEN, and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.

PER CURIAM:

We consolidate these appeals for hearing and disposition in light of Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 41 (October 29, 1969). That recent decision of the Supreme Court teaches "under explicit holdings of this Court the obligation of every school district is to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools." The clear mandate of the Court is immediacy. Further delays will not be tolerated in this circuit. No school district may continue to operate a dual system based on race. Each must function as a unitary system within which no person is to be excluded from any school on the basis of race.

We think that the urgency of the mandate of Alexander can be accomplished in the following manner and by the following time schedule, which we direct for these cases. Accordingly,

It is hereby ADJUDGED, ORDERED, and DECREED:

1. Each of the school districts shall submit to the district court a plan for unitary schools on or before December 8, 1969;

A. The plan for Statesville must provide for the elimination of the racial characteristics of Morningside School by pairing, zoning, or consolidation with Mulberry School;

B. In Reidsville, the district judge should select, with modifications if any, the pairing plan, on which the parties agreed in August 1968, the school board's zoning plan, or any other method that may be expected most effectively to provide for a unitary school system;

C. For Durham, the district judge may accept the Larson plan with modifications and refinements that will achieve a unitary system, or any other method that may be expected to work;

D. In Halifax, the plan must provide for the elimination of racial characteristics in the secondary schools either by pairing, zoning, or by any other method that may be expected to work;

E. In Amherst, the plan must eliminate the racial characteristics of the elementary schools either by pairing, zoning, or by any other method that may be expected to work, including assignment of Negro children to schools attended by neighboring white children;

F. All plans must include...