Stanley v. Darlington County School District, Civ. No. 4:62-7749-22 (D. S.C. 3/1/1995), Civ. No. 4:62-7749-22.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCameron McGowan Currie
Docket NumberCiv. No. 4:62-7749-22.
PartiesTHEODORE WHITMORE STANLEY, JESSE BARBER, JOYCE FRANKLIN, J. W. MACK; ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF, v. DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC BODY CORPORATE; THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WILLIAM P. BECKHAM, III, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; SAMUEL M. GREER, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JOSEPH PEELER STABLER, COLONEL, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; CLEVELAND L. SELLARS, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; AUSTIN FLOYD, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JULIAN B. WRIGHT, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; BRENDA K. VERNON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; EARL BOSTICK, SR., IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; MAXIE DUKE, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; LAURA M. FLEMING, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; FRANK M. HART, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; BETH PINSON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; W. GREGORY HORTON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; ROBERT W. OWEN, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; RUBY MATTHEWS, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; CELIA GETTYS, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; THOMAS E. MCINVILLE, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; DAVID M. BEASLEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; AND BARBARA S. NIELSEN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; GRADY L. PATTERSON, JR., EARLE E. MORRIS, JAMES M. WADDELL, JR., AND WILLIAM D. BOAN, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, DEFENDANTS, DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; CROSS-CLAIMANT, v. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WILLIAM P. BECKMAN, III, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; SAMUEL M. GREER, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JOSEPH PEELER STABLER, COLONEL, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; CLEVELAND L. SELLARS; IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; AUSTIN FLOYD, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JULIAN B. WRIGHT, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; BRENDA K. VERNON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; EARL BOSTICK, SR., IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; MAXIE DUKE, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; LAURA M. FLEMING, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; FRANK M. HART, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; BETH PINSON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; W. GREGORY HORTON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; RUBY MATTHEWS, IN OFFICAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; ROBERT W. OWEN, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; CELIA GETTYS, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; THOMAS E. MCINVILLE, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; DAVID M. BEASLEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; BARBARA S. NIELSEN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; GRADY L. PATTERSON, JR.; EARL E. MORRIS; JAMES M. WADDELL, JR.; WILLIAM D. BOAN; IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CROSS-DEFENDANTS.
Decision Date01 March 1995

Page 1

THEODORE WHITMORE STANLEY, JESSE BARBER, JOYCE FRANKLIN, J. W. MACK; ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF,
v.
DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC BODY CORPORATE; THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WILLIAM P. BECKHAM, III, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; SAMUEL M. GREER, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JOSEPH PEELER STABLER, COLONEL, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; CLEVELAND L. SELLARS, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; AUSTIN FLOYD, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JULIAN B. WRIGHT, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; BRENDA K. VERNON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; EARL BOSTICK, SR., IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; MAXIE DUKE, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; LAURA M. FLEMING, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; FRANK M. HART, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; BETH PINSON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; W. GREGORY HORTON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; ROBERT W. OWEN, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; RUBY MATTHEWS, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; CELIA GETTYS, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; THOMAS E. MCINVILLE, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; DAVID M. BEASLEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; AND BARBARA S. NIELSEN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; GRADY L. PATTERSON, JR., EARLE E. MORRIS, JAMES M. WADDELL, JR., AND WILLIAM D. BOAN, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, DEFENDANTS, DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; CROSS-CLAIMANT,
v.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WILLIAM P. BECKMAN, III, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; SAMUEL M. GREER, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JOSEPH PEELER STABLER, COLONEL, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; CLEVELAND L. SELLARS; IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; AUSTIN FLOYD, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JULIAN B. WRIGHT, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; BRENDA K. VERNON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; EARL BOSTICK, SR., IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; MAXIE DUKE, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; LAURA M. FLEMING, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; FRANK M. HART, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; BETH PINSON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; W. GREGORY HORTON, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; RUBY MATTHEWS, IN OFFICAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; ROBERT W. OWEN, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; CELIA GETTYS, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; THOMAS E. MCINVILLE, IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; DAVID M. BEASLEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; BARBARA S. NIELSEN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; GRADY L. PATTERSON, JR.; EARL E. MORRIS; JAMES M. WADDELL, JR.; WILLIAM D. BOAN; IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CROSS-DEFENDANTS.
Civ. No. 4:62-7749-22.
United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division.
March 1, 1995.
I. BACKGROUND
A. CASE HISTORY PRIOR TO 1970

CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE, District Judge.


On May 29, 1962, black students in the Darlington County School District (hereinafter the "District") sued the District for "operating the public school system . . . on a racially segregated basis," and for "refus[ing] to present a plan for desegregating the public schools." Complaint at 2, 5 (5/29/62). On July 13, 1964, the court found that the District was violating the Constitution by its operation of a dual system of education. See Order at 6-7 (7/13/64). Accordingly, the court enjoined the District from discriminating on the basis of race, and ordered the District to desegregate its school system.

The first plan proposed by the District was a "Free Transfer" plan, which was approved by the court on July 13, 1964. Order (7/13/64). Two years later, however, on August 25, 1966, the court vacated the order implementing the plan because it found that the plan failed to effectively desegregate the school system.1 The court ordered the District to submit another plan. The District submitted plans on January 27, 1967, and March 10, 1967, each of which was found by the court to be constitutionally defective. See Order at 2 (3/10/67). Finally, on March 10, 1967, the court ordered the District to implement a "Freedom of Choice" plan. One year later, however, the court found that the "Freedom of Choice" plan, though once considered constitutionally valid, did not in practice achieve the desegregation requirements articulated by the Supreme Court in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). Order at 1-2 (9/13/68).

The District responded by resubmitting its old "Freedom of Choice" plan. On March 31, 1969, the court again declined to find that plan constitutional. Order at 9-10 (3/31/69). The court then ordered the District to work with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to come up with a new plan. Id. If the District and HEW could not agree on a plan, the court directed that HEW submit a plan for the District. Id. In fact, the District refused to accept HEW's recommendations, and HEW submitted its report on June 2, 1969.2

At a hearing on July 14, 1969, the District rejected the HEW report and submitted yet another "Freedom of Choice" Plan. The court, per Judge Martin, approved the District's plan and stated that "the School District is operating in good faith to fulfill its primary responsibility for abolishing the system of segregated schools as required by Brown." Order at 4 (7/28/69). On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Judge Martin's order, and on January 19, 1970, the Court of Appeals ordered the District to implement a desegregation plan based upon HEW Plan B, or any other plan that would create a unitary school system. See Stanley v. Darlington County Sch. Dist., et al., 424 F.2d 195, 196-97 (4th Cir.), reh'g denied, 424 F.2d 198 (per curiam), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 909 (1970).

B. THE 1970 DESEGREGATION ORDER

In response to the Fourth Circuit's order, Judge Martin held a hearing on February 3, 1970. At the hearing, Judge Martin considered three plans submitted by the parties: (1) a freedom of choice plan favored by the District; (2) "Plan A" favored by Plaintiffs, and (3) a plan based on HEW's "Proposal B," the District's alternate submission to its freedom of choice plan.3

The original, unmodified HEW Plan B was contained in pages 48a through 49j of the HEW report. Plan B contained zone maps delineating new attendance zones which HEW believed might desegregate the schools. Plan B also projected the number of black and white students that would attend each school as a result of the new zoning.

At the hearing on February 3, 1970, Judge Martin rejected the District's plea for another "Freedom of Choice" plan, and indicated his preference for the original HEW Plan B. Hearing Tr. at 43, 61. Accordingly, Judge Martin asked the District why it had changed HEW Plan B. Id. at 61.

In response, the District asserted that it had "not changed the HEW plan B"; rather, the District claimed that the maps submitted to the court by the District simply superimposed Plan B's general lines upon specific streets. See Id. at 62-64. Moreover, the District claimed that the "corrected" projections were simply a more accurate head count of the students within each attendance zone. Id. at 62. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, pointed out changes to the original Plan B zone lines, and indicated that the effect of these changes on desegregation could not be assessed because the District had not provided spot maps to indicate the race of the children in various school zones. Id. at 32-34.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Martin, relying upon representations of the District's attorneys, ordered implementation of "Proposal B submitted by HEW with the specifications and details as provided by the Darlington School Board and such plans and specifications are hereby incorporated into, attached to and made a part of this order." See Id. at 64-69. Judge Martin emphasized, however, that the zone lines submitted by the District were only provisionally approved depending on what kind of results the lines produced: "I just don't want to give the impression that this is the finality regardless of what might arise, because it's a continuing situation." Id. at 70.

Examination of the District's maps, attached to the 1970 order, reveals that the revisions submitted by the District were in fact quite different from the HEW Plan B zone lines.

In addition to containing...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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