Turner v. Warren County Board of Education, 1482-Re Civ.

Decision Date23 May 1970
Docket NumberNo. 1482-Re Civ.,1482-Re Civ.
Citation313 F. Supp. 380
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
PartiesAlvin TURNER et al., (Original) Plaintiffs, and JoAnne Amelia Clayton et al., (Additional) Plaintiffs, v. WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body politic of Warren County, North Carolina, and J. R. Peeler Superintendent of the Warren County Schools, (Original) Defendants, and The Warrenton City Board of Education, a public body corporate of Warren County, North Carolina, the Littleton-Lake Gaston School District, a public body corporate of Warren County and Halifax County, North Carolina, the Halifax County Board of Education, a public body corporate of Halifax County, North Carolina, and Dr. A. Craig Phillips, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of North Carolina, and the North Carolina Board of Education, a public body corporate of the State of North Carolina, (Additional) Defendants.

Theaoseus T. Clayton, Warrenton, N. C., Conrad O. Pearson, Durham, N. C., J. LeVonne Chambers, Charlotte, N. C., Jack Greenberg, Derrick A. Bell, Jr., New York City, for plaintiffs.

Frank Banzet, Warrenton, N. C., William S. McLean, Lumberton, N. C., for defendants.

OPINION

BUTLER, Chief Judge.

This cause was heard on August 21-23, 1969, upon plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from operating the public schools in the Warrenton City Administrative Unit and the Littleton-Lake Gaston School District pursuant to Chapters 578 and 628 of the 1969 Session Laws of North Carolina.1 On August 25, 1969, an order was entered preliminarily enjoining the defendants from taking any further action under the respective legislative Acts, and reserving the question of the constitutionality of the Acts.

This cause was again heard on December 17, 1969, to consider the constitutional issues raised. The issues were presented on the record developed at the previous hearing and other evidence adduced.

Plaintiffs now seek a judgment declaring Chapters 578 and 628 unconstitutional, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing and applying said statutes.

Plaintiffs contend that the purpose and effect of the local Acts is to "perpetuate the racial dual school system in Warren County by removing substantial numbers of white students from the County School System."

Defendants contend that the General Assembly is empowered to create school administrative units; that legislative acts are presumed to be constitutional; that the purpose of the Acts is to improve the educational standards within the new administrative units; that both units will be unitary nonracial school systems, attended by all students within the boundaries of the districts without discrimination as to race or color, and that said Acts are constitutional on their face and do not deprive plaintiffs of any rights, privileges or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution.

Since the cases of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) and 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955), decided approximately fifteen years ago, the Warren County Board of Education has been under the continuous affirmative duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to devote every effort toward disestablishing the dual school system then existing in Warren County.

In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 437, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1694, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968), the Court said:

"School boards such as the respondent then operating state-compelled dual systems were nevertheless clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever step might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch."

For ten years after Brown, and to and including the 1963-64 school year, the defendant Board made no effort and took no steps to convert to a unitary school system in Warren County. During 1963-64 the Board assigned the county's total pupil enrollment as follows: 1,701 white students to 6 all-white schools, 4,064 Negro students to 13 all-Negro schools, and approximately 275 Indian students to one all-Indian school. No teachers were assigned across racial lines.

This action was instituted on November 4, 1963, by 53 Negro children of Warren County in behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging the continued operation of racially segregrated schools in Warren County and seeking to enjoin the defendant Board from the operation of a dual school system.

During the three school years of 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67 the schools of Warren County were operated under consent court orders providing freedom of choice for all the pupils within the system. For the 1964-65 school year 15 Negro students were assigned to previously all-white schools. For the 1965-66 school year 92 Negro students were assigned to predominantly white schools. For the 1966-67 school year 122 Negro students and 37 Indian students were assigned to predominantly white schools.

On May 16, 1967, the court found that the results obtained under the freedom-of-choice plan had not materially furthered the orderly achievement of desegregation in the schools in Warren County, and that subject to a few minor exceptions, the faculties remained segregated. The court enjoined the defendants from discrimination on the basis of race in the operation of the Warren County School System, and ordered the defendants "to take affirmative action to disestablish school segregation in Warren County and to eliminate the effects of the dual school system heretofore operated within the County."

For the 1967-68 school year, following the court order of May 1967, out of a total enrollment of 5,549 students, 173 Negro students and 38 Indian students were assigned to predominantly white schools. The faculty consisted of 85 white teachers, 140 Negro teachers, and 7 Indian teachers. Three white and one Negro teacher were assigned across racial lines. No Negro teacher was assigned to a predominantly white school.

For the 1968-69 school year the defendants estimated that 200 Negro students and 32 Indian students would be assigned to predominantly white schools, or approximately 6% non-white students assigned across racial lines.

On July 31, 1968, the court adjudged that the Warren County School System was an unconstitutional racially dual system and ordered the Board to file with the Court on or before August 5, 1968, a plan to effect a unitary non-racial school system in Warren County.

The Board filed its proposed plan providing for the transfer to predominantly white schools for the 1968-69 school year 56 additional Negro students, plus an unspecified number of Negro students including "a substantial number of Negro high school students * * * to Littleton High School" (a predominantly white school), and the assignment of four Negro teachers and five white teachers across racial lines. No provisions were made for subsequent school years.

On August 8, 1968, the court disapproved the proposed plan and again ordered the defendants to file with the court on or before August 19, 1968, a new and comprehensive plan to effect a unitary nonracial school system in Warren County based on geographical attendance zones, or consolidation or pairing of schools or grades or both, the conversion to such system to be accomplished by the opening of the school year 1969-70.

The Board again filed a plan reiterating its previous proposals for the 1968-69 school year relating to assignments of students and teachers, and a permanent plan to become effective July 1, 1969, dividing Warren County into three geographical zones for assignment of high school students, said zones to be used as a guide for assignment of elementary school students, subject to modifications deemed necessary by the Board, and providing for reassignment of students upon application to any other school in the system.

On August 28, 1968, the court disapproved this plan as inadequate and unacceptable as a reasonable step toward the dismantling of the dual school system for the 1968-69 and subsequent school years, and again ordered the defendants to file on or before December 1, 1968, a comprehensive plan to desegregate completely all of the elementary and secondary schools in the Warren County School System by the opening of the school year 1969-70 in strict compliance with former orders of the court.

On or about December 1, 1968, the Board filed its plan for the desegregation of the schools in Warren County as directed by the court. The plan established geographic attendance zones and provided that all school children within the county should attend schools within their respective zones without regard to race.

On April 10, 1969, House Bill 639 was introduced in the General Assembly of North Carolina, and designated as Chapter 578, Session Laws of North Carolina 1969. On April 11, 1969, Senate Bill 446 was introduced in the said General Assembly, and designated as Chapter 628 of the Session Laws.2

Following voter approval of the establishment and operation of the two school units pursuant to said Acts, the Boards of Education of the Warrenton City and the Littleton-Lake Gaston units adopted regulations permitting transfers of students in and out of said units. Warrenton City established a tuition charge of $75.00 a year for all students transferring into said unit, and Littleton-Lake Gaston charges tuition of $35.00 for elementary students and $50.00 for high school students.

During the school year 1968-69, all the public schools of Warren County were operated by the Warren County Board of Education. There was a total of 5,220 students. The racial composition of the county school system was as follows: White, 1,415 (27%); Negro, 3,524 (67%), and Indian 281 (6%).

The Warrenton City unit has 206 resident students: White, 142 (69%); Negro 64 (31%). The school facilities within the unit will accommodate 1,000...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Evans v. Buchanan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • May 19, 1976
    ...between districts, United States v. Texas D. C., 321 F.Supp. 1043, aff'd, 447 F.2d 441 (5 Cir. 1971); Turner v. Warren County Board of Education, 313 F.Supp. 380 (E.D.N.C. 1970); or by purposeful, racially discriminatory use of state housing or zoning laws, then a decree calling for transfe......
  • Milliken v. Bradley Allen Park Public Schools v. Bradley Grosse Pointe Public School System v. Bradley 8212 434, 73 8212 435 73 8212 436
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • July 25, 1974
    ...75; by transfer of school units between districts, United States v. Texas, 321 F.Supp. 1043, aff'd, 447 F.2d 441; Turner v. Warren County Board of Education, 313 F.Supp. 380; or by purposeful racially discriminatory use of state housing or zoning laws, then a decree calling for transfer of ......
  • United States v. State of Missouri
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • August 27, 1973
    ...746 (5th Cir. 1971); Haney v. Sevier County Board of Education, Arkansas, 410 F.2d 920 (8th Cir. 1969); Turner v. Warren County Board of Education, 313 F.Supp. 380 (E.D.N.C.1970), aff'd sub nom. Turner v. Littleton-Lake Gaston School District, 442 F.2d 584 (4th Cir. 1971); United States v. ......
  • Bradley v. Milliken, 72-1809-72-1814.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 19, 1973
    ......MILLIKEN, Governor of Michigan, etc.; Board of Education of the City of Detroit, ... of finality under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. .         On July 20, 1972, the ... to submit plans encompassing the three-county metropolitan area. An effort was made to appeal ...M. Turner Primary? .         "A. Yes. . ...Turner v. Warren County Board of Education, D.C., 313 F.Supp. 380; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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