Whittenberg v. Greenville County School District, Civ. A. No. 4396
| Decision Date | 31 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | 7210,68-830,8301,68-1065 and 69-43 to 69-46.,68-698,66-598,66-536,66-96,67-628,8753,8752,68-699,AC-1240,Civ. A. No. 4396,66-183,68-697,7749,7747 |
| Citation | 298 F. Supp. 784 |
| Parties | Elaine WHITTENBERG et al. v. GREENVILLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Millicent F. BROWN et al. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT 20, CHARLESTON COUNTY. Theodore W. STANLEY et al. v. DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Roberta RANDALL et al. v. SUMTER SCHOOL DIST. 2. Charles E. MILLER et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. 2 CLARENDON COUNTY. Shirley Mae WHEELER et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. 3 CLARENDON COUNTY. Van H. DeLEE et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. 3 DORCHESTER COUNTY. Rebecca DRAYTON et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. 2 DORCHESTER COUNTY. UNITED STATES v. LEXINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 1. UNITED STATES v. SCHOOL DIST. 2 CALHOUN COUNTY. UNITED STATES v. SCHOOL DIST. 1 DORCHESTER COUNTY. Rudolph W. ADAMS et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. 5 ORANGEBURG COUNTY. Bobby BRUNSON et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. 1 CLARENDON COUNTY. UNITED STATES v. ALLENDALE COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. UNITED STATES v. ELLOREE SCHOOL DISTRICT. UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 3. Rodney ALBERT et al. v. BAMBERG COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 2. Sylvia SCOTT et al. v. LEE COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 1. UNITED STATES v. GEORGETOWN COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. UNITED STATES v. BAMBERG COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. 2. UNITED STATES v. NORTH SCHOOL DIST. 1 of HAMPTON COUNTY. UNITED STATES v. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Donald James Sampson, Greenville, S. C., Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., Jack Greenberg, New York City, for Elaine Whittenberg and others.
E. P. Riley, Greenville, S. C., for Greenville County Schl. Dist.
Michael Davidson, Jack Greenberg, New York, N. Y., Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., F. Henderson Moore, Sr., Benjamin Cook, Jr., Charleston, S. C., for Millicent F. Brown and others.
Charles H. Gibbs, Burnet R. Maybank, Joseph H. McGee, Jr., Charleston, S. C., D. W. Robinson, Sr., A. T. Graydon, Columbia, S. C., for Schl. Dist. 20, Charleston County.
(Mrs.) Vilma Martinez Singer, Jack Greenberg, New York City, Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Sumter, S. C., for Theodore W. Stanley and others.
Benny R. Greer, Darlington, S. C., for Darlington County Schl. Dist.
Mordecai Johnson, Florence, S. C., Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Sumter, S. C., Jack Greenberg, New York City, for Roberta Randall and others.
Klyde Robinson, U. S. Atty., Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Sumter, S. C., Jack Greenberg, New York City, for Charles E. Miller and others.
Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Sumter, S. C., Jack Greenberg, New York City, for Shirley Mae Wheeler and others.
Marion S. Riggs, James M. Morris, Manning, S. C., for Schl. Dists. 2 and 3, Clarendon County.
Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Sumter, S. C., Earl W. Coblyn, Orangeburg, F. Henderson Moore, Sr., Charleston, S. C., Jack Greenberg, New York City, for Van H. DeLee and others.
Sidney B. Jones, Jr., Summerville, S. C., Ben Scott Whaley, Charleston, S. C., for Schl. Dist. 3, Dorchester County.
Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Sumter, S. C., F. Henderson Moore, Sr., Charleston, S. C., Jack Greenberg, New York City, for Rebecca Drayton and others.
Sidney B. Jones, Jr., Summerville, S. C., for Schl. Dist. 2, Dorchester County.
Klyde Robinson, U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., Frank E. Schwelb, Civil Rights Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the United States in Nos. 66-96, 66-598, 66-697.
J. Means McFadden, Columbia, S. C., T. H. Rawl, Jr., Lexington, S. C., for Lexington County Schl. Dist. 1.
A. T. Graydon, Harry M. Lightsey, Jr., Columbia, S. C., for Schl. Dist. 2, Calhoun County.
J. Wilson Patrick, St. George, S. C., for Schl. Dist. 1, Dorchester County.
Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., Zack Townsend, Orangeburg, S. C., Jack Greenberg, New York City, for Rudolph W. Adams and others.
D. W. Robinson, Sr., Columbia, S. C., C. Walker Limehouse, Orangeburg, S. C., for Schl. Dist. 5, Orangeburg County.
Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., Jack Greenberg, New York City, for Bobby Brunson and others.
D. W. Robinson, Sr., Columbia, S. C., James M. Morris, Manning, S. C., for Schl. Dist. 1, Clarendon County.
Klyde Robinson, U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., Maceo W. Hubbard, Civil Rights Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the United States in No. 68-698.
Klyde Robinson, U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., Frank Hill, Frank M. Dunbaugh, Civil Rights Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the United States in No. 67-628.
Klyde Robinson, U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., Stephen J. Pollack, Robert Hocutt, Maceo W. Hubbard, Civil Rights Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the United States in No. 68-699.
Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., for Rodney Albert and others and Sylvia Scott and others.
Harry M. Lightsey, Jr., Columbia, S. C., for Bamberg County Schl. Dist. 2, Lee County Schl. Dist. 1, North Schl. Dist. 1 of Hampton County.
Klyde Robinson, U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., for the United States in Nos. 69-43 to 69-46.
Grimes & Hinds, Georgetown, S. C., for Georgetown County Schl. Dist.
H. Simmons Tate, Jr., Columbia, S. C., for Chesterfield County Schl. Dist.
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen. of South Carolina, Columbia, S. C., for the State of South Carolina.
Before MARTIN, Chief Judge, and HEMPHILL, SIMONS and RUSSELL, District Judges.
All of the above actions seek desegregation of certain school districts in South Carolina. After hearings, decrees were entered in 13 of such actions and, for some time, the schools involved in those actions have been operated in conformity with such decrees. Nine of the actions, filed within recent months, have not proceeded to a decree. Following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Green v. County School Board (1968) 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716, and the two related cases of Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443, 88 S.Ct. 1697, 20 L.Ed.2d 727 and Monroe v. Board of Commissioners,1 391 U.S. 450, 88 S.Ct. 1700, 20 L.Ed.2d 733, this Court, sitting en banc, held a combined hearing in all these cases and entered an Order, applicable to all cases, that the defendant school districts should promptly submit such amendments, if any, to the existing decrees or, in the case of school districts not now operating under a decree, of their current method of operation, as might be necessary or appropriate to bring such decrees or their administration into conformity with the rulings in the Green Case. Pursuant to that order, all the school districts have made return, alleging generally that their present plans of operation, whether under a decree or as adopted by them without a decree, meet the criteria fixed by the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs in all the actions, after reviewing the returns of the school districts, have entered their objections to those returns, contending that the outstanding decrees and plans of operation by the school districts do not comply with the constitutional standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Green Case.
In this situation, the Court is faced with the task of fashioning decrees that will assure compliance by the school districts with the applicable constitutional standards. The school districts involved in these actions, however, vary considerably in composition and character; they require individual appraisal of their practical, administrative and educational condition; they do not lend themselves to a uniform type of decree.2 Each school district must be dealt with separately, taking into consideration its own peculiar or unique situation and conditions. For instance, some are located in metropolitan areas where perhaps geographic attendance zones3 or school pairings might offer possible avenues for acceptable compliance. Others, like Elloree School District or Clarendon School District #2, are situate in agricultural areas and have limited physical facilities. Thus, in Clarendon School District #2, the antiquated high school building used normally by white students can physically accommodate only 480 students, whereas the high school building, modern in every respect, attended normally by Negro students, has physical facilities for 840 students. The allocation of students between such physical accommodations on some rational educational and administrative lines, it is obvious, presents a difficult problem for judicial resolution. Moreover, the proportion and distribution of Negro students in the several school districts differ markedly, making for possible differences in the shape an appropriate decree might assume.4
It must be borne in mind that there are but 22 South Carolina school districts whose operations would be affected by decrees entered in these actions. There are, though, 93 school districts in South Carolina. All are confronted in some degree with the same problem of compliance faced by the school districts involved in these actions. Enforcement of compliance on the part of most of these districts, however, has been assumed not in adversary proceedings in the Courts, but by administrative action on the part of the office of Education of H. E. W. Thus, 34 school districts are either presently operating under, or will commence operating in September, 1969, under plans of compliance approved by H. E. W. Fourteen others are involved in administrative proceedings for enforcement of compliance, conducted under the authority of H. E. W.5
The plans approved by H. E. W. have resulted from serious discussions between the officials of the school districts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Board of School Com'rs of City of Indianapolis, Indiana
...States v. Texas, 342 F.Supp. 24, 29 (E.D.Tex.1971), aff'd, 466 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1972); Whittenberg v. Greenville County School Dist., 298 F.Supp. 784, 790 (D.S.C.1969) (three-judge panel). In Plaquemines Parish School Board v. United States, 415 F.2d 817, 833 (5th Cir. 1969), the court of......
-
Robinson v. Vollert
...328 (4th Cir. 1967); Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 355 F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1966); Whittenberg v. Greenville County School Dist., 298 F.Supp. 784, 789 (D.S.C.1969); United States v. Elloree School District No. 7, 283 F.Supp. 557, 562 Precedent in this Circuit leaves no......
-
US v. Charleston County School Dist., Civ. A. No. 2:81-0050-8
...14, 19 (8th Cir.1965); Singleton v. Jackson Mun. Separate School Dist., 348 F.2d 729 (5th Cir.1965); Whittenberg v. Greenville County School Dist., 298 F.Supp. 784, 789 (D.S.C.1969); Wright v. County School Bd. of Greenville County, Va., 252 F.Supp. 378, 383 The OCR decision making process ......
-
United States v. State of Texas
...Federal courts to seek the aid of the Office of Education in the drafting of school desegregation plans. Whittenberg v. Greenville County School District, 298 F.Supp. 784 (D.S.C.1969) (4-judge In many matters involving segregated public schools, it is unnecessary to seek relief against a st......