1963 Newspaper Clippings School Desegregation Part 4

SCHOOLDESEGREGATION IN

ENGLEWOOD, NJ

1963JULY - DECEMBER

The Englewood Public Library was gifted with two copies of:

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ELEMENTARY RIGHTSTHE BATTLE OVER SCHOOL DESEGREGATION IN ENGLEWOOD,

NEW JERSEY

BYGREGORY H. REUBEN

A Thesis Presented to Princeton University in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in the Department of

History, Princeton, New Jersey 2003

In addition, the author presented to the Englewood Public Library theoriginal working research papers for his thesis, most of which can be found

in these bound volumes. Public school desegregation remains a central issuein Englewood history, development and politics.

Englewood Public LibraryFall 2004

C-425

DffiCRAH SPTOILL, « »!»«, by Mr.. and Mr*. John T. 9pnalU, **»parent* and next friend*,

PETITICKER,

V.

THK BOARD CT BDOCATIOH CrraE COT™E»B5WOCO, BBUDBN COUNTT,

RESPCKOSNT.

lECISICIl CF THE

CCW03SICIJER c

parent, et al.,PETITIONERS,

V.BCARD CT EDUCATION CFTHE COT

BMOIBWOCD, BEBQEN COUKTI,RE3PCWDEOT.

parent*, et al.

VOLPE, minors,, their

PETTTIOKERS,

V.

THE BCARD OF EDDCATION CF THE CITYOP EHQUSWOQD, BEBDEN COOOTI,

RESPONDENT.

yor Petitioner Sprulll

For Petitioner* Anonan, et al. i

For Petitioners Volp*, et al. iFor Reepondent

Wllllan K. Kunatler, Eaq. of theKew lorlc Bar

Robert Q. Platoff, Eaq.Arnold E. Brow, Eaq.Robert a. Platoff, Eaq.Oeorge B. Qelnan, Eaq.David 3. Qreenberg, Eaq.Robert L. Carter, Esq.

^ HeibertjH. Tate, Eaq.Barbara Morrisi", Esq.Maria Marcus, Eaq.Vllllaa V. Brealln, Esq.Abraham A. Lebacn,

Two of the petition! in tbia matter, the fixvt brought in behalf of

their child by Mr. and Mr*. John T. Spnilll and the aeoond filed in the name of

a group of children by their parent* and oaptioned Aporum, et •!., charge the

reapondent Board of Education vith the maintenance of racially aegregated pobllo

schools and vith refusal to implement plans to eliminate pattern* of racial **g-

regation alleged to exist in the public aohoola. They seek an Order requiring

reapondent to take inasdtate atepe to eliminate all aspects of racial aegregation

in the Englevood public aohool system. The Ancrum petitioner* pray further that

the Board of Education be directed to put into effect a particular proposal

referred to aa the "central intermediate school11 plan described more fully herein*

after. Reapondent deniea both charges.

The third group of petitioners, Volpe, et al., In a Cross-Pet It Ion of

Ippeal directed against the Bnglevood Board of Education, protest any Intentional

deriation from the present composition of the elementary schools and seek to

enjoin the establishment of the central Intermediate school sought by the Anorum

petitioners. They pray for an Order restraining the Board of Education from

violating the neighborhood achool principle or from unneceaaary expenditure* of

public fund*. Respondent request* dismissal of all petition* on the ground* that

the Board of Education la not discriminating against any children and that there

la no basis In law or In fact for the petitions or the cross-petition.

After the joining of this action, the Volpe petitioners filed a Petition

to Interrene in the Spnilll matter. A motion to strike the Petition to Intervene,

filed by counsel for Mrs. Spruill, was denied by the Commissioner and intervention

vas granted. Subsequently, leave was also given to the Volpa party to intervene

in the Ancrum matter.

In addition to the Board of Education, the Ancrum petition alao named

the Board of School Estimate and the Mayor and Common Sounull -of Englewood

as respondents. A Motion made to dismiss the Board of School Estimate and the

Mayor and Common Council from the complaint, on the ground that the Commissioner

of Education iacksTwladlotion over these parties, was granted,Cleaving the .

Englewood City Board of Education as the sole respondent.

By consent of all parties, the separate Petitions of Appeal herein were

consolidated and heard as one matter. Hearings vere held by the Assistant Corcmis-

- 2 -

stoner of Education in charge of Controversies and Disputes on April 1, 2, 3, b, 5>

10, 15, 16, and 17 In the Bergen County Court House, Haekensack.

The School District of the City of Englewood Is organized under the pro-

vtalma of Chapter 6 of Title 18 of the Revisad Statutes. Its Board of Education

consists of 5 raentoers appointed by the Mayor, and Its funds for operation of the

schools are s\fc ject to approval by the Board of School Estimate. There is one

high school housing grades 10, ll, and 12 and one Junior high school attended by

grades 7, 8, and 9. As all the children in these grades attend these schools

without regard to where they reside in the school district, the Issues raised

herein pertain only to the five elementary schools, to which pupils are assigned

on the basis of residence in designated attendance areas. These schools, their

enrollment and racial composition as pf September 19, 1962, were as follows i

School No. of Pupils % White % Negro

ClevelandLUsertyLincolnQuarlesRoosevelt

• - — — • — .

U77lasSo53U33U5

- nn

99.638.02.0

96.885.5

.U62.098.03.2

1U.5

While this complaint is directed to the school system generally, its focus is on

the Lincoln School, whose enrollment is comprised almost exclusively of Negro

children.

The Lincoln School was also the center of an earlier controversy involving

racial issues. In 195U, a complaint was brought before the Commissioner of Educa-

tion under the Law Against Discrimination, R.S. I8t25-l, et seq., claiming that

the Board of Education had drawn its attendance area boundaries so as to unlawfully

discriminate against certain Negro pupils. Walker and Anderson v. En^lewppd Board

of Education, decided Hay-19, 1955. InJMay, 1955, the Commissioner directed the

Board to redraw the boundary lines affecting the Lincoln and Liberty Schools and

also ordered the elimination of a second junior high school housed in the Lincoln

School. The Board complied with the Commissioner's directive and its action was

approved by him.

On April 10, 1961, respondent directed its Superintendent of Schools to

make a study of school enrollment problems and future needs. Two months later the

- 3 -

Board auppleosented this directive by instructing the Superintendent to Include in

hi* survey the question of the racial composition of the elementary schools. The

study was completed in February, 1962, and reported to the Board by the Superinten-

dent in a publication entitled "Englewood, its People and its Schools," since

conaonly referred to as the "Stearns Report.*1

Before the Steams Report vas completed, an action vaa initiated in the

United States District Court In Newark, Mew Jersey, on behalf of Ellen Shepard and

others, naming the Englewood Board' of Education, its Superintendent of Schools and

the Ccunlasloner of Education as defendants and raising issues similar to those

herein. Judge Augelll dismissed the suit, sayings

"Until suoh tine as plaintiffs have exhausted the stateadministrative remedies provided by N.J.S.A. 18:3-11;and 15, this Court.should not entertain the action."Shepard, et al..v. Board of Education of City ofEngWood, et al., feo? Y. Supp. 3U1.

Plaintiffs above have not brought the matter before the C crania* loner, of Education

as of this date.

following receipt of the Stearns Report, two plans aimed at relieving

the concentration of Negro pupils in any of the elementary schools were proposed

by the Board of Education. The first, announced in May, 1962, provided for enroll-

ment on. a voluntary basis in a "demonstration school" to be housed in the former ..

Engle Street Junior High School building now used for administrative offices. This

idea was abandoned when a poll of parents failed to produce a sufficient nunfaer of

potential pupils to be enrolled. The second plan, announced in July, 1962, pro-- > - -

posed rehabilitation of the former junior high school" building at 11 Engle Street

and the establishment there of a "central intermediate school." All 5th grade

pupils, irrespective of residence, would have attended this building during the ; ;

1962-63 school year and all 5th and 6th grade pupils in subsequent years.-

The Board of Education then made a request for an appropriation of

$35,000 to the Board of School Estimate, to be used with available surplus funds

•—to accomplish the rehabilitation needed ~to_put,thecentral intermediate school

plan into operation. This req\»st was not approved by the Board of School Estimate,

and the proposal to establish a central intermediate school was^not carried out.

There followed then the filing of the petitions of appeal herein.

Shortly after the filing of these appeals, six neuters of the staff of .

the State Department of Education conducted a survey of the Englewood Public Schools

and presented their findings to the Commissioner of Education on Oetcber $, 1962,

la a report entitled "A Study of Baoial Distribution In the Englewood, New Jersey,

Public Schools," referred to hereinafter as the "Fact^Flndlng Report."

The Mew Jersey law applicable to the Issues raised herein is found In

the New Jersey State Constitution, Article I, section 5s

"No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civilor military right, nor be discriminated against In the

;; exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segre--•' gated In the militia or In the public schools, became

of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national- origin."

and in R.S\:

"Each school district shall provide suitable schoolfacilities and accommodations for all children who

'.-,'. reside in the district and desire to attend thepublic schools therein. Such facilities and accojm-

r modationa shall include proper school buildings,together with furniture and equipment, convenienceof access thereto, and courses of study suited tothe ages and attainments of all pupils between theages of five and twenty years. * * *"

These appeals require the Commissioner to determine the following questions!

1. Is the Englewood Board of Education maintaining a racially segregated

school system by deliberate action and Intent?

~~2~.Does~the fact that the enrollment in Lincoln School is comprised

almostêxclusively of Negro pupils, whether by design or not, require- the Board

of Education to take affirmative action to improve the racial balance in the school?

The answer to the first question must be in the negative. While petition-

era in their pleadings and in some of the testimony imply that respondent may have

been guilty of intentional racial segregation, they do not press _the issue nor has

evidence of any kind been produced 'to establish such a charge. Petitioner, Sprulll^, l :

in fact, very plainly states in her brief tha't, "No accusation that respondent was

or is guilty of de jure segregation .has been made" and that she "is concerned only

with de'facto segrepaticn.'! All witnesses_whg were questioned on this issue were

emphatic in their denial of any action aimed at deliberate segregation by race in

the schools. The Commiaaicner finds no evidence to support a charpe of intentional

racial segregation by respondent.

\1

Thia leads to the second question and the fact that the population of

the Lincoln School la almost entirely Negro. That thif concentration of pupils

of one rmoe results from pattern* of housing and the operation of other soalo-

economlo foroea La apparent. The Comiaalcner agreea with reapondent when it

says la It* brief, "However lamentable the housing and other non-eehool problena

say be, It 1* not the reaponaiblllty of the Board, nor doaa it have any control liver

theee housing and non-school problems." The Comnlaaioner has previously atated

that In hia opinion the ultimate solution to thia problem lies in the free oholoe

of residence and the elimination of segregated housing. Fiaher v. Orange City

Board of Education, decided May 15, 1963.

Reapondent maintains that the educational opportunities afforded Engle-

wood children are equal regardless of school attended. It arguea that former Super-

intendent Harry Stearns ao teat If lad and points alao to a statement to that effect

in the Tact-Finding Report. The Commissioner flnda no reason to dispute thia claim

in terras of meaaurable objective criteria such as similarity of instructional

materials, class size, teacher preparation and assignment, facilities and equipment,

expenditure per pupil, etc. But aa he haa already said In Fisher v. Oranget supra,

he Is of the opinion that

»* * * in the minds of Negro pupils and parentsa stigma la attached to attending a school -whose

----- enrollment la completely or almost exclusivelyNegro, and that this sense of stigma and resultingfeeling of inferiority have an undeairable effectupon attitudes related to successful learning.

.RAanjcniiy JCnan this .tsremlae and recognizing theright of every child to equal educational oppor-tunity, the Commissioner is convinced that indeveloping its pupil assignment policies and in

" planning for new school buildings, a board ofeducation must take into account the continuedexistence or potential creation of a school pop-ulated entirely, or nearly so, by Negro pupila." _ „

The Commissioner holds, therefore, that compulsory attendance at an all Negro school,

such as the Lincoln School, at least where appropriate means can be found to avoid

it, constitutes a denial of educational opportunity under New Jeraey law which the

school district Is required to correct. _.„:_

There remains the question of appropriate means for reducing the racial

homogeneity in the Lincoln School. The evidence In this case discloses that a

nuirber of plans have been proposed to and considered by the Board. That there are

_ 6 -

still other plane which oan be devised, effectively dealing vith the problsa, the

ConBlaaloner has no doubt. The formulation ot the moot suitable plan, however, Is

• fraction ot the respondent Board of Education and the Conmisaiaoer reserve* to it

the right to prescribe the precise formula vhioh will provide the beet answer to

thU complex problem* Aa be aaid In the oaae of Booker v. Plainfield Board of

EdBBation. decided June 26, 1963s

"The Con&iaaioner believes that it la the responsibilityand the prerogative of the Board of Education to determinevhioh of the propoaalfl is beat suited to the needa of theschool ayatem which it la called upcn to operate.*

It ia toward the adoption of a plan that would alter preaent pupil

aisignnent policies that the main thrust of the Volpe petitions la directed. These

petitioners argue that the "neighborhood school policy" ia the law of New Jersey

and any change in that policy on the basis of racial consideration* ia Illegal.

They contend that the Ccoralssloner haa no authority to set aaide the "neighborhood

school policy" but. ia required to uphold it and prevent Its abuse. Thia group

opposes the central intermediate school advocated by the Ancrum petitioners or any

other plan that assigns pupils to a school other than the one nearest their place

of residence.

It ia well established that the assignment of pupils to the schools they

»ne to attend ia within the authority of the local board of education. Piarce T«

1teion~DlBtrict' SohooTTruateea ^ U6 N.J.L. 76 CSUp. Ct, 188U) j Edwards-V. Atlantic

City Board of Education, 1938 S.L.D, 683 (1923); Clauaner, at al. v. Board of Educa-

tion of Millburn. 1938 S.L.D. 6h5 (1936). The assignment of pupils in tern of

proximity of hone and school is the moat commonly employed method of establishing

attendance areas not only in New Jersey but in the United States generally.

Traditionally, school districts have erected schools in areas of moat concentrated

population with the purpose of locating school buildings as close as possible to

•the hones of the children to be served. The logic and .the inherent educational

values of such a program are indisputable. The Commissioner has alao made his -

position clear on this question in Fisher v. Orange, supra, when he said:

"The practice of assigning pupils to schools near theirhomes, particularly with regard to children of elementaryschool age, Is well established and 1* attended by educa-tlcnal values that ark vide ly accepted, not only by ed-ucators, but by the pvtollc generally. Consideration of

- 7 -

Bach factors as distance to be traveled, safety,economy of tiae, establishment of rapport betweenschool and hone, and knowledge by the school staffof the child's environment have operated to estab-lish oonbveoienee of access as the controllingcriterion of pupil assignment, and the Importanceof these values cannot be denied."

Obviously, however, the assignment of pupils to nearby schools Is a

general principle and is not to be applied inflexibly when other considerations

outweigh its valuea. The CconlM loner believes that a plan for the reduction of

the racial concentration at the Lincoln School can be f emulated which will not

do violence to reasonable attendance areas. Whatever plan is adopted must, of

course, meet the testa of reasonableness, of practicability, and of consistency

with sound educational practice. From his study of the evidence In this case,

the Commissioner is convinced that the respondent Board of Education can choose

from among the proposals already made to it, or from others that it has already

devised or will formulate, the means beat suited to reduce the present concentration

of Negro pupils In the Lincoln School which will at the same time maintain long-

recognized valuea.

It ia entirely possible that there may be of necessity both a short-

range and a long-range solution to this problem. The Commissioner Li aware that

any long-range solution will possible require expenditures for capital construction,

which cannot be accomplished by September, 1963.

Although the controversy whioh the Commissioner Is asked to decide in

this and similar oases is centered around the question of civil rights, it must

be remembered that so far as the schools are concerned their fundamental purpose

ia the proper conduct of the educational process. Controversy must be resolved

so that teachers and.school leaders may go ahead with the task of Improving educa-

tional "opportunities for all pupils. Discussions which the Ccraniasloner has had

with teachers, principals, and superintendents throughout the State convince him

that these persona to whom education Is entrusted cannot perform their duties

effectively when their work is carried on In a climate of continuous tension and

controversy. It is for this reason as well as the others stated that the Commis—

sloner concludes that the current and long-standing dispute involving the Lincoln

School must be resolved without delay. Continuation will damage the pupils of not

only that school but all others in the community. Hence, the entire community has

a stake in a solution which will make it possible for the school staff to devote its!.

. - _ 8 -

undivided attention and effort to planning for better educational opportunities for

all pupils.

The Conmisa loner finds and determines«

1. that there ia no evidence in this case of any deliberate intent by

the Englewood Board of Education to segregate Its pupils by raoe in the public

schools).. . • — •

2. that the pupil assignment policies currently in force in the Englevood

School District result in an extreme concentration of pupils of the Negro raoe in

the Lincoln School)

3. that attendance at the almost exclusively Negro Lincoln School engenders

feelings and attitudes In pupils which tend to Interfere with learning)

U. that, where means exist to prevent it, such a concentration of Negro

pupils as exists in the Lincoln School constitutes a deprivation of educational

opportunity under New Jersey law for the pupils compelled to attend the school)

5. that reasonable and practicable means consistent with accepted educa-

tional and administrative practice can be devised to.reduce the present racial con-

centration in the Lincoln School.

Having reached these conclusions, the Commissioner sees no need to

determine other issues raised and argued in this matter.

The Commissioner of Education directs the Englewood Board of Education ~

1. to formulate a plan or plans to reduce the-extreme concentration of

pupils of the Negro race in the Lincoln School consistent with the principles and

findings enunciated in this decision;

2. to submit such plan or plans to the Commissioner of Education for

approval on or before August 1, 19635

3. to put a plan, as approved, into effect; at the beginning of the 1963-61;

school year.

The Commissioner reserves the right to make such further order or orders

in this matter as shall be necessary to effectuate a suitable pupil assignment plan,

approved by him, for the 1963-6U school year.

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

JULY. 1, 1963

- 9 -

v

-M<£aurin-v.-Board-of-Eegentsr339-TJrSr637Mffler v. Schoene, 276 U. S. 272, 279Mitchell v. Board of Education of Union Free School

District No. 12 of the Town of Hempstead, decidedJane 17, 1963 by'the Commissioner of Education,State of New York

Eeterson v. City of 0reenville,-373 tT.-Sr244^—......

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U._S._1 '.Steele v. Louisville and Nashville E. E. Co., 323 TJ. S.

192Strauder v. Virginia, 100 U. S. 303Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629

Taylor v. Board' of Education, 191F. Snpp. 181 (S. D.N.Y. 1961) aff'd 294 F. 2d 36 (2nd Cir. 1961) ....

Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526

Statutes and Other Authorities

12

9

12

5

555

1112

STATE BOARD OFÛCATION OF NEW JERSEY

DEBORAH SPRUILL, a minor, by Mr. and Mrs.John T. SpruiH, her parents and next friends,

Petitioners-Appellees,

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CFTY, OF ENGLEWOOD, BERGEN COUNTY,

Respondent.-

New-Jersey-GonstitutibnrArticle-ljJSection;5~rrr:rr' 12

norKENNETH ANCRUM and LESLIE ANCRUM,

minors by Mortimer W. Ancrum, their parent,et al., Petitioners-Appellees,

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY/IOF ENGLEWOOD, BERGEN COUNTY,

Respondent.

LAURA, ROBERT and JAY VOLPE. minors, byMr. and Mrs. Jerry Volpe, their parents, et al.,

Petitioners-Appellants,vs.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITYOF ENGLEWOOD, BERGEN COUNTY,

Respondent.

On Appeal fromme decision of the

immissioner of.Education

20

BRIEF OF APPELLEES ANCRUM, et al.

Preliminary Statement

Throughout appellants' brief, the word "Negro" isspelled with a lower case "n". The term "Negro" denomi-nates a race of persons and is a proper noun. Accordingly,it is not spelled with a lower case "n", but with a capital"N". It is spelled with the lower case letter in raciallyprejudiced parts of the country and with such spelling isextremely offensive and constitutes a slur to Negroes:

30

40

Statement of the Case

Appellees Ancrum, et al., filed a Petition of Appeal withthe Commissioner of Education charging the respondent,JSnglewood_6chool board with tne-operation~of~~a~~8chpQlsystem whereiff Negro students are segregated intention-

_aUy_or adventitiously, and asked,-by-way of relief, entry1" of an order requiring respondent to take immediate steps

to eliminate racial segregation in that system and to putinto effect the "Central Intermediate School" planscribed in the "Stearns Report" (admitted into evidencein the course of the hearing).

Appellee Spruill filed a similar Petition of Appealexcept for the charge of intentional segregation and with-out a prayer for adoption of a specific remedy.

Appellants filed a Cross-Petition of Appeal protesting20 any deviation from the existing racial composition of the

aglewood-elementary-schoolsând"praying~thlit~respond-ent be prevented from implementing the "Central inter-mediate School." Appellants then moved to and weregranted the right to intervene in the Spruill and Ancrumcases.

The Board of School Estimate and Mayor and CommonCouncil of Englewood, original parties in the Ancrumappeal, were dismissed upon their motions.

OQ These cases were consolidated and came on for hearingbefore the Assistant Commissioner of Education on April1 through 5, 10, and 15 through 17th, 1963.

The Englewood elementary school system consists offive schools, two of which (Lincoln and Liberty) are pre-dominately Negro being 62% and 98% respectively. Boththe report of former Superintendent Stearns entitled"Englewood, its People and its Schools" (referred to asthe "Stearns Eeport"), and the report authorized by theCommissioner of Education (of which judicial notice was

40

taken) substantiated the adverse effects of preinominatelyNegro schools on the education of Negro students. Addi-tionally, both the former superintendent and the presentsuperintendents of schools testified to the ill effects of

~the redominatelyrKegrolschoolluEpn , the: :educa:tioB~of 7~TT~its Negro students.

On Jury 1, 1963, the Commissioner of Education filed 10his opinion in which he determined that the Negro studentin the racially unbalanced school is denied equal educa-tional opportunities, a situation the local board mustremedy, when possible. That opinion recognized the exist-ence of means to eliminate racial imbalance in the Engle-wood school systejn and required the submission andeffectuation of a plan to reduce the racial concentrationin the Lincoln Schol.

With reference to appellants' contentions, the Commis-sioner recognized that the assignment of pupils to nearby 20schools was not an inflexible educational concept and thatreduction of racial concentrations of Negro students wasa positive legal and educational obligation which could beachieved in the Englewood school system.

In accordance with the Opinion of the Commissioner,a plan was submitted by respondent Board.

On July 26, 1963, appellants served their Notice of .Appeal to the State Board of Education. Additionally-iippeOl LU 1-1JC KJl l . l t -~

appellants commenced proceedings in the Superior Courtof New Jersey purposed to defeat the order of the Com-missioner of Education. Belief was denied and appellants'counsel stated that an appeal from that denial would beprosecuted.

30

ARGUMENT

Compul»ory Adventitious Segregation in Public SchoolsEffects a Denial of the Equal Educational Opportunities

Required by the State and Federal Constitutions

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 TJ. S. 483, removedi-the-arena of litigable questions-the-constitutionality

jrf^ raaaUy segregate!! education. ^Consideration of -the-issnes before thin Board must begin with a recognition ofthe inherent inadequacy of the education of Negro childrenseparated by race. Whether that separation is effectedby legislation or by administrative means, the result is thesame and the inherent fundamental inadequacy demands a

Consistent with the opinion below of the Commissioner,the Supreme Court found that the Negro child in the"Negro school" is set apart and suffers from a sense ofinferiority which retards the educational process, provisionof which is the responsibility of JJie_local_8chool-boardKrealistic review of the history of our country and of itsracial composition establishes beyond argument that the-Negro, who composes the largest minority group in theUnited States, has been the victim of indignities and ofracial discrimination and segregation since and before hisconstitutional rights were recognized. The generations ofdenial neaped -upon him is not comparable to the experi- \s of any other ethnic group. Unlike Caucasions of

European ancestry, the Negro did not voluntarily emigrateto the United States. Similarly, he is readily discernible.by his color and cannot lose his racial identity in the massof the populace as can other ethnic groups. Discrimina-tion against and segregation of the Negro, which transmitsa sense of inferiority, cannot be rationally analogized toexperiences of any white ethnic group, including those ofItalian ancestry in Lodi, New Jersey.

20

The lawbooks are filled with the record of the Negro'sattempt to secure those emoluments of democracy alreadyguaranteed to him by the United States Constitution. Noother racial or religious group has been required to pursuea long and litigious route in order to exercise basic rightswillingly granted to immigrants upon debarkation. Sweattv. "Painter, 339 U.J3. 629 (entry to-professional schools) ;~~r 7McLavrin v. Board of Regents', 339' U. S. 637 (entry to 10

graduate schools); SHettey v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 (stateenforcement of restrictive covenants proscribed); Gomillionv. LigJitfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (racial geographical redistrict-ing); Steele v. Louisville & Nashville B.R. Co., 323 U. S.192 (discrimination by statutory collective bargainingagent) ; Strauder v. Virginia, 10J5 U. S. 303 (discriminationin jury selection); Gayle v. Broader, 352 U. S. 903 (use offacilities in intrastate,Commerce); Henderson v. UnitedStates, 339 U. S. 816' (use of facilities in interstate com-merce) ; Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454 (bus terminalsin interstate commerce); Burton v. Wilmington Parking

.... Authority,_365JJ. S. 715 (restaurants in public buildings);Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U. S. 61 (seating in courtrooms).The harmful effects of de facto segregation of Negrostudents cannot be diluted to the "deleterious effect on1

* * * students" because of the "presence of too many[N]egroes" (Appellants'Brief, p. 8). It is for this reasonthat the Supreme Court of the United States recognized thatsegregated education is unequal education and is con-stitutionally impermissible. 30

Education is compulsory in the State of New Jerseyand the assignment of students to particular schools iseffected through the rules, regulations and policies of thelocal school board, an agency of the state. A predomi-nantly or all-Negro school which is an inherently unequalinstitution, results from the administrative program of 'the school board. It is therefore incumbent upon that boardto supply a remedy for that inequality. Appellants' argu-ments wherein great energy is devoted to underminingremedies they have erected, are not convincing. Pupil as- *

ai

The responsibility of a local board to reduce racial im-balance is supported by Branche v. The Board of Educa-tion of Hempstead, 204 F. Snpp. 150 (E. D. N. T. 1962).The court, in dismissing the Board's motion for summaryjudgment based upon their contention that the racial com-position of schools resulted _frpm neighborhood patterns,rather than the design,-pattern-of conduct or contrivance—of the Board, forcefully met the fundamental issue ofsegregated education and stated:

Defendants show facts compatible with an ab-sence of responsibility on their part for the racialsegregation that exists in the schools but these factsdo not demonstrate that there has not been segrega-tion because of-race. Segregated education is-in--adequate and when that inadequacy is attributableto state action it is a deprivation of constitutionalright. r "/' '

The central' constitutional fact is the inadequacyof segregated education. That it is not coerced by

J direct action^ jm jmgjgf the state cannot, alone,

10

20

be decisive of-the issue ofêprivatiotf~orcbustittftional rights. , - . . - ' ,

* * * ' -si'The eduoatiSnal system that is thus/"compulsory

and publicly afforded must deal with the' inadequacyarising from adventitious segregation; it cannot ac* V"cept and indurate segregation on the ground thatit is not coerced or planned but accepted. r ^ .

r * • • r r '• '' '30So here, it is nq^-enough to show that residence ac-

counts for the fact of segregation-and to contend thattherefore the segregation is ineluctable. The effort .,to mitigate the consequent educational inadequacyhas not been made and to forego that effort to deal. _with the inadequacy is to impose it in the absence ofa conclusive demonstration that no circumstantiallypossible effort can effect any significant mitigation.What is involved here is not convenience but con-stitutional interests.

40

20

30

signment is a normal function of a school board. Execu-tion of a remedial program whereby school assignmentsof pupils are shifted neither harms the child affected norviolates his constitutional rights. The Brown case pointedout that segregation has a "detrimental effect upon thecolored children," and that thejieprivation of equal rightsis inflictedlupon rthe^TcEJldren of— the-minority-group." -ThusLitjs the assimilationjntp each_ student Jaody of theNegro child that must be effected. To argue that such as-similation, required to remove existing constitutionalinfirmities, is in itself illegal because racially motivatedîs sophistic. It is the inequality imposed upon the^Segrbstudent that is constitutionally reprehensible. Appel-lants' contention was rejected in Jeffers v. Whitley, 309F. 2d 621 (4th Cir. 1962), by the court which recognizedthat a Negro student discriminated against in a schoolsystem does not disqualify himself from all relief by com-plaining of discrimination and by requesting its eradicationthrough administrative means which must, of necessity,jtake_race_into_eonsideration-in-order-to-eliminate-the-ex—isting evils and to accord him his rights.

Appellants' brief cites numerous irrelevancies includ-ing an opinion on the recitation of the Lord's Prayer andbible reading in the public schools and a conclusion thata decrease of non-whites inevitably flows from an increasein Negroes. We conclude that it reflects the social philos-ophy of appellants and their counsel, an unfortunatefactor not material to the issues before this Board.

Whether a feasible method of reducing racial imbalanceexists in Manhattan or Washington, D. C. schools need notconcern us. The possibility of an irremediable situationdoes not mitigate against the existence of a constitutionalright, and that right can be granted in Englewood, NewJersey, by a variety of methods, some of which have beenpresented in the course of the hearing below.

40

~ 10

20

In Jackson v. Pasadena City School District, — Gal. —,P—2d—rdecided-Jnne-27r-1963;-the"Snprenie*Conrt of

California provided further support in the following lan-guage:

Although it is alleged that the board was guilty ofintentional discriminatory action, it should bepointed ont that even in the absence of gerrymander-ing or other affirmative diserinunjitoryj!piiductJby_a—

~7 Brchqgl~bpjirdr7arSt53ent^tinder some circumstanceswould be entitied_to_relief_where, by-reason or resi-dential segregation, substantial racial imbalanceexists in his school. So long as large numbers ofNegroes live in segregated areas, school authoritieswill be confronted with difficult problems in provid^rîng Negro children with the kind of education heyare entitled to have. Residential segregation is initself an evil which tends to frustrate the youth inthe area and to cause antisocial attitudes and be-havior. Where such segregation exists it is notenough for a school board to refrain from affirmativediscriminatory conduct. The harmful influence onthe children will be reflected and intensified in theclassroom if school attendance is determined on ageographic basis without corrective_measiires—The—rigEtTJTan equal opportunity for education and theharmful consequences of segregation require thatschool boards take steps, insofar as reasonablyfeasible, to alleviate racial imbalance in schools re-gardless of its cause. Our State Board of Educa-tion has adopted regulations which encourage trans-

gg fers to avoid and eliminate racial segregation . . .and transfers for that purpose are provided for inNew York City and elsewhere . . . School authori-ties, of course, are not required to attain an exactapportionment of Negroes among the schools, andconsideration must be given to the various factorsin each case, including the practical necessities ofgovernmental operation. For example, considerationshould be given, on the one hand, to the degree ofracial imbalance in the particular school and the ex-tent to which it affects the opportunity for educationand, on the other hand, to such matters as the dif-

40 ficulty and effectiveness of revising school boundaries

__s: 80_a8_to-elimiaate-segregation-and-the availability"6t~

other facilities to which students can be transferred.

In Mitchell v. Board of Education of Union Free SchoolDistrict No. 12 of the Town of Hempstead, decided June 17,1963, James E. Allen, Jr., Commissioner of Education ofthe State of New York, in upholding the claim of Negro6tndents_that_racial-imbalauce-m -the school- systenarwas—107"per se-adenial"of equal"edncati6ual^>pip6fSmities, slated:

Having concluded that racial imbalance exists inthe Wbodfield Eoad School, the question before meis whether, under the circumstances present in thedistrict, such imbalance constitutes a deprivation ofequality of educational opportunity envisioned underthe Education Law of New York State for the pupilscompelled to attend that school. Tfind that it doesr'While the Board's special efforts to improve thequality of teaching in this school are desirable, theydo not overcome the disadvantages attached to racial 20imbalance.

• • *For many years the Regents and the State Educa-

tionJJepartment.have-fostered-and-encouraged-bettB! runderstanding and practice in matters affecting theeducational opportunities of minority groups. InJanuary 1960, the Regents adopted a statement ofpolicy on 'Intercultural Relations in Education'which reads as follows:

'The State of New York has long held theprinciple that equal educational opportunityfor all children, without regard to differences ineconomic, national, religions or racial back-ground, is a manifestation of the vitality of ourAmerican democratic society and is essential toits continuation. This fundamental educationalprinciple has long since .been written into Educa-tion Law and policy . . . Subsequent events haverepeatedly given it moral reaffirmation. Never-theless, all citizens have the responsibility tore-examine the schools within their local sys-tems in order to determine whether they con-form to this standard so clearly seen to be theright of every child.'

30

V

10

The Regents' statement goes on to point out thatmodern psychological and sociological knowledgeseems to indicate that in schools in which the en-rollment is largely from a minority group of homo-geneous, ethnic origin, the personality of theseminority group children may.be damaged. There isa decrease, jn motivation and thus-an-impairuit;ut —

-of- ability- to learn. Public education jn such a situa-tion-is socially-unrealistic,- blocking the attainmentof the goals of democratic education, and wasteful -of manpower and talent, whether the situation oc-curs by Jaw or by fact.

' In addition, (he Commissioner sent a directive to all school[districts in the State of New York requiring them to reportiio him by September 1, 1963, whether racial imbalance; eiisted in their district and what steps they had taken or

planned to take to alleviate this condition.

I Goss v. Board of Education of EnoxviUe, Tenn., 373BJ, S. 683, struck down a transfer program whereby whiteBrapils were allowed to transfer out of a school in whichêy~dia~fiorcbnstitnte a racial majority. The SupremeBourt sought to eliminate segregated Negro schools still•listing in Tennessee eight years after the Brown decision.Blearly refuting appellants' representation on page 5 of•their brief that "The classification [of students by defend-But school boards] was not that engineered by a segrega-Kon-mmded group," is the Supreme Court's initial statei•lent in its discussion: • ,

11

quence may stand under the Fourteenth Amend-ment.

Bell v. School City of Gary, 213 F. Supp. 819 (N. D.Ind. 1963), currently on appeal before the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (CW No 14152)

: -is,._we -Submit, -in -error, -as have-"been so-many- lower "court —decisions in the area of school segregation. Gary, Indiana 10has had separate schools for Negro and white childrensince the beginning of its system. The composition of those

_^- — schools are as racially identifiable now as before the repealof the constitutional provision authorizing segregation oJNegro school children. States, long accustomed to segre-gation in public schools, often do not readily adhere" toconstitutional requirements but seek to avoid them by avariety of rationalizations. By resting its decision in theBell ease upon the desirability of the "neighborhood plan,"the court employed the same rationalization urged here 20by appellants 'as requiring maintenance of the status quo.

requires pupil attendance of the nearest school.

The cry to save "neighborhood schools" is but the moresophiscated northern endeavor to preserve white schools,uncontaminated by an influx of Negro students. The recordbelow established that the "neighborhood plan" is a fluidconcept dependent on a number of variables including .safety factors, distance, topographical features and school Icapacity. Thus, in Englewood, many students attending I

i

0

1aft'

— 3-E

MANUSCRIPT D

IVISB

proposed lends itself to the perpetuation of segre-gation.

The ratio decidendi is stated:

We hold that the transfer plans promote dis-crimination and are therefore invalid.

The court concluded:

Bnt no official transfer plan or provision ofwhich racial segregation is the inevitable conse-

the "neighborhood" Eoosevelt or Quarles Schools live |closer to the Lincoln School.

As the court observed in Taylor v. Board of Education,191 F. Snpp. 181 (S. D. N. Y. 1961), aff'd 294 F2d 36 (2ndCir. 1961), " . . . the neighborhood policy is not "sacro-sanct." The opinion below of the Commissioner is inaccord with this finding. Assignment to the nearest schoolis but one practice adopted in an attempt to provide efficient

40

V -12

-education:—As—originally —conceived, -6 "neighborhoodschool" was to gather children from varying social andethnic backgrounds in a given area and channel them intothe same school, Thns, was it consistent with the demo-cratic ideals of -this country. Unfortunately, as nowutilized, it is a means for separation rather than assimi-lation of groups and when the state partieipates_JBjthat

". separatioifwhereby-Negroes are set apart and segregated, -~ Unconstitutional proscription appliesr Goss v. Board of

Education of Knoxvitte, Tenn., supra (public school trans-fers) ; Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526 (publicparks and playgrounds); Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373—-TJ. S.' 244 (trespass convictions where local segregationlaws or policies preempt private choice).

Adequate or efficient education of the Negro child isnot possible as long as that child is beset with the- stigma

2Q attached to the "Negro school" and the feeling of in-feriority flowing therefrom. Provision of equal educationalopportunities for that child is paramount and constitu-tionally requisite; it Cannot be devaluated to maintainappellants"' eoneeptlTf a "neighborhood school."

Article I, Section 5, of the New Jersey Constitutionprohibits discrimination based upon race. That racialseparation constitutes discrimination is no longer opento doubt. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1. The deficiencycondemned by the Supreme Court in the Brown case per-

30 sists in segregated schools whether that segregation isaffirmatively enforced or passively accepted by public of-ficials. Compulsory educational systems imply state ac-tion and segregated education resultant from state actionis constitutionally proscribed. The school board is re-quired to provide equal facilities for public education. Asa concomitant, it must remedy the constitutional defectsin the educational system it provides. Failure to dealwith a condition as readily inflicts it as does the grosserimposition of it. Cf. Miller v. Sclioene, 276 U. S. 272, 279.

40

13

"CONCLUSION"

For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully iurged that the State Board of Education affirm the |opinion of the Commissioner of Education of July 1, I1963.

- j ^Respectfully submitted.

ARNOLD B. BROWN,55 West Palisade Avenue,

Englewood, New Jersey.

-10 —

ROBERT G.

127 Belmont Street,Englewood, New Jersey.

HEBBEBT H. TATB,126 Court Street,

Newark 2, New Jersey.

EOBBBT L. CASTER. _ .

20

MAMA L. MABCTJS,BARBARA A. MORBIS,

20 West 40th Street,New York 18, New York.

Attorneys for Appellees.

30

40

J-iiLj mi 1 u ,._ ±

\D OF EDUCATION

ENGLEWOODEN. J.

BUDGET

JULY 1,1963 to JUNE 30,1964

I

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ENGLEUIDOD, NEW JERSEY

Notice is hereby given that a public hearing on the tentativelyapproved budget of tha Board of Education for the school year 1963-1964will be held by the Board of School Estimate in Engleuiood Academic Hellon Monday, February 11, 1963, at 8:00 p. m., Eastern Standard Time.

The said budget, as set forth below, will be on file for examinationby the public between the hours of 9 a.m. and 12 Noon, and between 1 p.m.and 4 p.m. on school days at ths Board of Education office, 11 EngleStreet, Engleuiood, from the date of this publication through February 11,1963.

BUDGET STATEMENTSchool Year 1963 - 1964

Actual1961-1962

Estimated1962-1963

Estimated1963-1964

Average Daily Enrollment:ResidentTuition Students ReceivedTotal

3,78015.

3,795

SOURCES OF REVENUE

CURRENT EXPENSE

Appropriation BalanceBalance AppropriatedLocal Tax LevyState AidFederal AidTuitionMiscellaneous Revenue

TOTAL CURRENT EXPENSE

CAPITAL OUTLAY

Appropriation BalanceBalance AppropriatedLocal Tax LevyFederal Aid

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY

AnticipatedRevenue19.62-1963

*:,

AnticipatedRevenue1963-1964

»$ 221,236,76S 11,000.00

1,903,889.00 2,205,050.00212,356.00 219,866.006,862.51 4,500.0038,200.00 31,000.0031,556.19 10.500.00

8 50,000.002,261,673.00221,967.0010,500.0034,500.0013,000.00

32,314,900.46 J2,481,916.00 82,591,640.00

•8 6,690.188 -0- 8 -0-

3,700.00 13,100.00 18,150.00288.59 4.500.00 7.800.00

8 10,678.77 8 17,600.00 8 25,950.00

TOTAL REVENUES 82,424,579.23 82,499 516.00 82,617,590.00

* Reflects Actual Appropriation Balance July 1, 1961 after adjustment fortuition in the amount of 8352 determined to be uncollectible.

"Reflects Actual Appropriation Balance July 1, 1961.

Board of Education, 1963-196A Budget S.tatament -2-

APPROPRIATIONS

ExpendituresCURRENT EXPENSE

Administration:Salaries . SContracted ServicesAll Other Expanses

Instruction:Salaries 1Textbooks . •Library & Audio Visual Mat.Teaching SuppliesAll Other Expenses

1961-1962

77,186.5214,475.1615,830.40

,612,512.5431.B93..4923,520.7465,054.3316,136.71

Appropriations1962-1963

t 81,010.008,000.005,900.00

1,741,000.0023,000.0016,500.0032,000.0011,500.00

Appropriation's1963-1964

S 84,366.0012,100.007,000.00

1,876,133.0021,000.0016,300.0028,050.0023,000.00

Attendance and Health Services iSalaries - AttendanceAll Other Expenses - AttendanceSalaries - HealthAll Other Expenses - Health

Transportat ion iContracted Services and Public

Carriers

Operation:SalariesContracted ServicesHeatUtilitiesSuppliesAll Other Expenses

Maintenance!SalariesContracted Services • "Replacement of EquipmentAll Other Expenses

Fixed Charges:Employee Retirement

ContributionsInsuranceRental of Land

6,150.00250.00

20,500.001,755.53

22,683.25

128,747.97726.00

27,451.5044,701.925,874.581,158.21

72,693.7611,176.9934,724.4523,798.61

~. 36,832.3628,294.34

720,00

6, 300. 00.250.00-

28,250.004;70D.OO

23,100.00

132,350.001,600.0033,000.0041,350.008,600.001,100.00

64,400.0020,400.0029,250.0040,950.00

-41,381.0023,305.00

720.00

6,600.00250.00

31,672.003,200.00

^30,050.00

120,650.001,000.0027,000.0045,650.009,100.001,100.00

•

53,000.0012,850.0018,000.0020,200.00

41,194.0027,955.00

720.00

Expenditures to Other Districts)Tuition

Food Services:SalariesOther Expenses

Student Body Activities:SalariesOther Expenses -

7,374.41

7,750.001,802,19

13,300.0010,013.45

8,625.00

8,000.002,000.00

15,200.009,175.00

9,500.00

8,250.00500.00

15,750.0013,500.00

REPRODUCED FRCM THE COLLECTIONS OF TOE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CCNGRESS

Board of Education. 1963-1964 Budget Statement

APPROPRIATIONS (Continued)

-3-

Community Services:Civic Activities

Special Schools:Summer School

TOTAL CURRENT EXPENSE

CAPITAL OUTLAY

Buildings (Remodeling)Equipment

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY

GRAND TOTALS

CURRENT OPERATING APPROPRIA-TION BALANCES JUNE 30, 1962:

Current ExpenseCapital Outlay

TOTAL BALANCES

TOTAL EXPENDITURES ANDBALANCES JUNE 30, 1962i

Expenditures Appropriations Appropriations1961-1962 1962-1963 : 1963-1964

6,652.72 $

12.992.58

6,000.00 $ 8,000.00

13,000.00 1B.OOO.OO

12,384,734.73 $2,481,916.00 $2,591,640.00

-0- $10.475.73

-0- $ 2,600.0017.600.00 23.350.00

8 10,475.73 8 17,600.00 8 25,950.00

$2,395,210.46 $2,499,516.00 $2,617 ,590.-00;

$ 29,165.73203.04

$ 29,368.77

$2,424,579.23

IMPROVEMENT AUTHORIZATIONS ,

July 1, 1961 to June 30, 1962

UNEXPENDED imPROVENENT AUTHORIZATIONS, JULY 1, 1961

TOTAL REVENUES

-TOTAL-REVENUES AND BEGINNING BALANCE

IMPROVEMENT1 AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES!

$ 130,494.70

-0-

$ 130,494.70

SitesBuildingsEquipment

t 16,461.651 ,224.8529.012.22

TOTAL IHIPROVEH1ENT AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES

UNEXPENDED IMPROVEMENT AUTHORIZATIONS, JUNE 30, 1962

TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND ENDING BALANCE

$ 46,698.72

83.795.98

$ 130,494.70

WINIFRED R. 5CHANBERA, Secretary

,1'

AWAY

WAITING TO REGISTER: Negro children from Englewood'smirth Ward wait in the office of the Kirst Ward's Donald A.VIM School this morning while their parents attempt to transfer

Km Irom predominantly Negro elementary schools. Seven parents•wired at the school led by attorney Paul Zuber in an attemptbbrcak what they called dc facto segregation in Englpwood. Theiriquesl was denied on grounds children must attend the schooltarest their home. Zuber said he tfilL take the matter to a fed-

pi court. (The Record photograph.)' l

?C 3!Dr. Raubinger MakesIt Official

Commissioner Rauhinger's decision on theracial imbalance in the Lincoln School at En-glewood had been foreshadowed in all of. itsdetails by his decisions in the Orange andPla inf ic ld cases, not to mention his 1955 de-cision on the old Englewood districting pal-tern. The Board of Education is to devise byAugust 1 a plan for the immediate reductionof the 98-per-ccnt concentration of Negroesin the Lincoln School. Dr. Raubinger will ex-pect, besides this, long-range planning whichmay entail capital construction. Unless a pu-pil-assignment program acceptable to him isdevised for the school year beginning in Sep-tember he will institute a plan of his own. Hehas left no doubt that he expects a solutionwith respect to the IB-month-old Lincoln

! School crisis:Continuation will damage the pupils of not

only that school but all others in the com-muni ty . Hence the entire community has aslake in a solution which will make it possiblelor the school staff to devote its undividedattention and effort to planning for bettereducational opportunities for all pupils.

The decision is binding, although underthe relevant law it may be appealed to i h eState Board of Education, and it may be as-sumed that the Board of Education will movepromptly to puts its meaning into effect —with the understanding that Dr. Raubinger ispretty much of a home-rule man, perhaps dis-posed to give a school board the benefit ofany doubt if he's persuaded that it is reallytrying. The bottleneck in Englewood has notbeen the Board of Education. Its efforts at so-lution have come to grief in the Council-dom-inated money-handling Board of School Esti-mate. But perhaps this agency can bear inmind that one of the State Commissioner'senforcement powers involves the distributionof State aid money — in Englewood's case onthe order of $200,000 a year.

DECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OFCITY CLERK

I JUL -5 flM 8: W

IENGLEWOOD, N. J.

To the Mayor of the City of Englewoodand the Members of the Common Council

Gentlemen:

King StreetEnglevood, Nev JerseyJuly ?, 1963 -

This is an appeal for an appeal. I refer, of course, to the de^cision of Commissioner Raubinger which was released yesterday. Since thequestion primarily is one for the School Board, my purpose in writing toyou is to urge that you encourage the Board to make an appeal by indicatingto the Board that it will have your moral and financial support if it does.

On the present state of the record Englewood stands convicted ofdiscrimination against its Negro citizens. This is neither true nor just,as you know, yet the order which Commissioner Raubinger has issued, follow-ing two years of widespread publicity of the charges which were made, hashad the effect of confirming those charges and leaving Englewood with apermanently blackened reputation. Fortunately, the City does not have toaccept this state of affairs; it is still entitled to its day in Court inwhich it not only can overcome trie unfairness to which it has been subject-ed but may yet emerge as a hero in the eyes of many other communities whichhave been subjected to the same Kind of campaign.

In support of an appeal it should be noted thwt Commissioner Rau-binger, in his Orange decision, and again in Englevood1s c*se, neglectedto take into account the requirements of the federal Constitution, parti-cularly the L4.th Amendment. Yet unless his decisions are in accordancewith the Constitution this is a fatal defect because tne rights which areguaranteed, and the duties which are required, may not be contravened.Even a hasty review of the Brief filed by the Board will show that the de-cisions are not in accordance with the Constitution.

At present there is not a single federal cnse, even in the lowercourts, which holds that "de facto segregation" is viol«tive of the Con-stitution. Even in the New Hochelle case, often cited for that proposition,Judge Kaufman expressly excluded "de facto segregation" as being the basis.Ultimately, of course, whether Englewood appeals or not, the Supreme Courtwill be obliged to render a decision on this cuestion because there areseveral cases now in the lower courts where it is in issue.

While Englewood's case might not be selected by the Supreme Courtto be heard, the effect of an appeal would be to preserve the status quountil that issue was decided.

In case it might appear tempting, either for the sake of peace orin order to spare expense, simply to comply with the Conmissioner's orderand let some other community carry the burden of an appeal, I would like

•

to suggest that to capitulate in that way, to take the "easy way out ,could turn out in the long, run to be the worst possible mistake, an<easy at all. for If, after Englewood has made the changes necescomply, some otner community establishes bv court action the unconsltionality of such an order, Englewood then will h«ve to undo or unscramblechanges previously made. Aside from the difficulty inherent in suchscrambling, and the increased bitterness* which «nv cham-e back woulcsure to engender, it may then be too late to overcome otherconsequences of compliance.

One almost certain consequence of compliance, for example, is anacceleration of the population shift already going on; the departurewhites and the arrival of Negroes. And there can be no undoing ofof this nature. If there is any doubt that it is a real poss:has only to consider Washington, B. C., a much larger community, wh<population shift in just nine years has lowered the percentagechildren in public schools to 15 .

The legal brief which was prepared for the School Board by itscounsel, A. A. Lebson, Esq., was an excellent statement^ tneis unfortunate the Commissioner ignored its contents. Sinceever, and since Englewood deserves to h«ve a full consideration of .ase,an appeal to the i-ederal Court is inciceted. It is my earnest hope yoiwill encourage the Board to rafke one.

Daniel V. Allen

CTTY CLEWS OFFICECOPY SENT TO:

inn do. Rut if five sites, equallyX"od. arc available, then I think it'sluirely in order for the President toMeet a different site. It isn't justlimisliment, but everybody knowslow Mississippi discriminates. We•ouldn't be able to employ any Ne-Iro carpenters or bricklayers, sincelione are in the unions there." He•freed t h a t changing the sitewouldn ' t help the Negroes any, butl<lueii mat it wouldn ' t harm themtidier. His point was confirmed by• former member of the Justice De-partment's Civil Rights Divisionwho recently said: "I know well, lorfcample, one Mississippi countywhere hi the last decade seven indus-trial plants have been established.•ot a single one of these factories•nploys a Negro."• The commission's general counselloted that the retraining-program•asco a year and a half ago pro-Bled another example of the diffi-•ilties involved in increasing techni-Bl aid to the state. At that time, aBo»ram to train 1,200 farm handsB drive tractors was about to beBunched, and $435,000 of FederalHoney had been provided under theHea Redevelopment Act. Only aBw days before the program wasBened, however, the Delta plantersBio had drawn up the plan with-Bev, and the whole thing was can-Bed. Though the training wasHsperately needed, the planters hadHi second thoughts about the ad-Hability of accepting Federal funds.Hi: ot upsetting the racial statusHo was the predominating motive,H; there were also vague fears thatBe program would bring in a m i n i -Mum wage or minimum housingBidards in some unexplained way.•Reaching Mississippians and in-•niing them of what can be ex-lected as a result of Federal aid andHat Federal aid can do will take•food measure of resourcefulness.•fortunately, the newspapers in• state cannot be counted on to

Be constructive information about• programs. When the commissionBed its recent recommendations onHsissippi, for example, the editor of• Jackson Daily News itemi/ed theHis he thought the President hadBii asked to cut off, and found on•list a million dollars in redevel-Bient programs. "We're not clear•this fund," he wrote, "but we'll

make a deal. Mississippi will give itup if the Federal government willabolish the equally expensive CivilRights Commission."

Whether the editor will ever get"clear" on" redevelopment programsis difficult to say, but it is pretty surehe won't get his wish about the com-mission's demise. Although its termexpires this fa l l , the President hasasked that its l i fe be extended for atleast four years.

The commission would be the firstto agree with the crack about itshaving "got all the facts it set outto collect," but not about its notknowing what to do next. "If factfinding were to continue to be theonly function of the commission,"one of its recent memorandumsstated, "it might be preferable forthe agency to be terminated." In-stead, the time has come for action."In many areas of Federal programs,the problem has not been the^ ab-sence of policy so much aUdifir'cukresin impiementingfadeqijatfljly existingrules and regida^cmsOreaiiinrig non-discrimination." \ \\S

Who should advise/the govern-

ment on "administrat ive techniques"that would carry out its presemlyineffective regulations regarding non-discrimination, and who should takeon the broader role of guiding com-munit ies toward workable programsfor civil-rights progress? The com-mission itself, not surprisingly, IKISstepped forward for the job, and itought to be recalled tha t the ideafor the agency first sprang from theJustice Department, which long agorecogni/ed the need lor an independ-ent group to gather the lacts andexpose the patterns of injustice inthe field.

IN six VF.AR.S the commission hasgained broad and valuable expe-

rience in analyzing civil rights, notonly in voting but in education,housing, employment, and the ad-ministration of justice. A number of

Es recommendations have providedthe basis for Congressional action orhave been put into effect by Executiveorder. As the President has said, thecommission "is now in a position 10provide even more useful service tothe nation."

Englewood, New Jersey:

Visitors in the ClassroomSPENCER KLAW

IN ENGLEWOOD, NEW JERSEY, as inmany other Northern communi-

ties, Negroes have been expressingtheir concern and resentment overdc facto segregation in the publicschools. Englewood used to be re-ferred to in the Sunday supplementsas the bedroom of Wall Street, andit is still thickly populated by bank-ers, brokers, and insurance men whocommute to work in Manhattan.But today more than a quarter ofit 26,000 residents are Negroes, andin the last eighteen months a seriesof boycotts, mass meetings, sit-ins,and prayer meetings have servednotice on the city's white leadersthat they have a serious segregationproblem on their hands.

The focus of discontent in Engle-wood's Negro community is the Lin-

-

coin Elementary School, a two-storybrick building whose surroundingsconsist mainly of grimy bars,boarded-np stores, and sway-backedframe houses whose back yards arestrewn with the remains of old au to-mobiles. Dissatisfaction with Lin-coln stems less from its dismal set-ting, however, than from the factthat its enrollment, like the popu-lation of Englcwood's Fourth Wardin which it is located, has beenninety-nine per cent Negro. Someparents feel that this racial imba l -ance is so harmful that they tooktheir children out of Lincoln inFebruary and kept them out. Theseare the children who, on May (>. be-gan a sit-in at another elementaryschool, Cleveland, just a mile awayfrom Lincoln, where the enrol lment

THE REPORTER

II

\ - i - i ^ i i ; ] > < . • ! < c ' i n w h i t e . O n i l i t :Li .i.iv ol ihe sit-in, the Negropen, wlio range in age I mm

twelve years, were told tha tIt'oukl not be permitted to enterwilding. (On the first day, they

t before anyone realized whatlivtre up to.) But when they sat

i n n the steps and announcedlil they were kept out no otherpen would be allowed in either,liiiliorinYs relented. After tha t ,liters were permitted to enter|l;md each day as "unauthorizedjs."Tliey attended classes, look•Discussions, played with theirj hosts at l unch t ime , and didfinned homework—which, how-

• teachers were instructed notftruts ol the visiting children|ihat even in these somewhat ,

circumstances the sit-insllmore than they would haveKin. This impression was

by a talk I had with abar-old visitor named Di-Bombs. He told me that thef \t Cleveland seemed to

lot more than those at, and that consequently the

lived a lot faster. There wereJildren in his class, he said,

teacher, instead of giving§km as the teachers tended

[Linco ln , gave them a greatj attention. "She wanlx thelildren to learn," he said.(added that he was particu-

iCtl hy the fact that chil-| Cleveland seemed to like)\vel l tha t they were always

t special reports they hadInn the i r own—something heInost never happened at

ill;, Hill

|in tnglewood denies tha t: Cleveland tend to know

I) children at Lincoln. AInvestigators seiu to Engle-

year hy the New Jerseybner of education reportedpidard achievement tests

[jradc pupils at LincolnI years behind sixth-gradersIs other elementary schools.

anyone (jiiestion the factpent family backgrounds

t n d o with this disparity.kite children in Englewood

idille-dass homes, and so

do a great m a n y Negro children.But there are likely to be pupils inevery class at Lincoln whose parentsare recent immigrants from theSouth who work as unski l led labor-ers and who in some cases can barelyread and write.

The argument about Lincolnturns on whether it is true, as thestate investigators suggested, thatgoing to a segregated school—evenif the segregation is not a result ofgerrymandering but simply reflectsthe fact that the school serves a pre-dominantly Negro neighborhood—isin itself psychologically harmful toNegro children. Many white resi-dents dispute this notion, agreeingwith Englewood's mayor, a lorty-

'•;,'>'£.•'•<..'•. • • • - ' ' . ' • • '~-i-v^>"

two-year-old insurance man namedAustin N. Volk, who has saidthat the fuss about Lincoln is mainlythe work of troublemakers from out-side the city bent on "distorting theimage of Englewood into tha t of aLittle Rock." This conception seemsto be rather widely held by peoplewho, like Volk, are identified withwhat Negro leaders refer to as thewhite power structure. Wi l l iam E.Fuller, president of the EnglewoodTaxpayers League, wrote not longago: "If there is a 'problem' inEnglewood today it is the result ofa device of professional agitatorsand politicians who must create con-tinual agitation to survive econom-ically and professionally." Theyhave picked on Englewood, Fullertold me, mainly for geographicalreasons. "They can run over herefrom New York and agitate on week-ends," he said.

J > y "they" Ful lei vv. is rc le i r ingprimarily to Adam Clayton I 'owell.who spoke recently at a ( i v i l - r i g h t sra l ly in Englewood, and to PaulZnber, a New York lawyer whomakes a specialty of hand l ing school-segregation cases. Zuber has not onlyrepresented Lincoln School parentsin several legal actions but has alsoacted from time to time as a spokes-man for and co-ordinator of a coali-tion of local Negro leaders, knownas the Englewood Movement, thathas been directing the campaign forintegration. A handsome, burly,eminen t ly quotable man, Zuber hasirritated many people, inc lud ingsome supporters of the EnglewoodMovement, by his verbal belliger-ence. In the course of a few days lastAugust, for instance, he promisedthat Englewood would be turnedinto another Albany, ' Georgia; thata Negro boycott would be launchedfor thwith against white Englewoodmerchants, and tha t photographswould be taken of any Negro whodefied it; and that unless theReverend f. Isaiah Goodman, one ofEnglewood's leading Negro clergy-men, would personally lead a boy-cott of Lincoln School when itopened in September (as it turnedout, he didn't), "as God is my wit-ness, I'm going to run him out oftown."

oNF. of these threats were carriedout, and while Zuber has been

made much of in the newspapers, itis unlikely that things would changevery much in Englewood if he wereto disappear completely from thescene. Moreover, it is not true, asFuller mainta ins , that the only localpeople really worked up about seg-regation at Lincoln are a few Negromalcontents and an equally smallnumber of white eggheads. Actual ly ,Englewood's board of education it-self put forward last summer a planto reduce racial imbalance in theelementary schools; it was supportednot only by the Englewood Move-ment, the Urban League, and thelocal chapters of the N A A C P andCORK, but also by the League ofWomen Voters, Englewood's PTACouncil, and the Englewood Minis-terial Association. It had the sup-port, too. of Vincente Tibbs, aNegro social worker who representsthe Fourth Ward on the five-man

15

i l . A short, miUl-iiiuiiueruclbi who graduated from Columbia

Jversity's New York School of So-• Work, Tibbs has actively sup-

the pupil sit-ins; each morn-this past spring he was on

,nd at Bill's Variety Shop, a candy-l-solt-drink establishment across

• street from the Lincoln School,Ben the children gathered thereBe driven to Cleveland.

phile the Fourth Ward's tradi-al leaders, the clergymen, were

Ictant at first to become involvedthe sit-ins, I gathered from a1 had with the Reverend Mr.

dman that their patience is wear-thi:.. Rocking back and forth in a

leaky swivel chair in his study atFirst Baptist Church, Goodman

heriy criticized the intransigenceEnglewood's white leaders—"They

up there on the Hill, have theirfents, and they don't come intopet with anyone but their own

he said—and deplored thethat flats in the modern apart-

•t buildings that line Grandnue, one of Englewood's princi-Blhoroughfares, are barred to Ne-Hs, who often have to pay $125•month or more for the mostHrable son of accommodations infourth Ward. Like Tibbs and•eaders of the Englewood Move-

t, Goodman is convinced, how-B that the first objective is de-

Hgation of the schools. "We wantuncoiri closed," he said emphati-B, and I got the impression thatHs the city has taken a very big

oward integration by Septem>•there is a strong likelihood that•Jegro community will effective-

Lincoln by direct action infcrm of a boycott.

This is a possibility that manykhite residents, especially those• live on the Hill, the high-lying

Ti section of Englewood wherelouses are big and separatedthe streets by great expanses of

find it difficult to believe.the agitators came, they tell

Ihere was no trouble betweenBees in Englewood. Negroes and• have in fact lived thereper for more than eighty years

since prosperous lawyers andBssmen began building housesEnglewood and staffing them with

servants from the South. Afcgro settlement was established in

w 1 I <.: 1 c: L t l C

first Negro churches were built withthe help of the white families on theHill. Their descendants still are aptto contribute to Negro churches, andmay even attend special services thata few churches still regularly holdto honor their white benefactors.

BUT since the war, a radical changehas taken place in the city's

Negro community. Along withunskilled workers from the Southhave come large numbers of Negrobusinessmen, skilled workers, andprofessionals. They and their chil-dren, some of whom are now leadersin the Englewood Movement, do notwant to be patronized. Many holdviews that coincide with those ofAugustus B. Harrison, who movedto Englewood twelve years ago fromNew York, where he works as asubway towerman, and who is presi-dent of the local branch of theNAACP. "There are three factions inEnglewood," he told me. "There arethe people who want the status quo,who don't want anything changed.Then there are the liberals; theywant to give us something so long asit's enough to keep us quiet, but notenough to do us any good. And thenthere's the extreme end, which I

guess I belong to. We feel we musthave equal citizenship, we must haveequal education, and we're not goingto settle for anything less." Harrisonmade it clear that his mistrust ofliberals extends to Negroes who ac-cept their favors. "You still havesome Negroes in t ! i i > :own who, solong as you throw them a bone, willbow and scrape," he said.

The hard attitudes held by Harri-son and other leaders of the Engle-wood Movement reflect, in part,their conviction that the city's ad-ministration has simply not dealt ingood faith with their demands.

Negroes thai included Harrison f i r s turged that something be done aboutracial imbalance in the elementaryschools—since there is only onejunior high and one high school,the problem does not arise there—the board of education reacted sym-pathetically. It pointed out tha t thethen superintendent of schools. Dr.Harry L. Stearns, with the help ofconsultants from Rutgers and MIT,had already begun a major study ofenrollment patterns in the Engle-wood schools, and it promised thatthe scope would be broadened to in-clude a "study in depth" of racialconcentration. The board fur theragreed to take on a third consultant,to be chosen from a list of names tobe furnished by the NAACP. In re-turn, the local NAACP chapter said itwould not for the time being makeany attempt to test the board'sschool-assignment policy in thecourts by trying to enroll LincolnSchool pupils at one or more of thecity's other elementary schools.

Delay, Impatience, Trouble

By the following January, how-ever, Harrison and a number ofother Negroes began to suspect thatthe city was stalling. Publication ofthe Stearns report, which was tnhave been ready by February, 1962,had been postponed for severalweeks, and Mayor Volk had let it beknown that he intended to putthrough a 1962-1963 school budgetcontaining no provisions for carry-ing out any recommendations thereport might contain. In an effortto force the city to commit itself totaking some positive action, a groupof Negroes and whites staged anall-night sit-in at the city hall onFebruary 1, 1962. Eleven of thedemonstrators were arrested oncharges (later dismissed) of disor-derly conduct, and there followed aseries of rallies and candlelight pro-cessions and an unsuccessful attemptto institute a shoppers' boycott.

These evidences of opposition didnot prevent the school budget fromgoing through as planned. But theNegroes were given unofficial assur-ances that if the board of educationshould need additional money toimplement the Stearns report, itwould almost certainly be madeavailable by the board of school

THE REPORTER

estimate, and the demonstrationstapered off.

When the report finally came outI in March, Negro leaders were jubi-

lant. It contained a strong indict-ment of all forms of school segrega-

tion, and offered detailed proposalstor eliminating it in Englewood. InJuly, the board of education an-

! noiinced that certain of these pro-pals would be put into effect

I when school opened last September,idle plan, advamed as a first step to-Itfarcl more complete integration,I was to establish a central interme-Jdiate school, to which all fifth- and•Kill-graders in Englewood would

he assigned. While the plan had[wide support, as noted earlier, itIMS attacked by a newly organixed[group called the Save Our Neigh-jborhood Schools Committee. This[group's principal objections were[that the new intermediate school[was to be located in a building—an[abandoned junior high school—that[Superintendent Stearns himself had[once called worn out and obsolete,[and that children would have to[cross heavily traveled and dangerousthoroughfares to get there. Giving[these ami other reasons for their de-

cision, the mayor and his colleaguesJ>n the board of school estimate•Died to deny the board of educa-j i i o n the S85.000 that it had said it

would need for renovations and theplan went on the shelf.

i(> MANY Negroes, and many whiteL supporters of integration as well,

his was an act of betrayal. WhenIchool opened last September, thereIras a three-day boycott of Lincoln•diool, during which two-thirds of•lie pupils stayed away. PetitionsUlcging illegal segregation in Engle-wood's schools were filed with theItate commissioner of education,fend there was a new series of rallies,Itrect demonstrations, and sit-ins. In•ebruary a second boycott of Lin-Icoln was called. On the first day,pearly half of the children stayedpay, but the number of absentees

on dwindled to less than fortyBiihlren, who, unt i l the sit-in atCleveland began in May, received

llaily instruction from volunteerleachers at a special "boycott school"let up by the Englewood Movement.I In resisting demands for further•tegration, Mayor Volk and his fel-

low Republicans on the city coun-cil—Tibbs is the only Democrat-have been able to point to the re-sults of a referendum held last fall,which was not binding on the citybut in which the idea of a centralintermediate school was disapprovedby a four-to-one vote. There havebeen charges that the question putto the voters was loaded, and the re-sults may, in fact, exaggerate theextent of opposition to the proposal.But the opposition is neverthelessstrong, and in many cases arises fromconsiderations that have little to dowith the dangers of crowded streets.

Several of these were brought upin the course of a talk I had not

^^HgyrB

?

long ago with Edward F. Johnson, aleading opponent of the plan. John-son, who works in a New Yorkbrokerage firm, and whose wife be-longs to one of Englewood's mostinfluential families, told me hedidn't see why he should have tosend his children to a school out-side their neighborhood just to ac-commodate Negroes. "Anyway," heasked rhetorically, "what makespeople think the colored personwith a child at the Lincoln Schoolwants him to come up here and sitnext to my child?" Johnson went onto say that, in general, Protestantslike to associate with Protestants,Catholics with Catholics, and Ne-groes with Negroes. If Englewood'sschools are totally integrated, headded, there may be a flight of whitefamilies and a corresponding influxof Negroes that might well lowereducational standards and breedcrime.

BE THAT as it may, some furtherdegree of integration seems cer-

tain to come in Englewood, andfairly soon. New Jersey's commis-

sioner of education, r u l i n g in a casebrought by Negro parents in Orange,recently held that extreme racial im-balance in a school, at least wheremeans exist to prevent it, consti-tutes an illegal "deprivation of op-portunity for the pupils compelledto attend the school." He orderedthe Orange board of education totake immediate action to reducesuch imbalance in a school whose en-rollment was nearly all Xegro.The commissioner's action left littledoubt that he would respond insimilar fashion to the Englewoodpetitions that were before him.Moreover, even before the Orangedecision was handed down, MayorVolk and Council President \VilliamD. Ticknor had begun meeting witha semi-official conciliation committee—thereby signifying at least theirfull awareness that racial imbalancein the city's schools is an urgentproblem.

But the fact that this move cameso belatedly—and then only under thepressure of a sit-in by Negro chil-dren—seems certain to have a pro-found effect on fu ture relationsbetween whites and Negroes inEnglewood. Many Englewood Ne-groes indicated quite clearly to methat, in pressing their demands, theyare in no mood to trust any manwhose skin is white. They are con-vinced that any victories they winwill have to be won by their ownefforts. Even whites who have active-ly supported the campaign for in-tegration in the schools tend to feelmore and more cut off from the lead-ers of the Englewood Movement, andthose whites who are still workingclosely with it are careful to re-main as much as possible in thebackground. "Please don't emphasizemy race," one such man, a formerfreedom rider who spent manyweeks in Southern jails, asked me atthe conclusion of a talk I had withhim.

One of the most common argu-ments for integrating schools is thatthe •white children who attend themare less likely to grow up with aprejudice against Negroes. But re-sistance to full integration of theschools in Englewood, which in anycase seems almost sure to comeabout, seems only to have contrib-uted to an increase in prejudiceagainst whites.

4, 1963 17

.TOi MEHBERS OF THE BOARD OF

PROS! i LAURENCE C. LIGHT, A'.I.AY'"'.

SUBJECT! LINCOLN AND LIBERTY SCHOOLS

•''•''•

A f t e r an axamination of th« pl«ng and •aking inapactiona of^both building'*,•togatharith Dr. Fred Banlaealco, 4 herewith aubajlt tha^fpllowing raportv* ' '

|l) LINCOLN SCHOOL^ " y / ^^^^^

Consisting, of tha CanUr Sactlon built" in i917',fwith thraa (3)

and undar tha lat Floor Corridor, tha balanca of tha framing ia of non-firaproof cohatruotion •ith' l-ippd .Tttmln^:fisrW >;;:*;••;•'.•"^y":':.v.(a) Roof raftara ovar ij|jppj ^(b) Roof raftara ovar Audltotiu«vand Cyajnaaiuai . : . . . J.- /.^ .'..(c) Ceiling baama.ovar lat end- -2nd Floor Corridoca ..... --". '• «"• •(d) Floor Joists undar.'lat and-2nd floor Claas] Rooaw .' . j(e) Floor Joists undar 1st Floor Autiitorim" and Cywiaaiui ; . .V. •:-(f) Cirdara in lat Floor •Conatructiort,v*'T?*T4^ •• —(g) 3" x 411, atud partition*bat wain :C

Thar*.iri5* 0" higfiv which ia « oaf in*t*:crawl apac* Into th* pip* tunnala of both tha ;928;a«l 1927 Addition*,

, a fir. brlQlnating iri th* orawl 'apMaffiouU. '. ' tha *ntir*. hyi Iding j including th| . 939'Ajd^^

«A«-1 Th* vwtilftiort in Tliiwi' fiooip*^ '•1Li-'-:'' '-.;:..; Cycmaiusi »ntiul4 ba ehaokad'by^

raquirad. nuwDar of «ir cb^ . O *cw~»*i« ^ J<^^

"D" NORTH

lat Floor co»•- *v_- — •v*1 ****>* •+-*<*t^**tm

«atalrluiib^>otfatal luabar

. N o stud part itiohf.

EAST 1927 ADOIT ION

lat FloorHatal luribar forWood for roof

: No' atud parti tio

- , . H. - - • - - - - - •

VentilatngNo «tud partition*

IN GENERAL. - - ,- .

The 1917 CENTER,SECTIONby t*> (2) coel-fit*dCENTER SECTION, ,-Without considering the poeeibl«\eatt of fireprrofihg eoe« of theee lieted under "A" «r«J e poeidble eaeernixetibn'or the venHleting ey»-tee, end due to M» 409 M* florid!^'oriîtt? ttMT^

- _ * _j t__ a_ A- _l_ - ^ • . _ ^ _ i t * _ A - * * jl*' A.k: * «TLi 1 * • ' _ • & . •_-*• A. »_•. '-tl '• - • _ « * _ • t • ." •••-.. •• •

taeemeht, Flret'ehdl• bulH in 1902

"•-': ' ' " '..l'..': I- „:•''-' ^'^••\".f-^\^Tt^

"• ttNTER' SttrtlMI —*-^^

B" SOUTH - lJSl'2 APOltlOM '-•Ail' ineKto^

• ' .r ' ^î. v— r~«Tf .î^-—p«T™T.ir •

• <g) Stud pertiUone; ph.r^ (hj >ntiUtton ? « .

(•) • toed tru»«e§ for(b) Hood ceiling bewe .<(c) Steel tiwet-grip jeie¥*

end

,.;;:•.

-3-

IN GENERAL

"GUIDC" Requiroment states, Page 32, P-B-3i-

"In no caae shall an Auditorium, Assembly Room, Gymnasium, Cafeteria,or any space subject to occupancy by 200 or more person, so situatedthat an occupant of its main floor, using main exits, must descendor ascend mora than 8' 0" to reach the outside grade."

The 2nd Floor Auditorium is 19' 2", plus or minus, above grade.In addition, there are no aisles leading to the Auditorium exits. "

Pupils must travel from the exits 51' 0", plus or minus, along theNorth Corridor to the stair smoke screen doors, and 53' 0", plus orminus, along the South Corridor to reach tha stair smoke screen doors.

Four (4) rooms in the Basement are used for Arts and Crafts, Library,one (l) Special Class Room and one (1) for Cducable children. Somehave insufficient natural light.

,-••;.-..-•. Ulhereas, the Basement Gymnasium Floor averages from 7' 0", plus orminus, to 8' 3", plus or minus, below grade, the two (2) South exitdoors, 5' 4" in width, which open out, block more than S0% of the.4* 8" exterior concrete steps to grade, reducing the 41 8" steps to21 6", plus or minus. . . -

CONCLUSION

Included are some Polaroid Prints of both Schools, photos taken byffir. Iftaniscalco. : • ••. .•.ir? -••'

,-. •'. Ar. •

In my opinion, the use of these tuto (2) schools should not bein any long range program. This is in the interest of theand comfort of 4v pupils. .In addition, -the high costs for repairsma'inten<nce should be an important factor.' '

'

YRespectfully submitted,

Lawrence C. Licht

^.-

(

BOARD OF EDUCATIONEnqlei'jood,Ne'Ji/ Jersey

PROPG5EO ACTIONS REGARDING THE DECISIONOf THE EDUCAT'3N - ~/l/£3

• Superintendent recommends-

1. That the Englewood Board of Education attempt to comply with the Commissioner'sdirectives of 7/1/53

12. That tne Board seek the Commissioner's approval of the following plan to beimplemented at the opening of school in September 1963:

a) Close Lincoln School for regular classroom instruction

b) Establish at the former Junior High School building at 11 Engle Streeta city-wida sixth grade school

c) Assign Lincoln School ouoils in grades 1-5 to Cleveland, Guarles andRoosevelt Schools using the following criteria:

* define attendance districts that will assign children, as nearlyas possible, to the school nearest their homes

* provide for an even distribution of class loads

d) Permit ths voluntary enrollment of fifth grade pupils from any elemen-tary school in a central fifth grade scnool at II Engie Street

s] Assign kincergarten children from Lincoln School to 11 Engle Streetand

Establish s voluntary city-wide are-school program for children 4 yearsof age on or ccfor:; December 31st

f) Initiate a program of extended educational services designed to raiselevels of attainment and aspiration of unoerachieving pupils (higherHorizons)

g) Suoport programs of the Adult School zf Enoleiuocc suited to the needs-and interests of parents of school unceracnievers.

h) In view of rscsnt studies of traffic safety concitions of oupil routesto all elementary schools, consider a revision of transportationpolicies as fellows:

* Kindergarten thru Grade 3 - transport beyond bounds establishedby Bcarc ( of approximately 3/4 nils;

* Graoes 4 thru 6 - transport beyond bounds established by Scare(of approximately 1 mile)

Proposed Actions continued -2-

i) Retain three irainable clashes at Lincoln School and locate centraloffices and system-wide operations at the Lincoln School

That the Board direct the Superintendent to conduct a study of the followinglong-range proposals:

a) Proceed immediately with program study and building survey leading tothe development of educational specifications for a four year compre-hensive saconriary school program at Owight Harrow High School.

b) Conduct a faculty study of a junior high school program for grades 6-8

c) Conduct an elementary school (K-5) enrollment study and building needssurvey with particular attention to replacing facilities at LibertySchool and to eliminating the use of 11 Engle Street at an early date.

\JlTn the r«...,.. ..

Examination of CommissionerTUubincer's derision in the Kngle-wood school *" "••«•conclusion*:

Says Quota Plan .Abhorrent Idea^/s

1. The decision holds that \vhercis an ext reme racial imbalance, in.the assignment of negro imbalance]has resulted v::thout sr.y intention-al segregation, then the legal, rightsof the negro pupils involved havebeen violated, provided only thatippropriate means can be found toivoid the concentration of, thenegro pupils in the school inquestion.

2. Dr. Raubinger gives no indica-tion, in either the Englcwood de-cision or in the Orange or Plain-field cases, (decided earlier thisyear) who is to decide whether"appropriate means" can be foundto eliminate the racial imbalance.

No legal authority for the Rau-binger decision is cited by theCommissioner, other than his ownlaymen's interpretation of ArticleI, Section 5 of the New Jersey

, Constitution.No basis for his decision can be

found in the 1954 ruling by theU. S. Supreme Court known as theBrown cafe. * Tn the Brown case,the Supreme Court decided onlythat intentional, or purposeful, se-gregation of public education is adenial of rights under the 14thamendment to the Federal Constilution.

Fcrtunttt fsf CityFortunately for the citizens of!

Englewood, the courts ol. this IState are Mill open for the pro-'tcclion of all of our citizens, inobtaining a definitive ruling on thefundamental question -whether therights of a minority group havebeen violated because of. unintent-ional racial imbalance. The logicimplicit in thr R.iubinj»er decisionpoints clearly to but one conclusionviz:—where there are "appropriatemeans'" available to rectify thera.ci«l imbalance found in pupilassignments, then the local school

, board (and by the same token, theBoard of School Estimate) is undera duty to take the necessary stepsto correct tho imbalance, and ir-respective of the cost to the tax-payers as a whole, liut not victV*M».

Because o[ HIP doubtful validityof Dr. Raubingor's decision, as alegal proposition, [ heartily joinin the suggestion made by DanielE. Allen that the Englcwood municipal authorities fi le an imme-diate appeal from this decisionboth to the State Board of Educa-

i tion, and there-after to our courtrot law, in order that the citizenand taxpayers ot Knglewood ma;be reliably informed of our r-\pective responsibilities in copiwith this difficult problem.

In vi*w o{ Jhc positions prcously taken by the EnglewoodBoard of Education, it seems doubt-ful that a majority of that Boardwill authorize the taking oC anappeal. I>espile the fact that theBoard of School Estimate and theMayor and Ommon Council are

i no longer formal parties to theI proceedings which have resulted

in the Kaubinger decision, thethreat (which both he and Gover-nor Hughes have so broadly hint-ed) that the State Aid funds whichnormally move to Englcwood will

I he cut oft unless Dr. Raubingcr'sedict is complied with, should besufficient to persuade the Mayorand Council to take the necessarysteps to get this case before thecourts at the earliest possible date.

Very truly yours,GEORGE G. TEXNANT JR

To the Editor:I would like to call to the at-

tention of your readers an articleappearing in the Now York Timesof July 11. 1963 reporting on a<case heard by the New York StateCommission on Human Rights. The

. owner oC an apartment building1 containing eight rental units, seven ]of which were occupied by whitesand one by negroes, sought toprotect the inter-racial characterof the building by refusing anyadditional negro tenants in thebelief that there was an i m m i n e n tdanger ot losing what he consider-ed to be a proper racial balance mthe building.

The Commission held that Ihelandlord's action was unlawful stat-ing that a racial quota system is"unfair and undesirable under anycircumstances." It slated that it Iwas mindful that "disturbing and !ominous portents" indicated an ex-tension oC I he concept into the

i fields of education and employ-ment. U went on to say "the verynature o fthe quota system violatesnature of the quota system violatesfreedom of choice and substitutesfor it potentially arbitrary and ty-rannical controls.1*

Arc not some o£ those who ad-1vocatft a system of enforced "racialbalance" in the Englewood pub-lic schools really proposing thatwe establish a racial quota sys-tem in this community?

Very tntly yours,GEORGE B. MOON140 West ivy LaneEnglcwood, N. J.

SONS AppealsState Ruling; /

-7/'8/03 C

Board ConfersGroups in MonlcUir and Or-

i ange, which face the SJtme prob-' Icrm, may join Englewood in *; general appeal of the ruling*i from Trenton all of which are1 similar in that they call lor

- • desegregation of * given schooland change in the neighborhoodschool policy.

KNCl .KWOtm — \ \h i l - - Hie Kn': "Irv.x*! Hoard < > l Ki l ix-a t ion ctmti' i nut-s i l i vrii\ of informal confer1 '. 1 ' i i r r^ a% ;i Ixi.ird .-itut also wilt" memluT- il i lu - Bimnl nl Schnn' I'Siimaie. ihf Save our Noit 'h l inr• Irnod Srhu:iK < 'nnuii i l t r r 1l}i> wi-cV

file*! an n i l i ' i i t i im of appeal a;;:iins.'• ihi- !t;iul)in^cr nnlr i in it<'>csn-;'al(. Lincoln Sellout.

The SONS i s , H i licit! n ' k ftn l i l, inn -"I ispi'i'-t' i 'Sj '< 'vti i i>; In1 Board

" i o f KiliicJition lo lak'* M rh action" ! > v i » in vir-.v t;J' l!i.' l.,ili .- of lin-1 Unani o! Kdi iea l ion In o M) On-• SUNS K t m i p .sifiiptit MIi

Siu-h an api» i -»l- lu»vn-\i'v. \\oiilfl. not i '-,h ,M" lite Unarrl of l-alnralinn,' In in i Mihmillin;', » pviposetl plan

to KrMeiuk \V. U:itihinuiT. thf

. in-iil. »n Mr li.-itihinui-v h;tx rnllfdf i l l ' Mirh ,1 pKHiOsi l ) l)> ;\IC I -

s^)^S IN .:p|ii-:ilini: tin- ttiiuhmci*!nMli-i- nn Ihr ^ciMinds 1h.it il i;. m-l

, , valwl. thitl nny tilnu In Ht-M-jri-rwu' I Lincoln Schit'il. winch is prcpim! ilt-rnntly N'-j-.m h*-«-;,u-i- il r, lli

' ( iifiuhlwirhiio'l schnol tn Mir I\'",::u-r-j, M'ttit'l ( i f , mv ..Hi. r - l i i i . l i .

. ( ) ( HiCM i i»!ll In ; l i t ...I ')>" ..." '

Jami's Mirjfir n| H«-k»-:i.-iirk, ..tii'orninrnl altorn'-y wlm h:ii r'1|ir«->.fnli'tl a nunih'M iif rivtl niJltl'*ra.vs. is r«-pr.^.-nlHtt: SONS. Wtllimn V. HI olt n, iOtnicr All.«rn<-vfoi' SON'S. ^ now KnntfWdnfl 'rilyso I ir ii'ii ;m»( r;ttniML fpri-wn*SONS in ih»- -(pi i ' - i i l

, Mf{itiv.-lulc. John H. C'-rry. pri'\1 nl' nt ol Hi" l;n;inl »f Ivlurnlion,I di>,rl'»-s<"» lh;ii nif'trtnal r'tnf*'ninri" •.inifin^ 1','iiil't n| lvln<-;ill'ill lie inh.-rs HMO v. Mil rjn-mlt«T; 01 th'-lioaiil Mt S'-h'")| lv.llri<:il>'. v/ltirli'•'Milt»)ls M-hm»t :ipjiropn:ih*iir , )•• : t ) i ui i 'S ! •/..:!•,• in" it'i.m! n- , . : i /c!h:il nml'T p:i:,1 p'.h>-;. Dx- H-.-miol Si-h'inl r.:-.tnn;itr- li;i\lrii*-:iMiM--. r:illn,:' I'M liirj-.- .i|M»i'i

On' - ' l u i ' - l I ft V / i l l l I M ' H .

ll»i.inl ol :-.i-Ji'i«l KMi*-IM'III\M ic:i'li'-l

lt'iot ti'iiti'l v.-iM

p«i. nl , iinhl Itavntj; In •.! Milmiil, lff( tin-in In Mi* Slate ( 'tmiiiiiv,i'in, ••,. Tlic t.'.;.nf r. ti'il'hnK .. in-'-iin;:

on Miiri'hiy ni::ht, .I<ilv .'.'•), ''• •-•'•(•r.<- },,n .-ui'l !.i'fti;j)<lv Hi- vii.i i - ' 1 n\M .cii'i ' i l >n'>p'i .;>! . v.ilt

DINCINCOTJNSSI.I.OS AT LAW

July 23, 1963

CENTHAI.BtIII.niUG

18 W. PAUSJIDK AVZNTJBEKOI.EVOOD, N. J.

LOWSIL B-3000

ft

CoooiSBion of EducationRobert G. Platoff, Esq.Arnold E. Brown, Esq.George B. Geloan, Esq.David S. Greenberg, Esq.Robert L. Carter, Esq. .Herbert H. Tate, Esq.Barbara A. Morris, Esq.Maria Marcus, Esq.Major & Major, Esqs.

RE: SPRUXLL, ET ALS. V. THE BOARD OF EDUCATIONOF im CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, BERGEN COUNTY

Gentleaen:

Enclosed herewith please find Substitution of

Attorney showing that I, Sidney Dinein, am now the attorney

for the Board of Education of the City of Englewood.

Will you, therefore, please note this substitu-

tion of attorney on your records. '

SIDNEY D

SD:tsn

Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested

I1&4

BEFORE THE CCMdSSIONER OF EDUCATION OF NEW JERSEY

LAURA, ROBERT and JAY VOLPE, et •!.,

Petitioners,vs.

KENNETH ANCRUM and LESLIEANCRUM, et ml.,

Appellants,

vs.

THE BOARD Of EDUCATION OF THECITY OF EHOLEWDOD, NEW JERSEY,

Respondent.

SUBST-ITUTIONOF ATTORNEY

I, ABRAM A. LEBJOW, do hereby consent that Sidney Dincin,

Esq. be substituted In ary place and stead as attorney for the

Respondent, The Board of Education of Th$ C-ttv of Englewnod. New

•racy.

DRAFT

TENTATIVE PROPOSAL GF A PLAN

TO COMPLY IJITH THE

DECISION OF THE STATE C Gf'WlI SSI ONER OF EDUCATION

OF rvEL'J JERSEY

DIRECTING THE ENGLEWQOD BOARD OF EDUCATION

TO REDUCE THE EXTREME CI-NCEUTRATION OF MEGRO PUPILS

ITJ THE LINCOLN SCHOOL

Hoard cf education^-Dod, N.J.

July 24, 1963

A Proposed Design for Action by the Engieuuooa, New Jsrsey, Board of Education toComply with the Directive of Commissioner Frederick ft". Raubinger, New Jersey StateDepartment of Education to Reduce the Extreme Concentration of Negro Pupils in theLincoln School:

fls of the opening of school in Septemoer 1353:

1. To establish at the former Junior High School building at 11 Engle Streeta city-wide sixth grade school to whicn the Board assigns all sixth gradepupils of the Englei'jood Public Schools

2. To assign all pupils of grades one through five residing in the LincolnSchool attendance district to the Cleveland, Quarles and Roosevelt Schools,such assignment to be determined by the Superintendent on the basis of thefollowing* criteria:

a) define attendance districts so that children of the Lincoln Schooldistrict will be assigned as nearly as possible, to the schoolnearest their homes

b) provide for an even distribution of class loads

3. To provide any child so assigned an option to remain at the Lincoln SchooluDon application oy the parent or guardian to the Superintendent prior toAugust 21, 1965.

4. To assign to Lincoln School all children of kindergarten age residing inthe present Lincoln School district.

5. To transfer the central administrative offices of the Board of Educationto the Lincoln School.

5. To instruct the Superintendent to proceed immediately with all necessaryarrangements, notices, and procedures consistent with the laws of theState of New Jersey to execute these directives.

OVIDED THAT:

The Board's Attorney gives assurance of immunity of Board members fromtaxpayers suits regarcing the expenditure of public monies to implementany aspect of these plans ....

IND PROVIDED THAT:

The 3oard of School Estimate approves funds necessary to put these plansinto effect according to the estimates attached hereto.

-2-

I T E W

Building Renovat ion - former Junior Hign School 3 105,000

Equipment

[loving of Board of f ices

Faculty Preparat ion

Cleveland School temporary classrooms

•didnistration- 11 Engle Street

Oration - 11 Engle Street

U I n '_ 3

:GNT?ACT BOARD OF EDUCATION

S 50,570

10,000 10,000

700 700

3,500 3,500

5,200 5,200

19,300 19,300

9,500 9,500

153,700 I99,270

L

-3-

Proposed supplementary actions:

1. To revise pupil transportaticn policias as follows:

a) Kindergarten through grace 3 - transport beyond bounds establishedby the Board of Education ( approximately 3/4 mile)

b) Grades 4 through 6 - transport beyond bounds established by theBoard of Education ( aonroximately 1-J mile)

2. To establish at the former Junior High School at 11 Engls Street avoluntary city-wide pre-kindergsrten program for children four years ofage on 3r before December 31st.

3. To initiate a program of extencsd educational services and opportunitiesdesigned to raise levels of attainment and aspirations of underachievingpupils (Higher Horizons)

4. To support programs of the Adult School of Englemood suited to the needsand interests of parents of serial underachievers

5. To continue and intensify sffcrts to unify and improve the curriculum ofthe schools at all levels thrcugn programs of in-service education ofteachers and administrators through increased use of visual and auditoryaids to learning, and through local action research projects.

5. To initiate studies of the following Icng-range school imorovementproposals:

a) A program study and building survey leading to the developmentof educational specifics-ions for a four year comprehensivesecondary school orograr. at Djjignt filer row; High School

b) A faculty study of a junior high school program for grades sixthrough eight

c) An elementary school (X-5) enrollment study ana building nsedssurvey with particular a-~ention to replacing classroom facilitiesat Liberty and Lincoln Schools and to eliminating the use ofschool properties at 11 Engl<2 Street at an early data.

r

ESTIMATED COSTS (SUPPLEMENTARY)

Pupil Transportation

Pre-Kindergarten Program

Higher Horizons

Adult Education

Consultants Fees

TOTAL

3 3G.G2Q

6,GOO

25,000

2 ,GQG

5, GOO

2 69,000

-4-

A Rebuke To Time"Things are tough enough all over

without Time Magazine making themworse.

In its soupcd-up, breezy manner inits July 12 issue it contains this itemon Engle\vood. "In 1954 the cityschool board redrew school bounda-ries in a way that concentrated Negrostndents in the Lincoln School dis-trict Negroes have fought the moveever since."

Eme's writers should be morecareful. If they had read any of thedocuments on the Englewood school[situation they would be aware thatFrederick W. Raubingcr, commis-sioner of education, has gone out ofkis way in all his reports to point out[hat the Lincoln School racial imbal-

ice is not intentional, not planned,lot deliberately discriminatory but

the result of housing and economicLtterns. Lincoln School is the neigh-•hood school-located in the heartthe Negro district. At one lime,

riien the area was predominantly !Me, Lincoln School was predomi- !intly white. As Negroes displaced jlites in the area, they displaced 'rites in the school.

| In 1954 the Board of Education.de minor shifts in the boundary

lues affecting Lincoln, Liberty, andCleveland Schools. They were made'y Dr. Harry L. Stearns, then super- jfctendent of schools, in an effort to

•lieve overcrowding in Cleveland ;tool. On appeal by a group of Nc- i

:s, C o m m i s s i o n e r Raubingcr ,[lifted the line between Lincoln and i

Iberly so as to technically remove jy feeling that the board's action :

Ld been directed against those fewgro pupils.

\Kaps lltos\ it .AnotherTn the Kditor: ,

Jt i.s u n f o r t u n a t e th; i ' ihc "lit--'.; cord'' appears to he miablrr «»r un- ij u iMin i ; lo accurately report th*> i: s tatements a-nd a t t i tudes ol" those jf groups or individuals w i l h whom '

it is not iit agreement.In ;>n nrefiitn* of nn intvrv:?•*.*.

u i i h I l ie undersigned published inthe "Record" last week, certainM.Tlement.s were a t t r ibuted t» me.;Later, the reporter who conducted''he interview, Mr. Mar t in -Side-,j

•• ad mil ted freely, before \vilnc*.>*»*.I tha t these >t ; i tementv a> published.'- \vrre campJetel\ incorrect, had jnever been made hy me. a r i f f in j

I fact were not the way he had n:--'ported the interview to the "Kf*-

jcord." He stated also t ha t ihis ar-'t t iclc had been w r i t t e n hy 3 mem-'i; ber of the staff of tho '•Record"'( f r o m the notes he had s i[>mit 'ed. j' It is not loo d i f f i cu l t lo fiqurr o u t ;I just w h i c h member of the "Record.'"!i s t a f f was involved in th i> .

The story in Ihe "Record" !n%:

ladder! lo the general confusion con-'jcerninj i Ihc appeal of Commi&MOnorj

Haubingcr's decision. The forts are jI these:

The: Tiofice of in ten t ion to an-;, p f - a l .vhich has been filed is 3 'I mere formali ty, made necessary by'! the fact that the Board of Kduca-S1 lion has announced t h a t no pro-'' posal woulrl be made publ ic prior!to August 1. Since August t ends'i bo s t a tu to ry t ime l imit for the i

j f i l i n g i>f any appeal from this dc - j! cision, we woulrl be precluded from jt a s k i n g for s tate remedies after tha! j:cla(e, no mat te r Iiow intolernhle a !plan Board m'slit cotne up w i t h .

There are serious doubts con-j ceiTiing the val id i ty and «*onstilu*. |j l u m a i i l y of Comniissioner H a u b i n - j l{tier's decision. Despite IIK lindrn«**.|tt is against the laws of Ih is S t ; r t e i

! for n member of n Bo.trd t»f Kduca- i! l ion to exclude «»?/ chi ld from i! |! school because of race, creed, or j ,; na t ional ancestrv. In \ew York I1 i

j Slate, the M.ilvorne IJoaril of Kduc-j! a I ion is appe;rlini: a similar decision ;.by Commissioner Al len. Tbr M:«- ! •nhassef. Uoard of Kducation is f i j i l i i - j i

j ine; the same kind of case in FeH-liic rn l Court. In N'e'A* Jersey, besidesj jMiglcwood, there is opposition lo.j lhe Cfimmissioner's rul ing tn Or-, iinge and Pla tnf ic ld . and Îc.-nlclairhas already filed suit in FederalCourt.

Commissioner Kaubinxcr b:rs ii come up wilh :i rather novel ap-1i prnnch in law. He has decided, in jj e f f r c t . I ha t the prat ice of a.vsi.cnin^ I\n lo school in Kn^lrwood1 was le;0*nl and cons t i tu t iona l up JoJuly 1, 1%'f. However, wi th no jcnnnji'.'s in the Cons t i tu t ion or HK% !

i law. he hns decider! I h a t tlu-v.*'same pr.iclkes arc illegal and un-cons(ilution;d a f t e r Ju ly I . Theasloundini; part of the whole d o - jci>ion is t h a i Cnmmis.-inner i

| R.TubmCer based hi^ dwision!on no evidence whatsoever, iTl i s own Hcarins Officer. Commis-;sioner GroezinCcr. .iaid publicly a:the heat ings and i l is in the o f f i c i a lIransrr'pt. Ihat ' ' iitlle or no evid-ence has been adduced at the liear-j\W? to help thr Commissionc:':reach :i decision, and t h a t f l i c o p i n - jIOMS ut ind iv idua ls w;is uol ev iden - j

Ti> draw a parallel, i' is as i f , i n iI a neijlif.'1'ncc case, the dcfe ' idant t] was found not g u i l t y of \\\r ,' charges bnui^lii nu;i in>t h im. an'i !yet \v-a-- contpcltetl lo pay d;:ma.m-« 'bec-inse ol some \e "l i-el in-/ "on the part of the ;> l :u i i l i f i . A dc ' jcision like this could never Man.! j [up in any court.

To put it p l a i n K . \u- belie1, e ! |Il'.at tlie :?>.-.iîiincu! of vlnld 'c t i !u ' ;

school on I h*' b;i\i-; nf r,\rt* ?< inviolat ion nf the 14th Amendment. ;and in contravention «l thf l!)ii4 -Supreme Court decision. De-pi tv Ihis own Mniement tha t he i- not ; ,passing on the cons t i tu t iona l ' ine-.-i (

lion, the Ceinmissiom'r h,'.<. in r f - ;feet, ordered the Knclev.oud Muar;l ; ;of Kducn l ion to make race n factor ; iin assii;nmenl li> vchool, *

How ul t tv ly ludicrot:- the Com-:ni-sioner'< decision \vas c::ii bo!be i l lus t ra ted iu tlie Omii'je casej\e lie .mii^c^ts that one u - iy | •o L re l.'cvi n.U t he racin I i m ha I LI nee j ;at n "chool which has r. !>fi '"I. No-Mj'.ro eprolhnf nl i*- tn combine iN • |enrollment w i i h :i fid r' school, * h u - jmakini: t w o iMcia l ly imbaUrticeit ; |75 ': ..25 '"- !tchool>. \Vnulo" i l ; < * ;

(.'oiiiniissioni'r also advucal i* l i ie 'combining uf Lincoln and i.tberiySc'iitols. in Kntlrv, i»od. since i t t . ¥ Iresu l t ing unbalance. preMimably. j |' .- .OHM not be oh j i> i - t i (xu ih lc lo him.*;]

hi vopotT-e lo a wavr of inrti^tu-tilion in N'ew %'ork a! the )in»>pei-' i •of m'cd1<\N>I> s b u t t l i i i ^ rhililivnl Iback and hu'l i i to . f v b u - v r .-onuv jideal, temporary r th inc balance. •C'nininiNMOnt'r Al l t -n ha-; a lreadv!been forced i» back-track. Theprinciple involved inis prccis*1>* the snme.

In oiu- v>f the i r inon-; i i < - ediiiMMal.- , t in- "Ret-"\V)»i 'n :...v- .»;;- ..; :;.unequal trea'nu'iit , the• C us i- in di'nycr «»t

Knulcwnod I

-ci i i / .nphrf . 'r - i" -;;itci! •

f\y one j j-in-; T h , . j j

i | U a t i ' y all men lone lor and m a t c h 1 1• n a i i f i i i« iu .tim "ivr iui .-»^. • . . - > , _

lelicvc.-; in rhis principle whole- ljiicarte'!!1-. The Cnui'^ h.i'. '• un:- 'jounly h«-ld thr. t i n r q u a l i t y i n c l n d f -le- i Ui:tn ft\u;i\i :*.- v . t - l t ';»> r f lc i f»t i . ' i l In -y t in rn l . lioth J i « - '

Vovir very tni l},I.OCIS PCC.ACHUnl Van \o-.!ran'' ; i \c, . iu-Kni:!«-wood. N. J.

J

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF .CONGRESS

*

PROPOSAL OF A PLAN

TO .COMPLY WITH THE

DECISION OF THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

OF NEW JERSEY

DIRECTING THE' ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION

TO REDUCE THE EXTREME CONCENTRATI0N OF HEGRO PUPILSi 'r

IN THE LINCOLN SCHOOL

dciard of EducationEnglewogd, N.J.

July 29, 1963

Bs it resolved by tha Board of Education of the City-of Engleuiood,

Bergen County, New Jersoy, that in order to comply with tha directive of

Commissioner Frederick M. Raubinger, Menu Jersey State Department of Educa-

tion, dated: July 1st, 1963, which directive directs the Englewood Board of

Education to do the following things:

1. To formulate a plan or plans to reduce the extreme concentra-

tion of pupils of the Negro race in the Lincoln School consistent with the

principles and findings enunciated in this decision;

2. To submit such plan or plans to the Commissioner of Education

for approval on or before August 1, 1963;

3. To put a plan, as approved, into affect at the beginning of

the 1963-64.school year.

NOUJ, therefore, in compliance with seid directive, the Board of

Education of the City of Engletuood, Bergen County, Meiu Jersey-,- submits the

following plan, to take affect as of the opening of school in September, 1963,

or as soon thereafter es building renovations can be effected. .

1. To establish at the former Junior High School building at11 Engle Street, a city-wide sixth-grade school to which theBoard assigns all sixth grade pupils of the Englewood Publicschools,

2. To assign all pupils of grades one through five residing in 'the. Lincoln School attendance district to the Cleveland,Quarles-and Roosevelt Schools, such "assignment to be determinedby the Superintendent on the basis of the following criteria:

a) define attendance districts so that children of theLincoln School district will bs assigned as nearlyas possible, to the school nearest their-homes",


0) To permit tha children whose parents wish tham toremain at tha Lincoln School to remain there provided

"that~it "is administratively and educationally" practicableto do so.

3. As a prerequisite to--thB"Bstablishment of the'ctty-mjiUB Btn^ggadeschool referred to in Paragraph (l) above,jreit.ner of the follow-? ..:ing two conditions must-occur: _ .--'. .. •---'•

1) 125 or more present_stijdetrts_p.f__Lincoln~Schoo-l-must———N0T-elffct""t'o"rsine"irr~for the 1963-64 term at Lincoln

Schoolor —'_

.^.J •: 2) The number of transfers from Lincoln School will resultin class loads in Queries, Cleveland, or RooseveltSchools which, in the opinion of the Board of Education,are educationally undesirable. -\J

. To assign to Lincoln School all children of Kindergarten ageresiding in tha present Lincoln School district.

; • •-- -2-

5. To transfer the central administrative offices of tha Board ofEducation to the Lincoln School.

6. To instruct the Superintendent"wo proceed immediately with allnecessary arrangements, notices and procedures consistent withthe laws of the State of-New Jersey to execute thase directives.

PROVIDED THAT:

. . ' ' %.The plan meets the requirements of the law and that the Board's

Attorney gives assurance of immunity of.Board members and the Superintendent

from taxpayers' suits regarding the expenditure of—public monies to implement

any aspect of these plans.

AND PROVIDED THAT:

' This Soar'd of School Estimate and the governing Body of the City of

Englewood approves funds necessary to put these plans into effect according

to the estimates attached hereto. ':'•','•

AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT:

The Commissioner approves the above plan.

.E3TIi"A ;£U COSTS

Building Renovation - former JuniorHigh School

Equipment

ffloving of Board Offices

Faculty Preparation

Cleveland School temporary classroomsJ 1

BOARD OF EDUCATION

3 50,600.00

10/000.00

' / • ; ' J . -'700.00' -J

I

3,500.00 ./ ,, -' /- " " -' •' /

5,200.00

j.J

' j

ESTIMATED COSTS (SUPPLEMENTARY)

Pupil Transportation 8 15,000.00

Pre-Kindargartsn Program

Higher Horizons

Adult Education

'••' it ''Consultants" I'BBS"

6,000.00

2,000.00

5,000.00

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

GERTRUDE P. FULLER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Civil ActionNo. 847-63

AUSTIN A. VOLK, et al., constitutingthe BOARD OP SCHOOL ESTIMATE OP THECITY OP ENGLEWOOD; the CITY OFENGLEWOOD; and JOHN H. PERRY, et al.,constituting the BOARD OF EDUCATIONOP THE CITY OP ENGLEWOOD,

Defendants.

JERRY VOLPE, et al., )

Intervening Plaintiffs, )and

)FREDERICK M. RAUBINGER, Commissionerof Education of the State of New Jersey, )

and )

KENNETH ANCRUM, et al., )

and )

DEBORAH SPRUILL, )

Intervening Defendants. )

)

Appearances:

Vorsanger & Murphy, Esquires, Attorneys for plaintiffsGertrude P. Fuller, et al.,

Byj James T. Murphy, Esquire;

0 P I I 0 N

Breslin & Breslin, Esquires, Attorneys for defendants Austin A.Volk, et al., cc«sTiûting the Boardof School Estimate of the City ofEnglewood,- and the City of Englewood,

Byt John J. Breslin, Jr., Esquire;

Sidney Dincin, Esquire, Attorney for defendants John H. Perry,et al., constituting the Board of Educa-tion of the City of Englewood;

s

Major & Major, Esquires, Attorneys for intervening plaintiffsJerry Volpe, et al.,

By: James A. Major, Esquire;

Arthur J. Sills, Esquire, Attorney General of New Jersey,Attorney for intervening defendantFrederick M. Raubinger,

By: Joseph A. Hoffman, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General;

Herbert H. Tate and Barbara A. Morris, Esquires,Attorneys for intervening defendantsKenneth Ancrum, et al.t

Morton Stavis and William M. Kunstler, Esquires,Attorneys for intervening defendantDeborah Spruill.

. R P G E L L I . District Judge:

The plaintiffs in this case challenge the validity

I of a plan (hereinafter called the "Plan") adopted by the Englewood

|Board of Education on July 29, 1963, entitled "PROPOSAL OF A PLAN

[TO COMPLY WITH THE DECISION OF THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

I OF NEW JERSEY DIRECTING THE ENGLETOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION TO REDUCE

ITHE EXTREME CONCENTRATION OF NEGRO PUPILS IN THE LINCOLN SCHOOL".

The following facts are based on a stipulation made in

court on December 16, 1963, and on the several exhibits

parked in evidence on that date, including a map showing the

ichool attendance areas in Englewood prior and subsequent to the

pffeotive date of the Plan.

The School District of the City of Englewood is organ-.~~-

zed under the provisions of Chapter 6 of Title 18 of thd—Revised

Statutes of New Jersey, N.J.S.A. 18:6-1 gt sec;. The Englewood

Ipard of Education consists of five members appointed by the Mayor,

Bid its funds^for operation of the schools are subject to approval

w the Board of School Estimate.

2.

The City of Knglewood is a comraunity with a popula-/tion of approximately 30,000 people, and has a geographical area

/which measures roughly 2.7 miles in length and 2,3 wiles in width.

The City has one jjunior high school, attended by children in

grades 7, 8 and 9; and one senior high school, attended by chil-

dren in. grades 10, 11 and 12.

The controversy in this case centers around the

elementary schools of Englewood, with its focus on the Lincoln

School where the enrollment was composed almost exclusively of

Uegro children.

Prior to the adoption of the Plan, there were five

elementary schools in Englewood, kindergarten through sixth grade,

to which pupils were assigned generally on the basis of residence

in certain designated attendance areas. As of September 19, 1962,

these schools, their enrollment, and racial composition, were

as follows:

School

Cleveland

Liberty

Lincoln

Quarles

Roosevelt

Enrollment

477

418

505

343

345

% White

99.6

38.0

2.0

96.8

85.5

% Negro

.4

62.0

98.0

3.2

14.5

Prior to the commencement of this litigation, the

intervening defendants herein, Spruill and Ancrure et al., filed

petitions with the Commissioner of Education of the State of New

Jersey, in which they charged the Englewood Board of Education

with the maintenance of racially segregated schools cind with

refusal to consider plans, including a proposal for a central

intermediate school, to eliminate such racial segregation. The

intervening plaintiffs herein, Volpe et al., were permitted to

intervene in the proceedings before the Commissioner, They

3.

objected to the establishment of a central intermediate school,

and sought to restrain the Board of Education free violating the

neighborhood school principle and from expending public 'funds in

furtherance of the changes demanded by the Spruill and Ancrua

petitioners.

The Englewood Board of Education denied that it was

guilty of intentional segregation or discrimination. It asserted

that educational opportunities afforded Bnglewood children were

equal, regardless of the school attended. The Board also pointed

out that the racial imbalance that existed at the Lincoln School

resulted not from any action attributable to the Board, but from

the fact that the neighborhood in which the school was located

was inhabited by a predominantly Negro population.

In an opinion dated July 1, 1963, the Coawissioner

directed the Bnglewood Board of Education to formulate a plan to

reduce the extreme concentration of Negro pupils in the Lincoln

School? to submit such plan to the Commissioner for approval on

or before August 1, 1963? and to put a plan, as approved, into

effect at the beginning of the 1963-64 school year. This decision

was based upon the Cccsnissioner's determination that the pupil

assignment policies then in force in the Englewood School District

resulted in an extreme concentration of Negro children in the

Lincoln School; that attendance at the almost exclusively Negro

Lincoln School engendered feelings and attitudes in pupils which

tended to interfere with learning? that such continued concentra-

tion of Negro pupi s as existed at the Lincoln School constituted

a deprivation of educational opportunity under New Jersey law for

those pupils compelled to attend that school; and that reasonable

and practicable means, consistent with accepted educational and

administrative practice, could be devised to reduce the racial

concentration in the Lincoln School. The Commissioner also found

4.

CUUJ*.TICKS OF TOE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRAE CF CCNGRESS

that there was no evidence in the case before him of any deliber-

ate attempt by the Englewood Board of Education to segregate the

pupils in its public schools by race.

Acting pursuant to this decision by the Commissioner,

the Englewood Board of Education formulated the aforementioned

Plan, and submitted it to the Commissioner for approval. The

Commissioner approved the Plan on August 1, 1963. The Flan

directed the Board to taXe the following action:

"1. To establish at the former Junior High SC)K>O!building at 11 Engle Street, a city-wide sixth-gradeschool to which the Board assigns all sixth grade pupilsof the Englewood Public schools,

2. To assign all pupils of grades one through fiveresiding in the Lincoln School attendance districtto the Cleveland, Quarles and Roosevelt Schools, suchassignment to be determined by the Superintendent onthe basis of the following criteria!

a) define attendance districts so that childrenof the Lincoln School district will beassigned as nearly as possible, to theschool nearest their homes,

b) provide for an even distribution of classloads,

c) to perait the children whose parents wishthem to remain at the Lincoln School toremain there provided that it is adminis-tratively and educationally practicable todo so.

3. As a prerequisite to the establishment of thecity-wide sixth-grade school referred to in Paragraph(1), either of the following two conditions must occur:

125 or more present students of LincolnSchoe-1 must NOT elect to remain for the1963-64 term at Lincoln School

1)

2) The number of transfers from Lincoln Schoolwill result in class loads in Quarles,Cleveland, or Roosevelt Schools which, inthe opinion of the Board of Education, areeducationally undesirable.

4. To assign to Lincoln School all children of Kinder-garten age residing in the present Lincoln School district.

5.

5. To transfer the central administrative offices of theBoard of Education to the Lincoln School.

6. To instruct the Superintendent to proceed immediatelywith jill necessary arrangements, notices and proceduresconsistent with the laws of the State of New Jersey toexecute these directives."

Meanwhile, on July 16, 1963, the Volpe group had filed

an appeal from the Commissioner's decision of July 1 to the State

Board of Education. The State Board affirmed the Cocranissioner's

decision, and from that determination the Volpe group appealed

to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey,

which appeal has since been withdrawn. In addition, the Volpe

group, as well as the Fuller plaintiffs in this action, filed

complaints in the Chancery and Law Divisions of the Superior Court

of New Jersey, in which they sought to enjoin the expenditure of

funds to implement the Plan. Injunctive relief was denied to

the Volpe and Fuller plaintiffs, and appeals taken from these

decisions are presumably still pending.

Following the Commissioner's approval of the Plan,

Dr. Mark R. Shedd, the Englewood Superintendent of Schools, sent

to the parents of the 325 pupils in grades one through five of

the Lincoln School a letter and questionnaire, in which the

parents were asked to indicate whether they desired their children

to remain at the Lincoln School or be assigned to the Cleveland,

Quarles or Roosevelt Schools. The returns from these question-

naires, as of August 21, 1963, showed 242 acceptances, .of assign-

^ments out of the Lincoln School and 21 preferences to remain at

Lincoln.

On August 19, 1963, the Board of School Estimate

certified the sum of $53,000.00 to implement the Plan, which sum

was transferred by the City of Englewood to the Board of Education

on or about September 11, 1963. In addition, $50,000.00 of bond

/'

6.

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY CF CCNGRE

money was transferred by the Board of Education from the Improve-

ment Authorization Account to the Capital Outlay Account. The

total sum of $103,000.00 was allocated as follows:

Building renovation at 11 Engle Street $50,600.00

Equipment for 11 Engle Street 10,000.00

Moving Board offices from 11 Engle Streetto Lincoln - School 700.00

Temporary classrooms at Cleveland School 5,200.00

Faculty preparation 3,500.00

Pre-kindergarten program 6,000.00

Higher Horizons 25,000.00

Adult education 2,000.00

When the 1963-64 school term opened on September 4,

1963, approximately 125 Lincoln School pupils, grades one through

five, were assigned to the Cleveland, Roosevelt and Quarles

Schools in accordance with the Plan. The full Plan did not go

into effect at this time because the renovation of the building

at 11 Engle Street had not yet been completed.

The Fuller plaintiffs filed their complaint in this

Court on October 11, 1963. They named as defendants the City of

Englewood, and the members constituting the Board of School

Estimate and the Board of Education of that City. Plaintiffs

sought to enjoin the appropriation and expenditure of public

funds to implement the Plan, and to have such appropriation andL_

expenditure, as well as the Plan itself, declared unconstitutional

and unlawful. They predicated their right to relief on the

Fourteenth Amendment and their status as taxpayers of the muni-

cipality?

7.

REPRODUCED FRCM THE COLLECTICHS CT TOE M&NUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRAE* CF CO*

"The Fullers complained that, under the Plan, the

neighborhood school policy, pursuant to which children beneath

the junior high school grades had been assigned to attend schools

on the basis of residence within a particular attendance area,

regardless of race, was abandoned; and that children from the

entire city were now required, because of racial considerations,

to attend a sixth grade school in the industrial area of Englewood

at 11 Engle Street. They also complained that they were unduly

discriminated against on account of race, because the children in

grades one through five in the elementary schools, other than

Lincoln, were not given a right to vote on the effectiveness of

the Plan. Another objectionable feature of the Plan, according

to plaintiffs, was that the children residing in the attendance

areas of the elementary schools, other than Lincoln, were not

permitted to attend schools outside of their previously estab-

lished attendance areas. These latter two provisions, it was

alleged, denied equal protection of the laws to the pupils in

four out of the five attendance school areas, and gave a prefer-

ence to the Lincoln School pupils that was based solely on race

and color.

On October 14, 1963, plaintiffs obtained from this

Court an order directing defendants to show cause why they should

not be enjoined from appropriating or expending public funds to

implement the Plan. At the hearing on October 21, 1963, the order

to show cause was discharged on the basis of an agreement among

the parties that defendants spend no additional money, other than

for normal operating expenses, in furtherance of the Plan, and

that every effort would be made to fix an early date for final

hearing. In addition, at this hearing, the Volpe group was

permitted to intervene as plaintiffs in the action, and the

8.

Commissioner of Education was allowed to intervene as a defendant.

A motion by the Commissioner to dismiss the complaint

for lack of jurisdiction was also heard on October 21, 1963, and

denied. Subsequently, the Commissioner applied for leave to

file an interlocutory appeal from this decision, which also was

denied. Thereafter, the Commissioner, who had not joined in the

above-mentioned October 21 agreement, made applications to the

Court of Appeals for this Circuit and to the United States

Supreme Court for leave to petition for a writ of prohibition on

the jurisdictional issue. The Court of Appeals denied the

Commissioner's application on December 3, 1963, and the Supreme

Court took like action on April 20, 1964.

On October 28, 1963, the renovations at 11 Engle

Street were completed, and the remainder of the Plan went into

effect, as followsj all sixth grade pupils in Englewood were

assigned to the 11 Engle Street School? the remaining pupils at

Lincoln School, grades one through five, were assigned to the

Roosevelt, Quarles and Cleveland Schools; Lincoln was eliminated

as an elementary school, except for the kindergarten grade and

trainabla classes; and finally, the offices of the Board of

Education were established at Lincoln.

As of November 12, 1963, after the assignments con-

templated by the Plan had been made, the composition of the

student body, grades one through six, of the elementary schools

in Englewood was as followsi

m

9.

'IMt CULLECTICNS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CCNGRfSS

3t of Pupils

290

547

283

310

301

X White

58.3

66.3

39.0

65.8

81.4

% Hegro

41.7

33.7

61.0

34.2

18.6

Engla Street (6)

Cleveland (1-5)

Liberty (1-5)

Roosevelt (1-5)

Quarles (1-5)

On November 15, 1963, the Volpe intervening plaintiffs,

as parents of children attending the Englewood public schools and

as taxpayers, filed their complaint, in which they joined in the

prayers for relief in the Puller complaint filed on October 11,

1963, and additionally sought to restrain the Englewood Board of

Education and the Commissioner of Education from interfering with

the attendance of their children at their neighborhood schools.

These plaintiffs alleged that, under the Plan, their children,

solely because of color, were no longer permitted to attend the

school located in their neighborhood, and were recjuired to attend

a sixth grade school established for the sole purpose of forcibly

intermixing white pupils with Negro pupils. They complained

that the Plan became operative by vote of the Negro first through

fifth graders of Lincoln School, and that no opportunity was

given to students in the other elementary schools to vote on the

effectiveness of the Plan. They claimed that the Plan, therefore,

resulted in a violation of rights secured to them and to their

children by the Fourteenth Amendment. ^x^

The Fuller plaintiffs have now moved for summary

judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

TfH intervening Volpe plaintiffs joined in the motion. Affidavits

for and against the motion have been filed. A hearing was held

on January 23, 1964. The Englewood Board of Education took the

10.

position that the existence of disputed questions of fact would

preclude the granting of the summary judgment motion, but sug-

gested that if the Court concluded otherwise, the state of the

record was such as to justify summary judgment in favor of the

defendants. The other defendants also contended that there were

disputed issues of fact, and that there should be a final hearing

for the purpose of adducing additional proofs. In addition, at

this hearing, a motion by the intervening defendant Spruill,

joined in by the intervening Ancrum defendants, to dismiss the

complaint or, in the alternative, to stay further proceedings in

this Court, was denied. Leave to appeal from this determination

was also denied.

A consideration of the affidavits filed on the sunsnary

judgment motion is now in order. The affidavit filed by the

plaintiff Gertrude P. Fuller in support of the motion adds

nothing to the stipulation of facts and the allegations of her

complaint, which have been discussed earlier in this opinion.

The affidavits filed on behalf of the intervening defendants

Ancrum and Spruill likewise make no factual contribution to the

case. These affidavits merely seek to show that additional

factual as well as expert testimony should be taken on the

juestion of the reasonableness of the Plan before the Court

indertakes to decide the case.

In an affidavit filed on behalf of the Englewood Board

>f Education, Dr. Shedd states that race, creed, and color are in

10 way considered in making assignments of children to the public

chools of Englewood; that in connection with the Plan, all

ixth grad^children in Englewood were assigned to the Engle

treet School, without regard to color or to the desires of their

11.

parents; and that the reasons only the parents of the Lincoln

School children, grades one through five, were given the right to/

vote the Plan into effectiveness were that theirs were the chil-

dren who/; according to the Comnissioner's decision of July 1,

1963, were being denied equal educational opportunity, and that

theirs were the children who, if they so chose, would be moved

out of Lincoln School to attend a different school. Dr. Shedd,

who holds a degree of Doctor of Education from Harvard University

and has had thirteen years of experience in teaching and in

school administration, gives his expert opinion that the Plan is

educationally sound. He also points out that, in any event, the

continued use of Lincoln as an elementary school was limited,

because of its age and physical condition. He further states

that the educational opportunities for the children assigned to

the city-wide, sixth grade school at Engle Street are superior to

opportunities previously available at the individual elementary

schools, because of the pooling and consolidation of resources.

Finally, according to Dr. Shedd, the distances traveled to the

Engle Street School and the conditions of travel do not consti-

tute undue hardship or safety hazards for the children,

In the affidavit filed by the Commissioner, he recites

that he appointed a committee of six expert educators to maXe a

study of the situation existing in the Englewood public schools,

and sets forth a brief biographical profile of the members of

the committee. This committee submitted a report to the Commis-

sioner on October 5, 1962. The report, which the Commissioner

states he considered in preparing his decision of July 1, 1963,

disclosed that, among the Negro pupils at the Lincoln School,

achievement scores were lower, retentions in grade were higher,

high school records of graduates were poorer, and drop-outs

among graduates were higher, as compared with the Negro and

12.

l-'JIJ 'FL -'L'' u^^> UT iric. i'tf1

white pupils in the other elementary schools. The Commissioner

states that, in his opinion, "a stigma attaches to attendance at

a school whose earolljnent is completely or almost exclusively

Negro and that this sense of stigma and resulting feelings of

inferiority have an undesirable effect upon attitudes related

to learning," The Commissioner found that these conditions

existed at the Lincoln School, not due to any deliberate action

by the Englewood Board of Education, but because of the segre-

gated living pattern of the neighborhood. Notwithstanding the

lack of intentional action by the Board, the Commissioner was of

the opinion that since several reasonable solutions existed, the

Board was under a legal obligation to take appropriate steps to

mitigate or eliminate these conditions at the Lincoln School.

Finally, the Commissioner states he believes that the Plan is an

educationally sound method of carrying out its objective.

The Court is satisfied from an examination of the

record made in this case that the material facts necessary to

decide the constitutional issue raised by the pleadings are not

disputed, and that therefore there is no need to delay the matter

further by the taking of additional proofs. The provisions of

the Plan have already been recited in this opinion. The circum-

stances surrounding the adoption and operation of the Plan, its

purpose to reduce the extreme concentration of Negro pupils in

the Lincoln School, and its effect on the racial composition of

the individual schools in Englewood have all been stipulated";c

Even the evidence that the Plan is educationally sounchhas not

been challenged. The constitutional issue, put simply, is

whether or not the Plan, in its operation, deprives plaintiffs

*of any "of the rights secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution.

13.

i1 DIVISION, LIBRARY op (

The plaintiffs, who acknowledge that the material

facts in thia case are free from dispute, contend that these

facts demonstrate that the Plan was adopted solely out of racial

considerations, that it discriminates against the white pupils

because of their color, and that it is, therefore, unconstitu-

tional. Plaintiffs argue that since in this case the school

attendance areas were honestly drawn without regard to race or

color, and racial imbalance in the schools resulted because such

attendance areas are populated almost entirely by Segroes, there

is no affirmative duty on the part of the Englewood Board of

Education to blend Negro and white pupils in any particular

school to eliminate such racial imbalance. Since the Constitu-

tion is supposed to be "color-blind", plaintiffs argue, the

state is constitutionally prohibited from requiring the Board

to take racial factors into consideration in order to eliminate

the extreme concentration of Negro pupils in a particular school.

It cannot be seriously disputed that racial consider-

ations were a motivating factor in the formulation of the Plan.

The school attendance lines in this case were redrawn to elimin-

ate the condition that the Coiranissioner found to exist at the

Lincoln School. This poses the question as to whether or not a

local board of education may take race into consideration in

redrawing school attendance lines in order to reduce the extreme

concentration of Negro pupils in one of its public schools,

where such concentration admittedly resulted, not from deliber-

ate state action, Jiut from de facto or adventitious segregation.

Plaintiffs place great reliance on the case of Bell

v. School City of Gary, Indiana, 213 F.Supp. 819, aff'd. 324

F.2d 209 (7 Cir. 1963), cert, den. 32 LW 3385 (1964). That

action was brought on behalf of Negro children to enjoin the

14.

tttll 1ME (JULLBCnCNS CT TOE MBWSCRIPT DIVISION., LIBRARY CF CCNGKESS

maintenance of racially segregated public schools in Gary,

Indiana. The evidence satisfied the district court that there

was no intent or purpose on the part of the defendant to segre-

gate the races in certain schools. The plaintiffs in that case

contended that, regardless of the motive or intent of the

defendant, actual segregation of the races existed in the

schools because a large percentage of the Negro children were

required to attend schools that were totally or predominantly

Negro in composition, whereas a large percentage of the white

students attended schools that were totally or predominantly

white. They took the position that there was an affirmative

duty on the part of the defendant to integrate the races so as

to bring about, as nearly as possible, a racial balance in each

of the schools in the Gary school system. The district court,

in rejecting these arguments and dismissing the complaint, held

that the defendant did not have an affirmative constitutional

duty to alter racially segregated attendance districts, result-

ing from the application of the neighborhood school policy in

residentially segregated areas. On appeal, the Court of Appeals

for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied

certiorari on May 4, 1964,

Several other federal courts have taken the same

view as the court in Bell on this question of the constitution-

ality of de facto segregation. Bricrgg v. Elliott. 132 F.Supp._t_

776 (E.D. S.C. 1955); Henrv7v7x-Codsell. 165 F.Supp. 87 (E.D.

Mich. 1958); Evans v. Buchanan. 207 F.Supp. 820 (D. Del. 1962);

Webb v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 223 F.Supp. 466

(N.D. 111. 1963). Some courts have disagreed. Blocker v. Board

of Education of Manhasset, Hew YorX, 226 F.Supp. 208 (E.D. N.Y.

1964); Branche v. Board of Education of Hempstead, 204 F.Supp.

15.

\-ui ,i fk,-j-ujHS> ur unt DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

' 150 (E.D. N.y. 1962); Jackson v. Pasadena City School District.

382 P.2d 878 (Calif. Sup. Ct. 1963).

In each of the above cited cases involving this

issue of the constitutionality of de facto segregation, Segro

plaintiffs sought to compel local boards of education to take

affirmative action to reduce or eliminate de facto segregation

in the public schools. Here, the Englewood Board of Education

has already acted, and white plaintiffs are now seeking to have

that action set aside. Thus, under the particular facts of this

case, the issue before this Court is not whether a local board

of education must or is constitutionally required to act, but

rather whether a board may or is not constitutionally prohibited

from acting.

Since the summary judgment motion was argued, both

the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Court of Appeals of New

York have handed down decisions in cases that have quite similar

factual situations to the case at bar.

In Korean v. Board of Education of Montclair, decided

on May 4, 1964, and not yet reported, the New Jersey Supreme

Court held that, in formulating a plan which provided for closing

down one school and transferring its students to other schools in

the school district, a local board of education could take racial

factors into consideration, where the board's moving purpose was

in furtherance of the constitutional mandate against segregatedj,

schools and where all pupils were treated *} an equal and reason-

able manner. In that case, a number of white pupils attending

the Montclair schools alleged that they had been discriminated

against, since the pupils in the closed junior high school were

given a choice as to which of the three other junior high schools

they could attend. The white pupils claimed that the Board of

16.

ur inr. mmust-tufr UJ.Vit.lUN, LIBRARY CF CCNGRESS

Education was applying a double standard of pupil assignment,

since they were required to attend their neighborhood schools

while the pupils front the closed school, which had a Negro

population of approximately 9O%, were permitted to attend schools

outside their neighborhood. The white students argued that this

double standard of pupil assignment was racially motivated, with

the object of bringing about racial balance in the junior high

schools in Montclair, and therefore was discriminatory and in

violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment.

In Balaban v. Rubin, decided on May 7, 1964, and

reported in 32 LW 2600, the Court of Appeals of New York held

that a local board of education could take racial factors into

consideration in establishing school attendance zones, where the

plan adopted excluded no one from any school and had no tendency

to foster or produce racial segregation. In that case, a number

of white school children in BrooXlyn claimed that they were being

discriminated against, by reason of their inclusion within the

school attendance area of a newly-established junior high school

for the purpose of bringing about a racial balance in that school.

This Court is in agreement with the principle

enunciated in the foregoing state court decisions that a local

board of education is not constitutionally prohibited from taking

race into account in drawing or redrawing school attendance, lines

_tfor the purpose of reducing or eliminating de f actcT segregation

in its public schools. In grown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.

483 (1954), the Supreme Court of the United States determined

that Uncial segregation in the public schools violates the equal

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in that such

17.

inc. . •» . . .1-1. i-IHM-. ut int MflNUbCKLFI DIVISION, T.TRRAKy CF CCNGSESS

segregation discriminates against Hegro pupils. In essence, a

principal contention of plaintiffs in this case seems to be

that racial integration violates the equal protection clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment because such integration discriainates

against white pupils. Plaintiffs have not shown, nor does this

Court believe, that racial integration, per se, discriainates

against white pupils. Only if specific provisions of the Plan

do in fact discriminate against plaintiffs because of their race,

could it be said to result in an infringement of their constitu-

tional rights.

Plaintiffs allege that there are three specific

forms of racial discrimination against white pupils in the Plan.

First, all sixth grade pupils in Englewood are required to

attend the Engle Street School, which is located outside the

previous attendance areas of some of these pupils. Second, the

pupils in the elementary schools, other than Lincoln, were not

given the right to vote on whether or not the Plan would becoa»e

effective. Third, these other pupils, unlike those attending

grades one through five at the Lincoln School, were not given

the privilege of attending a school outside their neighborhoods.

Viewing the Plan as a whole, and taking into consid-

eration the factual background leading up to its adoption and

the objectives sought to be achieved thereby, it is difficult to

see wherein the Plan is unreasonable or discriminatory in itsi.

application. The city-wi3e \ ixth grade school established at

11 Engle Street applies equally to all Englewood sixth graders,

and no hardships are shown to have been suffered by plaintiffs

or their children as a result of this provision. It is no

different in principle from the single, city-wide junior and

18.

senior high schools which exist in Bnglewood. While the right

to vote on the effectiveness of the Plan was limited to the

parents of the children in grades one through five in the Lincoln

School, these were the children whom the Board proposed to move

out of their neighborhood school, and therefore were the most

logical ones to be consulted. The assignment of these children

to the other elementary schools in Englewood was determined

under the Plan by the Superintendent of Schools on the basis of

certain criteria, which took into consideration an even distribu-

tion of class loads and distances of the other elementary schools

from the residences of the relocated Lincoln School students.

Finally, it is unrealistic to argue that since the students at

the Lincoln School, grades one through five, were given an oppor-

tunity to attend schools outside their neighborhood, similar

opportunity must be given to the pupils in the same grades in the

other elementary schools to attend schools outside their neigh-

borhoods. In the opinion of this Court, any discrimination that

may be said to exist in this case is not of constitutional

dimensions.

Moreover, plaintiffs have made no showing that they

have been harmed by the operation of the Plan. As taxpayers,

plaintiffs must establish that their tax moneys are being spent

for an invalid purpose. See Doremus v. Board of Education of

the Borough of Hawthorne, 342 U.S. 429 (1952); Massachusetts v.

Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923); Craropton v. Zabriskie, 101 U.S. 6O1

(1880), As parents, they must establish that their children are

being discriminated against to their injury under the Plan. See

Blocker v. Board of Education of Manhasset, New YorX, 226 F.Supp.

208, 227. Plaintiffs have failed in both these particulars.

1?.

f

This Court finds no evidence that plaintiffs have been harmed in

a constitutionally recognized way, either as taxpayers or as

parents, by the action taken by the Englewood Board of Education

in this case.

Under these circumstances, plaintiffs' motion for

summary judgment must be denied. Although defendants have not

formally moved for summary judgment, the Court believes, as the

Englewood Board of Education suggests, that it may enter summary

judgment for defendants. See 6 Moore's Federal Practice, J56.12

(2nd Ed. 1953). Since the Court has already determined that

there exists no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and

that defendants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law,

summary judgment will be entered in favor of defendants against

plaintiffs. Counsel for defendant Englewood Board of Education

will please submit an appropriate order on notice to all counsel.

20.

W'w®,-.J •. • :*)$tM$?.'• XSVirfV '•>•.- , • ..••.«&••'.-.•;•6SilvS'l*j3k&.>> . ....-irii»Li.'.S>

:•: >.. -& ':$ •te^\'3t&;-.%^ vî

| | C^H^pi |- m

fti^^^S^Hlx, • , : -}•. and .v/:^ViV5-'j-i;^w^- " • ' • , : , < " ' • ' T-l"-'''-f3-;'>;;^:-y-iY''^r£f*M :;DEBOftffl^r?iritT>*'-P'r;- ':•}.•;•..,'.. ;:;V^,t''i;i£?/^7Vu^-'-^'i,'-1 3"-- ••. *•:'.'îTU^««*«yA«%i-*i ••;«<';•».;."•-;.• ';>',r->r;-*-^;--y>? «?r-::\. .-•- .il^l4tiry«n^fe:;^^' •'-••"•^^f'^^feS

^^'^r^^^'^^'^-^^?,' : i ;;;-;-;'SSi ''v"P«r»V*nt" to4•r ;,-;~.|j ';,-:,:t;SiK; .':P V;*'

' nl »1 nttl ^PvLÂrimWl T i,*.- i - ' ' i-if- > ; ;-H'>f>o-'v-r-i-'itrA . ..tj> >^L«?i4* ffli ^F^BWli ;:voutllne<l^t»;^tt^:

ni[•-. .-ta'-ViiV -

''WSî' îp^^MS^s^MîS^LlSSP

esJFtsajR'i

s^

AVAI

TO.- JV*N J. B.'iKs:.r.N, JR., ESQUIRE'Attorney for Board of School Eatiaate of Englewood, New

wd t,h- City of Englewood, N.J.re*'., New Jersey

sir-KEY OINCIV, ESQUIREAttorney fcr Board of Education of City of Englewood\fj w»st Pall?ad« -AvenueErigjowoodj N?w Jeroey

ARTHUR J. SILLS, Attorney General of Mew JeroeyAttorney" of Frederick M. RaublngerStsle Kouae AnnexTrenton, New Jersey

JAMKS T. MURPHY, ESQUIREAttorney of Gertrude P. Puller et all1 Engle 3tr<?etEnglawood, Wew Jersey

«EH?ERT H. TATE and BARBAjbA A. MORRIS, ESQUIRESAttorneys for Anoruw^9 M^disor. AvenueMorrr la l r , Now Jersey

ARNOLD BROWN, ESQUIREAttorney of Ancruai>5 West Palisade AvenueEnglewood, New Jereey

WILLIAM M. KUNSTLER and MC«TOM STAVIS, ESQUIRESAttorneys of Spruill7A^ Broad StreetNewark, N«w Jersey

Jersey

.-—-*>« i

\c

^•*f»ii ., • —< •->

•T-.-~ 'Mr

Dear Mr. Davis:

Thank you for your note of July 3and for the kind words contained therein.

I share your hopes for a speedy,equitable cad effective solution to the problcnof de facto segregation In Eigleuood. Ithiqfc Cotaalssloner Baubinger's decision hasmoved us a long way In that direction.

•Sincerely yoursy

.

M», Joba V. Davis112 Rcadc StreetEnglevood, Sew Jersey

GOVERNOR

July 30, 1963

JHK/cal

JOHN W. DAVIS112 READE STREET

ENGLEWOOD, N. J.

'• I

July 3, 1963

The Honorable Richard J. HughesThe Governor of New JerseyState CapitolTrenton, New Jersey

Dear Governor Hughes:

Permit me to thank you for the interest whichyou have shown in corrj?c.ting. .racial imbalance inthe Linco'n School in Englewood, New Jersey. Yourstand has been one for improving the citizenshipof our state.

The matter is again in the hands of the Boardof Education in Englewocd. It is my hope that saidBoard will produce a plan which will Jre*ln the highestinterest of the youth of Enolewood amd tHe restorationof harmony and common understanding^ aj onjB the citizenry.

Again, thanks and congratulati

Sin

D. 11,

13;rforcete Collvdeceased):Ghee,College,

treetteTechni-•

4AACPMember

Horn. on928,higher

com.at. Edn.Central

n. Nat .ie. OfficetionDm Dayof New

Baptist,

Basing

<ing^public

, 1958;

DAVIS, John Warren, educator; b. Milledgeville, Ga., Feb. 11,1888; s. Robert Marion and Katie (Mann) D.; A.B., Morehouse Coll.,Atlanta, Ga., 1911, A.M., 1920; studied U. of Chicago, 1911-13;D.Litt., State College, Orangeburg, S.C., 1931; LL.D., WilberforceUniv., 1939, Howard Univ., 1940, Va. State Coll., Morgan State Coll.,1952; Harvard U., 53;tfnarried Bessie Rucker, Aug. 24, 1916 (deceased),children - Constance "Rucker, Dorothy Long; m. 2d. Ethel M. McGhee,Sept. 2, 1932; 1 dau., Caroline Florence. Teacher Morehouse College,Atlanta, Ga., 1911-15, registrar, 1914-17; exec. sec. 12th StreetBranch, Y.M.C.A., Washington, D.C., 1917-19; pres. W.Va. StateCollege, 1919-53, president emeritus since 1953. U.S. dir. Techni-cal Coop. Administration, Monrovia, Liberia, Africa, 1953-54.Special Director, Dept. Teacher Information and Security of NAACPLegal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. since Jan. 1, 1955. MemberHoover's Organization on Unemployment Relief, Nat. Advisory Com. onEdn. of Negroes; mem. Nat. Land Grant Coll. Survey Staff, 1928,Nat. Advisory Com. on Edn., 1929; mem. Commn. on Instns. of HigherEdn. of North Central Assn. of Colleges, 1936-48; mem. exec. com.North Central Assn. Colls, and Secondary schs., 1947; mem. Nat. Edn.Assn. for Defense of Democracy Through Edn. 1945-52; mem. N. CentralAssn. Com. on Evaluation of Accrediting Procedures, 1948; mem. Nat.Sci. Bd., Nat. Sci. Found., 1950-56; chmn. Nat. Commn. for theDefense of Democracy Through Edn., N.E.A., 1950-52; mem. U.S. Officeof Edn. Wartime Commission. o/Member N.E.A., National AssociationTeachers in Colored Schools^president 1928) ; National Freedom DayAssn. fv.p. since 1948); Member of The Colonization Society of NewYork State; Trustee African-American Institute; Sigma Pi PhiFraternity; Granted Harmon Award in Edn., 1926; Republican, Baptist,Home: Englewood, N. J.

1. Decorated by The Republic of Haiti in 1948 for increasingthe understanding and good-will existing between Haiti and theUnited States of America.

"Order of Merit"

2. Decorated by The Republic of Liberia in 1955 for makingstronger the bonds of Friendship and good-will between the Republicof Liberia and the United States of America.

"Order of the Star of Africa"

I/U. of Liberia, 1956; Dr. of Humanities, ¥/. Va. State Coll., 1958;D.C.L.. U. of Liberia, 1959.

Consultant—Peace Corps, 1961.

Englewood,New Jersey

The Board, upon receiving the opinion of Commissioner Frederick

M, Raubinger in the Anderson and Walker cases, have conferred

with its counsel.

Since the Commissioner based his opinion on the proposition

that a child was entitled to attend a school nearest his residence

and has reserved decision in the Walker case pending a proposed

new boundary line, the Board has requested Superintendent Harry

L. Stearns to make a detailed survey of the residences of the

pupils of kindergarten and first grade entering in September

1955. Arrangements have been made with Fairleigh Dickinson College

to conduct this survey immediately. After such survey, the Board

will further discuss the entire situation with the Commissioner or

one of his deputies.

The Board feels that the opinion, holding that the Anderson case

is moot, substantiates the contention of the Board refuting any

charge of discrimination in that case.

The Board fully agrees with the Commissioner on the abolition of

the Lincoln Junior High School. The Board in 1953 issued its

brochure containing its opinion to that effect and the testimony

of the Superintendent and Board members before the Commissioner

was to the same effect. The action of the Board in recommending

to the present Council of the City the erection of a new Junior

High School for all such pupils is a further substantiation of

the Board.'s agreement with the Commissioner.

^/1

To Members of the Board:

At 3:30 Mrs. Schambera gave me a copy of the Commissioner's

decision on boundary lines. I have had no chance to read it,

but a cursory glance indicates the following decisions:

1. The Anderson case is moot*

2. Segregation is not a factor in boundary lines, but the

Englewood Board must draw new lines on the basis that "a

pupil shall be educated in the public school nearest his

residence unless there is some just and compelling reason

for sending him elsewhere".

This new line must be submitted to the Commissioner on or

before July 1, 1955 and decision on the Walker case is

reserved pending this information,

3. —"the separate junior high school for the Lincoln

School district must be eliminated by September 1, 1956,

unless prior thereto a firm commitment is made to the

Commissioner to provide for all junior high schools in

Englewood new facilities which cannot be completed by

September 1, 1956.

Copies of the eleven-page decision will be made for you as soon

as possible.

May 19, 1955

HLS:mw

Sincerely yours,

Harry L. StearnsSuperintendent of Schools

State of New JerseyDepartment of Education

225 West State StreetTrenton 25

August 1, 1963

Mrs. Winifred R. SchamberaSecretaryBoard of EducationEnglewood, New Jersey

Dear Mrs. Schambera:

This is to acknowledge your letter of July 30, 1963, and theaccompanying plan designed to conform to the Order of the Commissioner ofEducation in the case of Deborah Spruill, Kenneth Ancrum, et al, Laura Volpe,et al., v. Board of Education of the City of Englewood, issued on July 1, 1963.It is noted that the plan was adopted by unanimous vote at a meeting of theBoard of Education of Englewood held July 29, 1963.

After careful study of the plan, the Commissioner has concludedthat it meets the requirement of the Order, and therefore the Commissionerapproves the plan to be put into operation in September, 1963, which plan isoutlined below:

1. To establish at the former Junior High School building at11 Engle Street, a city-wide sixth-grade school to which theBoard assigns all sixth grade pupils of the Englewood Publicschools,

2. To assign all pupils of grades one through five residing in theLincoln School attendance district to the Cleveland, Quarlesand Roosevelt Schools, such assignment to be determinedby the Superintendent on the basis of the following criteria:

a) define attendance districts so that children of theLincoln School district will be assigned as nearly aspossible, to the school nearest their homes,


c) to permit the children whose parents wish them toremain at the Lincoln School to remain there providedthat it is administratively and educationally practicableto do so.

Mrs. Winifred R. Schambera - 2 - August 1, 1963

3. As a prerequisite to the establishment of the city-wide sixth-grade school referred to in Paragraph (1), either of thefollowing two conditions must occur:

1) 125 or more present students of Lincoln School mustNOT elect to remain for the 1963-64 term at LincolnSchool

or

2) The number of transfers from Lincoln School will resultin class loads in Quarles, Cleveland, or Roosevelt Schoolswhich, in the opinion of the Board of Education, areeducationally undesirable.

4. To assign to Lincoln School all children of Kindergarten ageresiding in the present Lincoln School district.

5. To transfer the central administrative offices of the Board ofEducation to the Lincoln School.

6. To instruct the Superintendent to proceed immediately with allnecessary arrangements, notices and procedures consistentwith the laws of the State of New Jersey to execute thesedirectives.

The Commissioner will retain jurisdiction in this matter until theplan is in effect.

Sincerely yours,

taf F. M. RAUBINGER

Commissioner of Education

REPRODUCED FRCM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

STATE OF NEW JERSEYDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

' DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION

OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE

August 1, 1963Phone: Trenlon EXport 2-2131

Extension 8421

ImmediatelyFOR RELEASE

RAD SINGER APPROVES ENGLEtfOQD PLAN

TRENTON - Commissioner of Education Frederick M. Raubinger today mailed the

attached letter ' •> the Englewood Board of Education in reference to the plan

submitted by t 'ard in order to comply with the Commissioner's order of

July 1, 1963. liiv. letter is self-explanatory.

»•-

BB • l

r

BERGEN COUNTY CHAPTER • 221 PHEiPS AVENUE, CRESSKILL, N. J. • LO 8-8630

August 1, 1963i discrimination ty fliryct. nonviolent methods

|The Honorable Richard J. Hughesl&overnor of New Jersey|The State HouseJTrenton, N,J.

•Dear Sir:

Thank you for the time you graciously took from your crowded[schedule to share with us your interest and determination to see a[resolution of Englewood's controversial educational problems.

I assume you are now familiar with the details of the plan voted•by the Englewood Board of Education, The Board of Education has obviously•devoted great care,-time and thought to the plan.. It is recognized that•the present adopted plan reduces the number of Negro children at Lincoln•faced with the handicaps of defacto segregation. It is recognized that•he present plan shows the good faith and determination of the Board to•act. It is recognized that the present plan represents first steps voted•by the Board which is also considering other long range steps.

But two factors cause considerable concern over the Board's•plan now before Commissioner Raubinger for approval. We believe bothRhese factors need further attention in the interest of good educational•Jolicy and to insure any lasting end to the bitterness, disharmony,, and•trife in Englewood over the school problem. These concerns can be elim-•Lnated without any conflict with the present plan or delay, and withoutAny embarrassment to the Board of Education.

Bl,) The first concern is based on the continuation of Lincoln as a•early all Negro school for an indefinite period,, with no finalized or•oted long range plans by the Board. For this reason we believe the•oEmissioner should retain Jurisdiction and not consider the BoardRorcpletely discharged of its responsibility under the Commissioner's•rder. To amplify:

A. After the optional transfers are completed, Lincoln school willstill continue with a 9Q% concentration of Negro students.. (Thereis even a strong possibility that this will become concentrated to100$ as the few white children now in Lincoln transfer out..)

B~. All the inequality of educational opportunity and emotional harmresultant from a defacto segregated school will still be present forthose in Lincoln.. .All theyfeense of stigma, inferiority, and feeling

I of rejection.*.All the loss of incentive, all the handicaps thatresult, when with the best of efforts,.teachers become used to and

BOARD OF EDUCATIONEnglenood, Man Jersey

August 1, 1963

PUBLIC MEETING

AGENDA

1 o Call to order0

20 Resolution requesting 166^500=00 to implement plan approved

by Dfo Frederick Rsubingsrr Csmmiagionsr of Education0

Action of tha Boards

30 Raaolution rsauasting |69p4G03OC for

Action of ths Boards

4=, Ad jaurnmanto

Action of ";hs Board?

WRS8=1=63

, be and

>ach member

the County

.fied by the

/ a statement of

j-sary for the school

BOARD OF EDUCATIONEnglewood, New Jersey

August 1, 1963

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Board of Education of the City of Englewood,

Bergen County, New Jersey, has received from the Commissioner of Education,

State of New Jersey, the approval of a plan, which was submitted to him

pursuant to the Commissioner's Directive of July 1st, 1963;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, IN THE COUNTY OF BERGEN, NEW JERSEY, that in order to

carry out the Capital expenditure portion of said plan that has been

approved by the Commissioner, the amount of money estimated to be necessary

for repairing, furnishing and enlarging existing buildings, under Revised

Statutes of New Jersey R.S. 18:6-59, is 366,500,00, made up as follows:

Building Renovation -(former Junior High School,11 Engle Street,Englewood, New Jersey)

Equipment -

Moving of Board Offices -(from 11 Engle Street toLincoln School)

Cleveland School -Temporary Classrooms

3 50,600.00

Total

10,000.00

700.00

5,200.00

3 66,500.00

and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Board be and

is hereby instructed and authorized to prepare and deliver to each member

of the Board of School Estimate of the City of Englewood, in the County

of Bergen, New Jersey, a copy of this resolution duly certified by the

President and the said Secretary of this Board as and for a statement of

the amount of money estimated by this Board to be necessary for the school

purposes hereinabove set forth.

BOARD OF EDUCATIONEnglewood, New Jersey

August 1, 1963

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Board of Education of the City of Englewood,

Bergen County, New Jersey has under-estimated in its annual estimate under

Revised Statutes of New Jersey R.S. 18:6-49, the amount of monies necessary

for the current expenses for the school year 1953-1964, and for making

emergency repairs, and to defray the expenses of certain emergencies which

have arisen since the making of the annual budget,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, IN THE COUNTY OF BERGEN, NEW JERSEY, that in compliance

with Revised Statutes of New Jersey R.S. 13:6-55, the amount of money

estimated to be necessary for these emergencies is the sum of 369,400.00,

made up as follows:

Faculty Preparation 3 3,500.00

Pupil Transportation 15,000.00

Pre-Kindergarten Program 6,000.00U 7, - Jo

Higher Horizons 25,000.00.' i Q J-G

Adult Education 2,000.00

Consultants' fees 5,000.00

Stephen Jaworski, custodian 4,900.00 T o <(Retention beyond age 65)

Repair of Roof at Roosevelt School 6,000.00Gymnasium wing due to wind damage

Total 3 69,400.00and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Board be and

is hereby instructed and authorized to prepare and deliver to each member

of the Board of School Estimate of the City of Englewood, in the County

of Bergen, New Jersey, a copy of this resolution duly certified by the

President and the said Secretary of this Board as and for a statement of

the amount of money estimated by this Board to be necessary for the school

purposes hereinabove set forth.

o i" i"1 ii r» r* &( < f(i^\rhoards J ' u l l Proposal Goes ITo Dr. Rauhingcr i\l Trenton

KNfif.KVTOOD—The full lexl of the Lincoln School consistent wi thf (he Lincoln School consistent withIhc proposal hy the Kn^lewood'' the principles a no! findings en tin-Hoard of L'ducation nf a plan In • c ialed in th is decision:comply w i i h t h t - derision of |) j-. ! ii. To suhmft such plan or plansI'Ycdenrk .M. Itaiihinêr. S ta le t 'tun- In Ihe Commissioner of Kdncalion imission^!' n! Kducaiion, din-d iri^ for approval on or he fore A uûslIhe KnKlrwood Kuan! lo reduce the,' I. inn:);roncenlrat ion nf Xe^ro pupils in [ !). To pu! a plan. H.S approved,Lincoln Schncil. j.- prrsrnfd here-; into effect al the heuinninfl of the

i lD(i.*Ui4 school year..\n\v, I In-re fore, in compliance

u i! It -aid direct ive. I ho Board." ofKdiiralion of the City of K.nqle-wood. Mermen County, .\e\ Jersey.suhnni- the following plan, to takeef'fec-i as of [ho opening of school]in .September. 1%".f, or as soon jI hereafter as buildint,' renovations jcan he ef fected.I. Tn <"-lal i lKh al ihe former .Iun-j

irii h:He. it ro.ilvrd !»y Ih.. ll.iard nf

Education of (he rn\f Kn-leuond.Hcrpen County. ,\Vv.- .Jer.-ry. i l ialin order tu rnmply u-i! It i he djreel ive (if <'unnm.--ioriei FrederickM. K.-iulimêr, .New Jersey SC'leDepartment of Kdneat ion, dated:July I, Iflfi.T, uhich direct ive directs• he KnL'Inu'ood Hoard of rMuraiion

Ui reduce i he e>;i ,-i'tiie coticeni r a - 't ion of pupils ol the Xe^ro race in j

Ili-h Sclmol Imiltliny al I 1^le Strcc1 ! , a cit.v-\vidc sixlh-du school lo which (ho Board

flMMB*^^"

School Programi_

! Proposed hv Englewood Board VE.VCI.KU'OOD— Th<> lnnR-raii5c| Prosra.n

nirrii'iilum anil huildini.' improve- jmont pni. r.'tn). a-- |>!'rscn!nfl a thrl

iri| nf Kduciili'iii jn ' l ' tv1 ni^lu by Ur. iMipcrinlcmlcnt o f '

Phase I (1963-68)A. Renovate- and extend facilities

at Dwrjht Mnn">w liish Schoollu s e r v e - a comprehensive f ou r 'year seei.ndary school program

I! Add I^-|J ••!n>srnf!!is In C'evc-!land, (Juarles and Koosevclt

C. Adopt School organization K-5;

D.

includin-J t!ie follnwin-j:enlarged and remodeled lacili-lies for— science.— .ndustria! and vocational.— home economics.— library and instructional

materials— academic classroom?.

Englewood Junior High SchoolC.rades (i-3

A .Mmior ili.^h School Prosram

vear old children fealurins, «spe-

li-P,; n -12Abandon Lincoln School for reg-ular instructional pui~pr>scs—titHi/e as SysteivvWide 'renterIVr adiuini^.trali\'e and sup'-'rvi-s'lry .services curriculum a,id|instruction, maintenance andoper:.l ion. aduit sehun! exten-sion, eerlain munici|ial func- l! ions

: !•:. Ab.nid'in and dispose of Liberty:School

i-1. C'llll inue UM- of I'

, I l i^h School unt i lof I'liasi- II.

Phaso II (1969.73)| A. rmislruc! in-'J() classrooms al

Cleveland. Qu.-.rh's and Koose-veil.

II. Abandon and dispose nf prop-' erhes at It Kn^le Slrrcl

; ('. Complelion of ('urriciilum ,indI'utldinM Improvement. Program.

DwiglU Morrow High School

("ompn ihen>i\e Seenridary Schno! I

broader curriculum offeringsmore specialized instructionRrcaier flexibility in pro^rnm

and schedulingwider var ie 'y of instructional

ma Lena IKm.u-e ''pecializi-fi faci l i t ies in

science, mathematics, imius-irial

ar ts and hmiic pconnmicsricher l ibrary resources.

Elc'mcntnry SchoolsKindergarten through drade nThree school units:

Cleveland: Primary School — -150pupilsIntermediate. School — -150 p u - Jpils;JO-:i.1 C!as5rnom.s.

Quarles: K — 5 — 4.TO pupiLK; — 17 classrooms.

Roosevelt: Primary School — 'M'pitnilsIntermcdial '1 School — .17.1 pu

l!fi-2ft Classroom.s.

assigns all sixth £radc pupils ofi.hf! RnfflewDOfl Public schools,To assign all pupils of gradesone through fivr: rcsitlinfi in the.Lincoln School attendance dis-trict lo the Cleveland, Quarterand Roosevelt Schools, such as-signment, to he determined hythe Superintendent on Ihc basisof the following criteria:a) define attendance districts |

so thai, children of the Lin-coln School district will beassigned as nearly as- .pos-sible, to the school n'careI heir homes,

h) provide for an oven distrhulinn of class loads,

c) To permit the childrcwhose parcnis wish them t

4 remain al. the LincolSchool to remain there pr(vided that it is admini.strnt i ve 1 y a n rI cd u'ca tio nailpraclicahle lo do >o.

As a prerc(piisil(! to flu: oslablishment of th« city-wide fit!firacfr. school referred to in Paraur.inh (M above, ci ther of thefollowing Uvo conditions musioccur:

I) I i!fi or more present s tu -dents of Lincoln Schoolmust NOT elect to remainfor the TOfKMi4 term at Lin-coln School

orU) The number of transfers

from Lincoln School willresult in class load*; inQuarles, Cleveland, or h'oo-sovol t Schools which, in theopinion nf Hip Hoard ofKduealiori, are educational-ly undesirable.

-I. To assign lo Lincoln School nlchiRlron of Kindergarten *£residing in Ihe present LincolnSchool district.

5. To transfer the erntr.il administrativc offices of the. Honrd oKducalion lo the Lincoln School

fi. To instruct Lite SuperintLMiduniin proceed immediately with alnoct-ssary arrangements, notice,"and procedures con.si.stenL withI he iiiw.s of t l t i r Stale of Now.Jersey lo execute these di-rectives.

Provided That:The plan meets the requirements

of (he law and Hint Ihe Hoard's A l -lorney gives assurance of immunityof Hoard members and Ihe Super-intendent front taxpayers' suits rc-.uardtnj; the expenditure of pu hi Si-monies lo implement any aspect nfthose plans.And Provided That:

The Board of School Estimateand the governing Body of the Cilyjnl Englewood approves funds nc-1

cessary lo put thono plann intneffect according lo the estimatesattached hereto.And Further Provided Thai:

The Commissioner approves (heabove plan.

I/JEnglewood SchoolAdopts Formula to Complv

.a, •/

With State Rule on Race8///<,3E.\GLK\VOOD—Imme.li .- . ie steps

to comply w i l h Dr. Frederick M.Ranhinger 's directive request ing -jplan fo r reduction < > ( conccnl ra t ionof Negro p u p i l s in ihe Lincolnschools, and long range plans lo j School bu i l d ing ,meet (lie needs of (he city's edu- / FLîabl/.shmeMlcational program for Ihe next | schooldecade were announced by the En* j lrfin«r<T nf ;ii£Iewood Bnard of Educat ion on : f r n - t i the L inco ln School In class-Monday night. i rooms jn Cleveland, Qtiarlos and

Subject to the approval of Dr. j Roosevelt School.--, so lnat enoughKaubinger . thc Hoard plans to set i classrooms wi l l be ava i lab le foruppupi lslo be ho ld at the Kngle Street!

Mayor's Committeeo/i /G3i

,„,.., . . .v .....)i*i 1'i.ui.-. m M.-U , t-iiihsruonis win nc a v a i l a b l e tot-sixth grade school for all j all. All pupils first to fifth gradesof the Sixth Grades level, i at Lincoln School will be re-

assigned lo Ihe three schoolsl i s fpf l above, hut these who prefer

iionl of (Fit1 Sixih Grade! lo remain at Lincoln School willc o n t i n g e n t upon I h c ' h e given l h a t opt ion i f they apply

s t u d e n t s ; for i!. and enough- make t h i srequest .-<» t h a t it is educat ional ly:md practically feasible.

I Lincoln School attendance di.s-I trier, kindergarteners will remainj at Lincoln School, and t h i s schoolj will also house special classes and| the Hoard of Education offices,

now housed at 11 Knglc slrcct.Attendance districts will be as-

signed to Lincoln School pupils byDr. Mark Shcdd, Superintendent of

Endorses ProposalE.VCLEWOOD - The vo lun t a ry be provided w i l h t ranspor l . - i l ion | 'Sclmols- *> "ml as nearly as

transfer of students from Lincoln from central points wi th in thc L in - ! blt} d»Wren wi l l a t tend schoolSchool to Quarlcs . Cleveland, and coin School area to the new scnool j "Mr<'*t t h e i r homes.Roosevelt Schools and the cslab- t h rv \vonk! n

Ft|H Text of Plans—Both imme"diafe and ^ng range on page 2liihmc::!. of 5 4-yisir h igh school j t ranspor ta t ion would tola! npp-oxi-

and. 3-year jun ior high school h a v c j mate ly Slfi .OOO, whicli t h e commit-1been recommended by thc Com-i toe feels is a sma l l cost in compa-l 'J'ht- p l an is cont ingent not onlynumity Relations Commit tee lo a l - 1 rison to the over-a l l m u n i c i p a l j on approval of Dr. Frederick M.leviate thc problem of racial im- budget of more t h a n $•} m i l l i o n . j Raub inger . the Stale Commissionerbalance in the City scfwols. 5. H i g h hon/cms pr r tyr ; in i s . n n « - f nf Ivfuealion. bul from

workedIhe f inan-

Mayor A u s t i n N. Volk t h i s week j I'.™" ,workc;1 m 'L h-v t lu ' »"••"•'' " f j e i »» 'trwpninl hv the Hoard ofmade public the seven-poim set j _\c implcmcnlcd jSchnol Kstim.ile and the I^nglc-public [Me seven-po,..,. .T,. L ,

, i as soon as possible,of recommendations that he had ireceived from the committee I 6. Rehabilitation • (1 c area m |through its chairman, Ned K c l d - j l l l c immediate v i c i n i t y of Lincolnm a n , on July 8. School should he u n d e r t a k e n w i t h -

1. The committee recommended i '•' < l l 'I.ij.that Dwight Morrow High Schoolbe changed from a 3-ycar lo ;t 4-yKir high school, encompassing then i n t h through ihc t w e l f t h grade.

7. Cunsideral iun should he givenlo the e s tab l i shment nf 3 pre-kin-dcrgnrLcn program lo assist in t l i eeducat ional development of chi l -

2. Thc junior high school would] tll'cn who may bo undcruchicvcrs.

nod Mayor and Counci l .Not included in the proposal now

before I be Commissioner, bino u t l i n e d in deta i l by Dr. MarkShedd, superintendent, of schools,was a long-range p r o g r a m otcurriculum and hut id ing improve-ment, the net result of which wouldbe to take care educationally of -allthe pupils of Ihe school, over- a

the eighth grades, thus still remain- . ' the com mi lint;' stateJ to Die. Mayor:*! lJ1^ *ir** sl-=I« i^vnr« 1*0=, 7 /inning a 3-year school. | "So long as Lincoln School remains j WOIJ] ^ oe ^tho extension and ren-

predominant.lviow BitcndinR Lin- j school, seeds of discord will con-

coin School_would be permitted to| t i nuc lo cxist in thc communi(_yi

ova (inn

transfer to Cleveland, Quarlcs, and j Evcry cffort should ,,e maf)c

Roosevelt Schools, subject to theavailability of space in these threeschools. Assignment of all sixth-grade classes into the new juniorh igh .school configuration wouldprovide approximately 250 spacesin these three grammar schools,thus giving openings for thc trans-fer of s tudents from Lincoln School.

4. Children Irrmsrorring vol-untar i ly from Lincoln School to thcthree other grammar schools would

eliminate this discord."Thc Committee recognizes th:it

it has only begun its eva lua t ion ofthc many areas nf concern whichcxist in Englcwood and wi l l con-tinue to meet to explore all the

uwigntMorrow High School to house af u l l four year secondary school(grades 9 lo 12, instead ol thepresent grades 10-12.) Reorganiza-tion of thc Englcwood Junior HighSchoo! upon it.s completion to takecnrc of grades 6-8, with threeeducational centers established 3tCleveland, (Juarles and ftooscvelL

areas of potential discontent and to i Schools set up w i t h Primary andat tempt to make recommendations | Junior School d iv is ions at each.for their solution."

Thc Community Relations Com-mit tee was appointed by Mayor

Thi.s p lan also calls for u t i l i / . a -Lion of Lincoln School for adultschool extension, .special cducatio-

Ii Relat ions Councili P l a n s Discussion! ENGLEWOOD — George Ilatab.

' I chairman of the Human Re la t ions: j Council of Englewood, ar .nounced '. yesterday that the Council i s '• planning a special pub l ic meet ing!1 in thc near f u t u r e , following the J' | Board of Educat ion ' s publication •i i of its p lan drafted for the purpose ;. of c o m p l y i n g with the State Com-;i missioncr of Kdxicntutri 's n r r l ' - r In r. j reduction nf r u c i a l imbalance in .• Lincoln Schc.nL

The H u m a n I tp 'u i l ionsI is now mak ing p lans fur UK,* dis-J ; cuss inn meeting, and i s l i n i n g upI 1 speakers for thc occasion. The aim:)

| of thc meeting wi l l be lo c l a r i f y ' 'i -1 and interpret the concepts a n d ;i - j details of thc Board of Education';Xj plan and lo a r r i v e rt an objective*!II | vicv/ of Us i m m e d i a t e , ami l o n g ;

it-|r»ngp goals. Sp'.'akcrs and d a t < - o f ;y- the rriC'.'ti.'ig v / i l l be annn imccf l in

1 ihc near f u l u r c .

Volk to s tudy thc immedia te school j nal services and classes, and Boardproblem and to come up wi th a se t ' o f f i ces , abandonmen t of Libertyof recommendation? that would be School, Franklin School and even-equ i t ab le to a l l the par t ies in -1 t u a l l y ihe former Jun io r Highvnlvcd. Serving on Ihc cnnimilU-v j School b u i l d i n g . Construction olwith '-'dr. Fold man. are W i l l i a m C.i add i t i ona l classrooms at the threeRlind, of 224 Cedar street, the llcv.j elementary school centers wouldGeorge bonier, Pastor of St. John'sL... uthcran Church; George Ii;itab,Chai rman of Ihe Knglcwood Human

t Relations Council, and John T.

be required both on short rangeand long range liases.

One oC Ihe fea tures of thcj Hoard's l;ill program as outlined,

i S p r u i i l . member of ihe Board nt\ development of a prc-kindcr-j l l e a U h and one of the pe t i t ion ing j f i a ricn program for chi ldren of| parents. It beg^n its meetings i n ; workinf i parents, which will be set.j â>"- i up four vounysters 4 years of age; According lo Mayor Volk, H i . . ' . | I ) ( l ovei.( at lhc Englc Street'

commi l t co considers i t s report a i i j u i u i i n ^ . I t was slated this pro-j .short-range program to meet t h e ' ,,,.]m ,n;iy nol bc rcady bcforc

! requirements imposed by Stale j XoVL,inber L

' C o m m i s s i o n e r of K d u c a l i ' u i K.'ede-'| rick M". Raubingcr t h a t a p lan lie! developed for implementation byj September, The committee's plan| is also 'o be used as a point nf de-; pa r tu rc for the development of a 'I long-range plan to solve ihc City'si needs in this area for the future.} Thc proposed p lan gives an op-i porluni ty to Lincoln School slu-! dents to a t tend other schools in• thc City, yel retains thc noighbor-i hood-school concept.

Full deta i ls of changes, assign-ment of pup i l s and other informa-tion concerned with implementingthe program w i l l be announced assoon as possible. Board members

. stated. First action is thc approval[ o f thc plan by Dr. Jlaubinger, and

that is to bo followed by presenta-t i o n to the Lioard of School Esti-mate and the Mayor and Council.

i Basic costs for implement ing thcj immediate program were placed ati SoO.fjOO. for b u i l d i n g renovation ati the former Junior High School;IStO.OOO. for equipment ; $700. fori removal of the Board offices to

,' Lincoln School; 33.500. lor faculty•: prepara t ion: and 55,200. for sel-

l i n g L ip ol temporary classroomsu( Cleveland School.

Supplementary costs were citedas SI5:000 for pupi l transportationi lhe city being required lo providet ranspor ta t ion for chi ldren ofprimary school age l iv ing moreth ;m ;i mi If.1 from assigned school.and \'>r upper e lementary gradesJ i v i n g more Mian two miles fromtheir assigned school; Sfi.C'OO. forthe prc-kindcrgartcn p r o g r a m ;St.^.000. f ' i r ;i h igher horizons program, a imed at enriching ancr!evc-l(jpiMg the educat ional background of slow learners and otheispecial classif icat ions of pupils:S2.00(J. tor an a d u l t educat ion pro-gram to a i f I t in - parents of sloulearnt-rs; a'ul S3.000. in con-suilam.s fee> for the overall pro

| sram.

En^lewood'.s Pnlleni $/Patient spelling out in other places

of ideas about how Englcwood shouldor should not act in connect ion with"desegregation" are h igh ly beside thepoint. Trying to present such a pro-gram to a communi ty in which integra-tion has been a way of normal life foryears—and where operations under in-tegration have been a skilled andsmooth-running science for years—onlydemonstrate the fact that those writersremain so largely unaware of the basicfacts of Englcwood.

There are plenty of problems in con-nection with any school system's oper-ations, and its enrollment—the homefactors, intelligence factors, race fac-tors, and so forth—arc only some ofthem. Integrat ion has been a fact ofno rma l every-day l ife here for decades,and people who know Englcwood areaware o£ that as a fact.

The Enfflowoorl Hoard of Educa t ionand the school administration havebeen a t t end ing to such problems in con-nection w i t h the school system foryears before there wa.s any national, oreven county seat discussion on suchmatters. Englewood's teachers, are wellt rained to handle students of all k indsand backgrounds. None of these needany pat ient review of matters "on edu-cational levels and lesser cultural stimu-li" from either reporters or editorial-ists.

Such writers have missed from thestart the entire point in the Englewooddiscussions, that even the normal termsinvolved in speaking1 of school problemshad to be revised and re-defined in or-der to present any kind of a case orproblem here.

Englewood's school policy has beencolor blind for years, and debates whichhave grown up in recent years on Lin-coln School, the neighborhood schoolpolicy and student assignments havebeen largely on issues attendant on in-tegration in its various aspects, not onwhether or not there should be inte-gration. The factor of motivation inschool work was first raised within thecommunity, and by local groups—notoutsiders or those who challenged theschool situation.

The rapidly changing picture on thenational scene, as far as integration isconcerned, is only beginning to be feltin Bergen County. Englcwood has been,by far, the most advanced in the countyin its racial relations, and in the num-ber and involvement of people of allbackgrounds in the advance of humanre la t ionsh ip factors.

Englcwood. through its CommunityChest, its Hospital, its churches, its civ-ic, social and fraternal organizationshas been working for years to developa community of which all can be proud.With more at tention of other communi-ties to their own backyards and theirown racial in tegrat ion considerations,Englewood is well able to c o n t i n u e itsd e v e l o p m e n t a long patterned lines,even in a chanii ini i - world.

,

ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLSENGLEWOOD, NEW JERSEY

Dear Parent or'Guardian,

In compliance uiith the Englewoad Board of Education plan for assignment of the LincolnSchool children, grades one through five, approved by Frederick M. Raubinger, Com-missioner of Education, State of New Jsrssy, and subject to the provisions listedbelow, your child will be assigned to Cleveland, Quarlos or Roosevelt School inSeptember or as soon thereafter as possible.

Enclosed ara two forms (Use ONLY ONE FORM FOR EACH CHILD IN'GRADES ONE THROUGH FIVE)

FORM '# 1 - FOR CHILDREN DESIRING ASSIGNMENT OUT OF LINCOLN SCHOOL.

. FORM" # 2 - FOR CHILDREN DESIRING TO RE-WAIN AT LINCOLN 'SCHOOL

No parent will be required to remove his child from Lincoln School who does notdesire to do.so, except as indicated in Item 2-c below.

Select ONE FORM, fill out and mail it.immediately in the-salf-addressed, stampedenvelope provided for your convsnience. August 21, 1963 is the last day on which -returns will be accepted.

APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE BOARD OF'EDUCATION PL&N-

2. To assign all pupils of grades one through five residing in the Lincoln ;:-."School attendance district to Cleveland, Cuarles and Roosevelt Schools,such assignment to be determined by the Superintendent on the basis ofthe fallowing criteria;

(a) Dafine attendance!- districts so that children of the Lincoln SchoolDistrict will be assigned ss nearly as possible, to the schoolnearest their home.

(b) Provide for an even distribution of class .loads.(c) To permit the children whose parents wish them to remain -in the

____ _;l_yi\.c_0l!L_Schop3L to remain there provided .that it is administrativelyand educationally practicable to""do' so.""

4. To-assi-gn to-Lincoln School all children of Kindergarten age residing inthe present Lincoln School District.

PROVIDED THAT:

The plan meets the requirements of the law and that the Board's Attorney-gives assurance of immunity of Board Members and the Superintendent fromtaxpayers.' suits regarding the expenditures'of public monies to implementany aspect of these-plans. .--„- -• —

AND PROVIDED THAT: .. . .-;:

The Board of School Estimate and the governing body of the City of:Englewood approve funds .necessary to put these plans into effect. accor.ding to the estimates attached hereto.

NRSsLB8/2/63

Mark ft. ShsddSuperintendent of Schools

IMPORTANT:USE.ONLY ONE OF THESE FORMS," select the ONE you want, SIGN YOURNAME, write or print your ADDRESS, end mail it ir>lMEDIATELY in thesalf-addrosssd, stamped envelope enclosed for your convenience/

FORM # 1

FOR CHILDREN DESIRING ASSIGNMENT TO OTHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS .

Dr. Mark R. Shedd, SuperintendentEnglewood Public Schools11 Engla StreetEnglewood, New Jersey

Dear Dr. Shedd:

I accept the assignment of my child to Cleveland, Quarles or Roosevelt

School in accordance uiith the Board of Education plan, beginning September 1963

or as soon thereaftar as possible.

Signature of parent or guardian Street Address

TEAR OFF HERE

_FJJRM _ #. 2

FOR CHILDREN DESIRING TO REMAIN AT LINCOLN SCHOOL

Dr. Mark R. Shedd, SuperintendentEnglawood Public .Schools--11 Engle StreetEnglewood, New Jersey

Dear Dr. Shedd:

I wish to have my child remain at Lincoln School-during the 1963-64 school

year.

Signature of-paren-t--or-guardi-arr . Ertre~et"'A'~d dress"

PUBLIC SCHOOLSEnqleu/ood, Naw Jarsay

August 2, 1963

pasr feilou; Sixtr Parent;,

•scantiy the ETnglauiaod Scar:: of £ducatian yocsd '3 establish at tha former JuniorBigii School at 1- £ngi.a Straac, a '--ity-u/ide s^nooi for all. public scnool sixthgrade pupils in £nglsu;aad. --tnaugh tha decision to creata this school was rade

lin rosponsa to tha State £d-_cation Commissionac'3 airactivss regarding tna _incolnISchDcl, tria Board is of tha opinion that a cicy-îda sixer; grade scnooi. can na an[flxciting sducatianal advant-jrs for all <jnildran vaith 2 graat many positive and•onstructiva features. Wnil.-3 va racc:g:-.j.za that in .nany casas this will ra a lessjco'ivanisn: arrangamant, *a ii-gnd tc cap:.âiizs in aver;-1 possiDia a/ay Jpor tnaadvantages of a cit-/-«id8 transolidacici of sixth ^rade ocudenta and taacnars to

ImakB this a bat tar program t;,ian is posyib^j in aacn j.acai scnooi.

I'Jiihila it is a bit sarly cc -za^l. ûc jj.7 ,;j.2;TE in f'_!i_ ^c-riî-i. - evan >~CJCT y/a•>nve tha Cammissioner;s ;ocrcv.;". - tha t*;.nds ;" arocaad must ^3 assursa -afcra uiaIcnn commit ourselves to t.hs arcgrarn complateiy - wa car! ancicipata a fa1.-, quastians•now and reassure you ragarni.~g soino iasuas that :nay ba âissd.

1} Th3 •:iuildi".q Is safa - An excart from tna Stats Scnoo- Building InsDactionDivisicn has rade a .c-.piscs survey of tr.a r'ormar J^piiar High 5cncol andhi.s raccjimancations xiLl hav« bsan rnat bsfc-re ths building is occupied.

/".; rraval can ba -nads safa - Sixth gradars c*ra II, -2;. uiid 13 yaars old -children on wnam you, js parents, and -'8. as acr.--ji ;jaopia, rely to assistin Getting yai.-ngstsrs tc scnooi ?nd home, >Jitn xr.craasad police arotaction,crsatsr sefaty as = .-asLilt of ths nau/ ens-way c.'ir'f'.c jn tngla Streat-GrandAvanus, arc -.«ith n.'ccar yards of instructicn c-s:d vjur.ion. travel to EnglaStrsijt C3" ba -,i '

Trrinspcrcati.::'-. - \ .:nangs in transfertaG-.on oa-icv :""cr six' gradara isroi*/ plannsd. -Graver *'a snail cooperats in avgry -rrfv with parents andpuo.LLc bus -c-io^.nias "ivmg local ruutas co assura cjnvaniant, safe andsconomicdl service.

N_on_ri_'uiur cn_d luncn - jJj dafinitaiy intand tc Kdap tha cniidren at scnooidt,ri;'itj tns neon liou.-, Tners will oa no ia^ks throur].n tha business districtsasrrritted, -Ian? c-rs in process to prcvida cnildrsn with a ^noiasome lunch

•3 soon as tha daci = i:;-: on -.nj sixth graos ^cr.oc,-. ^3 n-iaLJK J<af '.nica â sr.all communi-Hta ufith you and arrfige ~ 37 3 meating prior u jcnaul : a :.;p. ni,ig to give vou tha•ipnrti./;/. ty to vie* t~i<j r^rilitias .=<nc tu ^.leac -ha MiaritjaL'3 - '"' tna faculty.

iaasa accbpt my oars^nal n^^t îshaa for 3 pldaaauc G summer.

Sinceruly

:"0ar)< R. .s5upsr liir.onc'ant of Schools andfaliu* S!;:th i]rada Parent

T AUG SJ

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION175 WEST STATE STREET

TRENTON 25. N. J.

Auscust 6, 1963

Dr. Mark R. SheddSuperintendent of SchoolsEnglewood Public SchoolsEnglewood, New Jersey

Dear Dr . Shedd:

i'his will acknowledge receipt of your latter êrtainin:Tto the proposed repair work to the cuildins: at 11 EnsileStreet, Snglewood, ~:-.:ew Jersey.

As indicated in a telephone r.essaê to ;;r. ârrity fromAssistant Commissioner Kilpatrick. it is ir,y opinion that ar5oard of Education in a Chanter VI school district ?:iay employits own maintenance r!erso_nnel. to r.iake the necessary repairsto a school huildin.1. ~t is understood, of course, that thematerials and supplias required for such repair will bepurchased under contract through competitive biddinrr inaccordance with the provisions of the School law.

'.er

'orunssone

--ours,

:.„

Englewood Parents ik Obtain Court Ordeii

: 8/G/G3 . ]Central-School Planning Halted Pending

Court .Hearing August 15

Englewood — Eighteen Engle-: wood parents yesterday obtaineda court order bringing to a haltthe Board of Education's pro-ceedings in plans to end de-factosegregation in the City's schools.

Judge Arthur J. O'Dea in Su-;perior Court, Hackensack,'signed a cause order filed byparents of sixth-grade studentsas complainants, pending a hear-

i ing set for August 15.> The order was filed in the•Chancery Division of the Courtby the group's attorney JamesA. Major.

• Signers of the complaint were•Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Volte, Mr.and Mrs. Louis Pugach, Mr.-andMrs. Allan Lasser, Mr. and Mrs.Bernard Wallach, Mr. and Mrs.Ottilio D'Alessio, Mr. and Mrs.Saul Handler, Mr. and Mrs. Eu-gene Clements, Mr. and Mrs.Edward Bobbins, and Mr. and

•Mrs. Lloyd Pollard.The complaint asks the Board

of Education to show why the(Board should not be preventedifrom initiating its desegregation[plan as it affects sixth "

and holds the central-schoolsixth-grade plan to be unconsti-tutional. . i

City Administrator Rex Little!said today that he had been ad-vised by John Breslin, City At-torney that all action pertain-'ing to the financial implements-1tion of the Board's plans mustbe stopped until August 16.

,Mayor Austin ,N. Volk, chair-'man of the Board of School Es-timate, announced today that he'would not call the meeting ofthat board at which a decisionwas to be reached on providingmonies for the establishment ofthe central sixth gra'de in theEngle Street school.

CITES INJUSTICEBoard Of Education President

John H. Perry announced today:hat the .school board will con-;inue . organizing the adminis-rative details involved in thebanning until notified otherwise>y its attorney.The Board's desegregation

plan, approved Thursday byders.. Continued PageJlOColumn

(Continued from Page 1)State Education CommissionerFrederick M. Raubinger, callsfor establishing a citywide sixth-grade school at the now inac-tive Engle Street Junior HighSchool. The plan also calls forreassignment of Lincoln Schoolpupils in grades 1 through 5 tothe City's three other predomi-nantly white elementary schools.

The complainants argue thattheir children who'' are to enterthe sixth grade this fall havebeen qualifying themselves forstudy at that grade level in aneighborhood school. TheBoard's plan, it is argued, de-nies the students this right, andat the same time gives the com-plainants no voice in determin-ing the course of their children'seducation. It is alleged that Lin-coln School parents have beengiven »a voice, since the latterare allowed to accept or rejectthe central sixth-grade plan.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY

DIVISION OF LAW

MEMORANDUM

•

TO: Governor Richard J. Hughes

FROM: First Assistant Attorney GeneralBotter

DATE: August 7, 1963

SUBJECT:

Enclosed is a news story in yesterday's Record.

The Order to Show Cause issued by Judge O'Deadid not contain a restraining order. However, as we surmised,this order would be used as an excuse to delay all action untilAugust 16, or until a decision is rendered on the Order to ShowCause. We note that the news story quotes John Breslin, whois now City Attorney for Englewood, as saying that all actionpertaining to the financial implementation of the School Board'splans must be stopped until August 16 and Mayor Volk said hewould not call a meeting of the Board of School Estimate toconsider furnishing funds to implement the School Board's plans.

Judge Collester signed an order for us yesterdayallowing us to move on one day's notice to join CommissionerRaubinger as a party to this action and to move to dismiss theaction for lack of jurisdiction of the court. It is noted that theappeal in the Englewood case to the State Board of Educationurges the same grounds for reversing Commissioner Raubinger'sdecision as the complaint in this Chancery Division action. Theplaintiffs in this action are the same persons who have filed anappeal from Commissioner Raubiner's decision. R. S. 18:3-14clearly states that Commissioner Raubinger's "decision shall bebinding until a decision thereon is given by the state board onappeal. " We contend that a collateral attack on CommissionerRaubinger's decision cannot be entertained by the ChanceryDivision nor can an injunction be given to restrain public offi-cials from acting in accordance with that decision, so long asit stands and remains presumptively valid.

Our motions are scheduled to be heard tomorrowbefore Judge Collester.

-- '1

I }T. Botter

cc - Attorney General SillsDeputy Attorney General Hoffman

CITY OF ENGINEwoouEHOLB WOOD. N. J.

AUSTIN N.VOLKMAYOR

August 7, 1963

Mr. John H. Perry, PresidentBoard of Education11 Engle StreetEnglewood, New Jereey

•

Dear John:

Receipt is hereby iedged of a Proposal of a Plan toComply with the Decision of the State Commissioner ol EducatiUof New Jersey, Directing the Enaiewood Board of Education toReduce the Extreme Concentration of Negro Pupils in the Lincoln

_ _ . . . . ! • ia - -T-TTH nju, ,•. •jlM l»l" JtL, l"«'"'"* ll1'*"11 •"•' iB - ' ***—— •"""••»**'1 *Â - ' ' '•

School, dated JulyZ9, 1963.' • .

As Mayor and Chairman of the Board of School Estimate,in my opinion which is verified by the opinion of our attorney, nomeeting of the Board of School Estimate can be properly held untilthe pre-requisites in Paragraph (3) of the proposed plan are com-plied with. Furthermore, our attorney advises us that he hasconferred with your attorney, Mr. Dine in, who concurs with thisopinion.

I wish to assure you that we have no desire to delay thismatter unduly, but in view of the opinion of our attorney weproceed at this time.

Sine*rely.

-

ANV/te

Austin N. VoUc

r ^ ' ~~^Forgotten Children -^/to-;

The children are becoming the forgot-ten people of Englewood. We are surethat if the racial issues and pressuregT'nip demands were removed from thismatter the Board of Education wouldthrow its hands up in holy horror atthe makeshift proposals it has made.And so would the Commissioner of Edu-cation rind the Governor too, both ofwhom seem interested primarily intw, v,ov»,0 [Ji "Mi

gratifying the pressure groups.

The Board of Education, which issupposed to consider the welfare of thechildren above all, is actually attempt-ing to push the children from pillar topost in a blind effort to meet the de-mands of a small pressure group. Andif the school board's makeshif t pro-posals arc permitted to stand (theState, in its great desire to appease the jpressure groups condones the localboard's action) the children arc goingto bo the losers.

• The Board of Education has proposedthat a central sixth grade for all sixthgraders in the city be set up at the con-demned Engle Street Junior HighSchool Building, which means thatsixth graders at all the elementaryschools would be rmpcd out of theirneighborhood schools and forced ontoEngle Street

Further the board ft proposing thatall children at Lincoln School who sodesire may transfer to Cleveland, Quar-Jcs, or Roosevelt schools, thus also rip-ping thesa youngsters out of theirneighborhood school, sending them tostrange schools, upsetting the class-room balance, disrupting the entire sys-tem.

The next step in the board's proposalsis for the gradual elimination of notonly Lincoln School as a classroomschool but also of Liberty! (Thus farthe board has not indicated what itwould do when Cleveland School be-comes' the next predominantly Negroschool, which it eventually will as out-migration of whites in the neighbor-hood accelerates!)

These makeshift proposals by theBoard of Education, even if they gotpast the Board of School Estimate;and even if the Common Council thenwere to appropriate the monies neces-sary (which would be merely a drop intho bucket compared to the hundredsof thousands that would then be re-quired to build big: additions to Cleve-land, Quarles, Roosevelt and DwightMorrow) will solve nothing.

Some changes are necessary; on thatthere is general agreement. But thereis no kind of public acceptance for thesemakeshift proposals which will not onlycost large sums of money but will notachieve the objectives of good educa-tion-much less of better education.

If the Commissioner of Education,yes, and the Governor of the State whohas been interfering not only in Engle-wood but throughout the state, weremore interested in sound educationthan they are in gratifying the pres-sure groups, they would insist first ona sound educational system.

Destiny^Declares

August 8, 1363To the Editor,

It is setting more t h a n tiresometo hear the Endowood WhiteSupremacists repeat iheir claimthat any change in school enroll-ment based on race is not onlyobnoxious to them, but also illegal.Interpretation of law is usuallybused on an understanding of theintent of the law. Civil rights leg-

| islntion has always intended toprotect minori ty rights, not ob-struct them. When the law grants!

equal rights, regardless of race.!creed, or color, it mc.tns (ha t a l lpersons .shall have an equal oppor-t u n i t y to strive for (heir share o(he iKi l iona l weal th . We deny thatOpportunity when wo deny Negrochildren the same chance to levinas whi te children,

Tlie recent order of State Com-mi.ssioner of Educnl/on K a u b i n gand (he .s

"I

... , ,,i L u - . n i o n Kaub inge r , 'and the .subsequent plan proposed :by (he Hoard of Education, .ire in- •[cndi'd to rectify Injustices which):nobody planned, hut which we allhave- an obl igat ion to help stop. !I) t?sni t i j Ihe claims of many self- js tyN-d experts on education, there ;n much nerd for improvement in ;

? Kfig[f iwrtt)d system of rduca-ion. Kxpert professional judge- 'ent h.'i.s attested In this at everyipm-iuni iy . The court* arc apt loileu to the profe.-wional.s and sup->rt I h e f r judgement

Only A F-i.r

A h.'i If-dozen acitJtor.s, c la imingID speak for tho overwhelmingmajority of voters and citizens,tmvc u«cd every opportunity toobstruct change. This .i.ime hand-ful appears at every public meet-ing, but has never offered anyproof tha t al l of iheir views are Isupported by any large numbers 'of people. 1

Knfilcwond is a fair-minded com-,m u n i l y composed of people ofvery diverse backgrounds. H isd i f f i c u l t lo net common agreement!on almost any subject. It would be!indeed surprising if everyone i n :Englewood could ever agree on:any plan which would stop (he ,two-year too-long .struggle to e n d jracial-tension. It would be equallysurprising to hear that & majorityof citizens do not want tensionstopped immediately, f t is t ime wereturn to normalcy. It ;s time weconcentrate merely on giving onkids the best education we car

Our n a t i o n in in (he midst of a 'great social revolution. Com mun i - ;ties which were swept up by thisrevolution long af te r it his Kngle-wood have already moved forwardand are bettor for it. Let us ignorethe ins ignif icant pressure groupwhich clings to the reactionaryhope of ma in ta in ing status quo.Let us accept our destiny,

HERBERT M. KONICl127 Lake Street

Englewcori, N. J.

LWV Likes PlanBoard ProposesTo the Editor:

Tlie following is a copy of aletter to the Board of Educa t ion 'of Englcwood which we hope you iwil l print in your "Letters to the I

, Editor" column.

' To the members of the Engle-wood Board of Education:

We wish to commend the BoardI of Education for h a v i n g worked,ou t a serviceable plan of iniegra-ti tion for Englewood's elementary •schools,

The short range phase to s tar tthis September sen ins to us agood beginning toward the goals;of providing equal educa t iona l op-por tun i ty for n i l our children; ofacceding to the requi rements of ;Ihe State Department of Education; fand" of advancing the educational 'q u a l i t y for al l the pup i l s in thnEnglewood school system.

The League of Women Voters ofEnglcwood is happy to supportyour plan and looks forward to itsspeedy implementation.

Sincerely,(,M«. N a f h a n ) TJLY TAMARIN1st. vice-presidentLeague of Women Voters of

COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE INTER-COMMUNICATION

I From:

Date:

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TO: iiG-V.ernor..JHu£heJs.

Commissioner of Education

_Augyst._8J..1261_Division

ANALYSIS OF LETTER FROM BYRON M. BAER.

The date, August 1, of Mr. Baer's letter, indicates that at the timehe wrote he did not know the contents of ray letter of the same date tothe Englewood Board of Education (copy attached), approving the plan sub-mitted.

Mr. Baer is concerned that the Board's plan, which he regards assincere, will nonetheless leave Lincoln School an all-Negro school forsuch pupils as are not transferred to other schools or to the newly-createdsixth grade school on Engle Street. He makes some assumptions which arenot necessarily valid; for example, that those pupils who do not seek trans-fers from Lincoln School will be "the least motivated children," and thatthe few white pupils in Lincoln School will seek transfers, leaving LincolnSchool 100 per cent Negro. He feels that the Board weighed "both edu-cational and political factors" and avoided closing Lincoln as a nearly all-

School,

He asks, therefore, that the Commissioner retain jurisdiction "pendingformal adoption by the Board and action on long-range plans which eliminatede facto segregation from Lincoln School entirely. "

Finally, he feels that the plan should provide the same opportunity oftransfer for kindergarten pupils as is provided for pupils in grades onethrough five.

SXA.XE or NEW J E R S E Y

OFFICE OF THETRENXON

RICHARD J. HUGHES

GOVERNOR

Dear Mr. Baer:

This will acknowledge your letter of August 1, in which youexpress your concerns arising from the plan adopted by the Englewood Boardof Education pursuant to the order of the Commissioner of Education.

I have consulted with the Commissioner about your proposal. Hehas supplied a copy of his letter to the Englewood Board of Education,written on the same day that you wrote to me, and I am enclosing it for yourinformation. You will note that the Commissioner, in approving the Board'splan, retains jurisdiction until the plan is in effect.

As to the long-range plans, the present Board is without legalpower to bind its successors. Although it may adopt a long-range programextending beyond its own life, the implementation of such a program mustrest with succeeding Boards.

In his decision, the Commissioner recognized that because of thepossibility of need for capital expenditures to effectuate a long-range plan,the immediate issue before him was a plan that could become effective inSeptember, 1963 •

Finally, as to your suggestion that kindergarten pupils be alsoincluded in the plan, I must assume that this was considered by the Boardand found undesirable for educational or administrative reasons, or both.

I would certainly concur with your expression that the presentplan evidences good faith and determination on the Board's part to provideat once the means of complying with the Commissioner's order.

Sincerely yours,

GOVERNOR

Mr. Byron M. BaerChairman, Education CommitteeBergen County ChapterCongress of Racial Equality135 Belmont StreetEnglewood, New Jersey

NEW J E R S E Y /^_ _J/\Y

AugUSt 8, 1963 1664-1964

. \) T I C 10The St-ite Attorney General,

il Hie request of the StaleCommission of Education, thismorning (Thursday) will askSuperior Court Judge DonaldCollestcr to dismiss the Engle-wood taxpayers suit to block theBoard of Education's plan tochange Its methods of assigningpupils to the various schools. Ffthe State succeed-, the suit maygo directly to the federal courts.There ij no clear indication yetas fo whether or not this wouldhave the same e f f ec t of auto

' bloclcing the Board.

,11 the; junction the plnns t>{ the Board nli^'le Street Junior High! Kducatlon \vm> suspended. SlayniIransfeiTini,' out of Lincoln) .Au$fin Nf. Voile ami Couneilmnn-al'nto Cleveland, (Juarles. nn/tl i-i--.-.. "•-•"•

old Ki

School, V»IMSchool into Cleveland, Quarles, andKmisevclt Schools, abandoning Lin-

•iol as ." classroom school,rjjinfi Cleveland. QnaHes,. and Dwifiht Mti-rtiw Ili^h

obtained

eoln Soand mlItoust'Ve-Schools.

*,,! .in miicrfrom Superior Court of New Jer-sey mulor u'liich (he City r,f Knpte-.... „.,., ... r,niU<"wood must show cause 0:1 An,;, 15why il should not be prevent i

i from putting Ilin Hoard of Kdcation proposals into operation <

3 ...v uuuro, ground's (.hat they arc uneonstitENGLE WOOD—A A'roup of Kn- Lionel, cdmMtionalfy unsound, an?ivo(«i taxpayers this week look would require substantial expend',;\l .notion to try prevent the [tire of public Ainds.

Indication from puilin;; The hearing on flic orde/ :o slicm•alions its proposals for cause was to have been held TImrs-T" a compulsory central day, An;:. J5, and under the

Human RelationsPanel to DiscussSchool Proposal

E.VGLEWOOD — George Natal), jchairman of the ITuinan Relations jCouncil of Enqlcwond, announced!that on Thursday evening. August!8 at 8:J5 the Council will hold a ipuhlic discussion meeting on theBoard of Education Plan for elim-tinatins racial imbalance in Enzlc- f,wood public schools. The meeting [will be held ar the West Side |iPresbyterian Church on Knicker- •bockcr road and Drmercst avenue. 'The Hoard of Kducalton Plan, ac- 'cepted by Stalo Commissioner o f fEducation Dr. Frederick M. Rau-j

• binger. will be discussed in all j; its phases, ramifications and im-1plications by both a panel of 'speakers and the attending public.Mr. Hafab also announced that Ivvomembers of the Board of Kduca-j[ion, Warren ],. Lewis and Carmen IHint/, vice-president of the Board,Iwill from the pane!. The member* 1of the Bo.ird of Education willexplore the plan in relation to theimmediate and Jong-ramie growthof Ensle.wood's educational facili-ties and methods. Questions andround table discussion will followI he panel speakers. Clarif icationand a depth ur.derstandiir,' of t he 1

Cuard of KducaN'on IMan aiv theobjcclii'es of the Co'incil mceliny. j

v-wm.tumnn-at-William 1). Ticknor .Jr. who

has been 'opposed to I ho schoolboard's proposals on ffrounds thatthe, public is opposed in tl'ein,issued a statement indicntinjr Ihen:would bo no niotMint; of; the Roardof .Sclioul KslinKitc. to consider thoHoard of Kdticalion plans. Theydeclared that the taxpayers suit.prevented any .idion whatsoeverpending iitij.'ation.

However, at tho request of t h eStale Commissioner of KihicatinnKIT de rick \V, Ha ti binder, Ific j\r\Jersey Attorney General's Offie«I'niorveiH'd by obtaining an aijrec.•nenl from (he Superior Court tcondnct. a special he.iriMj; tod.'.y.

Autf. 8. At. this hearing today MirStale \vill ask Ihn Superior Cmin

• set aside the order to shou'iiso. '/'hi1 S fa /e is .ipparvilfy dninj:is in of fort to offset I he tax>•[•: s' xt'"i:p a ' t f f to ;::nti lini'*

I Thn Slate \vant.s (In* Itnard of Hdu-' t ' . - ' f ' - in Jo pui i(> plan (Iirou;;h In.Sept. J.

The A Homey (.Vnrral'.s Of fir/w i l l rlaini lhai l h< - ijrnup did notI'li'sl eyliausi all .•idmiMi.strafiv'c rr.-medics by which il means that itmust f'ir>l appeal In Mr. Raubinfier.

Other DovafoptnwiMnthe-r dcveNipi'ienls this wmfc

included:

1. THE DOARD of Education,which last Saturday sent out no-tices to Lincoln School parentsid v i s i n g I horn tluif f hay could

j lr*.n»f*r pu.»iiin 15. >l Ciro^s"f - f t f i grades to Cleveland, Quer-

ies, or Kooacvolf Schools, has re-ceived 733 appficiitions for trans-

fer so far. (The bo/ird hai Indi-cated tbnf in order to put this

phase of its ptjn into effect atleast 125 transfers must be vol-

unteers but that those who went

to remain at Lincoln may do so.It also indicated that if too many

transfers were requested ther»

wouldn't be suff icient room inthe other schools.)

On Tuesday (In- Lincoln TTA

membership endorsed ihe Hoard <">/"Kducalinn plan and iiryed parents

to rt'f|iies( transfer In fhc othi-rschools.

2. TH£ SAVE OUR NEIGH-

8ORHOOD Schools Committeeissued a statement condemning

the Board of Education for mak-

ing proposals which ir cl-iims Ar*

UleS-'-l ^nd in wiolnfion of the

rights of (he major i ty of parent*

and children, plus being educa-

tional unsound and sotting up

safety hazards ;n compelling

sixth grtdcrs to attend the Englestreet school.

3. MAYOR VOLK AND MR.

TICKNOR declared that John J.

Breslin Jr. iv^-./ counsel in this

matter, advises that- the tax-

payers' suit automatical ly halts

all action on the Board of Edu-

cation proposals nnd that the

Mayor will not call a meeting of

tho Board of School Estimatepending litigation. The Board ofeducation is without power tc im-

plement its proposals unless the

Estimate Boarc! approves and the

j Common Council appropriatesnecessary funds.

4. JOHN H. PERRY, president

and Carman Hirttz, vice-president,of the Board of Education issued

joint statements praising theschool proposals as a "first step

in a long range pl^n. The Urban

League and the League of Wom-en Voters issued public sta te-

rn en fs endorsing the Board ofEducation proposals.

The ordor to show cause w?;

issued by the Superior Court at

the petition of a £r«up of citizensiiiehiflm,'! Mr. ;uid ,M;-s. .ferry Volpc.

Mi: and Mrs. Oniis PiK;-ch, M-. .innMrs. All;t»i l-'iys-f-r. Mr. n-u.1 MrS.li«*rti;rrrl VV;.ll:i«-h. M:. ;,ml Mrv

Ollihn D'AN'-si'i, .Mr. an'l Airs. Solllnnrtl'.-r. Mr. and Afrs. Ku-enc Ck-

inenl.i'. .Ur. nnf( Mr.s. Kd\va.".•' (fob-bin^, and Air. and Mrs. J.I .yd PolI?rd. 'f'hey are mtvubrrs of ihi

CoiTimilieu to Save Our .\eiTii'ior-

hiiod JScnonls aHhou;,'h Hie petitionwas not fiiefi ir. the niim^s ofSONS.

Tiie .suit p'inii.s oui Ui.^f theBoard of Kducaticn Ju-i' n.» p-iurr h,appr'ipfia(f funds :n:d { f i a t fi.nd*

(Continued On Page 4}

r* Suithisi Plan* v

(Conf'rnucd From Page 1)

c;m Iw aiMx-Dpnnlcfl nnly -j[Hoard of Srhonl Ksli.nalr rcqucsuch funil.s which iTf|inst niii.^l I1-j.'o to the Ci-mmnn Council xvlihas UIP only JMIIVIT of rpproprlion.

The v.iit fiirtlirr omlftu-s tlphilosophy of Hie lUMCltlljnrSntschool as tlu- only iir::'-lir»i| systcanil rbims that Knglt'ivnn.! cliiU-'rtshould have I he i'i^!i' nn<t sii«mnot hi; deprived t.f Iho ri^.'ilallrnd their m'icliHurhnml schotand Unit such Huhi* would tvilatcd w-rro I hoy nimprtlod lo .1tend a central school Mich .is diloc.il Iw.i-tl prnposcs,

Tlie idr.i lh:it pupil ;,v;iî:mc!slioitld IK- h.-isi-if uti :-; rr- is I it iI In- suil. tin- pctilionors rnntrndinthnt sued .1 jmlicy tf. unrrtttslititionnl. It KOO.I on to 5*.He ll-.-t Hi(,'onirnir^KHicr of K.h;cation hinisch.ts snirl i . ' < r - is no dcli!)i>r:itscRn-jjaiion in Kn;;|pnMo<i ar.d Hi;r.ici.nl imlK'Nir.cp is dm* lo rur/m.-ilivrnj; p;illctns over whirh rn-illicthe Ittnnl m»r llu- r i fy li:,s t-nnirnl

fr i i-M-r-f-c. Mu- pHrti.m H.ihf pl.in i.'. ill<T"l cim5ltlulion,ill.vuuiny -if Mii'ir n^lils. p.-in-'-j.: nrhi'divn in ollior V'-'I.IMK- aflV-.-f,-!riot lid;',' i ; : \ ;iriy Mni'i- in I InlH.lll.'f.

•Tin- s;.i.l |i|:.u finilirr .i-Mh-m.He-* tin- i^pi-iidn ... ,,| liiri:<

MI1I1'' df Ill'-dl-y • . " • : , - • ;

thn (.'nMhliluiion <>r ,\<-\ .:tllf! Utiitfil Miih-s," (In-phnrci-n.

I

Perry. HintzSavPlanIs8/a/45

j

Sound 1st StepENGLEWOOD—John H. Perry,

president of the Board of Educa-tion, and Carman Hintz. vice-presi-dent, today characterized (heboard's proposals for changingpupil asignmcnt practices aneducationally sound and progres-sive Mr. Hint?, added that theproposal to send all sixth gradersto the Engle street bui lding in aspecial sixth grade presented nosafety hazards, cither.

: "The Board has always held thatI the school's first, responsibility isto prepare all the children ascitizens and c o n t r i b u t i n g membersof society,'1 declared Mr. Perry.'The question now is, 'What willthe society in which these childrenlive be like'? A new order of livingis emerging daily. The society ofthe 1950's was entirely d i f f e ren tfrom that which we will find inthe 1970's."

Because these changes are madeso rapidly and because no one can \t visualize what all these {

(Continued On Paae 4)

Perry, llintzScry Plan Sound^

(Continued From P*g« 1)

changes will he. Mr. Perry says| that the first duty of the schools

is lo help ch i ldren develop skills,attitude*, understandings, and ap-prec ia t ions for l i v i n g and workingtogether.

"The Board's plan of establishing3 sixth grade school at 11 EnglcStreet and transferring students to'classroom in Cleveland, Liberty,and Roosevelt wi l l he an excellentlesson in h u m a n relat ions for thevomit; children of all schools," saidMr. I'erry. "Ry Ihe l ime they arcadults-, they will he able to par-ticipate in community l i fe with ano p i i u m of unders tand ing . "

The program lo be foliowod thisyear w i l l not only help childrenlo learn lo live cooperatively witheach other, hut It wi l l also offerihem the advan tages of a helleracademic education, in Mr. Perry'sopinion.

One of the best features of theplan is the fact t h a t the Board

! plans lo establ ish a class for prc-! k indergar ten children of working

mothers at 11 Kngle Street. "Thiswill bridge a gap for children whocome f rom homes where t heyreceive l i t t le formal training.Such children, educators havefound, may easily f a l l behind in(ho k inderga r t en becauso Ihey arenot ready for the discipl ines ofschools life. Experiments in other

l e i lie* have shown that such child-ren profit greatly from attending apr r -k inde rga r l en sell mil."

Mr. I'erry addfd that thi- Honrduf Kdi ica l inn w i l l press i t s H i g h e rHorizons program. "We shall uselocal resources, provide trips, anduli l i / . f many vicarious experiences;wt? shall also try In gri closer tothe homes th rough a u x i l i a r y serv-ices."

The fa r t t h a i a l l s i x t h gradepupils w i l l be in the same b u i l d i n gwil l nuke it possible for theteachers lo p«»o| their t a l en t s and:skills for H richor, more interest-inc. and more p r o f i t a b l e academicexperience. With so mnny teachersin nm- schools, vnr ic i l fields uf jinlorvst mny !».• tapped."

Although the plnn hns been!improved i n i ls entirely by Krc-jdcrick M, Ha i ih inge r , New .Icrscy'iCommissioner < i f Kduca t ion , i m - jplcmenlation requires the author-ji/alion of funds by the Hoard of-rScltool Kslimatr and the CommonCouncil of the Cily nf Knglcwood.It is anticipated that this author-isation,/ will be forthcomingl > r < . i n p u y it *nd when It IK i l n m n n -siralcd that more pupils desire Loleave Lincoln School than tho 125open places current ly ava i l ab l e tothem in Cleveland, Quarlcs, andRoosevelt schools.

Mr. Hint / , subscrives lo Mr.Perry's statements and calls thehoard's plan a soundstcp in theright direction.

j '"["be immediate proposal callsI for the establishment of ;i city-j wide sixth grade school at 11 Englc; Street, t he retention of k indergar-I ten pupils in that area in the

Lincoln School, and the option o f -fered Lincoln School parents olpupils in grades one through five

I to at tend Cleveland. Quarlcs,j House veil, as assigned.' "The Ion-range proposal calls

for the e l imina t ion of the Libcrt>i and Lincoln schools by the addiI lion of new classrooms in the otheri three school*. There would bt| renovation and extension of fac i l ii lies at Dwight Morrow to provide: for a comprehensive program fo; grades nine through twelve, ant, a broad program developed fo

c h i l d r e n in grades six througleight , at the Knglcwood JunioHigh School."

irking mothers, as envisioned bythe Community Nursery Schoolgroup. The ci ty should support thevoluntary af ter-hours tutor ia l pro-:gram as conducted during the pastischool year and summer at the jr'lrst Bnplist Church, Lincoln jSchool and Memorial House. Final-ily, the city should recognize tha i 'the est imated co.st of S'iS.OOO f o r jthe Higher Horizons program ap-tpears to be an absolute minimum. [

"Concerning Super! nt c n d c n 11,Shcdd's long-range goal of replac-ing fCnglewood's f i ve neighbor-hood e l emen ta ry schools w i t hthree, our concern is Unit racialimbalance may he allowed lodevelop among Ihc Ihrce. CmiManlvig i lance wi l l be needed to avoir)d r i f t ing inlo such a situation."

SONS DeclaresBoard's PlCapitulates v

KXGI.KWOOn—"Tho Commit teeto Save Our Neighhorhofd Schoolsconsiders the rncnnlly adoptedproposal of tho Hnard nf Kduca-l i n n to ho :in extreme and unnorrs-sar i ly radical solution. H roprc-srtit.s a com plot r capi tula l ion byi he Hoard nC Kt In cation to thel-',iu'.U'\voofl Movement., Taul /uher.Omnrilmim Tibhn, C.O.U.K. theI - - y f r t j l i^ 'Vlt 's ..ifl ' l r.!li''ti f f ^ n i i n n . 1 'Tnix is a . lUiLtjinont utiUuil by the^]-nnp th is \vock.

"\Vc urge Hie Board of SchoolK.stimate Lo deny public funds forthe creation of n makesh i f t .sixth!

grade at the old Kngle streetschool.

"The overwhelming major i ty ofthe cili/.cns of Hnplowoori havemade it abundantly clear that theuse of the Englc street bu i l d ing isohnoxintts and complclcly unac-ceptublo lo them. It is 'ncomprc-honsible that the Board ol! Educa-t ion should persist in its single-minded obsession with the use ofth is abandoned school bu i ld ingOne must ask what is the basis ofthe Board's un re l en t ing pursuit ofthe present sixth graders (whowere last year's f i f th graders) andtheir determination lo put them inthus particular bui lding ' 1

"An examinat ion of the plan andj the resolution under which it ;\;;

p romulga ted , reveals t ha t race iT11R factor in school assignmentin Englcwood. We believe that thoassignment of ch i ldren to classeson this basis is In violat ion o[ the j jConst i tu t ion and the laws of theState of New Jersey and must besistcd."

J

Dear Mr, and Mrs* Deans

you tot your telegram o£ July .know, Coonis sterner Baubinger has approved Cheplan of the Englewood Board oftfducatiisegregation In the Lincoln i

She State aid fat aefeeojdistributed only under procedures specified fcylav sets out exact formulas on which thaaidcoamunity is calculated. There is eo ptwi IM? anyadditional fends and any sums rarestschool board's proposal would haw to

iJLJhink tbft school board aw > localprovision*

X Join with you In the sioeere bope feat «a navearrived at the loog-«ought solution ta your eotnoMc

• Sincerely yours, -

Kr. and Mrs» Herbert Derr166 Crescent CourtEnglewood, Hew Jersey

August 9, 1963

JWK/cal

30TBS

de American Jewish Oounittee165 East 56th Street -Sew Sbrk 22, -N. *.

The Anti-Defsffistl

5?Tburg

of B'nai B'rith515 Madison Avenue -

; H. T.

: AUG 1119631

SUBJECT:

FHCM:

Fisher et all v. Board of Education of the City of Orange,Essex County, ;.Hew. Jersey- ; ;.,.,-;.

Baul Eartman and.Theodore Leskes .

DIGEST: Hew Jersey' CcBBtlBsioner, of Education holds that"extreme racial isibalanee" exioting -in an. Orang*Public School Constitutes, under Heir. Jersey law, •a deprivation of educational opportunity for the

"papila. coj elled to attend the school. He'directsthe local Board of Education to formulate a planto reduce such imbalance•-..." -' --' ..f--' ' ."; • • < ; v"

On ifey 15, ^963-tljje Hew Jersey Coamissioner of Education, Dr. Frcde*iolt K^-Bauhinger, handeft dowa.a de-qiBlon on •whether a. local .TJoard -of education'-vas .re-qj4Ted.to".talse stejpB to reduce de facto racial segregation existing In :tt racaiool ;uader its Jurisdiction^. . : • • ..:• • . - _ • ; . •• ' • - - r i-^V;.-. •

THE FACTS AKD COtfOEHTTOHS OF ^ . PARTIES

The city of Orange has eight pifljlie elementary schools. Hegro^children con-stitute exactly 5Q# of the total elementary school population at; the eight schools.Howe-ver, the percentage of Hegro attendance In the ;lndiVidual;schools varies, from

'19$ to 9956. la the school, year 1961-.1962 there were two schools with a 99> Hegrostudent body. The Board of Education reduced the range1 c* grades" fron 5-8 to T-8at one of these schools, and the consequent reassignment of 'pupils resulted in a •decrease of the Hegro percentage' in "that. 8Chool.-.from^S&9$-to-669t*—£tow>vwp,—with- -—

- -respect "t6-'the~ather school, Oakwood School, no measures were taken to reduce theHegro percentage, with the result 'that Hegro pupil attendance In'l??2-l9o3"atr-aiisschool remained at 99$. . . ; ; . • » • . • — •

\ Several Hegrp childrenâttending: the public schools to Opange and their par-' ents petitioned ifce Board of.Education- of the .city;of Orange- to formulate and ("

cute plans and procedure's designed to eliminate "toe"existing' pattern of'racialsegregation. When the Board of Education refused the request, 'the petitionersappealed to'-the State Commissioner of- Education, Charging that de facto racialsegregation, by design or not, violated their legal and constitutional rights.They referred to court decisions holding that segregated education-Is unequal,cation. 'They asserted, that, it was innaterial shether-such segregation existeda reault of deliberate .efforts -or. .-ot.socio-epononic' or adventitioua^forces 'and

'•tibat'the reB\J.<s were: one,.and the ssme and placed the Negro childât.

The reapondent Board of Education denied that there hai lieen eu^ a**«mpt «' 'its part to segregate pupils by race and asserted that it had at all.times admin-istered its schools upon sound-educational: and legal principles'. -It- further con-,tended that ttie use of race as a factor in ttie deterBdnation of scfiocl policies v;would he an improper and discriminatory practice, baaed as it^wov04;be on Tacljal;considerations. ... .;• • • / . . • - . - .^ -J - . : - , ; .••:5vrf-'--» <:": •'•' ,'""- " .'"..,'.'"^x.'V.,..'.'..-.;

THE CCtMISSIOHBR OF EDaOATICW'S'OPmtOH . , . . : - . -• - . •>." . ; ' ; .

In his opinion, the Comnissioner took issue with the respondent's claim thattills matter presented nev questions of constitutional lav idjlch vere beyond the ~; '"scope of b±a guasi-Judicial fooctioa. la rejecting tttii br&uent, tte Cotadastcoiirreferred to a decision ly a federal district court in" Sev Jersey refusing to decidea prohlen of de tacto school segregation so long aa nrfurfnf strative remedies had notbeen exha\isted. In that decision the court said that the Connlssioner of Education,by reason of his knowledge and experience, was especially well qualified to makethe necessary determinations and that it must be assumed that in the- performance ofhis duty he would be guided by the applicable legal principles.

. -Turning to substance, the Commissioner first found that no evidence had been .presented to establish that the Orange school authorities by Intent, or design hadsegregated or attempted to segregate the Hegro pupils. The CcmnisBioner then for-mulated the principal, issue in this case as follows:

: , - ' . : :•'; . ; (over)-.

. ' Does the existence of the Oakwood School as virtually an all"; Negro school, constitute such an educational handicap to tbe

. pupils assigned to it, that tbe beard of education is dutybound to eliminate its racial imbalance or reduce it within .the limits of reasonableness and practicability consistentwith sound educational practice? V-v. • '.'•• .-.. ., ,,-v .r.-v-ii^y;-

Describing the "Bituation at'Oakwood School, the ComiBsioner found that the99# Negro enrollaent "results obviously from the housing pattern." . .-/-. . .•

The Ccoaissioner conceded that the ultimate solution of the problem lay inthe free-choice .of residence and the eliaona'kion of segregated housing, problemswhich are beyond the control of the school'authorities.—Nonetheless, the Conmis-sioner cratiuued, the school authorities could'not igabre.tie problem since "Inthe TdTian of Negro pupils and parents a stigma is attached to attending a, schoolwhose enrollment ie. cos^letely or almost exclusively Kegro^ and slnc'e "this senseof stigma and resulting.feeling of inferiority have an undesirable effect upon at-titudes related to successful learning." .••*•'. - . ; : ; !%'"• . - • - ' PV

The Comnissioner pointed out that the respondent school board had taken effectivesteps to reduce the' concentration of Hegro -pupils In one -school, which convincedhim that tie same could be done with respect' to Oatorood School "without doing vio-lence to logical attenoince ajâs: or at tte .sacrifice of scnmd educational consid-erations." He agreed that the policy of the neighborhood school was well establishedand • • . . . . . . , '...- v,.., ,;- (- v -'•:-.-.

attended by educational values that are widely accepted, not .• • • - . •'••'•j-.i :'-'J-xx8y by educators, but by the public generally. Consideration -. '".,-••>"• -... °.f such factors as distance to be traveled, safety, econcov. ;",,. . -...;. ;,of time, establishment of rapport between school and hcoe, and' .' '.'" ;,'..',

.1 . • *. r' Tcmn*}pdgp .frfi.-4aâ y»}yv r fl-feyfy- r f ' hf*' 'ff^^rt'.'rt' unvly'riMiiainii >mv*» • - _ • • . • - ' ',}.':• ,; •• operated to establish convenience of access as the controlling ' '.,'".',.-" , ,.tcrlberl.<a.:9f pupil assignment, and the l*$ortance of these

,.: ^values cannot be denied. , • : : - ; / . : ^ v l - - ' . - •. - ••'•'• ":-'•? '"•' '<-j"I;;/;

The Cvnieaiooer expressed hie conviction that despite these advantages of theneighborhood school concept • .'" •''-' '• . - ' • ' - - ' • " - ' -

.... ',: one. or more solutions to the present problem cea Ws'develpiped?-:-.' ' ....._- "'. •_•".. ',>4tl.ch will, mitieate the existing undesirable concentration of '•' '" "';'

. Negro enrollment in -tJie Oakwood School and which can at the ' .,~^.',":

: \. ...... ^..:Bette:'±iiae preserve and .protect in great part the values of, •:;')"J '-'. T.:''.'V.'•. '-. . • rrtbe time-tested pattern of pupil:aBBlgOB«nt4.^VK'-:.' ="•"• ' ; • ''-f ",J;r';' ;_:*.

The,Caamissioner conceded that the solution of the problem was not necessarily.__Sfj Among possible solutions, 'he mentioned the proposal'that- Oakwood School

and another school with a 50$ Kagrc- attendance should be combined 'into one attend-ance. area in such a. way that all pupils in tha combined district would attend one

• school for grades 1-3 add the other school for grades l*-6. The result would be, an•overa^-7?^:He,8ro.,peicenitiag«..i;;- j- ••••}' jaiii-.-ii iiytSwjr:1.!_'i' !'x?>-::^'cr.vt:-.;-^-i u. <^ _

.^.'.'ê^Cp^sBionerLs concluaion was that the extreme racial imbalance obtainingin the Oakwood:School I'constitutea .under Hew Jersey law a dep'rivatlbn of educa-.tional opportunity for.:the pupils.coopelled to.attend the school" and that "reason-able'means consistent with sound educational and administrative practice do existto avoid the extreme concentration of Begro pupils In the Oakwood School.'.'. _ t i ..;.;,

Consequently, CoaniBBioner Baublnger directed the Orange Board .of Educationto forroiUte and aubBiit ,on or before July 1, 1963 a plan consistent with the . .principles s et for^h.,ij3. the CoB»4sBlonier.'fl deciaion and-tO^limvlnTOmrt'such plan ~as approved'wUih ttie' 'bagf rm-ing of,-,tjiie^19&&i£ik .school^^.year'.-:":'•-'.--' -••"'"'? •

18,'

-.iniliuffj-'t>& .-.K.:i';t.-:.?:'i- to.n:ttyc*i !•:.£* •!---•

" V ^t! ^ %

H^fco i/ •» /

a

,,

ipn^+M rftt M^^j ***L '•& &K'd J %J^ 6*ttM 7f-

/ I I \(/ A *

STATE BOARD Of EDUCATION

DEBORAH SPRUILL, |a minor, by ITir. and Tflrs. )John T. Spruill, her parents and next friends, )

Petitioners, )| vs. )

THE BOARD OF EQUCATION OF THE CITY OF )ENGLEIUOOD, BERGEN COUNTY, )

Respondent. )

"<•

KENNETH ANCRUffi and LESLIE ANCRUW, minors,by Mortimer UJ. Ancrum, their parent, et al.,

Petitioners,vs.

THE. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE/CITY OFENGLE'JJOOD, BERGEN COUNTY,

Respondent.

LAURA, ROBERT ant) JAY VOLPE, minors, by '•Mr. -and -Mrs. Jerry Uolpe, their parents,et al.,

Petitioners,vs.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF JHE CITY OFENGLEilfOOD, BERGEN COUNTY,

Respondent.

On Appealfrom thedecisionof the

Commissionerof Education.

BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT, THE BOARD OF EDUCATIONOF THE CITY OF ENGLEUJOOD, BERGEN COUNTY

Sidney Dincan7ftftorney~Tor Respondent,The Board of Education ofthe City of Ertgleu/ood,Bergen County16 West Palisade AvenueEngleiuood, Nam-Jersey

Counter-Statement' of the Case

The respondents Vdlpe, et al. appeal from-a deci-

sion of the Commissioner of Education macIS on July 1st,

1963. The Commissioner in -his determination .found and

determined:

"1. that there is no evidence in this case/of anydeliberate intent by the Engleuood Board of Education tosegregate its pupils by race in the public schools;

"2. that the pupil .assignment policies eurrently.Vin

force in the Engleiuood School District result in an.extreme concentration of pupils of the Negro race in the

Lincoln School; •

- "3. that attendance'at the almost exclusively NegroLincoln School engenders 'feelings and attitudes in pupils

ujhich tend to interfere uiith learning;

"4. that, ujhere means exist to prevent it, such a con-centration of Negro'pupils as exists in the Lincoln Schoolconstitutes a deprivation of educational opportunity underNeui Jersey lavu for the pupils compelled to~a'ttend. the

school;

"5, that reasonable and practicable means consistentujith accepted educational and.administrative practice canbe devised to reduce the present racial concentration in

the Lincoln School."

In said .decision, the Commissioner of Education issued

the following directive to the Eng'leuiood Board of Education

to ait:

"1.. to formulate a plan or plans to reduce the extremeconcentration of pupils of the Negro race in the LincolnSchool consistent uiith the principles and findings enunci-

ated in this decision;

."2. to submit such plan or plans to the.Commissioner of

Education for approval on or before August 1, 1963;i- v '" -

- 1 -

•

"3.1 to put a plan, as approved, into effect at thebeginning .of .the 1953-54 school year.

"The Commissioner reserves the right to make such futtherorder or orders in this matter as shall be necessary toeffectuate a suitable pupil assignment plan., approved by him,for .the 1963-64 school year."

A R G U M E N T

POINT ONE

The decision below does ,not seek to base admission tothe public school based ,on-color or race, and the decisionbelow is constitutional-', legal and valid in its entirety.

• •'-.,;' _ . • . ' • " ' . - jDn page 2 of their brief., the Intervenors contend

j /:'-. .the decision bslow is supported by no statute and con-

travenes both the Federal and State Constitutions./

// /.The Respondent herein respectfully submits that that

statement is absolutely erroneous and the Respondent con-

.tends that the decision is supported by Article I, section

5 of the Mem Jersey State Constitution which states as

follows:

"No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civilor military right, nor be discriminated against'in theexercise of any civil or military right, nor be segre-gated j.n_the jnilj.tia or in tbB_publia_schools-.-becauseor religious principles, race, color, ancestry ornational origin^"

and by R.S. 18:11 which provides as follows:

"Each school district shall provide suitable schoolfacilities and accommodations for all children whoreside in the district and desire to attend thepublic schools therein. Such facilities and accommo- t . 'dations shall include proper school buildings^,

- 2 -

together with furniture and equipment, convenienceof access thereto, and courses of study suited tothe ages and attainments of all pupils between theages of five and tuionty years."

' ®*!K:and by R. S. 18:3-14 luhich empowers the Commissioner to

decide disputes under the school lam.

This Respondent denies emphatically that the Com-

missioner in his decision sought to establish a color line

in education and it is submitted that a careful reading

of the decision will show that there is no color line

established in any shape, manner or form. This Respondent

submits that the argument set forth by the Intervenors on

page 3 is answered by the case of Jeffers v. Uhitley, 309F.2

621 (1962) (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit).

In that case the Fourth Circuit Court states as follows:

"This is another school case. It comes here on theappeal of Negro plaintiffs, two of whom the DistrictCourt ordered admitted to the school of their choice.They complain, with justification, that there was nodefensible basis for withholding judicial enforcementof the established rights of other individual plain-tiffs or for the denial of general declarative andinjunctive relief.

"The action was originally instituted in Decejnber,1956 by forty-three Negro children, attending.

-' schools in Caswell County, North Carolina, andtheir parents^ Th~ey soughtâ~general order" re-- ••-.quiring the School Board to reorganize the schoolsof Caswell County -and to operate them on a non-segregated basis. By supplemental pleadings filedin I960,,it was alleged that certain of the individ-ual plaintiffs had applied for. transfers,, ,_tbat theapplications had been denied and that administra-

- 3 -

\1

tive remedies had been exhausted. They asked foran ordsr requiring the.School Soard to submit' a*~ :J^&'plan for dasegragating €he schools and for aninjunction which mould prohibit the -Board, aftersubmission of a desegregation plan, from requiringany Negro pupil to attend school on a segregated

basis."•'' Sfr"" - . ^__

The Court further stated:

"As to all of these applications, Board membersfound further reason for their denial in the

=.. applicant's motivation by racial considerations.". In the Brown applications, for instance, the• reason for the requested transfers was stated tobe, "Request for transfer to an integrated school"-.system regardless of race, cread or color." Thisled a member of the Board to the novel contention,1 * * * the reason they gave for wanting to trans-fer was race and we cannot assign them on accountof race.' Counsel for the Board makus the same

contention here.

"A requirement of the School Cases that transferapplications be not denied^ on grounds that areracially discriminatory, but a victim of racialdiscrimination does not disqualify himself for.

all relief when he complains of it. ."

"Thesa applicants had been complaining, as plain-tiffs in this action and as transfer.applicants,that they were victims of racial discrimina-

tion."

The Court further stated:

~ ""Therneur Brown-and Saunders transfer applications werepromptly denied by the School Board. As to the Brownchildren, the Board was of the opinion that the ap-plications were base.d solely upon: the race of the ap-plicants, a notion we have already held to be without

legal significance."

In points-(5)" and (6) of its decision, the Court stated

as follows:

-"(5)-Through a voluntary separation of the races

- 4.-

- -

in schools is uncondemnec by any provision of theConstitution, its legality is dependent: upon thevolition of each of the pupils. If'a reasonable}attempt to exorcise a pupil's individual volitionis thwarted by official coercion or compulsion,the organization of the schools, to that axtant,comes into plain conflict with the constitutionalrequirement. A voluntary system is no longervoluntary when it becomes compulsive.

"(6) This is not to say that whan a pupil isassigned to a school in accordance with his wish,ha must be transferred immediatuly if his wisheschange in the middle of a school/year. lt~doesnot mean that alternatives may not be 'limited ifone school is overcrowded while others are not, .or that special public transportation must be 'provided to accommodate every pupil's wish. Itdoes mean that- if a voluntary system is to justifyits name, it must, at reasonable intervals, offerto tho pupils reasonable alternatives, so that,generally, those who wish to .do so, may attend aschool with members of the other- race-." ' ,

Also on Page 3 of thoir brief, the,Intarvenorscite the editorial of tha' Now Jersey Law Journal ofJuly 11, 1963. This Respondent submits that the-NowJersey Law Journal editorial does not aid the intarvanors,but in fact is substantial corroboration that the Com-missioner's decision was correct and logal. In thateditorial of July 11, 1963, the following language wasset forth:

"In the famous 1954 Brown case, the United StatesSupreme Court determined only that purposefulsegregation of public education, that, is, segregationresulting from governmental policy, influence orcbnhivahce7~Tras"aTlc7nial of Federal constitutional :

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wore re-cently, several cases originating in lower-Federalcourts have held explicitly or by implication thatde facto segregation doas not constitute a denialof federally-protected-rights.—Nevertheless, ther-e-ujould be no general dispute with the conclusion ofthe Commissioner that, with respect to :de-factosegregation, 'in the minds of Negro pupils and parentsa stigma is attached to attending a school.whoso en--rollment is completely or almost- exclusively.. Negro,__.and that this scnsci of stigma and resulting feeling __"

-— 5 .-

of inferiority have an undesirable offoct upon-at-titudes related to successful learning1. '

"What thon is the nature, and extent of tho logalright to equal education first.recognized in theOrange case? There ars throe critical, .elementsin this determination. First,.the racial im-balance must be "extreme1; second, such extremeracial imbalance may violate legaT~rights; atleast where reasonable means exist to mitigateit; and, 'third, the legal rights involved arebasad upon Mew Jersey Lam rather than Federal

, Laui. -

"How extreme must racial imbalance become beforelegal rights are invaded? Certainly there can be noquestion that the racial imbalance which existedin the Orange, Plainfield and Engleuiood Schooldistricts was extreme. Future cases will continueto decide on an ad hoc basis at-what point and.under what circumstances racial imbalance istolerable.

"Assuming extreme racial imbalance, a legHT wrongis committed only or 'at least1 where there arcreasonable means available to"rectify the situation..Consequently in every case the inquiry as to whatmay bo considered reasonable and available to •eliminate or correct extreme segregation becomesa critical one sinca such 'means' are apparentlya sine qua non to the claim of legal injury. More-over, the actual means adopted for correctingracial imbalance must be satisfactory not only tothe State Commissioner but presumably to the Federalcourts with respect to any Federal rights which theymight resoqnizg in __a. particular—case. In McNcesc-v Board of Education, decided by the United StatesSupreme Court on June 3, 1963, it was specificallyheld that Negro petitioners in a Federal DistrictCourt neod not exhaust State remedies which did notprovide clear assurance that petitioners would haveeffective and adequate redress.

"It becomes important, therefore, that the Orangedecision, as followed in Plainfield and Englewood,purports only to hold that .such-extreme racial-imf—balance where means exist to correct it contravenesrights '-under New Jersey Law'. This may compartwith tha current Fadaral decision that de facto .

- 6 -

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

JJ

I 7

segregation does not necessarily offend federalrights. It may also serve to ksep State adminis-trative remedies viable notiuithstanding the We- .Neese case. ^

"That the Orange decision raises almost as manyquestions as it answers does not. detract from itsfundemental significance. At _the very least, it.is a bold and conscientious start. .It charts abroad course and lends real direction to the ul^timate solution of the vexious problems arisingout of segregated public education. The methods -of solving adequately and satisfactorily particular .situations mill vary and uiill undoubtedly be f-raughtwith complexity.- Any solution mill require utmostgood faith on the part of all. In'this, the publicat large has its responsibility, the basic respon-sibility ~iflhich all of us assume -by living in a demo-cratic society-- to make our government uiork."

In ansuier to the argument of the Intervenors set

forth on the bottom of pago 3 and top of page 4 in their

brief, Respondent submits that the plan that iuas submitted

to the Commissioner by the Respondent, pursuant to the

Commissioner's direction on or about July 30, 1963, and

which plan was approved by the Commissioner on or about

August 2, 1963, does not encompass any of the fears held

by the Intervenors, and this Respondent submits that the

plan as approved by the Commissioner is.valid and

legal in every facet, and the Respondent does not set

--forth in this brief the wording of the plan since the uiord-

ing q_fxthe_plan is well-knoum to the Intervenors since the

Intervenors attacked .-the-plan in the Chancery'Division of"

. the Superior Court and this complaint that attacked the

plan mas dismissed by Judge Collester on the ground that

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT-DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

these intervonors ha,d to seek their relief, if any, under

Title 13 of the Revised Statutes.

The cases presented by the.Intervenors on page 4,

of their brief are not applicable to the instant case in

any manner whatsoever. These cases involve colored

children who were denied rights because they mere negroes,

and, if anything, these cases support the Commissioner's

decision because in the instant case negroes alleged that

thay mere being denied the right to equal educational

opportunities because they were being sent for their :

education to the Lincoln School, which was comprised of a

school populated entirely or nearly so by negro.pupils,

and the Commissioner's decision held that compulsory

attendance at an all Negro .school, such as the Lincoln

School, at least where appropriate means can be found to

avoid it, constitutes a denial of educational opportunity

under New Jersey law which the school district'is required

to correct.

On page 5 of their brief, Intervenors cite the case

of Brown v. Board of Education,.347 U.S. 483 (1954). In

Headnote 5 of that case the Supreme Court stated as follows:

"\i)e obme then to the question presented: Does seg-^ __1.regation of children in public schools solely onthe basis of race, even-thought the physicalfacilities and other "tangible1 factors may be1

equal, deprive the children of the minority"group of equal educationalopportunities? ..._'ule_

- 3 -

.REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

believe that it does." * * *

-..---. Hsadnote 6 states in part:

» * * *

Because these are class actions, because of the wide applica-bility of this decision, and because of the great variety oflocal conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases-presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument,the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily sub-ordinated to the primary question—the constitutionality ofsegregation in public education. We have noui announced thatsuch segregation is a denial of the equal protection of thelaws."

This Respondent concedes in the Brown case that the Supreme

Court was confronted with segregation with the sanction of law.

However, the language cited above from the case shows the brtfad area

that the court was taking in its decision.

On page 5 of thsir brief, the Intervenors" cite Goss v. Board of

Education, 10 L. Ed. 2nd 632, decided June 3rd, 1963. The Respondent

submits that the Goss case does not aid the Intervenors because the

facts in the Goss case have nothing to do with the situation in tne

_instant_cas_e_.__IiLîh3_j;gs_s_._c.as.e th_e_courjt__dealt _on.ly..with a.situation

where by the terms 'of the transfer provisions, a student, upon request,

would be permitted, solely on the basis of his own race and the racial

composition-of the school-to* which" he has been assighed~15y~ virTfue~of

rezoning, to transfer from such school," uiherVTie would be in the

-.9-


racial minority, back to his former segregated school where his

race would-be in the majority, and the court said that the transfer

plans being based solely on racial factors which under their terms

inevitably lead toward segregation of the student by :racB ran counter

to the admonition of the court in the first Brown case. In other

words, in the Goss case, if a negro having transferred out of a

segregated school wished to transfer again, he would only be allowed

to transfer back to a' segregated school consisting of negroes only,

and the Supreme Court held that plan was,unconstitutional.

This Respondent states that the arguments set forth by the",

intervenors on pages 7 and 8 are absolutely without foundation either

in fact or in law. Neither the Commissioner's directive nor the

Respondent's plan, that has been approved by the Commissioner, en-

visa.ges anything like the ".Alice In Wonderland" arguments set forth

by the Intervenors on pago 3. The Intervenors must bear in mind that

long before t'he Commissioner rendered his decision on July 1, '1963,

the Respondents had tried to put a plan into effect whereby they would

put a central"fTfth'and sixth grade cityuide setup in the former junior

high school. This plan was blocked by virtue of the fact.that, the

Board of School Estimate of tns.City.pf Englewaod .failed to approvs . .

the necessary funds. Certainly this central fifth "and sixth grade

-ID-

IJEPKCUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

plan, which would be in affect at this vary moment but for the

failure of funds was valid, legal and constitutional In'.every shape,

manner and form and this respondent submits that the Commissioner's

decision and the Respondent's plan submitted, and approved by the: • ; . :jtj .ji. -

Commissioner, _i.s free from any attack whatsoever•

. J JAs. an additional answer to the arguments raised by the Inter- .

venors on page 8 of their brief, this Responaent reiterates its

previous arguments as answers thereto and further points out that

the situation in Manhattan and the situation in''the City of Washing-

ton are not comparable in any degree to the situation in Englewood-•'•'. II.

because as to the situation in Encjlauood reasonable means, exist to'/> '

mitigate tha situation, and these reasonable mctinc have been taken

to mitigate the situation in the plan submitted to the Commissioner

by this Respondent and approved by tha Commissioner on August12, 1953.

This Respondent respectfully submits that it has answered the

arguments sat forth on pages 9, 10, and 11 of the.Intorvenors brief .

by the law hereinbefore set forth in its brief.

CONCLUSION

- This Respondent respectfully submits that for the reasons out—

J"•*-'/:,


lined in this brief that thu judgment of the Commissioner of.

Education should ba affirmed.

Sidney DincinAttorney for Respondent,The Board .or Education of"The City of Lngleivood,Bergen County

-12-

r

LAW OFFICE

MAJOR & MAJOR

241 M A I N S T R E E T

HACKENSACK, N. J.

DIAMOND a-086O

JAMES A. MAJOR

JAMES A. MAJOR IT August 14th, 1963.

Hon. Richard J. HughesState HouseTrenton, New Jersey

Dear Governor Hughes:

This firm represents Messrs. Volpe and others who inter-vened in i he Englewood School case before the Commis-sioner of/EducatiorC-1**Prom his decision an appeal hasbeen taken T6 "the' State Board of Education. Briefs havebeen filed by us on behalf of the appellants, by theEnglewood Board of Education, and by counsel for Messrs.Ancrum and others. The matter is ripe for determination.

We have also instituted litigation in the Superior Courtof this State, Chancery Division, to prevent the planpromulgated by the Board of Education, and approved bythe Commissioner, from being carried out until there isan adjudication on its merits. Such an adjudication hasnot been had save for the decision of CommissionerRaubinger who is in the lower echelon.

In the suit which we instituted in the Superior Court,Chancery Division, the Attorney General of this Stateintervened on behalf of Mr. Raubinger, the Commissionerof Education. On the application of the Attorney Gener-al this suit was dismissed on the ground that our clientshad an adequate remedy in the State Board of Educationfollowed by an appeal to the courts. An appeal will betaken.

At a press conference which you conducted yesterday, youare quoted as saying that there is a possibility thatState School Aid might be withheld from Englewood eventhough the validity of the plan was under attack.

As the Chief Executive of this State you are in a posi-tion to control policy so far as it effects the Execu-tive Branch. Commissioner Raubinger's decision has

Hon. Richard J. HughesPage 2.

far reaching implications. The decision is either soundor not. The only tribunal capable of making a finaldetermination in that regard is the Supreme Court ofthis State sofar as it affects State rights. So far asit affects Federal rights, the final tribunal is theSupreme Court of the United States.

Before you became Governor you were a Judge of theSuperior Court and you were trained in the traditionthat the courts are provided by the sovereign todetermine controversies. You are Governor of all thecitizens of this State, white and black, Democrat orRepublican.

In the interest of a swift determination of this contro-versy, may we ask that you direct Mr. Raubinger and theAttorney General to take such steps as will bring thevalidity of Commissioner Raubinger's decision promptlybefore the courts of this State for a final determina-,tion.

Respectfully yours,

jam/mk


STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF NEW JERSEY

DEBORAH SPRLTLL, a minor, by Mr. and Mrs.John T. SpruilJ. her parents and next friends,

Petitioners-Appellees,

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITYOF ENGLEWOOD, BERGEN COUNTY,

Respondent.

KENNETH ANCRUM and LESLIE ANCRUM,minors by Mortimer W. Ancnim, their parent,etal.,

Petitioners'Appellees,

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY- OF-ENGLEWOODr-BERGEN COUNTY,—

Respondent.

LAURA. ROBERT and JAY VOLPE, minors, byMr. and Mrs. Jerry Volpe, their parents, et a].,

1 ~X Petitioners-Appellants,

^THE' BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITYL_._/OF>ENGLEWOOD, BERGEN COUNTY,

\ Respondent.*

On Appeal fromme decision of the

Education

jff_^ „

BRIEF OF APPELLEES ANCRUM, et id.

ARNOLD BROWN,55 West Palisade Avenue,


ROBERT G. PLATOFF,127 Belmont Street,


"t

HERBERT H. TATE,126 Court Street,

Newark 2, New Jersey.

_ROBERT-L. CARTER,MARIA L. MARCUS,BARBARA A. MORRIS,

20 West 40th Street.New York 18, New York.

Attorneys far Appellees, Ancrum et at.

_


STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

DEBORAH SPRUILL, a minor, by Wr. and Mrs.John T. Spruill, her parents and next friends,

Petitioners,vs.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OFENGLEU100D, BERGEN COUNTY,

Respondent.

"KENNETH ANCRUIK! and LESLIE ANCRUITl, minors,by Mortimer il/. Ancrum, their parent, et al.,

vs.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OFENGLEUOOD, BERGEN COUNTY,

Petitioners,

THE CITY OFf

Respondent.

)•sJ))))J

—

On Appeal -from the.decisionof the

Commissionerof Education.

) " ' : :

LAURA, ROBERT arui JAY. VOLPE, minors, byIKlr. and Mrs. Jerry Uolpe, their parents,et al.,

Petitioners, { 0V

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OFENGLEillOOD, BERGEN COUNTY,

Respondent.

BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT, THE BOARD GF EDUCATIONOF THE-CITY OF ENGLEi'OCD, BERG^fJ COUNTY

SidnevJ3incinAttorney for Respondent,The Board of Education ofthe City of Engleuiood,Bergen County16 UJast Palisade AvenueEngleuiood, New Jersey


Counter-Statement of the Case

The respondents Volpe, et al. appeal from a deci-

sion of the Commissioner of Education made on July 1st,

1963. The Commissioner in his determination found and

determined:^~"1.* that there is no evidence in this case of any

deliberate intent by the Engleuood Board of Education tosegregate its pupils by race in the public schools;

I "'' ' ! ''"2. that the pupil assignment policies currently in

force in the Engleiuood School District: result in anextreme concentration of pupils of the Negro race in theLincoln School; '

J13-. tha.t_attendance_a.t_the_almost—exclusively-Negro-Lincoln School engenders "feelings and attitudes in pupil'suihich tend to interfere with learning;

I I' '"'4. that, mhere means exist to prevent it, such a con-

centration of Necjro pupils as exists in the Lincoln School. constitutes-a-deprivation of educational .opportunity ..under _

Neu/ Jersey lam for the pupils compelled to attend theschool;

"5. that reasonable and practicable means consistentuiith accepted educational and administrative practice canbe devised to reduce the present racial concentration inthe Lincoln—School-.-!!

In said decision, the Commissioner of Education issued

the following directive to the Tfngleiijood Board of Education

to uiit:/

"1. to formulate a plan or plans to reduce tha extremeconcentration of pupils of the Negro race in the LincolnSchool ''consistent luith the principles and findings enunci-ated in'this decision; /

''"2. yto rsubmit such plan or plans to the Commissioner of

Educa.tj.on_f-pr-a'ppro-V.al_on.. or-.bef ore-August—.L, 19.63.;

f.' r .

rr

rT

r - i -

REPRODUCED FROM THE "COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

"3. to put a plan, as approved, into effect at thebeginning of the 1963-54 school year.

"The Commissioner reserves the right to make such furtherorder or orders in this natter as shall be necessary toeffectuate a suitable pupil assignment plan, approved by him,for the 1963-64 school year."

' A R G U M E N T

POINT ONE

The decision below does not seek to base admission tothe public school based on color or race, and the decisionbelow is constitutional, legal and valid in its entirety.

On page 2 of their brief, the Intervenors contend

the decision below is supported by,no statute and con-

travenes both the Federal and State Constitutions.

The Respondenli-'herein respectfully submits that that

statement is absolutely erroneous and the Respondent con-X

tends that the decision is supported by Article I, section

5 of the New Jersey State Constitution which states as

follows:r .

"No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civilor military right, nor be discriminated against in the

—._ ______ exercise; of any civil or military right, nor be segre-gated in the militia or in the public schools, becauseor religious principles, race', color, ancestry ornational origin." ——\ J~ ~

and by R.S. 18:11 luhich provides as follows:

"Each school district shall provide suitable schoolfacilities and accommodations for all children mhoreside in the district and desire to attend thepublic schools therein. Such facilities and accommo-dations shall include proper school buildings,

.-

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ,

i

together u/ith furniture and equipment, convenienceof access thereto, and courses of study suited tothe ages and attainments of all pupils between theages of five and twenty years."

and by R. S. 18:3-14 which empowers the Commissioner to

decide disputes under the school law.

This Respondent denies emphatically" that the Com-

missioner in his decision sought to establish a color line

in education and it is submitted that a careful reading

of the decision mill show that there is no color line

established in any shape, manner or form. This Respondent

submits that the argument set forth by the Intervenors on

page 3 is answered by the case of Jeffers v. UJhitley, 3Q9F.2

621 (1962) (United States Court of Appeals, Fourth-Circuit).

In that case the Fourth Circuit Court states as follows:

"This is another school case. It comes here on theappeal of Negro plaintiffs, two of ii/hom the DistrictCourt ordered admitted to the school of their choice.They complain, with justification, that there was nodefensible basis for withholding judicial enforcementof the established rights of other individual plain-tiffs or for the denial __of_ general ..declarative and

"The action .was originally instituted in December,1956 by forty-three Negro children, aiiendirig~schools in Casuiell County, North Carolina, and'their parents. They sought a general order re-quiring the School Board to reorganize the schoolsof Casiuell County and to operate them on a non-segregated basis. By supplemental pleadings filedin I960, it was alleged that certain of the individ-ual plaintiffs had applied for transfers, that theapplications had been denied and that administra-

- 3 -


tive remedies had been exhausted. They asked foran order requiring the School 9oard to submit aplan for desegregating the schools and for aninjunction which would prohibit the Board, aftersubmission of a desegregation plan, from requiringany Negro pupil to attend school on a segregatedbasis."

The Court further statad:

"As to all of these applications, Board members .found .further reason f or—fehe-H -den-iaJ 1 n the :applicant's motivation by racial considerations.In the Brown applications, for instance, tha'reason for the requested transfers uias stated tobe, ."Request for. transfer to an integrated schoolsystem regardless of race, creed or color." .Thisled.a'member of the Board to the novel contention,i »• * * the reason they gave for wanting "to trans-fer was race and we cannot assign them on account-of—race-r1 E-ounsei-For—ths-Board-makus—the—samecontention here.

V . .-

"A requirement of the School Cases' that transferapplications be not denied on grounds that areracially discriminatory, but a victim of raciaV-discrimination-does not- disqualify-himself "for—all rslief when he complains of it.

"These applicants had been complaining, as plain-tiffs in this action and as transfer applicants,that they were victims of racial discrimina-tion."

(TV

The Court further statsd:

"-The new Brown and Saunders transfer applications werepromptly danied by the SchotrtjBo'ar'd. As to the Brownchildren, the Board was of the opinion that the ap-plications were based solely upon the race of the ap-plicants, a notion we have already held to be withoutlegal significance."

In paints (5) and (6) of its decision, the Court stated

as follows:

"(5) Through a voluntary separation of thei

- 4 -


in schools is uncondemned by any provision of theConstitution, its legality is dependent upon thevolition of each of the pupils. If a reasonabloattempt to exercise a pupil's individual volitionis thwarted by official coercion or compulsion,the organization of the schools, to that extent,comes into plain conflict with the constitutionalrequirement. A voluntary system is no longervoluntary when it becomes compulsive.

"(6) This is not to say that when a pupil isassigned to a school in accordance with his wish,he must be transferred limmediatoly if his wisheschange in the middle of a school year. It doeshot mean that alternatives may not be limited ifone school is overcrowded while others are not,or that special public transportation must beprovided to accommodats every pupil's wish. "Itdoes mean that if a voluntary system is to justifyits name, it must, at reasonable intervals, offerto tho pupils reasonable alternatives, so that,generally, those who wi¥h to do scT,may atteTTd~~aschool with members ofvthe other race."

1 , V

Also on Page 3 of their brief, the Intarvenorscite the editorial .o.f tho New Jersey Law Journal ofJuly 11, 1963. This Respondent submits that the Now

does" not aid the intcrvenors}™but in fact is substantial corroboration that the Com-missioner's decision was correct and legal. In thateditorial of July 11, 1963, the following language wasset forth:

"In the famous 1954 Brown case, the United Statese Court dsturminoSvbnly "that"purposef ul~ 7

segregation of public education, that is, segregationresulting from governmental policy, influence? orconnivance, was a donial of Federal co_nstiitrtionalrights under the Fourteenth Amendment. "-Wore re-csntly, several cases originating in lower Federalcourts have held explicitly or by implication thatde facto segregation docs not constitute a denialof federally protected rights. Nevertheless, therewould be no general dispute with the conclusion ofthe Commissioner that, with respect to de factosegregation, 'in the minds of Negro pupils and parentsa stigma is attached .to attending a school whose en-rollment is completely or almost exclusively Negro,and~~that this sense tiTlftTgrna- an"d~resuiting — feel-ing -- ;

- 5 -

.


of inferiority have an undesirable effect upon at-titudes related to successful learning.1

"What"then is the nature and extent of the legalright to equal education first recognized in theOrange case? There are three critical elementsin this determination. First, the racial im-balance must be 'extreme'; second, such extremeracial imbalance may violate legal rights;- atloast where reasonable means exist to mitigateit; and, 'third, the legal rights involved arobased upon New Jersey Law rather than Federal

Law.

"How extreme must racial imbalance become beforelegal rights are invaded? Certainly there can be noquestion that the racial imbalance which existedin the Orange, P.lainfield and Engleiuood Schooldistricts was extreme. Future cases will continueto decide on an ad hoc basis at what point andunder what circumstances racial imbalance istolerable.

/ I

"Assuming extreme racial) imbalance, a legal wrongis committed only or 'atljlpast1 where thcrs arereasonable moans available to rectify the situation.Consequently in every case the inquiry as >o whatmay be considered reasonable and available to"eliminate-oT-correct- extreme segregation becomes- 'a critical one since such 'means' are apparentlya sine qua non to ths claim of legal injury. More-over, the actual means adopted for correctingracial imbalance must b3 satisfactory not only tothe State Commissioner but presumably to the Federalcourts with respect to any Federal rights which they

~might^"rSaoghiza in a particular case. In"flteNcesH"v Board of Education, decided by the United StatesSupreme Court on June 3, 1963, it was specificallyheld that. Negro petitioner-s-TTn 'a Federal DistrictCourt need not exhaust Stato remedies which did notprovide clear assurance that petitioners would have

- effective; and adequate redrass.

"It becomes important, therefore, that the Orangedecision, as followed in Plainfield and Engleuood,purports only.to hold that such extreme racial im-balance where moans exist to correct it contravenesrights "under New Jersey Law'. This may comportwith tho current Fcjdoral decision that da facto

(f>

ft

- 6 -


segregation does not necessarily offend federalrights. It;may also serve to keep State adminis-trative remedies viable notwithstanding the lilc-Neese case.

"That the Orange docision raises almost aa manyquestions as it answers does not detract from itsfundamental significance. At the very least, itis a bald and conscientious start. It charts abroad course and lends real direction to the ul-timate solution of the vexious problems arisingout of segregated public education. The methodsof solving adequately and satisfactorily particularsituations u/ill vary and will undoubtedly be fraughtluith complexity. Any solution u/ill require utmostgood faith on the part of all. In this, the publicat large has its responsibility, the basic respon-sibility which all of us assume by living in a demo-cratic society-- to make our government work."

In answer to the argument of the Intarvenors set

forth on the bottom of page 3 and top of page 4 in thoir

brief, Respondent submits that theplan that was_s_uj3jiit_te

to the Commissioner by the Respondent, pursuant to the

Commissioner's direction on or about July 30, 1963, and

which plan was approved by -the Commisaoner on or_abo_ujb.

August 2, 1963, does not encompass any of the fears held

by the Intervenors, and this Respondent submits that the

plan as approved by the Commissioner is valid and

legal in -every facet_, and tlie_Respondent does not set

forth in this brief the wording of the plan since the ujord-

ing of the plan is well-known to the Intervenes since the

Intervenors attacked the plan in the Chancery Division of

the Superior Court and this complaint that attacked the

plan was dismissed by Judge Collester on the ground that

- 7 -

REPRODUCED FROM THE COIU3CTICNS OF TOE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

these intervenors had to seek their relief, if any, under

Title 13 of the Revised Statutes.

The cases presented by the Intervenors on page 4

of their brief are not applicable to the instant case in

any manner whatsoever. These cases involve colored

children mho were denied rights because they were negroes,

and, if anything, these cases support ths Commissioner's" i

decision because in the instant case negroes alleged that

they mere being denied the right to equal educational

opportunities because they u/ere being sent for their

education to the Lincoln School-, which rnas comprised of a

school populated entirely or nearly so by negro pupils,

and-the~Commissioner's decision held that compulsory

Vattendance at an all Negro school, such as the Lincoln .

School, at least inhere appropriate means can be found to

-avordnrtv^coTrstitutes a denial of educational opportunity

under Neui Jersey law which the school district is required

to correct.*

On page 5 of^their_br_ief_,—Intervenors cite the-case—

of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). In

Headnote 5 of that case the Supreme Court stated~a-s

"We come then to the question presented: Does seg-regation of children in public schools solely onthe basis of race, even thought the physicalfacilities and other 'tangible' factors may be'equal,- deprive the children of the minoritygroup'of equal eoucational opportunities? life

REPRODUCED"FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

believe that it does." * * *

ReaBnote 6 states in^part:

Because these are class actions, because of the wide applica-bility of this decision, and because,of the great variety oflocal conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases -presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument,—tfae—eoRsidsfiation of appropriate relief was necessarily sub-ordinated to the primary question—the constitutionality ofsegregation in public education. We have now announced thatsuch segregation is a denial of the equal protection of thelaws."

This Respondent concedes in the Brown case that the Supreme

Court was confronted with segregation with that sanction of law.

However, the^language cited above from the case shows the broad area

that the court was taking in its decision.

>•On page-5 of their brief, the_Inter_venors cite_Goss_yj_B_oar_d_o.£

Education, 10 L. Ed. 2nd 632, decided June 3rd, 1963. The Respondent

submits that the Goss "case does not aid the Intervenors because the

facts in the Goss case have nothing to do with the situation in the

instant casa_.V In the Goss case-the-oourt dealt only with a situation"

where by the terms of the transfer provisions, a student, upon request,

would be permitted, solely on the basis of his own race and the racial

composition of the school to which he has been assigned by virtue of

rezoning, to transfer from such school, where he would be in the

-9-

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLEXMTCNS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

racial minority, back to his former segregated school where his

race mould be-in the majority, and the court said that the transfer

plans being based solely on racial factors which under their terms

inevitably lead toward segregation of the student by race ran counter

to the admonition of the court in ths first Brown case. In other. 1 ~

words, in the Goss case, if a negro having transferred out of a

"Vsegregated school 'wished to 'transfer again, he would only be allowed

i. V ]\o transfer back to a segregated school consisting of^negroes only,

and the Supreme Court held that plan was unconstitutional.

This Respondent states that the arguments set forth,toy the

interuenors on pagejS] 7 land 9 are absolutely without foundation ei

in fact or in law.. Neither the Commissioner's direc-tfive nor the

Respondent's plan, that has been .approved by the Commissioner, en-

visages anything like the ".Alice In Wonderland" arguments set forth

by the Intervenors on pago S. Ths Intervenors must bear in mind that

long before the Commissioner rendered his decision_on July l-,--19-63»~~

the Respondents had tried to put a plan into effect whereby they would

put a central fifth and sixth gTaSe^cityvjide setup in the former junior

high school. This plan was blocked by virtue of the fact that the

i , . •• :'i :-—Board of School Estimate; of ths City of Englewood failed to /approve

the necessary funds. Certainly-this central fifth and,

IJ ! , '/ If,

sixth grade

f,' I

/ -10-

r

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTICNS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OP

I

dan, which would be in effect at this very moment but for the

(failure of funds was valid, legal and constitutional in every shape,I . -

(manner and form and this respondent submits that the Commissioner's

lecisian and the Respondent's plan submitted, and approved by the

|tantnissioner,• is free , from any attack whatsoever.

As an additional answer to the arguments raised by the Inter-

Jer.ars an page-8 of their brief, this Respondent reiterates its

ravious arguments as answers thereto and further points out that

|the situation in Manhattan and the situation in the City of Washing-V

[ton are not comparable in any degree to the situation in Engleuiood

[because as to the situation in Engl_ewood -reasonable means exist to

• mitigate the situation, and thess reasonable moans have been taken

• to mitigate the situation in the plan submitted to the Commissioner

I ~• by this Respondent and approved by the Commissioner on August 2, 1963.

•- This Respondent respectfully "submits that it has ansujere'd" the

arguments sat forth on pages 9, 10, and 11 of the Intervenors brief

by the law hereinbefore set forth in its brief. -, ,- -—

CONCLUSION

This Respondent respectfully submits that for the reasons out-

-11-

REPRODUCED FROM THE COIiECTICNS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

lined- in this brief that the judgment of the Commissioner of •

education should bs affirmed. . •

Sidney DincinAttorney for Respondent,The Board of Education ofThe City of Englewood,Bergen County

-12-

• Estimate Board NowMust Act On Matter

HACKKNSACK —.lucls-y G-mlnn 11. Krmvn yi-sU-rdadisin ssi-d the second l:ix payers' MiiL brought by in'arly HOKn^l wood UNpaye s in :ui effort to pnnvnt. (.ho Hoard (Kdiit itinii from csl jli?liiii£ a ivntral sixth prndi1 at thf o1 ,KIIR Slrci'L .limit) High School an.f reassigning Linrnh

,Scht I's first lln-uut, i Til'lli i-radi- pupils tn L'lvvi'land, Quarks' nml Roosevelt Helm s by Sept. -!.

.Judge Brown ; :lotl upon tin- mk'rvi-iiimn nl' Lho SUtoI AlUirney Oncval's Ofl'ier.

GOVERNOR INTERVENES 1 ., , ,|,,. ,,„„, .'.„. ,,,,„„ »!1H.|, ,1

Karlii'r in II"- 'lay Ciivi'innr Kil'll- : cliiimN nutilil In- «:isl.'<l.,lll .1. llualli's llir,.M..|,...l ••, ni! c,|, „„,;„,

l '"" ..... >»> ..... An-r,,, N. V.ilk ,.•<t -ill ..... »3I3J1I« II. KllRlllwi.1.1 HIH ,,„, ,. , , , , ,1 „, s<, ........ ..„,, ,„.,,,. .,,

I' ........ I'1"". »l1'"'11 *""'• '"'""idly ll:ill .11 ll>::m .iVI.ii-k Mnml^mi»l,HH.r Kmlrrirk M. ll.iul,im;..|- j „„„.,„„.. .„„, ..........lialdv aii-l,a» iwimiiwiwlril. i« pul lnl« i-lti-fl I j,,,,, ,,„. .,,.,..„„, „„ ,ll|;.11.i. „,'" Kniilowniul. . ,. ...... sl,| ,„,,„ , „„.,,,„ |r „ ,,„

Till' Til-si MX|UY,"S <ilil was llis- ; Sliil |1 umilll !„• ihii»|.rmis hi fly

Illis-,',! bM W.-l'k llV .lllll.'l' IllllKlllljil, |||,. hi,-,' ,,f II,.. >!,„»• ,-;,!,„.

rnlli'sl-r. :,ls,, :!•. :i ri-sulc "I Slali' ; ,in|,.r. r,,in,,.||,,,.i,i al l:in:i' WillummliTVi'tiliiin. Til.- l;iM.:mv Miil»;|,. T,,.t ..... - .,,.. .,,..„ ,.;1||,.,, ,,(t ,,„.

j l l , . l l l I',,,,!,.,,,! IlK.I III,- >.h,.l,l ,,!•„.! ,„,.,.,„„. „,- ,,„. ,-„„,,„„„ ,.llllm.,|

|,,,!.:ils fur n.;i<si"iiin:: imtuN ™ | nl,ii-h ».n» l,i liav,. uu'l iuimriliaU'lybasis ,.f ra,.,. is iincnii-hhil'.i.nal , i],, ,..,!-!,.,.. :„„ ,s|,,n,,i,,,,,. ,,r „„„„, r,,r; . .........

,,rh |,l,l|.,,s,. IS Illwal .111,1 I ...... »• j ..... ....... ,„,,.„,.,„.- " '" '

lied by l l i<> < rls.

BACK T OSTATE DCPT

it. .In.Ii'i. HI-MUM r,Mr. llreslin <m I.ehall ol the eilyand unit Sid'ii-v inne i i i , M'ho.,1liHiinl at lnrney, and a;:n-«>l 'oconvene tins luoruiii)- (Wednesday)provided lln-y ilil perMiarl".laoies T. Uin-riby „!' Vorsaimer .vMurphy dl l<;n;;lc\\ood, who i-.

j pear. Otherwise, -Ind;;r llmwn'said. Mir arguments woui i l have, to;•« iM-er nnlil Thursday (tomorrow)

II is rxpeeled thai the Slal'.'11|,,, ,„.,„,,,.,( ,(.„„ ,,„. ,|,,, hP;,rjnCl

, nepar!ii'";il will nol lie.ir lln- la\: layers' suit nil ennsl il n! ioiudily, unlit aflt'r M-hool i.|.ens. .Irnl-.'I Hi-nwn .iilinillivl that (In- qiiesliiin' nf rnnfilihdion.-ilily is unansv.'ered

Collesler. held Ibril Ihe Shite l^«ts-j l.i I lire has provided .idcqu.'Hr ril-iTHflir.s tlirnnyh flu- Slnle llrpartnienl nf Kdiicatinn.

Stjitc j,,,crwctles

|i|. A|| ,;,„„,,,,.., nf|l,,,Hl ts ,,.„„„ il( lhis ,, (h(. lt)v

tiM,, of h-mN-rH-h M. I.Mnhins.-r,

>' With holh'lnypnyer'suiKdismis.j'"'^111'1;/111-11''^ "|"h h«™ sen1 Ihe i'.oard of Sehnol KMimatninsl n.-iw nir-i-l and Maw.r A u s t i n 1

N Vnlk. .•li.-iirmnn. ha* rallwl Ihenvpiinc f'"' Mnndny motH:.in nVIock.

"1"mis Mr. nin,-n,

i lla" ll1"' '"'"" I'1™'1"'" 'I''11 I'"1j l',,;,r,l ,,f Kiliir.!n,,n ni'ctK Ihr ijin,.'BOARD OF SCHOOL ESTIMATE ' n nnli'r In |,nl Ilii- plan, ili-mantli"!'»' «•• l:"'""«,,-. i,,,,, ,.||,rl I,,Should Ihe Ho;ird "f Seliool ] • ; - : •

mnle. under Ihe Sta le 's ilin-al nl'ill-holding SI :•! " erlo.-'.ll.ovltnds. approve n[ the plan. IheM in 1110 ! ( 'mi in-! I innsl then meetn consider apprnprialinn <if Hie' ""12!i.0(in needeil for Ihe fii

ant the pNin pnl inli, effeeL1 on -rounds that il is nn-IniiMiia!. Dial il is disenmi-

V aâiiti i UK- oilier ehildrrn,|:IMI| .i;;ainsl p;irents and laxpiiycrs

Sidney I)in<-in. :Mlnr:icy fur Un>nn say in

l rtuarH «r Kdurul1 mailers n\l eonc-erii. In thcrr

'an* trying In Ihrnw sand mi Inicks'1 .ind lli.-i! (liny slumM.Tii.surfd for t i i i- ir ol .s lnic(ni i ! i -

c\e'opnienl> in Ihe making nitoth SMI.-S of lhis issue:

1. There is a growing ienti-

of white children to boycott the

if the Board of Edu-

te o'ders. Th«y indi-terday m a sei-nnd taxjiayers'ivhicli «eeks In prevent the Unf KdiRMtion from pullin- into ca'e this "»*•«•"* i!- du" »*fffee; i ts propn.saN Tor dum-ini: th*ir "nviction that it is *n un-ihc methods of ii?si = ni.i« pupils to "nitifwttoitil mav*. •du«tion«t-

When Ihe Slah- intervened last *g*m?_ fhcm'week in the firq taxpayers ' .suitseek ins '» block tbe ll'iard idKducilion Frmr, :;oin- ahead withMs- plans In set up a central sixth

1. C a n v e r s c i y Councilman V - n -

. ., . Cleveland School has declaredn the ahamlftrtrrl Kn^b- ^.^

plan is not put into e f f ec t by fheStreet School .-nnj lo dicoln School rhilnri-n in llirci; Vthe foin- -.i!|,-r L'tv.dc -'-hoi-il1-.

:ic!

ipening of seliool ther« wilt he

it Cleveland, Ouarles, and Roo-

ln tlii.. set-ond MHI tin- i ' inter: than ever.linn is thai (In- court.- nio-i di'.-ii!,- The hr-i '-ml v.a>- irii!ittilr:rl hythe coii'.liUittdn.-il i»*.tn- of permit i't t a x p a y e r - rcpri-sentin^ the

i - l i i d i l Mrv. \Vi-

fi-di-ral i-i,i!shiiih'.i s liy OVNIV. r:»-.. . Ih-oii K l-'nlli-r. Mr. and ,\1rs. Iti-:<s ,1 basis for :i;>M;:mni: itii,nls and fli/nd i injhoKiri. :uid Mr. and .Mrs.is iifl(tally rli"<-nniinali.ry :.âins| Tho-nJK <'w\t>\.\. was >-fparaU*while pupils. Their -nil ;ir»\i^ In.tti Sf..\ an dis !I;,M.d purelythai it is illegal :nid unlawful !o mi Hi" Hatin Ilia' it is Mr-mi; ' t>spend moriin for such piirpd>.fs !i!ip!eun-m v"»-'h ;' I'l-iri a; cost u.heforp the constilutional (|iK-*lirms I IK* t.i.spa>'-r-i h'-lof.- tinr t-miri.sare sttllcti. ndc on its lon.siitmiimalily. They

Thc suit , si-ni-d liy .ln'!^.- fl'.r- f'l'i'.'-nd tli:t' M ha.- a lways hi-i-i;drin II. Hrmiri. nrd/-ri-«l lln- Hoard wron;- !•• ;,-i^n [nnnN uri I he- basi;,of School K>tinu.lf In -how cao-i- "f <~'"-" '"'^ " " '••"" "Toe.;: prior

approving the Uoanl of Kdnration (Continued On Pjtrje 12)

Courts Dismiss/™ o •r 0/ / / / .S-

(Continued From Page 1}

The Tiist taxpayers suit filed byID parents of white children who,wotjld be afffclcd by the changes \n pupil assisnnicnt, particularly!

lbo>c \viio Ii.ive tr> attend a centra l !M\!h sr.tdf in !hc ahandi-ned En-;Îe street Junior Migii Sclicol, was 1

di.-mi^sed.

It wa> ilismi.-.<c:l by .ludyc Do-ii.ild li. I'ollrste;- of Superior Courl.\ lio rufi-d liiat ,tj>e .-.nil mu>l f.irsl :be heard by the Stale Department t

nf K<tiR-?lion in order to exh.iusl •all adminislratives remedies. Jud-h

i;e Collator said thai to aixtii* a ">uit aâinvt the Hward of Kduca-lion in lus court would be coltotcr.il-action.

James A. Major, attorney re-.presenting the parent*, conlt-iledthe ri»ht of Krederick M. f^rubin-j;cr. Conmiissioner of Kducation. toinlorvt'ne in the K:iyle«ood suit,i: had been ;,l Mr. Raubifltfrfitreiiiie:-! l!i;.t I be Attnrney fleneral;intervened hy a>kinx' Jud-e Col-

liojrd of Kduraiiuniil and ar-iu'd |• (hat Tin- |)ai-ritt-' MM! should be •, thrown uul uf cntirl. He insisted jnit ('omim.-'-ioitcr Itaubinêr's riyht!!ir order Kn^!c»oud to fliaivê itsmethods uf ^>*im>iny pupils andtns n^b! to intcrvrnc in any cf-':•>:-'. by parents or taxpayers olpre\cn; i lie Hoard of Kducation

Mr. MnjiT ara i i i ' i l l l i : i l the• 1-jeOon i.l fun«IitntiniK-ili:y of t f iei;»ar.l of Kdui'jtinn proposals lia*ii"1 M-eii ;irûed ,nr! ib;it the par-en!.- who olijci-t to bavin:- theiri-bil.-n-ii fJiniK'IIM to u.. •« <l i f -fer-nt .-eliools aie bein- denied;l;i-ir nvbts. He dct-iart-d furlhpr! ha! it i> uncunMilutivful undpr<\3',f and federal ('un>1itut!otis to:i?-ixn piiptl« according t '» theirrace

.ludê Cidlon-r ruled lhal in anye\ i;t th** nialtcr wne.ld baM- to ô!ie!o:e !he Stale Pfpariiiient »tKd:n-.ili'iti [ir-l. Mr. Majnr im-mediately undertook .-ieps |o ;fp-penl tiie :uhii^ nol only bH.,rr•Jie Si ale Dfpjrtmftit of K-iucatiun.bul 1:1 :be N-j'v Jersey AppellateHivi-ii-ii ;md in Ihe United Statespi>int-i Cout-i in Newark. He cttn-jlends ih.it 'hi1 cuns'.itutionality ofthe rntire principle of usina rare:i- j mran< f! a>.»ij;inn; pupils 15lim-onKtirulK-nal and mu-t be tot-ed.

r i 8/vf/c sFreedom March

And Ral ly Draw

KNGI.RWOOD—Ahoul 2Trft per-sons partjcipntetl in n parade amtrally Sunday afternoon tn createinlm'sl and support for the for thmining Freedom March on Wash-innlnn,

Illylen .Inhn-nn of Ilie SouthernClidslian Leadership Council InldIhc rally at Mnckay Park tha i "Tn.day the Mack man can he proudn( being bl;rck. but (hat if be

iivanls In cnntinue to • • ! " " . • In s ta l -

J pitrl .such mass initvemrni' • 'he., March im U'asbliu'.t.in "

! fiiiincibnan Vlnenii- K TiMis,wa!i chairman nf llie r.-dly an.I .tn-|M'|ill L, llntjamin AVtt-s m chargeH Ihr paraiie. Mr. Tibhs ded.-rrcdMiinl wlicn Ihe Miireh <ui Wiishinw-!,i«n I* over Ni?»nies should im.^tieJJillviy ;;t> lo ;:vm \ U.K'lt i'i theirImmc towns flghllng for theirrlithls. lie indicated (hat Ihe rigidin Rflgtewnod i.s nnl yd won nnd jthai il is up lo all Negroes to !umilc in fighting it.

The Rev. .lames Coleman of Mt.Olive Bnplisl Church in l lacken- -sack siricl that Rnglewood is not !Ihr only community with n prnh-llorn, lie calli'tl attenl ion to l lack- j

Ion-sack, Bogota, nnd nlher cnm-.•Dtnfttn,i Tim Rev. Rnhrrl 1. Milter of Kn-: clrwoofl. who look par I in Ihe[parade, addressed Ihe ral ly in bis• r.'ipacily as Mr. Tihh* -;ts ihejlroiiMirer fi.r llie March. He .snirl'lhat while Die white man has heen

*l<Hv in showing himself in I lie.Vcsrn fie hi many whiles are he-

;wining arlivp. "Ihilil now Ihercisr.'iiu-il in have been time eiuitmb;fnr gradual chains hit! I here no•lotvjrr is (imp and in all corners•nf llir nation ihe campaicn is un-,dcr\vay."i Orsanizins lric;rl ac t i v i t y for (hei March on Washington are .Inhn|\V. Brown nf t he Urban League..i chairman Joseph Hen jam in Sr.. ofiCOmc, Mrs. Jessie Perm of NAACP,

.(Mrs. EujiP.no Woodward, the Rev.'i Robert I. Miller. Columbus McCoy.JHrs. Hallic Jones. Mrs. Stonewallj Jackson, and Morris Finley.

Hint/ Declares Safety FactoiAl Proposed School Excellent

KNC,U-:\VOOD— h'irst among tin1. Hoard of Kducation's proposal forquestions any parents may ask | ;i change in pupil assignments,about proposals affect 1115 I heir j Carman II. Mini-/, vice-president.children is. "Does Ihc plan provide , declares !h;il children's safety liasfor our suns 'and da'.inhk-'V • been a primary coiwii1 ..... i"i: in allsafely?" i del ihcral ions.

To parents (iiieslioning Hie ehil- Mr. Mini/ pointed out t l ial bedren's safely under Ihe Kntflcwnni

nf.i- ihe n..,,nl ol' Kducalion mad.

recommend nil uns lo Com mis-1sioner l-'redcrick M. Il:mbinder asIn the best way lo solve the prob-lem of racial imbalance in Ihe c i ty 'sschools, it had asked Mr. (\\vnnLeach, director of hvallh. pbvMealeducation, and safely, in survey allcily schools and make ret-on mien-dalions iis to any im as ires needed

• lo insure the sii/cly and >""dlh| of children.

The propo.-al to i'.si;ihli>h a c i l y - 1

I wide s i x th Krade school at II Knuli'jslreel and In penniL optional Irans-

! fcr of Lincoln School pupils ini trades one to f ive lo Cleveland.I Quarlo. or Kimwvell as assi^nrdj aclually means t h a t many boys

and Hii'ls may I ravel .shorter dis-' lanei-N to .school Iha-i they other-

w i se would, in Mr, Hint'/, opinion.(Cnnrinuvrl On P*r,» 17)

' / / / n / = Says PlanSafr /''or Pnp

(Continued From Page

frr.ni Liru-oir. wi lthe >ci'.'>ol r."ar

be

: i > Croups Demand/ ,I Estimate Hoard J ;| Meeting Quickly| KNtJI.ttVi'Onr' -"Mfn.en Coiml>[NAACP. CnitF,, and the Knj-'lc-

wood M ovrni c n I, I axl n i yhl p ro-1lesled the. "vinnecessiiry and wilfuldelayinu nf urnenl.lv needed actionhy Ihe Hoard of School Kslimnlc"and demanded an immetliale meet-in«. This was expressetl in a jointsljilement by Aumislus Harrison,Shirley Lacy, anri Ilusscll Major.

"It should 'he made absolutelyclear I hid there has been no in-junction or slay of any kind re-

< rpiirimi the Hoard of School Kxfi-made lo i|elay emercency funds Jfor the [loard of Education plan.ij

: they M.iled."\Ve demand I bat Mayor Volk

j convene Hie Hoard of School t''sli-|I male immediately and vote loI appropriate \\\? nionc-y needril lo;

| carry mil the Hoard of Kdueation's'] plan. Unless ihe cily ^nvernmcnl.! provides the money without fur-

ther phoney delay, racial dftnnn-slralioriK or ;dl kinds will resume',in Kn«le\vood. Such demnnslra-1linns will be far more virulenl nndfar more intense lh;m they havebeen in ihe past.

"The siluaI ion in Kn^lewrvid israpidly delerioralinK becnuse thecily Rnveminent's refusal In act

. on I be Hoard nf Kducalion planwhile last ditch courtroom dodges

' are heins carried out hy die-hard*I (Continued On Page 12}

j.'J Groups A*kI Board

AT FREEDOM RALLY — Cli- Vinctntc K. Tibbs conducting,mix of freedom R a f l y and pa. Here with Mr. Tibbs is Rev. Rob-•i-.t in Englewood Sunda> was erl I. Miller of Englewood, treas-

by »bout 350 with Councilman March on Washington.

not rf.-ult in t"o larê cla>>ey." Mr.. Hint/ e\p!nrr.ed

j Th-- youri^r.-t children, ihrwe in jI t h e kin>lert!:irtfn. will at tend the !: Lincoln Sch'wd. if they live in that, 'i area. Sixth ar;id" b*.y3 and sirl.- '.. v.-ho attend Ihe >chor,l ;C 11 Kn:lc '• Slrc-ct are accustomed lo working. -.vi;!; jru! ir. :h<? .Su;"--:> J\iuo!> -nti •

can hi1 t rusted to r'oliow Iheir p a r - . "ent>" i,'(iod instruction, in tht opi- :

• nion of suptrintt-mlent Mark H, '' Shed<I.

.\ir. Mintz added thai the Board'.plans lo furnish free transportation:"

; for tho>(. in the kindersaricn'! through uradf 3 u ho live beyond '•\e mile and a half limit. In thei pa>l. Mich transportation was pro-! vided only lo Iho.ie living beyorul' a two-mile limit,

i "Police Dircclor Ji»eph Lawless• has assured the Hoard nf Kducation 'i that by September 1 one-way t r?f -! fie will be in ..Ifect "n F..-.i;lci Street." added Mr. I Unix. "Dunns;'. lh'; period nf 'transition he ha..• promised ih^l [here will be many,

helpers «;a!ioned in thai area to;: in.-ure Ihc Mifety of the children."

Slruclurally sound, the Knale'\t lmildm'4 will offer a safe!' r place for Ihe s ix th grade pupil-, ij aocurdinsj lo Assistant Superintend-i ent Francis r.arriiy.1 A n'piT<eri(:ilive from the Divi-•. -ion of School lluildina St-rvice5 o f '! Ihe Slnle !)epartnirnt of Kdur.ition

who jn.-ix-rtr'd the hiiildini; recentlyreeo mine ruled n feu minor repairs.

t winch \vil l be nuide before the jI tipcnins nf school under the super-1i vision of Mr. Fred .Maniscalco, sii-;

perintendcnt of hiiilrlinqs an<f,-r-oimd-

Mr. c J a r i ily added thai <uprr-..vision will alvt ho provided duringthe lurieh hour in the Kncle StreetSchool, >o tha i the children will i

. not encounter any duncier from,' t ra f f ic during the noon hour.

(Continued From Page 1}

who will not admit they have losf. i"H is lime to talk of thinfi.s in j

Knplcwood as Ihey are. not as a !

few anii-intesrationists hope theyjare. The fact is thai the Board o f ;Kducalion. acting on an order *oy :

the Commissioner uf Kducalion,stands ready to put into effectfirst steps of an inlcRration plan.The fact is these steps have thesupport of the Superintendent olSchool, the Mayor's Committee,(he Commissioner of Kd neat inn.the Governor, and undoubtedlyevery right- thinking cit izen ofthis town.

Two-Thirds Wjnt IF

"The fact is that replic-5 from:two-thirds of Lincoln School par-ents show that only 10 childrenchose to remain in Lincoln School.All that is needed to pet the plan:into operation is the appropriateiiciion by city officials who mustmeet to provide the money. Yetbecause »f phoney court action bydisguised seKrej;alionists, t h eBoard of School Kst imate claimsit cannot act. The facts howeverare very different.

"Tlie Hoard of School F^timatei.> not nliliKi'd lo del..\ephonies floj; a d'-ad horse in onecourt a f te r another. On the con-t rary . Ihe Board of School Ksli-male and c i ty government i<

men I the lioari! of KiSucation pLinhy September.

"\\ are shocked thai the c i tyhas ragi-rly .teizei) on these desper-ate moves a* an excuse for delayinstead of fulfilling their respons-ibility to act. They have not evenopposed (he-e Mills as the Stale ofNew Jrr-ey ha^. 11 >'-em- asHiousrh Mime c i ty o f f ic ia ls are de-termined in provoke racial ana-iimsiiy to new heights by wastingthe preciuus linie needed lo putllie plan into " f f t -c t .

"These piioney l i t igations aredesJL'ned lo uirck the Hnan! ofKducjtion plan. Tliry rejire-entI;ist ditcll atteiupl* of a few In

; oh_-trucl the pain-taking w o r k nfthe Mayor's Cornmitter. tin- Supl.

. of Schools, ihe Hoard of Educationand the Slate Department of KrJit-cation. Kvery day that parses with-out action is .1 day that cannot bereclaimed . , . while the situationdeteriorate-.

"There is nothing t ' - f t to di-cu^.The fact is that ihe racial fichthere has beer, rlecided. 'I'lie citygovernment iiuist recognize Mutfact and ^c! on it

1"Wi- Ijnvc heanl ruui'ir.- thatinemher- nf lb" Hoard of SchoolKM in:ate. including Mayor Voikand i"fntn''ilr.,jfi T.iknor. plan in. mi l-riylliy vscDftn irip» ;n a

few d;i>>. If tb i - is true, and mernb'-rs |cjve at I hi-, crucial t imewilh'nil wi-ann ihe Hoard of Kdu-ratton i'nieri.'1-ncy fund.-, thi-y w i l lbe jliandon;|;)J Kll^li'WOnd in

chaw."If i here !> jri> m-e.| for (k-by.

it i" UM' vacation- of es-cntialof f ic ia ls that .-hould In- <!e!n>nl.not the urgently needed votes nfihese officials. A ft IT two year- nf-Iru^sle. v.v wii! brook no phoneydelay. There ran be no legit imateexcuse fur inaction a! this tot**H,j:e. if ih" city will nnt act. per-hap- wr w:i! "

August 19, 1963 '

BOARD OF SCHOOL ESTIMATE CERTIFYING THE SUM NECESSARY'UNDER R. S. 13:6-60

OFFERED BY:- ISECONDED BY:

S/ Carman R. Hintz

S/ Warren R. Lewis*••

This is to certify that at the meeting of the Board ofSchool Estimate held in the Municipal Building, Englewood, New Jersey,on th&'.19th day of August 1963, the "following resolution was adoptedby a vote of 3 to 2.

J , J ' - J ,: ' :.

• WHEREAS, in response to a directive of the Commissionerôf Education, the Board of Education of j ;he City of Englewood hassubmitted to the Board of School Estimateya resolution calling for theexpenditure' of :S66,<500.00 for repairing, /furnishing and enlargingexisting buildings under revised statutes/qf New Jersey. R. S. 18:6-59and, WHEREAS, 'the,Board of School Estimate is aware that the Board ofEducation has 550,000 of Bond money available for the contemplated uses,arid, WHEREAS, the Board of .School Estimat'e in response to this resolutionhas determined ythe additional amount necessary for repairing, furnishingand enlarging existing buildings under revised statutesôf New JerseyR. S. 18:5-60 to bV in the sum of SIS,500.00.

t.i - .-,;< NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of School

Estimate does hereby fix and determine the amount of $16,500.00 to benecessary for the aforesaid purposes under revised statutes of NewJersey R.S. 18:6-60.

NOW, THEREFORE BE.'IT RESOLVED that the Secretary is herebyinstructed to prepare eight certificates of this action, six to be sentto the Common Council of the City of Englewoodj Nsw Jersey and two tothe Board of Education of the City of Engloiaood, New Jersey.

S/-,

ATTEST:

S/ Violet Webb,

Acting Secretary, Board ofSchool Estimate.

SD:vw ' 'l

S/

S/

s/

s/

-Austin N. Volk

Mayor Austin N. Volk

William D. Ticknor, Jr.William D. Ticknor, Jr.

0. Carlysle Me Candless0. 'Carlysl'e Me Camiless

l 1 'Carman-R.- Hintz- :—;_--.Carman R. Hintz

Warren L. Lewis I IWarren

g' 1

. /•L . -

L. Lewis

. :, : ' ' - : • ' • 1

': l | "--

r-.-

August 19, 1963

BOARD OF SCHOOL ESTIMATE CERTIFYING THE SUPf) NECESSARY FOR PROPOSED ENGIOOODEMERGENCY SCHOOL IMPROWEflENTS %

This is to certify that at a meeting of the Board of School Estimate heldin the municipal Building, Englewood, Neui Jersey, on the 19th day of August 1963,:the follau/ing resolution was adopted:

U1HEREAS, the Board of Education has submitted to the Board of School Estimatea request for funds in the amount of $56,500.00 due to the fact that the Board of ~Education of the City of Englewood has under-estimated in its annual estimate underRevised Statutes of New Jersey R. 5. 18:6-49, the amount of monies necessary for thecurrent'expenses for the school year 1963-1964, and for making emergency repairs,and to defray the expenses of certain emergencies ujhich have arisen since the makingof the annual budget, and consisting of the following items:

Faculty Preparation 3 3,500.00Pupil Transportation 15,000.00Pre-Kindergarten Program 6,000.00Higher Horizons . 25,000.00Adult Education 2,000.00Consultants' fees 5,000.00

_— $ 56,500.00

and WHEREAS the Board of School Estimate, by a vote of 3 - 2, has approved theaggregate amount of 036,500 deemed necessary to defray the expenses of certainemergencies which have arisen since the making of the annual budget, covering thefollowing items:

Faculty Preparation $ 3,500.00Pre-Kindsrgarten Program 6,000.00Higher Horizons 25,000.00Adult Education 2,000.00

3 36,500.00

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF SCHOOL ESTIMATE does hereby_fix_and determine the amount of money estimated to be necessary for these emergen-cies is the sume of $36,500.00, made up as follows:

Faculty Preparation . $ 3,500 00Pre-Kindergarten Program 6,000.00Higher Horizons 25,000.00Adult Education 2,000.00

1

-S- -36,500.00

and in compliance with Revised Statutes of Neii Jersey R. S. 18:6-56 Board of SchoolEstimate does hereby fix and determine that amount to be 836,500.00.

t

NOUI, THEREFORE, 3E IT RESOLVED, that the Secretary is hereby instructedto prepare eight certificates of this action, six to be sent to the Common Councilof the City of Englewood, New Jersey and two to the Board of Education of the. Cityof Englewood, New Jersey.

S/ Austin N. UolkMayor Austin N. Uolk

5/ William D. Ticknor, Jr.William D. Ticknor, Jr.

S/ 0. Carlysle McCandless0. Carlysle McCandless

S/ Carmen R. HintzCarmen R. Hintz

S/ Warren L. LeuiisWarren L. Lewis

ATTEST:

S/ Violet WebbActing Secretary, Board of School Estimate


CLASS OF SERVICE

TWi. U • fut ractugcunUti »i deferred chsr-teici It Indicated by thepropel ITmbcl.

WESTERN UNIONTELEGRAM SF-1M1 («-60)

SYMBOLS

L-Nishi Una

W. P. MARSHALL, PMMIDKMTUnc. TcU*r»m J **

The £lioi time ihown to the d«tc line oo domestic relegqmi ii LOCAL TIME u point of origin. Time of receipt is LOCAL TIME «i point of desumrioo

PF187 ^ W 2

N P TNB118 PD

TRENTON NJER 19 207P EDT

BARBARA A MORRIS, BR 9-1400

20. WEST 40 ST NYK

APPEAL IN CASE OF VOLPE, ET AL. V. ENGLEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATIONMILL BE HEARD BY STATE BOARD EDUCATION FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 930HA AT NEWARK STATE COLLEGE, UNION, HEW JERSEY. LETTER WILLFOLLOWFREDERICK M RAUBINGER SECRETARY STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

ET AL V 23 930AM(17).

M'Kiox.™ FIO-I 'n«: rni.i jocrioNS or 'ni l : MVJii :k- | . : i i -r oivisi.w.

IK THI

Supreme Court of the United StatesOCTOBBB TKBM, 1963

No. 865,

FREDERICK II. HAUBINGER, COMMISSIONER OFEDUCATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEYand THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THESTATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Petitioners,vs.

ANTHONY T. AUGELLI, JUDGE, UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY,

Respondent.

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILEPETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, ANDREASONS IN OPPOSITION TO SAID MOTION

VoRSANGEB & MuBPHY, ESQS.,

Attorneys for Gertrude P. Fuller,et als., Plaintiffs.

One Engle Street,Englewood, New Jersey.

MacCrelli»h & Quigley Co., Primsri, Treotoo, New Jency

u u e

1

mTABLE OF CONTENTS

15

QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

Statement

Reasons for Denying the "Writ1. The case below, Fuller v. Volk (Civil No. 847-63)

raises a substantial issue of the violation ofFederal Constitutional Rights

2. The Federal District Court has jurisdiction tohear this matter

3. It has not been demonstrated that the DistrictCourt lacks jurisdiction nor that the applicant hasno other remedy 17

APPENDIX :

A. Complaint laB. Order denying Leave to Appeal 5aC. Decision of Superior Court of New Jersey 7aD. Order Reinstating Appeal and Marking Vacating

Order of Dismissal 1-ia

CASES CITED

Abrams v. McGohey, C. A. N. Y., 1958 260 F. 2d 892 . . . 18

Balaton v. Rubin, New York Law Journal, Sept. 11,1963 12

Bell v. School City of Gary, 213 F. Supp. 819 (NT . D.Indiana, 1963-Jan. 29,1963-U. S. Dist. Ct.) 9

Briggs v. Elliott, D. C. C. D. S. C. 132 F. Supp. 776

i

10

Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707, aff'd 352 U. S. 903,77 S. Ct. 145,1 L. Ed. 2d 114 17

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 74, S. Ct.686, 98 L. Ed. 873 8,12

7n Re Chicago R. I. it P. Ry. Co., Ohio 1921, 41 S. Ct.288, 255 U. S. 273, 65 L. Ed. 631 18

County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashttda Co., 360 U. S.185, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1163, 79 S. Ct. 1060 15

County School Board of Chesterfield County v. Free-man, 171 F. 2d 702 15

Dyer v. Kazukisa, 138 Fed. Supp. 220 17

Ermentrout v. Commonwealth Oil Co., 220 F. 2d 527 ... 16

Evans v. Buchanan, 207 F. Supp. 820 9,10,11

Ex Parte Fahey, 67 S. Ct. 1558, 332 U. S. 258, 91 L. Ed.2041 18,19, 20

Greer v. United States, 90 F. Supp. 871 15

Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307U. S. 496, 83 L. Ed. 1423, 59 Sup. Ct. 954 15

Ex Parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114, 88 L. Ed. 572 (1944) . . . 19

Ex Parte Herding, 219 U. S. 363, 31 S. Ct. 324, 55 L. Ed.252, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 392 IS

Holland v. Board of Public Instructions (Fla.), 258F. 2d 730 (5th Cir. 1958) 10

Leimer v. Reeves, 184 F. 2d 441 (1950) 19

Lopez v. Sfccomb, 71 F. Supp. 769 15

McNeese i. Board of Education, 83 Sup. Ct. 1433 (1963) 16

In Re Mtiir, 254 U. S. 522,41 S. Ct. 185, 65 L. Ed. 383 . . 18

Myerson v. Samuel, 74 F. Supp. 315 15

Ex Parte Neu- Tork rf Puerto Rico Sliamihip Co.. 155U. S. 523,15 S. Ct. 1S3, 39 L. Ed. 246. 249 17.15

Oney v. Oklahoma City. 120 F. 2d Sol 15

Romero v. Wealiley, 226 F. 2d 399 16.1?

Sealy v. Department oj Public Instriu-tun. 252 F. 2d 595(3rd Cir. 195S) Cert. Den. 365 U. S. 975 1.195?) . . . . 10

In Re Tiffany. 252 T. S. 32. 37. 40 5 Ci. 239. 64 L. Ed.443, 445 15

r. S. Ex Rel Denholm d- MtKai/ Co. v. r. S. Botrd ojTax Appeals, 1942, 125 F. 2d 557. 75 t". S. App. D. C.195 15

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION CITED

Fourteenth Amendment 1. S. 9,10.11.15

RULES CITED

Rule 30, Eerised Rules of Supreme Court

STATUTES CITED

2SI". S. C. 1343 (3)

2St~. "S. C!l6oT(a)

Section 3201 of the Educalion Law of Xfu- York

TEXT CITED

1A Moore's Federal Fracti«. p. 2111

3 Nichols Cyclopedia of Fedora! Froc-edure Forms, p.103

19

1?

STATEMENT

In October. 1P63, plaint iffs filed a complaint in the UnitedStates District Court to enjoin officials of the City of Engle-wood, Xew Jersey, from expending funds for the purposeof implementing a certain plan which is set forth infra.Said plaintiffs alleged that the plan called for school as-signment on the basis of race, excluded children from theirregular neighborhood schools on the basis of race, discrim-inated against certain students by giving a choice to somewhich was denied to others and called for preferential treat-ment on the basis of race. Subsequently. Frederick M.Raubinger (the applicant here seeking the TVrit of Prohibi-tion) moved to intervene as a party defendant as did tb<?Englewood Board of Education. At the same time certainindividuals, Volpe ei als., moved to intervene a? partiesplaintiff. At the same time, Raubinger filed a motion todismiss. All applicants were permitted to intervene andthe motion to dismiss was denied. The complaint of Volpe.et als.. the intervening plaintiffs, alleged that the suit in-volved rights granted to the intervening plaintifis by :h<?Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitutionand further alleged that as a result of the plan in issuechildren of these intervening plaintiffs were no longer per-mitted to attend"1 their neighborhood schools and were ex-cluded from said schools because.of .race. Said interveningcomplaint f u r t h e r alleged that said plan there-fore consti-tuted a violat ion of the rights of these intervening plain-tiffs and their children which are granted to thorn by theFourteenth Amendment to the United States Cons t i t u t i on .A copy of said complaint is attached hereto as Appendix A.Raubinger then filed a morion for leave to appeal the denialof the motion to dismiss which was denied. A copy of saidorder is attached hereto as Appendix B.

The Fuller plaintiffs then filed a motion for SummaryJudgment, the bearing of which was adjourned by Rsu-

1

binger because he had filed an application for a Writ ofProhibition with the Circuit Court of Appeals which ap-plication was denied. He then filed this present application.Subsequently other-named intervening defendants werepermitted to intervene.

The basis of Raubinger's request for this extraordinarywrit is that the plaintiffs have started an action in the StateCourts and therefore the Federal District Court does nothave jurisdiction over this controversy.

It is most significant that although plaintiffs did institutesuit in the State Courts no decision was ever rendered onthe merits.

The underlying facts are as follows:The complaint below alleges that the plaintiffs are citi-

zens of the U. S. residing in Englewood, Xew Jersey, andare taxpayers in Englewood, Xew Jersey. The defendantsin the complaint are the Board of School Estimate and theCity of Englewood, JsTew Jersey, and the Board of Educa-tion. It was alleged in the complaint that the Board ofSchool Estimate has been directed by the City Board ofEducation to raise the sum of $66,500.00 from public fundsto finance a plan by which the existing school system wouldbe changed. Plaintiffs asserted in that complaint that suchan appropriation and expenditure of money would be il-legal, unlawful and unconstitutional. Plaintiffs demandedthat the court below so adjudicate and restrain defendantsfrom further action in the matter.

Prior to the filing of the above complaint, and on July 1,1963, Frederick M. Raubinger, State Commissioner of Edu-cation of New Jersey rendered a decision setting forth thatcertain petitions were filed by parents on behalf of theirchildren charging the Englewood Board of Education withmaintaining racially segregated public schools and withrefusal to implement plans to el iminate patterns of racialsegregation alleged to exist in the public schools. A thirdgroup of petitioners (Volpe et al.) were allowed to inter-vene with tlie above petitioners. The Volpe peti t ioners ad-vocated the maintenance of the neighborhood school policy.

further claiming thai the t*zz'.±~:••:•& Board t>iwas not discriminating sgainst any children.made to dismiss the Board o: School E;nrj;aiMayor and Council from the co^piiint. cc :b» cthe Commissioner of Ed^cati;-!- Jacked jsriscithese parties, was granted, leavinc -he Ende- —of Education as sole respoDder::. The Co-£Sii?si<that there were five e lementa ry school? —bi:h ,c.rby pupils assigned on the basis o: reîde^ce in •.at tendance areas. The focus o:' the hev.":!^Commissioner was CD LiEeoln. School The hne? ;the school attendance d i s t r i c t for Lincohr. ?-:bo-oiously been approved by the Con:ir,:5?i.i:~r.

It is most imperial): to E C < < e that the Oon:n:istermined that There was 20 evidence ;o snrir>or:of intentional racial segregation by r;j;vo::der.!.missioner stated that i t is appare:;: :bs: the cor.iof pupils f rom one race resu l t s fro::: p.-."err,s •-•:The Commissioner did not dispute that ec;i;c:-!:or:tunities were equal regardless of school amendedof measurable objective c r i t e r ia . Hf d i rec ied :iwood Board of Edues'ioa. ho~ever.

1. to formulate a plan TO reduce ibe cojicnegro pupils in Lincoln School.

'2. to subn-i t the plan to bi::: o:; or "reior1963.

3. to pui the plan, as approved. ir<'o onec-ginning of the lPnS-04 scbooi y;-ar.

On July -9. 1963, the Board o:' £du:a:;o:; ofXew Jersey, adopted s proposal (here in . i f ieras the July 2Pih Plan) which would obance tschool attendance system in the City of Enck-Jersey.

Tb

Enelôod.

A

"Be it resolved b;r the Board of E d u c a t i o n of in- Oiryof Eagjewood. Bereen Co-j:uy. Xew .K-rsry. ihst in

order to comply with the directive of CommissionerFrederick M. Raubinger, New Jersey State Departmentof Education, dated July 1, 1963, which directive directsthe Englewood Board of Education to do the followingthings.

1. To formulate a plan or plans to reduce the extremeconcentration of pupils of the negro race in theLincoln School consistent with the principles andfindings enunciated in this decision;

2. To submit such plan or plans to the Commissionerof Education for approval on or before August 1.1963;

3. To put a plan as approved, into effect at the begin-ning of the 1963-64 school year.

Now, therefore, in compliance with said directives,the Board of Education of the City of Englewood.Bergen County, New Jersey, submits the followingplan, to take effect as of the opening of school inSeptember, 1963, or as soon thereafter as bu i ld ingrenovations can be effected.

1. To establish at the former Junior High School build-ing at 11 Engle Street, a city-wide sisth grade schoolto which the Board assigns all sixth grade pupilsof the Englewood Public Schools.

2. To assign all pupils of grades one through five resid-ing in the Lincoln School attendance district to theCleveland, Quarles and Roosevelt School, suchassignment to be determined by the Superintendenton the basis of the following criteria:

A. define attendance districts so that children of theLincoln School district will be assigned asnearly as possible to the school nearest theirhomes,

B. provide for an even distribution of class loads,C. to permit the children whose parents wish them

to remain at Lincoln School to remain there

ororided that it is administ rationally andeducationally practicable to do so.

3. As a prerequisite to the establishment of the city-wide sixth grade school referred to in Parfi.crE.r-b(1) above, either of the following two conditionsmust occur;

A. 125 or more present students of Lincoln Schoolmust not elect to remain for the 1963-64 term a;Lincoln School

orB. The number of transfers from Lincoln School

will result in class loads in Quarles. CUvel=ndor Roosevelt Schools which, in the opinion ofthe Board of Education, i; edccstior-aUy un-desirable.

4. To assign to Lincoln School all children of Kinder-garten age residing in the present Lincoln Schooldistrict.

5. To transfer the central administrative o£ce? of tbrBoard of Education to the Lincoln School.

6. To instruct the Superintendent to proceed imn:?ci-ately with all necessary arrangements, notices sncprocedures consistent with the laws of the Sta:e ofXew Jersey to execute these directives.

PROVIDED THAT :--..The plan meets the requirements of the Isw and tha:

the Board's At to rney gives assurance of immunity ofBoard members and the Superintendent fro- tax-payers ' suits regarding the expenditure of publicmoneys to implement any aspect of these plans.

AND PROVIDED THAT:The Commissioner approves the plan."

It is significant that expressly

1. The plan is formulated to deal with racial at tendancein order to comply with Commissioner Raubinger'?directive.

2. The plan effects pupils from the entire city ofEnglewood because of the city-wide sixth grade.

3. The Plan provides for assignment of all studentsfrom Lincoln School grades one through five toCleveland, Quarles and Roosevelt Schools.

4. The Plan permits children whose parents wish themto remain at Lincoln School to remain there.

5. The city-wide sixth grade goes into effect on theelection of students from one area {Lincoln School)effecting the students from all five areas, yet thestudents from all districts other than Lincoln Schooldistrict have no election or choice.

6. Kindergarten children residing in Lincoln Schoolarea -will attend Lincoln School.

7. The plan is conditioned on the proviso that it meetsthe requirements of the law,

Pursuant to the plan, letters were sent only to parentsof students of the predominantly negro Lincoln School,giving them the choice of remaining at or leax-ing LincolnSchool—giving them the choice of whether or not the plangoes into effect, excluding any election by the similarlysituated residents of all other districts.

Appended to the July 29th Plan was a statement of theminimum estimated cost and expenditure required to;

implement the plan, which said estimate amounted to$123,000.00. On August 1, 1963, the Board of Education ofEnglewood, New Jersey, adopted a resolution that theamount of $66,500.00 would he required to partially imple-ment the said plan, and further resolved that the aboveresolution be delivered to each member of the Board ofSchool Estimate of the City of Englewood, New Jersey,

The Volpe petitioners appealed the decision of the Com-missioner Raubinger to the State Board of Education,which Board subsequently affirmed Commissioner Raubing-er's decision. Prior to that appeal being beard suit wasstarted in the Superior Court, Chancery Division entitledVolpe v. Perry which was heard on August 8, 1963 by Judge

Donald G. Coilester. In that ca.se pis-ir-tirf fYo; i~ ) scugbtto enjoin the Board of School Esriciatr s^d tbe Ci~ ofEnglewood from expending I U D C S TO ixplTi^-ri ibe a:-."~eplan. Said application wa? denied for thf rr35on 'b=iplaintiffs had not- exhausted their sdr^nisirîTr rrz-dir?.

On August 14. 1P63. ihe piaintin; brreir; erz-urd in ih~Superior Court Law Division. Bereeii COUEI~. be. fore J-jdefGordon H. Brown, temporari ly assigiird, —i-reiu •piaiiTirtaxpayers sought to enjoin the Board of $.;bo-oj E?7:z;£*fand the City of Englewood iron: approprisr.Zi ai-c or ri-pen cling public fnnds to implement the July 2vih P:EL andthat such proposed appropriation asd exprrd iT^rf ":» ai-judged illegaj, unlawful and unconst i tut ional

At that hearing the Attorney General —s; permittee "ointervene on behalf of the CcmmissioDrr of Eolation, andthe Board of Education was also peruj i i ied TO inte-venT £sparties defendant. As a result of tbe bearing ihr plaiBiiî"action was dismissed trithout a trial on tbr mrnis and "berelief sought wa? denied. Ssid Decision it anacbrc beretoas Appendix C. That disaiissa- bas beeu srr^fi'led to tbeSuperior Court of Xew Jersc-y. Apj.v'ilaic' I>ir:sior. ar;d i?still pending there, and has be^n ir.arkfd "HcOu" pfsdincdetermination in the Federal Court*. Ssid ordt-r is atiacbedhereto as Appendix D.

The plaintiffs were no; in any way erTeorfd pr ior to :b?drafting: of the July 2Hth Flan 10-. pr ior 10 iba' tin:f. therewas no requirement for the expendi ture of r--bi;o lur.-is.Therefore, prior TO the Commissioner reEderi 'JC hi? deci-sion and the subsequent adoption of the plsii. ;be plainrinsas taxpayers were not sdverse;y c-rrWie;:.

The thrust of the instant complain- ;? scain?: ibe appro-priation and expenditure of money by the Ci ty of Engle-wood and the Board of School Est inis ie which wore dis-missed as defendams on motion in tbe bearings beforeCommissioner Raubiucer by tbe Commissionc-r for lack ofJurisdiction. Thus neither the plsimins nor ihe originald e f e n d a n t s ( the City of Enclewood and the Board ofSchool Es t imate ) were part ies to the- bearir . t f beid nyCommissioner Baubinger.

REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT

1. The case below raises a substantial issue of the viola-tion of Federal Constitutional Bights.

Commissioner Raubinger found that there was no inten-tional segregation by race by the Englewood Board of Edu-cation. He did find that Lincoln School was PS.O percentnegro. He also found that "this concentration of pupils ofone race results from patterns of housing and the operationof other socio-economic forces. .. " The Commissioner alsoconceded that such "housing and non-school problems arenot the responsibility of the Board, nor does it have anycontrol over these housing and non-school problems." TheCommissioner also found that the Englewood school assign-ment was based on neighborhood schools, the boundariesgoverning which were previously approved by him. Never-theless, he directed the Englewood Board of Education '' Toformulate a plan or plans to reduce the extreme concentra-tion of pupils of the negro race in the Lincoln School."

The basis of the present complaint originated when com-plaints were made before Commissioner Raubinger dealingwith the Englewood School System. These complaints weremade by parents of negro school children who desired theirchildren to be admitted to schools outside of their area.The complaints could only be classified as school segrega- Ltion complaints. The present action pending before theUnited States District Court will be determined only aftera consideration of the line of cases which have been decidedsince Brown v. Board of Education, 347 TJ. S. 483, 74 S. Ct.686, 98 L. Ed. 873. The Brown case and cases following itdealt with negroes seeking admission to public schools ona non-segregated basis. It was charged that negroes whohad been denied entrance to schools solely on the basis ofrace bad been denied equal protection under the FourteenthAmendment to the Federal Constitution. The Brown deci-sion did decide that exclusion from school solely on the basis

of race violates the equal projection clause of tbe r o n r -teenth Amendment, Tbe court also beid on sac? 4~;3 &* Brown decision that where a siate has undertakes ~o r.ro-vide an opportunity for an educ£ti:.r: in its tyjb;i<: seboo>.such an opportunity is a right which must b~ in-ade avai;= ;,uto all on equal terms. The complain:? sled in tbe in?:£Dtaction charge that children bsve been excluded fro::: theirneighborhood sixth grades solely on ibe basis of r?.ce. s.ndthat this exclusion violate-? tbe equal protection c;ause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment of tbe Uni te-a 5t27?s Const i -tution.

The case of Bell v. School Cir;j of Gjrv. -ji3 F. S^ro. 51?.(X. D. Indiana. I9tf3-Jan. 2S. iPoo-U. S. Disi. Ctj" deal:with a situation completely parallel to tbe issue wbiebCommissioner Raubinger was called upon to deciee. In ibeBtU case there was no intent ional segregation. Tbe evidrGo;in tbe Bell case as well as in tbe insisat case sbo~ed :hstSchool Board had followed the gentrfi.! policy of requirinpthe students to a t tend the school desieusied to serre tbedistrict in which they lived regardless of race. Tbe probjen:in the Bell case was not one of segregated schools b1^: r.:.:be'one of seerecated housinc. Tbe Court iben ~eni on TOdecide in the Ben case that it found no sury'ori for tbfplaintiffs ' position that the defendant , which was tbe Boardof Education, had ibe af f i rmat ive duty to balance ihe r&:-e5in various schools under iis jurisdiction regardless of :b;-residence of s tudents involved. Tbe Court f u r t h e r b v - cthat there could stiii be all colored schools if all the snider-:?living in a properly const i tu ted school distr ict vrere negroes,and that no constitutional rights were viols-ed bei r -ans t -s tudents were coa:peiled TO snend tbe school in ibe dis tr ictin which they live.

In the ease of Ertnf v. Bû-itjnc.ti. fJ07 F. Sunw f>0, :beCourt s tated:

"When interpret ing the equal protection clause inthe Brown case, tbe Supreme Court held only that aState may not deny any person on account of rsce tberight to attend H publ ic school."

10

It was the determination in the case of Evans v. Buchananthat discrimination is forbidden but integration is notcompelled.

So too in the case of Briggs v. Elliott, D. C. C. D. S. C. 132F. Supp. 776 in construing the 1954 Broun decision at page777 the Court held that it has not been decided that theStates must mis persons of different races in the schoolsor must deprive them of the right of choosing the schoolsthey attend. What it has decided and all that it has decidedis that a State may not deny to any person on account ofrace the right to attend any school that it maintains. TheFourteenth Amendment is a limitation upon the exerciseof power by the State or State agencies, not a limitationupon the freedom of individuals.

In the case of Holland v. Board of Public Instructions(Fla.) 258 F. 2d 730 (5th Cir. 1958) U. S. Ct. of Appeals,the Court held that the infant plaintiff was entitled fo betreated simply as another school child, without regard tohis race or color, and the fact that he was a negro did notvest him with a right to attend a school located in a districtin which he did not reside when that geographical rule wasbeing applied to all children alike.

Neither segregation nor discrimination are shown merelybecause there are more negro students in one section thananother. Sealy v. Department of Public Instruction. 252F. 3d 898 (3rd Cir. 1958) Cert. Den. 365 U. S. 975 (l&S).

In the instant case, Commissioner Raubinger has heldthat the mere fact that these students in Lincoln School arenegro has vested them with the right to attend schools out-side the Lincoln School district, even though the neighbor-hood school geographical rule has been applied to allchildren alike. In short, merely because of their color, thecolored students of Lincoln School hare been girenpreferential treatment, causing a change in the approvedEnglewood School attendance system. Because of thispreferential treatment, other students are excluded fromattending the sixth grade they would normally attend,purely because of race. Thus the Fourteenth Amendment

of the Federal Constitution has beer: violated by riîsepreferential treatment to one croup on the basis of raceand excluding the plalnrirs f rom the i r t^rzrs: sobers OBthe basis of race. In the in* tan* cs.se. the st^dî'; free.:the Lincoln School were civen their choice - jndfr the Ju ly29th Plan of attending Quarks. Rvoseveh or C-f^hndSchool. Why is it that the s tudents iron: Queries. Or^ncor Roosevelt School do no: cet their choice' 1? tbi? T.OT adenial of equality of choice arsd t h e r e f o r e a derba] of ec'iaiprotection? The students f rom Lincoln School sr? r-inggranted certain advantages that o the r sTudrn 's sinjijarj;"situated do not have. The basis of this distinction •*•£= color.Where children were once treated alike by coin;: *o ?-;boo"-in their neighborhood, the propcsai is -c-~ to i res* tbenidifferently: and why* Purely because of coior. Th; = fa-;"is inescapable. But this inescapable fact i; s d v z r s r j yaffecting other children. Children throt:rbont thf '~--- ofEnglewood who normally at tended the sixth crsif a: ihfschool nearest their residence :ni;?i so~ t r £ r = ] $. rarihrrdistance to the Engle Street School. They n:r;: DO— co TOschool in the hear t of the business d i s t r i c t cûsi-c c r e s i f rrisk and danger to their person. Bf c-£u?e of this rTe:erer;cebeing given for color, because of this esc ;uf ion iron:-normally aitended sixth graces, added expendituref ofpublic funds •will be imposed upon the taspsyevs s.~ sminimum cost of 5123.L\X\(.Vi nii-rc-Jy to i-npienier; thechange.

In Er,uif v. J?iî ' /J ' . jHi7n. supra. 207 F. S'jpp. SCO . D. IV:.l?62i i f . S. District C o u r t ' where the oouri âs coE-'rr.niec\rith a situation invoivinc an all negro sch-ool in a necroro?idontiai area wi th a obarce tha t this vioJs:e3 'he c-ousiproteoiion clause of the FourToei i ib AiVa'-ridn-:-;-!-:; of the Fed-oral Cons t i t u t i on , it u-as arcasc-d t h a i the Sâ:e i? co::)peJ:edby the equa-3 proieoiion clause io p r o v i d e ::nirnian-.v:y anintegrated education. The cour t held that the s t a t e s arenot required to provide an integrsted education, senincfor th the Fourteenth Ameudn-.f-nt at pacr ^23 ss f o l J o w ? :

12

"nor (shall any State) deny any person within itsjurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This clause does not contemplate compelling action, ratherit is a prohibition preventing states from applying theirlaw.- unequally.

The court v.-ent on to state at page S24:

"In effect counsel is asking the states to intention-ally gerrymander districts which may be rational whenviewed by acceptable nondiscriminatory criteria..

In the instant case the equal protection clause has beenviolated as to all Englewood children from the four dis-tricts other than Lincoln School, because the former arecompletely disregarded. The permissive transfer policycannot be granted to only one out of five districts. Thenegro child from the Liberty School District should not bedeprived of the privilege granted to the negro child of theLincoln School District. If concentration of any one groupis "segregation" (and hence a violation), then the Jewish,Italian, Polish, Irish or Chinese, etc., child should be givenequal privilege to transfer. As a result of CommissionerRaubinger's decision and approval, we now have twostandards of school attendance in Englewood. in effect onefor negro students and one for white students-

One for negro students; i.e., since the Lincoln Schooldistrict is predominantly negro, they have the privilege ofchoosing any one of three schools, which is a form of openenrollment; one for white students who reside in those otherthree school districts who must attend the school in theirneighborhood. He has set up two different education stand-ards because of color and race, which is precisely wliatBrown v. Board of Education prohibited.

* The case of Baiaban v. Rubin, reported in the Xew YorkLaw Journal on September 11, 1363, decided by Mr. Jus-tice Baker sitting in the Supreme Court, Kings County,Special Term, part 1, is quite similar to the facts in theinstant case. In the Balaban case a new Junior High SchoolNro. 275 was constructed in Brooklyn, N. Y. There had been

in existence Junior High ScbooJ Xx 25-5. ih-e petiiios-rswere parents of children wlx- --.rcc'd b^r-e ccc? to ib~irneighborhood Junior High Seisoo) No. 2*5 ^sctpt :c>r ibezoning scheme which now pj.-.crc iij-j-iv. uDCvr !No. _'~5. Dur-ing the construction of th:- r:~-v ^-:l:co}. "Xo. 2~c. QE-T 3k-d-nick was given the responsibility of dra-a-^c a zone forSchool Xo. 275. His propo^d zor.f ~ss recoiiiir.ercfc "ti-the School Board but later r-:-jf-:-:fd 'py :re AS$I£*.B:J* Su-perintendent of Schools for "vo "Tysons:

1. It was not «Htra!iy locstrd.'2. It failed TO consider the ui^îrsD:? "ce :ac:o seg-

regation" of nocro a:i'.~i Fufr;o H::-i^ ciii!'.ir-;-i ibs*would obtain, which wpuid bo -52 y^r cen: sfjro. 34per cent Puerto Ricsn si;d 14 r-fr o fD ' —bi le ,whereas under the scbool pii^. "DaiJy spprorfc ibrpercentage? would be ?5.2 vie: cv^: Dfgro. o^.o pvrcent Puer to Rican find 31.2 per CÊT ~bite.

''That racial balance- «•.-.< s :oi^V'ei::ncrejection of the B;odi:iok proposal snd forbv the board of the zoiv;- r:jj:;J)y ^doprc-d :

The court decided the c;i#e ::r;dvr the t.t-Sec. 3201, of the Xew York 5::Kv Si: :.tute? ~j

"N'o person shall bo :vf;:^d adm:*siexcluded from any p-,;bJ:o school in ih?York on aoc-o 11 nt of r;:.•;-o. ^r;-•:-d. colororigin,"

The court held:

"Th? inohision of potirionfrs1 c::ildr?:izone approved for ,T. H. ?. No. 2T5 upontheir raot* .ind their cOi]*r-ot^riT t '-Ncr-iîonN"o. 2S5. thoir trfldiiionsl iK-icnhorbood

frhoolasis of. H. S.]. arid

from other schools to which they might have been as-signed upon a lawful basis was violative of the spiritand intent of the statute."

The opinion proceeds at a further point:

"Respondents urge that the history of EducationLaw, Sec. 3201 demonstrates that it is an anti-discrimi-nation statute intended to prohibit the segregation ofminority groups in the public schools. "Whatever marhave been the factors which impelled its enactment,the statute by its very terms proscribes exclusion frompublic schools of any child by reason of race, creed,color or national origin."

As in the Balaban case Englewood had an approved sys-tem of assigning sisth grade students to their local neigh-borhood schools. As in the Balaban case these sisth gradestudents are being excluded from those sisth grades byreason of racial factors, that is, undoubtedly racial balancewas the compelling reason for rejection of the neighbor-hood sisth grade system; unquestionably racial compositionor balance was material to the determination of the Engle-wood Board and of Commissioner Raubinger's decision.In fact this is expressed by the very language of the Jnly29th Plan, and Commissioner Raubinger's decision; i.e.,

1. "To formulate a plan or plans to reduce the ex-treme concentration of pupils of the negro race inthe Lincoln School.. .. "

and for that reason the Plan proceeds to exclude thesepupils from their normally attended neighborhood sisthgrades. Therefore, the inclusion of these children in thecity-wide sisth grade upon the basis of race and their con-sequent esclusion from their traditional neighborhoodschool and schools to which they might have been assignedon a lawful basis was in violation of the spirit and intent

of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Azirsc--ment as interpreted by the Brown decision end subsfcu^-:decisions which proscribe esclusion from public sci-ocOs ofany child or children by reason of race, creed, color ornational origin.

2. The Federal District Court Has Jurisdiction JoHear This Matter.

The Federal District Courts have jurisdiction ovsr £r;~civil action authorized by law to be comicenc-ec by £ p-rsccto redress the deprivation, under color of acy S*s:r '•?.—.statute, ordinance, regulation, cqstom or usage, of any r;ti:T.privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of :brUnited States or by any Act of Congress proridisff for rC^s"rights of citizens or of all persons Triihin zhe jurisdictionof the United Stales. 2$ U. S. C. 13:13(31. To snore sucLprotection of constitutional rights, privileges or immuninr's.a Federal Court may in a proper case grant injunotire relief.Haaite v. Conuniitee for InduftriaJ Organisation. 307 U. 5,496. S3 L. Ed, 1423. 59 Sup. Ct. 954. modifying 101 F, _\ "74.County School Board of Chesterfield Cc-unfv ~. jTft-i-n?-.-*!.171 F. 2d 702, aff'g. $'2 F. Supp. 167, On-:y v. Okith&mtCity. 120 F. 2d 561. Mverton r. SjmucL 74 F. Snpp. 315.Lopez v. fcrconb. 71 F. Sunp. 769.

A federal suit is not barred merely because a bovine inthe case might be res adjudicate OD tbf fanjr nsriie*litigating the same issur- in a Srst«? Court anA tbc-rrbymoot the State proceeding. Countu of Aricchmu T. frc.ukMasMa Co-. 360 U. S. 1S5. 3 L. Ed. 2d 1163. 7P S. Ct. IC^J,

Where the action which is first brought is in pcTsoDsn:and seeks only personal judciiieni. another action for tbesame cause in another jur i fci ic t ion or Ffdir-ra! Pi«t r icr Courtis not precluded and will nor bi? disiajissod. Grt-tr v. rn^c-JStaief, 90 F. Supp. 571.

Pendency of State Court Action in persoaanj does norpreclude jurisdiction and is not a cround for abatementor stay of like action in the Federal Court, evt%ii ihouci;

16

the same issues are being tried and the federal action issubsequent to the action in the State Court. Ermentrout v.Commonwealth Oil Co., 220 F. 2d 527.

The recent case of McNeese v. Board of Education, 83Sup. Ct. 1433 (1963) involved a situation wherein negrochildren were seeking registration in racially integratedschools. The respondents interposed the defense that peti-tioners had not exhausted their remedies. The Court onpage 1435 stated:

"It is no answer that the State has a law which ifenforced would give relief. The federal remedy issupplementary to the state remedy and the latter neednot be first sought and refused before the federal oneis invoked."

On page 1437 of the McNeese case the Court stated:

"Petitioners assert that respondents have been andare depriving them of rights protected by the Four-teenth Amendment."

The Court went on to say that human rights under theFederal Constitution are always a proper subject foradjudication and that

"We have not the right to decline to exercise thatjurisdiction simply because the rights asserted may beadjudicated in some other forum."

The abstention doctrine does not apply to school segrega-tion^cases. Moore's Federal Practice, Volume 1A, 2d Ed.Section 0203 at page 2111, citing Romero v. Weakley. 216F. 2d 399, where the Circuit Court held that the DistrictCourt dismissal of school segregation suit was error, statingthat the:

"Federal District Court is as well equipped to con-sider the evidence on this question as is the SuperiorCourt of the county."

See also Dt/er v. Kazukisa. 136 Fed. Sups. 220 in-equal protection and civil rights act and holding, th;cases belong in the Federal Court,

The case of Broicder v. GaiAt. 142 F. SUDP. 701352 U. S. 903, 77 S. Ct. 145. 1 L. Ed. 2d 1U expressly rthe doctrine of abstention where civil rights sre inThe Court at page 713 stated:

"The short answer is thai doctrine bss no appwhere the plaintiffs complain they are br.isg dof consti tutional civil r ights for the p ro t ec t i on •:the federal courts have a responsibility as h-that which rests on the st;-.;e courts ."

In the instant ease the plaint i f fs and inter-renir-g piaiminTscomplain that they have been arid are being deprlred ofconstitutional civil rights and of the equal projection ofthe laws. This case is a school segregation c-^se. I: siartrdout as such and has continued as such. It cannot chance ;tscomplexion merely on the allegsnons and eC'nuntkn; c:certain parties. This must be a TTro-™r.y s:ree:. If tbisis a school segregation case for the parents of the childrenattending Lincoln School, then it must be a school segrega-tion case for the plaint i ffs in this part icular actv.-.s and

.-therefore the doctrine of abstent ion i? inapplicable. Mctio"for leave to file Writ of Prohibiuon should be denied — herethe lower court has jur isdict ion.

""3. It Has Not Been Demonstrated Tba: The Dis t r ic tCourt Lacks Jur isdict ion Xor Tha: The ApplicantHas No Other Be::

18

If the jurisdiction of the lower court is doubtful (In ReMuir, 254 D. S. 522, 41 S. Ct. 185, 65 L. Ed. 383), or if thecomplaining party has an adequate remedy by appeal orotherwise (In Re Tiffany, 252 U. S. 32, 37, 4~0 S. Ct. 239, 64L. Ed. 443, 445; Ex Parte Herding, 219 U. S. 363, 31 S. Ct.324, 55 L. Ed. 252, 37 L. R, A. (N. S.) 392), the writ willordinarily be denied.

Such a remedy should be resorted to only where appealis clearly inadequate, and it is reserved for really extra-ordinary causes. The Supreme Court is normally unwillingto utilize such a remedy as a substitute for appeals. EiParte Fahey, 67 S. Ct. 1558, 332 U. S. 258, 91 L. Ed. 2041.This writ is not to be used as a method of appealing frominterlocutory orders. Abrams v. McGohey. C. A. X. Y.. 195S260 F. 2d 892.

The applicant for this Writ of Prohibition sets forth inhis brief at page 6, paragraph 9, that his motion to dismisswas denied by Judge Augelli and that his motion for leareto appeal was also denied. This application is nothing morethan a substitute for an appeal from an interlocutory orderand should be denied forthwith.

Further, in seeking a Writ of Prohibition the lack ofauthority of the body against which the writ is sought mustbe clearly shown. D. S. Ex Rel Denholm £ McKay Co. v.U. S. Board of Tax Appeals, 1942, 125 F. 2d 557, 75 U. S.App. D. C. 195. Where that jurisdiction is in doubt ordependent on evidence the writ is normally denied. In ReChicago R. I. £ P. Ry. Co., Ohio 1921, 41 S. Ct. 288, 255 U. S.273, 65 L. Ed. 631. There is no basis for the writ where thelower court is acting within its power or jurisdiction. Vol. 3^Jichols Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure Forms p. 102section 101.02.

Where the District Court has general jurisdiction overthe subject matter and over the parties, it should be allowedto proceed to decision, and if error is committed, it may becorrected on appeal. New York & Puerto Rico SteamshipCo., 155 U. S. 523, 531, 39 L. Ed. 246, 249, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep.183; In Re Muir, 254 U. S. 522, 65 L. Ed. 383, 41 Sup. Ct. 185.

19

It is significant to note that the original parties iefencan'are not petitioning. On the other hand. tbe applicant isone who moved to intervene and vobîjtsriiy stjbmit-edhimself to the jurisdiction of the Federal -District Court .

The first point of this response brief has reei; set o-ji ESIto enter the merits of the case but to demonstrate that tbeFederal District Court does have jurisdiction of :b>? ^ = ::rrThe applicant for the writ concedes on page 21 of h.:s brie:that the abstention doctrine has been ruled r<ot to apply iijschool segregation cases, chins: K o m f f Y . v. 7TV.:.-.<Yi/. s'or-raand 1A llooref Federal Praditf. page ill! Tb;cb isprecisely the subject of this case.

Further Rule 3-1 (3} of Renf.:,l Rwa o: fin-r-:m-: C-:*r-,.effective July 1. 1954, provides that if tbe petition seeii EWrit of Prohibition it shall set for th with part i-rari tywhy the relief sought is no: available in any other court.This is not done in the petitioner's brief. Ordinarily thewrit will not be granted if there is soni? otber re~edyavailable. Vol. 3 Kiflioli Cyclopedia <•./ Ffrfrrr i pr:-:-.iur?Forms, page 103. section 101.04.

This remedy should be resorted to orjy in extraordinarycauses and where appeal is a cieariy inadequate rexeiy.The Court is unwilling to utilize this remedy as a sr ibst i t^ tefor appeals. As extraordinary remedies they are reservedfor really extraordinary causes. E* Parif Fahe'j. S?2 T. S.25S. 91 L Ed. 2041 (1P47) ; Ei Pc.ric Eatrt. 321 U. S. 114.

_SS L. Ed. 57- (1944^.The petitioner in this instance does not claim tbs- be has

no right to appeal. If he is unsuccessful fit tbe t r ia l level,he has reserved his right to appeal, and therefore can followthe normal procedure in a case which is not extraordinary.

In the case of Lcim,-r v. Rscrrf. 1S4 F. Cd 441 '1P50Jinvolving a pet i t ion for a Writ of Prohibition which wasdenied by the t". S. Court of Appeals, tbe court said:

"Prohibition is sought against e. cour t tribunal orperson assuming to exercise judicial or quasi judicialpower, commanding the court or person exercising ju-dicial or quasi judicial power to cease f rom tbe eser-

20

cise of a jurisdiction to whicb it has no legal claim. Itis primarily a restraining ratber than a correctiveremedy. Being an extraordinary remedy it will not liefor grievances or errors which may be redressed orcorrected in the ordinary course of judicial proceed-ings by other remedies provided by lav. On applicationfor prohibition the merits of the main case are notinvolved.... The question is whether the court wasclearly without jurisdiction. If the tribunal whose actsare complained of acts within its jurisdiction prohibi-tion will not issue to restrain its actions, however er-roneous they may be. In Ex Parte Fahey. FederalHome Loan Bant Commissioner, 332 V. S. 25$, 67 S. Ct.1558, 1559, 91 L. Ed. 2041, the Supreme Court, in con-sidering a petition for prohibition against a UnitedStates District Judge, among other things said: '' Man-damus, prohibition and injunction against judges aredrastic and extraordinary remedies. We do not doubtpower in a proper case to issue such writs. But theyhave the unfortunate consequence of making the judgoa litigant, obliged to obtain personal counsel or to leavehis defense to one of the l i t igants before him. Theseremedies should be resorted to only where appeal is aclearly inadequate remedy. We are unwilling to utilizethem as a substitute for appeal. As extraordinaryremedies they are reserved for really extraordinarycauses."

WHEREFORE, Respondent says in response to the Motionherein:

Having thus made a full response to all the matters andthings contained in the Motion, Respondent prays that theMotion for leave to file Petition of Prohibition be denied.

VORSANGER & MvRFEY, ESG.S.,Attorney? for Respondents,

Gertrude P. Fuller, Richard L.Grubman, Thoma? F. Cacciolaand Josephine Cacciola.

Dated March 9, 1964.

APPENDIX A

UNITED STATE? DISTRICT COUBTDISTRICT OF NZVv JERSEY

ill Ecu::"

GEETJU-DS P. FVLLIT;. K:..-H.,--: L

JOSEPHIKE CACCIOL.'-. Di; v.-.:>. ii:oothers to be named.

JERRY YOLFE and KATEEF.INE VOLFI.his wife. Louis Pro-ACE ;".iid BEA-TRICE PVGACE. hi? rdie. ALIAN LAP-SES and JIT.ITH LASSIE, b:$ ~i:~.OTTILIO P'Aixssio ar.d MA-UE P'A;.-LESIO. his wife. SOL HA>"-^S ar.r.LILIAN HANDLER, hi? wife-. L V G E N EF. CLEMENTS and MAF--O?.II CLEM-ENTS, bis wi;V. EPÂF~' Ho5?:x? f.nc.GLOFIA ROEBIXS. hi< "-'i'If. LLov:1'POLLARD find BLAXCEI Poii*RP. hi?

ArsTix A. VOLK. WILUAM p. Tics->-OT;. JK . . 0. CABLYSU: McCAxr-L^s.CAF.MEX R. Hixrz and W\?.F.IN LLEWI?, coiiî i int ine ihi- ?C-A^T. c-.-SCHOOL ESTIMATE OF EN ,v._?--v ;,..-,:••,XEW JERSEY, and THE CITY o- F.N-OLEwoon. XEW J K F S Z V . , 'C-HN E.PEF.BY. LOUISE GRAFOW. THEOPORE R.VAN ITA.LI.IE.. CAF.MEN R. HINT.T sr-.*.A V A K K E N L. LF,WI>. co!i<tinj i :ng ihoBOABP. iir Er i 'CATi~ 'N OF T H K C I T Y OF

FEEPERICK M. RAVFIXCT?:^ . Conr:v.i?<ionc-r of Eciucatioii of ibe State oXow Jersey.

I n i e r r c n t n j Defendant.

la

2a

1. The intervening plaintiffs are citizens of the UnitedStates and of the State of New Jersey, as well a? taxpayersof the City of Englewood, Bergen County, New Jersey, andare the parents of minor children who attend the publicschool system of the City of Englewood, Bergen County,New Jersey, and during all the times hereinafter mentionedoccupied the said status.

2. This suit involves rights granted to these interveningplaintiffs by the Fourteenth Amendment of the UnitedStates Constitution.

3. The City of Englewood maintains an elementary pub-lic school system, and at the close of the school season inJune of 1963 operated 5 elementary public school building?.

4. During the school year which ended in June of 1963.the said schools were operated on what is commonly knownas the neighborhood school basis, under which studentswere assigned to a school based on the place where theylived and its proximity to the school which they were desig-nated to attend.

5. At the close of the school year in June of 1963, andfor a long period of time, the assignment of pupils to therespective schools was not based on race, creed, or ancestralorigin.

6. Under the system as thus operated, the children ofthese intervening plaintiffs would have attended a neigh-borhood school in the school year commencing in Septemberof 1963.

7. Prior to July 1st, 1963, certain parents of school chil-dretf attending the Englewood school system filed with theintervening defendant, Frederick M. Raubingcr, petitionsalleging that the defendant, Board of Education of the Cityof Englewood, maintained racially segregated publicschools and bad refused to implement plans to e l imina te-patterns of racial segregation alleged to exist in the publicschools, and requested an order directing the defendant ,Board of Education of the City of Englewood, to take im-mediate steps to eliminate all aspects of racial segregationin the said public school system. The said petitioners fu r -

3a

ther prayed that the defendant. Board of Ecu-:s::on of :b=City of Englewood. be required to pnt in effect a particularproposal known as the "central intermediate school ru:•:;."

8. The intervening plaintiffs -.rere p-rmitied to intf rvrn?in that action.

P. On July 1st. 1963. the defends^. Frederic): MRaubinger. filed his decision in which be held iha: thedefendant. Board of Education of the City DI Enzlrôod.did not maintain a racially segregated school sysiers hydeliberate action and intent. He f u r t h e r held tha t tbrenrollment in one of the said publicschools, i. e.. Li TOG InSchool, was comprised almost exclusively of necro vj•;.;.!>.and that the defendant. Board of Education of the City ofEnglowood. should be required to take afr.nr;:::•>•» ac:io~:to improve the racial balance in iha- school.

10. The said Commissioner, Frederick M. Kaubizi i rer , b;~the decision above referred to. directed the defends:?:.Board of Education of the City of Encle~ood. to :cc^-^:.-.:-:•a plan, or plans, to roduco the alleged extreme co^;-?n:r?.t;or.of pupils of the negro race in the Lincoln Soboc;. and tosubmit such plan, or plans, to him on or before August is:.

.1963. and to put ibe approved plan into effect at the beeÊ-ning of the 19S3-1P64 school year.

11. From thi? division these intervonisp p lamt in? ap--ilpnlc-ti to the State Board of Education, in sccordarice ^-iihtb.e s ' a iu le in such oases made and provided-.

1'2. M'hile the said sptieal w?.= peno'inc. the defc-r.dar;!.Board of Education of the City of Englewood. pro-îl^sieda jilan and snbmirted it to the defendant . Raubisger. \vi-oaiiproved it .

13. The said plan is referred to in the oompla:nt he re to -fore filed by ihi? plaintins. Fuller et sis., as a re fe rence tothe sr=.id eonrolaim will more fully disclose.

H. Under the said plan, the children of these interveningplaimins are no longer permitted to at tend neighborhoodschools, but are rer juiroci to at tend a sixth grade establishedfor the sole purpose of forcibly intermixing while pupilswith negro pupils, and which plan deprives the children of

these intervening plaintiffs of their right to attend a neigh-borhood school solely because of their color.

15. The said plan was adopted without notice to theseintervening plaintiffs, with no opportunity to be heard, norto present proof or argument against the said plan, and thesaid plan became operative by the vote of the negro studentsof the Lincoln School, with no opportunity given to otherstudents to vote on the said plan.

16. The decision of the Commissioner was approved bythe State Board of Education on September 23, 1963, bya written opinion served on the intervening plaintiffs onOctober 8, 1963.

17. To implement the said plan, public moneys in theamount of approximately $123,000 have been appropriatedand these intervening plaintiffs aver, upon informationand belief, that other public moneys will be necessary toimplement the said plan.

18. The plan which requires the children of these inter-vening plaintiffs to attend a designated school, or schools,because of their color, and which deprives them of the rightto attend the neighborhood schools which they shouldattend, constitutes a violation of the rights of these inter-vening plaintiffs and their children, which said rights aregranted to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution.

19. These intervening plaintiffs join in the prayer forjudgment, as set forth in the complaint of Fuller et als.presently on file, and in addition, these intervening plaintiffsask that an injunction issue enjoining and restraining thedefendant, Raubinger, and the defendant, Board of Educa-tion of the City of Englewood, from interfering with theattendance of their children at the neighborhood schoolwhich they would normally attend.

MAJOR & MAJOR,Attorneys of Intervening Plaintiffs.

By /s/ James A. Major,James A. Major. Partner.

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUBTDISTRICT OF XE~ JERSEY

GERTSVDE P. Fru_zs. e: sis..

t\«. LOrcf? -<t--'•?.t _

AVSTTN A. YOLK, et si?..

JAPPLICATION bavins: bee a n:.:.oe b~ Art-hur J. Si}!>. At-

torney General of the S;?.'f of Xe~ Jersev, os behalf ofFrederick M. Raubinger. Con;r.:is.*ioarr of Eduction of ;beState of New Jersey, for iesvf :o a roes! f rom s.n o rderentered on November \'2. IPtfS. whic-i: order denied s. motionby the said Attorney Grner^l T O r.i*r.:i$= the eonivis:-: ziedherein, and the oour; having besrd Joseph A. Ho*?::n£D.Esquire. Deputy Atiorr/oy General of the Staif of N"ewJersey, in support of the said n;otio-j: Jsn:es 7. Murphy.Esquire , appear ing for the p U i n t i f f ? : Jaises A. M.-.;or.Esquire-, appearing for Jerry Volre s:ic Kstheri"-:- Voi"'e.his wife, and others, intervening p'^.ir.'ir's: Siiss-v Diccin.Esquire, appearing for the Board of Edôsiion of the C'itv01 Englewood: and John J. Bre f i i r f , Jr.. Esouir:-. ?.Vi-j-esr-ing for the Board 01 School Esiirr.?.!? of Er.c!c--oc>d. S,->•*•Jersey, and the City of Eniriewoo-d. Xe^~ Jersev: ar.d thecourt being of the opinion for "he reasons *ei :or;h ir: it?conclusions stared in open court th;i; the apDiicstion shouldbe denied;

It is, on this l'2tii day of December. 1963. Ornsr.in tha;the spplieation for leave to appeal be and the same ishereby denied: and

Ga

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the intervening plaintiffs,Jerry Volpe and Katherine Volpe, his wife, and others,shall, within 10 days from the date of the making of thisorder, file their complaint in these proceedings, and theother defendants, including the said Frederick M. Raub-inger, Commissioner of Education of the State of Xe\Jersey, shall have 10 days after service upon them of thesaid complaint within which to file their answers,

/s/ ANTHONY T. AUGELLI,U. S. D. J.

The above order is consented to as to form.

ARTHUR J. SILLS,Attorney General of Seic Jerseyfor intervening defendant, Fred-erick M. Raubinger. State Com-missioner of Education.

By: /s/ JOSEPH A. HOFFMAN,Deputy Attorney General.

/s/ JAMES T. MURPHY,Attorney for Plaintiffs.

MAJOR & MAJOR,Attorneys for Intervening Plain-tiffs, Jerry Volpe, et als.

By: /s/ JAMES A. MAJOR,Partner.

/s/ SIDNEY DINCIX,Attorney for Board of Edu-cation of City of F.nglen-ood.

/s/ JOHN J. BRESLJN, JR.,Attorney of Board of SchoolEstimate of Engleicood.New Jersey, and City ojEnglewood, New Jersey.

APPENDIX C

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYBERGEN COUNTY—LAW DIVISION

GERTRUDE P. FULLZ?., RICE A?.? L.G R U B M A N , THOMAS F. CACCIOLA andJOSEPHINE CACCIOLA, his w:;>. anaothers to be named.

Plaintiff.

AUSTIN A. YOLK, WILLIAM? P. T I ^ T K -XOR, JK.. 0. OARLYSLE McCAxrcz??.CARMEN R. NINTZ and WA?.?.ZN L.LEWIS, cons t i tu t ing TEE SCHOOLBOARD OF ESTIMATE OF THE Cirv orESGLEWOOD. NEW JERSEY, and THECITY or ENGLF.WOOD. NEW JEF..SIY.

Dfltndantf.

Be/ore:HON. GcF.ro.v H. B-s,-->-. ,/. C. C.,

MESSRS. VCISSAX--,ES X Mv?.r=v.By: J A M E S T. Mr-.-~y. Ess..

F,ir (/},- riiinliff.

By: JOHN J. BRESLIN. Jr... Es«..For i'Kf fciif.rf Bi-.-.ri-: oi Ef<!mj;t snrf

ihf Cil>, f< Etipl-:H-*fi/1.

7a

8a

SIDNEY DINCIN, ESQ.,For the Board of Education of the

City of Engleicood.

ARTHUR J. SILLS, ESQ.,Attorney General,

By: JOSEPH A. HOFFMAN, ESQ.,Deputy Attorney General,For the State Commissioner of

Education.

ALBERT AGOSTIXE, C. 3. R.,Official Stenographic Reporter.

THE COURT: The Plaintiffs in this action are Engle-wood citizens and taxpayers. The defendants are the Boardof School Estimate and the City itself.

It is alleged that the Board of School Estimate has beendirected by the City Board of Education to raise the sumof $66,500 from public funds to finance a plan by which theexisting school system will be changed.

The plaintiffs assert that such an appropriation andexpenditure of money would be illegal, unlawful and uncon-stitutional. The plaintiffs demand that this Court soadjudicate and restrain both defendants from further action"in the matter.

Pursuant to Rule 4:37-2 the City Board of Education andFrederick M. Raubinger, State Commissioner of Educationbe allowed to intervene in the case.

An action entitled Volpe, and others against Perry, andothers, in the Chancery Division of this Court wasdetermined by Judge Collester on August Sth. 1963. Inthat suit the plaintiffs were citizens and taxpayers as wellas being the parents of students. They brought their actionagainst the same two defendants who are parties here, and.also, against the Board of Education to enjoin them all fromenacting the same plan.

The Volpe plaintiffs bad previously been petitionersbefore the State Commissioner to oppose any action by him

9a

which would alterarrangement.

After extended hearings tbe Commissioner rendered £decision adverse TO the Volpe DC?:::•:>::.

The decision dated, July 1. 19?.3. d i rec-ed :be Board •:••"Education to formulate a plan to eli.-.-Cr the neighborhoodsystem and TO submit The same for spprcvsj OE or beforeAugust 1, 1963. for use in the l?63-l?7-4 school year . Sucha plan was submitted and approved by ibe Cor^nissioneron the date mentioned.

I have read the file in the Voipe case and ibe opinion ofJudge Collesier therein. He dismissed the Cc>mp;s.i~: enthe ground that the action of tbe Comniisiio-er and theBoard of Education should not be renewed i~ the SuperiorCourt because- The Volpe set ion cons t i tu ted a coils tersiattack upon the Commissioner's decision. He pointed outthat the Legislature has spec-ined smother forum- for re~ie-~of the Commissioner's action, namely, the $;?,<e Bc-sra ofEducation: and thai the next ?u-p in rene^ sbouM be takenby the Appellate Division pu-susnt to Rule 4:SS.

There was a special circumsu=.::c£ in tbv Vo'ipf pic- tDrf .The pla in t i f fs ibere riled an sppoal f rom :br Commis-sioner's Decision of July Is:. Tb?.t sppesi "o tbv SuieBoard was pendinc 3" tbs? tii:>:j Judge Collesier hfsrd tbeVolpe Case. Specifically. *h<= Jiidge framed tbe piroti;issue before him as fol lows- . "Th~ issue before me iswhether or not the Chancery Division of tbe Superior Cour tcan and should T-ske jurisdiction of tho cause ssserivd bythe plaintiffs in their complaint , or •R-ht-iher -be conipisir:'should be dismissed because tbe issues are now before tbeState Board of Eduction."

He held, in efuvi. that because ibr plaintiffs bad putthemselves before the State Board their d ispute should beheard in that place, because they bad a suff ic ient adminis-t r a t i v e remedy then?.

Judge Collester rejectod s oi>nK-!i:io:i that tbe plaintiffsshould have a separate jud ic ia l remedy because they sued

U U

lOa

in the Chancery Division as taxpayers while they were be-fore the State Board only as parents. He saw no real dis-tinction in this difference.

In the case before me the plaintiffs bare no nominal con-nection with the Volpe parties.

In the case before me there is not the special circum-stances of plaintiffs who have taken any steps at all in theadministrative hierarchy. They enter this Court as citizensand taxpayers who attack directly the contemplated actionof officials at the municipal level.

Furthermore, there was in the Volpe Hearing and resultin the Chancery Division no determination as to the meritsof the issues.

For these reasons the result reached by Judge Collesterdoes not determine the issue before me. The question Imust decide is whether citizens and taxpayers who assertthat the fiscal effect of the plan violates the organic law ofNew Jersey and their constitutional rights can test thosecontentions in this Court at this time.

It is important, I think, to underline that the thrust ofthe present complaint is against the appropriation and ex-penditure of money. The defendants named in the com-plaint are the Board of School Estimate and the governing ,body. It is only they who ought to be restrained accordingto the plaintiff's demand for judgment.

Englewood public school affairs are managed within thestatutory framework of a Chapter 6 District; general re-sponsibility for the fiscal business of such a district is intbe hands of a Board of School Estimate in which membersof the governing body participate. The Board of SchoolEstimate and the governing body have no voice in, or re-sponsibility for public school policy. These matters at themunicipal level are exclusively within the province of theBoard of Education.

Thus, if the defendants here do take the action which theplaintiffs apprehend the defendants will be acting in a min-isterial capacity only.

l la

If what they do in the way of raising money ha; any :n-pact upon the rights of the plaintiffs in this case i: wi;] bebecause the purpose for raising :h? —one- i= in SOTS- "27wrong. Necessarily involved tbec ID 'be ca;? ~hkb olaii!-t iffs submit to this Court for judicial re r ie— U :be meri tof the plan and its underlying relicy.

These documenis are, as the oo":pl = :~-' : :=elf eiirges.pimply implementing a school policy tbey cic nc i m a k e . ELOindeed cannot thwart.

The contemplated action by these :wo defender::; can brjusticiable only if tbe plan is objectionable. To re~:e~ ihrpropriety of the part plsyed by tbesr minisiehi; iztz'*without at the same time rrvit-u-ing the policy :':-rzDuj£t«-cby their principals would be impossible.

Public school policy in Enelewood has t-?er £~c courier?to be in the throes of controversy.

R. S. 15:3-14 provide? that the S:s:e Commissioner ofEducation shall decide s!l controversies anc disputes aris-ing under the school laws or sistt rules and rfC-Jat ior .?It fur ther provides that bis decision <b.-.":i r~ binding ur:ilsuperseded by action f rom tbe S'-f.ie Bo=.rd of Ec-jc-aticc.after appeal. He has m;ide a ceoision is :bis sr??..

The City Board of Efesiion. Bosrc of Scboo; Es ' i— s:?.and tbe governing body ;;!v bound by ib* deoisôn. It :spresumptively valid as it .iifocts tbo preset: def t /nda i jTs .

Tho Englewood Board of Sc-boo] Estinîe ^nd ibe c fv-erning body are so si tuatt-d in ti:-e contei; thsi they arerequired by law to nripiemc-n; a plan made valid .-.s of t h i sniomeiii by a presumption of law. Tbe pl?.n ous: t-e re-garded as baving contiDiied va i id i iy unde-r Js—. cosstiiu-t ional or otherwise, unt i l upset in :be supellste lasbior:prescribed in Title 1? of the Rerised Statutes.

There cannot be a collateral snack on tbe plan even forthe reason* urged by tbe present plaintiffs. This is becausethey present a controversy of a peculiar typ/e. Ir is a publicschool controversy. As to such an issue the Leci?ifiture

12a 13a

has clearly relegated its resolution in all aspects to a spe-cial and quasi-judicial domain into which this Court shouldnot and will not enter.

By the direction of the Rules of Court in R. E. 4:8S anappropriate judicial tribunal is provided for the protectionof the constitutional rights of citizens and taxpayers inEnglewood.

Thus the Volpe plaintiffs, if they avail themselves of theappellate procedure to the end of the administrative roadwill have recourse to a Court.

Apparently the constitutionality of the plan is alreadyslated for a judicial test. I read now from Judge Collester'shand written opinion, "I think that the failure or refusalto consider the constitutional questions raised before theCommissioner and left undecided by him in bis decision doesnot bar tbe plaintiffs from raising those questions beforethe State Board on their appeal, or before the AppellateDivision on an appeal from an adverse decision by the StateBoard."

It is noted that the brief filed by plaintiffs in the appealto the State Board of Education in fact does raise as anissue the constitutional questions. If public moneys will bespent before these constitutional issues can be heard in TheAppellate Division it is not because this Court is indifferentto such a result, it is because this Court believes that in thefield of public education the Legislature itself has outlineda special treatment for remedies of any kind when theLegislature said in R. S. 18:3-14 that all controversies anddisputes arising under the school laws shall be determinedin the manner stipulated. The Legislature meant what itsaid.

This is a controversy which I will not review for anyreason.

The motion of the State Commissioner of Education andthe motion of the Englewood Board of Education to dismissthe complaint is granted.

Court is recessed.

I. ALBERT AGOSTIXE, a CeniSed Sbonbscd Reporter o:the State of Xew Jersey, certify iha: the foreroiss is £ :~ =and accurate cooy of ny sie::oc:r£rihic notes

Ai3z?.T AGO&TIXZ. '=/A-LsiF.T AGOSTIXE.

Certified $fic>rir,cnc E-r-trttr.Qrncic! $T?nC'Qraz)ii( JT-r -c- r . ' f r

Dated: S/20,'63

1 :Board Prm'ml^ Ticknor And McCandJess,/With Its Plans. Claim Slate -Blackmail'

BriGI Th|- sch(.f.l siumion d-.-i-lopnl rapidly

MiUHVOOn - Or. M a r k F! 1. The Il,, ;,r,l ,,l S,-l,,,,,l K-.tii.ial,- bv ;, vcitc uf 3 u, '•Mi.-tld. luncrintenricnl. rciwns approved tin- Board of Education proposals ror chanpns th--lha l i he lionrtl of Education i> method ol' .nssijnm;; pupils to the various schools but refused

: lirncivflins w i t h all spu-ci but to WOprirto funds to provide free bus transportation fr.ri l i a t ilicn- u i l l lie ;< delay Or a '-'"TO1" School children to at tend other schools.

romplctim i h f M»yor Austin N. Volk. citing pressure from Trenton th.-threatened loss of nearly Sl>50.0n() in State aid. and the im-portance of ending the turmoil in the community and in the

Tltf (Ira. in- of i . i ans and bid •choob themselves, vutt-d for the p lan . However, the Mayori i i -c i f ic j i i t in t ..u matt-rial . , t.. b>" refused to go a l o n ™ with the proposal to appropriate funds toM-d at I] Kiwlr Mrt-t 'i. for n i p , W to transport Lincoln School children out of the Fourth

ffvt- t tcoks in\vhtilr program.

Appro

ved B

ut

With

ou^T

ree

T

ransporta

tion;

Expecte

d;

Taxpayers

S

till T

ryin

g T

o

Sta

y It

J

J 1

B

/^-^

G,^

J

/>

ci ly-widt- filh (Irade School arcprocffdtni! a« rapidly as |)().,.

j >iblc. Meanwhile, Attorney Sid-• npy Dincin is preparing Ihej Hoard of F.(!IIC>I::O;I ca.se.- tu l«--, heard iwic<- durinc the ni-\ fewI days — One before ttii- Siaie1 Hoard of Kdticnlion nn Kriil.iv,! thr uilH-r before tin- Appellate

DuiMon of ihr Now .I..TM'y >up-

thi> Appel late Division Order a

-.::::!;.• !;r .-irl.v.v,; .,m,i iiu- uiii-:n:i1.- decision of Ihiil court.

1! "ill nut h,- jM^sihlr lu nau-tlii- r.irililii-s :.! II Knstr Mrerlr<M,ly Tor il,,.- opening of schm.l

cofwiilcr am! approve plans and

Lincoln School students in GradesI through 5 lo Cleveland. Quarlcaand Roojcvclt Schools. In anyevent Sixth Grade pupil* will at-tend the elementary school serv-

(Mslricls during the first few-weeks of the school year.

Parents of children who willbe four years of aye on or beforeDecember 3 1 si of this year and

their children in this pros ramare requested lo communicate(his interest in writing to theOf! ire of the Superintended! ofSchools ;it 1 1 Ensile sired. Par-ents should Hive their name andaddress, thr child's name anddale of hirlh. As plans for this

i program materialize the Superin-i tendon 1 will communicate dimct-'_ ly with parents at a later date.i It is unlikely that the Pre-Kind-

ersartcn program will b^pm be-• fore November.

\Vard into Clevfland. Quiirle.s. and Roosrvelt Schools; he r^-fused also to providt- funds to hrinij in outsidp educators r«.help implement the board's plans.

TICKNOR, MC CANOLESS 'NO' .('oimdim.-in-at-bi -.- Wilh:un D. i> i L. . . , ,

Tu-knnr .h . iriul C'Mtncilmiin '» Car-!>>lc .Mi-Cii::diev» vo:ed "IH." onnil iii Ihe :ipprnpt-i:iti(in- Tlie\y crirk-i/ed the Stale lor iu-

wilhhold Kii«lvwon,!'> -h;iif ot Sta-le aid. They characterized such

iM.iii. uiu-viuiiiuliuiuii. ;nni not in

Tlic IMII Bi^n-d of r.diH-iiiiim

votfd in favor o[ the proposal* and

coin School.

2. In term* of money, the Boardof School Estimate, and subse-quently the Common Council which

!i»ê Ihr i-iilirp mattrr -hnuld havebeen ;ippe;i!ed on ition>!t(uiional-i:> l.i th.- C,..ard of Kd.icatw.tim the '"'Hindi rather than putthrough ;i niakc-liil! ar.d \Vii.-tcJutrtrngr.-mi.

Mayor Limiti Vo(*M:t>i,r Vi.lk >l:.l.-d thn; »M-«-

Slatvs threat lo wiihold more th;,n

the citizens, lo maintain soundfiscal policies: and to restore nor-

posals.

He refused, however, to fio *lonjrwith providing free transportationto send Lincoln School cfiiJdrcn

available the sum of only S66. 500, ];md Quarle5. am, noosevP|trefusing to appropriate s 13.000 for Sci|0ols and he reftlsed to supporttransportation nnd S5.000 to brmS||he hjf.jn,, Qf outsidc consuitanls

in outside consultants. The Board ! for |h(. bo3rfl pro,,T.am.of Education announced thcit it al-ready has in its capital budget

Ihe renovation ol the old Enjilcstreet .Junior Hii-h School.

BOARD STARTS AT ONCE3. The Board of Education \veiil

into action immediately in prepar-ing for renovations and truinine ofteachers. Dr. Mark n. Shi'dd statesthat the program will not be com-pleted by opening day and thai chil-dren will have lo sUrt Klwot attheir usual neighborhood .schoolsThe- delay will he rir.lv a matter ofu few \\-eeks. hf >;iy.<.

Tin- pkin c-nIN lor fxlcn.-ivt-h;in-e>; K-slahlishmenl ol a fen-tral Sixth Grade tor all Ihe city'saixlh «rade pupils in the old Kn^lt-street Buildin;;: transfer ot Lin-coln pupils ol first thrmiGh tilthsradeh to Cleveland. Queries, and

a prc-klndenjarlen L-!;I-^ ;<t 'hoKnL'lc Street Building a (uah hori-zons m oar-am tor children and

lessen iindcr-achievemcii!.COURT ACTION PENDING

tiiou^h :•> .John .!. l'.re*lin. Jr..(.-niinêl tu the Common ruuncilon tin- >c!i!.'ol i--.ite pitinlrd out. nutof ;i ni.turi- l<> pn-\enl Hie Il-Jiii'lof £diic:iMuu (s-'iin C'jrr; inn om

sioner.

the !:ix|»\'-i< yi'oiip «( ahoiil r>(.npt-r>.tin-> ;ifl:ii'j HIM null Vi'r-;niji .'

.ha- hlc-<i :m .i[jpi-;il in AppclUiie; Divi.M'ni utiii-ii mil bi> he:ir.! «-r

•I'.n- :.|i|.i-:<l. li!f! in '.hi- naiiii(if Mi> \VMl:;.:n I: Kulk-s :ni.

-siîiins childrrn. :ti;-l th;il n-i Ui\- luntU -houtd be (Aper.ded

on n m;.ke>ii;i: and «:r-lclul pi-^liiin uniil Hi-- !iti-.Lliiin "\<-\-

itll'irnu-! th.- M;i><.r :.nd Coiinril HIpublic M.mil..y ni^hi tha t sh"ii|il

' K'i •.!'.-." mn pl:m wint ld !"• h--!'i up...Mr. Tit-kn«'r and .Mr Me' :.i:'!i"--

i-iiii'o do nothing but condemn 'lieplan, "it is my opinion that theliaubinucr decision is one of po-itical expediency and that it is no'

based on existing law ... 1 believethe Board of Education or- thrCommon Council or both shouldhave appealed the Ran binder rul-ing ... 1 certainty cannot \'0ie forthe appropriation o[ any lumU ioiniplemeni any of the present pro-posals without further- expressionnt opinion »n part ot the citi/-en-of Kni;lewood. When I wa*. electedto the Cnmmon Council I assumedthe re.-ponsibility of carryins omthe • it of the majority. If myaction.- arc n»i 53tisfac'ory t!ie pr"-ple have a means o£ setting th':record -traiyht in Hie coming eiet-tion."'

Mr. Ticknui- »;iid the basic prob-k-m '.[ ihc t:)^lc\\"0(l schon!- n;i-never been completely tieEined:

:ill thr re>n«>ii>ible people in Ku-.ulev.d'irl ha* never been brnush!luêlht-r: and thai until such 01-

in;ikeshi[t> and mo rue.- appro pi';

l l r - L-oni-iudi-d hi- *l3Uinir-ni '»>

If! me ri'iiiVi* ilia! I believe uti

!..v. ol ;V l.-.i..! i,ii<l "!:«•'• 1 am

-••»• tli:ii it i- itu:t-iii:. imjiliTiHT.'.ccLIU : f.irn.'fl ..n: "

McCandlei* Shocked

lu:i!^ ihi- !--r>,pi.-.i;- r lineal ti/n.i 11;-

.;«-!- JVM! uiiiin.un- Ihe ^-h'H.l sv--K-III lie Im-tiii't -i.-«-l;i!.-f ".t IT-

•h'- St :<' ;»:i ; part:riil;irly )he Com

S !;•!«• ;.i't I" fJr.-iti-."- in .-im-l.-n- >-.Jii..::"n <l-:u-_;rv. •.-.•! •:.,- 3J - - faei-n

(Continued On P*ge 5;

Board ProposalsArc Appro red *

(Continued from page 0

Ihrentc iu- i i w i i l i |nv; (,f s i : i lc ;iuiimloi U a i idpis the p l a n . )

"Thi> i.- act ion t r u l y .-liotkin^'to anyono v. ho i t i l l bi ' lir-vi 's l h ; i t '

UK- S la te 15- noi omnipot i ' i i t and i n -f a l l iu l e : " he xiiiL "The Commis-sioner'; ;rci;on as.-unst Orange was;economic b l ackma i l and i n t i m i d a -

, ! ion of the mo..; the most r ianr . in tsort." It strikes at our basic r igh ;

! of appeal."The Kaubinscr decision in the

: Englewood case is so patently! wrong, so devoid of any j u s t i f i c a -' tion in Xa^v or )>r*i*-^0«..t umv o^f

\y politically motivated asto make it almost u n t h i n k a b l e tha t

i the Board of Educa t ion of Englc-j wood has d ign i f i ed it by seeking toi comply with it."

Mr. McCandk-ss said t h e Board ofE d u c a t i o n may feel free to ignorethe op in ion of a m a j o r i t y ot t h ec i t i zens of our c - ' j m i n i ' i i i t y bu l Ias an elected o f f i c i a l do ;u>t ." '

An appeal fi ' , ;n t i ie Cummis-sionei ' . - dcci-:mi s h o u l d havi? been ,t a k e n . .Mr. Mc^.-i ' idless s t a i r - bc-cau^c of t h e que - ' i ' : n c-f c o n s t i t u -t i o n a l i t y air : t h e d e n i a lv i d u a l r i g h t s . Tiie b n a j d ' . -based on ( ."n . - i ' ic ' ra t ion;and t in.- is u n c . i n ^ t i t i i ' i i . p .

. a q u r - M i o n !i ia ; >ii(".before t a x p a y r r b '^ ; 'î c'i.


MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Robert L. Carter

FROM : Barbara A. Vorris

RE : Englewood School Case

August 22, 1963'

AH of September 19, 1962, the Englewood elementary achool

system consisted of the following schools and percentage of Negroes:

Cleveland .4$ Lincoln 9Liberty 62 Queries 3.2$

Roosevelt 14.5?

The City ie divided into 5 achool districts--Liberty, Lincoln

and Cleveland on one aide, railroad tracks bisecting, and Quarles and

Roosevelt on the other. The Quarles school is the newest school and en-

compasses the highest economic life in Englevood.

In the course of the hearing, the Stearns Report was introduced

which reflects a multidue of facts about the city, but most importantly,

6 jmetheds_by_wh_ich_the racial_imbalance-in-the schools may be reduced.

Our complaint sought implementation of the Central Intermediate

School which was to take all 6-year students for the first year, and all

5th-year students for the second year6n~tf7ri'ty wide basis. Additionaly,

we asked that the imbalance with reference to:the lower grades be reduced.

Apart from the normal organisation of the city schools and the

fact that Englewood has one junior high and one 'senior high schools, few

facts were elicited during the trial. Both former Superintendent of Schools

Steams and present Superintendent of Schoola Mark Shedd testified that in

their opinions the predominate Negro achoola had an adverse effect on the

'


education of its Negro studentB.

The complaint raised only the issue of de facto segregation.

The Ancrum complaint, in which we participated, charged both de facto

and de jure segregation. No evidence of intentional segregation was

found by the Commissioner.

The Volpes, vho intervened in both the above actions, seek

perpetuation of the "neighborhood plan" and charged that redistribution

of Negro children would violate their rights to equal protection of the

lavs.

• Originally, the Mayor, Common Council and Board of Estimates

(which group refused to appropriate money requeated^by the School Board

before commencement of this litigation and implementation of the Central

Intermediate School) were parties in the Ancrum suit. They were dismissed

on their ovn motion, charging a lack of jurisdiction by the Cocndssioner of

Education.

With regard to the"neighborhood school plan," it was established

- during." the course of the testimony that school children attending the

Roosevelt and Quar3.es schools lived closer to the Lincoln School. This was

in refutation of the intervenors1 argument that the law of New Jersey

required each student to attend the school nearest his home.

The intervenors produced an expert who testified that in his

opinion racial imbalance did not affect the education accorded Negro

students. In my opinion, his credibility and the weight of his testimony

- 2 -

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTICNS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

•yere pretty well destroyed In the- course of the hearing, both 'by us and

-by the obvloua fact that he wae a fanatic.

In their appeal, the intervenore are limiting this case to

questions of law. • They do not contest the facts as stated in the opinion

of the Comtisaioner, which I suggest that you read.

JJ

J-J

.1 1

- 3 -

PUBLIC SCHOOLSOffice of the Superintendent

August 22, 1953

To: Sidney Dincin, Soard of Education Attorney

From: Dr. Shedd

Subject: Information and Background Data re: Board of Education Planto Comply with Commissioner's Decision of July 1, 1963

1. As a prerequisite tc the establishment of tne city-wide 6th gradeschool the -following condition must occur:

a) 125 or more present students of Lincoln School must NOTelect to remain for the 1953-54 term at Lincoln School.

In other words, if 125 or more pupils were to elect to remain atLincoln School then the city-wide 5th grade school at 11 Engie Streetwould not be established.

125 was selected as tne numerical cutoff because the balance cf theLincoln School enrollments in grades one through five could reasonablybe accommodated at tne Cleveland, Quarles and Roosevelt Schools with-out serious ovarcrowcing and without necessitating the establishmentof a city-wide 5th grade school at 11 Engie Street.

Un the basis of anticiRoosevelt Schools, weSchool in grades 1-5 cUnder this plan maximand 29 in the interrvzcland School presentlybe utilized for regulain grades 1-5 will baelected to remain at Lopenings at Cleveland,the transfers.

oateo enrollments in Cleveland, Quarles andestimate that up to 225 transfers from Lincolnuld be accommodated in tne three schools.

m class loads would be 25 in the primary gradesiate grades. Two basement classrooms at Cleve-ucinri uâd for music and remedial teaching would

iadsrcom purposes. Lincoln School enrollments350. Therefore, if less than 125 studentsincoin School then there would not be enoughQuarles and Roosevelt Schools to accommodate

Assume for examoie that only jJ Lincoln School pupils in grades 1-5elected to remain at încoin. 3GO pupils, or the balance of the 350total enrollment of încoin School (grades 1-5) could not be accom-modated at Cleveland, Queries and Roosevelt.

On the other hand, let us suppose that 200 Lincoln pupils chose toremain at Lincoln. 133 pupils, or the balance of the 350 total en-rollment (grades 1-5;, could reasonably ce accommodated by the presentopenings at Cleveland, Queries and Roosevelt,

Ulhat attempt has been ~ade to determine the number of children wish-ing to remain at Lincoln School during the 1953-64 school year?

A letter and tear-shest return was sent to the parents of each childin grades 1-5 at Lincoln School - in all a total of 325.Returns through August 21 are as follows:

Total returns 263'Jish to rsmain at Lincoln 21Accept assignment to Cleveland,Quarles or Roosevelt 242

(Attached see copy of letter and form sent to parents)

3. Explanation of Supplemental Request Categories

a) Pre-Kinderqarten Program - proposed primarily to provideculturally enriching experiences for children whose earlydevelopment is handicapped by cultural deprivation. However,the program will ba sufficiently flexiDle and individualizedto be challenging for onildren of varied backgrounds.

b) Higher Horizons - designed primarily to raise the achievementand aspirations of children in the elementary school yearswhose full potentialities are not being realized. The proposedmeans of achieving this is by providing tutors, supervisedstudy during the late afternoon and evening hours, languageenrichment and speech instruction.

c) Adult Education - this program proposes to provide, in additionto the normal adult scnaol offerings, instruction in basicEnglish, basic Mathematics, and family and home management toenable parents to be of greater assistance to their childrenin their school work. It is hoped that as a result of in-creased encouragement and assistance from the home, thatchildren's cjocess in school work will improve.

d) faculty Preparation - Tim;; io required by faculty and adminis-tration of ths city-wide sixth grade school to plan and developthe instructional and administrative procedures. These pro-cedures would include determining a unified curriculum, establish-ing pupil grouping arrangements, allocating texts and otherinstructional materials, etc.

4. Breakdown cf Expenditures

If ths building and facilities at 11 Ingle Street are to be utilizedat any future time for ar.y school, municipal or civic purpose;

or if the building is to be ooid at some future time for use substan-tially in its present interior space arrangements

then little, if any, of the monies expended for its renovation willhave been spent unwisely. Tho maintenance of school properties, aswith any real property, is wise and prudent management unless the

-3-

property is to be re-zed.

Should Commissioner Raubinger's decision be reversed at some futuretime, and should it bs decided that trie building at 11 Engle Streetbe abandoned and destroyed then the j5G,62ij would be considered afinancial loss.

All equipment purchased could and would be utilized in ether schoolbuildings of the system so. that the $13,000 allocated for this purposecannot be considered expendable under any circumstances.

The amount allocated for the remodeling of the t'.uc basement classroomsat Cleveland School should not be considered as entirely expendable.Even should these spaces not be used for regular classroom instructionin the future, they would be availabls for specialized instructionalpurposes.

The 336,530- for Higher Horizons, Adult Education, Faculty Preparation,and the Pre-Kinderqarten Program vjj.ll all accrue to the benefit ofchildren's education in the Englewood schools. The qeneral educationalvalues of these programs are evident from the descriptions given above.Even the Faculty Preparation can be viewed as an in-service programfor teachers for the najor purpose of unifying and upgrading the sixthgrade curriculum.

f.iRS:L8

ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC 3CHGGL5ENGLOJOOD, NEW JERSEY

Dear Parent or Guardian,

In compliance with the Englewood Board of education plan for assignment of the LincolnSchool children, grades one through five, approved by Frederick M. Raubinger, Com-missioner of Education, State of New Jersey, and subject to the provisions listedbelow, your child will be assigned to Cleveland, Quaries cr Roosevelt School inSeptember or as socn thereafter as possible.

Enclosed are two forms (Use GNuY ONE FORM FCR EACH CHILD IN GRADES ONE THROUGH FIVE)

FORM # 1 - FOR CHILDREN DESIRING ASSIGNMENT CUT OF LINCOLN SCHOOL

FORM # 2 - FCR CHILDREN DESIRING TO REMAIN AT LINCOLN SCHOOL

No parent will be required to remove his child from Lincoln School who dees notdesire to do so, except as indicated in Item 2-c below.

Select ONE FORM, fill out and mail it immediately in the sslf-addressed, stampedenvelope provided for your convenience. August 21, 1963 is the last day on whichreturns will be accepted.

APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION PLAN

2. To assign all pupils of grades one tnrough five residing in the LincolnSchool attendance district to Cleveland, Carles 3nd Roosevelt Schools,such assignment to be determined by the Superintendent on the basis ofthe following criteria:

(a) Define attendance districts so that children of the Lincoln SchoolDistrict will be assigned as nearly as possible, to the schoolnearest their name.

(b) Provide for an even distribution cf class loads.(c) To permit the children whose parents wish them to remain in the

Lincoln School tc remain there provided that it is administrativelyand educationally practicable to dc so.

4. To assign to Lincoln Scnool ail children of Kindergarten age residing inthe present i. in coin School District.

Board's Attorney

PROVIDED THAT:

The plan meets the requirements cf the law and that th=gives assurance of immunity of Board Members and the Superintendent fromtaxpayers' suits regarding the expenditures of public manias to implementany aspect of these plans.

AND PROVIDED THAT:

The Board of Scnool Estimate and the governing body of the City ofEnglewood approve funds necessary to put these plans into effectaccording to the estimates attached Hereto.

truly scours,

MRS:LBi8/2/63

Mark R. SheddSuperintendent of Schools

IMPORTANT.'USE ONLY ONE OF THESE FORMS, select the ONE /cu want, SIGN YOURNAME, write or print your ADDRESS, and --nail it IMMEDIATELY in theself-addressed, stamped envelope enclosed fcr your convenience.

FORM -f I

FDR CHILDREN DESIRING ASSIGNMENT 73 CTHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Dr. Mark R. Shedd, SuperintendentEnglewood Public SchoolsII Engle StreetEiglewood, New Jersey

Dear Dr. Shedd:

I accept the assignment of my child tc Cleveland, Cuarles cr Roosevelt

School in accordance .with the Eoarci of Education plan, -aginning September 1963

or as soon thereafter as possible.


FORM ,f 2

"OR CHILDREN DESIRING TO REMAIN AT _INCCJ; SCHOOL

;r. Mark R. Shedd, Superintendent[ngleiuood Public Schools11 Engle Street[nalewood, New Jersey

Dear Dr. Shedd:

I wish to have ~.y child remain, at Lincoln School during the 1953-64 school

fear.


EIIMOODPLMAppeal to Retain Present

School Policy Rejected

By JOHN W. SLOCCMSpecial to The Ntw York Ttmn

UNION, N. J., Aug. 23—TheState Board of Education todayapproved the Englewood Boardof Education's plan to reduceracial imbalance in its elemen-tary schools.

The action followed a four-hour hearing at Newark StateCollege here on an appeal bjMr. and Mrs. Jerry Volpe andothers. They had challenged theState Commissioner of Educa-tion's decision of July 1 reject-ing their petition to retain theneighborhood school policy.

The board also affirmed theCommissioner's July 1 order tcthe Englewood board to reducethe concentration of Negroes I"the Lincoln School, which is 98per cent Negro.

Seven of the 10 board mem-bers took part in the hearing,which was conducted by JohnF. Lynch of Morristown, chair-man of the board's law commit-tee. Mr. Lynch gave the board'sdecision orally and said theboard would write an opinion onthe school plan.

Followed State Order

A motion by James A. Majorof Hackensack, lawyer for theVolpes, for a stay of the planwas denied. Mr. Major said hewould appeal immediately tothe Appellate Division of Supe-rior Court, the next step in con-testing a decision by the Com-missioner. *

The Englewood board drewup its plan after CommissionerFrederick M. Raubinger or-dered it to submit a suitableprogram to him by Aug. 1. Theboard adopted its plan on July29 and Dr. Raubinger approvedit on Aug. 1.

The plan calls for the estab-lishment of a citywide sixth-grade school and the transferon a voluntary basis of first-grade through fifth-grade pu-pils from the Lincoln Schoolto three predominantly whiteschools.

Mr. Major contended that Inmaking its sixth-grade plancontingent on the willingnessof a minimum of 125 pupils toask for transfer from LincolnSchool the board was "illegallydelegating its powers.

Lawyers for the two respond-ents in the case rejected thecharge of injustice to whitepupils by not giving them achoice of schools In which toattend the sixth grade. Theyargued that only Negro pupilshad been denied equal educa-tional opportunity under the defacto segregation at LincolnSchool and thus were the onlyones entitled to a choice.

The lawyers were William M.Kunstle of New York, repre-senting Mr. and Mrs. John T.Spruill, and Robert Carter ofNew York, representing Mor-timer W. Ancrum and others.The Spruills charged.the boardwith operating a segregated

school. The Ancrum petitionsought to force the board toestablish the central fifth-gradeschool that it proposed lastyear.

Elizabeth Mayor Sets MeetingSpedil to The New York Tuna

ELIZABETH, If. J., Aug. 23—Mayor Steven J. Bercik hasscheduled a meeting at CityHall for next Thursday in an-other attempt to resolve dif-ferences between civil rightsleaders and building tradesunions here.

The Mayor scheduled themeeting today after civil rightsleaders last night ordered aresumption of protest demon-strations next Monday. Theyrejected a proposal by Gov.Richard J. Hughes that picket-ing of Union County CourtHouse Annex project here bedelayed for at least' anotherweek.

In the meantime, GovernorHughes appealed to civil rightsleaders to exercise cautionagainst violence when the pick-eting resumes Monday.

Reproduced with permission ol the copyright o . Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION,' LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

- C O P-Y-—-

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYCHANCERY DIVISION

Chambers ofIHORRIS PASHNAN-

Judge(SEAL) Court House

Jersey City, N.J .

August 26, 1963

Vorsanger 4 Murphy, Esqs.,Att: James T. Murphy, Esq.,One Engle StreetEngleuiood, New Jersey

Eraslin 4 Braslin, Esqs.,Att: John J. Breslin, Jr., Esq.41 Main StreetHackensack, New Jersey '• -

Sidney Dincin, Esq.,16 Ul. Palisade AvenueEngleuiood, New Jersey

Arthur J. Sills, Esq.,Attorney General of New JerseyAtt: Joseph A. Hoffman, Esq.,

Deputy Attorney GeneralState House AnnexTrenton, New Jersey

Re: Gertrude Fuller. Richard'L. Grubman,Thomas F. Cacciola and Josephine Cacciolaand others to be named v. Austin A. Volk,et als.

Gentlemen:

The following is the opinion of Judge Leon Leonard and JudgeNorris-Pashman-(-temporarily assigned-to the_ Appellate Division) in theabove matter.

This is a motion by plaintiffs-appellants for an order enjoiningthe School Board of Estimate of the City of Englewood, New Jersey and theCity of Englewood, New Jersey from appropriating, expending or agreeing toexpend any public funds to implement the July 29th plan of Board of Educa-tion set forth in the affidavits pending final determination.

On July 1, 1963, Frederick Raubinger, New Jersey Commissioner ofEducation rendered a decision whereby respondents Board of Education of theCity of Englewood were charged with the maintenance of racially segregated••public schools and with refusal to implement plans to eliminate saidsegregation. The Commissioner decided that the Englewood Board of Educationwas not deliberately maintaining a racially segregated school system butthat compulsory attendance at all negro schools, such as,the Lincoln School,constituted a denial of educational opportunity under New Jersey law whichthe School Board is required to correct. The Commissioner directed the

•:

REPRODUCED FROM TOE COI1SCTICNS OF TOE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

- C O P Y - '

-2- .-*r

Board of Education to formulate a plan to reduce the extreme concentrationof negro pupils in the Lincoln School and to submit such plan to the Com- ...-.missioTier for approval on or before August 1, 1963 and to put such plan, asapproved, into effect at the beginning of "the 1963-64 school year.

The Board of Education adopted a proposed plan on July 29th toreassign pupils to alleviate the racial imbalance. The estimated cost ofthe plan was $123,000. Letters mere sent to the parents of children in thepredominantly negro Lincoln Schoo-1, giving them the choice of remaining atthe school or to adopt the plan.

On August 1, 1963, the Board of Education adopted a resolutionstating that $66,500 would be required to partially undertake said plan andthat the resolution should bs forwarded to the Board of School Estimate.The Commissioner approved the plan on August 1, 1963.

On August 8, 1963, the case of Volpe v. Perry (an analogous suit)was heard by Judge Collester (who disqualified himself in this case) in theChancery Division whereby plaintiffs sought to enjoin defendants from ex-pending funds to implement the plan. The application was denied on thegrounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

On August 14, 1963, Fuller v. Uolk (the instant case) was heard byJudge Gordon Brown, Judge of Bergen County Court sitting in the SuperiorCourt, Law Division. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against defendantsand the action was dismissed.

The present motion stems from the denial of plaintiffs' applica-tion for an injunction against the expenditure by. defendants to implementthe plan of July 29th.

PlaThfiffsâppsllants argue. inter alia, that:

0) The July 29th plan is unconstitutional and that the decisionof the Commissioner was ultra vires his statutory authority.

__^_(2) Plaintiffsy as taxpayers, will, sustain-irreparable injury ifthey prevail on the merits for the money expended to implement the planwhich could not .be recovered.

Plaintiffs-appellants, in a large measure, are arguing the meritsof this case. _A precise determination ofLthe merits-is not presently beforeus.

. <It is well settled that an injunction will not issue unless (a)

there is an urgent necessity, (b) the plaintiffs' rights are, as a matter- of law, settled and (c) the facts which are alleged to create an equity, infavor of the plaintiffs should b'e substantially uncontroverted. N.J. State

_

TREPRODUCED FRCM THE COLLBCTICNS OF .TOE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

X-'

..-C..O.-P.-Y-—

-3-

Bar Ass'n v. Northern N.J. Mortgage Associates, 22 N.J. 184,_ 194 (.1956);Light v. National Dyeing afia"Printing Co. 140 N.J. Eg. 506, 510 (Ch. 194?4,.In all cases involving injunctions the court must "balance the conveniences"and consider what injury the defendant mill suffer from an injunction,assuming that he prevails at the final hearing and what injury might be doneplaintiffs if the injunction be denied and yet plaintiffs should finallywin. Isolantite, Inc. v. United Electrical ate'.-, of American~13D N.J. Eg.506 (Ch. 1941), modified. 132 N.J. Eg. 613 (E. &. A. 1942).

Plaintiffs allege an irreparable loss of the tax moneys if theyprevail on the merits. However, defendants-respondents allege a possibilityof substantial, irreparable and immediate harm if R.S. 18:10-29.44 'is notcomplied with. The Statute provides:

"In order to participate in any apportionment made accordingto the provisions of this act, a school district shall comply .with the regulations and standards of the equalization of oppor- ,'

, tunity which have been or which may hereafter be prescribed by ,law or formulated by the Commissioner of Education or the StateSoard of Education pursuant to law. The Commissioner of Educationis hereby authorized to withhold all or part of such apportionmentfor failure to comply with any regulation or standard*"

The Commissioner has ordered that the July 29th plan be put intoeffect. Actions of municipal governing bodies and boards are presumptivelyvalid, Hill v. City of Summit. 64 N.J. Super. 522 (Law Div. 1960), and theofficial action of a municipal school board should not be enjoined exceptupon a clear showing of bad faith, arbitrariness or capriciousness.

If the Board of Estimate fails to carry out the plan, there is a8 origjp_ossibility_tha.t_tha...city_may-bB deprived of almost $300,Q"00 of

• State aid if the Commissioner determines that the standards prescribed werenot fulfilled in Englewood.

On balance, the defendants are threatened with greater irreparableinjury than the plaintiffs; plaintiffs1 rights aref.--to_say~thB—lBast-,r-i-n—-•

•~'dispiite; and plaintiffs have shown no urgent necessity for relief at thepresent. On general equitable principles alone, plaintiffs-appellants' .motion should be denied. •

However, there are persuasive legal grounds: upon which we cannot",in good~conscience grant plaintiffs-appellants' request. >

'The United States Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Brownv. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954) declared that desegregation ,should proceed with all deliberate speed. Cur courts have consistently . "•declared it to be unlawful for boards of education to exclude children fromany public school solely on the basis of race, or to require them to attend

•

•REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION,. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

- C 0 P Y -

-4-

segregated schools. See e.g.. Pierce v. Union District School Trustees. 46N.J.L. 76 (Su£. C£. 1884), aff'd. 47 N.J.L. 348 (E. 4 A. 1S85); Hadgepethv. Board of Education of Trenton. 131 N.J.L. 153 (Sup. Ct. 1944).

This policy against racial discrimination is enunciated furtherin Article I, paragraph 5, of the New .Jersey Constitution and the Anti-Discrimination Law (N.J.S. 18:25-1).

The facts show-that the Lincoln School, the focal point of thiscontroversy, is composed of a student body which is 93% nsgr.o. This appar-ently is caused by ,a large concentration of negroes in the neighborhood ofthe Lincoln School. There is a conflict in the federal courts as to whethera state must take affirmative action to avoid the consequences of de factosegregation. Cf. Bell v. School, City of Gary, Indiana, 213 F_. Supp. 819

', (N.D. .-Ind. 1963) (answering the question in the negative) with Branche v.Board of Education of Hempstead. 204 £.. Supp. 150 (E.D. N.Y. 1962) and

' Jeffers v. Whitley. 309 £. 2d_ 621 (4 Cir. 1962) (answering the question inthe affirmative).

It is our opinion that the decisions of the United States SupremeCourt and the courts, constitution and statutes of this state require us todeny appellants' motion. Besides the above authority arid the fact thatappellants have shown no right to the relief requested on purely equitablegrounds, we subscribe to those federal opinions which require affirmativeaction on the part of states to avoid the consequences of de facto segrega-tion.

- For the above reasons, appellants' motion is denied.

1- -I

Very truly yours,

/a/ Leon Leonard

ZsZ.Leon Leonard

morris Pashmanmorris Pashman

SX-A.XE or NEW JOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

TRENTON

August 27, 1963

Mr. Byron M. BaerChairman, Education CommitteeBergen Country ChapterCongress of Racial Equality135 Belmont StreetEnglewood, New Jersey

Dear Mr. Baer:>

\k you for -your letter of August 1 in which you were kind

enough to furnish me with your analysis of the plan voted by the Engle-wood Board of Education. \ was particularly gratified to note that youshare my opinion that the parties in Englewood are proceeding in goodfaith. I believe that you will agree that it is good faith and mutualrespect that must be the keystone in the creation of any solution tothose most difficult problems. \n your letter you have strongly recommended that the Com-

missioner of Education retain jurisdiction. I find that in his letterto the Englewood Board of Education written,on August 1, the Commissionerdid precisely that. I am enclosing a\y of his letter for your infor-mation and Sw- your particular attentibsp to the last sentence of theletter. \ •

\ believe that we all recognize that in this highly mobile

society which is characteristic of present (Jay living in the UnitedStates, .thfftTany community may change. Neither the population or thehousing patterns remain static. I am confident^ that as changes occurthe Board of Englewood Education will meet its responsibilities tocontinue to provide the equal educational opportunity to all of the

NEW JEHSEY TERCENTENARY

1664 • 1964

ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLSOffice of the Superintendent

At a meeting of the Board of Education held early last evening August 27,1963) final plans for school's opening were made.

1. All 6th grade students will report to the elementary school servingthe attendance district in which they reside and remain there untilcompletion of work on classrooms at the former Junior High School at11 Engle Street.

2. Approximately 140 children in grades one through five at LincolnSchool will be assigned to classes at Cleveland, Roosevelt, and QueriesSchools according to new attendance districts drawn by the Superinten-dent according to criteria set forth by the Board of Education in theJuly 29th plan approved by the State Education Commissioner. 3y thesenew districts Lincoln pupils will be assigned as nearly as possible tothe school nearest their homes. Parents of children to be transferredat the opening of school next week will be notified by mail within thenext few days. The selection of pupils to be transferred will be basedon the order in which forms sant out recently were returned to theSuperintendent's office. Assignments will be made on a first come firstserve basis. Maximum class loads of 25 in the primary grades and 23 inthe intermediate grades will determine the number to be transferred toeach school.

3. Bids on materials to be used in the renovation of classrooms and officesat 11 Engle Street are being advertised immediately and are returnableon September 9, 1963. Compistion of the work at the former Junior HighSchool will depend on delivery dates of materials and the chance ofunforeseen dslays. No firm target date can be given at this time althoughit is hoped that complation date will be no later than early Novemberand aarliar if at all possible.

4. Of 325 notices sent to parents of Lincoln School pupils, only 21 havebeen returned indicating ths dasira to have children remain at LincolnSchool. 242 returns show desira to accept assignment to Cleveland,Quarlas and Roosevelt Schools of a total of 253 raturns as of August 21,1963. From tha small number of children wishing to remain it appearsunlikely that it will be possible to operata classes in grades 1-5 atLincoln School once the citywids 5th grade is in operation.

In another action the Board voted to have the schools conform to the recentSupreme Court decision declaring Biola reading and reciting of the Lord'sPrayer.

HRS:LB3/28/63

T

TTtr *"*-*-*•*•*••*•*-*••*•*•*-*•

Letters to theIff************ S/2Z/G3^

f~ - &Doe ,s n't A c en .s e: I R e

itor

A Qnesli(yt.To Allen

On School PlanI To the Ed i to r :

I have one ques t ion lo ask my|fellow citizens who arc resistingthe Board of Education's plan fori n t e g r a t i n g Englewood's p u b l i c ele-m e n t a r y schools: where is that ge-nerosity of sp i r i t which his tor iansr i g h t l y associate wi th the Juda ic -C h r i s t i a n e t h i c and the Americandemocratic-humanistic t r ad i t ion?

It is an i n e l u c t a b l e fac t tha t forthree centur ies our Negro brothersand sisters have been denied thee q u a l i t y asserted for a l l men in

To the Edi tor :Danie l \V. Al len . in last week's

Press-Journal, argues tha t no actionshould be t a k e n to end or reduceracial i m b a l a n c e in the Englewoode l e m e n t a r y schools u n t i l the Su-preme Court expl ic i t ly declares dcfacto segregation to be uncons t i tu -tional. How about t u r n i n g your a r - jgumcnt a r o u n d . .Mr. A l l e n ? W h y !not adopt the Board of Education 's!p l an u n t i l ( a n d i f ) t h e Supreme!Court declares t h a t a t tempts t o jend or reduce dc facto segregation i

i i c f i n s t i t u i i o n a ! ? !f the re is I| the Dec la ra t ion of Independence.i aWe in Englewood in 1963 have: a poss ib i l i ty of being uncons t i tu -been given nol merely the duty but] t i o n a l c i t h e r way. i t svoukl seemthe historic privilege to r igh t t ha t to me lo he bet ter to do whatwrong. t h e Knglewood S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f j

Obviously equal oppor tun i ty in | School:, the Englewood Board o f :the pursuit of happiness must be j Educa t ion , the New Jersey Com-rcalized in the six areas compris ing

as

missio.ncr of Education and thepoli t ical par t ic ipa t ion , employment. Governor of New Jersey believe to jhousing, public aceomodation. edu - lbe in the best interests of the edu-catiO"..-iniiu cv»?ryac»j H . . M K . rxjuca-] c«tion p*i »u 01 tnc cyiuurcn oillion happens to be one area where j Englewood.progress toward equal opportunityis realizable nor/-. Our Negro citi-zens th ink so: our school a u t h o r - ii t ies and their expert advisers! t o cvcry at temP t to 5olvc this Prob't h i n k so. Our ch i ldren wouldth i ik so il we would lake t h e it roub le to t e l l them what is ?ts t ake—and wou ld g lad ly w a l k afew ext ra blocks, if need be. to-ward 3 b r i g h t e r world . Strong legal Iand c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a rguments canie advanced against the Englewood jschool i n t e g r a t i o n pla-n—just a s :

such objections have been marie ]against the a b o l i t i o n of slavery, jdebt peonage, chi ld labor, sweat- jshops, and the d i s e n f r a n c h i s e m c n t 'of women. But how much w e i g h t 'lave Ihcse legal i sms in the scales j

j of history? I do not accuse: I o n l yi ask.

Sincerely,

For quite a while now. Mr. Allenhas been saying "It can't be done"

1cm. If he keeps on saying "No,"he is in danger of becoming known

the "Abominable No-Man."Sincerely,

H A U V E Y SHERMAN399 Murray a v e n u eEnglcwood. N. J.

JOHN M. PICKERING320 M u r r a y .Tvcnue

a:nui colorpnpij.s to

ini-

Stale Education DepartmentRejects The Appeal By SONS

U.VIO.V—The New Jersey S l a t e j I n l e g r a i i o n , c laiming t h a i the a s • ;. D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n on Fri. i s i g n m e n l of pupi l s on Ihc basis of:day t u r n e d down Hie appeals u f j r a c o or color is u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a lthe Englewood C 'ommi t lee lo Save [ a n d a d e n i a l of r igh t : ; lo ol.'icrs.

, 'Our Neighborhood Schools w h i c h ! The I l icory is l l , : , l i f a local' a r g u e d Ih" l e g a l Iheory of revoke ' school bnard '

_ _ i as a c r i t e r i aracial

i ba lance , il v io la lcs s l a lc ;;nd federalco>'.si j t u l i o n s .

This Iheo ry was a rgued i l l d e p t h 'a! l- 'rid.iy's l ie . i r ing bcl 'oie Ihc New

,'Jersey Hoard i.f K d i i c a l i o n w h i c h|ilisfOiinl(il i l w h e n i l u p h e l d ibc .: v a M i i i l y of Lie Kn-Jowood school i. pla1: In end racia l i m b a l a n c e in. t h e p r i ' d o i u i n a n l l y \i>..;ro Lincoln ]Klemcnlary School I h i s year.

Opponent* In Ihc Knglcwnod i>|;m '.argue Ilia I. Ihc slalc am! federal;| laws prohib i t !>asi;:nnienl of pupils;;r by race, color or creed: yft Ihc

Kit;, 'lewuml s o l u t i o n h > r ' « < - i ; > l in i . ;b.llant-u '-• l...s-rd on infcMj' ' ' ! '^) ,,;• '

•:-/|,i>p;!.- j ,Differ

The stê. board. rCnglcwoml jschools officials, and lawyers forthe integration movement, express-ed d i f f e r e n t opinions. They statelh.i t ccg'-c;',.itio,i of N'egi-'.; pupi l shas been deci.-red in i ' -o i i s l i l i iUon-,il, and II .e only vay to correctracial i m h a l a i -e is to assign pupilslo cia.-scs by race ar.d cclor. 7fIhi.s M e r e mil done, they contend,there would be ho solution.

Sid»<:y Dincin. attorney for theKa.'flewood sch.ool boa'-ri. surmncdup the hoard's position, rlcel.iring!it was caught in Ihc middle o f !llv control c.-:>. He said lo t h e !sDdo board:

: "L..u:uir Sciiool has been a fos- j: tering poini in Ilie com '> iun i ly [' since- Ifl.'M. "Now Ilia!, we ,irr doing ['Something -ihoi I il we a-c g r . - l t i M g .

hel1 U'uni all side.-..''James A. .Major, l l ackensa tk .it-;1

lorney repre.'fenting Ihc Save Our iNeighborhood Schools (SON'S) or-'

'sanitation which is opposing the jKiu,'le\vcod p lan , o u t l i n e d b is a r g u - j

> n ie . - i l s oj rcseivc i n l c g r a l i e n .Major Moves

l i e ru led Hi, ' I t h e K ; i g l e H o o i lp I ' M i c a l l s I n i ( ! t i ' ; 'c n i . ; i n r moves: :

A c i l y - u i d e . - i x i i i -jivm* schoo l 'lo e l h ' i i n a l e ' i ' r r a c i a l nnba lanc . ' •i . , I h c L i n c o l n Scnool.

Tiic Pansier 01 aboi:! :J20 p n p i Uof t i n I l l ' s ! l h r . M i ; : h l i f l h grades .'i . l i l l" L i n c . i l n Se::oii| In Ihc Q u a r - ;!es. Nosc ievc l l and ( . ' I t . - ' c . l ; ; ; i r ! school.-

( C o n l i n u e d Oo Page 16}

Court RejectsTaxpayer SuitTo Stop Board

NEWARK_TWO j,lds{,s s i l , i l | n !m Appellate Divis ion ofJersey Stale Superior Courtweek refused to gram an in juncHon to 455 Englcwnod taxpayersseeking to prevent the Board ofEducation from p u l l i n g mlooparation its proposals- lo dosegrcgate Lincoln School.

The two judges went f u r t h e r indeclaring that Slate and local of-ficials should take immedia te af-firmadvc action lo el iminate raciali-'ii.fl^nee. This is the Cirsf Hmca higher court has spoken 0111 onthis question involving the con-s t i t u t i ona l i t y n[ the action.

The judges said the 450 whiteEnglcwood taxpayers who hadfiled suit for the i n j u n c t i o n hadnot proven t h e y would suffer ir-reparable ha rm from Ihe expendi-ture of S12.1.00D to put lhc schoolboard's p lan in lo c f fcc l . Theirsuit asked the court to enjoin theboard from spending the ? 123.000.

James A. -Murphy, a t torney forthe taxpayers' group, had allackcdthe Englcwood school plan as unconsljtulionil. He sn id i t wouldplace s tudcnis i - i schools accord-ing to t he i r race and lhal would |violate ihe pup i l s ' cons l i ln t iona lrights.

And . lie added, i l lhc p lan weredecided to he unconstitutional inthe fu lu r c . Englewood would havespent "!ol o[ mono' needlessly."

Judges Leon Leonard and .Mor-ris Pashman con I erred for about20 minutes before r u l i n g againstthe in junc t ion . The t h i r d judgeon the panel, Donald G. Collcslcr.d i squa l i f i ed h i m s e l f because hehad heard arguments in Ihe ca-ewhile si t t ing in the superior Courtchancery division.

Rush PUniSchool o f l i c i a l s said lhc board

would press lo h a v e i t s p l a n ineffect by the midd l e of Oclobcr.

John It. Perry, board of educa-tion president, said i h e boardwould meet immedia te ly li> ad-vertise for bids for the refurbish-ing of the Englc st. school. Thaischool, now unused, is to beopened as a city-wide, sixlh gradeschool.

The board had hoped to h a \ e !

its plan in e f fec t by the Sept . 4school opening, but il ha> beenstalled by a series of court bailies.!

Mr. Perry said tha i because oflhc l i t igat ion, only a l im i t ed i ium- .her of Negro students at Lincolnelementary school could t r a n s f e r 'lo other schools on Sept . 4. L in -coln . school, w i t h a flK percentNegro enro l lment , was lhc centerMI' the two year controvei^ i ivcrracia l imbalance .

Must get b idsOr. .Mark K. Shcdd.

i ' -ndcnl of Knglewood>.nd bids probably w i n• 'hnrt iy a f t e r Labor P: '> . and ••»•''*.'.•.luld slart m'.im-dialch

School l iuard A l l n r n r v Sn ln . >Omcin to ld the judge* t l l a l theaioncy at issue would be uscii l . i.••.-condilion IK rooms in the K i r j i c.••'reel school atr i repai r • several '••Kims in C l e v e l a n d e lcmcr , ' - ^-chool. On

Mr. Dim-in was aided 11- ^• • - i l u i n in lhc taxpayer.'} fj

M I - I . A l l y . C.IMI. .loscpl' / *••-- . : . v.bo represented.

• nn i ' nn ; . n i s s i one r;J.nubuii;c- â'.tbm?

State DC pi. Dismisses Suit s(Cont inued From Page 1) have equal oppor tun i t i e s for educa-

which now have predominanl lv lon'white enrollments. Ho ar§ucd t h a ' i f lhc courts up'

Aai- the prwoginvt srantid to hpkl lhc thcory of rcvcrsc inle~ ra-the parents of ch i ldren ."„ lhc L,n- t i 0 n ' t h c n ?chools thro^hout the

coin School to choo,, w h e t h e r their n;"lon would bc .'" 3 d l l e m m a a n d :c h i l d r e n ho t ransfer red to t hewhi te schools.

Major asked "Why d i d n ' t t heboard allow the whi le parents of

w o u l d remain s t a t u s ;

the Qtiarlcs. Roosevelt rr.d Cleve-land schools the choice of wha tschools they wanted thei r ch i ldrento i t tomi? ' '

Robert Car ter of Xew York, gen-eral counsel for the Na t iona l As-sociat ion for the Advancemen t ofColored People, also at tacked thereverse integration theory.

lie sa id in Englcwpod's case thehoard "may have been inep t" ina l l o w i n g \ f>"rn n n r e n K tn r-hnospHe contended t h a t the f a i l u r e

the E:i.qlewood board to grant the j f tj-,,.:,- c h i l d r e n r e m a i n in L inco lnw h i t e pan.-nls t h i s choice was

for"preferential t r ea tment 'Negroes and d i s c r i m i n a t e d r r ja in>tthe whites .

Major said that as loi i i j as .-.chool

School nr be t ransfe r red . But he!nc a;:dcd. the local hoard was giving

t h e Xeyro an o p p o r t u n i t y to waivehis c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s .

The c lo s ing a r g u m e n t asainst

lhc ci ty hav ing a predominant lyNegro popu la t ion .

H o f f m a n said that Raubinger as

boards transfer p u p i l s f rom one the t h e o r y was offered by Josephschool to another "they arc s h i f t - A. H o f f m a n , deputy at torney gen-ing sands in a t tempt ing to correct cral representing N. J. Commis-racial imbalance. ' 1 , s inner of Educa t ion Frederick M.

Major ;.-rgued the Knglewood R a u h i n g e r .plan "inconveniences one group in Ordered Endorder that someone else may p r o f i t . '• R a u b i n g e r had ordered the endand the r i g h t s of the w h i t e s in t h i s , , f "dc facto segregation" in t heorder are t a k e n away w i l l y n i l i y . " |j, lcoln E l e m e n t a r y School, n o t i n gJlc concluded t h a i t he p l a n was the segregation was not i n t e n t i o n a lgiving powers lo a m i n o r i t y and but an out .growlh of one area oftherefore i l l ega l .

\Villiafn~KuH5ller, \cw York at-torney represent ing the Xegro p a r - ien's who had sough t lhc o r ig ina l commissioner hus "the duty to pro-r l e sen ra l i on order , .said Ihe Englc- : v ' idc Negroes t h r o u g h o u t the statewood p l an was a remedy to a " long-1 wi th equal o p p o r t u n i t y for cdtica-.standing problem." I t i o n . He is ab id ing by the laws of

K u n s t l e r - s a i d : our land.""Just because there is a s h i f t H o f f m a n said it was impossible

of whi le p u p i l s lo eliminate Negro t-° e l imina te segregation wi thout.segregation, it is not p re fe ren t i a l ' d e t e rmin ing how many whi t e s ort rea tment for the Negroes. School ! Negroes were in a given school,boards m u s t reassign pupi l s to cor- ' "The commissioner must be colorreel s e g r c g a t i n n . Whi le pupi l s must ; conscious to work out clcsegrcga-bc t r a n s f e r r e d to meet t h e t ide : t ion p lans , and a l t h o u g h whites areof inlegr. ' .-tion and a l thoi iL 'h they s h i f t e d lo a central sixth-gradearc t r an>fe r r ed it is not n con- i school ;is in this case, they ares l i t u l i ona l . issue because they .still i not being discriminated against."

£*•

i

.*O "

•" X "

State Dept. And Courts TellBoard To/Go Ahead With Plan;

8/^/6^ Z_ f ' a •Parents/Receive Instructions

f '£ a="sl |h j; " y o c x

•C W ' >, ' _J:o -c ^ J —

tj•a

•l!fl

• •= • e> ^ c A

, o

tn

0 111c c —? .= o ~

« n — .£ £. -5 5 § o * •

- ... - ^ ^ o

" ^ 3 —' 7* •'. t£ c; « « — ii ^ ^ "~ ^

! § M •.•? £

- '-f — 5 '•? o = .Sr cj o c ^- j: i: -S. •= a .•= = p - o 3 —

II1!c. — o _- i.

2 iii ^- ^ T ~ 5 — ' S" — —= ^ <c -^

= •= 5 es"•= » S " :

9. o r- -

•S £ ? -S £

c fc - _ e3 c h o

1 ~ c, 1 i'c /- — >•— S - .. -c

;?iil= f; — <Jo c j= c. o= = L» c ^

u. c•o -7f r!

X o •/ — g s; = •=; - §S " " •- -?1 -5s s >• 5 ? ="« O — •-; ?

™ £

J= 5 E .9

0 Ct 0 0 '>, i» « ^ "

9 S ™ .1 c g•| f E - S 5 •

' S 1 " '£ 5 o =? > " J = - 5 ° v - ' -

N Nil i! i:- P ' ^ f= = = n o C E e n t c . - i./,' tJ - 3 o ^3— ' i "' p ^

!{1 |1;

-^ ô ,-

o c c-i - c_ -t:

— ~& \r. -^ £. 2

ll i* ii.= cc ^ .e.- -=• ^« ^' " £ P fe

c = 'g § '> ^ 'E.

u £ T: -r c. i =

~ -•=' = i S • = __ :: o ^ o "u °•= § '5 S S £ ''S o

S Z J: o v "

fllîlj

"I -' 'S ^ -2 - ° 'A

§ l i != 8 ?o e S =Id o cT w J; ~rf i 5 -S3 t> x

~ J5

w".£'

1II15!o ^S i: c. o </) :

ENCLEWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLSOffice of tha Superintendent

. " i *.« . i.r~August 29, 1963

To: Iflr. WcCloud

From: Dr. N. SheddSubjactt Assignment of a number of Lincoln School Students in grades 1-5 to

Cleveland, Queries and Roosevelt Schools

Please proceed immediately to determine assignments and notifyparents of a number of Lincoln School Students of grades 1-5 toCleveland, Queries and Roosevelt as follows}

1. Assign children respectively to C. ,Q., and R. according togeographical districts as established by tha Superintendent inconformancs with criteria set by Board of Education, July29,1963

2, Assign numbers of children from Lincoln School to the propergrade and school as specified below:

Cleveland

1

16

2

22

3

11

4

21

5

13

Totals

33

Quarlas 7 0 12 14 33

Roosevelt 11 12

Totals 23 33 13 35 39 143

3. Select children for assignment to Cleveland, Quarles andRoosevelt according to the order in which Form # 1 "For ChildrenDesiring Assignment to Other Elementary Schools" (8/2/63)was received by the Superintendent's office - children earliestdates of receipt of Form #1 to be assigned first, ate.

c.c. Mr. Garrityfir. TroutMr. TrepicchioMr. HenriksenITtr. Campbell

MRStmw

ENGLEWOOD'PUBLIC SCHOOLSOffice of the Superintendent

August 30, 1963

School as of

Dear

You are hereby notified that your child(ren)

is/are assigned to thethe opening of school on September 4, 1963. All records are being forwardedto the new school and the principal will make the assignment to a class ofthe proper grade upon arrival.

Recently the Board of Education decided that it would be wise to transferas many Lincoln School children as possible to their new school assignmentsat the opening of school. Unfortunately it is not possible to make all theanticipated transfers of Lincoln School pupils at this time. This is due toa number of unavoidable delays in preparing the city-wide sixth grade schoolat 11 tngle Street. liJork there is proceeding now as rapidly as possible andwe hope that further delay can be avoided.

We regret that transportation cannot be orovided to those children who livesome distance from school. As you may know tha request for funds was denied.However, Director Lawless and Sergeant Harrington of the Police Departmenthave assured us that all precautions will be taken to give maximum protectionto children at busy intersections on pupil walking routes to their respectiveschools.

Everything possible will be done to help your child(ren) make a quick adjust-ment to the new school and class. Ule invite you to visit school and meet yourchild(ren)'s teacher soon after the first week or two of school.

Sincerely yours,

|V)RS:L9R. Shedd

Superintendent of Schools

Date post:	30-Jul-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	englewood-public-library
View:	62 times
Download:	0 times

1963 Newspaper Clippings School Desegregation Part 4

Documents