OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

From the desk of JOSEPH ,W. Special Assistant to thfyGover,t(Qr

To

Date

.?/3/63

GOVERNOR

I/

vv
\

"d\T

Vincente Tibbs called re promotion of Englewood kids who staged the sit-in. He says they

attended school on Saturdays in New York during the sit-in and throughout the summer in Englewood. As

he told you, the parents are willing for the kids to take a test to see if they should be promoted. I told Tibbs you would talk to Raubinger today (Wednesday) and I will be back in touch with him.

(Tibbs # - LO 9-1225

9/4

Governor Dr. Clayton called to report on the Englewood situation in Dr. Raubinger's absence (he is attending a meeting). Have about 100 people at the Cleveland School this morning. About 30 each at the Quarles and Roosevelt Schools. There is a meeting scheduledat noon today with the leaders of the colored community. If this situation continues and they cannot get them to withdraw these people from the school, they are going to serve complaints on them for disturbing the peace. Otherwise, they are afraid that there might be a retaliatory gesture on the part of the white community. Dr. Clayton will be in his office should you care to call him to get further details.

Ann

September 4. 1963

Mr* Byroa H.
ffheftnJBintj'

Bergen County Chapter Congresa of Racial Equality 135 Belnont Street Englewood, Sew Jersey
Dear Mr. Baerj Thank you fox your letter of August 1 ia which yon were kind enough to furnish me with your analysis of the plan voted by the tingle* wood Board of Education. X wee particularly gratified to note that you share oy opinion that the parties ia Englewood are proceeding in good faith. X believe that you will agree that it la good faith and nutual respect that must be the keystone in the creation of any solution to those most difficult problems. Xa your tetter you have strongly recommended that .the Com* ndssioner of Education retain Jurisdiction. X find that in hie letter to the Englewood Board of Education written oa August 1, the Coooissioner did precisely that. X am. enclosing a copy of hie letter for your infortaation and call your particular attention to the last sentence of the letter; X believe that we all recognize that in thia highly mobile society which ia characteristic of present day living in the United States, any community may change, neither the population or the bousing patterns remain static. X aa confident that as changes occur the Board of Englewood Education will meet Its responsibilities to continue to provide the equal educational opportunity to all of the

children. I believe that the good faith and determination of the Board to neat tha pfeaent problem to which yon referred In your letter la the beat assurance that tha naada of tha town will be net. X want to aaepraaa op appreciation fox your taking tha tlna to write and fair taking tha tliaa to come to Trenton to neat with ny Special Assistant, Joseph Kate*
Slnceaely yours,

GUVKKflUK

LBraaw

Ui'ficc of the Superintendent

PRESS RELEASE September 4, 1953 The Board of Education has made every conceivable effort to proceed as rapidly as possible to implement its plans of July '23, 1963 and approved by Commissioner Raubinger. The Board of Education has been meticu-

lous in holding to the letter of the law lest it be further delayed on a legal technicality from proceeding with its announced plans. The Board has

consistently held that programs must be instituted in such a way that the best interests of all children are held paramount. The Board's position is clear - it is committed to eliminate de facto segregation in the elementary schools and we shall accomplish this as quickly as possible but - we do not intend to throw sound judgment to the winds by overcrowding classrooms, by sending children to a partly-ready building, or by proceeding in such a way as to have our plans blocked over a legal technicality. The actions of the present group of demonstrators are only serving to delay further the full integration of our elementary schools - every minute consumed by principals, teachers, the Superintendent arid his staff in dealing with such demonstrations as this can only delay the earliest implementation of the Board's plan.

!Y]RS:LB

ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of the Superintendent September 4,1963 SIT-INS

Pupils in Classrooms

Parents in Buildings

PIYI

Cleveland Queries Roosevelt

42 None 10

42 16

25 13 10 13 5 (plus 9 children)

77"

11
,^ v ^ - C . - - ^ g f, I,

u..<.<vr

4"i*ifGL*/ ~~

* /
*,'

~^A
.r ? ^ r f f

^^^LJL.

7.s ^* >^ 3

Vol. 69 No. 77

76 PAGES Four Sections

1M

J^FS&SXSSff

v. j.

WEDNESDAY, ' SE

MORNING MARCH: The first of more than 200 Lincoln j register at other schools, was to protest delay in implementing the School pupils and parents begin their march to three of Engle-j Board of Education's integration plan, scheduled to go into cfiect | wood's mostly white schools. The march including attempts to ; in several weeks. (The Record photograph.)

Englewood Marchers Sit In Three Schools

SIT-INS

Kdo. Roosevelt Cleveland Quarlas A.m. 1

4 1

1.

2 3

3
2 9 2

4.

5 0 7

6,

1 7 3

2 4 0

2 7

(11) (43)

5
4

(D I

9/5/63

ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of the Superintendent September 5,1963 SIT-INS Pupils in Classrooms
PIY1

Parents in Buildings

Cleveland Quarles Roosevelt

43 11

43 11 10

11

[YlRS:miu

^i

ENGLEWOOD The Englcwood Movement, CORE, and NAACr, refusing to wait until the Board of Education has completed its plans (or desegregating Lincoln School, conducted t h r e e s i m u l t a n e o u s marches on Cleveland, Quarlcs, and Roosevelt Schools yesterday. All was orderly. And despite the appeals made by Dr. JVfark R. Shedd, s u p e r i n t e n d ent, to the effect that the demon* strators are hurting themselves and the children by what he characterized "delaying tactics," it appeared that the demonstrations would continue today. Councilman Vinecnle K. Tihbs o( the Fourth Ward, leading the movement, said the children would not return to Lincoln School until it is desegregated. He said the DR. MARK R. SHEDD board should establish the central sixth grade at Lincoln School until number of parents also sat in the the old Engle Street Junior High schools, especially at Cleveland. The Board of Education is conSchool is renovated. sidering action to prevent f u r t h e r Bojrd Refuses Permission The principals of the three- sit-in, w h i c h is trespass, and which schools placed the 140 children Or. Shcdd stales, i n t e r f p r s with the who had been legally assigned to normal school program. their respective schools but refused Dr. Shedd reiterated t h a t the to permit the others to enter class- Engle Street School cannot be rooms. ready before the end of October; Some, however, slipped into t h a t no more than 140 transfers can classrooms unauthorized. And a I be accommodated now; that Ihtru

3 INegro rch 1 On 3 Grammar Schools

is no room elsowheic lor Lincoln kindcrgartners; and that last year's boycott c h i l d r e n cannot be promoted u n t i l they q u a l i f y in tests. The hoard announced t h a t 22G c h i l d r e n a t t e n d e d classes at Lincoln School, not p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the boycott. About BO p u p i l s , w i t h a number of adults, marched to Cleveland Schools yesterday, walked into the .building, some of t h e m s l i p p i n g into classrooms . unauthorized. When the board refused to enroll them, they conducted a sit-in. About 25 marched to Quarlcs School b e h i n d Mr. Tihbs. and when they were denied enrollment they proceeded to the board offices at 11 Englc street where they sat in. There were s i m i l a r proceedings at Roosevelt School. Everything was orderly. Demonstrators said they would c o n t i n u e this routine daily in protest against w h a t they characterize as "deliberate delay in implementing the desegregation plan." C o u n c i l m a n Tibbs .said Negro ministers Sunday urged parents who want to see Lincoln School closed down if it is not to be integrated to meet at First Baptist Church at 8 a.m. Wednesday (yesterday. From there they were to proceed according to plans to the three schoolsCleveland, Quarlcs | or Roosevelt. lie said the Negro leaders and mo.sl of t h e parents arc agreed that Lincoln should be closed and that they are not satisfied with only 140 being transferred, 140 being the number the Board of E d u c a t i o n has authorized at this time prior to establishment of the central sixth grade at EnRlc street. "Most parents arc determined that they will not attend Lincoln Schools as a p r e d o m i n a n t l y Negro school." he said. The Board of Education had planned on transferring as many as possible to the other three schools as soon as their sixth grades move out and into the Engle street b u i l d i n g which is bc.ing The Board had e a r l i e r announced that it is moving as rapidly as possible to implement its plan but that the b u i l d i n g renovations must first be completed.

3 Groups Protest But (he NAACP, CORK, and t h e i Englcwood Movement jointly label- 1 led the city's approach as "timid and tardy," and said the Negro community is disgusted with the needless j waste of months in preparing for desegregation. In a joint statement they said the plan could have been ready for opening day. The integration leaders said they were "fed up" with what they called ways of separating them and their children because of the indifference of school authorities who prefer to go slow and make excuses. They also contended State school authorities in Trenton arc content to forget they ordered the plan to be in operation at the opening of school. "We feel," the integration leaders said, "that the a u t h o r i t i e s have abandoned us to drift in an ocean of delay. But our consciences cannot allow us to let our children be hurt any more." Calling excuses for delay no good, the three organizations contended school a u t h o r i t i e s delayed p l a n n i n g and preparation for 2 weeks on the pretense of some sort of legal restraint; d'.layed call i n g for bids an entire month, including 10 days after the money was voted-evcn though the Board's right to reject all bids would have! protected them if the plan were stopped. School authorities, the integration leaders charged, rejected all offers In ( I n n a t e essential materials, labor, and services; refused requests to delay the o p e n i n g of I school 2 weeks so that the plan j I would be ready; refused a request to set up the sixth-grade school temporarily in Lincoln School, which would have enabled each 'ishild to have the same teachers and classmates from the beginnittg; restrained the b u i l d i n g demc | parrmcnt from performing some ! v essential tasks they could havie l done before the bidding.

PRESS RELEASE: September EL, 1963

The disruptive

activities of several demonstrators in our schools

have reached the point where the learning activities of children and teachers in the school are being seriously upset. to avoid taking legal action. We have made every effort

We regret that we have no recourse but to This we

make formal complaints and to have them removed from the school.

find absolutely necessary in order to ensure the normal and proper operations of the schools. We have done and are continuing to do everything in our power to speed the full implementation of the Board's plan as approved by the Commissioner. Reports that school officials have purposely delayed and obstructed the implementation of the plans are completely false and utterly ridiculous. It

was impossible to proceed without proper approval of building renovation plans. Likewise, it was not possible to expend monies in the face of pending injunctions to purchase materials without submitting them to bid under school
law.

Without the full cooperation of the officials of the State Department and the conscientious efforts of the numbers of our own staff preparations would not be as far along as they are now. As ! stated yesterday these

demonstrations and obstructionist tactics can only serve to delay our preparations. The leaders of this present action have been carefully informed of this and in spite of this choose to employ these disruptive tactics. Such actions

are irresponsible and constitute an obvious demonstration of bad faith.

|Y1RS:LB

THE

CITY OF
, N. J.
OFFICE OF

AUSTIN N.VOLK MAYOR

via Special Delivery Honorable Richard J. Hughes Governor, State of New Jersey State House Trenton 25, New Jersey Dear Governor Hughes:

September 5, 1963

This morning, at the request of the Board of Education, we w e r e forced to a r r e s t six sit-ins who w e r e disturbing the early administration of one of our schools. In order that you may be fully informed of this situation, I am enclosing a copy of the statement issued by our Superintendent of Schools, which I believe aptly describes the condition that existed today. I will continue to keep you informed on this situation, as you wish. Kindest r e g a r d s .

Austin N . Volk Mayor ANV/te enclosure

V?

From the desk of

JOSEPH W. KATZ Special Assistant to the Governor

To

Date

9/10/63.

GOVERNOR

Tibbs has been doing what I believe is a really good job on our behalf in/Englewood. Although it was not reported in the papers, Zuber was actually at a meeting in the town urging a march. Tibbs claims to have headed him off. Assuming that the Englewood school board took the predicted action last night, Tibbs thinks we can eliminate any ait=ins between now and November 1 if we do the following: 1. Delay and eventually . quash court action against parents dating from last Spring in regard to keeping their kids out of school. 2. Quietly quash the charges resulting from Nine children who took Tibbs ituation, I am :endent of Schools, i today. ition, as you wish.

mber 5, 1963

ication, we
ie early adminis-

six arrests last week. 3.

tutoring last year already have been tested.

wants us to see that those who passed the test be immediately promoted. These requests seem reasonable. handle the first two and Raubinger #3. I am to talk to Tibbs today. in N . Volk or Sills can

/
C !{' Jvt-i^

Since the State Department of Education, the Governor himself, and the Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court have combined in compelling Englewood to put this desegregation plan into effect immediately and since it is being put into effect as speedily as is possible, the Englewood Movement, CORE, and N A A C P should join in improving the public relations involved rather than rubbing feelings raw. The public school system is undergoing a violent wrench which isn't helping the youngsters. The Board of Education is setting up a separate compulsory central school in the abandoned Engle Street Junior High School for all sixth graders, taking them out of their natural setting and position of advantage and giving them a makeshift arrangement. On top of that the Board is dispersing the children in the first five grades at Lincoln School into Cleveland, Quarlcs and Roosevelt Schools, upset-j ting the routines of all. We have been critical of these makeshift arrangements, of course, pointing out that were it not for the racial issues, the pressures, and the "economic blackmail" being exercised by the state, the educators would throw up their hands in holy horror at what they would cprtainly ra\\a mess." However, it's here and it's apparent-' ly going into effect. There are some other phases, too, that do seem to make sense; like programs to reduce underachievement going right in among parents of underachieved children to raise horizons to the point at which children on entering school will start off with more equal achievement levels. We say, therefore, that if CORE, NAACP, Englewood Movement would direct their energies now towards improving public or human relations; if they would get behind, the effort to cure underachievemen.t; yes, and if the Englewood Urban League which regards itself as a great educational influence would get in there and persuade all elements to join this effort, the situation would improve. Most importantly, however, they would be helping the children, which should be their primary concern. Demonstrations at this point will only cause hardening of hearts and damage to the schools, to the community, and the people. All citizens must live up to their re-j' sponsibilities; but they must recognize j', their responsibilities first. It just so! happens that most of the undcrachievemcnt, most of the delinquency occurs in the Fourth Ward and must be cured if the adults are to enjoy all the privileges they want and their children are to progress in these other schools. This is no indictment of the many fine, capable adults and children. It is merely placing emphasis on what organizations like CORE, NAACP, Englewood Movement, and Urban League ought to be doing right now.

Board Awards "1 Contracts For Grade 6 School

EXGLEWOODContracts total| ling $!2.500. were awarded on, j Tuesday morning by the Englc'wood board of.Education lor work on the renovation of the Englc Street School B u i l d i n g for Hie new Sixth Grade School, little more than 12 hours after receipt of the bids on Monday nJght. The board, sitting as a coin mittec-of-the-wholc s t u d i e d the bids received follou'i.ir; Monday night's session in order to expedite the building renovation program, and then maxJc the awards in order to step up the b u i l d i n g improvements considered neccsjsary for use of tlie school build! ing. | All wrrk is being done by the schools' m a i n t e n a n c e staff, includI ing painting and plastering, which I has been under way for some (inc. Major renovation work in some areas was delayed p e n d i n g the award of the bids on materials. Meanwhile it was reported Iliat the State Department of KducrrI (ion has given its f i n a l and f u l l : approval for the renovation of I the Enclc Street .school as part I of the Board's integration proI gram For Lincoln School pupils. The board also pointed out t h a t state law permits it to spend its own funds for transportation withj in the two mile l i m i t for which the state contributes partial costs. All board member* firmly declared Monday r.iylil that all pos-i sible speed is being employed in readying the Englc street BuildIn?, that the board is doing it \vith it*_'YvCl maintenance crew and expressions of bad f a i t h . Mr. Per-; ry said a target date cannot be f i n a l l y given but t h a i t h e board is a i m i n g for the end of October. Parents v.-ere invited to inspect the work in progress after Monday night's meeting.

DThe Englcwoocl teacher's individual talents and Board of Education's plan to es- abilities is wasteful in Ihe extablish a Sixth Grade School at treme." In the Sixth Grade School pupils 11 Engle Street will prevent waste, in the opinion of Dr. Mark R. will be placed in homerooms with Shedd. superintendent of schools. boys and girls of d i f f e r e n t abilities,! "The biggest waste in any school records of achievement, and cul-i tystem occurs when children do t u r a l and social backgrounds. A f t e r not learn all that it is possible for a period of getting to know each them to learn," said Dr. Shcdd. other and the aims and purposes of "Since boys and girls have d i f - the school, they will be tested and ferent talents, abilities, and j placed in groups of similar a b i l i t y desires, they learn and achieve ai in reading and arithmetic. different levels. To require them If Johnny is a reading whiz, he to move through school in lock- will be placed in a fast-moving step is >vsvt.p. I group. Thus he will not waste time "Similarly, failure to use a ; in tiring repetition. If he finds I arithmetic more d i f f i c u l t , he w i l l . i be with a group that moves more slowly. He will not be required to work ;.t a more advanced level until he ha.s mastered the f u n 6lli Grade School \s required at the l e v e l ] on which he. has been placed. Plan, Outlined At t'.ie same time, J o h n n y will (Continued From Page 1) i have the advantage of knowing ing lite t a l e n t s (if youngster" w i t h i and working with d i f f e r e n t boys a musical i n c l i n a t i o n . i and girls of varying abilities, talThe more f l e x i b l e scheduling ents, and interests, for he w i l l , w i l l p e r m i t a mure i u d i v i i l u a l i / e d work w i t h them in other classes. program for onc-ii e h i i t i also, in "The system prevents a waste of j Dr. Shedd's opinion. The b u i l d i n g a teacher's talents also," explained itself w i l l make it possible for a Dr. Shedd. "When we consider the child to have more laboratory ex great explosion in knowledge bepcriences in science. cause of automation and space exThe Board of E d u c a t i o n plans ploration, to suppose that any one also to establish there a library! | teacher can be a master in all sub-1 for children of this age group and I jects is foolish. She can, however, j to furnish health and o t h e r serv; be a specialist in one." t ices found in the other e l e m e n t a r y The fact that in the past K n - i schools. glcwood's cl"^ricntary schools have Dr. Shcdd feels also t h a t the , had only two or three sections of Sixth Grade school will eliminate I the sixth grade has prevented the | the problems of adjustment to the j flexible scheduling and use o f ' seventh grade where a child must teacher talents that is possible become accustomed to several I when there are 12 or 13 sections. teachers. At the same time, the The new school will make it poschild will have a homeroon ' siljlc for a teacher talented i n ! teacher to whom he can go tor science to teach that subject; one i help antl guidance, n* ho tiki when ', interested in music may spend a i he was a pupil in a self-contained . large part of her time in develop-! classroom. (Continued On Page !i)

ENGLDJOOD PUBLIC SCHGQLS Office of the Superintendent

PRESS RELEASE September 5, 1953

Principals of the three schools where demonstrations havs been going on this week report no unusual incidents this A.M. schools except Lincoln School are normal. There were 20 fsiuer sit-ins at the Cleveland, Quarles and Roosevelt Schools today than yesterday. school today is as follows: Cleveland Quarles Roosevelt _- 12 Number of unuutnorized children at each Attendance at all

Lincoln School enrollment Friday Wednesday

259 244

I indicated that there is to be a meeting of parents of children sitting-in tonight, we certainly hope that tney will heed the advice of Gov-

ernor Hughes, Commissioner Raubinger and local officials and call off the demonstrators which are a serious cluck tc the very things we all want to achieve for every school child. The present activities of sitting-in, demonstrating, disrupting the normal operations of the school can only serve to develop antagonisms among children, and between parents and teachers who must cooperate if the children themselves are to ba served. I say again that in view of the short time of 6 - 3 weeks when the full plan will be in operation the present disruptive activities are utterly senseless.

|Y)RS:LB

6 Negroes Arrested in Englewood School Protest Special to The New York Times New York Times (1857-Currenlfile); Scp 6, 1963; ProQucst Historical Newspapers The New York Times Pg-13

6 Negroes Arrested in Englewood School Protest

Women Disregard Reqatst to LeaveHughes Asks End to Demonstrations
Speclil to The New York Tlmu

ENGLEWOOD, N. J., Sept. 5 Six Negro women were arrested today for refusing to leave a predominantly white school where Negro pupils were continuing a sit-in demonstraHnn

Siiortly afterward in Trenton, Gov. Richard J. Hughes appealed to Englewood civil rights leaders to call off the demonstrations they had resumed with the opening of the school term yesterday. The Governor assured them that the Englewood school board's desegregation^ plan would be carried out fully as socn as possible. He said he would ask State Education Commissioner Frederick M. Raubinger to reassure Negro parents in an official statement. The arrests and the sit-in n. Cleveland School, as well as si'-in demonstrations at two oilier schools, all took place

United Presi International Telephoto

In contrast In 'yesterday Enjjlewood, N. J., police escort two women from tthe Cleve .vhen about 100 youngsters and land Elementary School, where they participated iiin protest 100 adults walked to the three predominantly white schools, the women tney were violating

S*SSt,SgtSU;*

cars driven by parents. i and asked whether they would No Effort to Bar Them leave r sllbmit to arrcst_... ,. . _. They elected arrest. At 12:30 Fifty-five entered Cleveland _., JiU , , School, while 18 went to P-M- ^. werte arcra'6ned b.e; Quarles School and 22 to Roose- for* Magistrate Sheldon M. volt School. No effective effort L.ebowitz and each was charged to bar them was made, and the n tw counts of being disrhildren went quietly into class- order'7, Perso"s ~ disturbing moms whei'e there were vacant peaceful assembly and trespassseats. '"? Meanwhile. 200 Nesro pupils A!1 "'ere released in their own reported for classes at the pre- recognizance for a hearing next dominantly Negro Lincoln Fnda y at 3 p- MSchool complying with school Tne "'omen, five of whom are board directives. mothers, are Mrs. Jeannette Under the board's desegrega- Cotright, 17 Lafayette Place; tion plan. 140 pupils were trans- Mrs. Ruby Hanna, 67 Elmore ferred to other schools at the Avenue: Mrs. Beatrice Slewopening of the school year. The art, 133 Orange Street; Mrs. remainder will be removed from Mamie Knight, 137 Reade Lincoln School when a former Street: Mrs. Josephine Jackjunior high school is renovated son, 266 Garden Street, and into a central sixth grade Mrs. Angtfla MrLinn, 433 school. The board has said that Mountaiiiview Road, it will be ready next monlh. The arrests wore the first in Most of the parents who tnnl< [ ne controversy since Feb. . Nepro pupils In tho Ihrre sit-in 1952, when 12 sit-in dcmonstraschools today cither went home tors at City Hall wcro arrested. nr lingered out side. At a conference with Gove:1At the Cleveland School, how- no,. Hughes in Trenton. Vinevcr. six of (he women spoke con tp K. Tibhs. a Negro menial IciiRth with Tlinrlief Henrik- her of the Englcwood Conn.-il .-MI. the principal, in a corridor. an(i a i fa( jp r jn t|10 ,icmon.-ti.sKvcnlually, he asked to be ex- tjon!:. 5a jd he would submit Hie .used and siiKKC.stcd they leave. Governor's request for an end When they declined, he notified t n demonstrations In the v.:'rDr. Mark R. Shedd, the school c,,ts. superintendent. Dr. Shcdd called Joseph A. Lawless, director of police, who arrived soon with seven patrolmen. The polirc director told
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Iaw n reful assemb

ENGLEUOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of th Superintendent September 6,1963 SIT-INS

Pupils in Classrooms

Parents in Buildings

Clavaland Quarlas Roosevelt

25 12

25

12

|YIRS:mui

*
2.

i^r -V-M

, 'A3

k
2 7^

2 ) 3

&

2v

v-X

X"
>\
I I

tv

>

*
x 'n r
V -,^

I
.. r

>

ft

. j

ir
"*.

}
v

,1,?

L_ ' ^j~^
r -yi / /-*->** >^v^'-'C

T57V7

7 7 - 7 ~^ -

~7 y'

'***'+-**'**/

*"
V

A
if

CSV?*

s*}-^!

o_. w

lJv S*^5^

m r*i
Si! S ^ ^

^114*151,^1^,' .-'wi-* ; [f:15^>a

15|^|^

llfelil? l-'sl^la'lil ^f3Jj:5|iJ-Sfl=| ^^^<l^^3i*l^^/fll^ll;a^li

fc

i3

\
X: ? '-*
*

t <

ti 1
si ' \^
7

Nj i;

N1

"X i, 13

J
:3

" I

^1 x: -Ji I
1

^
^ ^

n >>
<t\

^: ^1
Q ^

\\
^.

, 4
\/\)

1
^ V

) X

N ^ 4 >PC

"? 1
-i
\ ^^^^^^^^^^

LX ,! ^ ^ \ \ 1 >
1

. 3 tl;
d
i
' i

i :
I .>

J >,
)
T

\> -s . ^

^ ^ :

Ii

; ' ^

' * r
! !

VJ'X

VJ'

'

- 1 ; : . ! i N- ;^
i i
!

^A

i
!

i
!

'

__^^__^_!,-.

V.

^.
V

>

,x^*V "

A ./

_._

-**^*>SlPM,-

u.

'

.-.--.,

^"^"T^

Pr
^ ^2TP^

^.^T^-K *#yv

1^7

v*^t^<

y*

ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of the Superintendent September 9,1963

SIT - INS

Pupils in CLassrooms

Parents in Buildings

PIYI

PIYI

Cleveland

Quarles Roosevelt

!Y]RS;mw

1
I: V J

t*"

r I
]

!c : r

\
<V Cv

I
I I

r" T-.

1 1 * rI - ^r
*\- N4-,
^

ex

4=-

^ "^^f

r.

r
V' n (

r.

X I

'N

-TTV

8 L

"

>S

^ IP

'tmcoln Parents Halt Sit-ins For One Wee

H-fe ~ TT^k. Tl TTfc~l * * F.MGLEWOODThe schools had their first quiet, uninterrupted week of the new year as Lincoln School parents declared a moratorium in their demonstrations. Tile Board of Education, a d d i n g ' its appeals to appeals by Governor Hughes and Fourth Ward Councilman Vincentc K. Tibbs for continued moratorium, formally declared that when it opens its central sixth grade school at 11 Engle street it intends to abandon Lincoln School for classroom use for children of first five grades. These I will all be dispersed among Cleveland. Quarlcs, and Roosevelt Schools. The hoard will not be

JLlv

As ttoarcl Fusiies nan

able to provide free transporta- and tomorrow to determine wheth cr or not to resume demonstration.' tion. or wait for the board's plan to Supreme Courf Test The SONS suit to have the neigh- go into effect, which should be borhood school principle tested on or about Get. .11, along w i t h the constitutionality o f ' Testing ot the Lincoln School assigning pupils to class according I sixth grade boycott pupils wax to race is expected to come before completed yesterday, and nine o. the New Jersey State Supreme them were found qualified to enCourt before December, according ter seventh grade at the Junior to James A. Major, attorney for High School. Dr. Mark SherU SONS. Tha New Jersey State De- superintendent announces. TTr partment of Education and the said great care was used to deNew Jersey Appellat- Courts up- t e r m i n e t h a t they arc able to held the right of the hoard's plan. | carry on seventh grade work. The Meanwhile, Ihe three \cgroj s t a i n s of Ihoac p u p i l s has been groups sponsoring the boycott o f j a major is.su c rai.se tl by I he EnLincoln School are meeting t o n i g h t glewood Movement, CORK, and Tom urn tw t h e .six parents who were an'Chlcrl bsl Thursday for re fusing Hit; leave Cleveland School whore- learning routines were being disrupted by demonstrations come bo tore Judge Sheldon M. Liebowit/. The mo!tiers here freed in I h e i r own repiifjni'/jiiirt*, A plan to organi/r a ''March or Kngicwuml" s i m i l a r to the recent March on W a s h i n g t o n is under consideration as ;t recommendslion by Paul B. Zubrr. Councilman Tibbs nssrrlrd yesterday tliat as an elected nrrici.il lie cnnnot and will not participate in a march on Englcwood.
B o a r d Meets

Louis Pugach of SONS pointed out t h a t the Central Sixth Grade School will present greater safely hazards in crossing Palisade ave(Continued from page 1) recommendations by a school safe- nue and also Engle street t h a n Board President John Perry ty committee to change the ele- under the old system. chided a group of parents at the mentary school program so that Transportation meeting who had condemned the c h i l d r e n will be able to avoid The question of providing peak t r a f f i c flow periods o n delay in opening the school. "It transportation was raised again, is unfair," he stated, "to say streets near (lie schools. The Byron Bacr ;md others claiming the Board _has acted in had f a i t h recommendation called for a 15 that had the officials understood without knowing the facts. We [ m i n u t e delay in u p i ' m i i y f i u m that (he request for transportahave tried our best to do what 8:45 a.m. to 9 a.m. tion funds was not merely for is right, but that doesn't seem be W h i f e Person Asks Negro transfer students but for enough. We could have gone to Carl Picurro, of E\'crett place. all elementary children the 515,000 jail for flying in the face of pos-j Eng'lcwood requested the Board I might have been provided. It was sibie injunctions." (o enroll a nine-year-old girl pointed out that under state law I request by M u r r a Joscl.son, whoso family resides on Liberty the Board of Education is permittiember of the Save Our Noich-l road, hut who is in care of his ted to spend its own funds for frorhood Schools Committee, that! wife throughout !he day, from transportation w i t h i n I he two and the Board demand order and dis-j Liberty School In Cleveland Iwo-ancl-a-half mile limits. ciplinc in classrooms was greeted I School, sn thai she can go t o ' with heavy applause from UK-! school w i t h his own children. Mr audience of about 75 persons, lie Perry loltl him that the Board urged the Board to use all pros- would consider the proposal to sec that the children the child is with his family fro allowed to attend their proper early morning until late at night.

Lincoln Parenls ^/[without disturbance. in5truction /rlafcs f d ?vc Ill Mnmfnrh/7H To Start Later In Moratorium The Board announced study of

The Board nf Education m^t Monday im;hi, w i t h jibmit TOG persons present. It adopted the an u elft.ss room school; a warder! contracts I'm* materials to push renovation ol Die old tingle Slrccl Junior J fifth School; rcUcfltcd th.it there is no frer transportation for children under two miJn.s distant. No priority \* beinc; given to c h i l d r e n who participated' in sitins in the Knglfiwnod schools in pupil assignmentsneither arc any penalties bring meted out because of (heir participation. Testing is go trip on now. The children who participated arc being required l.o meet the same standards for promotion as all other stmiuiK-S in the schco! system, and those transferred, from Lincoln School are being j transferred in exact order of the ; parent;tI request for tranfcr. Shedd. Gives R e a s o n s Dr. Mark Shcdd. superintendent, said that the Board's resolution to discontinue Lincoln School operations for Grades 1 to 6, is based on the impracticability from educational and administrat i v e viewpoints of operating such a school for (he lew parents who wanted one there. The parents of 245 pupils had requested transfer to Roosevelt. Quartos or Cleveland in line w i t h the Board's ! plan of integration. To date, he said, 126 children have been transferred, and o t h e r s will he reassigned with the opening of the new Sixth Grade School. Only 26 wa n t to re ma i u at Lincoln,

For AH
Surely Lincoln School parents who have been leading demonstrations and sit-ins at Cleveland, Quarles, and Roosevelt Schools must be aware of the excellent results of their moratorium on such tactics. Even those Negro children who have been legally transferred '(there are 125 such) must be breathing sighs of relief at the suspension of tension. Certainly the other children, the teachers, the principals, the school staffs, and the Board of Education feel as though a great burden has been lifted. And if you ask us, we would say these parents themselves are relieved. John H. Perry, president of the Board of Education, expressed it at Monday night's meeting when he told a delegation of parents that the Board of Education has been doing its utmost to make the desegregation plan operational as soon as possible, probably before Oct. 31, that it could not proceed sooner under the threat of court injunctions; and that it is high time that the parents demonstrated some good faith in the board. The rei'W nvpr the return to normal school procedures this week during the moratorium was expressed the SONS group Monday night. It would be good for all concerned if the Lincoln parents would continue the moratorium in line with appeals from Governor Hughes and Councilman Tibbsgood for themselves and for all the children.

RECEIVED
BOARD OF EDUCATION Office of the Superintendent RESOLUTION ,
^VISION OF ADMINISTRATION SEP 12 1963

Whereas the Superintendent of Schools has reported and recommended to The Board of Education that it would not be administratively and educationally practicable to continue grades one through five at the Lincoln School after the City-wide Sixth Grade is established at 11 Engle Street. Mow, therefore, be it resolved by The Board of Education of the City of Engleuiood, Bergen County, New Jersey, that when the City-wide Sixth Grade School is opened at 11 Engle Street, or as soon thereafter as the necessary administrative procedures can be effected, all the remaining pupils of grades one through five,now in attendance at the Lincoln School, shall be assigned to the Cleveland, Queries and Roosevelt Schools, and such assignment is to be determined by the Superintendent on the basis of the following criteria: a) Define attendance districts so that the remaining pupils now in attendance at Lincoln School, will be assigned as nearly as possible to the school nearest their homes. Provide for an even distribution of class loads.

b)

And be it further resolved that upon the happening of the events set forth above, and thereafter, Lincoln School shall not be used for grades one through six inclusive.

September 9, 1963

of
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ,dak of LAWRENCE BILDER Acting Executive Secretary
To
' Education

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION
,sndent

RECEIVED

SEP

1963

her 12, 1963

reported and recommended to The :ively and educationally practi-

Is is the resolution by the tlewood &oad_of Education .ncoln School after the City-wide Jsing Lincoln School for grades hrough 6 after the city wide i grade is established in Engle Stteet }iool. Hopefully this should end our s letter and le with this d a copy of s of grades one through five,now ned to the Cleveland, Quarles and ermined by the Superintendent on i\eaa ana renirn. Note. For your information. (Need not be returned.) See me about this problem At your convenience
Remarks:

d of Education of the City of 3 City-wide Sixth Grade School is the necessary administrative

blems!

Soon

that the remaining pupils now in uill be assigned as nearly as their homes. n of class loads, happening of the events set forth used for grades one through six

"7

September 9, 1953

BOARD OF EDUCATION Office of the Superintendent RESOLUTION Whereas the Superintendent of Schools has reported and recommended to The Board of Education that it would not be administratively and educationally practicable to continue grades one through five at the Lincoln School after the City-wide Sixth Grade is established at 11 Engle Street. Now, therefore, be it resolved by The Board of Education of the City of Englewood, Bergen County, New Jersey, that when the City-wide Sixth Grade School is opened at 11 Engle Street, or as soon thereafter as the necessary administrative procedures can be effected, all the remaining pupils of grades one through five,now in attendance at the Lincoln School, shall be assigned to the Cleveland, Quarles and Roosevelt Schools, and such assignment is to be determined by the Superintendent on the basis of the following criteria: a) Define attendance districts so that the remaining pupils now in attendance at Lincoln School, will be assigned as nearly as possible to the school nearest their homes. Provide for an even distribution of class loads.

b)

And be it further resolved that upon the happening of the events set forth above, and thereafter, Lincoln School shall not be used for grades one through six inclusive.

September 9, 1963

I,

, the duly constituted,

agent of The Board of Education of Englewood, in the County of Bergen, State of New Jersey, the owner of the within premises, do hereby notify you that you are trespassing on the lands of The Board of Education of Englewood, in the County of Bergen, State of New Jersey, and as the duly constituted agent of said Owner, I hereby forbid you so to trespass on these premises, and I hereby direct you to immediately leave these premises, and if you fail to immediately leave these premises, I shall have no alternative other than to make a complaint against you under New Jersey Statutes 2A:170-31, which is commonly known as the Trespassing Statute, and I shall be compelled to make such other complaints as I deem necessary under the pertinent provisions of the Disorderly Persons Act of the State of New Jersey.

September

1963

Mr. and Mrs. F. Stewart 133 Orange Street Englewood, ".'aw Jersey D3ar Mr. and Mrs. Steward: As we have statad many times previously, the continued appearance of your child at the Cleveland School as an unauthorized visitor is contrary to the policies of the Board of Education in effect regarding the assignment of children to elementary schools. I must repeat our earliar requests that you remove your child from Cleveland School at once and that you enroll him at the school to which he is assigned according to the policies of the Board of Education in effect at the present time. '/ary truly yours,

'IRS: mw

"lark R. Shedd Superintendent of Schools

c.c. tfr. Parry flr. Dincin Mr. Garrity mr. Menriksen "1rs. Schambera

September I7, 1963 Mr. and Mrs. Edward Cotright 172 Lafayette Avenue Englewood, New Jarsay Daar Mr. and Mrs. Cotright: As we have statad many timas previously, the continued appearance of your children at the Cleveland School as unauthorized visitors is contrary to the policies of the 3oard of Education in effect regarding the assignment of children to elementary schools. I must repeat our earlier requests that you remove your children from Cleveland School at once and that you enroll them at the school to u/hich they are assigned according to the policies of tha 3oard of Education in effect at the present time. vary fruJy yours,
rnark

R. Shadd Superintendent of Schools

c.c.

Mr. Perry flr. Carrity flr. Dincin !Hr. Henrikaen :">1rs. Schambera

SCHOOL

BOROUGH

ZONE

A D D R E S S

TELEPHONE

OFFICE

OF THE PRINCIPAL

w.
) t. /-) fid
X '. C

"7
/

A ^ 7 / J>

V.
r '-

'"

o (A

o I O O

iffi ip
Hi

r>

MI,
-n ^
x
N
O

I E3
*H P

o m

*i
-f-

I:
e
r
-o 70

?
o

X I
O

ft

ft I

o ^. >

(J /dFGR CHIl.DrlD'.'

FURM

If 1

ASGICNi'OT TO OTHER ELLfCMI rtRV

D r . Mark U . f j l i o t l d , Superintondont Englowood P u b l i c Schools 11 Englra Strgct; Engleuiood, fvloi'i Jerr.ny Dear Dr. Shedd:

*/'*/< 3

I accept thn o3sig;if[;nrii or niy c 1 1 1 .1 :' tu C.l.nvcl.inc.!, Q u i r l e s or Roossvelt Scfionl in acnnrdancn w i t h tl'io IJoard rjf i'rlucation plnn, boqinninr] GcptGniber 19GJ5 or as noon r c j M f ' t o r ,T-, pn:; c ;Ujlc!.

'jiqnJlhure of p a r o u L or q u r i c

n/i

d A/t Pf 4 Address

CLEVELAND SCHOOL SIT-INS SEptember 25, 1963

Cotright, Diana Cotright, Shawn Hanna, John Sherin, Ferrie Steu/art, Fred Swain, Marguerite Williams, Marilyn Williams, John Wilson, Derrick

Eduuard Jeanette Eduuard JeANETTE

172 Lafayette Street 172 Lafayette Street 61 :imore Avenue

K 1 6 4 2 4 5

John Ruby

William Mrs. Tempie Savage Fred. 133 Beatrice Mrs. J. Baker 149 Jeanette John 125 Johnie Mae John 125 Jahnie Mae Johnny 111 Virginia

Street

Orange Street Green Street Reade Street Reade Street William Street

WRS:MW

ENGLEWOOD There was a will be available, at Cleveland, slight flarcup in the Knglcwood Quarles, and Roosevelt school for ; school situation yesterday as eight individual and small group in; Lincoln School pupils sat in at', struction where needed, and at Cleveland School in opposition to j times may relieve a fellow teacher tile wishes not only of the Board] for remedial instruction and proot Education but of Governor I gram planning. Hushes. I At Donald A. Quarlss. two new Their sit-ins may continue today! classes, a second and a third grade despite hoard opposition on the; group, will be housed in the two [act. that classes arc overcrowded, j rooms formerly used by the sixth What action the board may take.! grades-. S i m i l a r l y , at Roosevelt, the i if any, will he decided today. The j former sixth grade class rooms i children are supposed to be i n ! will p r o v i d e space for a first and ; Lincoln School, and the Governor; a fourth grade. | himself yesterday asked the I parents, who sent a delegation j 'headed by Byron IJacr and Mrs.I Wilson lo .see h i m . lie lokl them j io send the children back t o ; Lincoln School where they belong until the local hoard can put its; contra! s i x i h grade school into operation. However, they flaunted his request yesterday and arc expected In do sn again today. The t e c h n i c a l i t i e s of b o y c o t t i n g will be decided in court as a the case i n v o l v i n g the y o u n g d a u g h t e r of Mr. and M r s . Leniy Vaughn. who has slaved home since Sept 5. lf)fi'2 was referred to a higher court. The r e a s M g n n i e n l ol 125 Lincoln > pupils of grades one through five- i was made on i'ne basis of t h e school j : nearest their homes. .Dr. Mark R.I j Shcdd, superintendent, reports. This was done to insure the greatest possible case ia transportation, [since lhecij,y-i& not-proyk^vj free vve all want t i j l e boys i and girls to develop quirkly the happy feeliTig ot being a part of their new school, \ve must regroup j many pupils," expired Dr. Shedd. | ! "We must also prepare room space i for the additional hoys and girls. for the Board of Education wants t h e classes to be small enough for j teachers to do the k i n d of job they like to do." The principals and faculties ot | the Cleveland, Donald A. Quarles, and Roosevelt school arc concerned i that each child he placed in the room where he will make the hap| piest adjustment as ho. becomes i acquainted with his new school mates. To accomplish this end, a i careful s t u d y ot each child's r e - j j cords and his teacher's appraisal of his needs must be made. '. Five Lincoln .School teachers will i be transferred to the Cleveland | School, where two basemen! rooms I are being prepared as classrooms, i according lo plans and specificat i o n s a p p r o v e d hv ihc of! ice of iho County Superintendent ol Schools. These, t o g e t h e r w i t h the , three rooms left vacant hy the I t r a n s f e r a l of t h e s i x t h grade* to i I lh K.nplr Street School w i l l I | provide a d e q u a t e space l o r t h e j | five additional clashes, our in each i i grade. I Four Lincoln School, teachers I

krade school Urbanizes | With Leroy McCloud as Principal

1 7 . 1

o ,

Members of Ihe a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , | e v a l u a t i o n s in i n a k i n tlic places i x t h grade teachers, and s u p e r - i menl. in groups. visors of t h e Engiewood p u b l i c ''Since t h e r e is a l w a y s the posschools have . b e g u n p l a n n i n g for s i b i l i t y of error in d e a l i n g w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n and program of h u m a n beings, the s c h e d u l i n g w i l l I h e Engle Street School. he flexible so that a c h i l d may be Representatives of the Engle- transferred to a n o t h e r g r o u p if a ; wood Junior H i g h School s t a f f are m i s t a k e has been made," said Dr. also a t t e n d i n g p l a n n i n g meetings Shi'tlfl. ! so t h a t the boys and girls may , I f i n d t h e t r a n s i t i o n lo Ihe s e v e n t h ! | I grade in September. 19G4. easier, j t An i n f o r m a l type of team o r g a n i - | j I n a t i o n will be used, according l o i j Dr. Tilark R. Shccld. superintendent i | of schools. The approximately 300 i ! s t u d e n t s will be divided i n l o three ; . i teams of 100 each. Four teachers., I who will meet weekly to plan and appraise their work w i l l be re| sponsible for each team. , ! ; : . Kaeh. team will have a c h a i r m a n , who will hold that position for two month* Durir.j that time, si's will ] s . . '*-.... .,,-...Vei-.-Va: k. c

and S-.TV-: as a inemher of the \s Advisory CommUlee. "This method should prove vr>vy valuable if: irnprovir,g inslr 'said Leroy McCloud, who will be [ 3 j principal of the Englo Street i J I School. "Sharing in p l a n n i n g and ; ; pupil appraisal \vill enable one teacher to profit from the ideas and knowledge ~of three others." The three groups will be hetcro:o, according to Dr. Shecld. 1 "Every effort is being made In see j t h a t they are representative as to i the n u m b e r of Ixns and g i r l s in I each group, varied, ability, and i interests stability." To secure ihis representation all i sixth grade boys and girls in t h e | city's elementary schools w i l l t a k e ' .-tandardizcd achievement tests un: Her I h r d i r e c t i o n of Mrs. Bernicc - X a p p of the C h i l d Study D e p a r t : menu
;

In a d d i t i o n , teachers arc being askeci In f i l l oui shocts g i v i n g t h e i r personal a p p r a i s a l of each pupil's personality, power of leadership, a b i l i t y lo w o r k w i t h others in tingroup, emotional s t a b i l i t y , overall i a b i l i t y , p e r f o r m a n c e , and p a r t i c u l a r talents. : Members of the C h i l d S t u d y DC! partmcnt and Mr. McCloud w i l l use I the results of the tests and teacher

September 26, 1963

Mr. and Mrs. John Williams 125 Raade Street Englewood, New Jarsey Dear Mr. and Wrs. Williams: As we have stated many time* previously, the continued appearance of your children at the Cleveland School as unauthorized visitors is contrary to the policies of the Board of Education in effect regarding the assignment of children to elementary schools. I must repeat our earlier requests that you rsmova your children from Cleveland School at once and that you enroll them at the school to which they are assigned according to the policies of the Soard of Education in affect at the present time. Vary truly yours, f1ark 1. Shedd Superintendent of Schools

c. c.

Mr. Parry Mr. Garrity Mr. Dincin Mr. Hanriksen Mrs. Schambara

Septsmder 26, 1963

r. and Mrs. Johnny Wilson 111 William Street

Englewood, N.J.

Deer Mr. and Mrs, Wilson: Aa Me have stated many times previously, the continued appearance of your child at the Cleveland School aa an unauthorized visitor is contrary to the policies of the Board of Education in effect regarding the assignment of children to elementary schools. I must repeat our earlier requests that you remove your child from Cleveland School at once and that you enroll him at the school to which he is assigned according to the policies of the Board of Education in effect at the present time. Very truly yours, Mark R. Shedd Superintendent of Schools c.c. fir. Perry for. Garrity Mr. Oincin Mr. Henriksen Mrs. Schambara

September 26, 1963

Jeanstta Baker 149 Graan Street Englawood, New Jersey Dear firs. Baker: As ute have stated many times previously, the continued appearance of your grandchild at ths Cleveland School as an unauthorized visitor is contrary to the policies of the Board of Education in affect regarding the assignment of children to elementary schools. I must repeat our earlier requests that you remove your grandchild from Cleveland School at once and that you enroll her at tha school to which she is assigned according to the policies of the Board of Education in affect at the present time. Vary truly yours, R. Shedd Superintendent of Schools c. c rflr. Perry flr. Dincin Mr.Garrity *lr. Henriksen Schambera

September 26, 1963

fflr. and Mrs. John Manna 61 Elraore Avenue tnglawood, New Jersey Dear Mr. and firs, Hannai As we have stated many times previously, the continued appearance of your child at the Cleveland School as an unauthorized visitor is contrary to tha policies of the Board of Education in effect regarding tha assignment of children to elementary schools. I must repeat our earlier requests that you remove your child from Cleveland School at once and that you enroll him at the school to which he is assigned according to the policies of the Board of Education in affect at tha present time. Vary truly yours,

c. c. Mr. Perry Mr. Garrity Mr. Dincin Mr. Hanriksen Mrs. Schambara

Mark R. Shedd Superintendent of Schools

CLEVELAND SCHOOL
SIT - IMS

September 26, 1963

Littauer Stevens Stevens Barclay Perry Thompson Davis Davis

Duane Cotright Siiaum Cotright Derrick Wilson Fred Stewart Marguerite Swain Marilyn Williams John Hanna John Williams 111 William Street Johnny Virginia

Ferrie Sherin absent today

MRS:

THE

CITY or ENGI/EWOOD
N. J.
OFFICE OF A U S T I N N. V O L K MAYOR

September 26, 1963

The Honorable Richard J. Hughes Governor, State of New Jersey State House Trenton 25, New Jersey Dear Governor Hughes: I appreciate very much your letter of September 16th regarding our good efforts in arriving at a solution to our school p r o b l e m . As you know, at the present time certain irresponsible elements continue to ignore the decisions of the Board of Education by having their children sit in at schools where they are not authorized. I have advised the Board to follow the advice of their legal counsel in taking steps to terminate violations of the law . Kindest personal r e g a r d s . Sincere

is tin N. Volk Mayor ANV/te

Mayor Volkt It vaa most thoughtful of you to Bend me your information of September 3 regarding event* in the Bnglewood schools. Thaough the good - and most difficult * work of all par tiaa concerned, Z believe we now have seen th sunshine over rte horiaon. Let's continue our joint effort* to bring about the i to be approaching. I aoat readily accept your offer to keep me informed oa the situation* Kind personal regards. Sincerely yours,

GOVERNOR

Honorable Austin H. Vblk May**.

City Hall

Engleuood, Hew Jersey September 16, 1963 JWK/cal

CLEVELAND SCHOOL SIT-Ins September 27, 1963

K 1

Duane Cotright Shawn Cotright Derrick Wilson Fred Steu/art Juanita Sanford Marguerite Swain Ferrie ShsriOn 307 Franklin Road Fred and Elmira

2 3 4

5
6

Marilyn Williams
John Williams

John Hanna - absent today

CLEVELAND SCHOOL SIT-INS September 30, 1963

K 1 2 3

Duane Cotright Shau/n Cotright Fred Stewart Juanita Stanford Irene Clark Marguerite Suiain ITerrie Sherin Marilyn Williams John Williams

Robt & Lorraine

243 Lafayette

Place

5 6

Absent 1 6 Derrick Wilson John Hanna

ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS ENGLEUIOOD, NEW JERSEY

lea:

compliance with the Englewood 3aard of Education plan for assignment of tha Lincoln ool children, grades one through five, approved by Frederick M. Raubinger, Commissioner Education, State of New Jersey, and subject to tha provisions listed below, your child 1 be assigned to Grade in the School located at bhool Address in SeptemDer or as soon thereafter as possible

Pclosad are two forms (Use ONLY ONE FORM FOR EACH CHILD IN GRADES ONE THROUGH FIVE) FORM # 1 - FOR CHILDREN DESIRING ASSIGNMENT TO OTHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS FORM # 2 - FOR CHILDREN DESIRING TO REMAIN AT LINCOLN SCHOOL

parant uiill be required to remove his child from Lincoln School who does not desire tc sc, except as indicated in Item 2-c balow. lact ONE FORM, fill out and mail it immediately in the self-addressed, stamped envelope ovidad far your convenience. August 21, 1963 is the last day on which returns will be icepted. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION PLAN 2. To assign all pupils of grades ana through five residing in the Lincoln School attendance district tc Cleveland, Quarles and Roosevelt Schools, such assignment to be determined by the Superintendent on the basis of the following criteria: (a) Define attendance districts so that children of the Lincoln School District will be assigned as nearly as possible, to tha school nearest their name. (b) Provide far an even distribution of class loads. (c) To permit the children whose parents wish them to remain in the Lincoln School to remain there provided that it is administratively and educationally practicable to do so. 4. To assign to Lincoln School all children of Kindergarten age residing in the 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 from taxpayers' suits regarding the expenditures of public monies to implement any 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 according tc the estimates attached hereto.

Mark R. Shedd Superintendent of Schools

!
IMPORTANT! USE ONLY ONE OF THESE FORMS, select the ONE you want, SIGN YOUR N A M E , write or print your ADDRESS, and mail it IMMEDIATELY in tha seif-addrsssed, stamped envelope enclosed for your convenience.

FORM

# 1

FOR CHILDREN DESIRING ASSIGNMENT TO OTHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Dr. ivigrk R. Shedd, Superintendent Enqlawood Public Schools 11 tingle Street Englswood, New Jersey Daar Dr. Shedd: I accept the assignment of my child to 7-ncjinning September 1963 or as soon thereafter as possible. School

Signature of parent or guardian

Street Address

TEAR OFF MERE

FORM

# 2

FOR CHILDREN DESIRING TO REMAIN AT LINCOLN SCHOOL

Dr. Mark R. Shydd, Superintendent Eriyle'juood Public Schools 11 Engls 5 t r e a t Englewood, New .Jersey Daar Dr. Shedd:

I wish to have my child remain at Lincoln School during tha 1963-64

icri'iuol yerir.

3ior.eti.ra of parent or guardiar

Street Address

CLEVELAND SCHOOLS SIT-INS October 1, 1963

K
1 2 3

Ouane Cotright Shawn Cotright Fred Stewart Juanita Stanford Irene Clark Marguerite Strain Farria Sherrin

5 6

Marilyn Williams John Williams

CLEVELAND SCHOOLS SIT-INS October 2, 1963

K 1 2 3

Duane Cotright Shawn Cotright Fred Stew/art Juanita Stanford Irene Clark

Marguerite Suuain Ferrie Sherrin

5 6 Marilyn Williams John Williams

CLEVELAND SCHOOL SIT-INS October 3, 1963

Duane Cotright Shawn Cotright Fred Stewart Juanita Stanford Irene Clark Marguerite Swain Ferris Sherrin 5 5

Marilyn Williams
John Williams John Hanna

10

!.Parents- V~V

out of school since September, 1962. . w Following is the Board of. Education statement explaining; its K.NGLEWOODLincoln, School policy in acting against the parents boycotting parents come to trial whom they accuse of disruptive in two Icttal cases tomorrow, Friday, as the Board of Education tactics during a period when the seeks to halt the boycott and sit-ins Board is trying to speed up its which i*. claims are disruptive to program for desegregation of ilandard operational procedures Lincoln School. (The parents have in the schools. One case ordering vowed they will not send their parents to show cau.se why they children back to Lincoln School shouldn't be restrained from causunt it is desegregated.) ing their children lo sit-in at "Following a directive from the Cleveland Schools comes before : Superior Court in lUickcnsack in Board of Education Sidney Dint h e m o r n i n g and t h e second case cin, Attorney for the Board of involving six months arrested on Education, has instituted legal orders of the Hoard ot E d u c a t i o n action against the parents of three for refusing lo get out of Clevechildren sitting in at Cleveland land School coiiies hetorc Judge School. Sheldon M. LiebowiU in Police "This morning Judge Morris Court in Ihe afternoon. Pash of the Chancery Division Despite the pending court Irials. Superior Court of Bergen County n i n e c h i l d r e n irom L i n c o l n have signed an order directing Mr. and continued lo sil-iu at Cleveland. Mrs. Fred Stewart and Mr. and Mrs. V i r g i n i a W i l s o n . I heir spokesMrs. Edward Cotright to show man, saying they w i l l never r e t u r n cause as to why an interlocutor;, their children to Lincoln , until i t injunction should not he grantee is desegregated. In this, t h e y an restraining and enjoining the refusing to abide by requests i Ihe G o v e r n o r and the Board \n uhn poinl out t h from allowing t h e i r chil parents a i th dren to sit-in at the Clevclanc board is i l l i n u e v e r y t h i n g possible School and compelling them to In speed up Its s j x i l i - r a d r c e n t r a l remove them from Clovelanc school and the snbscf|uenl assignSchool. The order is r e t u r n a b l e 01 m e n t of c h i l d r e n in grades I
t h r o u g h .1 In Ihe o t h e r schools. Cannot Disrupt 14 Are P r o m o t e d Oct. 4. F o u r t e e n of Ihe IS boys and I "The initial action is being girls in Grades ]-3 who boycotied \n Ihe moriiing four parenis the Lincoln School last spring h a v e taken against, parents of the three ! been promoted. Dr. M a r k I!. Shedd. children who have persisted in superintendent. Kngleuood P u b l i c entering Cleveland School since | J'chools. said l o d a v . the opening of school. Similar Four are !w;i,g retained, steps will be taken soon agains f'nmi'i,;,-... n-.i.s .J^LerruLied <i:i parents of the other children who . t h e lu.'i.- '.' I. ' i u i " U ^ . h ap./l'i >ai returned to Cleveland Schoo j of t h e over-all progress of each yesterday should they persist. I p u p i l by llic p r i n c i p a l of t h e school i and each child's teacher and the "The Board has shown consid results of tests a d m i n i s t e r e d h.v areable restraint in d e a l i n g with ' i l i p Child Study D e p a r t m e n t . these parents hoping that they "lo no case was a c h i l d prowould recognize that the Board moled solely on t h e basis of Icsi is making every effort to expedite results," said Dr. Shcdtl. "Tcfi its plans. We are now convinced grades alone e a n n o l g i v e a com that the only way to assure the | plete picture of a child's growth orderly operation of classes at 1 i n a class. "Teachers consider m a n y f a c t o r s with whatever legal means arc J i n deciding w h o l h c r a boy or a available girl is prepared to benefit b.\ promotion Lo t h e ne.vlto see that parents class, factors i such as g r o w t h in ability to plan l a n d organise, to l i s t e n effectively j a n d carry out directions, a n d t o i f u l f i l l responsibilities." I The two legal eases eiimi; In court tomorrow. Friday. must upper.-,- in C h a n c e r y Court. ; Ilackensack, to show cause why an I i n j u n c t i o n should not be issued i against t h e m p r o h i b i t i n g t h e m ; from forcing t h e i r children to M I in at C l e v e l a n d School. In Ihe a l t e r n o o u six mothers charged by t h e lioard of F.ducat i o n w i t h disorderly c o n d u c t f o r : demonstrating inside Cleveland School and I h u s d i s r u p t i n g education r o u t i n e s will appear before J u d g e Sheldon ,\l. Liebowilx. A t h i r d legal case i n v o h r s Mr. and Mrs. Leltoy Vaughan \cho have kept I h c i r child out of school

In Courts Friday

Parents In Court Frida

(Continued from page i )

Cleveland School

is to proceed

remove their children from those classes and prevent further disruption to the school program. "We cannot understand why this small group continues to flaunt the policies of the Board and why they persist in disrupting the learning activities of so many children when the full implementation of the Board's plan to end dc facto segregation is so near at hand.

Sfiys
l.v Sl.ill Cotniny
TII I lie Editor: Lesl I ho citi/.ens of Knglcwood have been misled into bclicvinR that legal action against the Hoard of Education ;irul Commissioner R a u b i n g c r has been concluded, 1 feel I hat some clarification of I he tacts .ire necessary. Nothing could be f u H h c r from the truth. Al no point in t h e court proceedings t h a t have already taken place has there been any decision concerning the constitutionality of the Board's proposal. The only court actions have been dismissals of, reiiuesb Xor injunctions pending f i n a l determination. The appeal before the Slate Board of Education resulted in the upholding of t h e Commissioner's decision. This decision was expected as far as the plaintiffs were concerned. However, this, was a necessary step in order to move into (lie courts. Now t h a t the forma lily of the Slate Board hearing has been disposed of, there is. no longer any barrier preventing a decision in the courts. Two separate appeals, one by the parents group and one by the tax- 1 payers group, have been filed and arc now pending in the Appellate i Division. These cases have not; been argued on I he merits as! yet. Consequently, the v a l i d i t y of Commissioner R:rubingcr's decision and the action of the Englewood Board of Education arc still in doubt. Two .weeks ago. in Brooklyn Supreme Coi'rt, Justice Baker ruled that any plan of school assignment that makes racial balance nn objective is in violation of the Ne\ York Slate Education law. and. iu effect, overrules Commissioner Allen. The New Jeiscy .statute is practically identical to the New York stotutc. Does this foreshadow (he New Jersey decision? It is unfortunate t h a t oar Board of Education could not wait until a final determination concerning the constitutionality of Commissioner Raubinger's decision, before v i o l e n t l y d i s r u p t i n g our school system. Very truly yours,
(.:. E. U ' o l t h o l f DT.'i Jones Rd. Englewood, X. J.

'Teachers Assigned In Desegregation

ENGLEWOOD The assignment of teachers to Engic Street. Cleveland, Donald A. Quarlcs, and Roosevelt schools in the desegrc- ', gaiiuii f/ros;'arr. v/2S a n n o u n c e d t o - 1 day by Superintendent of Schools ; AFark R. Shcdd. The teachers will transfer to their new schools when the Engle ] Street School opens. The date of the opening has not been released. The assignments are as follows: Donald A. Quarlcs, Mrs. Barbara Ford, Mrs. Milfrcd R u f f i n , and Mrs. Arthur Emory; Roosevelt, Mrs. Pacicncia M. Xahala. Mrs, Mary Bollerman, and Mrs. Clotilda Seala; j Cleveland. .Mrs. J u a n i l a Gray, A l - ! ; frcd Mitchell. Mrs. Elizabeth Swee-' ney, Mrs. Odessa Hill. Airs. Joan . Little, Mrs. Margaret '. oung. a n d ! : Mrs. A r n e l l Carroll. I The f o l l o w i n g Hirer teams of i five teachers each will compose I the f a c u l t y of the Engle Street i | School, of which Lelioy McCloud I i s - p r i n c i p a l : ' T e a m One. Mrs. M a r y ' Sanford, George Mitchell, Mrs. I Dorothy Horthwick, LIT Pile.'i. ' A r t h u r Jackowski. Team Two. Mrs. M a r g a r e t C a r - | boy. Lee Uonncy. .Mrs. Mary Oland. ' Odell .lack. Mrs. Ann Trouf: Team Three. Mrs. Opal Davis. Mrs. Louise Fowler. .Miss Thelma N u n nery, .IdM'ph I'agno/y.i. R i c h a r d Onori'vok 1 . Mr.-;. Fowler Im.s been named teaehi'r counselor: Mrs. Oland. teachrr l i b r a r i a n : and Mr. Piloii. audio ^ iMial teacher. Tin 1 lullou'itu! teachers in Hie M X ' c i a l .ii-pas. havir been ' assigned IM "'< Kn.uh1! StruiH Schofl: >iss tii'iiiia .IJtok. librarian; F,dwnnl, TiHiiiici-^.W. .''I'm. '>o!'b,-u"i Sp.",'!?. physical education; IJr. E\'e!yn H o l j b i n s ' a n d Charles Walker, art: Fi'ank .Meyers. Miss 't'helma Williams, and Miss Edna Cox, music.

CLEVELAND SCHOOL SIT-INS October 4, 1963

K 1 2 3 4

Duane Cotright Shau/n Cotright Fred Steu/art Juanita Stanford Marguerite Swain Ferrie Sherrin

5 5

Marilyn Williams MONE

CLEVELAND SCHOOL SIT-INS October 7 1963

Duane Cotright

Shawn Cotright Derrick Wilson Fred Steu/art

Juanita S t a n f o r d I r e n e Clark Marguerite Stuain

Court Orders An End

Ins As Board
E N G L K W O O D Ordered by Chancery D i v i s i o n of New Jersey Superior Court to p r e v e n t t h e i r children f r o m K i l l i n g - i l l at Cleveland School. L i n c o l n School parents . \vbo have been encouraging Ihe boycott and sit-in this week desisted. The parenls r e f u s e d , however, to follow the cuurt's advice that in Thn Board of Education was . fairness to t h e i r c h i l d r e n they served with notice yesterday should send them back lo L i n c o l n that the boycott parents have School u n t i l Ihe Board of Education been eranted a writ to force plans i'or the c e n t r a l s i x t h grade the Board to show cause on are in effect, which is expected lo Friday, Oct. 18. why it should be by Oct. 2R. not modify Its position with The Board mccls M o n d a y n i g h t regard to children returning in regular session at 1 1 Engle to Lincoln School. street. There w i l l he an o u t l i n e of its special guidance programs and KNGLRU'OOn Parenls of a report on 'dropouts.' c h i l d r e n s i l l i n g - i n said they would The i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e par- continue to ignore p a r t of a court ents was o b t a i n e d by Ihe Board of i n j u n c t i o n f u r t h e n e x t t h r e e E d u c a t i o n w h i c h h a s l a b e l l e d t h e weeks, w h i l e d i s c o n t i n u i n g t h e boycott ;jjid s i t - i n s as b e i n g disrup- Cleveland <,rhonl s t u d y - i n . Airs. tive to the n o r m a l school proce- .leanelli- Ci'lright. one of Ihe pardures. ents s a i d today. They t h r e a l c n c d . In a scpar; tc action Ihe Hoard ot I however lo resume [he study-ins "Education is pressing charges ol j if t h e school i n t e g r a t i o n p l a n is disorderly conduct a g a i n s t six not c o m p l e t e l y i n s t i t u t e d on schemothers- for their refusal to leave dule. Cleveland School b u i l d i n g d u r i n g A i r s . C'otrigbt said. "U'c h a v e earlier stages of the boycott of explained before t h a i our childLincoln School. ren were in Cleveland, not as a M e a n w h i l e the board is proceedprotest, b u t o n l y .so they can reing rapidly with the renovations ceive the education they are enal the old Englc Street J u n i o r High School w i t h i n t e n t i o n s of o p e n i n g t i t l e d In. Our consciences could the central sixth grade by Oct. 2K. not then and can not now allow At that lime it will t r a n s f e r Ihe us to r e t u r n them lo segregation, remainder of L i n c o l n School pu- even for a day,, regardless of conpils to Cleveland. Quaries. and Uoo- sequences and regardless of what scvelt Schools where 125 Lincoln powers try to force them there.' .-' i>:ipi'? ha', c already bcei; 'trans"Nonetheless, in just the last ferred. day or two toe-foro the scheduled

Parents Agree On Sit-ins But Not On Lincoln

cnt< to 'nail the sit-ins, agreeing ents have been m a k i n g i'or many i with the board that they are dis- weeks. "He has finally made a ruptive, and advising them to send their children back to Lincoln specific and pu'blic commitment on the date the plan will he impliSchool until the boai'd puts its desegregation plan into el'fccl. nicnled, and much to the surprise of authorities, the court has imwhich will be about Oct. 'J3. llcpreplied it will hold them to this scnliug the p a r e n t s was J'aul B. Zubur, inlcgraiiunist attorney. Mr. date." Zubcr advised the parenls to abide "Furthermore, many boycotting by li'.e r u l i n g to end the sit-ins, children who have been tested but the parents have declined to weeks ago and l e f t h a n g i n g have return the children to Lincoln. j ( C o n t i n u e d On Page 16) Judge Pashman stated, "Those i who disrespect Ihe law may \ v c l l | he e q u a l l y g u i l t y w i t h those who j m i g h t seek lo d e p r i v e minorily groups of t h e i r constitulional rights. The American Negro w i l l not miss the mark w h i c h in F.nglcwood merely requires short-term patience j u n t i l the a p p r o x i m a t e d a t e of Nov.! (Continued f r o m page 1) 1 when tiic plan lo a l l e v i a t e r a c i a l : f i n a l l y been promoted, as we dei m b a l a n c e in the school s y s t e m ! n.anded." takes more f o r c e f u l e f f e c t . The dc-1 "With all t h i s in m i n d , it would fcmlanl's goal, at least in t h i s ; seem to serve l i t t l e purpose to sophci'e, w i l l be reali/.ed." force a s h o w d o w n at t h i s t i m e

' ft**riaa.:, r.-t'Jio;.,- smjrfvf TT^lfliHy -fnct ?M'O tfOTnanr

Parents Agree One One Point

and seriously upset our children, and we will therefore w i t h d r a w from Cleveland, until the 28th of this month." ^ However, if school authorities are d e t e r m i n e d to force the issue to ] showdown, t h e y can do so. for we u-ill never obey the order to return to segregated Lincoln.

Press Releases--0ct. 11

NEW JERSEY SCHOOL BOARD AFFIRMS ENGLEWOOD PLAN

October 11, 1953

UNION, N.J. In a decision handed down October 7, based on an NAACP appeal, the New Jersey State Board of Education affirmed the July 1 decision of Frederick Raubinger, Commissioner of Education, ordering the Englewood Board of Education to end racial imbalance in the city's schools. The appeal was argued on Aug. 23. The Board's action came as a result of an appeal by white parents in Englewood who protested that implementation of the school board's pian,developed in response to the Commissioner's directive, would violate their children's constitutional rights. The plan called for the establishment of a city-wide sixth-grade school and the reassignment of first through fifth grade children at the Negro Lincoln School to three white schools on the basis of school proximity and even class distribution. The plan was to be effective for the 1963-64 class year. White parents appealed this decision, stating that although racial imbalance denied to Negro children equal educational opportunities required by law, transfers of Lincoln School students were solely on the basis of race, that school children were being treated differently, in violation of the Constitution. The State Board of Education denied this appeal on the grounds that transfers were not on a basis of race but were mandatory because "the evil of 'unequal educational opportunity' inherent in the segregated Lincoln School must be remedied and to accomplish that result room must be made for the Negro pupils in the schools theretofore predominantly white." The Board contended that the right of the white children to attend schools of their choice was subordinate to the issue of equal opportunity. "To here permit those rights, such as they may be, to be exercised inevitably frustrates the rights of the Negro children to 'equal educational opportunity.' The attainment of that right is paramount whsre, as here, practical and reasonable means are available." The Board further held that "no existing plan where racial segregation is present may stand, where practical and reasonable means exist to eliminate it." Arguing against the appeal by the white parents were NAACP General Counsel Robert L. Carter and William K. Kunstler.

TBTOT COWS

TCUJJt, KICHAHB I* OQItt JU CAOCIOU and JGB1~

CAOCXOU, his vife, and ottoar* to be Plaintiffs.

i!
TS.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) J

coirunt

Q* CABLHU JfeCAJHUoVj 'HTBgg ft* EUBt , and HA8RKM L* UBOB, constituting the ' BOAHD Or BCBOCt. sBTDtt.5B QT KffK JBBBsBTk ^IK* ^*y CXTT OP NEV JKBSEI, KSX H. PERRX, LOUIBl CHIABCW, THEODORi Bl TAX IBOJUB/ CAMBI BV EINTZ and HAHHEH L. LEWIS, constituting the BQABD OP KDOCAI10M OF THE CITI OF
EHOLEUQQfi.

FILED
QCT 11 1363
KELUER. JR.

Defendants.

&*

1. Ibe plaintiffs ar eltisans of the Oait4 States aas\ State of Rev Jersey* residing in the City of sfeglavood, Isxvea County, ev Jersey. 2. Bte plaintiffs are tax payers in and to the City *f Knglevood, Hev Jersey and to toe United States* 3. Biis suit is instituted on behalf of the plaintiff tax payers of Baglevood, Bergen County, Bev Jersey, and involves rigiit* granted by the foxirteenth AMnAaent of the United States Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution and Mew Jersey Statutes* /

14-. Up to and including the closing of the sok.ool year i June of 1963 .the defendant Board of Education operated the public ">"ylf fear the benefit of pupils beneath the Junior high school grade OB what is known a* the neighborhood school systesu/tbder this system geographic lines are established by the defendant fcard for each of the psli school and children of the requisite age group are assigned to attend these ,. isehools based on their residence within the appropriate school district
' - * - -. ' ' S*

5 Prior to the opening of the school year nfflejterter,1 6 53 there had been no allocation of staiaats ia the public school system te fiiglswood based on raoe and all children vcre entitled to attend their neighborhood school regard!ass of their color, creed or racial origla.
:;'._ ^

\ AlBEB AT* VOUC, WHXIAJi Q. TIOOK, JHi,

';-vaf<ij3Hfea
',-" *.!#
%

6.

On July 29th, 1963, V eafr. *gt Board of

itioa

adopted a plan entitled "Jropooal of a Han to Comply with tbe Bsaislon of the State Commissioner of Btacatiom of Bev*Jrsey Btrecting tbe < xnglavood Board of Education to Deduce tbe Kxt reme CoimemUatiom of Begro Pupils in tbe Lincoln School". 7. Bill plan vas approved by tbe Commissioner of Btacatlon of the State of Bev Jersey on August 1, 1 6 , to become effective at 93 tbe opening of the 1 & school turn* 93 8. Under this plan, children from tbe entire city of Kaglevood ;' are not permitted to attend tbe neighborhood scbools but are required to j attend a school at 11 Bagle Street, Bmglevood, Bev Jersey, located la the industrial or business area of tie said city and tbe said requirement

!' '
!!
;

:' is based solely on racial considerations.

-'.

9. The r1^" itself vas promulgated pursuant to a directive issued by the Commissioner of Bluest ion of the State of Bev Jersey en July 1st,'1963 requiring tbe defendant Board to formulate.a plan or plans

j. to reduce tbe extreme concentration of pupils of tbe negro race in tbe

;| Lincoln

School, a public school building administered by tbe defendant

j! Board and to put the said plan into effect at tbe >~g<<-g of tbe i1963-196^ school-year. ,', 10. She said Commissioner of Bducatlon bad determined that tbe

i! Lincoln School bad a population of 96^ of negro pupils*

11. As a condition to tbe establishment of tbe so-called city vide sixth grade school it vas provided that before it became effective that "125 or more present students of Lincoln School must BUT elect to remain for the 19^3-64 term at Lincoln School". 12. The pupils located in the.other four schools, i.e. il .iBoosevelt, Cleveland, (jusrles and Liberty were given no right to rote Ijas to vbethcr the -Plan should become effective, and, therefore, are deprived of tbe equal protection of tbe lavs and unduly discriminated against because of race. . :. ' :' .

13. The said plan further provides that all pupils of grades ione through five residing in tbe Lincoln School attendance district shall be assigned to tbe Cleveland, Bsosevelt aa4 Qoarles Schools with a

i '.;M!|

proviso that the Superintendent of School* may assign such pupils to the schools nearest their homos, provide for an even distribution of class load*, and permit the children whose parents visa them to ie*m 1n in Lincoln School to so rsmsln, but corresponding privileges are not afforded children from the school* in the other fear school district*. 1*. These plaintiffs wart not parties to the hearings before nx the Commissioner of Education who issued the directive set forth in paragraph f6. . 15. A group, unrelated to the instant plaintiff*7"known a* the Volpe Petitioner*, were present at the hearings before Commissioner j.-tJ ^ Baubinger as parents urging that the neighborhood school plan be maintained as before. 16. The Volpe Petitioners filed an appeal from Commissioner Baubinger's decision. 17. On August 10th the present plaintiffs filed an Order to Snow Cause in the Superior Court of lew Jersey, Law Division - Bergen County for injunctive relief, said matter wa* heard on August iVth, 1963 and was dismissed, from which decision the plaintiffs appealed. 18. Subsequently the State Board of Education affirmed CoBSKissioner Baubinger's decision. 19. On the appeal *t forth i* paragraph f17 asore, the Court , denied a motion for injunctive relief pending final determination of the matter, pursuant to I J S A 1813-1% denying plaintiffs right to redress* .... 20. The lover State Court dismissed the suit on the basis that Cosnissioner Baubinger's decision was binding regardlesa of its ; provisions. 21. the Appellate Division of the State Court denied the injunction partially on the basis that the law was not clear as to the constitutional questions involved. 22. The decision of Commissioner Baubinger direct* the Englevood~aard of Education to change its existing school assignment system and to use racial factors as a basis for that change. This l\n and the July 29th plan will cause Irreparable damage to the plaintiffa, unless a preliminary injunction is granted.

:, ^^

23.

The plan (July 2 t >tb) as adopted is dlseriniaatory and

' -x '

denies equal protection of- the lavs to four out of the five Englawood School District* and gives a preference to the Lincoln School pupil* based solely on race and color* i 2U. Attached to the JuJy 2 plan was an eat 1 :natea cent and '

expenditure required to 'implement the plan proposed, which saia estimate amounted to $ 2 , 0 . 0 13000. 25. Tne monies necessary to implement the July 29th plan will be spent with the start of the 1963-6H school year and will continue to be spent thereafter. 2o. On August 1, 196 3 aGli August 19, 1 3 resolutions were 9 drawn and by the Board of Education, the Board of School Estimate of Englewood, New Jersey, for the appropriation of $ 0 5 0 0 to implement 6,0.0 said plan. 27. If these or any other monies are spent to implement the

July 29th plan they will be spent for uneonstitutijnnal, i.llegal and unlawful purposes and thereby cause damage to the plaintiffs as tax payers and infringe upon and violate their constitutional rights under the Federal and Mew Jersey State Constitutions. Plaintiffs pray judgment; A* Enjoining and restraining the defendants from appropriating;

and/or expending any public funds to implement the said July 29th, 1 6 93 plan. BiEnjoining and restraining.the Board of School Estimate from appropriating and/or expending any public funds to implement the said July 29th plan. C. Enjoining and restraining the City of Engiewood, Hew Jersey, from appropriating and/or expending any public funds to implement the said July 29th plan. D. That any appropriation and/or expenditure of public -funds ~ by the Board of School Estimate of Englewood, Ifew Jersey and/orappropriation or expenditure of said funds by the City of Englewood or the Board of Education of Englewood to implement the said July 29th, 1 -

plan be adjudged illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.

>

. . E. Declaring the Jujy >^th plan and Commits loner Kaubt".|jer's decision unconstitutional, illegal and/or unlawful. '!; VORSAHGER t MURPHY Attorneys of Plaintiffs

, V -V ''

J -'./
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

' J '
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEX7

: S3.:
)

A";

.: '.'

GERTRUDE P. FULLER, of full age, being" duly sworn on her oath according to law, deposes and says: I an one of the' plaintiffs named In the above entitled cause* I have read the complaint and the facts stated therein are true. Sworn to and subscribed before me this *''' day *^~C; cv cXl- v "1963. Gertrude P..Puller.

f);

jT

t tc'- A/

/; -/ i.

I 1

Phase Of Intent io/r//<a

EA'GLEWOOO ~ The Hoard of School on an i n t e r i m basis since Education this week issued "a the Board is convinced t h a t the statement ol' i n t e n t " regarding its facilities it the Liberty School should not be considered for use desegregation plans, as follows: "In approving the e x p e n d i t u r e of. for educational purposes in any funds the renovation of the former long-range b u i l d i n g utilization proJunior High School located at 11 gram. Lastly, the Board considers it esEngle street, the Board of Education lias made provisions for the sential that the facilities at the use of theso facilities to house a j u n i o r high school at 11 Engle ' city-\V;OTT-Sixth Grade Program in Street be m a i n t a i n e d in such a way accordance with 1he Board's as to preserve the exterior esthetic adopted plans for carrying out t h e appearance and interior repair so directive of the State Commission- that its value will be sustained and so t h a t excessively high costs of er of Education of July 1, 1963. restoration can be avoided in the 'The Board is convinced further event that the facilities are rcthat the establishment of this cen- ciuired in the future, when it is no tral sixth grade program is con- longer needed for educational pursistent with the long-range plans poses, for sale or for other munifor the development of school fa- cipal purposes. cilities whereby the sixth grades The board also announced that: will become a part of a reorganized The new central school will be j junior high school serving grades ready by Oct. 28, and on the same six, seven and eight at such day the remainder of Lincoln j time as the addition of facilities at pupils will be transferred to other Envight Morrow High School will schools. permit the assignment of the ninth Total enrollment has dropped by grade from the Englcwood Junior 63. Enrollment is at 6,689. High School to the senior high. Dr. G. Leonard Johnson is being A f u r t h e r justification for t h e ; eulogized for all he had clone for expenditure of funds to renovate' the health of public school children the facilities at the former junior under the present system of examhigh junior high school at 11 Engle ! inations established by h i m . The hoard conveyed title to its Street is its possible f u t u r e use at such time as it may be possible to ; two acres on Lafayeite place for discontinue the use of Liberty ' city use for U r b a n Renewal.

~l in/Ca^T v Lourt Action

Seeks To Delay j Board's Plans

E N G L E V v O O D F o u r F.nglrv, nod residents have appealed to t l i o United States District Court in a new effort to h a l t the City's program for a S i x t h Grade School and current .school i n t e g r a t i o n plans. Judge A n t h o n y T. A u g c l l i , in ! Newark, signed an order on Mon- * ! day ordering the Board of Ecluca-1 j l i o u and the Bo.ird of School.' I Estimate to show cause why they j should not be temporarily enjoined < from spending money for the in-! tegration p l a n , .lames T. M u r p h y , a t t o r n e y f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s , Gertrude K. F u l l e r and three others, .stated that, the paper.s would be served on both boards t h i s week. Sidney O i n c i n . a t t o r n e y for t h e School Board, declined comment yesterday p e n d i n g receipt of the papers. Jf,

The School At The End Of The Road i o

Englewnod's centra! sixth grade school opens today. Dr. Mark Shcdd, superintendent, has sairl without compromise that the school offers unique educational opportunity, and has described as its goal in earnest: team teaching, flexible programming, and an expanded arts curriculum. Good, but beside the point! ]f the school were a leaky shack conducted by an obsolete master wielding a ferrule even, come to think of it, if it were Lincoln School at the m o u t h of Misery Mile Englewood would still have a school of which to be proud. The school is integrated. That's what the fight was about. Today that's where Englewood's victory lies.

SIXTH ( . R A D K R S TOGETHER: Some of i grade school enter the scfiool, the former: Hie 285 sixth graders from throughout Enjlle^ | junior high on Enele Street. 11 is key lo the j wood who enrolled in the new central sixth-1 City's integration plan. (The Record photograph.) !

Federal Court Permits^ Central School To Open But Will TestyLegaKty

ENGLEWOOL)Federal Judge ( .ichool b u t he did declare that I h c j L ' a r its Implementation unl.il Anthony Augclli would not conslUut tonality of the board's constitutionality is so determined. far as to prevent the opening on p l a n must he determined. He Judge Aujjclli spent all day Monday of the Englcwood Bo;trd there Tore forbade the appropria- Monday listening to arguments pro of Education's central sixth grade tion of any additional capital funds and con in the taxpayers suit brought by an Englcwood group socking to lest the constitutionality of the Board of Education plan. The taxpayccrs contend that it is u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l both in .Vow Jersey and in the U n i t e d States lo assign pupils to a given school because of race or color. This group, which numbers 500. argues I t h a t t h e hoard is establishing the central sixth grade school a I the old K n g l o Street J u n i o r High School purely on t h e basis of, color and t h a t i t is improper to use taxpayers' f u n d s fnr an uneonsliUitional purpose. The croup eon lends that ihe p l a n is discnminatory against while pupils who are being compelled Lo attend a school o t h e r t h a n t h e i r ncighborhood school.
Tri;i! H a l t Sunn

Attacking its c u n s t i t u t i o n a l i l y are a group of four taxpayers represented by James T. .Murphy, and anolher group of white parenU. members of the Save Our Neighborhood Schools committee, represented by James A. Major. 1 Hackensack attorney. 500 residents bod signed the original petition. Board 01" Kducation Attorney 1 Sidney Dincin and Brcslin both ! told Judge A u c e l l i that no more I than S199.500 now appropriated for the p l a n w i l l lie spent or ap! propriated u n t i l "us cons'itution: a lily is decided.
Program Stalls M o n d a y

Lincoln School, except for tinKindergarten w i l l rea.^e activities on Monday imd a l l * l x t h grade

i s l u d e n i s w i l l repm*' I n ii c e n t r a l j >i.\tli grade at t h e l o r m t - r K n g l c : Street J u n i o r H i g h S',-iio<>l. Sl.u' dents in grades one through f i v e

! w i l l be assigned to I he t h r e e elementary schools. Ureslin, who opposed a motion i by Deputy Attorney General Jo; seph A. H o f f m a n to dismiss t h e

.\Turphy complaint. s;iid that thoi-c hf represents \^.lllt. '.In- ronstij lulional tiup^tion ,itis\d as
i soon as possible. ; He said the C i i y x u l l m > L . < u I propiiitc a d d i t i o n a l f u n (is tor I t i n

Judge Auyulli declined to rule : on l h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y at MonI day's hearing hut said lie will act \l tiato so thai lie can render a decision by February. .Meanwhile i the board is p e r m i t t e d to use Lip | I ho SI 19.00(1 appropriated hut is ! Ui receive no a d d i t i o n a l funds 1 u n t i l the issue j> s e t t l e d . Mayor A u s t i n N. Volk and Councilman-at-larRe W i l l i a m D. Ticknor Jr., both of whem have deI clared their reliance in duo procdaj
hit, interfere. Mr. Ticknor declarer! t'Jiat ho has consistently stood fix the neighborhood school policy but above all for due process of law, At the bearing In Newark, Federal District; Court Judge Anthony T. A age Mi said lie would bear and decide on the constitutional question by Feb. 1 Judge Angel I i also rejected n request by two groups of "white parents to slop implementation of the p l a n on Monday, pending a decision on its constitutionality. School officials later said that the plan would so into effect on Monday.

John J. Breath! J r, who represents the Mayor and Board of School Estimates in the case, said that the City will neither argue for mor against the constitutiona l i t y of the plan as of now. He said that if they took the position t h a t it was unconstitutional, il. would be a d m i t t i n g that the Board of School Estimates committed an illegal act when it voted fundsi for the p l a n last August. Judge Augclli confirmed the j right of the taxpayers to insist on the test of constitutionality and denied all applications to prevent such a test. He said it is a federal i matter, not stale. : Council niAn~aU I we W i l l i a m ! Ticknor said that the people want i lo find out if the plan is unconstij i ut t o n a l , and that's I he reason JL is in court in the first plane. Defending the constitutionality i of the plan are tlie Boar of Eduea< lion and the State Commissioner ; of Education, represented by the ! Slate Attorney General's office, ! which, pleaded t h e case before the 1 judge.

ENCLEWOOD ACTS O> INTEGRATION

ON INTEGRATION
Citywide 6th Grade Opened in Bid to End Imbalance By JOHN W. SLOCUM
RatcM to The New York Tlmei

ENGLEWOOD, N. J., Oct. 28 The Board of Education's plan to end racial imbalance in the elementary schools went into effect today. For the last two years the imbalance has been the center of much controversy and the cause of sitins, boycotts, desegregation rallies and law suits. "Now \ve can get settled down to the job of education," said Dr. Mark R. Shedd, Superintendent of Schools. The plan went into effect with the opening of a citywide sixth-grade school in the former junior high school at 11 Engle Street and the transfer of firstthrough fifth-grade pupils from Lincoln School, which had a 98 percent Negro enrollment, to the. three predominantly white schools. Lincoln school had been boycotted several times by Necro erouos. Classes Delayed The sixth-grade school has I 290 pupils, of whom 60 camel from Lincoln School and 2301 from the remaining four elementary schools. At the start of this term 125 pupils were transferred from Lincoln to the Cleveland, Quarles and Roosevelt Schools. Today, 215 more entered those schools from Lincoln. Only 75 kindergarten pupils and 24 trainables remain at Lincoln, which will now house the system's administrative staff. The school board proposed the plan July 29. It had received a directive on July 1 from the Statt Commissioner of Education, Dr. Frederick M. Raubinger, to produce a. plan by Aug. 1 to end the racial imbalance in the elementary schools. The junior and senior high schools have been integrated right along. Implementation of. the plan was delayed by law suits brought by white groups. Last Monday*Judge AnthoHyT. Augelli of the Federal District Court in Newark agreed to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the sixth grade school. White parents contended that their children had been assigned to it illegally on the basis of race. Judge Augelli promised to hand down a decision by the opening of the spring term on Feb. 1. It was also stipulated by the Board of Education, the city and the plaintiffs that no more money than the $119,500 already allocated for the refurbishing of the Engle Street School would be spent pending Judge Augslli's decisiprv,, .

Citywide 6th Grade Opned| 'in Bid to End !mb

By JOHN W. fiLOCUH
." SptClal to Tb I

Board of Education1 si plan to end racial imbalance In j the elementary schools went I into effect today. For the last! two years *. the Imbalance, has J been the center of much con-j troversy and the cause of rit-J ins, boycotts, desegregation I rafllefl and law suits..; .t.-^c^J ^"Now^ we can get settled down! to the Job of education," saUI Dr. Mark R. Shadd, Buperin-l tendent of Schools. ' ;; ;^iJ The plan went into, effect I with -the opening of a cltywlde I sixth-grade achool in the former I ijoalor- "altgti. school %t XV BngleJ Street and the transfer of first-j through lif Upgrade pupils froml IJncorn School,-which had-a &81 ''percent Negro enrollment, to J the .three predominantly -white I schools. Lincoln school .had been I boycotted several times by'Ne-J gro groups.

^<^': CtaMtn Pelayed

T h e sixth-grade school haaj 290,pupils, of whoa 60 camel |titBtt:,:Llncoln School and. 230] from 'the remaining four elefl aentary schools. = ;. .';..; l^M the:atajrt 6f'this term 12SJ transferred froml the Cleveland, Quar-l les*ahd Booseyelt Schools, To-1 day, 215 more entered .thdsel scliools from Lincoln, Only 751 Jdndergarten pupils and '241 trainables remaJn at Lincoln,! which will now' kouse the sys-| tern's administrative staff, iiv^l The school-board proposed theJ plan, July 29. It had received a] directive on July 1 from the! State Commissioner of Educa-J tion, Dr. lYederick M. Bau-1 binger, to produce a plan' by I Aug. l to end the racial 1m- j balance, in the elem.entaxyl schools. The Junior and senlorl High schools have been inte-1 grated irlght along.;. .-; ".'v'i^iil Implementation of the planl was delayed by law' sultal brooght.by white groups. Last! Monday, Judge Anthony T. Au-J geiU of the Federal'DtetriBt| Court in Newark agreed to hear! arguments on the constitution-1 allty of. the. sixth grade school J r White parents contended that! their children had been assigned I to it illegally on the basis of I race.-Judge Augelli promised to J hand down a decision by the|

Citywide 6th Grade Opwed] ^InBiatoiEndl!

1' SocUl to Tht

teKi&- " :..-^v.-: :.i^:>^g?|

iipjflpppp

!";'.The Board of Education's! plaa to end racial imbalance In! the elementary schools went! into effect today. For the last! two years ^ the Imbalance', has! been the center of much con-J troversy and the cause of rit-J ins, boycotts, 'desegregation] rafliefl and law suits.. J-'^&igA Z:y*N6&we can gjst settled down| to the Job of education," said Dr. Mark R. Shedd, Buperin: teadent of Schools. ' : v^j;:: The plan went into effect! with-the opening of a cltywide] sixth-grade *choo] in the former I :juatar- iugh school at 1^ E>nglel ; Street and the transfer of first-1 fifth-grade pupOs from! [;Uncorn SchtxjJ, - which had-' a 98 J percent'"Negro enrollment, to J the .three predominantly -white J schools. Lincoln school .had been| boycotted several times by Ue gro.groups, ' '..vv.V;.*

JTjvOct.291

^Vff-;';'; :.-C!ii'fse Delayed."..-; ;K

;::' The ' sixth-grade school has! 290.pupils, of whom 60 camel from. Lincoln School and 2301 from the remaining four elefj mentary schools. :. .--''"..-.jjig $;-At the start 6f this term pupils yitrG. transferred from! Lln^n^to -the Cleveland, Quar-1 Jes"ahd Booseyeit Schools, To-J day, 215 more entered .those] schools from Lincoln, Only 751 Idndergarten pupils and. '241 tralnables remain at Lincoln,! which will now"house the sys-| tern's administrative staff. ' The school-board proposed the! plaa July 20. It had received a] directive on July 1.. from the! State Commissioner of Educa-l tion, Dr. Frederick M. Rau-J binger, to produce; a plan by I Aug. 1 to end. the racial 1m-1 balance, in the elementary! schools. -The. junior and senior! Ugh schools have been Inte-1 grated "tight along. '^$3m Implementation of the plan] was. - delayed by law ' suits! brought.by white groups. Last] Monday, Judge Anthony T. Au-] gelll of the Federal. Dlstrlctl Court m Newark agreed to hear! arguments on the constitution-] ality of the sixth grade schooL] White parents contended that] their children had been assigned I to it illegally on the basis of] race.-Judge Augelli promised to] band down a decision by the]

E\&LJEWOOD The Board of for desegregation of T.int-TTT^-s/-h^ni order by the State Department of Education, went into complete effect Monday morning without incident. 290 sixth graders from all elc mentary schools in the city were assigned to the new central sixth grade school and the school opened without incident. The Board of Education had set the opening date for Monday, Oct. 28 and met the Urget. The matter still in the courts although Federal Judge Anthony Augelli declined to delay the opening, declaring however that the constitutionality of the question must be determined He is going to announce a trial date soon. A group of taxpayers is contesting constiutionality, claiming that it is un'onstitutional to assign pupils to a given school, according to race

Central School >pens Here Onietl; *- / /

or color, The plan^wtTfit into effect with nig of a citywide sixthgrade school in the former j u n i o r high school at 11 Knglc Street and the transfer of first-through f i f t h grade pupils from' Lincoln School, which had a flSpcrccnt -Negro enrollment, to the throe predominantly white schools. Lincoln school| had been boycotted several times by Neyro groups. Classes Delayed The sixth-grade school has 290 pupils, of whom (if) came from Lincoln School and 230 from the r e m a i n i n g four elementary schools. Lcroy McCloud, formerly oC L i n coln, is principal of the new school. Classes got xmdcr way two hours late because workmen wore putting on final touches and teachers were organizing their rooms.
(Continued On Page 8)

'OOD The Bergen County Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) announced it will hold a victory parly Saturday November 2. beginning 8:00 p.m. to celebrale the end of school segregation in Lincoln school grades. The party, at the newly opened CORE headquarters at 35 Humphrey street, will be in honor of councilman Vincent K. Tihbs and all "Boycotting Parents." Mrs. Lacy, CORE C h a i r m a n said, "without their determination and sacrifices Endewood would still have segregated schools today. \V'e are all indebted to them.'' The party will ho open to all "Boycotting Parents'" and supporters including the Englcwood Movement. NAACP and many others who supported the efforts to desegregate Lincoln.

Central School Is Established

(Continued from page 1)

At the start of t h i s term 12") pupils were transferred from Lincoln lo the Cleveland, Quarles and Roosevelt Schools. Today, 21 fi more entered those schools I r o m Lincoln. Only 75 . kindergarten pupils and 24 trainablcs remain at Lincoln, which will now house the system's administrative .! staff. The school board proposed the plan J u l y 211. It had received a directive on July 1 f r o m the S t a t e i Commissioner of Kducation. Dr. I j Frederick M. R a u b i n g e r to produce 1 I a plan by Aug. 1 to end the racial ; I imbalance in the elementary j schools. The junior and senior high ; schools have been integrated right; ' along.

Z MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, 1JBRABY OF CONCHES REPRODUCED FROt4 TIE COUJ3CTIONS OF TIE

OCTOBEB TERM, 1963 No. 865, Miscellaneou*

FREDERICK M. RAUBINGER, Commissioner of Kclncation of the State of New Jersey and thi- STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ... Petitioners, AXTIIOXY T. Al'OKLLI, Judge, Uniird States District Court, District of New Jersey, Respondent.

REPLY BRIEF AND APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF PROHIBITION

ARTHUR J. SELLS, Attorney General of New Jersey, Attorney for Petitioners, Frederick .!/. Raubhiffer and State Board of Education of the State of New Jersey, State House Annex, Trenton, New Jersey. THEODORE I. BOTTER, First Assistant A t t o r n e y General, Of Counsel. JOSEPH A. HOFFMAN, Deputy Attorney General, Of Counsel un-tl on- tlte Brief.
Adiin. Pres. Corp., 11 Commerce Sirt, Nt*rk. N. J.Market J-3611-12

INDEX TO REPLY BRIEF

PAGE

STATEMENT REASONS FOB GRANTING THE WRIT CONCLUSION Cases Cited Application of State Bank of Plainfield, In re, 61 N. J. Super. 150 (App. Div. 1960) BaUaban v. Rubin (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 1963) Bell v. School City of Gary, 324 F. 2d 209 (1963).... Blocker v. Board of Education, Manhasset, No. 62-C285 (D. C. E. D. N. Y. Jan. 24,1964)

1 5 12

5 6 6 6, 9

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954) 6, 7,10 Hasbrouck Heights v. Division of Tax Appeals, 48 N. J. Super. 328 (App. Div. 1958) Laba v. Newark Board of Education, 23 N. J. 364 (1957) Morean v. Board of Education, Montclair, Docket No. A-112-63
United States Constitution Cited

4 4 4

Fourteenth Amendment Statutes Cited N.J.S.A. 18:3-14 N.J.S.A. 18:3-15 .

2 2

J- I

\-

REPRODUCED FHOM THE COLLECTIONS OK THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

**

/Q ej .tt

-c 5 W c *-. m o

I 3- aH-*
}-

** 3
EH
p

. 8
:5

1 -S
4

3 W w E-* -9
U

S 1B"

ft;

<o

u.

\-z

te A a ~ .a
^3 'H O 'C p, f. o

o
C3

- ' '"

G --;

13 a; G; 1-3

ca K aj W ( W

>i

"o

^ ^ *G IS J3 >^
O O

" "o

^ 5
QJ

3 o a s fe) \*
W U

* o
z

*p

1
X

M <

"-5

.,

S 2
u3

i ^ s TI s
0 o -^

_0

e,

>

J
M 0 -5

O >^

Oiw B5H ^

~~~

4-1

O
A

st

S
2

En
>

Q^

uj

j^ cT ^ ^, c c
0

3 /T ft 5 j. - r;

1= I-S
G.

rP

>.

! 3

7_i t; O tS i- o ^ ? o
S -^

s fC ^_

o K "S,

s <2

f.
^Q

/? 1*

^ ~

>>

c_, _ 171 g

S -*i t-1 c- T3

_cj SJ o "wo

ra

GER, Commissioner

IEF IN SUPPOR )F PROHIBITIO

Statement

ments concerning the Governor o7,h r<?ference to stateej. The Governor did not Ike th' f ^ Jertnbuted to him on page g of - , e the announcement attte plan did not becom ! " ' m * r tta " lf held regardless of the Court's W0uid 'be evidence in the record ^ vernor. Both the Answers of the , d * tervenors *' S judicial and e o ^ The mettod o of issio"er of Education to the State Board of Educati Commissio"er of Education '<!. to create the *%* administrative remedies were appeal from a decision of Ie C

The plaintiff's below sioner's ordei. in ST a jrotioo for prcIimin. nc , submitted and argument/we r e ^ ' missed and the Court deliv ald't

"f
s moti " briefs were

was dis-

to
e L a u a n d 'c n " nv " both ac ons " oth r. Thus, it is clear haa ffh T'T f <he Superior h ? h 'ho intervenors, Volpe --oaring, wherein

Beforee or

18:3-14 and 15. The rtles D " 1 Tply stated N.J.S 1 Bating to such apai g ? r n ft t e d ^ the State Board t^hers, parents ofTgg 6VL de,hb"a'^ simple so thlt employees and *?**$**' sch("" ^oard qnui-jndieW remedieswfdejt".^ themS6iVeS of the ent of Education. Both the cl *" S'ate ^I"^ ^eneraUvfoHow the r^ and the Board determ ming their ow

and briefed "e State Board of ^ rder befo ^k in the Law Divi sioil of ,, collateral atd'amssed. The stay ^s % rt had been ed onthp merits ^ P'ain.i ffs . in , ervenoi , ya ^ a d Appellate Division of tl'eS, r 'd'S decisi<"' to the f intervenors). It might T' 7? (PW 9' A-" "e statement made o.' . ' ^ that Contrary to er, the State Board met ' ) , mte"*ors' An"t.o n aj qil e s , ions i,,^,0; a i d discussed the constie 18a e< ^' d'^ toWrit of Prohib oed (S

appeals dismissed. This noint '"tenors' State o- The Appellate Di ^ "of t^T fUr ' her cl arificaow. motion ordered the into V 1**** C urt " ;" V Jhoir appeals should no b d i "? ( $hcw rae , ention a, the time for the fir, * *"?? **ftor Iack of prose"Pired. The Attornev Gen S j had '^ si"" Court to cither require' ap ,a '.T^'? a"d UrSed 'ho o; |:bo dismissed: 1 1, ha^ ' hfsT.^' '^^ a ^ al 'f (he Federal prosecntio,, o 7h lta..8t"rt P 0 "ilioi. t h a t ' ~-t ,hP State proceed ! " "f' '0" Can " of '"' stayed, * 'horo is no pro^ion ?? .S"^ ")"f'"''-""tlv. " whi v , ''"; ' S ?"" """' ''"ofv lln -"""-rx...L. n > "...M-tnPx,,,,!,,,. , cond ,h "'1'imi.gthisohioc.iv,. , tf ' i, "'V iU'" "f "^"8 the court o " " !i " ''"' ' '' '' "t Hi" nppenl. The V ""i r,":""''''"" P ros "wl">

-'Xr^

cision. This case, Alorean v. Board of Education, Montclair, Docket Wo. A-112-63, has already been fully briefed and argued in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and is awaiting opinion. An inference may be drawn that had counsel for the plaintiffs and intervenors pursued conventional appellate remedies in the State courts, the instant case would have already been reached by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The intervenors' Answer also implies that the Commissioner's active participation through the Attorney General in this litigation after his decision was rendered is somehow improper. It is .settled Ian- in New Jersey that where the interests of the public in a particular litigation reach oat beyond that of the immediate parties, both the administrative agency involved and the Attorney General have an obligation to participate in all subsequent proceedings. E.g., Laba v. Newark Board of Education, 23 N. J. 36i (1957); Hasbrouck Heights v. Division of Tax Appeals, 48 NT. J. Super. 328, 333, 334 (App. Div. 1958). On page 3 ox the intervenors' Answer, counsel refers to a study of the Engleivood public schools which was instituted iby the Commissioner and conducted by a committee of educational experts appointed by him. The extensive report of that committee concluded that there was no intentional, invidious segregation by the Bnglewood Board of Education and that there was substantial equality insoI far as tho physical aspects of (ho Englewood educational system, such as school building and equipment, were concerned. But, the report also revealed that the Negro children in the all-Negro Lincoln School under-achieved significantly in reading, intelligence, and aptitude tests, in comparison to both Negro and White children throughout j the entire Englewood district. The report also indicated that rheii these Negro children went on to junior high and

high schools, their class rank was significantly lower and their drop-out rate was significantly higher than that of Negro and,.JVhite pupils generally throughout the district. ^-' During the course of the hearings, on the motion of the Negro petitioners, the Commissioner took judicial notice of his own report. This was done on the advice of the Attorney General and pursuant to established procedures of State administrative law. In re Application of State Bank of Plainfeld, 61 N. J. Super. 250 (App. Div. 1960). Our failure to challenge or correct other statements in the responses of plaintiffs and intervenors does not mean that we accept such statements or misstatements, but rather that they are not relevant and therefore do not warrant further attention. All parties hereto are obviously in accord as to those basic facts necessary -to a determination of the issues presented by this Writ. Reasons for Granting the Writ Both the responses of the plaintiffs, Fuller, et at., and the Answer of the intervenors, Volpe, ct al., allege that the Commissioner'* action was motivated solely by racial considerations and that he "forcibly" directed that the Englewood School District achieve a racial balance in its elementary schools. This is neither a sophisticated nor a coi'rect appraisal of the Commissioner's acfion. An analysis of the Commissioner's decision indicates that he found a^ a fact thai the pupils in tin.1 all-Negro Lincoln School WOT being denied equal educational opportunity as defined by Stale law and Hint this denial was niwcrf by tlin stigma which attached to compulsory attendance at such a school, particularly where reasonable means consistent with sound educational principles existed to cure this unwholesome situation. It becomes evident, therefore, that lie did not take Hie instant action because of race but be-

h
5

f. 2

II

cause of unequal educational opportunity as defined by State law caused by racial factors. The significant intervening factor of unequal educational opportunity changes the entire constitutional complexion of the arguments of the plaintiffs and intervenors below. . Nor is it true that the Commissioner ordered the Eugleirood Board of Education to achieve a racial balance in its schools. His decision and order are directed only at the elimination of the segregated condition in the Lincoln School. There is not and has not been any decision, order or directive of the Commissioner of Education of this State which has required or even recommended the achievement of racial balances. His order in the Englewood case is exactly like that of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954), in that the Commissioner directed the desegregation of a segregated school system and nothing more. ^ It is the position of the State of New Jersey and of the. State Department of Education that segregation which is maintained and countenanced by a board of education is as inherently evil as segregation by invidious design and must be eliminated, at least where reasonable means exist so to do. This undertaking to eliminate where possible the unwholesome e.feets of so-called "de facto segregation" is attempted in the exercise of the State's police power without reference to whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment requires the same result. As to the latter question, I there is a disparity of legal thought. Compare Blacker v. Board of Education, ilanhasset, No. 62-C-285 (D. C. E. IX N. Y. Jan. 24,1964) with Sell v. School City of Gary, 324 F. | 2d 209 (1963). It is also noteworthy that the plaintiffs, Fuller, et al, rely heavily upon the New York case of Ballaban v. Rubin (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., 1963). That case was subsequently

reversed by the Second Judicial Department of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court on March 10, 1964. The higher court held that the Brown case constituted "a clear.jnandate to the Boards of Education in selecting the siw for a new school and establishing its admittance zone to prevent de facto segregation". The Commissioner of Education recognizes, as do many other educators throughout the nation that, in a true sense, children in Negro slum areas live in a world apart, out of the main stream of modern American life. These children are deprived not only of the material things common to ordinary living standards in the State and Nation but, more significantly, of the basic experiences which are common in the world around them. They live in and are schooled in an aura of despair, without aspiration and often without hope. The conditions in the segregated "ghetto school" have a decided negative impact upon the learning process. The Commissioner expressed his approach to this problem in his Affidavit in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment below: "It was my decision and it remains my opinion that a stigma attaches to attendance at a school whose enrollment is completely o* almost exclusively Negro and that this sense of stigma and resulting feelings of inforiority have on undesirable effect upon a t t i t u d e s related to learning. .My decision was based on the report of the Faet-Finding Committee, nil of the evidence before me, and, of necessity, upon my own experience and knowledge in the field of public education. "Learning results from the interaction of the learner and his environment. Schools attempt to provide a wide variety of experiences suited to the ages and capabilities of the pupils, in order that the opportunities

9 "Children's attitudes about themselves, who they are and what they are, develop from the ways in which they are treated by those with whom they come in contact in the pro^ss of growing up. The public school has a major role to play in seeing that children's attitudes are positive ones that encourage self-development. A feeling of stigma or inferiority, which may be fostered by the conditions under which a child lives, should not be strengthened and perpetuated by the school where reasonable means exist to avoid it. The development of such feelings engenders attitudes which produce poor motivation, low aspirations, and lack of purpose with a resultant negative effect upon learning. It is my judgment that the Lincoln School in Englewood, as it existed at the time of the complaint before me, tended to strengthen in many of its pupils feelings of stigma growing out of conditions of housing in the community, that reasonable means existed to avoid this condition, and that failure to employ those means constituted a denial of educational opportunity under the laws ot New Jersey. A 'board of education is charged by State law to provide equalized educational opportunities for its pupils. The mere fact that the board did not initiate the conditions causing such educational deprivation does not relievo it from the legal obligation of seeking proper solutions, particularly in a community such as Englewood where several reasonable, practical, economic and desirable solutions exist. A board's lack of fault does not absolve it from the responsibility of mitigating or eliminating the harm." The above opinion is equally shared iby the New York Board of Regents and the Federal District Court in lilocl'fr v. Board of Education, Manlia-sset, supra :

to learn may be many and diverse and present to the greatest degree possible. When the environment for learning is broad and varied, rich with experiences of many kinds, (be educational climate is enhanced and learning occurs more effectively. Conversely, when the environment is meager, impoverished or limited in scope, opportunities for learning are restricted or denied, and education is hampered and apt to be less effective. This is a generalization to which individual exceptions will be found, bu-t, in my opinion, the statements are true with respect to pupils in general. In my judgment, the Lincoln School in Englewood, as it was constituted, provided a significantly less than desirable educational environment which could be improved through reasonable, practicable and educationally sound means and that being so it constitutjjl a denial of equal educational opportunity under New Jersey law. "The major goal of public education in this country is ti help each individual to become an adequate pp~son, to achieve his optimum development as a human personality so that the welfare of all may be enlarged. To accomplish this purpose schools must be concerned with the attitudes which pupils develop about themselves and the world they live in because those attitudes have an incalculable effect upon successful learning. How an individual sees and vie\vs himself has important implications for every aspect of his behavior, in school or out. \Vc know, for example, that failures in reading and spelling occur, in most instances, not so much from incapacity to achieve these skills but from unfortunate attitudes about them. Pupils who view themselves as inadequate are apt to respond or behave inadequately.

- I
g!'. G

10 "In the instant case, plaintiffs' experts equate the psychological effect of de facto segregation with that found in Brown with reference to de jure segregation. .This opinion is shared by the Board of Regents of The University of the State of New York in a statement issued at its meeting of January 27-28, 1960: 'Modern psychological knowledge indicates that schools enrolling students largely of homogeneous, ethnic onigin, may damage the personality of minority group children. Such schools decrease their motivation and thus impair the ability to learn. Public education in such a setting is socially unrealistic, blocks the attainment of the goals of democratic education and is wasteful of manpower and talent, whether this situation occurs by law or by fact.' We are dealing in grades K through 6, i.e., from age 5 to 11. They see themselves living in an almost entirely Negro area and attending a school of similar character. If they emerge beyond the confines of the Valley area into the District at large, they enter a different world inhabited only iby white people. They are not so mature and sophisticated as to distinguish between the total separation of all Negroes pursuant to a mandatory or permissive State statute based on race and the almost identical situation prevailing in tbeir school district. The Valley situation generates the same feeling of inferiority as to tbeir status in the community as was found by the Supreme Court in Broim to flow from substantially similar segregation by operation of State law. This harmful effect, like pain and suffering in a tort action, is not susceptible of precise measurement. Nor is it known exactly when and how this psychological damage is manifested. The court cannot accept the opinion of Dr. BrickeU, no psy-

11
chologist, that psychological damage, if any exists, must necessarily be reflected in a lower level of achievement in the 3-R's than is normally expected on the basis of measured intelligence or socioeconomic level." The substantive issue presented by this Writ is whether a State's fulfillment of its obligation to provide equal education to all of its citizens violates the Fourteenth Amendment rights of White children. Couched in these terms the issue is not stated too broadly. An analysis of the Commissioner's decision and the plan of the Englewood Board of Education reveals that there was no constitutionally relevant difference in treatment between White and Negro children in Englewood. Insofar as the sixth grade is concerned, all children were treated alike. Insofar as the other five grades were concerned, only the children (9S% Negro) who attended Lincoln School left their immediate neighborhood for a school located elsewhere in the municipality. All other children remained at the same neighborhood schools which they had attended in the past. The fact that the Commissioner took any action at all to mitigate the effects of this complex problem is the subject of the litigatio'. below. We submit that this case presents no substantial federal question. A full and extensive hearing on the merits was hold before the Commissioner and the record of said hearing and the decision thereon is now pending on appeal before the Stale appellate courts. We further submit that there is no valid s u b s l a n t i v e or pro eednral reason for tile entire matter to be re-tried before a 1'Yderal court, to be f u r t h e r subjected to file Federal appellate system, and then to be ultimately remanded to the State courts for a determination of the important State issues which could render moot any review of the insubstantial Federal questions presented to the District Court.

s a

12
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and the reasons expressed in our Writ of Prohibition, it is respectfully urged that such Writ be issued from this Court directing the said Honorable Anthony T. Augelli to refrain from proceeding with said cause. (Respectfully submitted, ARTHUR J. STT.T.S, Attorney General of New Jersey, Attorney for Petitioners, THEODORE I. BOTTBR, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel. JOSEPH A. HOFFMAN, Deputy Attorney General, Of Counsel and on the Brief. APPENDIX
Opinion of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division

^/

SUPERIOR COURT or XEW JEHSEY CHANCERY DIVISION (SEAL) Court House Jersey City, N. J. Chambers of Morris Pashnmn Judge August 26, 1963 Vorsanger & Murphy, Esqs., Att.: James T. Murphy, Esq., One Engle Street, Englewood, Xew Jersey. Breslin & BresKn, Esqs., Att.: John J. Breslin, Jr., Esq., 41 Main Street, Hackensack, Xp\ Jersey. Sidney Dincin, Esq., 16 W. Palisade Avenue, Eille\vood, ,\Y\ Jersey. A r t h u r .). Sills, Ksq.. Allorney General ol' N'IM\v Att.: Joseph A. IlolTiiian, Esq., Deputy Attorney Goncr;il Stale House Annex, Trenton, Now Jersey.

[la]

U.S. Court Ruling Eyed In Englewood

J

|</7/6^>

ENGLEWOOD Both side o f , another school, sii:M)ly for the purthe controversy over the neighbor-! pos of balancing the races in Uic hood school policy are evaluating j various schools." '.'\f effect o' the "j)i;r"1 S'itc- I Attorneys in the Fodenii court suit !n Ciilcasro. whicii i.^X~ that ago tiiat the neighborhood school \y the Gary. Ind.. is valid Education: in Chieafio Board of and '.. and Schools Superintendent Ben-! must fce observed by the schools : jamin C. Willis be forced to end j tii ere. the neighborhood schools policy' The ruling -A is handed down here, disagreed .is to the effect of Friday in ;: case that is s i m i l a r the Appeals Court ruling on the; to the Englc-.vood case where the : Chicago case. neighborhood school poiicy. which : Paul Zxibcr. chief counsel f o r . says tlia children must attend the , tile .N'esro parcnt.s filing the s u i t . , schools nearest their homes, is also contended tiiat it "von't affect our ; undergoing a tc-^t. T\\ citizens; ca--e in any way.' 1 He contended '. 2roups have charged tiiat Che that the alleged segregation in : Board of Education program : Chicago "results in !ar<jc part which has set up a central school from deliberate acts which have for all sixth grades and has I been committed by the Board of i assigned all ohicr Lincoln School! Kducalion and the school adminis-. children to Cleveland. Quarles, j (ration." and .Roosevelt -Schools are uncon- But Keubcn L. Hedlund. an stitutional. The suits charge it is : attorney for the defendants, conunconstitutional to a-si'-m pupils tended that the Gary and Chicaso to school on the basis of race and cases were similar. color. They contend that th;s is ; what has been done in Jinglcwood under orders of the State Depart- ; merit of Education. The U.S. Cour' of Appeals, in a 3-mar. ruling said that school district boundaries in Gary were determined without consideration o f ; race or color and that the lines had not been drawn "for the purpose of including or excluding children of certain races." In his ruling .Judge Beamer noted that several hundred Gary pupils v.ere being transferred from crowded schools in their own districts to less crowded schools elsewhere in the city, but that this was not being done on a racial basis. He held that the Constitution's 14th Amendment would be violated if some student* were required "to leave their ncighbc, iiood and friends and be transferred to

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

ENCLCUOOO PUBLIC SCHOOLS .

Engleiiood, New Jarsay Office of the Superintendent ENROLLMENTS AND CLASS LOADS! 11/12/63 Class Room % Negro Enrollment Engli St. Cleveland Liberty Roosevelt Queries (6) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) (1-5) 4.* 17 33. 7* 61* . 34.2JC IS. 6? Enroll* ment 290 547 2B3 310 301 Teachers
12 20 13 12 12

. Class Loads Average

24.2 27.3 21.8 25.8 2. 51

Largest
25 32 24

Smallest
23 23

;19 20 20

31 31

Unasaioned teaehere ^.:'---V i. Cleveland . Quarlee Rooaavolt Reading Class Slioa Clevaland Quarles .. Roosevelt . 24.0 23.2 23.0 2 1 1
'-} .'J)

* Enrollment total number of teachers

; -:&-,?;:-'-il/13/63

UJIITB) STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OP HEW JBR3W ...

CIVIL 0. 847-63
GERTRUDE P. FULLER, RICHARD L. ORUBMAN, THOMAS F. CACCIOLA and JOSEPHINE CACCIOLA, his Wife, and others to be named,

Plaintiffs', and JERRY VOLPE and KATHERINE VOLPE, hia wife, LOUIS PUGACE and BEATRICE FUOACH, hia wife, ALLAH LASSER and JUDITH LASSER, hia wife, OTTILIO D'ALESSIO and MARIE D'ALLESIO, his wife, SOL HANDLER and LILLIAN HANDLER, hia wife, EUGENE F. CLEMENTS and MARJORIS CLEMENTS, his wife, EDWARD ROBBINS and GLORIA ROBBINS, hia wife, LLOYD POLLARD and BLANCHE POLLARD, hia wife, intervening Plaintiffs,
AUSTIN A. VOLK, WILLIAM D. TICKNOR, JR., 0. CARLYSLE MeCANDLESS, CARMEN R. HTNTZ and WARREN L. LEWIS, constituting the BOARD OF SCHOOL ESTIMATE OF ENGLEWOOD, NEW JERSEY, and THE CITY OF ENOLSWOOD, NEW JERSEY, JOHN E.-PERRY, WUISEORABOW,-THEODORE ) R. VAN ITALLIE, CARMEN R. HTNTZ and WARREN L. LEWIS, constituting the ) ABOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, ]

FILED

CIVIL ACTION

,&su->W<

Defendants, and FREDERICK M. RAUBDWER, Conaissioner of Education of the State of New Jersey, Intervening Defendant.

1.'.._ The Intervening plaintiffs are it IBM* of th United states and of the State of *Mew '. ' .- . . - . - aa' well ''- .*V Jersey, ' ' a* " taxpayers of the City of Bnglewood, Bergen County, H* and are the parents of minor children who attend the school system of the City of Englewood, Bergen County* Mew
, .-

' ' < V' ' >''''? ~:' :"<"" '''n

,t ' , " . , - ',")..' *V; .->'i

Jersey, and during all the tines hereinafter mentioned :occupied the a ! status, a4 ' <

...,im_:*;^

'

y^~:.:.' 2. This suit involves rights granted to these

intervening plaintiffs by the Fourteenth Apenrtaent of the - V_ * United States Constitution.-

\. The City of Englewocd maintains an el

public school system, and at the close of the school sea** in June of 1963 operated 5 elementary public school buildings. 4. During the school year which ended in June of 193< the said schools were operated on what is coanonly known as the neighborhood school basis, under which studen' were assigned to a school based on the place where they lived and its proximity to the school which they were de ted to attend. 5. At the close of the school year in June of 1 6 9!
V - . .

and for a long period of time, the assignment of pupils to the respective schools was not baaed,on race, creed, or ancestral origin. 6. Under the system as thus operated, the chili of Jthes>e_intervening plaintiffs would have attended ^ .:. neighborhood school in the school year commencing in Sep" .'.VJk'.'%;;- '- S.l-Vi'v ) jA^:"^^t.^k^^!'i

tember of 1963.

. : ;-".

'>' '-> r i-^f-S ri'^$

7i Prior to July 1st, school children attending the Snglew<x}4 school i with the intervening defendant, PrederioJc " ' " 'i&l ^-'"CA . - -" petitions alleging.that the defendant, Board of
.; ' '" ' ' "'-' " ' . ;''"?'"'> ,5
X -..-'i

.,fe '<*. ; T . ^.S'.-T-.T.V; . ~'

the City of Engletrood, ntalntained racially segregatad p u b l i w i ; . ,

- .
: '"

' ^ : ' - V ':?'^'.' ~<^'':,:-l-^-:'<-i^^"^1$'.:\&y$K

schools and had refused '-'. ljq>lepent plms^^' tQ^^>ll^d^^^^.V:V:4'7^: ;-:fe to .' -. .--' > '-" -'./v,J-''i'i:?v-;' r'.('i\. "'-* \*v:'t':*>ji

patterns of

, "*>

--- ^^^msE^M&m
JiijL, m
f . ^ v ^

Board of Education of the City of diate steps to eliminate all in the said publ: ther prayed that

..-.v-;c

proposal known as the "central.intermediate school plan", 8. The intervening plaintiffs were permitted to intervene in that action. 9. On July 1st, 1963, the defendant, Frederic* M. Raubinger, filed his decision in which*he held that the de-! fendant, Board of Education of the City of Englewood, did I not maintain a racially segregated school system by deliberate action and intent. He further held that the enrollment in r one of the said public schools, i.e., Lincoln School, was comprised almost exclusively of negro pupils, and that the defendant, Board of Education of the City of Englewood, should be required to take affirmative action to improve the racial balance in that school. :
" - - -

10. The said Commissioner, Frederick M. Raubinger, by the decision above referred to, directed the defendant, Board of Education of the City of Snglewood, to formulate a plan, or plans, to reduce the alleged extreme concentration of pupils of the negro race in the Lincoln School, and to .submit such plan, or plans, to him on or before August 1st, 1963, and to put the approved plan into effect at the beginning of the 1963-1964 school year. 11. From this_decislon these intervening plaintiff!

appealed to the State Board of Education, in accordance \h the statute in

12. Vfaile the said appeal was pending, the defendar Board of Education of the City of Englewood, promulgated a plan and submitted it to the defendant, Raubinger, who approved it. 13. The said plan is referred to in the complaint heretofore filed by the plaintiffs, Fuller et als, as a reference to the said complaint will more fully disclose. 14. Under the said plan, the children of these intervening plaintiffs are no longer permitted to attend

Ifp^l^pp-51;-4HC
neighborhood schools, but wo required to attend established for the sole purpose of forcibly white pupils with negro pupi.ia, and which plan deprive* the children of these Intervening plaintiffs of their right to attend a neighborhood school solely because of their color, 15. The said plan was adopted without notice to these intervening plaintiffs, with no opportunity to be heard, nor to present proof or argument against the said plan, and the said plan became operative by the vote of the negro students of the Lincoln School, with no opportunity given to other students to vote on the said plan. .' 16. The decision of the Commissioner was approved by the State Board of Education on September 25, 1963, by a written opinion served on -the intervening plaintiffs on October 8, 1963. S.'
x

mm

^&

mm
yf-ta

17. To implement the said plan, public moneys in the amount of approximately $123,000 have been appropriated I and these Intervening plaintiffs aver, upon information and I X belief, that other public moneys will be necessary to impl^-j ment the said plan. 18. The plan which requires the children of these intervening plaintiffs to attend a designated school, or ,1'1 schools, because of their color, and which deprives them'of the right to attend the neighborhood schools which they . should attend, constitute's a violation of The rights of thesje intervening plaintiffs and their children, which said rights are granted to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the united States Constitution. , 19. These intervening plaintiffs Join['in the~prayefr for judgment, as set forth in the complaint of Fuller et ala presently on file, and in addition, these intervening plain-

.... ,...,...:v^,.,^,.. _,_...,

^T r f % ^ ! .^vX ip
tiffs ask that an injunction tissue enjoining and restrain! the defendant, Raubinger, and the defendant. Board of Educa tion of the City of Englewood, from interfering with the attendance of their children at the neighborhood school ;which they would normally attend.
MAJOR & MAJOR

'^^ WT:

Attorneys of Intervening

Plaintiffs

jamea A. Major, Partner

* v-

-ti

Monthly Bulletin of the Bargen County Chapter of the Congress Of Racial Equality

NEW VOICE, NEW HOME by Shirley Lacy, Che (rman, Bergen Co. Chapter Discrimination exists In Bergen County. The need for an Intensified program of direct action was never more urgent than It Is now. In community after community we find patterns of unequal opportunity such as the apartment that has just been rented, the home that has jutt been sold, the sickening excuse that them are fust no qualified Negroes for apprenticeship training pro-* grams, and the/inferior segregated ghetto school. *',' It was only tnrough determined direct action on the part of parents In Englewood that the batfte^agtrmstHiearegatad schooling was won. Omy a week 900, after years of "separate but equal", segregat Ion In the Englewood school system died. Because discrimination still exists In Bergen county, CORE Is active In Bergen County. We have a new voice, "NOW" and a new home, 35 Humphrey St., Englewood to assist us In the struggle. But the struggle Is enormous and we need all the help we can get. Come vllt us and |oln us to end all forms of Injustice - now. ART FOR CORE

POLICE STATE USA? Suppose you were sitting in the back yard of a friend's house reading --- would you expect to land In a police station? Not likely, If yOu're white and your friend It white. But Just suppose you're a Nqro and your friend Is white. Oops you're / a prowler, suspicious, undesirable --- and your white friend should b glad that police looked out for his Interests by hauling his house guest off to [all . Where did this happen? Alabama? Mississippi? Nol In Westwood, New Jersey a "well bred" Northern town. The suspicious Negro was a 24-yeor old African college student en|oylnq the hospital !fy of this country. CORE learned of this Incident when the white host wrote a letter to the Record. We looked Into It. We contacted the desk sergeant, who referred us to the Captain who referred us to the Police Commissioner who felt that It was none of our business. He stated that It was normal police procedure, they owed no apology to anyone and he didn't see any point in discussing the nffnlr with ui. Well, Westwood hasn't heard the last of CORE MEETINGS

An Art Show to benefit CORE will be held at the Fountain House, 17 Morris St.,Hqckensack from Nov. 9 to the 17th. On weekday* the show will be open 5 to 10 PM and on weekends from noon to 10 PM.

General membership meetings will be held at our new bfflce at 8:30 PM on Tuesday evenings Nov. 5 and 19.

Bergen County Chapter, 35 Humphrey St. Englewood

N. J.

1
own rental agent/ and when the rumor of Negroes moving In" got out, neighboring landlords and Wllbert Powell Is a friendly, soft-spoken man who local businessmen poured on the pressure. They works as a machine operator with a local company voiced dire predictions of panics/ lost business, "l'v been a CORE member for about a year and mass sell-outs, social problems and much more. a half," he told us. "Why did I join CORE? I .The landlord held his ground, the Brown* moved was working with CORE before I joined. I knew In, and there have been no panics or anything the work was essential* CORE takes action; It else/ |ust another victory In human relations. doesn't just lit around tables talking. That I This Isn't always the case. We all know that like." Since becoming a member/ Mr* Powell being the first Negroes In town can be hard, has taken part In the campaign to Integrate local but It's good to know that this can happen. swimming pools and In the Englewood school fight* He Is now the head of CORE'S employment CORE HAS A HOME committee. "The fob has to be done/" he say> simply. 35 Humphrey Street, Englewood Is now a bustling center of plasterers, carpenters,painters Mr. Powell/ his wife/ Elaine/ and his two year and sidewalk'superintendents all with one goal old son/ Wayne recently moved Into an all a meeting place In the community. white apartment house. "Everyone Is very friendly/" Wllbert stated. *A few held back at first/ We plan to be open In the daytime, evening*, but now they have loosened up. Other whites and on Saturdays. Come by, get to know us have moved In since we came. The ball Is always better and let us get to know you. ringing for our boy. The neighbors ask us In for coffee. If I'm washing the car or hying to move Civil rights Is our business and yours. something heavy/ someone Is always willing to SO THAT ALL1 MAY SWIM give me a hand. And Mo the same for them." Wllbert has been visited by the workers In the In reaction to New Jersey's Anti-Discrimination mayoralty campaign and by the minister of a local Law, various swimming pool owners in the County church. He feels that he Is part of the community set up phony "swim clubs" some years ago. At "Everything goes smoothly," he says, In summing these pools membership roll* closed when.Negroes up his feelings about his new home. applied or rates rose from dollars to hundreds. Negroes needed "references"; Whites didn't.

(PROFILE OF A CORE MEMBER

PEACEFUL MOVE TO MAYWOOD

This past spring CORE launched an all-out effort A sympathetic landloard, a hold-the-llne rentto Integrate seven Bergen County pools. One pool Ing agent/ and appearances of local hostility set admitted Negroes shortly after CORE pickers the stage for the move of Barbara and Bert Brown arrived. Another agreed after picketing aroused to Maywood. Now they're settled/ the only Ifccal indignation against the pool; two more wb*n Negroes In the town/ and everything Is peaceful. numbers of Negroes wanting to use the pools drove There have been no Incident* and no hostility; In repeatedly and Insisted on admittance. Instead/ some neighbor! display open friendliness. By July when It was clear that the remaining pools < Barbara and Bert/ both teachers/ put a lot of would not open up/ County Prosecutor Calllssl effort Into apartment hunting and got the usual called a meeting of pool owners and CORE leaders. run around reserved for Negroes. A landlord/ A promise of open pools resulted from this meeting. friendly to CORE/ was Informed of the situation The agreement set up no quotas or ratios.All appliand he agreed to rent them an apartment In May- cants of th County can apply as long as there Is wood. He did so over the strong protests of his space and all applications will be |uda<xi equally. In the spring we'll remind you of where these pools are/early enough so that you too' can get In the swim,

StlfULAtlOB OF

1C is stipulate! by all tha parties ta tbi* action that th* school district at th* City oi Engiawood ia Qgganiaad unoar thtt Provision* oi Chaptar 6 oi Titla 18 of tha Kavisad Statataa oJc Hew Jaray and that it* Board o Education consists oi iva naabacs appoint ad by tha Mayor and. it* fuaus tor operation of tha schools ara aobjact to approval by tfc Board oi School &atiaata< It ia further stipulated that them is ooa high school ia tha City of Tng} anoorl, bousiag children oi grada* tan, tvalv* jad ooa junior high school attaodad by children to grndas 7* and 9 Ml of tha gr*4* atta4 tbft on high school withoutregard to Where tbay in th school district. Op to and including tha closa oi the school y*ax ia Jun, 1^*3, thr* war fiva aItsntary schools, urtom through sixth gradaa incluaiv,/*.o *dxich popils mnra tha baaia 1 raaidttoca in th* thaix anroll**nt raoial

ofc Saptabar lth,

wra as follows:
99.6

School Clvlaa<i Libaity

Ho. o
477 4tt SOS

^a.o 2.0
96.8

. 4 62,6

Total !,'
1

20tt ^^ 3V.1 It is rurth** stipulated that s rccsalt o

'-; ' ' ' '*>'. ,'' ' ' ' .
;

ttitiaaa ild bora tU cswmi*ioni of Education by spruili aad Ancxua and in which action b*or tha CoBMSissionr, t al. tiled a cross ptition, tha CoawiaaioBar of
\'

'

"

"

. ' . : '

tn^uctad amtansiv* haaiiaga on the nattar and on July i, haad*4 down a daciaion. Pursuant to tb* CoMsissionar's doclioat Tha soard ot Education o tha City of Englewood adoptad a plan which plan naa a^provad by tha CoaniaaionAf oi Education on or

about AusuatlV 1S&3. It I* further *tipultd chat th* Coukoiftftiotwi''* <isciioa and th<s Board** plaa auJ the approval of tha Board** plaa, all of which ar* aaaex*4 to Dr.
;

Saadd's affidavit of uacaafear Sth, 1943 aad attrkad "Exhibita IX, XXX aad XV, ahall ha adaULttad ia avidaaca without tha aacaaaity of formal proof.(USo 'SVaissko'***1* pip*HiV<\a wv Wl me^ ^ Xt ia furthar *tipulat4 that tha Board Of Education oi tha City of Eagiavood Mat oat a lattar aad qtaaatioanaira to aach of tha paraatt oi tha 32S tudat* ia grade* aaa throuj(h of tha Liacola School, aad that th lattar and auaatioaaaira ara aaaaxad to Dr. Shadd*a affidavit aad awrkad 'Exhibit* V(a) aad V(b5H will ha adaittad iato avidaaca without to* aeaity of ioraal proof. Xt ia further atipulated that tha latter aad ouaatiaaaaira rafarrad to bova> w*ra aaat oat to paraat* o 325 *tudaat, gxada* oao through fiv*, at tha Lincola School aad that taa rturn* froa thaaa lattar* aad ouaatioaaairaa aa of Augttt 21*t, 1943 aoua4 that thara wara 242 aeeaptaacaa of aaaitfaaaata oat of Liacola School to tha Clavwlaad, Quarl** or Roosevalv School* aa4 21 rotara* *tata<i that it va* tha daalra of th parent* of thaaa 21 tudaat* to hava thair childrca Vaaaia at Lincoln Sohoai, aakiag a total o 24) out 325. Xt i iurthar *tipulattd that attaahad ta the Board** plaa wa* aa e*tlattta which aaouataU to $123,000.00. Bovavar aa Au^Mit I, 1943, Tha Board of Education of tha City of alawaod adopt ad two raaobitiaaa which thay forwardad to Tha Board o School tliB*ta, aad th* raaolutioa* era aaaaxad to Br. Eh*dd* affidavit aad aaxkad "Exhibit* VI(a) aad VX(h) aad will b offarad iato *viJUmc without tha aacaaaity of foraal proof. It ia further atlpolatad that oa August 19th, 1963, Tfe* Board of School *tiftt cartifiad car tain sum* aa baiag aacaa*ary and two of th** eartificationa ara anaaxad to i)r. Shadd'a affidavit and Barked "Eadiibit* VII() and vii(b) ', It 1* further

tlpulatad Chat thasa Exhibits VII(a) aod VII (to) will b* oit4 ijkto ovidonco without tho noosaaity of or*l proot. It ia further stipulatod that la addition to thas* two cortiieatioos that oa th* HM> 4at August 19th, 1963, th Board of School festittat* cartUiW th ua of $4,VOO.OO to retain a custodian b*yo4 the ago 01 65 yr and $a,000.00 for th repair o the root at th* Eoovlt School 6yMW*iua wing, aa4 chat thi* *ua> oi $U,SOO.OC h*4 nothing feAtoovor to do with th plQ. It t* fUTTth^T stipu L*t*d that. th SW^pJMMiOJi p*Kttrt*B^fr^ai^fc, o<xitiaa4 la th rolutio ot th oax4 of School Eattoato call for tfc* MM of $65,900.00, which Utttudod th* MM of $12,VOO.OO, ra&iott*4 atoovo that hod nothia to do with th* Xaa. am4 it is iurthr tii*lat4 that this Sim oi SW.900.00 WM tratuiierr4 by tho City o Eaglowood to th ftoavd of Education of tho City o Saalowood on or about Sootasoor IIth, l*U, 404 that 1 addition to thU MM o H5,500.00, ^50,000,00 vf feon* Ottoy waa transrrod by Th Iclwoo4 Board ** Educatioa froo tho la^rovotwat Author latiott Account to tho Capital Oat lay Account ana that out o thi* total mtm''*t $115,500.00, $12,900.00 waa aUoeatod to th Custodian al th* Itoosovalt School Qymtsiua Wiag, that had aothio* to do with tha plan; $50,00.00 wan alloeatftd to tha bul lug rtttovattoa at 11 tola Stroat; $l<)00000 was allocated to quij-ttt for II Ealo Strooti $700.00 was aUoeatod for avift tho hoard orftcea tc 11 Kagl stxat to Lincoln School; $5,200,00 was allocatod ot cwatlaa tmporary clatarooo* at th Clovolaod Schooli $3,^00,00 waa alloftatod to faculty fxofaxatioo $6,000.00 for pa~ktn<torgartan wrogra| $25,000.00 for htgbx hociaoM and $2,000,00 faw adult ducttn. It i* fturthac tipulat4 tha^^tha City of Sofclovood is a comjMucativaly MM II city with a total population of approxbMtaly 3d*OQO>o**oas aod its aroa l aoproxlsvstoly 2 iottg by pproimtly 2.3 tailos wido.

!'

Xt 1* further stipulated that oa Septwbsr 4th, 19*3, vtdch waft the open tag of tU* school ter, approximately 125 Lincoln School *tu4eats, grades ooe thnmth five. whi*h is all that coultl bo accoMsodatod in Koosovttlt, Clovolaad sad cuvla School* tin* to tbo Jtct tUftt tho city-i*i sixth ^rd w*s not roody, wtr to Clv*l*xtd, KooovoLt a4 Qurl* School* in *ccoriiwith tbo |>Un, ami on October Mth, i*&3, tha Uy^%ri.4o *txth grd ttw et*bli*b<KJ uodor tbo pin, n4 oil of th* tu4tit 1 niatth $ro4, eity*i4of iovo Moigned to 11 a$l Str*ot, a October 2dch 1&3, thw tain>ir of tho ttudeat* In Ltncala School, gr48 one through Hiv*, voro **ignJ to QkMurlott pod ClovolMkd Schools in *ccoccUmce with the ad of October 28th, 1963, Uoeoln School lilntd m oiMMWtAxy school, moA tho only |^4o that roaoiaod to tho Liacola tofcooi M th Kln^TgarUM grd. In Adition to tht klOrgarctt froot Liaeola School 1* now uo ior truuUlc class** and Uo, tbt Board of I4actioo ofiHc^. It i fucLh*r stipulated that tho Fuller oli&* tLiis ljMCitat*4 j ct 100 Itt jrtfcjtJUpo Bivtsloa of the Sap**rlor Court i AtAgttSt of l$o) gslast th Mayor sod Cowocil o the City of RgliOo4 ao4 tho Board o Eohooi Ectate sod ia thot octioa, th* toard of K4ucatioa o tb City of SagUwooil oo4 the Cop>jt>iini er of Edacottoa vtro allowed to intonroft*. It is farther stipulated that the said actioa la tho La* Oivisioa 4i*s^Modt that aa aopoal f*o ai4 aiasUaaal wac taken to the Appellate
aprS-^rtio'| .

Division of the Superior Court ad/rotraiat we* aakod by tl

pVSl,'Vxi>JkV^l

faller Plaiotifls freet tho Appellate uivialoa. Tb* rerlat we* doaiea. and capy of th AppolUte Division's 4eUioa i awwxe4 ta ur. Shoolv *f Uavit as "Exhibit VIII, aa4 it is further stipulated that this de*iia M*fced "fcahiblt VIII*, nil be offorod into evidence without formal proof. It i* further stipolated that the appeal itseit

ia atill pn41na bafor* tb* Apoallata uivi_io. It ia iurtb*r atipulato* that tba Vola* plaintiff MI actioa ia Aupit r 19*3 ia tba Cfcaaeary OLviaioa of tba Superior Court oi H*w Jry agalat tba Board o Education oi tha City 01 iagiavood *ad the Mayor ad Coottcil ad tb* Board o School Eatloata of the City of Ettglftvoa4, end ia that action cha oi to tkat .tb to tha Avpallata division of tba Suaaclor Court, vaiek apeaal baa aot aa yat baar4* It ia furtbcr atiyulatad tbat tba Volao laiafciffa ted
'-'.. ._ ' - ' - . '*-. ' .; _ . ' ' ' ^ ' - ' - - } ' .

Raubiagsr'* 4*ciioa to tba Stata Boa4 of Kducatloo av4 tbat the StatefioatrUo Education *.L a basting on tbi appeal on Augu*t
' . . . , "^

23rJ, iy3 by an o^al opinioa, aiir*i tb coiasui**ioacr's

a roateaiat,. ao4 it ia fuxtbac *tipui*t<i tbt tba Volpa alaiatil 41*4 aa ayyaal facoa tba Uaciiioo of tba Stat* Boaird of <j to tba Aoaollato tttviaioa of tba Snaariov Coort of MWUray aad boforo tiiat court. tbat aU Asoaal (It ia iwr ther tipalatad that all of tfea par tiaa to tttia aatioa at llbarty to introdttea iato avldaaea any otlfcaar fact* tfcat tkay ay 4eaixa to iatroduc pto.tOAl, oi cooraa, tbat th* tacts av afearial, rolovaat aal coapataat aa4 it i ftuttbor atipstlat4 tht all of tba partiaa bcat* way area* and aulmit any point* oi law cbat it ay daalva to ao iotrtxtoca.)

REPRODUCED FRCM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, IJBRARX OF CONGRESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HEW JERSEY GERTRUDE P. FULLER, RICHARD L. GRUBMAN, THOMAS F. CACCIOLA and JOSEPHINE CACCIOLA, his wife, and others to be named,

Plaintiffs,
and
JERRY VOLPE and KATHERINE VOLPE, his wife, LOUIS PUGACH and BEATRICE PUGACH, his wife, ALLAN LASSER and JUDITH LASSER, his wife, OTTILIO D'ALESSIO. and MARIE D'ALLESIO, his wife, SOL HANDLER and LILLIAN HANDLER, his wife, EUGENE F. CLEMENTS and MARJORIE CLEMENTS, his wife, EDWARD ROBBINS and GLORIA ROBBINS, his wife, LL-OYD POLLARD and BLANCHE POLLARD, bis wife,

Intervening Plaintiffs,

AUSTIN A. VOLK, WILLIAM JK TICKNOR, JR., 0. CARLYSLE McCANDLESS,-CARMEN R. HINTZ and WARREN L. LEWIS, constituting the BOARD OF SCHOOL ESTIMATE OF ENGLEWOODTT*EW~JERSE-Y-, and THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOO, NEW JERSEY, JOHN E. PERRY, LOUISE GRABOU, THEODORE R. VAN ITALLIE, CARMEN R. HINTZ and WARREN '. LEWIS, constituting the L. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,

': -: :
:

CIVIL NO. 8V7-63

'

ANSWER J5r:...IECEBy.E&INIi_ DEFENDANTS AKCRUh,

ET., AL.

..... Defendants,

and
FREDERICK M. RAUBINGER, CommissionedV "of Education of the State of New Jersey,

and
KENNETH ANCRUM and LESLIE ANCRUM, minors, .by Mortimer W. Ancrum, their parent; JESSICA -BRODY-and-LAURA-BRODY-,-minor-S-,_by_ Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Brody, their parents; ERIC WEST, a minor, by Mrs. Audrey West, his parent;'-' NICKOLAS" PATCH and ISAAC PATCH, III, minors, by Isaac Patch, Jr., their parent; SHEREEN GREGORY, DONNA / GREGORY, GARY GREGORY and TODD i GREGORY, minors, by Mrs. Pearl -Gregory, their parent;'MICHELLE HELLEM, a minor, by Mrs. Theodora Hellem, her parent; STEPHEN HOUSTON, a minor, by Mrs. Alma Houston, his parent; IRENE CLARK, a minor, by Mrs. Larvine Clark, her parent; DANIEL BLANK, JOSHUA BLANK and REBECCA BLANK, minors, by Irwin M. Blank, their parent; RACHEL WARNER, a minor, by Aaron W. Warner, her
r1

~ 1

REPRODUCED FROM THE tOLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

parent; ARDREN ROWLAND and STEVEN ROWLAND, minors, by Lewis P. Rowland", their parent; MICHELL BOLDT, a minor, by .O'Brien Boldt, her parent; SHERYL GAMRIN and ELIAS GAMRIN, minors,by Mrs. Suzanna G. Gamrin, their parent; ALICE LEVINE, a minor, by Mrs. Gladys Levine, her parent; DEBORAH MILLER, ERIC MILLER and CYNTHIA MILLER, minors, by Robert I. Miller, their parent; HIRIAl'i SHARLIN and JUDITH SHARLIN,

: : : : :

minors, by Mrs. Irene Sharlin, their

parent; OLIVIA STANDARD, a minor., by Mrs. Frances Standard, her parent; BRYANT McNEIL, a minor, by Mrs. Deloris J. McNeil, his parent; ALBERT BROOKS and PAMELA BROOKS, minors, by : : j : : : :

Mrs. Dorothy E. Brooks, their parent;

EDWARD MILLER, JR., a minor, by

Edward Miller, his parent; JOSEPH

.TOWNSEND, JR., a minor, by Mrs. Aquilla L. Brown, his parent; EMILY FISHER and DAVID FISHER, minors, by Mrs'. Naomi K. Fisher, their parent; -

Intervening Defendants ;

I
-the-answerto-the-complaint-of- plaintiffs FutlerT'et -al~.

Defendants Ancrum, et al., make the following allegations in

.{ft-

1. They are without information sufficient to form a beliefas to the allegations of paragraph 1.
2. They are without information sufficient to form a belief

=as" to the-allegatioris of paragraph 2.

3. They deny that plaintiffs' suit involves rights granted by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution .and New Jersey Statutes, and are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of paragraph 3.
^. 5. They deny the allegations of paragraph l+. They deny the allegations of paragraph 5-

6. They admit the allegations of paragraph 6.

7. 8. 910. 11. They admit the allegations of paragraph ? They deny the allegations of paragraph 8. They admit the allegations of paragraph 9They admit the allegations of paragraph 10. They admit the allegations of paragraph 11, but allege

further that the -plan provided as a alternative prerequisite, that the

- 2 -

REPRODUCEDXFRCM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

number of transfers from Lincoln School-must result in class loads in Quarles, Cleveland, or Roosevelt Schools which-, in the opinion of the Board of Education, are educationally undesirable. 12. 13They deny the allegations of paragraph 12.They admit that the plan provided that all pupils of

grades 1 thru 5 residing in the Lincoln School attendance district be assigned to the Cleveland, Roosevelt and Quarles Schools, but deny the accuracy of the remaining allegations of paragraph 13. They allege

that assignments pursuant to the plan are. to be determined by the Superintendent on the basis of the following criteria:, define attendance districts so that children of the Lincoln School district will be assigned as nearly as possible,.to the school nearest their homes; provide for an even distribution of class loads; to permit the children whose parents wish them to remain at the Lincoln School to remain

there provided that it is administratively and~etoca~trona-H-y-prae--fc-i- V cable to do so. 1>+. They are without information sufficient to forrn^a belief

as to the allegations" of paragraph 15. They admit that the Volpe petitioners were parties to

the proceedings before the Commissioner of Education, but have no information as to whether that group is unrelated to the instant plaintiffs. 16. 17. They admit the allegations of paragraph 16. They admit the allegations of paragraph 1? and allege

further that injunctive relief was denied due to the fact that the Commissioner of Education had acquired jurisdiction over the questions involved herein and in the suit which is in the State Court. 18. 19. They admit the allegations of paragraph 18. They deny the allegations" of paragraphs T9,.20 and 21,

since those allegations do not accurately reflect the determination of the courts. 20; i They deny the allegations of paragraphs 22 and 23-

21 . They admit the allegations of paragraph 2U- and 25. 22. graph 26. 23. They deny the allegations of paragraph 27. They have no information as to the allegations of para-

- 3-

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

19-. Paragraph 19 reflects a_prayer for relief rather than allegations of fact and consequently requires no answer.
FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE

The intervening plaintiffs are parties to an administrative proceeding and have filed a Notice of Appeal before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Kew Jersey upon the same cause of action sought to be prosecuted before "this Court. Accordingly, intervening plaintiffs have elected their forum and should be required to pursue their remedy in the State Courts of Hew Jersey.
SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE

The cause of action set forth in the complaint of intervening plaintiffs' complaint is barred by the doctrines'of res udi-cataand~co~llateral estoppel.
THIRDiSEPARATE DEFENSE

This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of interveningplai-nti-f-fs-'-cbmplaintT

FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Intervening plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
FIF-TH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Principles of comity require this Court to dismiss intervening plaintiffs complaint inasmuch as thevsanie" matter is now pending, before the State^Courts of New Jersey. Ill Intervening defendants Ancrum, et al., byway of affirma,r '

tive defense allege that:

,- '

1. They are citizens of the City of Englewood of the State of New Jersey and reside within the jurisdiction .of this Court. 2. The matter of the racial composition of the Englewood
'r

schools and of the concomitant obligation of the Board of Education to remedy racial segregation in those schools has been litigated before the Commissioner of Education, subsequent to this Courts having declined to entertain the same cause of action in the United

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

of all and a common relief is sought; they appear in this action pursuant to Rule 23 (a) ( ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 2. They are citizens of the City of Englewood of the State

of New Jersey and reside within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The matter of the racial composition of the Englewood

schools and of the concomitant obligation of the Board of Education to remedy racial segregation in those schools has been litigated before the Commissioner.of Education, subsequent to this Courts having declined to entertain the same cause of action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. As a result of that

hearing, the Commissioner of Education ordered the Board "of Education to submit a plan-to remedy the racial composition of Lincoln ele- . mentary school in Englewood, New Jersey. Appeals were filed and the

case is now pending before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. V . - . ^. The plan proposed by the Board of Education of the City of Englewood and approved by the Commissioner of Educa:tion_,_isjro^ posed and adopted to remedy the denial of equal educational oppor- . tunities inflicted upon the intervening defendants by reason of the provision, operation,- and maintenance of segregated public schools in -Englewood, New Jersey, in violation-of the Constitutiorr-of: tire"State" of New Jersey and the statutes of the State of New Jersey. 5. Resolutions of^the Board of School Estimate of Englewood,

New Jersey, whereby certain funds were appropriated to implement the -plan approved by the Commissioner, are a part of and. in conformity with the remedy provided by the decision of the Commissioner of Education in order to terminate existing infringements upon the

WHEREFORE, defendants demand dismissal of the complaint, together with costs of suit to be taxed. i Robert L. Carter, Barbara A. Morris,. . Maria L. Marcus, 20 Vest U-Oth Street, New York 18, New York.

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

Arnold Brown, 55 West Palisade Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey.

Robert G.. Platoff, 12? Belmont Street, Englewood-, New Jersey. Herbert H. Tate,' 126 Court Street, Newark 2, New Jersey. DATED: December , 1963 Attorneys for Defendants BY:_

r, r

1
REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (In Eouity) CIVIL NO. 8V7-63 GERTRUDE P. FULLER, et al., Plaintiffs,
and

JERKY VOLPE and {CATHERINE VOLPE, his wife, et al.,

Intervening Plaintiffs, vs.

AUSTIN A. VOLK, et al., .Defendants, it-.i-.Cand
FREDERICK M. RAUBINGER, Commissioner of Education of,.,the State of New Jersey, y

i I

and .

0V
CIVIL ACTION MOTION TO INTERVENE

KENNETH ANCRUM- and LESLIE ANCRUM, minors, by Mortimer W. Ancrum, their parent: JESSICA BRODY and LAURA BRODY, minors, by Mr: and Mrs. Alexander Brody, their " parents; ERIC WEST, a minor by Mrs. Audrey.West, his parent; NICKOLAS ""PA'TCH-land-ISAAC PATCH, III, minors, by Isaac Patch, Jr., their parent;

SHEREEF GREGORY; DONNA GREGORY, GARY

GREGORY, DONALD GREGORY and TODD GREGORY, minors, by Mrs. Pearl Gregory, their parent; MICHELLE HELLEM, &-mtner^by Mrs. Theodora Hellem, her parent; STEPHEN HOUSTON, a minor by Mrs. Alma Ho'iston,. his parent; IRENE CLARK, a minor, by Mrs. Larvine.Clark, her parent; DANIEL BLANK, JOSHUA BLANK and REBECCA BLANK, minors by Irwin M. Blank, the'ir parent; RACHEL WARNER, a minor, by Aarpn W. Warner, her -i- s paresn-t-,ABDRENiROWIrAND-an-d-STEVEN~~ ROWLAND, minors, by Lewis P. Rowland, i their parent; MICHEEL- BO'LDT, a minor by -O'Brien Boldt, her parent; .SHERYL // r, - GAMRIN and ELlASf,.GAMRIN, minors by Mrs.' Suzanna /G. Gararin, their parent; ALICE LEVINE, a minor,' by Mrs. Gladys r; Levlne, her parent; DEBORAH MILLER, ERIC MILLER and/CYNTHIA MILLER, minors, t by Robert I , filler, their parent; ' ,</' ,f MIRIAM SHARLIN and JUDITH SHARLIN,-.. minors, by Mrs. Irene -Sharlin, their parent; OLIVIA STANDARD, a minor, by Mrs. Frances Standard, her-parent; BRYANT McNEIL, a minor, by Mrs. Deloris J. McNeil, his parent; ALBERT BROOKS and PAMELA BROOKS, minors, by Mrs. Dorothy E. Brooks, their parent;

vr

REPRODUCED FROM TOE OOIUCTICNS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, IOBRARY OF CONGRESS

EDWARD MILLER, JR. , a minor, by Edward Killer, his parent; JCi_?H TO,;KSEi.D, JR., a minor, by Mrs. Aquilla L. Brown, his parent; EMILY FISHER and DAVID FISHER, minors, by Mrs. Naomi K. Fisher, their parent; . Intervening Defendants

TO:

James 1. Murphy, Esq. 1 Engle Street Englewood, N.J. James A. Ma;jor, Esq.. 2M Main Street Hackensack, N.J.

Sidney Dincin,:J2sq. 16 West Palisade Ave. Englewood, N . J . Joseph Hoffman, Esq. Deputy Attorney General State House Trenton, N.J.

SIRS: -ELEASJE TAKE NOTICE that on December , 1963, at 10:00

o'clock in the forenoon or soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, the undersigned, cefunsel for applicants for intervention, Kenneth Acrum, _et_al. , will move^ before jtheJUnited States District Court,fiBls-the District of New Jersey, at the Federal Building,'"Newark, New Jersey, for leave to intervene as defendants in the above-entitled action, in order to assert the defenses set forth in their proposed answer, a ~ copy -of whIchTTs7irtta:ched~hereto and made a part hereofand-In accordance with Rule 2"+ (a) (2) F.R.C.P., on the ground that the interests of these applicants are inadequately represented in the action before this court and that tH8"sa~applicants will be bound by any judgment in this action and that the defenses to the plaintiffs' claims present questions of law and fact which are common to the rfain action. Robert L. Carter, Barbara A. Morris, Mar-ia-L-.Kar_cus_, 20 West U-Oth Street New York 18, New York Arnold Brown, 55 West Palisade Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey Robert G. Platoff, 12? Belmont Street, Englewood, New Jersey Herbert H. Tate, 126 Court Street, Newark 2, New Jersey DATED: December , 1963 Attorneys for Defendants BY:

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT Of1 NEW JERSEY (In Equity) CIVIL NO. &+7-61 GERTRUDE P. FULLER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, and
JERRY VOLPE and KATHERINE VOLPE, his wife, et al.,

Intervening Plaintiffs,
AUSTIN A. VOLK, et al., MOTION Defendants

FREDERICK M. RAUBINGER, Commissioner of Education of the State of New Jersey,

and
KENNETH ANCRUM, et a ' , l. Intervening Defend;

TO:

James T. Murphy, Esq. - -1 Engle Street ' Englewood, N.J. James A. Major, Esq. 2>+1 Main Street Hackensack, N.J.

Sidney Dincin, Esq. 16 V/est Palisade Ave. Englewood, N.J. Hoffman, Esq. Deputy Attorney General State House Trenton, N.J.

SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December , 1963, the under-

_signed-,counsel~for applicants for intervention as defendants' in the within action will move before the Honorable Thomas Augelli, at the United,States District Court, for the District of New Jersey, Federal Building, Newark, New Jersey, for an order adjourning the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of plaintiffs herein and set down for argument on December , 1963, on the .grounds that the interest of

the applicants will be adjudicated with that motion and until applicants are made parties to this action, their interests will be neither protected nor represented. Applicants motion to intervene, must in accordance with the rules of court, be upon 15 days notice.

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, T.TRRARV OF CONGRESS

Robert L. Carterj Barbara A. Morris, Maria L. Marcus, 20 West It-Oth Street, New York 18, New York. Arnold Brown, 55 West Palisade Avenue, Englewbod, New Jersey. "Robert G. Platoff, 127 Belmont Street, Englewood, New Jersey. Herbert H. Tate, 126 Court Street, Newark 2, New Jersey. DATED: December , 1963 Attorneys for Defendants BY:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT Of NEW JERSEY GERTRUDE P. FULLER, et al., Plaintiffs,

and
JERRY VOLPE and KATHERINE VOLPE, his vife, et al.,

Intervening Plaintiffs,
vs.

AUSTIN A. VOLK, et al., Defendants-

CIVIL NO. 84-7-63 ORDER

and
FREDERICK M.MtAUBINGER, Commissioner of Education of the State of New ^Jersey, and KENNETH ANCRUM, et al.,

:
i
t i

ffV

i Intervening Defendants i

This matter having been presented to the court on December 11, 1963, by Bai*ara<T Morris, Counsel for KENNETH ANCRUM and LESLIE ANCKUM, minors, by Mortimer W. Ancrum, their parent; JESSICA BHODY and LAURA BROOY, minors, by Mr. and Mrsiv Alexander Brody, their parents; ERIC WEST, a minor, by Mrs. Audrey West, his parentj_NICKOLAS PAICH^and-.ISAAC^PATCH,-Iir,-minors-, by Isaac Patch, Jr., their parent; SHEKEL GREGORY, DONNA GREGORY, GARY GREGORY and TODD GREGORY, minors, by Mrs. Pearl Gregory, their parent; MICHELLE HELLEM, a minor, by Mrs. Theodora Hellem, her parent; STEPHEN HOUSTON, a minor, by Mrs. Alma Houston, his parent; IRENE CLARK, a minor, by Mrs. Larvine Clark, her parent; DANIEL BLANK, JOSHUA BLANK and REBECCA BLANK, minors, by Irvin i-i. Blank, their parent; RACHEL WARNER, a minor, by Aaron

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

W. Viarner, her parent; AR1JKEK ROWLAKD and STEVEN EOWLAEO, minors, by Lewis P. Kowland, their parent; MICHELL.BOLDT, a .minor, by O'Brien Boldt, her parent; SHER'XL CUMHIN and ELIAS GaMHIMy minors, by Mrs. Suzanna a. Gamrin, their parent; ALICE LH.VIKE, a minor, by Mrs. Gladys Levine, her parent; DEB011AH MILLER, ERIC MILLKH, and CYHIHlA. KILLER, minors, by Kobert J. Miller, their parent; MIRIAM SHARLIN and JUDITH SHARLlH, minors, by Mrs. Irene Sharlin, their parent; OLIVIA STANDARD, a minor, by Mrs. Frances Standard, her parent; BRY.AKT McliELL, a minor, by Mrs. Ueloris J. KcEeil, .his parent; ALBERT BROOKS and Pii-iKLA BROOKS, minors, by Mrs. Dor'othyE. Brooks, their parent; EIWAfUj MILLER, JR., a minor, by - dvar-d-Miller-,-his^par_ent; JOSPEH SOWHSEKC, JB., a minor, by .to Aquila' L. Brown, his parent; EKILJC WISHER and DAVID FISHiift, ,.'

minors, by Mrs.H'aoml K. Fisher, their parent, on a motion to

_ interveneLj.n_ihe^^boye-entitled_&etion5 and the Court having heard argument in the presence of all parties hersto and for good cause appearing; it is On this day or December, 1963, OHUEKEI) that the applicants for -intervention set forth above be and the same are hereby admitted into this action as intervening defendants on condition that by December 26, 1963 the aforesaid intervenors file answers and make known to 'the Court their position with reference to certain exhibits marked in evidence or for identication by other parties to this proceeding and with reference to a stipulation of facts entered into on December 16, 1963 by plaintiffsJ?ui-le'ry-et-al-.-, intervening-plaintiffs-Volpe,-et-al-.-, defendants Yolk , et al., and intervening defendant liaubinger.

fv

Judge, U.S.D.C.

- 2-

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

OTITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT 0? KEW JERSEY (In Equity) CIVIL NO. 84-7-63

GERTRUDE P. FULLER, et al., Plaintiffs,

and
JERRY VOLPE and KATHERINE VOLPE, his wife, et al.,

Intervening Plaintiffs, vs.

AUSTIN A. VOLK, et al.', . Defendants MOTION

and FREDERICK M. RAUBINGER,' Commissioner of Education of the State of^ew Jersey, KENNETH ANCRUM, et al.,
.' Intervening Defendants

TO:

Jame_s_T_._ Murphy, Esq.-. 1 Engle Street Englewood, N.J.

Sidney Dincin, Esq. 16 West Palisade Ave. Englewood, N.J. Joseh_JHoj^man, Esq. Deputy attorney General State House Trenton, N.J.

James A. Major, Esq. 2^1 Main Street Hackensack, N.J.

SIRS:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December

, 1963, the under-

signed, counsel f^r~a^ril:arrts~~folr~istervention--as-defendants-in-the_^ within action will move before the Honorable Thomas Augelli, at the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey, Federal Building, Newark, New Jersey, for an order adjourning the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf bf plaintiffs herein and set down for argument on December , 1963 > on the grounds that the interest of

the applicants will be adjudicated with that motion and until applicants are made parties to this action, their interests will be neither protected nor represented. Applicants motion to intervene, must in accordance with the rules of court, be upon 15 days notice.

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

Robert L, Carter, Barbara A. Morris, Maria L. Marcus, 20 West Woth Street, New York 18, New York. Arnold Brown, ' 55 West Palisade Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey. Robert .G. Platoff , 12? Belmont Street, Englewood, TJew Jersey. Herbert H. 126 Court Street, Newark 2, New Jersey. DATED: December , 1963 Attorneys for' Defendants, BY: _ ,

- 2~ -

r' r

REPRQDUCEP FROM THE COLLECTICNS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (In Equity) CIVIL NO. 8V7-63GERTRUDE P. FULLER, et al., Plaintiffs, and JERRY VOLPE and KATHERINE VOLPE, " his wife, et al., Intervening Plaintiffs, vs. AUSTIN A. VOLK, et al., STATEMENT IN LIEU Defendants, OF BRIEF and _EREQKRICK_M.._RAUB.INGER,_C.omiBissionerof Education of the State of New Jersey, and V

KENNETH ANCRUM, et al., Intervening Defendants

Rule_24- of the Federal Rules, of Civil Procedure authorizesintervention of persons whose interests are affected by an action pending before a court to which they are not original parties. The

interests of these applicants^for^intervention are set forth in their proposed answer, a copy of which is attached to the motion for intervention. Accordingly, no legal questions being involved, a

brief in support of the aforesaid motion is not necessary. Robert L. Carter, -Barbsr--r~AT'~M6rris, Maria L. Marcus, 20 West ^Oth Street New York 18, New York. Arnold Brown, 55 West Palisade Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey. Robert G. Platoff, 127 Belmont Street, Englewood, N.ew Jersey. Herbert H. Tate, 126 Court Street, Newark 2, New Jersey. DATED: December , 1963 Attorneys for Defendants BY

REPRODUCED FRCM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF EEW JERSEY GERTRUDE P. FULLER, RICHARD L. GRUBMAN, THOMAS F. CACCIOLA and JOSEPHINE CACCIOLA, his wife, and others to be named, Plaintiffs, and

JERRY VOLPE and KATHERINE. VOLPE, his wife, LOUIS PUGACH and BEATRICE PUGACH, his wife, ALLAN LASSER and JUDITH LASSER. bis wife, OTTILIO D'ALESSIO and MARIE D'ALLESIO. his wife, SOL HANDLER and LILLIAN HANDLER, his wife, ECJGENE F. CLEMENTS and MARJORIE CLEMENTS, his wife, EDWARD ROBBING and GLORIA ROBBINS, his wife, LLOYD POLLARD and BLANCHE POLLARD, his wife, Intervening ? Ltiintif f s , vs.. AUSTIN A. VOLK, WILLIAM D. TICKKOR, JR., 0. CARLYSLE McCANDLESS, CARMEN R. HIKTZ and WARREN L. LEV/IS, constituting the BOARD OF SCHOOL ESTIMATE OF ENGLEWOOD, HEW JERSEY, "and-THE-CITY~OF-ENGLEWOOi),~ TreiT JERSEY," ~ JOHN E. PERRY, LOUISE GRABOW, TKfiODOHE R. VAN ITALLIE, CARMEN R. HIKTZ and WARREN L. LEWIS, constituting the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, ; "I^Defenda^is, : and FREDERICK M. RAUBIHGER, Commissioner-^ of Education of the State of Hew Jersey, and KENNETH ANCRUM and LESLIE ANCRUM, minors,. by. Mortimer W. Ancrum, their parent; JESSICA BRODY and LAURA BRODY, minors, by Mr-.and-Mrs-.Alexander -Brodyy-theiT-parents; ERIC WEST, a minor, by Mrs. Audrey West, his parent; NICHOLAS PATCH and ISAAC PATCH, III, minors, by Isaac Patch, Jr., their parent; SHEREEN GREGORY, DONNA GREGORY, GARY GREGORY and TODD GREGORY, minors, by Mrs. Pearl Gregory, their parent; MICHELLE HELLEM, a minor, by Mrs. Theodora Hellem, her parent; STEPHEN HOUSTON, a minor, by Mrs. Alma Houston, his parent; IRENE CLARK, a minor, by Mrs. Larvine Clark, her parent; DANIEL BLANK, JOSHUA BLANK and REBECCA BLANK, minors, by Irwin M. Blank, their parent; RACHEL WARNER, a minor, by Aaron IV. Warner, her

: :

CIVIL NO. &+7-63V' ANSWER Of INTERVENING

ET. , AL.TO INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS

: COMPLAINT. : :

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MRNUSCRIPT DIVISICN, -LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

parent: ARDP.EN ROWLAND ana STEVEN ROWLAND, minors, by Lewis P. Rowland, their parent; MICHELL BOLDT, a minor by O'Brien Boldt, her parent: SHERYL CAMRIN and ELIAS GAMFRIN, iiinors by Mrs. Suzanna G. Gamrin, their' parent; ALICE LEVINE, a minor, by Mrs. Gladys Levine,her parent; DEBORAH MILLER, ERIC MILLER and CYNTHIA MILLER, minors, by Robert J. Miller, their parent? MIRIAM SHAPLIN and JUDITH SHARLIN, minors, by Mrs. Irene Sharlin, their parent; OLIVIA STANDARD, a minor, by Mrs. Frances Standard, her parent ; BRYANT McNEIL , a minor , by Mrs. Deloris -Jr-McNet-l^ -bis parent; ALBERT BROOKS and PAMELA BROOKS; minors, by Mrs. Dorothy E". BrociVs, their parent; ED'-'ABD MILLER JR. , a minor,- by Edward Miller, his parent; JOSEPH TO"NSEHD. JF-. .. a minor,- --by- Mrs. AauULa L. Br^wn. his parent'; EMILY FISHER and DAVID FISHER, minors, by Mrs. Naomi K-rInterveninp Defendants

(TV.
jrr*5 "They admit the allegations of parap raph 1 oT"rTR~ltit"T plaintiffs' complaint. 2. They" deny the allegations of paragraph 2 o-f the intervpninr plaintiffs' complaint.
rz=3?"-TVifey-deny~the-a-Vleration's
r.

of paragraph 3 of the intervening

plaintiffs' complaint, except that they admit that alonp vith a public school system consisting of elementary grades a central sixth grade, a junior high school and a senior hiph school operated bv the Board of Education of the 31tv of Enplewood the said Board did, at the close of the 1962-1963 school yar, operate fivp elementary public school butldinps in addition ti its other builcHnps. U-. 5. 6. They deny the allegations .of parapraph >+ of the tntPT Thpy deny thr allppatlon^ o-r uarapraih ? o< th^ intpr ' They deny the allegations -if parapranh 6 of th<= interveninp

plaintiffs' complaint. plaintiffs' complaint. plaintiffs' complaint. 7. They admit the allegations of paragraph 7 of the interveninp plaintiffs' complaint and answer further that the petition before the Commissioner of Education set forth other allegations and prayers for relief.

REPRODUCED FROM THE'COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY CF CONGRESS

8.

They admit the allocations of paraTaph-3 of the intervaninc

plaintiffs.1 complaint. <?. They admit that on July 1, 1963 defendant, Frederick K.

Haubinaer filed a decision, but deny the accuracy of the remaining allegations of paragraph of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint. The aforesaid decision of the Commissioner of Education is a part of the pleadings in this cause of action and reflects in full the findings and determination of the Commissioner. Ancrum et al will rely upon the .entire decision. 10. They admit that the Commissioner of Education directed the Board of Education of the City of Snelewood to take certain steps rtiich are set forth' in the Commissioner's order in the case entitled Spruill vs Board of:Education of Enelewood. which is made a part of Intervening defendants

the pleadings in this cause and upon which interventn? defendants Ancrum et al. vill rely. plaintiffs' complaint.
12. They admit the allocations of paragraph 12 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint. . 13They -admit the .allegations- of- paragraph 13 of- theinter-venin?-

<*^>-

11. They admit the allegations of paragraph 11 of the intervening

plavntiffs' - complaint-.- 1W. They deny the allegations of paragraph lU of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint. 15. They, deny the allegations of paragraph 15 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint..16. They deny the allegations-of. paragraph ]6 of the intervenine plaintiffs' complaint and answer further that the decision of the Commissioner of Education was affirmed by the State Board"of Education, after full argument and opportunity to be heard in an appellate proceeding participated in by the intervenine plaintiffs that all

parties were apprised that'the State Board of Education would Issue a written opinion and that a written opinion was served upon all parties on October 8, 196317. They are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of paragraph 17 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint.

18. They deny the allegations of paragraph 18 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaintr .--.-_
r

REPRODUCED FKCM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY CF CCNGHESS

i This court lacks jurisdictipn over the subject matter of

plaintiffs' complaint. SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE The plaintiffs have brought this same action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division and have filed a Notice of Appeal before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. The appeal is still pending in the state courts. Accordingly,

FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE

plaintiffs have elected a forum in which to process their grievances and are required to pursue their appeal in the state courts. '.';.'

THIRD SEPABATE DEFENSE '

Rr4,nGipals-of comi-ty-require-^hs^Court~to~d"lsmTss~^laintiffs' action since the subject matter of this suit is properly before the state courts of the State of New Jersey.
FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
*

FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE Plaintiffs Fuller, et al.-, .'and Intervening Plaintiffs Volpe, et al., are prescinded from obtaining the relief sought in this action by the doctrines res judicata and collateral estoppel.
V

HI
Defendants Ancrum, et al., byway of affirmative defense allege that:

1. Defendants Ancrum, et al., intervene herein on their behalf and on behalf of numerous Negro and white minor students of the' Englewood elementary schools who are similarly situated and who are i so numerous as-to make it impracticable to present them all before this court; as members of the class which they represent, they can and will adequately and fairly represent all members thereof: the charac. ter of rights sought to be protected and enforced are several and there are common questions of law and fact affecting the several rights

REPRODUCED FROM THE CDLL^CTICNS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CCNGKESS

States District Court for the District of "Hew Jersey.

As a_ result of

that hearing, the Commissioner of Education ordered the Board of Education to submit a plan to remedy the racial composition of Lincoln elementary school in Englewood, New Jersey. Appeals were filed and the

case is now pending before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. 3 . The plan proposed by the Board of Education of the City of Englewood and approved by the Commissioner of Education, is proposed and adopted to remedy the denial of equal educational opportunitit inflicted upon the intervening defendants by reason of the provision,

operation, and maintenance of segregated public schools in Englewood, New Jersey, in'violation of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and the statutes of the State of New Jersey.

^..

Resolutions of the Board of School Estimate of Englewood.

New Jersey, whereby certain funds were appropriated to implement the plan approved by the Commissio"ner,~are a par f of"ahd'Tri ~cohf ormHTy with the remedy provided by the decision of the Commissioner of Education in order to terminate existing infringements upon the constitutional rights of 'the intervening defendants. j-j During the school year 1962-1963, the Englewood -Public V"" Elementary Schools were operated on a basis which took into consideration,, among other factors, safety; equalization of class loads; distance of students from schools and topographical features. 6. During the aforesaid school year and in prior school years, assignments of pupils to elementary schools were made by the Board of Education based upon a number of factors some of which are employed in efficient educational procedures. Proposed assignments for.

the 1963-6^ school .year will again be made by the Board of Education based upon similar factors, consideration of which tend to produce efficient education. 7-. '

Intervening plaintiffs participated in the proceeding

before the Commissioner of Education, were accorded full opportunity to litigate the issues and to be heard, to present proof or argument in favor of or in opposition to any plan for assignment of elementary students in Englewood, New Jersey. Intervening plaintiffs participated

in the appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Education and

REPRODUCED FROM THE COIXECTICNS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

have filed a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the State.Board of Education'. WHEREFORE, intervening defendants Ancrum, et al., demand dismissal of the complaint of intervening plaintiffs' Volpe, et al'., together with costs of suit to be taxed. Robert L. Carter, Barbara A. Morris, Maria L. Marcus, 20 West l*0th Street, New York 19, Mew York. Arnold Brown, 55 West Palisade Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey. Robert G. Platoff, 12? Belmont Street, Englewood, New Jersey,. . Herbert H. Tate, Newark 2, New Jersey. DATED:-^December , 1963 Attorneys for Defendants BY:

- 6-

COTTNSZII.OH AT Lxvr

or>, N. a.

December 12, 1963

Mrs. Barbara Morris 20 West 40th Street New York 18, New York
RE: FULLER, ET ALS. vs. VOLK, ET ALS. United States District Court Case

o:
CO en
Co

Dear Mrs. Morris:

Enclosed herewith please find three copies each of the following: 1. 2. Board1s Plan. D.ecision of the Commissioner of Education in the Englewood case.

3. Resolution of The Board of Education to the Board of School > Estimate for $69,400.00, dated: August 1, 1963. 4. Resolution of The Board of Education to the Board of School Estimate for $66,500.00, dated: August 1, 1963 for capital expenditures. 5. Resolution of the Board of School Estimate, dated: August -19th-, 1963, certifying ^the sum of $36,500.00 for faculty preparation, pre-kindergarten program, higher horizons and adult education. 6. Resolution of the Board of School Estimate, dated; August 19th, 1963, certifying $16,500.00 for capital expenditures, (plus $50,000.00 of bond money that the Board of Education had in its possession). 7. Copy of the Appellate Division Decision in the case of Fuller, et als. v. Volk, et als. as regards the matter of the restraint.
I

8. Copy of Notice and form annexed, sent to the parents of Lincoln School children, grades one through five. It is understood that one of these copies of each is for you,

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

Mrs. Barbara Morris

-2-

December 12, 1963

one is for Mr. Tate and one is for Mr. Kuntzler. Very truly yours,

SIDNEY DIMCIN SD:tsn Encs. Special Delivery Mail

REPRODUCED FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, T.TRRARV OF CONGRESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HE1.; JERSEY. CIVIL NO. 9+7-63

GERTRUDE P. FULLER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

and
JERRY VOLPE and KAXHERINE VOLPE, his wife, et al., Intervening Plaintiffs,

s
J

vs. AUSTIN A. YOLK,_

Defendants,

-AFF-IDAV-I-T-OJ?SERVICE

and

FREDERICK M. RAUBINUER, Commissipner.:

of-Education~bf the "State of New Jersey, :

and
KENHETH AHCRUM, et al.,

:
;

Intervenin : Defendants. ;

STATE OF HEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW

) )

S, &

BARBARA A. MORRIS, of full age, being .duly sworn according to law, on her oath deposes and says a On December 21*-, 1963> your affiant served iipon_
I I
I ft'.

the attorneys set forth below, a copy of the Answers of intervening defendants Ancrum, et al., to the complaint

I,- ' r. r

REPRODUCE) FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

and a copy of the aforesaid intervenors Answers to the Intervening complaint filed on behalf of Volpe, et al.i Vorsanger & Murphy, Esqs. Attorneys for Plaintiff 1 Engle Street Englewood, New Jersey Ma^or &. Major, Esqs. Attorneys for PlaintiffsInter venors 2>*1 Main Street Hackensack, New Jersey John J. Breslin, Esq. Attorney for Defendants M. Main Street Hackensack, New Jersey Sidney Dincin, Esq. Attorney for Englewood Board of Education i6 W. Palisade Avenue Englewood, New Jersey Joseph A. Hoffman, Esq. Deputy Attorney General of New Jersey Attorney for DefendantIntervenor Frederick M. Raubinger Sate_House Annex Trenton, New Jersey

Barbara A-. Morris

Sworn to before me this . day of December, 1963

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

m
30, 1963

-*

Anthony Bitrict ?Ural Building {{work 2 1 iifcw JiTtjr

the
tO AT* tO

of "*ixyi Jtfttdw, ^MkoT the flrtt which appear* oa Additionally the wordi "with rvgarct to wbwr* ttey rei,<i b* dl4 rro lin twlvw ia the Mhool district" aho it.ioa of tb* ahoela * at wad thirta* Th *pte**cr 19, 1962 T* with that portion of tte tipulation XiA*l para^rtpb oa p& 1 with tfa word* that * r*ult"....4om to *ad oa f 2 which ad* with the words
f 325."

two

With rf*rwac to th* ia/eraatioa haria* to do with aonie* appropriated by th* Board of School tiate we would preTtr to a^re* to a p*Lfia figure whioh eaa ke reltecl to the plaa rather than all the iaferaatioa beciaaiaf ia the *eoad i oo pace 2 ad eadia* with " 2 0 0 0 for adult cdoeatioa" oa $,0.0 p&e 3. Accordingly, tae afareaeatiaaed paragraph 2 i not a part of our tipulAtioa. w have no oej*etioa to the r*aiader of the etipulatioa or to thoae exhibit* related te aod aecifiaatedia that portion ifiai of th* *tipulatioa which we have aeeeptd. V*ry truly your*, UHI/la H*T8rt tt. Tt

i W

1 j

STA2BS DISTBICT COURT DISTRICT OP HBV JBR3KT (IB Equity)

1
H

I o**tify that tiila Anwr vaa ar7d within tha tima parlod allowad undr . Fdri

SSRTRUEB ? PGLLSH, at ala., Plaintiffa,

5?

A. 7CI, at ala.,

ral

-; .

Dafandanta.

&-&

ABSHSfi

AHTHUR J SILLS

Attomay Oenaral of Hav JorajA ttomay foe intervanor - Praderlok M. Raublngar Ccmmlsatocer of Educatlcn State Hou Anna*
Trantca, Hew Jereay

..

Byi

Joaaph A. Deputy Attomay Oenaral

::

UNITES SXAIKS DISX&ICT COURT BISIXICT OF iiW (In Equity) Civil Me. 847-63

GERTRUDE P. FULLER, RICHARD L. GRBBMAH, THOMAS F. ead JOSBPHIHB CACT.IQLA, wife, ead other* to fee Plaintiff.,
>

Civil Action

JXUY VOLPS ead

VOLFI,

hi* wife, LOCH POSACH ead BIATRXCI POGAC8. hie wife, ALLAH LASSER ead JUDITH LASSBL, hie wife, OTTILIO D'ALBSSXO end MARXX

AHSWSM. OF KB tfTSBVEMD*G ) DBFEWAKT, Ttif COMM1SSIOSKE Of SBUCAXIOJi OF

D'ALKSSIO, ai* wife, SQL BAJBLBR

) me STAts o? KSW JERSEY,

TO COKPLAHIT Of EUJfite, ) VKNZHO FLAIHTZFFS.....-

ead I TTTitAB p***" *fw Mf wife, BUQE1B r. CLBMIKTS ead M4SJORI1 CLBHXnS, hie wife, RVKARD ROBBZHS

*^ <?r^vtA ROM IMS, hit wife, LLOYD

POLLARD ead BLAMCBR POLLARD, hi* Wife,

AUSTIM A. VOUt, WILLIAM D. TXCRVOR, JR. 0. GARLYSLI MeGAHDLUS, R UOHZ ead UARRU t, LRVXi, titatiaf the BOARD OF SCHOOL UTXMATB OF PICUWCOO. RV J1RJBY, THS CITY Or EMCLiKOOC, H8 JBXSKY.

JOHH 1. PBRRY, LOOItt ORAJOVp R. VAH ZTALLZI. CARMSH R. HZKB ead UARRKH L. uwis, eoaetitutiag the BOARD Or BDOCATIOtf OF TUX CITY OF
)

FRSDCRICK M* RAOBDKSU

Frederick M. R* tia tt*t* of Kw Jray, plAintiff follow*;

Coaai*ioa*r of duetLott of th* complainC of latrv*niog

m\
plaintiffa* coB01eiBfi> 2. Ua deniea the allagatiou of paragraph 2 of tha plaiutiff * 3. HO doniea the allegation* of paragraph 3 of the Intervening plaintiffa* eoaplelnt, end by way of further answer Eberete oil aftatoa that Ihe Board of Education of the city of Snglawood, Bergen County, maintains a public achool ayatoa Mnaiating of eloaontary gradea, central sixth grade, a junior ilgh school and a aenior bigh school, and that at the close >f tho school aoaalon in June, 1963, aoongat other buildings,' thia defendant operated five eleosutsry public achool buildinga. 4. Ha denioa the allegationa of paragraph 4 of inter* raning plaintiff a * coapleiot, and by way of further anawer thereto he atatea chat during tha school year, which ended in June, 1963, the five eleaantary public achoola, kindergarten aad gradea one through aix, were ioperated on what la convonly k* M^n% w&gtt>0?nooa achoo'l pian%, wader which atudenta ganarally were aaaignod to * achool baaed on tho place where they lived and ita proximity to the achool which they wore designated to attend. However, the aatlgnaenf ay bo baaed oil other factora that are taken into acoounc *uch aa <a) aafety (b) e^ualication of claaa loads and (c) apeciel nooda of certain atttdenta and practicable Meana of awetiag tbeae apeciel nooda eg., trainable children, edueable Dentally retardod, neurologi* cally ijopairod, phyaically handicapped and ao forth.

- 2-

5. Ba doaia* tha allat*tioa of paragraph 5 of tho iataxvoaiag plaintiff *f oonplatnir but ho admit* that for a ouaoar of ya*v*, Including *h p****at tiaa, tha Board of Education of tha Ciey of gatla*ood ha* not bacod it* pupil policy oa r*c*, rood ov auco^try. 6. Ho doni8 cho lloattton of para&rapb 6 of ch* plaiiitlif 8* conploiixC* 7. Uodoita tho oliogAtioa of 9*x*$x:*9h 7 of th* intoxvoaiag plalaciff' riaylilnt but wmr thot othM llog?> tion *nd preyor* for roliof woro do voll 8. B* *dalt tb 11oyirion of pl*iaeiff' 9. ttw July 1, WW oociaioa of Cbo CoaalMiOBor of louaottoa of tho 8t*to of How Jortoy U part of tho pi ding ml lln riioMliilninr r11>t upoa that * to what hi* dooitioa ia tha < SMP*^ < f i v t f ^ t i of
,1 i i I

of tbo

10, loa ocdr of tha flCBaltgloaag in Ch* eaaa of

<

jjort^tll v. Board oXfofocaflkoa,of Kay,lo%>ood i a part of tho ploading,* and tha iVioaUitoaQT r*lt upon chat ,
-r:.......-' ------ v,'.--!-^

U.

Ha adfeU* tho aUoaacioa of ar*gx*pa U of tho

12. Ha adait* tha allaftacion of paragraph 12 of tho tntorvouing plaintiff** coaplaint . U. Ha adult* tha alUgation of paragraph 13 of tha
* BOHPl >1 UP i

14. Bo daaia* tha allogarion of paragraph 1* of tha Latarvoniag plaintiff a* oopplaiot* 15. Ha aania* tba allogt1nn of paragraph 15 of tha tlaiatiff*1 16. Ka daaiaa too allagation of paragraph 16 of tha iatarvaoiag plaintiff*' <toaa1,aint and by way of furchar anawar tharato ba atataa chat aftav full axpwaat tha Stata Boavd of Mucatioa of tha fltato of Kow Jraay oa ^aptaafxr 25,. Aff traad cha dociaioa of tba Coaviaaioaar a&d apprid all couful cliat a writtwa opiuioa would b orthcoaiu&. Said o?iuiaa woa aozvad oa all partial oa Oecabav ti, 17. tta la without auff ioiant k&owladgo to fon a boliaf coacavaiqi tba allagatioa of paragraph 17 of tba iatowoaiac plaintiffs1 oaaplaiat, 1ft* Ha daaiaa tba allagacion of paragraph M of tha 19. Ha admit* that tho intowattLag plaintiffa ^oin in tba plaintiff** pxaya* for jnogaong aa4 that thay aaak an i&but bo daaiaa that thara i* any fadaral right to attond a naigbbovbAOd aehool and thi* court U coqplotoly without jurUdictioa to grant th* raliaf aougbt by iatarvaaiac plaintiff a i in paragraph 19 of thair coaplainc. r
'AKXHUR J. SILLS

attonoy Goaoxal of Bow Joraoy Attorney for Fr*4arick M. KaubiogM

Joaaph A. Beffaan Doyuty Attoamay Gonoral

?. yrajaER, BICHAED
L. OROOiAB, THOMAS 7. OAOCJOiA

T2HITSD 3TATB3 DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT 07 KS ARSHY (In Sqolty) -. % I

I I I I I I f

nd /oacraira CACCIOLA, ai wtfa, and othara to b naaad,

va.

Plaintiffa.
AUSCTT A. TOIC, VILLIAM O.

TICKS08, JR., 0. CARLT3IB McCAMDLSSS, CARMKH H. BBJTZ and A8RBK XM.ZXVIS* cosatltatlng tha BOAflD OF SCHOOL BSTD1A1S 07 VQQBVOOD, MOT B&3XX, JOHH E. PBSST, IOUI3 ffiUBCV, THBODOas B. ?AM ItALLJJS, OAHMBB B. HIITZ and MAHRSS L, V SDOCAflOM 07 ffi CITT OF HIQtBtfOOP,

t t

intorrvnor,

M.

CoonniBlcnar

of Bduoation of the StU of Haw Jry, answra ttxa complaint, aa f ollcwai 1, fi admits tha allagatlon of paragraph 1 of tha ocraplaint,
2* So la wltaout *affllnt knovladfi* or Informatloe to fora a b#llr ooncrnlziff ttxa allagatlon of paragraph 2, and accordingly, laavaa plalntlffa to tfaalr proof 1braof. 3. Ha danUa fca allagattoa of paragrapli 3,

4* Ha dnl* tb allagatico of paragraph 4 in that neighborhood foglavood Board of Kdoaatlon did not always apply ttia/ aobool
policy.

5 Ha danlaa tna allagation of parasraph 5. 6* Ho adnita the allg.tiona of paragraphs 6 and 7.

7. H danlaa tfaa allagatloEi of paragraph 8.

8. He admits the allegation* of paragraphs 9, 10 end 1 , 1 9. Ha denies the allegation of paragraph 12. 10, He admits the allegation of paragraph 13, except^ insofar as it states that pupils are to be assigned nearest their hoassj toe word* should read "be assigned as nearly as possible to the school nearest their homes" and after the words "so remain* there should be added the words "provided that it is administratively and educationally practical to do so." 11. He is without sufficient knowledge or Information to form a belief concerning the allegation of paragraph Uj., and accordingly, leaves plaintiffs to their proofs thereof. 12, He admits the allegation of paragraph 15, except the words "unrelated to the instant plaintiffs" of which he is without officiant knowledge or information to form a belief*

and accordingly, leave* plaintiff* to their proofs thereof, 13. He admits the allegations of paragraphs 16, 1? lit. He deals* the allegations of paragraphs 19 and 20, in that they do not truly reflect the reasoning of th* Court*. K 15, He denie* the allegation of paragraph 21, in ;. -A>" the Court found the law to ba clear but admitted it was wx* settled. . 17.

He admit* the allegations of paragraphs 2lf and 25.

16. * He is without sufficient knowledge or of the allegations in paragraph 26 to form a belief and accordingly la aves plaintiff a to their proof thereof.

19. He denies the allegation of paragraph 2?.

- Z*

FIRST sawn
Xhe plaintiff a hare brought a aimilar action on the aarita in the Superior Court of Mew Jeraey* Lav Diviaion on Auguat 10, 1963, which vaa diaaiaaed and they filed a notice of Appeal in that matter before the Appellate Dtviion of the Superior Court of Vcv JTereey, which oaae ia a till pending to State Court*.
SBCCBfl) flSPARA^B PHPBH3B

Ttui Tolp interronora orou*it a similar action on tha oarits in the Superior Court of Sw Jaraay, Caandry DiTiaion in August of 1963, and their oaae vaa dirsmiaaed. Sae intervenora filed an appeal to tiae Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jeraay* and this eaae ia a till pending, Further, theae bxterrenora ware partiea before tae CoaBiiaaioner of Muaatim at the original aohool hearingf. they filed an appeal before the State Board of Bdueation and arguad tbeijrfle fully at that level* Bey t tied an appeal from tiie State Board 'a affinaanes of toe Oomniaaioner'a fieoiaicc wita the Superior Court, Appellate DiTialcaa, and thla case l atill pendind,
THIRD 3SPARATS

_ abovei - ' - Jfbe decisions of the State! - Oourta in the - aeparata defenaea are rea Judicata aa to the plaintiff a and the Volpe intervenova, end preclude* tha froa obtaining injunotVr* relief or from collaterally attacking the Comjaiauioner'a decision*

Oourt ia without Juriadiotion, in that Juriadiction ha already attached on the aerita in Ihree aeparate court action* in toe Court* of the State of Hew Jeraey.

run ag?AHATB versa ss

Vila Court hju abuaad it dlacrotlon la falling to abstain from ntartainlng thla aatlon .until the Stata Courts har* diapOMd of toa nerltorloQ* question* htrs Involved.
DBPBHag
'

Qoort if wttbout Jorladlotion, in that ttxaro ! f! no substantial Federal qiation Involved.

tiia to qultabl r*llf, and that any i-allaf granted to them would b contrary to state and federal law, |,;; -

' j j

Plaintiff bv alia god no aeta which would entitle

~ '" ' '

,;

- .

ARTHUH J, SILLS Attorney General of Mew

Byi pumrpu A*

puty Attorney.Genaral

The iaaue presented hare ! aipl. Are the white pupil a of FnglwiMVl acond-cla citlmn? An alternate bo ar n*cro pupil* antltlaU to upccial tr*ata*nt? dafwdanta do not ua thi plain language. Nobody do. aotlvltto* are oloalnd in atapbora. Baro too CocaBtrikaa a blow at racial lbalano. In Alabama
and Miaaiaaippij Governor Wallace and Baron tt uphold aaorad state rights frou federal encroachjouit. The court rauat
i

brush away thio frvtli and reach the heart of the natter.

1.

07 FACTS

It* fAct* are frae fro" ciupute. They are aet forth la official record*, JEnglewood i1nta1neit five i*nt*ry public ch0ol*. Attendance At tbeae *4hooi KM based on residence. Student* residing in dln*^cl district* Attend to* tllotfd Mbool. n* SprulU filed petition with the of MUQAtlon. They were Joined by AnorUB, et They Alleged the local boavA wiatalmd reciaily aohoola aod refuaed to ljqpleent plana to ellminAte It* They aakad an order requiring the local board to ellolnAte All Aspect* of local aecregatloa In the Soglewood public aohool*. The Anoruaa further aalcad the board be directed to put in effect a "central Intermediate aohool" plan. Voipe, et ala, Intervened in thla proceeding. The local board dented any racial aggregation, The CoMDiaaloner of Education filed an opinion on July 1st, 19<$3* It nay be epitomized a* follow*: There waa no purposeful segregation in the nglewood aehoola. There waa a high percentage of negroc* in the Lincoln and Liberty achoola, Thla condition aro*e beoAu* oi a noualng altuatlon over nUich the board had no oontrci. Quoting from a prior opinion in Planer v. Orange, the ComHiaaioner aald tbAt in the Blnda of negro puplla and perento, attendance at a aohool ooopoaed cocplttely, or alooat

exclusively oT negro**, senereted * feeling or inferiority and stigma, which had an undeaiyeable effect upon attitudes mating to successful learning. He then directed the local board to formulate a plan to reduce the extreme concentration of pupila In the Lincoln chool and submit such a plan to hia for approval on or before Auguat 1st, 1963* and to be put In effect for the school year 1963-1964. Thereafter, the local board adopted a plan. In substance it **tablihcd a city-wide 6 grade school to aocooaodate all auch pupil* in the public school yte. All pupila of grade* 1 through 5 residing in the Lincoln chool attendance district were aaslgned to Cleveland, Quajrlaa and Roosevelt school* based on certain criteria. Before the city-Kid* 6 grade school would becoae operative, either of two condition* out oouri 125 or nore of the than atudeota of Lincoln bool must not elect to reaaln thore for the 1 6 - 9 4 terj or, the nueber of tranafera 9316 from Lincoln school would result in cla*a loads in Quarles, CJareland or Roosevelt schools, which, in the opinion of the local board, woe educationally undesireable, Finally, all kindergarten children residing In the Lincoln achool district were assigned to that uchool. The rln waa approved by the Conalaaloner without an opportunity to any of the litiganta to be heard with respect thereto. 3'

ttade* the atato law, appeal* from the cieoiuion of the frS 16;3-15) bad to be taken to the State Board of Education. TUat board adopted certain rules are ao brief that they cover one sheet of brief paper. An appeal bad to be taken within 30 day*. Within 20 days after filing the notice of appeal, the Coeniaaioaer certified to the board toe record before hi* together with the notice of appeal, 2b certification wu to the ohairaan of the law eonoitteo. That comlttee i* to consider the appeal and recorauend ita conclusion to the board. Twenty days after the appeal baa been taken, the appellant shall file hiu point*, and 10 days thereafter the reapondant ahall reply. The oocretary of the board then tranamdt* the pointa BO filed to the chainasn of the law coooittee, \taa i to fix a tima and place for the Ueortag of the appeal if an oral naaring w&o requested. Thm Coaaaieaioner of Education io secretary of the tate board.. CM tins lac there ia aoat iaportant. The Cou&iaaioner'i deeiaion bad to be appealed vrithia 30 days. The plan waa to be effective within 30 daya. Volpe, et ala, covad not, thfroforo, await the preparation and filing of a plan or they would 1> bcrred from appealing the decision. Aooordiugly, on July 16, 1963, an appeal wu> filed with Uut *tut board and tho points iaediately fllad, A notio<ible hiatu* in the odniuiotratlvc procedure Lottuae apparent. HJ autliority
4.

conferred on the board tu ^rant a atay of the- Coaralaaionar's action pending appcil. To tho contrary, tha statute .specifically said tha decision of the Cotouissioner reualaed in full foro and effect until reversed. In too asantiwo, despite the pendeaey of the appeal, the State Board of education and city ftutborititf pis>c*<ld to irapleaont the plan by th appropriation of fuodLi, A r*olution was a4opt*d on Auguat lot, 1963 by th looal Ward calling for tn xpnditur* of OOB* $ 6 5 0 0 to i^plwaent th plan. Undor tha 6,0.0 font of goveraoant, tn City of Snclawood bad to concur in 1U*rfaft<r Yelp* 9t ala brougtit ouit in Ui Chancery 01 vision of the Superior Court of Mew Jersey to enjoin the expenditure of public fund* to lyplenent the plan, In that suit they alleged their atattt* to be that of taxpayers a well as parents of children affected by the plan. An order to show cause was issued, returnable August 15th, 1963, during the uvner reooss of the state courts, on August 6th, 1963 doffed, hit judiciAi robes and. obtained an order to show oause why he should not be permitted to intervene in the suit for the purpose of dismissing it. This la the sane RAublnger who is also secretary of the state board. His application was heard on August 8th, 1563, and without the trouble of notifying the City of Englewood of his application. The suit was dismissed on the ground
5.

that administrative rcuwdiea had not been exhausted. Appropriate state code rules require that Judeweato and order* be submitted to the court on notice or by consent as to fora, Deapitc thio rulo, the- Attorney General oubjaitted a Jud^iuuit to the trial ccxirt v.hich purported to dlittaeii the- cult a;i the sprits, ard that without notice to cuvy coui-.t;cl cn vitlu/ut their consent, lixcn thla fact waa brought to the i.tt^;.tl^a of counl for Voipc, be objected to the forn of the oi-.ir and a clause vua inacrtod to tha effect that there was oo adjudication on the raerlto. Such a Judgment wa entered on August 13th, 19^3* and innediately appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, which anr,ci is till pending* to the jaoftfitisttj preaent plaintiff* in thitt oaoej a* taxpayer*, obtained an order to ahov eauaa froa the Law dviition of the Superior Court wby **** iapleneotation of tha plan ahuuid not be enjoined. Again* Conaisaionor Raufr1ngar intervenod as a litlsaat and jsoved to disnlas &A two counts f irat/ that tho Chw^cery Division Jud0aant waa re a ad4udlc.utaj and aecond, that the adainiatratlve reoouiea had not tco/i ejchauated On the latter ground, the tajcpoyer*' ouit was diaalonod and an appeal taken to the Appellate Dlviui^n. The latter tribunal refused to atay tUa plan pending the appeal.

It wa obvioua that no appeal oould be heard in the oourt

6.

before September or 1963. Preaent eouwtel contacted the ohairMa of the law ccmittee of the etate board, and waa adviaed that no arguwtnt would be heard before the niddla or October of 1963, If then. Accordingly* tolecratapa were a to tow chairman of the state board and the t la ua Mr. fiaubingcr, aaMLng that tb board OOAVIM tow an application for a t*y. Sw bo*i\ did fix a but baara UM cotix* (Muntrovaray. Its opliUoa 1* datod
23rd/ deciaioa uu gq.ic wu<

tcx! ma Uiu up-

plicutiwi fov with tb

pproprl&t* tat of tlw tat board ^ Aa 30 day*' tlue to fll tb ywtord with tbt Appellate Division of tha Court. FaxvotiMtloalljr^ ay it be atftted that too before the Conadlojncr took 6 cia/a ana resulted i a voliMlnou* *teaograpbio yo)M the rule* of the atate court require thia ateoographlo reoord to be returned at tbe cxpenae of the appellant* To expedite the natter, the Attorney General was re^ueated to ae* that the record filed ianedlately rathem than await the 30-Uay Tne Coooiaaioner took the full 30 daya* 'which would nean that th reoord would not be filed with the appropriate at*te court 7.

until the plan waa in operation, namely i September 23rd. A period of 30 daya 1 required for the preparation of the append!* and the filing of * brief, cad the opposition ha* 30 da/a' tin* within which to reply. Accordingly, if all dateo war* st, to* brief would be on file on So'/ember 23rd, nd date would be fixed for argunent. mia court can Judicially notice that toe state court ia far behind in ita work aa the repeated atateaaota of th adidniatratlve director forcibly hov. At the conclusion of the hearing before th Deputy Cowtaiaaioner counsel aoreed on the tive neceoaary to file briefa. The Governor of New Jeraey called a preaa oooferenco and took iaaue with the tine required, and stated that th attorneys could pass up their golf &&oe In order tv tjet th briefs on file in a ouch ahorter period of tine, uhila Uie prooe*dinft8 vere pending in the atate court to enjoin the operation of the plan* special counael for Enelewood announced that no nooeya would be appropriated until he could be assured no atay would be granted* Hit Attorney General vade a public statement that if he were oounaei for nglwoodj the money would be appropriated deaplt* the pendency of the suit. Governor Hughea announced that tate aid would be withheld frooi nfllcwood unleoa the plan were put in effect regardless of injunctions*. The auit in thia court followed, and there la no need to
8.

forth the record here, with MM exception. Comlssioner Baublnger aoveo: tola court to cLUads* the proceedings, jua application was denied. Thereupon, and while counsel were conferring with the court, a telephone <^il MM received frou the Attorney General suggesting that U* court lacked Jurlxtdiatlon aod * pcl*l atatutory court ahould b oalleu to iwMur tb* witUr. Tte Attoimgr OIMVI tb*a applied for IAV to appeal, wtilahi MM dnld. fie applied to Ui Clrouit Court Tor * NTlt of prohibition/ wfclch WUJB also denied. lie preoontJy hut pending * notion to flic * petition for a writ Of prohibition with to SuprM Court Of tbe Halted Utei. Tb appeal* In the ft*t* court rtsalned dormant. Zbe state court required counsel to stow MUM on Deoea^er 23rd/ 1963^ wn/ the appeal oould not be dlsaiased for lack of prosecution. Xh* Attorney oeneroi appeared liefore that court and insisted the appeals be in fact dismissed. Tnis was his position there even thousa here he was ftfisertinfj with Kr. i-tavla/ that the state court should proceed. Appellate Division refused to diulaa und neld the ; open awftitlng the deteraaltuition of thla court, or x-^io Court of the United ^tatca. We now recur to the facts developed lfore the Cowaisttloner with respect to the racial quota in the elenentary schools la Snglewood, The figures are as of SeptesOwr 19th/ 1962. It showed a total of 2,088 pupils In all 5 schools. The per-

oentftg* of Kbit** w*a 60,9 and of negroe* 39.1. ine Lincoln school wui toe foc*i point or the controversy bTor' the Coaniaoioixr, and It atoonvd 9$0 n*cro. Uvt next wa* th* Liberty JMQOO! with 6gjf negro. th Cleveland chool hd 99.656 xhiUj Quarlea 96.^ whitej and Roosevelt 85.^ white.

10.

A abort history will help our understanding of the problem presented, in this court there is equal treatment for all and special treatment for none* That principle i inherent in the social eosjpaet* The wuaaer in which the principle was applied left woh to b desired. In the southern stateu, a qualification of the rule was adopted and given the shorthand appellation of "eeparate but equal1. Under thi qualification negroes could not attend school with white children. The Mae principle was applied with respect to public acconaodatieas generally. The fiction was, and surely it was a fiction, that the Decrees had equal aceowModations, snd therefore were given equality of treatment. In 1 9 this qualification &6 was approved by the United States supreme Court in flossy v t Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, a half century ef litigation followed in an effort to whittle SMS? the doctrine, or overrule it completely* It was wwuled in the school segregation *** ^own v. Board of Education, 3^7 U.a. 483 (1954) This decision laid to rest forever the separate but equal qualification. Now, the rule is equality for all, preferential treatment for none. The equality doctrine mans that public acconwxUtions are to be enjoyed equally by all citizens subject only 11 <

to such limitations as ar applicablo to all. The plan uxiucr review/ x-evlvci the discrialJaatory treatment, only Uilii tl.Vite tiia uhlto pupil* arc diocrininated against. The local board now uakea a faint attempt to oey the plaui uua dictated by adsdnietrative reasons. If this were true, it nates a fool out of the CosKissloaer of Kdueatlon, the t*u bojMf and all coun*tl involved, th Coamlloar' original jurisdiction vaa not inroted on th* basia of any adniniatyative raaaona. Xaitor tiaa Ala dooiaion r*t*d on dxini*trativa ra0ona, II* said tn board waa to r*duc tha *xtr*s ooaowilnwtion of pj>ila of tn* nagro race in the Lincoln acnool. That diaori1nation doa ii*t against tn white pujdla ia nurlfttat by a aar r*adlng of the plan auaaate<i. Liberty school bad 380 xhita and 62JS Mftatlrt. Why wu Liberty acnool osdttad altoother froa the plan? The ra&aon la obvious. If tn 6Sfi nasro population in this school was redistributed MMIHI the other 4, there would be a higher percentage of negroe* than the board vanta. Walla we are on tola subject, bgr is 9f& nacro offenjjiv* and 62)6 bonin? The entire thrust of the Ccsniaaionar'a finding and the argunant of Spruill and Anarum is that an affirmative duty exists to balance the school population by quota. There is not a single case In the court* of this country which sustain suoh a proposition aa that* Maordlngly, we have sons rather tortured logic. In the brief filed by apruill
12,

With the Btata toiird, we aye told (p. $) that the tranafer of white children In order to end all-nogro Softool* i* beneficial to tbo white child, and therefor* doea not violate the latUr's rights under the equal protection clouae of the Fourteenth Amtvndaant. It la then aaid the white children have a chance to rid theiaaelYc* of totally unaiaorican ccucepts of racial superiority and to obtain tha W-urit of an In tograted education. The qual preteotlon clauae doe* not appty, wgr* spruiii, became the white children have not been injured, but are benefited "by belAg taken out of an attooaphen that p Tbi i* an intereatinc phlloaophy .ttfertunatelyno authority ia cited to auataln It. She ComUaioner Hade no finding that white pupil* have eonoept of raeial *uperiorlty, nor that their Kinds were being poiaened tqr fcei** edMCtted in all-white aohoola. Mot everyone take* Me riev tfcat beiAff sent to school with negroe* 1* a benefit. Hat all negroes believe that being forced, to attend achool with whitea 1* a benefit, there la a large and vocal group of negroe* known aa Slack feuOlaa who preach a aeparatlon of the race*. All counsel involved on behalf of Anorun and Spruill have a large experience in dealing with racial oegregatlon oae&. Many of the casoa in our eourt* represent akillfull and dodloatod oerviee* by theae lawyer* in atriking down racial barrl*r. If there wa* auy authority for their poaitlon, it would be cited. 13.

In tho brief submitted by Spruill before the state board (p, 1 ) it 10 said that the neighborhood school as originally 2, conceived was admirable and consistent with the de&ocratic ideals of this country. It la then said that as now utilized it is a means for separation rather than assimilation of groups, and when the state participates in that separation "whereby negroes are eet apart and segregated", the constitutional proscription applies. The thrust of thie brief is that only negroes can b discriminated against.
Uc noi7 refer to the authorities. Brown itself clearly r-:-cc.~nizea tho conatltutlonality of school attendance districtinnocently arrived at without re^ajM to race cr colcr ty the quoution the Cuprono Court propounded to counsel, as follows;

"4. (a) would a decree necessarily follow providing that, within the limits set by normal geographic school districting, Negro children should forthwith be admitted to schools of their enolee,"
f' JKwirftM*M3)wvM>*Bi3Kp

with all the litigation consequent upon Brown., no court decision or precedent has ever yet held that with reopect to school attendance districts innocently arrived at without regard to vac* or color, there is any affirmative duty on any school system to recast or re-align those districts only to ix or blend negro and white* in any particular school, to transport negro students away fro their normal residential school districts into school districts populated by whites. 14.

and to fill with white iuporta the cap thus made In tho echoola that tod bettn attended largely by negroes. To cay the least, any such doctrine would bat segregation at it* worst because both white and negro pupils would then be compelled solely becauae of race or color, to attend oortaln achoola and be excluded for only raoial reasons froa attending aohool in their own norwO. residential areas. Such ease law as has been consequent upon Brown in the field of adventitioua raoial groupinea in aehoela ia in uiibroiom accord that there ia no ouch oonatitutionai duty <xa achool units. Among the vo&t enlightening precedent* in this fluid la Erovm v. Board of Education (D,C, Kan , , , )., 13g y. in which the trial court to which tha K&aufui aspects or Erown in the i-ui/rcas Court were reuonJed (for action la accordance with that taandate), when swt by a contention that under the redistrictir)( 'brought forward by th* Board of liiucation certain achoola would Ixi all colored 0ne, held: tion doe not naan that thera be intendnsllng of the races in all Mhool diatr diatrictta. hey It neaos only that they stay not be prevented froa interor going to aonool together >eauae of race or color. "If it itt a fautt* as we understand it i, with to Bvtfth<mftn School that the district ia inhabited entirely by colored students, no violation of any constitutional right results beeaus* they are compelled to attend the school in the district in which they live. "The central principle ia that hereafter, except in exceptional oireuptanes school children

15.

irrtsptotiva of raot or color, shall be required to attend athool in tae district in ttfiioh too/ reside and that oolor or rac la no olewmt of exceptional clrcunatancon warranting a deviation fro the baalo principle." (p, 469) If there KM tht slightest <jues tion that that was not a correct atattntnt of law, or that th Kanaas redlstrictinf; did not fully ooupiy with tht Mndatt of tht supreae Court it ia Uyvad toU*f that th uooa*Xul litlcanta and their attorney* in the Supra* Court, would not have pursued the Biatrlat Court'* deoiolon. back to the Supreae Court aa not in I mayIt Mm with ita aaadat*. aobert Carter of counael, in thia eaae4 vaa of counsel in Broim in the Sujgreae Court of tht Doited atatesj and also in Broim on remand to tht District Court in Kansas, and nost assuredly was able to and did aid the District Court in Kansas on rewind in tht proper interpretation of the Brown opinion in tht United States SuprtM Court, Tnuln.Ung i* Harqy v, Oodsell (ED. March 58), 165 F. Suppl 87. 90, with thia ststesxntt
'"i*u fixt that in a civcn <uyt& a ochuol ia populated alttoct exolusively by the children uf a race is not of itself evidence of discrimination
Avery v. \auhlta
Civ,), F. (g) 230, i which

Carter, wJw ia o; counaol Tor ^ncrua In thia

of couiuwl, iwiuarely ha ids that integration is not constitutionally required and that tht Unit of Federal constitutional interference in local school witter* in that there cannot be afflmativt segregation baaed on race alone.

16.

tsxx).

776. rn

bold* i "The ConatitMtion, In otter word*, doe* not require- integration. It awrely forbid* discrimination." In Boaoo v. nippy (5th Cirt) (1960). ?85 P. (g) 43. 5 and 46. it la Midt "Jfegro children have no ooiatitutlonal right to the attendeiK* of wtoite cfcildrea with tuaa la th* public ohool," TM languagg in Holland v. Board, of Bdiuxtlon (5th Circ, >.'(g).730j "Bit Fuurtontii Aawndwrnt dos not apak la poaltlv* tm to conamvt lntcr*tioa but n*atlvaly to prohibit eovrnon tally enft>rd iMcrtcfttioa,11 Jonoa y. Board of AlejqmdrU^ VUyinla (60), 278 P. (2) 78f 75 tbvn *ut the rul*i "It i* not oontid*d lor th* appellants that r0Aid4MMM and int*4.1ic*nc* 99* saoolajwhlp attalxaMnt* naar newr tot proprly applied in detevBlning particular aohoola th*t chlldian ahlll ettond . . . *m th* abaenoe of a honing that theo* facu-ro are uoed in auch & way o to deprive Individual* of their eoaatltutiooal rlfhta^ thejr, are, of course, not objectionable on oon*tltutlonal ground*. M We wtr referred to jrackeon y fr IftyMtdena City School Diatrlctj decided Jvine 27, 1963, and reported 382 P. f 2 ) 673. That waa an action by a thirteen-year old child to mandate hla tranofe? from Washington Junior Blgb School to Elliott Junior Hlh School. His Cv&plaint allowed that thouo t>/o uchool lx;cr; ~oriy-&iajdeU with the v/llful furp-ie of
17.

excluding him from .Elliott Junior Eth School. At the ttien* Jaokson Involved only the question of whether deliberate recasting of school boundaries to segregate cMldnsn by race tendered an issue that could withstand denurrer, 861 of that report the court states; "The boundaries of achool cones ar nonaally fixed on a neighborhood basis, and where racial imbalance ejcists In California oohoola it is usually caused by the fact that the Negro population tends to concentrate in certain areas due to economic factors and discrimination In housing* thus, soe schools nay hare a disproportionately high percentage of Negro students even though there is no Intent by school authorities to discriminate against them. Here, however, it is alleged that the existing iabalanee has been Intensified by purposeful and unreasonable action on the part of the board, * The actual holding In Jfeelcson was only this t "It follows from what we have said that the deaurrer ahould have been overruled," (p. 362) All else in Jackaon la dleta. ** cfcgon the contention of Pasadena was that while there were allegations of intentional racial segregation and gerryftanderlngj those "should be treated on general denorrer a* conclusions of law not admitted by demurrer." But, the court held "The avements with respect to racial segregation and gerryiNinaering should be treated on general demurrer as allegations of ultimate facts and not aere conclusions of law,1* (p. 860) TtA Jackson opinion concedes ~"A local board of education has power, in the exercise of reasonable disoration, to establish aohooi attendance sones within the district, to determine the

13.

is obvlou*, however, that the general powers of the board with respect to attendance rone* are subject to the constitutional cuarantiea of equal protection an4 due process." (p. 880).

area that a particular achool shall aarva, and to require the atudent* in that area to attend that school, (fid. Code Sec. 934, sutod. (a); tee 2$ Opa. Cal. Atty, Oen, 63 ( 9 7 1 Opa. Cal. Atty. Oen. No. 7&00 (Uov. 3, 1931). It 1*)

A footnote to Jackson ahowa the California administrative code contain* two section* which deal with the problem. Tifoe fi Section gOlOj state* that the peraona or agencies reeponaible for achool attendance cestere on iuaignent of pupil* thereto ahall aaaart all effort to avoid and elimjjaate tegregation of children on account of race or color. Title 5, Section 2011t providea that in the eotabliahaent of attend&nce araajij the local board aoall include anong the factor* considered tho ethnic ooapoaition of the renidente in the inuoOiate area of the achool, ohvioualy we have no auoh statutory provision* in this state, Reliance was placed below on Branch* v v The Board._of Education of Heapsttad, 20k J. Supp. 150 (EDMY 1962). That waa on an application for avuMry judgment, The notion was denied and the case aet down for final hearing. The trial court cited no authority for it* position and the ease cannot be regarded as a precedent.
On the other hand* we have a a*e directly in point in Bell v. School. City of Qary. 213 ?ed. SupP> 819 (W.P,
19.

that case the plaintiff! squarely aaaerted that an amwsatlve duty existed en toe part of the local board of education to correct vfeat wa tered racial ia&alanoe. The contention was rejected in an opinion which analyze toe various cases on the subject leading to a holding where the court aaidi
" . I have a*n nothlnc in th* many ca*a .. dealing with the segregation problem which leads me to believe that the law rqulra that a oohool ayateu developed on the neighborhood school plan, honoatly and conscientiously constructed with no intention or purpose to fiogrefato the r&ccsj ssuat be destroyed or because the resulting effect la to have a racial balcAcc in certain schools where the district 1* alMoat entirely by Metroes or whites, on the other iumci, there are may expresoiona to the oontrary^ and thaws ej<presaiana lead Ml to believe that racial labalaztce in our public achoo IB Is not oonatltutlonally Mandated. "'

added )' . case MM argued before the Circuit Court of Appeals on October 16, 1963, and affirmed. In Mew Jersey wo have the caae of Baylor v. Leonard., 30 MTf .Super. 116 (caiancery Divialon 1 5 ) m that caae a 94. quota system was uaed as a baals for admitting negroes to public housing. Judee Sullivan said thla violated both the federal and state constitutions, and said!

a violation of the oaae lam and 004*1 cited above in the discussion of the Quota syatea. It nakes no difference that equal facilities are provided to {fegro*s. Segregation necessarily igplica that Negroes tauot ee kept separate and apart fro* all other people. Like the quota ayate* it is yreartMrt on the concept that Negroes are different, this Itate, in protecting civil rights, doeo not reoocnis* any distinction baaed on color.
20.

rac* or oread. Segregation hiu; been uniformly struck down by the court* of thia State whenever the question wa raiaed." A caae analoaoua wa decided in the Supreme Court of New York, Kln^a County, on September llth, 1963, reported in the Hew York Law Journal for that da/, Tnla la the oaae of Balaban vf Rubin. Hhere the board of education adopted a plan wnereby children froa predominantly white neighborhooda would I* *nt to echool with children from predominantly negro and Puerto Rican nelghborhooda to achieve a racial balance. In the language of the acting superintendent of ochools, it wae the deaire of the board to develop "Junior High School 275 as an integrated achool." At the suit of the white parents^ the pl&n waa etruck: down 04 contravoine a provision of the Education Law of New York., Section 3201, which epeeifically held that no person aha.ll bo refused aJiaaion into, or excluded froo, tuny public oohool in the State of New York on account of race, creed, color, or national origin. A Bixilar statute 14 in effect in this tate. An appeal was taken from the atoove deciaion to the Appellate Division of the Jupreae Court of Mew York, and aa of the writing of thia brief haa not aa yet been determined. The decision in Bell, being one by a court of superior jurisdiction, la controlling here unleaa and until the Supreoe Court holda to the contrary* However, we call attention to
21.

^ ^ ^ " ^ " * ^ * * ^ " * " W W ^ M ^ * ^ f W ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ "' ^ " ^ ^ " * * " * * ^ " " ^ " B * B ^ c * ^ * ^ ^ * " ^ ^ "

additional caa*a dealing vith tiiia subject to shy*- the Judicial thought throughout the country. In Fknroc.y* Board of CoanBisaionara of City of Jadcaon, Hla*.,, 221 Fed. Supp, ^ r^^riot Court* tfegtfrn Djatri^ct of Tenneesca, October th, 1963, it va held: "Although compulsory aecreftatlon in soho-ia baaed oo no* ouat be aboliahed, there ia no affirmative duty on a *chool board to briaa about integration." Similarly, In ffjrthcroag v. Bd. of Education of City of ^ 302 Td. Sad 818 (6th Circuit 3/53/62, certtorarl denied, 8a 1586) it a lldt ta for oonraolal achoola "fttnirval requl are gaograpfalc aooioi;, according to eapaeity and facillti* of building, and adodaaion to ochool aecordln to tter of rigftt," The reason why the oourta have refuaed to make ecixool children the guinea pig in a aooialogieal ^uurrel la vaaily understood when we look at soue figurea. The Central Zoning Wait of the Board of Education of the City of New Yok just released sojae figures* lu 1957-53 there were 172,957 SV puplla colored to the present reglater of 264, 616, an increase of 91,659, or 53#. "fce Puerto Ricon enrolluent in 1957-58 waa 1 8 9 0 To2,8.
^ c f B f ^ c *

day it ia 177, ! , *n increaae of 4 , 6 , or 376j* M 854 In 193^-58 there were 650,680 non -negro and non- Puerto Rioan children. That nuaber haa cone down 596,356, a deoreaae of 54,324, or 8 2 . .*
22.

The Unit ectiot3 by 1966-67, or earlier, negro and Puerto Rican pupils in tb entire city will outnumber other piupils in these schools. The percentage of negro and Puerto Rican pupils In the firct grade now is about $2#. What happens in 1966? la the local board to send to New Jersey, for instance, to got auffioient wtiitc pupils to destroy racial imbalance? Ibis court can proceed on the af aosuxqption that the constitutionality of Kr. Jtoubinger'* decision 1 opon for examination. H opeclfioally oaid in yisher v. oran^a, on which ho based his decision in Englewood, that he would leave the courts to dctornine the conatltutional fi*cacy of hia decision. The State Board of Education in this very case made the same reservation, WO think Bell is controlling. Dot a oingl* case has ben citad by tha dtfandants contrary to Boll.

23.

SBTiSRMTVKn on nt AZFLICATIOU cy OK ATTOKHS* oataiAL GJ? JEW JERSEY.

PQUff TWO TUB MOTION TO STAY FROCSSDDttS IN THIS COURT HAo ALREADY BEEN

The stafceiiit^it of fact* apixuiieU to thl brici' showo the attitude of the ucate uuthoritiea aad the frantic effort! to avoid a judicial ucrutiny of their ftotion*. TUoua activiti* have run the aaaut, from open UwuiU. liy Uwa Oovornor addrosoed to toe local b^aaM, to UMJ icaal cli^it Uaca a suit i started in one court^ you bolwog in ctu. Tiic tistiwij on behalf of ^pruill 1& a re&tatcaitat of Jtr. Haublnjjcr'd c^tiun to diAuliii. Tttaru la this dlffcrenc* pruill cawc intv tulu court whu*. tUi portico vcro at iaauu and prepared to ssovo for final Jwigaont, 3pruill applied to intervene. He now My that the very suit in union be aaked leave to intervene ahould either be diamiaaert or held in abeyance, awaiting action by the state court. The very baaia of the plea of a prior action pending la to aavo a person from harraMBKtnt by miltipl* litigation. A peraon wfca invitea himself into tno aubaoQusnt litigation can hardly aay that he la beln^ harraased. It is not tnough for the attorney general and hi alliea to acknowledge that the eonutitutional efficacy of the plan uualta judicial determination. They want to pick the court which makea that determination, They are afforded no auch rl&ht.
24.

Slackatone tello us (Chaue'a Edition, p. T7.3) t'J;at there are two ty^ea cf pleaa, dilatory ar.^. to the action. This la a dilatory plea and auch ploaa are never favored. In Grconbcrg v. Orcenberg^ 11 y.J, Super. 582 (A.Pf -,1951) It was cpecifically bold that the pendency of another action, either at lav or in equity, in another utate, is no bar to prosecution of a like action in New Jersey between the some parties. In Gosochalk v. OoaachaUc, 48 H.J. Super. 566 U.D. it woa alleged that the trial court comlttcd error In not staying* on tha ground of comity, the trial of the Ne\ Joraey suit because a similar euit was pending In Holland, The claim was rejected, the court saying ther* was no compulsoryduty resting on the trial, court requiring it to stay a proceeding pending before it on account of the pendency in another jurisdiction of an action. previously instituted by or between the saae parties, and on the saae cause of action, Tha appeUAte court further said that the granting of a stay la discretionary with the trial court, limited only by special equities showing abuse of discretion in that injustice would be prpetrated on th* one seeking the stay, and no hardship, prejudice, or inconvenience would result * to the one against whon it is sought. In Borden's Condenaed MiHc v. Baker, 177 Ped. 906 (1910), :the circuit Court of Appeals held that the pendency of a prior suit in a state court is neither a temporary nor a 25-

permanent bear to the prcwwu^Lon of a subsequent suit in & Superior Court of the United States between the cajoe or different parties Tor the sane cause of action, or Involving the cuffic subject natter. The basis of our ouit here io that we are deprived of rights granted to us by the federal constitution and more particularly by the Fourteenth Amendment. V/e uhould not be sent baclt to tho state court on aoiae pretext that the latter Institution Kzy decide the controversy on ctato ijroundc, CotBalssioner Haublnger and the state board aald tiiey would leave the conatltutional education to tho court. That questi&n Is here. Let the court decide it, ubltted, MAJOR * MAJOR Attorneys of Intervening Plaintiffs, Volpe et ala
JAMES A. MAJOR, Of

26.

A2b Answer of Intervening Defendant Ancrum, et al., to Complaint of Plaintiff* Fuller, et al. (Filed 12/24/63) I Defendants Ancrum, et al., make the following allegations in the answer to the complaint of plaintiffs Fuller, et al 1. They are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of paragraph 1. 2. They are without information sufficient to form & belief as to the allegations of paragraph 2. 3. They deny that plaintiffs' suit involves rights granted by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution and New Jersey Statutes, and are without information sufficient to form a beKef as to the remaining allegations of paragraph 3. 4. They deny the allegations of paragraph 4. 5. They deny the allegations of paragraph 5. 6. They admit the allegations of paragraph 6. 7. They admit the allegations of paragraph 7. 8. They deny the allegation of paragraph 8. 9. They admit the allegations of paragraph 9. 10. They admit the allegations of paragraph 10.

A 3b

Answer of ItUtrvtnaig J)tfcda*i L, Compioutt of Ptautiifi FuOff, ft ei, 11. They admit the allegations of paragraph 11, bai allege further that the plan provided as an altersatitr prerequisite, that the number of transfers frojs Lincoln Sc must result in class loads in Quarle*, Cleveland, or velt Schools which, in tie opinion of tie Board al Edoeation, are educationally undesirable. 12. They deny the allegations of paragraph VL 13. They admit that tie plan provided that all popiis of grades 1 thru 5 residing in tie Lincoln School stieadaace district be aligned to the Cleveland, Roosevelt aad QaaHes School?., but deny the accuracy of the remaining allegations of paragraph 13. They allege that assignmeats pmrsuant to the plan are to be determined by the Saperintendent on the basis of the following criteria : define attendance districts go that children of the Liocols Sc&ool district will be assigned a* nearly as possibly fo the s*choo! nearest tieir homes ; provide for an even distribstioB of dass toads; to permit the ciifdran whose parents n-isi them to remain at the Lineste School to remain there provided tiat it is._8dministrstively and educationally practicable to do so. f ^> 14. They are, without information sufficient to form a belief as io tie allegations of paragraph 14, 15. T^ey admit tiat the Volpe petitioners were parties to the proceedings before the Commissioner of Edacatioo, but have no information as to whether that group is unrelated to the instant plaintiffs. 16. They admit the allegation* of paragraph 16. 17. They admit tie allegations of paragraph 17 and allege further tiai iajnnctive relief was denied doe to the

A S
Answer of Intervening Defendant Ancrum, et ai., to Complaint of Plaintiffs Fuller, et ai. fact that the Commissioner of Education had acquired jurisdiction over the questions involved herein and in the soil which is in the State Court 18. They admit the allegations of paragraph 18. 19. They deny the allegations of paragraphs 19, 30 and 21, since those allegations do not accurately reflect the determination of the courts. 20. They deny the allegations of paragraphs 22 and 33. 21. They admit the allegations of paragraphs 24 and 25. 22. They have no information as to the allegations of paragraph 26. 23. They deny the allegations of paragraph 27. A ntvtf t/ Jmiervrmmf Drfamxitl Jferwm, a *i, of PbniiifM Fwiiri, ri tl., Tsac Principals of enmity reqmre ikst Oosri t plaintiffs' action since tie sbjt S*;WT ei ite smt "s properly before tie sute coarts of iV State as K-wr Jersey. PotntTH S^piiA Plaintiffs have failed Co state daia spat can be grantedPn-rs Ssiitim DETECSK Plaintiffs FaBer, et ai, asd Iste.rresaaf PtestiS et L, are precluded from ot-tsiaiay the reBef so^fci this action by the doctrines res jadicau aad estoppel.

rn

n
FISST SSPASATX Dmxsx This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of plaintiffs' complaint.

Defendants ABCram, 'et al^ or fease allege that:

of

de-

The plaintiffs have brought this same action ia tfe* Court of New Jersey, Law Divisioa and have filed a Notice of Appeal before the Appellate Diviskm of the Superior Court of New Jersey. The appeal is still pending in the state conrts. Accordingly, plaintiffs ha elected a forum in which to process their grievances and are required to pursue their appeal in the state aourts.

1. Defendants Ancrum, el ai., isterre&e bereis OB i>wr behalf and on behalf of annwroos Keyro ad ir-fcite miaor students of tbe Eaglewood eietQ^Btarr schoftl* w%o are slmUariv situated and **bc are so ai2S>er&as as to roa? it impracticable to present them ail before ibis Cosn ; as members of tie class which tk.v reprises*, <iey n&B asd win adequately aad fairly reprftseei all members thereof; tie. character of rights soagbt to be protected aod esforoed are several and there are OOUHBOB qoeftjoes of ia* and fsci affecting the several rights of all asd a comews refief is sought; they appear in this action pcrssasi to Bole S3 (a) (3) of tie Federal Bates of Civil Procedare. 2. They are citizens of tie City of fegie^ood of a* State of New Jersey and reside within tie JBrisidictioa at tkis Court

A6b Answer of Intervening Defendant Ancnan, et ai., to Complaint of Plaintiffs Fuller, et al. 3. The matter of the racial composition of the Engiewood schools and of the concomitant obligation of the Board of Education to remedy racial segregation in those schools has been litigated before the Commissioner of Education, subsequent to this Court's having declined to entertain the same cause of action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. As a result of that hearing, the Commissioner of Education ordered the Board of Education to submit a plan to remedy the racial composition of Lincoln elementary school in Englewood, New Jersey. Appeals were filed and the ease is now pending before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. 4. The plan proposed by the Board of Education of the City of Englewood and approved by the Commissioner of Education, is proposed and adopted to remedy the denial of equal educational opportunities inflicted npon the intervening defendants by reason of the provision, operation, and maintenance of segregated public schools in Englewood, New Jersey, in violation of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and the statutes of the State of New Jersey. 5. Resolutions of the Board of School Estimate of Englewood, New Jersey, whereby certain funds were appropriated to implement the plan approved by the Commissioner, are a part of and in conformity with the remedy provided by the decision of the Commissioner of Education in order to l^niiinili existing infringements upon the constitutional rights of the intervening defendants.

A7b Antwer of Interven^f Dtjt*i**i Anrrmm, ei t, i Complaint of AM*// Fnfler, ei t WsDzroRit, defendants demand ctismisgaj o/ ffct wo plaint, together with costs of saii to be taxed. Dated: December , 1963.
Boorlx

. A , L. MJJOEK,

I West tt Strwi New Tart 18, Keir Tert

ARSOLO 56 Jrse.T. Boratr G. Puiorr, 127 Betaxat Strsei,

H. 136 Court Street, Newark 2, New Jersey Attorneys for Defendaiitf BT:

ASb Answer of Intervenor Deborah Spruill, to Complaint of Plaintiff* Fuller, et al. (Rkd 2/7/64) The Intervenor, Deborah Spruill, answering the Complaint of the plaintiffs, Gertrude P. Fuller, et al., says : 1. She admits the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, 9,10, 11, 14, 16,17, 18, 24, 26 and 26. 2. She denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 8,12, 13, IS, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 27. 3. She does not have information sufficient to enable her to form an opinion as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 15. The Intervenor, Deborah Spruill, answering the Complaint of the intervening plaintiffs, Jerry Volpe, et al., says: 1. She admits the allegations contained in Paragraphs J, 3, 7, 8, 11,13 and 13. 2. She denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6,14,15,16 and 18. 3. As to the allegations of Paragraphs 9 and 10, she denies them, but refers the Court to the text of the decision of the Commissioner. 4. She does not have information sufficient to enable her to form an opinion as to the allegations of Paragraph 17. PJBST SEPAUTS Dxrtssx This Court lacks Jurisdiction over the snbject matter of plaintiffs' complaint

A 9t>
of l*lervt*or Dtbvr&k Sprmlt, of Pianiift fmlitr, et at C*mptxmt

SBCOJTB The plaintiffs hare brought this same tttxm is Or Superior Court of New Jersey, Lair Dtrisjoa tad tew filed a Notice of Appeal before tie Appellate Dirise* sf the Superior Coart of New Jersey. Tke ppeJ is ttiB pending in tie state courts. AecordinylT, plaiaiigs if elected a fornm in which to process their griwawts ami are required to pursue their appeal ia tie i wMjris. THIBD SpAaiTS jDzr^rss Principles of comity require this Coart to dismiss plaintiffs-' action since the subject matter of thk asii j? pr before the state courts of the State of Netr Jersey. FOC*TH Plaintiffs haw failed to state a daim apaa wiki re&ef can be granted. Firrn SKpiRirm Dxmrss Plaintiffs Puller, et al., au<3 IatjTe.ain|r piaifiMs. Voipe, et al., are precluded from obiainuse relief foajii in this action b!rTSe~(k>etrines res jodicata and >lizier! e-ajoppel SQIB 1, The matter of the racial composition of tie wood schools and of the concomitant obligation of the Board of Education io remedy racial segregation in tbow schools has been litigated before the Commissioner of Ed0cst?oB. su%6eqoent to this Conrt's having declined tt> eBicrtaii! the same cause of action in tie United States District Ooort for tie District of New Jersey. As a i-F*aii of that bearing, tie Commissioner of Education ordered the Board of Education to submit a plan to remedy the racial coir-

A lOb Answer of Intervenor JDeborah Spruill, to Complaint of Plaintiff i Fuller, et al. position of Lincoln elementary school in Englewood, N. J. Appeals were filed and the case is now pending before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. 2. The plan proposed by the Board of Education of the City of Englewood and approved by the Commissioner of Education, is proposed and adopted to remedy the denial of equal educational opportunities inflicted upon the intervening defendants by reason of the provision, operation, and maintenance of segregated public schools in Englewood, N. J., in violation of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and the statutes of the State of New Jersey. 3. Besolntions of the Board of School Estimate of Englewood, N. J., whereby certain funds were appropriated to implement the plan approved by the Commissioner, are a part of and in conformity with the remedy provided by the decision of the Commissioner of Education in order, to terminate eiisting infringements upon the constitutional rights of the intervening defendants. Intervenor Spruill .demands dismissal of the complaints of the plaintiffs and the intervening plaintiffs, together with costs of suit to be taxed. MOKTOS STAVIS and W*. M. KUSSTLZB, Attorneys for Intervenor Sprnill

Alib Aa*wer of Intervening Defendants Aucrtan, et <W.. to Intervening PUintiffi' Complaint (Filed 12/34/63)

j.. .LQey auinu Loe auegBUOB: 1- They admit the aUegaiioas of paragraph 1 af iEtcrveniag plaintiffs' eompiaiui 2. They deny the allegations of paragraph 2 of tie intervening plaintiffs' complaint. 3. They deny the allegations of paragraph 3 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint, eioe.pt list they admit that along with a public school system coasistiuf of elementary grades a central siiii grad*. a junior high scic-r) and a senior high school operated by the Board of Education of the City of Englewood the said Board dki, J t&e close of the 1963-1963 school year, operate Sve elementary pablic school buildings in addition to its other buildings. 4. They deny the,, allegations of paragraph 4 of tie intervening plaintiffs' eoaaplaiBtx. 5. They^Beny the allegations of paragraph 5 of ii* intervening plaintiffs' eompjaiai. 6. They deny the allegations of paragraph 6 of tie intervening plaintiffs' complaint. T. They admit tiw allegation? of paracrapfe 7 of the intervening plaintiffs' oompiais* and answer further thai the petition before the Commissioner of Education set forth othr allegations aad prayers for relief. 8. They admit the allegations of paragraph S of tie iaierveniBg plaintiffs' complaint.

By:
MOBTON STATUS.

A12b Answer of Intervening Defendants Ancrvm, et ol., to Intervening Plaintiffs' Complaint 9. They admit that on July 1,1963 defendant, Frederick M. Baobinger filed a decision, bnt deny the accuracy of the remaining: allegations of paragraph 9 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint. The aforesaid decision of the Commissioner of Education is a part of the pleadings in this cause of action and reflects in full the findings and determination of the Commissioner. Intervening defendants Ancrom et at will rely upon the entire decision. 10. They admit that the Commissioner of Education directed the Board of Education of the City of Englewood to take certain steps which are set forth in the Commissioner's order in the case entitled Sprutil v. Board of Bducation'of Englewood, which is made a part of the pleadings in this cause and upon which intervening defendants Ancrom et al. will rely. 11. They admit the allegations of paragraph 11 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint. 12. They admit the allegations of paragraph 12 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint. 13. They admit the allegations of paragraph 13 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint. 14. They deny the allegations of paragraph 14 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint. 15. Thji deny the allegations of paragraph 15 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint 16. They deny the allegations of paragraph 16 of the intervening plaintiffs' complaint and answer further that

A 13J>

of l*i-trvt*i$ Inifrvfmutf Pta**Ji/-t

the decision of tbe Commiss.io&er of EdaeaiiaB by the State Board of Education, liter fafl opportunity to be heard IB as ippelbw prow*fig; prtjopated in by tbe iniervenmg ptaiaoffs ii: aB rriies TCWT apprised that the S*ate Bord of Edaeaooe wa!d issw a written opinion and ihsi a mitten opiakw ne upon all parties on October 8, 1963.

17. They are iaformii< fr belief as to the aHe,ga!jons of prjrrpi 17 < <fcp i ing plaintiffs' oomplainiIS. They deny ibe aljeyaiions of r*rrT} IS m intervening plaintiffs ; comptaiat. 19. Parasrapi! 19 reSerts a prayer for refe/ niker iiaa allegations of fact asd coBS^ooestly re^nire*

FlBSI SEPiAA

,Tbe interrening plaintiffs are parties to an tive proceeding od hare fiied a Notke of Aopeai kefore the Appellate Dirision of lie Soperior Cwart of Ne-i Jerwj npon tb* s*roe caow of km songht to be pros58fed before this Conrt. Axirdiag)T. inie.rreniny pJaintiS? tbeir formn and sbonki be required to parsge tfeeir in the State Courts of Nev Jersey. SEOOXD SEPASJTE The, cans* of sciion set forii is the compliiBt of itervening plaintiffs' complaint is barred by tbe dociriBe of res jodicats and eoHateral estoppel.

A14b Ansicer of Intervening Defendants Ancrum, et al., to Intervening Plaintiffs' Complaint TBIBD SEPARATE DEFENSE This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of intervening plaintiffs' complaint. FotJBTH SBPABATE DEFENSE Intervening plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE Principles of comity require this Court to dismiss intervening plaintiffs' complaint inasmuch as the same matter is now pending before the State Courts of New Jersey.
l*itrvfiu*f

A ISb

3. The plan proposed by ike Board of dBrauaa < City of Englewood and approved by &? Education, is proposed aad adopted to remedy tie of equal educational opportunities inflicted opoa -At 'a vening defendants by reason of the p and maintenance of segregated public wood, Jvew Jersey, in violation of the COBSIUIHMB ' fie State of New Jersey and the statutes 01 i]>e Stste 05 New Jersey. 4. Resotaiio&s of the Board of .School Es; ie al Engiewood. New Jer&ey. whereby cenain fasd? v-e appropriated to iinpiemeDt the piaa approved hr i^ sioner, are a part of aod is eoaformitT TT.:I ;i provided by the decision of the OoBHaisske-r of Edacitm in order to terminate eiisiing infrioffeiaeEJ^ n-poa ifee * stitotio-DaJ rights of the int^rveiuBg 6efSiafe. 5. raring tb* s^ijooJ year 1962-1963. i^e EnfeT-cxd Public Elementary Schools vere opera!eo OB & basis "iriif^ took into consider a (ion. amocg other favors, sa/err; eqalisation of^as^ load?"; disiance of ?iu6eDt* from 5*^00^ S.BQ 3.-Jopograpfcicaj feainre*. _ 6. During the aforesaid srisoo} ypa.r asd 35 prior year?, assignments of pupils io elenjeniary s<eooofc were made by the Board of Education basd apon a saaher (' factors sooe of which are employed in eScimt edgcatjooai procedures. Proposed as.signme.Bk for tie 1963-M sAo<J ye*r wil! again be made by the Board of Edociiios bftsn) upon similar faciors. eonside.ratioD of wbiefe tend to prodocf efficie-nt edocation. 7. Interrening plaiBtiffs partirapjied in the prowdiM before th* Commissioner of EdocatioH, were accorded fail

m
Intervening defendants Ancrum, et al., by way of affirmative defense allege that . 1. They are citizens of the City of Englewood of the State of New Jersey and reside within the jurisdiction of this Court 2. The matter of the racial composition of the Englewood schools and of the concomitant obligation of the Board of Education to remedy racial segregation in those schools has been litigated before the Commissioner of Education, subsequent to this Court's having declined to entertain the same cause of ac^pn in the United States District Court for the District orRew Jersey. As a result of that hearing, the Commissioner of Education ordered the Board of Education to submit a plan to remedy the racial composition of Lincoln elementary school in Englewood, New Jersey. Appeals were filed and the case is now pending before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.

A 161)

A17b Opinion of the State Board of Educt:on JAMES A. MAJOB, Esq. argued the cause for AppeBaats Volpe. WUJJAK K. KUXSTLEB. Esq. of the New York Bar argued the cause for Petitioner-RespoacVBi. SprmHROBEBI L. GABTSB, Esq. argued the cans* for Petioners-Bespondents Aucmm, et al Sroxrr Drxcis, Esq. argued tie cans* for ReiposdestBespofident, The Board of EducauoQ of u>e CitT 03 EnglewoodJOSIFH BOTTXLX, Deputy Aiiorney General, arrsea tire cause for Tb< CommissioDer of This is an appeal bv appellaBt-inie.rreDors Liars, Bot>ert and Jay Volpe, minor pupils ai Roosereh School ia Engiewood, by their parenu lall of whom colle^Ti^T are hereinafter called "Volpe") from a decision of the Commissioner of Education dated July 1, 1963. As of September, 1963. Laara will be entering the Siith Grade. Robert, the Fifth Grade, and Jay. the First Grade. By the said decision, the Commissioner direcied tke respondeat Bnelewtxsi- Board of Education as foUoTa: ( 1. To iBrmalfite a plan or plans to reduce t&e eitreiee con-ntranon of papils of the Negro race in the LjocoJa Scioo! consisteai with tie principles and fiudinfs SSBDCJeated in tie decision; 2. To snbmit soch plan or plans to the ComajissjaM.r of Edncatjon for approval an or before Ancrasi 1. 3963; 3. To pot a plan, as approved, into effect at Jhe besinning of 0 1963-64 s<4ool year. The appeal herein was taken by Volpe on Jury 16, 1963. before the August 1 date by which respondent Board was

Answer of Intervening Defendants Ancrum, ei al., to Intervening Plaintiffs' Complaint opportunity to litigate the issues and to be heard, to present proof or argument in favor of or in opposition to any plan for assignment of elementary students in Englewood, New Jersey. Intervening plaintiffs participated in the appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Education and have filed a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the State Board of Education. E, intervening defendants Ancrum, et al., demand dismissal of the complaint of intervening plaintiffs' Volpe, et al., together with costs of suit to be tased. BOBEBT L, CABTEB, BARBARA A. MORRIS. \ *TtTi L. MABCTTS, 20 West 40th Street, New York 18, New York, Asjrou> BEOWU, 55 West Palisade Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey,
ROBXBT 6. PlATOI-F,

127 Belmont Street, Englewood, New Jersey, HSBBXBT H. TATS, 126 Court Street, Newark 2, New Jersey, ^Attorneys for Defendants,
By:

Dated: December

, 1963.

A18b of <i State Board of Education to submit, and did submit, the plan ordered by the Commissioner aforesaid. After the filing of briefs before this Board but before oral argument respondent submitted a plan to the Commissioner and he approved the same. At oral argument it was stipulated by counsel for all parties that this Board may and should consider the submitted plan as part of the record on this appeal. It has ben so considered though respective contentions with respect to it were not briefed. Englewood has had 5 elementary schools to which pupils have been assigned on the basis of residence in designated attendance areas. These schools, their enrollment and racial composition as of September 19, 1962, were as follows: % Negro No. of Pupils % White School 99.6 A 477 Cleveland 38.0 62.0 418 Liberty 2.0 98.0 505 Lincoln 3.2 343 96.8 Quarle* 85.5 345 14.5 Eoosvelt Total 2088 60.9 39.1

A 1 Ofimion ff tlu Stair Board a; 2, To assign all pupils of grades ooe residing in the Lincoln School attendance disirirt to Cleveland, Quarks aad Roosevelt Schools, saefe assas'Bsae.BS to be determined by the Superintendent OB the basis of &e following criteria : . a) define attendance districts so thai children of the Lincoln School district will be assigned as aeaHr as possible, to the school nearest their booses., b) provide for an even distribotioB of ci*&s LOS*};, c) to permit the chikiren whose parents wisi tfeeis to remain at the Lincoln School to remans there provided that it is adininistrai-n-ely and edocauoBalty practicable to do so. 3. As a prerequisite to the establishment of the eirrwide 6th grade school referred to .in Paragraph (1) sbov?, either of the following rwo conditions mast occur : 1) 125 or more present students of LujeolB Scteooj most SOT eject to remain for the 1963-64 terra n Lincoln School or _t_2_l The number of transfers from Lincoln will reo)t IB cJais loads in Qaarles. OJer-ebad, or Roosevelt Schools which, in ti>e opinion of tfee Board of Education, are educaiioijaily 4. To assign to Lincoln School ail children of Kisdergarten age residing in the. present Lir*c*v!n School district. SiBce we were advised at ti>e oral argument thai prerequisite 3{1) above had been complied with, the plan was effertive. The facts sre sngicieBtiy stated in ibe decision of ibe Commissioner. Appellant Volpe, in brief and ia oral arffument. eipressly states his. appeal is argued soWr as a

The plan submitted by the respondent Board on August 1 pursuant to the directions of the Commissioner's decision of July 1 may be summarized as follows: 1. To establish at the frMj Junior High School building at 11 Engle Street, a city-wide sixth-grade school to which the Board assigns all sixth grade pupils of the Englewood Public Schools,

A20b Opinion of the State Board of Education matter of law and eschews any discussion of facts. He therefore accepts the Findings of Fact made by the Commissioner. They were: 1. That there is no evidence in this case of any deliberate inti-iit by the Englewood Board of Education to segregate its pupils by race in the public schools; 2. that the pupil assignment policies currently in force in the Eni:lewood School District resnlt in an extreme concentration of pupils of the Negro race 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; 4. that, where means exist to prevent it, such a concentration of Xegro pupils as exists in the Lincoln School constitutes a deprivation of educational opportunity nnder 'New Jersey law for the pupils compelled to attend the school; 5. that reasonable and practicable means consistent with accepted educational and administrative practice can be devised to reduce the present racial concentration in the Lincoln School. We too accept those findings. We therefore premise our affiruianc^apon the basic fact that the extreme concentration of Xfgro pupils in the Lincoln School (approximately 9#'~c) constitutes "a deprivation of educational opportunity" for the pupils compelled to attend the school. As a body having supervision of the public school system in New Jersey, we hold that such "a deprivation of educational opportunity" calls for remedial action, at least where appropriate and reasonable means can be found to

A2U

Opi*i of ikt State BOOTS / avoid it We find that the plan submitted br the ent Board (in the context of f acts aereifi) m ssefe as priate and reasonable means. In affirming, we adopt the reasons set forth hy tkr Cootmissioner in support of his deeisioB of J aly 1. Usese reasons we supplement by onr opinion herwa, i order * msm completely meet the arguments presented to titis Bffir.i. The argument of Volpe is premised opoa tl mssenioa as stated in his brief that : " the State * nay not adopt ay plxa -which is bused OB children being tiffed or refuses) entrance because of color. * * * die CoastitiitsQH is color blind." Any plan adopted to correct df-fatta segregative IB Uarttlfl School, says appellant, most involve shifting of pup^s "becanse of color". He says that, if Negro popiis j* transferred out of Lincoln School to other schools. White pupils must be transferred oat of those sefeoois fea ra&ie room for the Xegro chUdreB. This, it is argued, cosstitates an ievidious transfer based "on eoler or race". FsTtier, it is said^the^White child is eicloded from his aecartomed school !:on aeeonrft of * * * his color" ifi vk)2ark of . 18 :M-3. The argnaMat is fa!!aoos. Tbe trrfer of the White child from his school is jaot "OB accost at * * * his color.sl He is transferred sot becssse fee is white, bat becaose the evil of "unequal edocatkmaJ oppttrtjmitv" inherent in the segregated Lincoln School aanst be remedied aad to accomplish Oust result room most be made far tie Negro pupils in the schools tbereiofore predoEeiaantly white. Thus there is effected the desired ategntiaB and tie condemned segregation is eliminated. Because "eater" is a considcratie* in elimiaatiDg the evil does m*t nake it a cause of the transfers. But see: Balaka* v. niw. N. T. Sap. Ct_, Kings CoBSty, decided Septesjker S, I.9S1

A22b Opinion of the State Board of Education Appellant's position amounts to this: 1) He accepts the Finding that de facto segregation constitutes a "deprivation of equal educational opportunity". 2) Elimination of segregation must involve consideration of color and transfers of white and Negroes. 3) "Color" is therefore the basis of transfers. But 4) such a basis is inadmissible because the "Constitution is color blind." 5)Therefore, though the evil is admitted and only invidious (in appellant's view) means eiist to remedy it, nothing can be done. 6) Therefore, the evil must be permitted to go on. We disagree. The use of the phrase "The Constitution is color blind" enunciated in an entirely different context has a rhetorical, but not a real, appeal. The phrase was uttered by Mr. Justice Harlan in his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson', 163 U. S. 537, 559, 41 L. Ed. 256, 263 (1896), wherein he differed with the "separate but equal'' doctrine approved by the majority and subsequently repudiated in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 98 L. Ed. 873. He used it in the conteit of his conviction that where the State excluded persons of the colored race "solely npon the basis of race" such classification was inadmissible. Justice Harlan also said that "when the rights of others, * * * [a man's] * * * equals before the law, are not to be affected", every true man has a right and privilege to express his pride in race and "take such action based upon it as to him seems proper. But here, whatever rights the white children may have to attend schools of their choice are subordinate to th condition expressed by Justice Harlan, i.e., "provided the rights of others Ire not affected". And to here permit those rights, such as they may be, to be exercised inevitably frustrates the rights of the Negro children to "equal educational opportunity". The attainment of that right is paramount where, as here, practical and reasonable means are available.

A 23fe of tit** Sta To say that., is this comeit t&e Siaie mm* i&e blind'5 really means thai h mast be ''b&ad'"* ue**3 evil. Rather, we adopt the argttmem of i&? Defwij aey General herein thai, in the face o* is the necessary ingredient., the State mas* c*e *"^i scious" rather than "color blind''. See T**is>r T. #*** of Bducalio* of Kcw JWk, 294 F. 3d 36> <2 r, m Cert, denied, 368 H. S. 94% 7 U Ed. 3d for *pplk*iie this principle. Appellant relies on the decision ia G&&S v. 5'*rrf rfw/wi, 10 L. Ed 2d 632, decided Jaa* 3, 33(51 $&? propo&itioB that BO consideraiioB of eoior rsaj b& a as a basis .for transfer of papik befwwa pobhc1 ?* do noi read the case &s appellant arciW-5 n. Wiis boMs is tbis : ' * * * * BO oSciaJ transfer pias or pr whicb rocial seffrejati** is ik-t mav stand uoder the FoBri**fi phasis added.) We would eite.iwi thai hojdise to tJ ia^UM ?ifaiM fct holding that-- B -existing plan where racasi secr^sikHi if presesi may ?i-and, vhVre praciical s&d re*c^shle s^ftfis? eh^ to eliminate it. In Gitss. live SaprMa^ OOBH hacf s; l\.: target th^ elimination of tie fvij of racia} >oere*riflkm. W-e do a^o, We fied it dic.uh to nixiersiJiijd bov mav JQte.rprei (?>^5 to preserve as evil (ID tfe* uueqoaj edocatJOBa] opport^nHy) wbec ibf o directed to eliminauoii of another evi) {i^isu< B } of related si guinea noe.. In of jodicial precedent, ve do rx>? b^r? boki i Bai. or adTestitoiis segreesTion a? be.re esis oBallT probibitwi. Brow* v. Btmra &j E did sot ?o hold. We seed itot reach ihsi ave its detenmBatioB TO the Oouri.*.. Eni ?^P

f_f

A24b Opinion of the State Board of Education v. Tne Board of Education of Eempstead, 204 F. S'upp. 15 (E. D. N. Y. 1962) and Jackson v. Pasadena City School District, Gal. , P. 2d, decided June 27, 1963, suggesting that even unintentional segregation is constitutionally invalid. But see also Evans v. Buchanan, 207 F. Supp. 820 (TJ. S. D. C. D. Del. 1962) to the contrary. We await authoritative resolution of this question. Appellant also argues that because the plan gives a choice to the Negro pupils in Lincoln School as to whether they will or will not remain there, and no such choice is given to the White pupils in the remaining schools, such difference of treatment renders the plan unconstitutional. While appellant's brief does not couch this argument in terms of denial of equal protection of the laws, we assume that this is the concept upon which the argument is based. But mere difference of treatment, as between different groups, is not a denial of equal protection of the laws. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination only when the discrimination is arbitrary and not reasonably related to a lawful object to be accomplished. Vol. 16A Corpus Juris, Second, Par. 505, pg. 312, Par. 506, pg. 323; Jamouneav v. Earner, 16 N. J. 500, 520 (1954), cert. den. 349 U. S. 904, 75 S. Ct. 580, 99 L. Ed. 1241; GuiU v. Hoboken, 21 N. J. 574, 582 (1956); -V. J. Restaurant Ass'*, v. SoUerman, 24 N. J. 295, 300 (1957); Wilson v. Long Bremen, 27 N. J. 360, 377 (1958), cert, den, 79 S. Ct. 113, 35S IT. S. 373, 3 L. Ed. M 104; Fried T. Kervick, 34 N. J. 68, 74 (1961). In McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 366 IT. S. 420, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393, the Supreme Court, ^Mting through Mr. Chief Justice Warren, said at page 425: " Although no precise formula has been developed, the Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment permits the States a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differ-

A25b

Opinion of tkt State Board &/ ently than others. The eonsjiiotiona! safejrard is offended only if the classifies* ion resi= cm 2r<**aals wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the Susie's objective. State legislatures are pnvsased to k*r? acted within tbeir constitutkmai power. despite &e. fact that, ia practice, their Is**? r?*.uit is SOB*P *Bequality. A statutory discrimination will ao; be s^t aside if any state of facts reasoiiaUy may be coseeived to justify it. See A'ofrfe v. Board $j Ruoef Pilot Gomrs., 330 U. S. 552, 91 L. Ed. 1093, 6J a G. 910; Metropolitan Onsnalii/ ls. Ca. f.-BriHmfii.,^* U. S. 5SO, 79 L. Ed. 107tl; io S. 0;. 53S: L.W^r T. ifaiional Carbonic ffas Co., 220 U. S. 61. 51 L. Ed, 369, 31 S. Of. 337, Ann. Gas. 1912 C 16ft: J(**i, T. rf S. F. R. Co. v. Ma&fws, 1/4 I". S. 96, 43 L. Ed. 909, 19 S. Ct 609. More recently we declared : The problem of legislative dsssiScsiknB is t perennial one. admitting of no doctrinaire deffaiiios. Evils in the same fWJd may t>e of dinere-nt disK^sros? SIM! proportions, -retjairing din?rcm remedies. Or so theOegislature may think. Or ibe reform msv take one'sje^at a time, addressing Hseif to ii*e |>base o/ the probJem which teemf HKISI acme io tlw legisJtiTe mind. Semlrr \-. Denttl Eamixfrf. 294 I1. ?, 60S. The le^iflatore may select one phase of (me ncki and ppjy a remedy there, neglecting ilw others,. -4. F. of L. v. America* 5*sJ Co.. 35 1). S. 53S. T%e prohibitkm of tbe Eqajll Prftteciion Clsn>e sws m^ fr t rther thas the MwWitfiM dHrrimi**i;wt!. ' Wiil.Hi.mso* T. Lff, OpJiaai / Oklakema, /*:., 34S U. S. 483. 4S9, 99 L. Ed. 563: 1"3 S. Ct 461." (Emphases suinJie^).

11

A26b Opinion of the State Board of Education In a separate opinion joined in by Justices Frankfurter and Harlan it was said, at page 535: "The restricted scope of this court's review of state regulatory legislation under the Equal Protection Clause is the long standing Limlsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 TJ. S. 61, 78, 79; 55 L. Ed. 368, 377, 378; 31 S. Ct. 337, Ann. Gas. 1912 C. 16XX The applicable principles are that a state statute may not be struck down as offensive of equal protection in its schemes of classification unless it is obviously arbitrary, and that, except in the case of a statute whose discriminations are so patently without reason that no conceivable situation of fact conld be found to justify them, the claimant who challenges the statute bears the bnrden of affirmative demonstration that in the actual state of facts which surround its operation, its classifications lack rationality/' In Ketch v. Bd. of River Port Pilot Com'rs. (1947). 330 U. S. 552; 67 S. Ct. 910, Eh. Den. 331 TJ. S. 864; 67 S. Ct 1196, Mr. Justice Black, speaking for the Court, said: "The constitutional command for a state to afford 'equal protection of the laws' sets a goal not attainable by the invention and application of a prwise formula. This court has never attempted that impossible task. A law which affects the activities of sjune groups differently from the way in which it anects the activities of other groups is not necessarily banned by the Fourteenth Amendment. See. e.g., Tigner v. State of Texas. 310 U. S. 141. 147; 60 S. Ct. 879, 882, 84 L. Ed. 1124, 130 A. L. R. 1321. Otherwise, effective regulation in the public interest could not be provided, however essential that regulation might be. For it is axiomatic that the censeOf

A 27

qneace of refuia ting fev *. grtwp is tiat those IB it irii} be sss m strkrtioBS or receive certain . &&; Apply io otl^er croups or io ftB lie T. & S. F. R. Co. T. Metiu**, 1/4 V, & 36, MK; 3$ S. Ct. 609, 6i3, 43 L, Ed. 99 Tlas sefeobw 9f&cation of a regralaiios Vs dis*riiHisJ*e IB ifee broad seas*, bat it BUJT or mj BOI ck^j qwri of tiw laws, O**HT, it tional safeguard if it rested OB relevant to acfekv-eaieBi of i&e reubje^ tive^. An e-iaeipJ* wwiid he & law applied 'fea *fe-B pe-F*on a riehi io ea.ni a Jipiaie or feold aj ,|ib canse of hostilitr io bis pankmiar race, beiiefs or because of BBT o^.feer rfta&e hcTiBe ao rational reJatioB to ihe regtitaiwi sciiTitwRs,. See 0*. , 89, 92; 21 & Ci. 4a_. 45; 46 L- EA ft.* Olearl\ tie diifere-st treatment wbi^fe exists, a lie p&as as adopted is at least ir-a-soeahly reiat^i io tfee iavi^i ofe^ec^ ol elimisanag aiHKiBfli e<iacati<Hiai opfwrfeBry J3Ei^resi is tbe segregated scbooi. Isdeed it is a aeeessary lacij&r is the elimiDariou.o* socfe sesrseatittC- To saaj \&i Wfiji-e and Kegro rujpiJs mar am be treated diHe.reotJj' is X&is costeit is io say that itothisg can be 6<jw aboBi Ifee. i*imJ5J! unequal edix-arionai opporiunitr. l^e Npgro aad Wfeiisp pupils are not simiiarij circa mstaaced. Tb** f-orawj 5^f??r= uiwier the burden of dosiaJ of equal edoeatioiaa! ifv. Tbe iaiter no SIK^J bardea. fe^re reasonable and essarT for tfee of ta lawful object
At oral t appetlani ai?o

ueiawfa] in <bai a pebtx* )wariBg vas ooi af?ordd ai^ JBIres1d parties to give UKTB an opporfBHirr to W beard

A28b Opinion of tk*. Stale Board of Edvc-aiio* concerning the plan. We feel that no soch notice 'was necessary. Lastly, appellant also contended orally that the plan itself constituted an unlawful delegation by the local Board in that the plan provides that a necessary condition before its effectiveness "was that at least 125 Negro pupil? should exercise the choice to leave the Lincoln School. We see no merit in this contention. For the foregoing reasons, the Decision of the Commissioner of Education of July 131963 is affirmed and his action in. approving the plan a^ submitted is, likewise affirmed. Dated: September 25, 1963-