Opinion ID: 277053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pupils.

Text: 27 Under the plans of both Charles City County and New Kent County, only children entering grades one or eight are required to express a choice. Freedom of choice is permitted children in all other grades, and any pupil in grades other than grades 1 and 8 for whom a choice of school is not obtained will be assigned to the school he is now attending. 28 In sharp contrast, the Fifth Circuit has expressly abolished permissive freedom of choice and ordered mandatory annual free choice for all grades, and [a]ny student who has not exercised his choice of school within a week after school opens shall be assigned to the school nearest his home   . 8 This is all that plaintiffs have been vainly seeking in New Kent County — that students be assigned to the schools nearest their homes. 29 If, in our cases, those who failed to exercise a choice were to be assigned to the schools nearest their homes, as the Fifth Circuit plan provides, instead of to the schools they previously attended, as directed in the plans before us, there would be a measure of progress in overcoming discrimination. As it is, the plans manifestly perpetuate discrimination. In view of the situation found in New Kent County, where there is no residential segregation, the elimination of the dual school system and the establishment of a unitary, non-racial system could be readily achieved with a minimum of administrative difficulty by means of geographic zoning — simply by assigning students living in the eastern half of the county to the New Kent School and those living in the western half of the county to the Watkins School. Although a geographical formula is not universally appropriate, it is evident that here the Board, by separately busing Negro children across the entire county to the Negro school, and the white children to the white school, is deliberately maintaining a segregated system which would vanish with non-racial geographic zoning. The conditions in this county present a classical case for this expedient. 30 In Charles City County, Negro elementary school children are geographically zoned, while white elementary school children are not, despite the conceded fact that the children of both races live in all sections of the county. Surely this curious arrangement is continued to prop up and preserve the dual school system proscribed by the Constitution and interdicted by the Fifth Circuit: 31 The Court holds that boards and officials administering public schools in this circuit have the affirmitive duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to bring about an integrated, unitary school system in which there are no Negro schools and no white schools — just schools.    In fulfilling this duty it is not enough for school authorities to offer Negro children the opportunity to attend formerly all-white schools. The necessity of overcoming the effects of the dual school system in this circuit requires integration of faculties, facilities, and activities, as well as students. 9 32 The Fifth Circuit stresses that the goal is a unitary, non-racial system and the question is whether a free choice plan will materially further the attainment of this goal. Stating that courts must continually check the sufficiency of school boards' progress toward the goal, the Fifth Circuit decree requires school authorities to report regularly to the district courts to enable them to evaluate compliance by measuring the performance. In fashioning its decree, that circuit gave great weight to the percentages referred to in the HEW Guidelines, 10 declaring that they establish minimum standards 33 for measuring the effectiveness of freedom of choice as a useful tool.    If the plan is ineffective, longer on promises than performance, the school officials charged with initiating and administering a unitary system have not met the constitutional requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment; they should try other tools. 11 34 Freedom of choice is not a sacred talisman; it is only a means to a constitutionally required end — the abolition of the system of segregation and its effects. 12 If the means prove effective, it is acceptable, but if it fails to undo segregation, other means must be used to achieve this end. The school officials have the continuing duty to take whatever action may be necessary to create a unitary, non-racial system. 35 While I would prefer it if this court were more explicit in establishing requirements for periodic reporting by the school officials, I assume that the District Court will do this, rather than place the burden upon the plaintiffs to collect the essential data to show whether the free choice plan is materially furthering the achievement of a unitary, non-racial system. 13 36 A significant aspect of the Fifth Circuit's recent decree that, by implication, this court has adopted, deserves explicit recognition. The Jefferson County decree orders school officials, without delay, to take appropriate measures for the protection of Negro students who exercise a choice from harassment, intimidation, threats, hostile words or acts, and similar behavior. Counsel for the school boards assured us in oral argument that relations between the races are good in these counties, and that no incidents would occur. Nevertheless, the fear of incidents may well intimidate Negroes who might otherwise elect to attend a white school. 14 To minimize this fear, school officials must demonstrate unequivocally that protection will be provided. It is the duty of the school boards actively to oversee the process, to publicize its policy in all segments of the population and to enlist the cooperation of police and other community agencies. 15 37 The plaintiffs vigorously assert that the adoption of the Board's free choice plan in Charles City County, without further action toward equalization of facilities, will not cure present gross inequities characterizing the dual school system. A glaring example is the assignment of 135 commercial students to one teacher in the Negro school in contrast to the assignment of 45 commercial students per teacher in the white school and 36 in the Indian school. In the Jefferson County decree, the Fifth Circuit directs its attention to such matters and explicitly orders school officials to take prompt steps to correct such inequalities. School authorities, who hold responsibility for administration, are not allowed to sit back complacently and expect unorganized pupils or parents to effect a cure for these shockingly discriminatory conditions. The decree provides: 38 Conditions of overcrowding, as determined by pupil-teacher ratios and pupil-classroom ratios shall, to the extent feasible, be distributed evenly between schools formerly maintained for Negro students and those formerly maintained for white students. If for any reason it is not feasible to improve sufficiently any school formerly maintained for Negro students,    such school shall be closed as soon as possible, and students enrolled in the school shall be reassigned on the basis of freedom of choice. 16