JOHN w. Walker, I.A. A'iTORNEY At Law 172.3 Broadway LirrLE Rtx'K. Arkansas 7T.JIII
Telephone (.'loi) 371-37.58 EAX {.5(H) 371-1187 JUN 2 5 1992 .JOHN W. WALKER RALIII WASHINOTON MARK RllRNl'.Tl'E WILEY A. URANTON. .JR. AUSTIN IORTER..JR. * Alsfi t Irarlin- in Ihr Dislrict if Office of Desenre-iPfirn >. Monitoring June 24, 1992 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United Stated District Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Judge Wright: Relief and I have filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive I would like to have the Court expedite All parties have been given notice other relief in this case. this matter if at all possible. and'the entirely new party, Mr.' Ralph Hoffman a Summons. issued out of an abundance of caution to insure he has This Summons was actual notice of the proceedings. Of course, I expect him to be represe nted by LRSD counsel. Very truly yours, ,// V j6hn W. Walker JWW:Im Office of Desegregation Monitoring cc: All Counsel Mr. Ralph HoffmanJohn W. Walker, p.a. received ArniuNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Lm-LE Rook. Arkansas 72-jihi Telephone (501) 374-37.58 FAX (501) 374-4187 JUN 2 S OHice ot Desegrogafon Monitoong  lollN W. WALKER liALI'll WASHINUION MAUK miUNElTE WILEY A. IIHANTON. IH. AUSTIN IOHTKIL -IK.  Alw iiilniiHi-ii l' I'tiirlin in tiv Iislricl <f < H|iiiiil<i:i June 24, 1992 Chris Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, P.A. 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Chris: to Intervene and for other I am enclosing a copy of the Motion relief which I am today filing against the Little Rock School District and Principal Ralpli Hoffman of Pulaski Heights Jr. High School. Please accept this letter as evidence of service of the relief which I am Please accept this Complaint, i.e.. Motion. and in Inasmuch as Hoffman is not a defendant at this time, that Dr. Mac Bernd has not been substituted as a party defendant and is not yet a party, I am taking the liberty of also serving Dr. Bernd and Mr. Hoffman with copies of the Motion. Please note that I am also seeking to have Dr. Bernd adhere to the Desegregation has started off by violating through his plan of Please note that Plan which he reorganization. I am In that the Motion seeks preliminary injunctive relief, hereby advising that I will ask Judge Wright to advance this matter so that it may be considered in a timely fashion. I am also serving each board member with a copy of the Motion by leaving same at the office of Mr. Bernd so that he may have them available for the board members when they come to the meeting scheduled for this evening. If you advise. have any questions regarding this matter, please Very trul yours, J' h W. Walker '^7 JWW:ImChris Heller, Esg. June 24, 1992 Page 2 cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring All Counsel P.S. A Memorandum will follow later on today.s CEiVEO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 5* 1592 Office of Desegregafion Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Come the Joshua Intervenors and respectfully move the Court: a. to allow the intervention of the named minor children below through their parents and next friends
and b. for declaratory, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of said children with respect to their being allowed to participate without discrimination in the cheerleading activity at Pulaski Heights Junior High (hereinafter PHJH) in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The intervenors submit the following allegations and legal contentions in support of their prayer for relief. The legal basis for their intervention and for their right or entitlement to relief is set forth in the attached memo of points and authorities. 1. The intervenors in application (hereinafter "intervenors") are as follows: A. Jennifer Mays, as next friend of Tiffany Mays
B. Charles Perry, as next friend of Kimberly Perry
C. Annette Jones and Carlos Jones, as next friends ofShannon Jones
and D. Mary Lacey and Riccardo Lacey, as next friends of Riccarda Lacey. All of the intervenors are citizens of the United States and reside in the Little Rock School District. Each minor plaintiff will be in either the Sth or 9th grade at Pulaski Heights Jr. High School during the 1992-93 school year. Each minor is a member of the class of black students certified herein. The defendants in this limited proceeding are the LRSD
Cloyde McKinley Bernd, Superintendent of Schools of the LRSD
and 2. Ralph Hoffman, Principal of PHJH. Defendant Bernd is sued in his official capacity and is being substituted with appropriate leave of the Court for Dr. Ruth Steele, the immediate past Superintendent of the LRSD. Mr. Hoffman is named for purposes of this proceeding alternately in his individual and official capacities. 3. This is proceeding to declare and define the legal a rights and other legal relations of the parties herein with respect to certain treatment which the minor intervenors contend they have suffered at PHJH during the 1991-92 school year and which they stand to have perpetuated upon during the 1992-23 school year. This is a motion for preliminary injunctive relief which requires the defendants to alter or modify the process and results thereof involved in cheerleader selection at PHJH in April 1992 for the 1992-93 school year. This is also a proceeding to enjoin the defendants from allowing certain discriminatory or unfair practices which provide 4 . 2at least the appearance of partiality and racial motivation to accompany the process of participation in extra-curricular activities at PHJH School. 5. This is also a proceeding to cite the LRSD for contempt of court for failing to supervise the process of student participation closely and carefully at PHJH and for allowing the extra-curricular activities at PHJH to remain substantially segregated without a written plan for remediation thereof. Preliminary Statement 6. The Joshua Intervenors in good faith entered into a Settlement Agreement with the LRSD the purpose of which was to forthwith eliminate all vestiges and effects of racial discrimination. All parties agreed that extra-curricular activities would be altered or modified to provide for the equitable, if not proportional, participation of both primary races in all school activities and programs. The spirit of the Agreement was to promote an environment wherein all youngsters who attended the LRSD public schools came to feel that the schools were being operated for all children and that inclusion of both races, rather than exclusion, was the objective in all activities. The School District took ultimate responsibility for implementing this expectation. Indeed, the District has formulated policies and other writings designed to provide for the elimination of vestiges of discrimination. Those procedures must be followed. at the least, if the relief promised to black children is to be provided. This action is essential because the conduct of defendants. 3especially Principal Hoffman and his staff, is egregious, and because the school district board has not seen fit to hold Principal Hoffman to the standard which the District itself has set for racial inclusivity. Court intervention is the last resort as provided in the Settlement Agreement. 7. During the 1990-91 school year. the PHJH operated a number of extra-curricular programs and activities. Program data generally demonstrate racial patterns of participation. See Exhibit "A", pages 1 and 2 hereto. This exhibit. inter alia. demonstrates that in 1991-92, of twenty-six cheerleaders only two were black. while on the other hand. out of sixteen drill team members, only three were white. The enrollment of PHJH during 1991-92 was 761 students of whom 468 or 61% were black. 8. PHJH maintained other vestiges of discrimination as well. The resource room was 96% black (42 of 45) , while gifted and talented students were overwhelmingly white. In the remedial and compensatory education classes, 157 (97%) of the 162 pupils were black. Furthermore, the statistics on suspensions and expulsions demonstrate gross disparity. Black male youth, especially. are suspended and recommended for expulsion for reasons as vague as wearing "gang colors" and giving II gang signs. II In reaching these consequences, the administration is deliberately set up to provide the appearance of racial inclusivity in decision making. Accordingly, a black assistant principal, James Mosby, is put into all situations involving the discipline and treatment of black students. Mr. Mosby so routinely validates teacher recommendations 4and other racial adversities that this may be regarded as condition of his employment or his job description. 9. The minor intervenors in this action complain about the process which Defendant Hoffman and the LRSD utilized in the selection of cheerleaders at PHJH for the 1992-93 school year as being racial in effect if not purpose. The facts which they a specifically allege are as follows: a. During the cheerleader tryouts for 1991-92 which were held in April of 1991, approximately thirty-six black pupils applied out of a total of fifty applicants. There were twelve applicants selected of which two were black. In other words, black applicants were initially selected at the rate of one out of eighteen while white applicants were initially selected at the rate of six out of seven. On information and belief, this disproportionate effect discouraged many would be black applicants from applying to participate in the cheerleading program for the 1992-93 school year. b. While the cheerleading program at PHJH has become labeled as intended for white pupils, the drill team has become labeled as intended for black children. Consequently, all sixteen of the dream team applicants who completed the application process during 1990-91 either were selected to participate on the drill team or to serve as managers for it. The three white students who had the temerity to apply for the drill team also served. During the cheerleader tryouts in April, 1992 for the c. 51992-93 school year, only eleven black pupils applied. Seventeen white pupils applied. Of the eleven. only one was chosen, Intervenor Shannon Jones. [Her specific contentions will be addressed, infra.] Of the seventeen white students, eleven were chosen. d. The selection process has the appearance of being intended to effect a specific purpose. On information and belief. Mrs. Terry Bridges, Cheerleading Sponsor at PHJH school, selected judges for cheerleaders. She did so by selecting two white and two black judges. The two white judges were a mother and her daughter while one of the two black judges was an employee of the white mother and daughter. The second black judge was from out of the city. Mrs. Bridges has refused to disclose the name of the judges. Moreover, Mrs. Bridges, with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Hoffman and in violation of cheerleading rules, allowed her own mother to participate in the process as a non-voting member. Thus, Mrs. Bridges was in ultimate initial control of the process. On April 27, 1992, the one black judge from outside the community wrote a letter, "To Whom It May Concern," indicating that the selection process. in her opinion. was unfair and recommended that the "situation should be viewed again. II See Exhibit It 1. II To date. no LRSD official has inquired into her e. f. reasons for believing the process to have been tainted. g- Other adult applicants for intervention have sought to appeal the process and results of the cheerleader tryout through 6Principal Hoffman and Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent effective until June 26, 1992. On May 11, 1992, they sent a letter to Dr. Steele with their complaint herein. See Exhibit II 2. II h. In adult intervenors' meeting with Defendant Hoffman, he was rude and non-communicative to them. Moreover, he refused to allow them to view data on which he based his decision and which he placed into the files of their children. Hoffman also refused to disclose the names of the judges or to share with the parents the criteria utilized. the weights attached to each criterion and the ultimate consequences as reported by the individual judges. 1. On information and belief. Dr. Ruth Steele passed this matter on to Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Angela Sewell, for investigation and recommendation. Dr. Sewell, again on information and belief, verbally requested Defendant Hoffman to review the situation again and give her a report. All of this happened subsequent to May 11, 1992. There has been no response to date to the applicants in intervention from either the District or Mr. Hoffman. Dr. Sewell has not provided a written recommendation or report to her superiors. On information and belief, Mr. Hoffman sought to adjust the situation by naming Javanna Moss, a black junior high j  school student, as an alternate. Ms. Moss' parent was one of the signers of the letter dated May 11, 1992 , Exhibit This "2. " increased the black probability of participation to 8%. k. During the 1991-92 school year, however. Principal 7Hoffman removed one of the two black cheerleaders from the squad. That left Shannon Jones as the lone black cheerleader at PHJH during the 1991-92 school year. The tradition or past practice at PHJH is that a 9th grade student who served as a cheerleader the preceding year would be selected as one of four captains of the cheerleading squad. Shannon Jones was one of seven returning cheerleaders selected for the 1992-93 school year. Only four persons manifested an interest in being captain or co-captain of the 9th graders who returned. Shannon was one of them. Ms. Bridges manipulated the process to exclude the possibility of Shannon serving as captain or co-captain. Consequently, each returning white child who wished to serve in these roles did so, while the only black child who wanted to serve in that role was not allowed to do so. 1. During the 1991-92 school year, the one black child excluded from the cheerleading group. Christie Love, had been assigned to PHJH. A parent of the rejected white applicant complained that Ms. Love may not be eligible to attend the LRSD the next year because of her new residence in the county. Upon that event. the rejected child of the complaining white parent. was appointed to the squad by Defendant Hoffman. m. Ms. Love's application for permission to remain at PHJH was disallowed. n. The minor intervenors were both qualified and eligible to participate as cheerleaders. Kimberly Perry tried out during both 1990-91 and 1991-92 school years. The adult 8intervenors and other black parents were never given reasons by Defendant Hoffman for the alleged rejections or for the almost unanimous selection of competing white youngsters. 10. On page 1 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the District has committed to: E. of Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases school activities school, class and and operations (i.e. staff assignments
participation in extracurricular activities
distribution of resources
etc.) added for emphasis] [underlining I. equip staff Ongoing staff development activities to teachers, with the administrators, skills needed and to other achieve 11. quality desegregation education. On page 28 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the goal of the District is set forth as being inter alia: "to provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact students. Exhibit It on II 3" , minority and disadvantaged [underlining added for emphasis] 12. On page 39 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline, the goal is stated as follows: 13 . It [to] provide and ensure opportunities and encouragements to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. II Exhibit "4 II for emphasis. [underlining added Furthermore, the District commits to a yearly II analysis II of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. [In this respect. Superintendent 9Bernd proposes to change the desegregation responsibilities within the plan by his proposed reorganization plan. He has neither sought nor obtained Court approval of his plan.] There has been no written "analysis" by the defendants as provided by the plan, however. 14. The foregoing allegations are serious indications of this school district's failure to "ensure" non-discrimination at PHJH. Moreover, it is an indication that the District will not follow its own desegregation plan when the effect is to deny or limit participation of white students or to afford it to black students in certain activities. such as the Beta Club, Cheerleading, the Yearbook and the Y-Teens organization. 15. The District has made strong verbal and written a commitment to desegregation. implementing race relations 1. e. , among students and staff members
ensuring equities in all phases of school activities and operation
and requiring the promotion of "positive public reaction to desegregation". This commitment is the first page of the LRSD Plan. See Exhibit "5" hereto. 16. The effective though paraphrased definition of equity as utilized in this case, is "participation. not mere access." 17 . By the foregoing allegations, it is evident that the LRSD continues to treat one group of youngsters as inferior and another as superior. Principal Hoffman and his staff clearly engage in these practices in myriad ways. It is thus evident that the practices complained of constitute business as usual, racial prejudice, insufficient "inservice" training, or lack of awareness 10of the desegregation plan expectations on the part of Hoffman and his staff. The minor intervenors have been deprived of due process and equal protection of the laws. They have also been injured psychologically by their unequal treatment and by the exclusionary practices of Defendant Hoffman and the Little Rock School District. These injuries affect their attitudes about race, adult integrity, studying, their future and their self concepts. It says to them that they are not of value equal to white students. It also says that when they do seek to follow the reasonable rules of the district and when they do meet all the District's requirements for participation, they will still be treated differently due to their race or color. 19. Principal Hoffman has not prepared a written plan for eliminating or remediating racial disparities at PHJH, nor has he himself been properly "inserviced" by the District in such a way to avoid manifestation of furthering the interests of white students at the expense of and despite the needs of black students. 20. The minor intervenors and their parents have exhausted all reasonable remedies which they have for redress of their grievances in the school system. They have no other recourse than 18. to pray the Court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief under the implementation promises of the desegregation plan and under the law. Their alleged treatment is violative of the Constitution, the Desegregation Plan, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983 and other commitments of the District. This action is 11therefore their only effective recourse. WHEREFORE, intervenors pray (a) for preliminary and appropriate injunctive relief as may be determined to be within the equity powers of the Court
(b) for a declaratory judgment that the defendants have deprived the intervenors of equal protection and due process of laws
(c) for mandatory II inservice training" for Defendant Hoffman
(d) for a mandatory requirement that all staff members at PHJH read, be tested upon and thereafter implement the Desegregation Plan in good faith
(e) for elimination of selfserving, suspect selection criteria and procedures and staff
and (f) that the district be held strictly accountable for meeting the objectives, goals and timetables of the Desegregation Plan with respect to all programs and activities. Intervenors also pray for an Order which substitutes Dr. Cloyde McKinley Bernd as a party defendant in place of Dr. Ruth Steele. Intervenors further request an Order requiring defendants to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court for their conduct alleged herein
and for an Order requiring Superintendent Bernd to adhere to the approved plan herein with respect to lines and positions of authority, which are set forth therein. Applicants for intervention also pray for their costs including reasonable counsel fees. Respectfully submitted. 12JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 i 4. / ri'* z/ John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 J .! I Wiley A. pranton, Jr. Bar No. 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013 13CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of ChristophtHeller, Esg. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive 7 Little Rock, AR 72212 j azmotion Jofrn W. Walker 14 f' if i _  EXHIBIT 1  Whoni cih / l^lea/f ti- ifwtz , fva^ one. /fy-aMs ~4I? l/l'ijl ' -'^>1? i Ihig Qhieti&
c/i/^ Swad l^' IL 5^W4/z/ d/^saribLl cvm
'S-lui-lum hMc(li f/iiy, mQ. ii'ri^/ i:if 041/ iMat \ Al bl i'la \-^ I .t '^ ],.
y^in/, ~nic ^WO '^\fihiied&7/^t'^M/^ o/r nMie< MMrlein LeiiddfiLiiJ and 'i-h^e ()liitiK' LMiiz I^Milf Cvaz. 'Ai^/in' . ernpitii^, ! LnL 'TTii /n^)lfit.ic CL ^iLLdl Sia/fd cbf- 44! (^ ') hc>/^//7a Oh  i ^1^05 <UAa^ oh^e^ .  QC/bVihi^i^tyc : iti OfUtri klbbV^ m. -hif Min. liA^mee/ UdMyitf dif
Ih^ AIkiL 53I&^ , J: nuitztvi LA's-)- Ihiy (Aum Lci^  zi- undc/^f^^ '^L&i in 4405. MM /i> U/ibit/M/i'ad i aria Cifiii^bia! . bud Ihe \ialiijL i "ziMli'ai MkiM. L. > . / f'n C(/lb/V/O//}dw( ! ^hl5 ITO: Dr. Ruth Steel Superintendent,LRSD EXHIBIT 2 May 11,1992 MEMORANDUM From: M. Lacey, J. Mays, K. Perry, J. Moss Parents of students at Pulaski Heights Junior High Re: Cheerleader Tryouts Process were Varsity cheerleader tryouts at Pulaski Heights Junior High held during the week of April 20-24. Our children participated in the tryout process primarily because they were requested to do so by teacher(s) and assistant principle(s) of the school. _ , The tryout process and outcome are of major concern to ua. We
___Ji_______i ___ -'ith r. Ralph Hoffman, princip'le, Ms have discussed our concerns with Mr. Bridges, superintendent. teacher/sponsor and The results of productive as needed. therefore, Mrs. our your E. Mathis associate discussions were not as involvement is the next option to be explored. We meit with Mr. Hoffman initially on Monday April At ---4.1--------------------- *1 outcome of,^racial eleven were Caucasian that time we verbalized these concerns: 1. compositioi(^ of the twelve to be selected, and one african-american. '' The total number to tryout were ten african-americans and approximately 28 Caucasians. Even though the current desegregation plan does not address the racial composition of partici^nts in extracurricular activities, it does suggest that the school district will facilitate opportunities and provide an environment for motivation. 2. To further encourage egual access the school district has suggested that the judges involved be racially balanced. which relationship of three of was the the case at PHJH, however. the judges to each strongly suggest Two of the four judges were opportunities for improprieties. a mother and her daughter and the third judge (who was a minority) reported to the mother relationship. and/or daughter in an employment In addition the mother of the cheerleader sponsor. Ms Bridges, sat at the table with the judges and was allowed to carry completed judging forms from the judges to the tally table. The fourth judge was duly concerned as noted in a fax copy to me (attachment 1). The process was also a major concern to us, in that the constitution for cheerleaders in the Little Rock School District ma j or was disregarded without conscious. This document clearlyKe identifies the process for cheerleader tryouts at all schools. noted these inconsistencies: 1. Pre-tryout conference with parents and candidates was not held. 2. Candidates did not receive a copy of the constitution and the judging matrix prior to Tryouts were held for three days as opposesto the five 2 . tryouts. 3. days mandated in the constitution to exclude mock tryouts and Person(s) other than school district personnel were present during tryouts (Ms Bridges' mother). tryouts. 4. The constitution indicates that only school district personnel, judges, and the candidate should be present during tryout. Mr. Hoffman indicated he discussed these issues with Mr. Mosby assistant principj^ (attachment 2) and no reports of irregularities were concede. however. as a District prohibits a junior side issue, the Little Rock School varsity cheerleader organization. Pulaski Heights Junior High has such an organization - the other On the surface it appears as though junior high schools do not. this junior high school is exempt from compliance with the good faith guidelines established by the school district. review the matrix of our individual We also requested to Childs' performance along with their total score. On Monday April 27th we were denied access, both Ms Bridges and Mr. Hoffman stated it was against school policy to allow access to this information. This issue was discussed with Mrs.Mathis, who assured us that the requested information would be made available. On May 1st Mr. Hoffman provided each parent a score written on a memo (attachment 3) . This behavior inhibits evaluation of areas of needed improvement. Enclosed is information provided to candidates regarding Mr. Hoffman tryouts and Mr. Hoffmans' written communication to us. was asked who if any one on the administrative level participated in the formulation of his conclusions. out of line". He stated the "question was Even though this comment was perceived as an attempt to block further communication about this issue a rationale for the question concerns. was provided,ie.,with whom to further explore these Mr. Hoffman re-emphasized that the question was out of line, and suggested Dr. Sewell be spoken with next. Mathis is over cheerleaders and had already been However, Mrs. spoken with regarding parents not being allowed to see their childs' scoring matrix. At that time we requested that she allow Mr. Hoffman an opportunity to investigate and address our concerns. 1. Expand the We suggested these solutions to Mr. Hoffman: cheerleader squad to include at least four african-american candidates. 2. Conduct a second tryout and replace the teacher squad 2 . sponsor. the --. To our knowledge neither of these were considered. In view of your- resignation and the remaining four weeks in school year, we would appreciate feedback related to this matter as soon as possible. CC: Estelle Mathis Ann BrownEXHIBIT 3 H ' SCHOOL OPERATIONS .i'- The LRSD Office of Desegregation will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the LRSDs desegregation plan with respect to the following goals: 1. To ensure an organizational structure which provides equal opportunity and access 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. for parents, students and all staff. To provide a climate in each school which is based on the belief and expectation that all children can learn and to provide resources necessary to support that belief. To develop and implement policies which influence school climate and improve and student attendance while also meeting individual student needs and discipline----------------------- - . , learning styles. The student hearing officer will be responsible for developing and monitoring plans to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions. To provide guidance and counseling service which address students needs, are supportive of strategies and interventions to expectations, and provide communication to families of students. enhance student success and To provide guidance and counseling which makes students aware of their options and to assist students in acquiring habits and attitudes necessary for success in school and in later life. To monitor student class ratios and instructional practices to ensure equal opportunities for all students. TOVidT'and ehsure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. To^ssess the results of school practiccs, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. To review and assess testing practices, formats and results in order to better address the needs of all students while providing special intervention for disadvantaged students. 10. To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and to advocate for  . < . _1.__II! n11 xtx/lAntp students, and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all students. 11. To review staffing patterns and staff assignments in all schools and district offices for equity. 12. To establish recruitment programs for representation of minorities in all positions in the District. Page 28h lEA: School Operations LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMEPTTATION TIMELINE 5?  I w oal VII: Provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co<urricubr activities. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Responsibility Date Evaluation 1. Inform all students and patrons of co-curricular/ C extracurricular activities available for students and of participation requirements. Staff recruitment of students to participate. Increase student participation, particularly minority student participation in co- curricul Remove all barriers to equitable participation of students who wish to \ participate in extracurricular activities. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 2.1 22 3.1 32 3.3 4.1 Use of media and press. Send printed information to parents. Make clear public address system announcements to students. Use community agencies such as churches to assist with recruitment. Individual staff contacts with students encourage involvement. Staff shall specifically recruit from among students who do not typically participate in particular activities. Profile student involvement in each club or activity. Disaggregate participation data. Develop school based recruitment plans. Provide a district transportation program for student-transportation when necessary to assure equitable participation for students participating in district sanctioned extracurricular activities. 42 Provide a program for student access to equipment/ uniforms etc. needed for participation at minimal cost. Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Communications Dept Principals Staff PTA Board Educational Programs School based Dir of Extracurricular Activities Individual staff members Principal Staff Asst Supt Directors of Extracurricular Activities Manager of Support Services Asst Supts Assoc Supt Deseg Principals Log of announcements, media usage, other community student contacts Comparative review of data regarding numbers of applicants and participants by race Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profiles Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profdes w X w wEXHIBIT 5 COMMITMENT TO DESEGREGATION IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment. The method of assigning students is merely the first step toward creating school and classroom environments that foster academic achievement and improve race relations among students and staff members. The next step involves a commitment to quality desegregated education by the District, parents and the community. Of course, real commitment always requires a plan of action. To that end, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to the following: j! 1 5 Vj I A. B. The belief that all children can learn. The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. J II 1 3 "i 1 C. Improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved D. E. desegregation plan as enhanced/ incentive schools. Improving race relations among students and staff members. Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations (i.e. school, class and staff assignments
participation in extracurricular activities
4 distribution of resources
etc.) F. Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation. G. The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. J i 2 r H. The development curriculum. and infusion of multicultural education in all areas of the I. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other 8 staff with the skills needed to achieve quality desegregated education. In summary, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to having quality desegregated education in all schools. Quality desegregated education will result in long-term stability and growth for the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County. It also will provide all Little Rock School District students with the academic and social skills needed for successful experiences in the future. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors hereby acknowledges its commitment to quality desegregated education and respectfully invites parents and community leaders to make the same commitment. Such a commitment has to occur m order to ensure stability in our schools and ultimately achieve unitary status. w Page 1 ireceived JUN 2 6 1992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OHice of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS I. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LIMITED INTERVENTION MUST BE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS WHO ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PARTIES' FAILURE TO MEET THEIR DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS The Joshua intervenors and the applicants for intervention jointly seek permission from the court to join the additional named intervenors to this proceeding pursuant to Rule 24(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Throughout this litigation, the role of the Joshua intervenors has been to ensure that the remedy in this case resulted in enforceable commitments from the other parties on behalf of minority students in the three districts. That goal has been accomplished through the approval by the Court of the parties settlement agreement and the three school districts* individual and joint plans for desegregation. These commitments are now enforceable by the Joshua intervenors through this court. enforcing the agreements. but in the real beneficiaries will often be individual students rather than the entire class of minority students. After all, individual students come into daily contact with the districts in entirely unique sets of circumstances, buteach student has a right to enforce the remedial obligations as it affects them in their daily interaction with the parties. Although the Joshua intervenors are diligent in their attempts to monitor the districts and to insist on compliance, ultimate responsibility for enforcement is in the court. Therefore, as the real beneficiaries of very specific remedial obligations, minority students in the district must have access to this court on their own behalf. Since it is actually the individual applicants' right to fair treatment under the parties' ettlements which the Joshua intervenors are seeking through this s limited proceeding for preliminary injunction, the applicants for intervention should be allowed to intervene for the limited purpose of enforcing the settlement as it relates to their particular participation in extra-curricular activities at Pulaski Heights Junior High School. II. INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELIEF The present motion is styled "Motion for Preliminary Injunction," but intervenors are essentially seeking enforcement of the parties' prior settlement agreements and desegregation plans. Consequently, this motion might also be considered a motion for contempt and enforcement. Either approach justifies a quick hearing on the claims raised. A. Preliminary Injunction Intervenors will be irreparably harmed if the LRSD is not enjoined from implementing the cheerleader selection results which intervenors claim are racially biased and out of compliance with the districts obligations for desegregation of extra-curricularactivities. The selection of cheerleaders for Pulaski Heights Junior High, PHJH, occurs once a year, usually in April. This selection process has occurred and it has presumably determined the cheerleader participation for the 1992-93 school year. That participation begins during the summer. however, through the summer training camps which the school sends its cheerleaders to. Only students that attend PHJH may participate. Consequently, the minor intervenors will be ineligible for participation in the summer cheerleading camps nor in the future because they will presumably move on to the next grade and a different school after the 1992-93 school year. Therefore, relief must come swiftly, if it is to come at all. The damage to the intervenors' self esteem and their disillusionment with the educational system that will result from their denial of fair participation will also irreparably harm them in their future educational processes. The benefits of fair and equitable participation are cumulative and cannot be restored after the fact. Intervenors are likely to succeed in obtaining the relief they seek. Pursuant to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, LRSD V.PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990), remedial orders have already been entered in this case pursuant to the parties "settlement agreements" and "settlement plans". The LRSD plan for desegregation has recently been resubmitted and represents enforceable commitments by LRSD to the intervenors. (See Desegregation Plan Little Rock School District April 29,1992
11 relevant portions of which are attached to Intervenor's Motion) The intervenors reserved the right to seek enforcement of these plans through this court. (See Settlement Agreement, p. 19.) Under the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the District has committed to: Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases. of school activities and operations (i.e. school, class and staff assignments, participation in extracurricular_Bctiv.ities, distribution of resources
etc.) [underlining E. activities added for emphasis] "Equity," in this situation, means "participation. If in meaningful numbers, not merely the right to access. There should ordinarily be some semblance of proportional participation. at least proportional to the numbers that try out for a particular activity. Here the disparities in participation are so overwhelming as to be patently unfair and ludicrous. (Eleven out of seventeen white applicants were selected, while only one out of eleven black applicants were selected
in the previous year. an even more disparate selection ratio occurred.) The district also has a binding commitment to: I. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other staff with the skills needed to   , (LRSD Plan, p. 1) Ongoing and achieve quality desegregation education. commitments to c. Encourage positive attitudes and commitments to the desegregation plan by taking a team approach to promoting it, involving school staff, administrators,--parents,--- volunteers. (INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN, p.65) The district has failed to meet its obligation to develop these commitments in their staff and volunteers. Their failure is egregiously obvious in the disparities in these extra-curricular and
activities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly "analysis" of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra-curricular activities complained of herein
not even a response to the intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast. there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans
they are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public seesactivities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly "analysis" of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra-curricular activities complained of herein
not even response to the a intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast. there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans
they are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public sees faithful adherence to the school's procedures and conimitinents to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 /.V, John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 I ILA  A Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 7 Wiley A. Braiiton, Jr. Bar NoZ 90053 Horman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this ---- day of j 19 Christopfier Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 7. (I Mark Burnettefaithful adherence to the school's procedures and commitments to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 f'-y- 1,^ John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 / ark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 Mark .0
Wiley A. Brarfton, Jr. rfton, Jr. Bar ^Jo-/ 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013JUL-15-02 WED 13:27 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P.Ol JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 12205 Telephone (501) 374-37.58 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RAJ .PH WA.^inNGTON MARK BURNOTE WILEY A. BRANTON, .JR. AUSTIN PORTER. JR. * AUu w Pru/tiae in Georgia  the DiUhcb af Cjlujrbla. July 15, 1992 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion with respect to the cheerleader situation and related matters at Pulaski Heights Jr. High School in Little Rock on June 24, 1992. not answered nor otherwise formally responded. The defendants have Moreover, we have not worked" the matter out as encouraged by the Court. therefore. consideration. submitting I would respect to this matter. a proposed Order for the I am. Court's appreciate your early directions with incerely, ohn W. Walker JWW:Ira Enclosure cc: All Counsel Mr, Ralph Hoffman JuL-15-92 WED 13:27 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On June 24, 1992 the Joshua Intervenors prayed for certain relief for minor class members who were allegedly denied equal opportunity to participate in the cheerleader activity at Pulaski Heights Jr. High (PHJH) School. The LRSD has not responded to the Joshua Petition and prayer which was filed and served upon the defendants and other named individuals on June 24, 1992, within eleven (11) days as required by Rule 20 of the local rules of the Court for Motions and within twenty (20) days as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding response time and answer to a civil Complaint. IT IS, THEREFORE, the Order of the Court that: 1. Dr. Cloyde McKinley Bernd shall be and is hereby substituted as a party defendant for Dr. Ruth Steele in his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the LRSD
2 . Mr. Ralph Hoffman, Principal of Pulaski Heights Jr. High School in the LRSD, shall be and is hereby added as a named defendant herein personally and in his official capacity
3. The defendants. by their conduct as alleged in theJUL-15-92 WED 13:28 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 03 Complaint and Motion, have deprived the named class members- intervenors, who are represented by the Joshua Intervenors, of equal protection and due process of laws with respect to inclusion in or exclusion from the cheerleader activities at PHJHS for the 1992-93 school year and by failing to comply with the letter and spirit of the Court approved Desegregation Plan herein
4. The defendants shall be required to implement a remedial plan upon which the parties may agree. In the event of their failure to reach an appropriate agreement, a remedial plan shall be developed by the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The parties shall have seven (7) days from the date of this Order to develop such a remedial plan as set forth herein. In the event that the parties do not reach a written agreement, Joshua shall immediately advise the ODM. The ODM shall then, within three (3) days, present to the parties and the Court an appropriate remedial plan which the defendants shall implement. 5. The defendants shall be, and are mandatorily, enjoined to affirmatively implement the nondiscrimination requirements of the plan in all respects with the Court's admonition that failure hereafter to implement the plan shall cause the Court to give serious consideration to holding the defendants in contempt of Court
6. Defendant Hoffman and all certified staff members at PHJHS are hereby directed to read with understanding the Desegregation Plan herein and to be capable. thereafter, of providing appropriate responses, thereto, if and when called upon to demonstrate knowledge about same by or from parents or patrons-   JUL-15-92 WED 13:28 U.S. DI ST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 04 of the parties hereto in appropriate circumstances. Moreover, the defendants shall provide "inservice training" for Defendant Hoffman and for all other staff members pursuant to an accepted model, to be determined by the ODM, for same
7 . The LRSD shall be and is hereby reminded that it is to be held strictly accountable for meeting the objectives, goals, and timetables of the Desegregation Plan in all aspects
T. plaintiffs are entitled to their legal fees and costs for the ccessful prosecution of this action. These parties are encou^ged t seek voluntary resolution of this issue within fo. teen (14) days of this Order. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATEJOHN w. Walker, p.a. A'ITORNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Li'itle R(xk. Arkansas T^axi Telephone (501) 374-37,58 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED JUN 7 MJ JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER..JR. * Aadmitted tn frartice in (ieonria & the District of Cniumhia. June 4, 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Pulaski Heights Jr. High School Dear Dr. Bernd: It has come to my attention that Pulaski Heights Jr. High School has been conducting junior varsity cheerleader clinics since Tuesday, June 1, 1993 in preparation for the selection of twelve (12) junior varsity cheerleaders. This is illegal according to the district's constitution and accords a select group of students unfair advantage over the general student population which is discriminatory. If you recall, we had similar problems last year and all principals were told they could not have junior varsities, but pep squads where all who came out could participate, with no special selection process. It appears that Mr. Hoffman continues to do as he pleases contrary to Also, there is the question of how the person coordinating the activity is being district policy. compensated inasmuch as there is no line item in the budget for a junior varsity sponsor. Hopefully, you will look at this matter as soon as possible. Please let us know your findings of fact. Thank you in advance for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, I n W. Walker JWW:Im
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.