text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 349, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al. v. Swann et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system, which includes the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, had more than 84,000 students in 107 schools in the 1968-1969 school year. Approximately 29% (24,000) of the pupils were Negro, about 14,000 of whom attended 21 schools that were at least 99% Negro. This resulted from a desegregation plan approved by the District Court in 1965, at the commencement of this litigation. In 1968 petitioner Swann moved for further relief based on Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 , which required school boards to "come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work . . . now . . . until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed." The District Court ordered the school board in April 1969 to provide a plan for faculty and student desegregation. Finding the board's submission unsatisfactory, the District Court appointed an expert to submit a desegregation plan. In February 1970, the expert and the board presented plans, and the court adopted the board's plan, as modified, for the junior and senior high schools, and the expert's proposed plan for the elementary schools. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order as to faculty desegregation and the secondary school plans, [402 U.S. 1, 2] but vacated the order respecting elementary schools, fearing that the provisions for pairing and grouping of elementary schools would unreasonably burden the pupils and the board. The case was remanded to the District Court for reconsideration and submission of further plans. This Court granted certiorari and directed reinstatement of the District Court's order pending further proceedings in that court. On remand the District Court received two new plans, and ordered the board to adopt a plan, or the expert's plan would remain in effect. After the board "acquiesced" in the expert's plan, the District Court directed that it remain in effect. Held:
BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Julius LeVonne Chambers and James M. Nabrit III argued the cause for petitioners in No. 281 and respondents in No. 349. With them on the briefs were Jack Greenberg, Norman J. Chachkin, C. O. Pearson, and Anthony G. Amsterdam.
William J. Wagonner and Benjamin S. Horack argued the cause and filed briefs for respondents in No. 281 and petitioners in No. 349.
Solicitor General Griswold argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in both cases. With him on the brief was Assistant Attorney General Leonard.
Briefs of amici curiae in No. 281 were filed by Earl Faircloth, Attorney General, Robert J. Kelly, Deputy Attorney General, Ronald W. Sabo, Assistant Attorney General, and Rivers Buford for the State of Florida; by Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General, William G. Broaddus and Theodore J. Markow, Assistant Attorneys General, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John W. Riely, and Guy K. Tower for the Commonwealth of Virginia; by Claude R. Kirk, Jr., pro se, and Gerald Mager for Claude R. Kirk, Jr., Governor of Florida; by W. F. Womble for the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education; by Raymond B. Witt, Jr., and Eugene N. Collins for the Chattanooga Board of Education; by Kenneth W. Cleary for the School Board of Manatee County, Florida; by W. Crosby Few and John M. Allison for the School Board of Hillsborough County, Florida; by Sam J. Ervin, [402 U.S. 1, 5] Jr., Charles R. Jonas, and Ernest F. Hollings for the Classroom Teachers Association of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System, Inc.; by Mark Wells White, Jr., for Mrs. H. W. Cullen et al., members of the Board of Education of the Houston Independent School District; by Jack Petree for the Board of Education of Memphis City Schools; by Sherwood W. Wise for the Jackson Chamber of Commerce, Inc., et al.; by Stephen J. Pollak, Benjamin W. Boley, and David Rubin for the National Education Association; by William L. Taylor, Richard B. Sobol, and Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., for the United Negro College Fund, Inc., et al.; by Owen H. Page for Concerned Citizens Association, Inc.; by Charles S. Conley, Floyd B. McKissick, and Charles S. Scott for the Congress of Racial Equality; by the Tennessee Federation for Constitutional Government et al.; by William C. Cramer, pro se, and Richard B. Peet, joined by Albert W. Watson et al., for William C. Cramer; by Charles E. Bennett, pro se, James C. Rinaman, Jr., and Yardley D. Buckman for Charles E. Bennett; by Calvin H. Childress and M. T. Bohannon, Jr., for David E. Allgood et al.; by William B. Spong, Jr., and by Newton Collier Estes.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to review important issues as to the duties of school authorities and the scope of powers of federal courts under this Court's mandates to eliminate racially separate public schools established and maintained by state action. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (Brown I).
This case and those argued with it 1 arose in States having a long history of maintaining two sets of schools in a [402 U.S. 1, 6] single school system deliberately operated to carry out a governmental policy to separate pupils in schools solely on the basis of race. That was what Brown v. Board of Education was all about. These cases present us with the problem of defining in more precise terms than heretofore the scope of the duty of school authorities and district courts in implementing Brown I and the mandate to eliminate dual systems and establish unitary systems at once. Meanwhile district courts and courts of appeals have struggled in hundreds of cases with a multitude and variety of problems under this Court's general directive. Understandably, in an area of evolving remedies, those courts had to improvise and experiment without detailed or specific guidelines. This Court, in Brown I, appropriately dealt with the large constitutional principles; other federal courts had to grapple with the flinty, intractable realities of day-to-day implementation of those constitutional commands. Their efforts, of necessity, embraced a process of "trial and error," and our effort to formulate guidelines must take into account their experience.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system, the 43d largest in the Nation, encompasses the city of Charlotte and surrounding Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The area is large - 550 square miles - spanning roughly 22 miles east-west and 36 miles north-south. During the 1968-1969 school year the system served more than 84,000 pupils in 107 schools. Approximately 71% of the pupils were found to be white and 29% Negro. As of [402 U.S. 1, 7] June 1969 there were approximately 24,000 Negro students in the system, of whom 21,000 attended schools within the city of Charlotte. Two-thirds of those 21,000 - approximately 14,000 Negro students - attended 21 schools which were either totally Negro or more than 99% Negro.
This situation came about under a desegregation plan approved by the District Court at the commencement of the present litigation in 1965, 243 F. Supp. 667 (WDNC), aff'd, 369 F.2d 29 (CA4 1966), based upon geographic zoning with a free-transfer provision. The present proceedings were initiated in September 1968 by petitioner Swann's motion for further relief based on Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968), and its companion cases. 2 All parties now agree that in 1969 the system fell short of achieving the unitary school system that those cases require.
The District Court held numerous hearings and received voluminous evidence. In addition to finding certain actions of the school board to be discriminatory, the court also found that residential patterns in the city and county resulted in part from federal, state, and local government action other than school board decisions. School board action based on these patterns, for example, by locating schools in Negro residential areas and fixing the size of the schools to accommodate the needs of immediate neighborhoods, resulted in segregated education. These findings were subsequently accepted by the Court of Appeals.
In April 1969 the District Court ordered the school board to come forward with a plan for both faculty and student desegregation. Proposed plans were accepted by the court in June and August 1969 on an interim basis [402 U.S. 1, 8] only, and the board was ordered to file a third plan by November 1969. In November the board moved for an extension of time until February 1970, but when that was denied the board submitted a partially completed plan. In December 1969 the District Court held that the board's submission was unacceptable and appointed an expert in education administration, Dr. John Finger, to prepare a desegregation plan. Thereafter in February 1970, the District Court was presented with two alternative pupil assignment plans - the finalized "board plan" and the "Finger plan."
The Board Plan. As finally submitted, the school board plan closed seven schools and reassigned their pupils. It restructured school attendance zones to achieve greater racial balance but maintained existing grade structures and rejected techniques such as pairing and clustering as part of a desegregation effort. The plan created a single athletic league, eliminated the previously racial basis of the school bus system, provided racially mixed faculties and administrative staffs, and modified its free-transfer plan into an optional majority-to-minority transfer system.
The board plan proposed substantial assignment of Negroes to nine of the system's 10 high schools, producing 17% to 36% Negro population in each. The projected Negro attendance at the 10th school, Independence, was 2%. The proposed attendance zones for the high schools were typically shaped like wedges of a pie, extending outward from the center of the city to the suburban and rural areas of the county in order to afford residents of the center city area access to outlying schools.
As for junior high schools, the board plan rezoned the 21 school areas so that in 20 the Negro attendance would range from 0% to 38%. The other school, located in the heart of the Negro residential area, was left with an enrollment of 90% Negro. [402 U.S. 1, 9]
The board plan with respect to elementary schools relied entirely upon gerrymandering of geographic zones. More than half of the Negro elementary pupils were left in nine schools that were 86% to 100% Negro; approximately half of the white elementary pupils were assigned to schools 86% to 100% white.
The Finger Plan. The plan submitted by the court-appointed expert, Dr. Finger, adopted the school board zoning plan for senior high schools with one modification: it required that an additional 300 Negro students be transported from the Negro residential area of the city to the nearly all-white Independence High School.
The Finger plan for the junior high schools employed much of the rezoning plan of the board, combined with the creation of nine "satellite" zones. 3 Under the satellite plan, inner-city Negro students were assigned by attendance zones to nine outlying predominately white junior high schools, thereby substantially desegregating every junior high school in the system.
The Finger plan departed from the board plan chiefly in its handling of the system's 76 elementary schools. Rather than relying solely upon geographic zoning, Dr. Finger proposed use of zoning, pairing, and grouping techniques, with the result that student bodies throughout the system would range from 9% to 38% Negro. 4
The District Court described the plan thus:
On February 5, 1970, the District Court adopted the board plan, as modified by Dr. Finger, for the junior and senior high schools. The court rejected the board elementary school plan and adopted the Finger plan as presented. Implementation was partially stayed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on March 5, and this Court declined to disturb the Fourth Circuit's order, 397 U.S. 978 (1970).
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order as to faculty desegregation and the secondary school plans, but vacated the order respecting elementary schools. While agreeing that the District Court properly disapproved the board plan concerning these schools, the Court of Appeals feared that the pairing and grouping of elementary schools would place an unreasonable burden on the board and the system's pupils. The case was remanded to the District Court for reconsideration and submission of further plans. 431 F.2d 138. [402 U.S. 1, 11] This Court granted certiorari, 399 U.S. 926 , and directed reinstatement of the District Court's order pending further proceedings in that court.
On remand the District Court received two new plans for the elementary schools: a plan prepared by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (the HEW plan) based on contiguous grouping and zoning of schools, and a plan prepared by four members of the nine-member school board (the minority plan) achieving substantially the same results as the Finger plan but apparently with slightly less transportation. A majority of the school board declined to amend its proposal. After a lengthy evidentiary hearing the District Court concluded that its own plan (the Finger plan), the minority plan, and an earlier draft of the Finger plan were all reasonable and acceptable. It directed the board to adopt one of the three or in the alternative to come forward with a new, equally effective plan of its own; the court ordered that the Finger plan would remain in effect in the event the school board declined to adopt a new plan. On August 7, the board indicated it would "acquiesce" in the Finger plan, reiterating its view that the plan was unreasonable. The District Court, by order dated August 7, 1970, directed that the Finger plan remain in effect.
Nearly 17 years ago this Court held, in explicit terms, that state-imposed segregation by race in public schools denies equal protection of the laws. At no time has the Court deviated in the slightest degree from that holding or its constitutional underpinnings. None of the parties before us challenges the Court's decision of May 17, 1954, that
By the time the Court considered Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 , in 1968, very little progress had been made in many areas where dual school systems had historically been maintained by operation of state laws. In Green, the Court was confronted with a record of a freedom-of-choice program that the District Court had found to operate in fact to preserve a dual system more than a decade after Brown II. While acknowledging that a freedom-of-choice concept could be a valid remedial measure in some circumstances, its failure to be effective in Green required that:
The problems encountered by the district courts and courts of appeals make plain that we should now try to amplify guidelines, however incomplete and imperfect, for the assistance of school authorities and courts. 5 The failure of local authorities to meet their constitutional obligations aggravated the massive problem of converting from the state-enforced discrimination of racially separate school systems. This process has been rendered more difficult by changes since 1954 in the structure and patterns of communities, the growth of student population, 6 movement of families, and other changes, some of which had marked impact on school planning, sometimes neutralizing or negating remedial action before it was fully implemented. Rural areas accustomed for half a century to the consolidated school systems implemented by bus transportation could make adjustments more readily than metropolitan areas with dense and shifting population, numerous schools, congested and complex traffic patterns. [402 U.S. 1, 15]
The objective today remains to eliminate from the public schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation. Segregation was the evil struck down by Brown I as contrary to the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution. That was the violation sought to be corrected by the remedial measures of Brown II. That was the basis for the holding in Green that school authorities are "clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch." 391 U.S., at 437 -438.
If school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations under these holdings, judicial authority may be invoked. Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies.
In seeking to define even in broad and general terms how far this remedial power extends it is important to remember that judicial powers may be exercised only on the basis of a constitutional violation. Remedial judicial authority does not put judges automatically in the shoes of school authorities whose powers are plenary. Judicial authority enters only when local authority defaults.
School authorities are traditionally charged with broad power to formulate and implement educational policy and might well conclude, for example, that in order to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society each school should have a prescribed ratio of Negro to white students reflecting the proportion for the district as a whole. To do this as an educational policy is within the broad discretionary powers of school authorities; absent a finding of a constitutional violation, however, that would not be within the authority of a federal court. As with any equity case, the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy. In default by the school authorities of their obligation to proffer acceptable remedies, a district court has broad power to fashion a remedy that will assure a unitary school system.
The school authorities argue that the equity powers of federal district courts have been limited by Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c. The language and the history of Title IV show that it was enacted not to limit but to define the role of the Federal Government in the implementation of the Brown I decision. It authorizes the Commissioner of Education to provide technical assistance to local boards in the preparation of desegregation plans, to arrange "training institutes" [402 U.S. 1, 17] for school personnel involved in desegregation efforts, and to make grants directly to schools to ease the transition to unitary systems. It also authorizes the Attorney General, in specified circumstances, to initiate federal desegregation suits. Section 2000c (b) defines "desegregation" as it is used in Title IV:
We turn now to the problem of defining with more particularity the responsibilities of school authorities in desegregating a state-enforced dual school system in light of the Equal Protection Clause. Although the several related cases before us are primarily concerned with problems of student assignment, it may be helpful to begin with a brief discussion of other aspects of the process.
In Green, we pointed out that existing policy and practice with regard to faculty, staff, transportation, extra-curricular activities, and facilities were among the most important indicia of a segregated system. 391 U.S., at 435 . Independent of student assignment, where it is possible to identify a "white school" or a "Negro school" simply by reference to the racial composition of teachers and staff, the quality of school buildings and equipment, or the organization of sports activities, a prima facie case of violation of substantive constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause is shown.
When a system has been dual in these respects, the first remedial responsibility of school authorities is to eliminate invidious racial distinctions. With respect to such matters as transportation, supporting personnel, and extracurricular activities, no more than this may be necessary. Similar corrective action must be taken with regard to the maintenance of buildings and the distribution of equipment. In these areas, normal administrative [402 U.S. 1, 19] practice should produce schools of like quality, facilities, and staffs. Something more must be said, however, as to faculty assignment and new school construction.
In the companion Davis case, post, p. 33, the Mobile school board has argued that the Constitution requires that teachers be assigned on a "color blind" basis. It also argues that the Constitution prohibits district courts from using their equity power to order assignment of teachers to achieve a particular degree of faculty desegregation. We reject that contention.
In United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225 (1969), the District Court set as a goal a plan of faculty assignment in each school with a ratio of white to Negro faculty members substantially the same throughout the system. This order was predicated on the District Court finding that:
We reversed the Court of Appeals and restored the District Court's order in its entirety, holding that the order of the District Judge
The construction of new schools and the closing of old ones are two of the most important functions of local school authorities and also two of the most complex. They must decide questions of location and capacity in light of population growth, finances, land values, site availability, through an almost endless list of factors to be considered. The result of this will be a decision which, when combined with one technique or another of student assignment, will determine the racial composition of the student body in each school in the system. Over the long run, the consequences of the choices will be far reaching. People gravitate toward school facilities, just as schools are located in response to the needs of people. The location of schools may thus influence [402 U.S. 1, 21] the patterns of residential development of a metropolitan area and have important impact on composition of inner-city neighborhoods.
In the past, choices in this respect have been used as a potent weapon for creating or maintaining a state-segregated school system. In addition to the classic pattern of building schools specifically intended for Negro or white students, school authorities have sometimes, since Brown, closed schools which appeared likely to become racially mixed through changes in neighborhood residential patterns. This was sometimes accompanied by building new schools in the areas of white suburban expansion farthest from Negro population centers in order to maintain the separation of the races with a minimum departure from the formal principles of "neighborhood zoning." Such a policy does more than simply influence the short-run composition of the student body of a new school. It may well promote segregated residential patterns which, when combined with "neighborhood zoning," further lock the school system into the mold of separation of the races. Upon a proper showing a district court may consider this in fashioning a remedy.
In ascertaining the existence of legally imposed school segregation, the existence of a pattern of school construction and abandonment is thus a factor of great weight. In devising remedies where legally imposed segregation has been established, it is the responsibility of local authorities and district courts to see to it that future school construction and abandonment are not used and do not serve to perpetuate or re-establish the dual system. When necessary, district courts should retain jurisdiction to assure that these responsibilities are carried out. Cf. United States v. Board of Public Instruction, 395 F.2d 66 (CA5 1968); Brewer v. School Board, 397 F.2d 37 (CA4 1968). [402 U.S. 1, 22]
The central issue in this case is that of student assignment, and there are essentially four problem areas:
(1) to what extent racial balance or racial quotas may be used as an implement in a remedial order to correct a previously segregated system;
(2) whether every all-Negro and all-white school must be eliminated as an indispensable part of a remedial process of desegregation;
(3) what the limits are, if any, on the rearrangement of school districts and attendance zones, as a remedial measure; and
(4) what the limits are, if any, on the use of transportation facilities to correct state-enforced racial school segregation.
(1) Racial Balances or Racial Quotas.
The constant theme and thrust of every holding from Brown I to date is that state-enforced separation of races in public schools is discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause. The remedy commanded was to dismantle dual school systems.
We are concerned in these cases with the elimination of the discrimination inherent in the dual school systems, not with myriad factors of human existence which can cause discrimination in a multitude of ways on racial, religious, or ethnic grounds. The target of the cases from Brown I to the present was the dual school system. The elimination of racial discrimination in public schools is a large task and one that should not be retarded by efforts to achieve broader purposes lying beyond the jurisdiction of school authorities. One vehicle can carry only a limited amount of baggage. It would not serve the important objective of Brown I to seek to use school desegregation cases for purposes beyond their scope, although desegregation of schools ultimately will have [402 U.S. 1, 23] impact on other forms of discrimination. We do not reach in this case the question whether a showing that school segregation is a consequence of other types of state action, without any discriminatory action by the school authorities, is a constitutional violation requiring remedial action by a school desegregation decree. This case does not present that question and we therefore do not decide it.
Our objective in dealing with the issues presented by these cases is to see that school authorities exclude no pupil of a racial minority from any school, directly or indirectly, on account of race; it does not and cannot embrace all the problems of racial prejudice, even when those problems contribute to disproportionate racial concentrations in some schools.
In this case it is urged that the District Court has imposed a racial balance requirement of 71%-29% on individual schools. The fact that no such objective was actually achieved - and would appear to be impossible - tends to blunt that claim, yet in the opinion and order of the District Court of December 1, 1969, we find that court directing
As the voluminous record in this case shows, 7 the predicate for the District Court's use of the 71%-29% ratio was twofold: first, its express finding, approved by the Court of Appeals and not challenged here, that a dual school system had been maintained by the school authorities at least until 1969; second, its finding, also approved by the Court of Appeals, that the school board had totally defaulted in its acknowledged duty to come forward with an acceptable plan of its own, notwithstanding the patient efforts of the District Judge who, on at least three occasions, urged the board to submit plans. 8 As the statement of facts shows, these findings are abundantly [402 U.S. 1, 25] supported by the record. It was because of this total failure of the school board that the District Court was obliged to turn to other qualified sources, and Dr. Finger was designated to assist the District Court to do what the board should have done.
We see therefore that the use made of mathematical ratios was no more than a starting point in the process of shaping a remedy, rather than an inflexible requirement. From that starting point the District Court proceeded to frame a decree that was within its discretionary powers, as an equitable remedy for the particular circumstances. 9 As we said in Green, a school authority's remedial plan or a district court's remedial decree is to be judged by its effectiveness. Awareness of the racial composition of the whole school system is likely to be a useful starting point in shaping a remedy to correct past constitutional violations. In sum, the very limited use made of mathematical ratios was within the equitable remedial discretion of the District Court.
(2) One-race Schools.
The record in this case reveals the familiar phenomenon that in metropolitan areas minority groups are often found concentrated in one part of the city. In some circumstances certain schools may remain all or largely of one race until new schools can be provided or neighborhood patterns change. Schools all or predominately [402 U.S. 1, 26] of one race in a district of mixed population will require close scrutiny to determine that school assignments are not part of state-enforced segregation.
In light of the above, it should be clear that the existence of some small number of one-race, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. The district judge or school authorities should make every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation and will thus necessarily be concerned with the elimination of one-race schools. No per se rule can adequately embrace all the difficulties of reconciling the competing interests involved; but in a system with a history of segregation the need for remedial criteria of sufficient specificity to assure a school authority's compliance with its constitutional duty warrants a presumption against schools that are substantially disproportionate in their racial composition. Where the school authority's proposed plan for conversion from a dual to a unitary system contemplates the continued existence of some schools that are all or predominately of one race, they have the burden of showing that such school assignments are genuinely nondiscriminatory. The court should scrutinize such schools, and the burden upon the school authorities will be to satisfy the court that their racial composition is not the result of present or past discriminatory action on their part.
An optional majority-to-minority transfer provision has long been recognized as a useful part of every desegregation plan. Provision for optional transfer of those in the majority racial group of a particular school to other schools where they will be in the minority is an indispensable remedy for those students willing to transfer to other schools in order to lessen the impact on them of the state-imposed stigma of segregation. In order to be effective, such a transfer arrangement must grant [402 U.S. 1, 27] the transferring student free transportation and space must be made available in the school to which he desires to move. Cf. Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction, 423 F.2d 203, 206 (CA5 1970). The court orders in this and the companion Davis case now provide such an option.
(3) Remedial Altering of Attendance Zones.
The maps submitted in these cases graphically demonstrate that one of the principal tools employed by school planners and by courts to break up the dual school system has been a frank - and sometimes drastic - gerrymandering of school districts and attendance zones. An additional step was pairing, "clustering," or "grouping" of schools with attendance assignments made deliberately to accomplish the transfer of Negro students out of formerly segregated Negro schools and transfer of white students to formerly all-Negro schools. More often than not, these zones are neither compact 10 nor contiguous; indeed they may be on opposite ends of the city. As an interim corrective measure, this cannot be said to be beyond the broad remedial powers of a court. [402 U.S. 1, 28]
Absent a constitutional violation there would be no basis for judicially ordering assignment of students on a racial basis. All things being equal, with no history of discrimination, it might well be desirable to assign pupils to schools nearest their homes. But all things are not equal in a system that has been deliberately constructed and maintained to enforce racial segregation. The remedy for such segregation may be administratively awkward, inconvenient, and even bizarre in some situations and may impose burdens on some; but all awkwardness and inconvenience cannot be avoided in the interim period when remedial adjustments are being made to eliminate the dual school systems.
No fixed or even substantially fixed guidelines can be established as to how far a court can go, but it must be recognized that there are limits. The objective is to dismantle the dual school system. "Racially neutral" assignment plans proposed by school authorities to a district court may be inadequate; such plans may fail to counteract the continuing effects of past school segregation resulting from discriminatory location of school sites or distortion of school size in order to achieve or maintain an artificial racial separation. When school authorities present a district court with a "loaded game board," affirmative action in the form of remedial altering of attendance zones is proper to achieve truly nondiscriminatory assignments. In short, an assignment plan is not acceptable simply because it appears to be neutral.
In this area, we must of necessity rely to a large extent, as this Court has for more than 16 years, on the informed judgment of the district courts in the first instance and on courts of appeals.
We hold that the pairing and grouping of noncontiguous school zones is a permissible tool and such action is to be considered in light of the objectives sought. Judicial [402 U.S. 1, 29] steps in shaping such zones going beyond combinations of contiguous areas should be examined in light of what is said in subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of this opinion concerning the objectives to be sought. Maps do not tell the whole story since noncontiguous school zones may be more accessible to each other in terms of the critical travel time, because of traffic patterns and good highways, than schools geographically closer together. Conditions in different localities will vary so widely that no rigid rules can be laid down to govern all situations.
(4) Transportation of Students.
The scope of permissible transportation of students as an implement of a remedial decree has never been defined by this Court and by the very nature of the problem it cannot be defined with precision. No rigid guidelines as to student transportation can be given for application to the infinite variety of problems presented in thousands of situations. Bus transportation has been an integral part of the public education system for years, and was perhaps the single most important factor in the transition from the one-room schoolhouse to the consolidated school. Eighteen million of the Nation's public school children, approximately 39%, were transported to their schools by bus in 1969-1970 in all parts of the country.
The importance of bus transportation as a normal and accepted tool of educational policy is readily discernible in this and the companion case, Davis, supra. 11 The [402 U.S. 1, 30] Charlotte school authorities did not purport to assign students on the basis of geographically drawn zones until 1965 and then they allowed almost unlimited transfer privileges. The District Court's conclusion that assignment of children to the school nearest their home serving their grade would not produce an effective dismantling of the dual system is supported by the record.
Thus the remedial techniques used in the District Court's order were within that court's power to provide equitable relief; implementation of the decree is well within the capacity of the school authority.
The decree provided that the buses used to implement the plan would operate on direct routes. Students would be picked up at schools near their homes and transported to the schools they were to attend. The trips for elementary school pupils average about seven miles and the District Court found that they would take "not over 35 minutes at the most." 12 This system compares favorably with the transportation plan previously operated in Charlotte under which each day 23,600 students on all grade levels were transported an average of 15 miles one way for an average trip requiring over an hour. In these circumstances, we find no basis for holding that the local school authorities may not be required to employ bus transportation as one tool of school desegregation. Desegregation plans cannot be limited to the walk-in school.
An objection to transportation of students may have validity when the time or distance of travel is so great as to either risk the health of the children or significantly [402 U.S. 1, 31] impinge on the educational process. District courts must weigh the soundness of any transportation plan in light of what is said in subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) above. It hardly needs stating that the limits on time of travel will vary with many factors, but probably with none more than the age of the students. The reconciliation of competing values in a desegregation case is, of course, a difficult task with many sensitive facets but fundamentally no more so than remedial measures courts of equity have traditionally employed.
The Court of Appeals, searching for a term to define the equitable remedial power of the district courts, used the term "reasonableness." In Green, supra, this Court used the term "feasible" and by implication, "workable," "effective," and "realistic" in the mandate to develop "a plan that promises realistically to work, and . . . to work now." On the facts of this case, we are unable to conclude that the order of the District Court is not reasonable, feasible and workable. However, in seeking to define the scope of remedial power or the limits on remedial power of courts in an area as sensitive as we deal with here, words are poor instruments to convey the sense of basic fairness inherent in equity. Substance, not semantics, must govern, and we have sought to suggest the nature of limitations without frustrating the appropriate scope of equity.
At some point, these school authorities and others like them should have achieved full compliance with this Court's decision in Brown I. The systems would then be "unitary" in the sense required by our decisions in Green and Alexander.
It does not follow that the communities served by such systems will remain demographically stable, for in a growing, mobile society, few will do so. Neither [402 U.S. 1, 32] school authorities nor district courts are constitutionally required to make year-by-year adjustments of the racial composition of student bodies once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and racial discrimination through official action is eliminated from the system. This does not mean that federal courts are without power to deal with future problems; but in the absence of a showing that either the school authorities or some other agency of the State has deliberately attempted to fix or alter demographic patterns to affect the racial composition of the schools, further intervention by a district court should not be necessary.
For the reasons herein set forth, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed as to those parts in which it affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The order of the District Court, dated August 7, 1970, is also affirmed.
[ Footnote 2 ] Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443 (1968), and Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450 (1968).
[ Footnote 3 ] A "satellite zone" is an area which is not contiguous with the main attendance zone surrounding the school.
[ Footnote 4 ] In its opinion and order of December 1, 1969, later incorporated in the order appointing Dr. Finger as consultant, the District Court stated:
[ Footnote 5 ] The necessity for this is suggested by the situation in the Fifth Circuit where 166 appeals in school desegregation cases were heard between December 2, 1969, and September 24, 1970.
[ Footnote 6 ] Elementary public school population (grades 1-6) grew from 17,447,000 in 1954 to 23,103,000 in 1969; secondary school population (beyond grade 6) grew from 11,183,000 in 1954 to 20,775,000 in 1969. Digest of Educational Statistics, Table 3, Office of Education Pub. 10024-64; Digest of Educational Statistics, Table 28, Office of Education Pub. 10024-70.
[ Footnote 7 ] It must be remembered that the District Court entered nearly a score of orders and numerous sets of findings, and for the most part each was accompanied by a memorandum opinion. Considering the pressure under which the court was obliged to operate we would not expect that all inconsistencies and apparent inconsistencies could be avoided. Our review, of course, is on the orders of February 5, 1970, as amended, and August 7, 1970.
[ Footnote 8 ] The final board plan left 10 schools 86% to 100% Negro and yet categorically rejected the techniques of pairing and clustering as part of the desegregation effort. As discussed below, the Charlotte board was under an obligation to exercise every reasonable effort to remedy the violation, once it was identified, and the suggested techniques are permissible remedial devices. Additionally, as noted by the District Court and Court of Appeals, the board plan did not assign white students to any school unless the student population of that school was at least 60% white. This was an arbitrary limitation negating reasonable remedial steps.
[ Footnote 9 ] In its August 3, 1970, memorandum holding that the District Court plan was "reasonable" under the standard laid down by the Fourth Circuit on appeal, the District Court explained the approach taken as follows:
[ Footnote 10 ] The reliance of school authorities on the reference to the "revision of . . . attendance areas into compact units," Brown II, at 300 (emphasis supplied), is misplaced. The enumeration in that opinion of considerations to be taken into account by district courts was patently intended to be suggestive rather than exhaustive. The decision in Brown II to remand the cases decided in Brown I to local courts for the framing of specific decrees was premised on a recognition that this Court could not at that time foresee the particular means which would be required to implement the constitutional principles announced. We said in Green, supra, at 439:
[ Footnote 11 ] During 1967-1968, for example, the Mobile board used 207 buses to transport 22,094 students daily for an average round trip of 31 miles. During 1966-1967, 7,116 students in the metropolitan area were bused daily. In Charlotte-Mecklenburg, the system as a whole, without regard to desegregation plans, planned to bus approximately 23,000 students this year, for an average daily round trip of 15 miles. More elementary school children than high school children were to be bused, and four- and five-year-olds travel the longest routes in the system.
[ Footnote 12 ] The District Court found that the school system would have to employ 138 more buses than it had previously operated. But 105 of those buses were already available and the others could easily be obtained. Additionally, it should be noted that North Carolina requires provision of transportation for all students who are assigned to schools more than one and one-half miles from their homes. N.C. Gen. Stat. 115-186 (b) (1966). [402 U.S. 1, 33]
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 402 U.S. 1
Docket No: No. 281
Argued: October 12, 1970
Decided: April 20, 1971
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
Isn't that how all horror stories start?
Well, this story has it's share of horror. That's for sure. But at least you know up front that it has a happy ending. Maybe that will making reading (and writing) it a little easier.
I've been putting this off. Telling this. In detail.
It's not pleasant.
But I want you to know. I know that YOU want to know. I know that you care (Thank you!) and I know that telling these stories is important because we learn so much from one another. And it's not like I'm not already constantly reliving it... So here goes...
Last Tuesday, during the day, Sweetpea's pump alarmed. She was with my parents. They called and said that the pump said "Not Primed - No delivery". Weird. They came to school so I could trouble shoot. I took the pump off of her and reprimed it and filled the cannula. All unhooked. I hooked her back up and gave her a tiny bolus for the snack she had eaten. Everything seemed fine. The pump seemed fine.
After school, I met Jason and his parents for dinner at Outback Steakhouse. Sweets LOVED the bread! She ate a couple of pieces. Her meal was steak and veggies. So the only carb she ate was the bread. We bolused to the best of our ability and went on with the night.
She loves playing Nanny and G- Dad. They were having a grand time back at our house. Dex kept beeping that she was climbing. We thought it was just the bread. And she'd just eaten. Finally, around 7:45, J tested her. She was 500.
We thought that was really odd. Really high. But... we thought we might have been off on our bread calculation. And he did test her twice. So, J corrected. She got a 1.6 u correction. And she had cheese and ham for bedtime snack.
I put her to bed. As we laid there reading stories, the pump alarmed. I pulled it out of the pouch. It was wet. And the cap was loose. It said the same thing, "Not Primed. No Delivery".
Hmmm.... I unhooked her. I primed the pump and filled the cannula into the sink. I tightened the cap. The pump was wet - but it did not smell overly like insulin. I thought maybe it was just sweat from running around. I hooked her back up and put on cream to do a site change. We'd just done on the previous night but I figured we might as well. I checked Dex before I left her room. It said 400. That was 8:45.
I grabbed the baby monitor. I never take the baby monitor. I don't know why. I always forget it. J usually remembers. But not me. That night - I got it. I don't remember doing it or why I did it. I just did.
I hopped on the computer. I was trying to blog about her diaversary the next day. I was struggling. Words were not coming easy. Year two is different than year one.... I posted on facebook about the pump. Someone mentioned that it might be related to the cap. If we got a new cap, that might fix the problem. J ordered a new cap and had it overnighted.
We started to watch TV. We heard Dex beep. Three Beeps. It was 9:45. We assumed she was coming down.
J went to check on her. He came to the landing where you can see over the stairs into the family room. "It says she's low." he said. "WHAT?" I said. "NO way..." He went back to test her. She was 32. Double arrows down.
He yelled for me. "I need help! She's not drinking."
She had been asleep. Sometimes it takes her a minute (I did not know she was 32...). I ran to get some icing to rub on her gums. I ran upstairs and she was sitting up in bed. Her eyes were open and she was looking around. She was crying and trying to drink.
She had drank about 3/4 of a juice box. But she wasn't drinking any more. I tried to get some icing in her mouth. She fought me. She was crying. A lot. It was hard to tell if she was just groggy from being asleep or if she wasn't with it. At first I thought she just had not woken up yet. I was calm.
She wasn't there. Her eyes were glassy.
I grabbed the meter and tested her again. She HAD drank half of a juice. The meter read LOW.
That's when it all starts getting a little blurry.
I ran downstairs to get the glucagon. I seriously did not think she was in any huge danger. I grabbed the gluc and the syringe that I had rubberbanded to it. I opened it and started to get it ready. J yelled that we were out of juice upstairs. He had carried her to the top of the stairs. I threw him a juice box and tried to fill the syringe. At this point, I was thinking along the lines of a rescue dose. I was in a hurry. I didn't remember exactly what to do. I ran back upstairs. I filled the syringe to 5 u.
About that point, he yelled that she was having a seizure. I took the syringe and jabbed it into her arm. Her arm was there. It had no clothing on it. Then I dropped everything and ran for the phone. I grabbed the phone from our bedroom and ran back into the hallway.
I remember asking him if we should call 911. He said he didn't know. I dialed 911. I did NOT hit send.
She was laying in his arms at the top of the stairs. She was SCREAMING and crying. J and I were both totally freaking out.
I dropped the phone to look for the gluc. I knew she needed more.
I couldn't find it. I had thrown it down and I didn't know where it was. We had another one in her bedroom. (This is why you need more than one!) I ran in to get it. Then I ran downstairs to get another syringe. (I don't know why I did this...but it was a good thing I did...) I ran back up and started to get it ready.
This was when she had another seizure.
This was not a pretty seizure. The first one had been slight. This was a full body seizure. She made these noises... He got her on her side.
I was shaking so badly. I could hardly focus. I missed the gluc vial and BENT that gluc syringe in half. So it was a good thing I had the other syringe there. I filled it up and jabbed it into her arm. Again, arm was right there.
She SCREAMED. It was a blood curdling scream. She was looking at us... but she was not there.
J was trying to keep her from passing out or losing consciousness. "Stay with, Sweets. Stay with me." He just kept yelling it over and over.
I picked up the phone to call 911. When I held it to my ear - they were there. I have no idea how. I KNOW I did not hit send on that phone.
I start to try to explain what is going on and get the ambulance to our house. I'm totally freaking out by now. I'm crying and screaming into the phone. I ran downstairs to unlock the front door. When I did this, I opened it. The alarm went off. I couldn't remember the code. So the sirens started blaring. I just kept screaming into the phone "WHERE ARE THEY? Are they coming? Please hurry. Please hurry. We need help."
About that time, we saw the lights out the front window. J went outside to flag them down. I held Sweets on my lap. Her eyes were open and she was looking at me. She was crying. But she wasn't really there. Slowly, she started coming around. I asked her what her name was and she told me. I also disconnected the pump.
The next thing I knew, the paramedics were at the top of the stairs. They were looking at her and listening to her and talking to her. She told the paramedic what her name, how old she is, and when her birthday is. He asked (told) us we needed to go to the hospital.
I needed clothes. I was dressed for bed. So I ran into my room, threw something on and ran back. I carried her down the stairs and out the door and into the ambulance.
In the ambulance, we tried to test her again. We could NOT get the *&@#$ meter to work. I used about 5 strips. The paramedic had his meter and he used about 4. FINALLY, we got a 60. And off we went.
I kept my eye on Dex the whole time. She was hovering right around 70 the whole way there. We got her to drink 2 more juice boxes on the way. She was quiet and kind of out of it. She was shaking.
The hospital we went to is a satellite of the main campus. They took us into the ER and got us situated. It took a little for the staff to get that she has Type 1 diabetes - the seizures were directly related to low blood glucose. The ER doc - while nice and I'm sure very well trained, seemed confused. They kept testing her with their meter and it was a good 50 points higher than what our meter AND the Dexcom said. We were freaking out because she was starting to drop again. And they were doing nothing.
GLUCOSE DRIP, PEOPLE! I was getting so agitated. I did not know what they were waiting for. FINALLY, they got her hooked up. They were talking with the folks at base and finding out what to do. The endo on call wanted us transported to base. So once they got her glucose drip hooked up, they loaded us back into another ambulance and transported us downtown.
Sweets perked up around then. She was talking to the transport team about our upcoming trip to Disney.
By this time, it was 3 am. The endocrinology floor was full (of mainly new dx's... ugh) so we were on another floor. She finally fell asleep around 4:30 am after a shot of Lantus. Her bg was finally up to about 200.
We spent the next day in the hospital. We had to go back to shots. Unpopular - but we used the numbing cream and she was a total ROCK STAR!
It was, by weird coincidence, her diaversary. Two years earlier we were in the same hospital. Learning how to deal with Type 1 for the first time.
The RN we worked with called Animas and talked to them about the pump. They did not think that it had anything to do with the pump. They did not want to get us a new one. Finally, after telling them that the buttons on her pump had the writing worn off and that is a safety concern for a small child, they agreed to overnight us a pump.
After getting home, we read about a recall on Animas cartridges. Ours were not the lot numbers that were recalled. However, it sounds eerily similar to what the recall said was happening.
So what happened?
I don't know.
It may have been a myriad of things... all coming together to form the perfect storm.
It could have been that she had gotten no insulin that evening because of the prime problems and that caused the 500 bg.
It could have been the large correction without food.
If could have been that there was an occlusion that was undetected (due to the faulty cartridge) and that pushed extra insulin through when we corrected.
It could have been all of those things. Or none. We don't know. We may never know.
Personally, we think the cartridge had a problem. We think she got more insulin than she should have. Animas is interrogating the pump and cartridge and hopefully we'll learn something from that.
Regardless of WHY it happened, it happened.
It was the scariest night of my life.
We seriously thought we were going to lose her.
All I can say is.... Thank You, God. Thank you for sending your Angels. I KNOW YOU were with us. Why else would I have taken the monitor that night - of all nights - when I never do? Why else was 911 already on the line when I picked up the phone?
Thank you, God, for Dexie. Dexie saved her life. Plain and simple. If it had not alarmed, we would not have checked on her for another hour. I can't even think about what might have been...
Sweets is fine. She's her normal self and thinks that riding in the ambulance was fun!
J and I are not so fine. We are shaken up. We are upset. We can't stop reliving it. Can't stop thinking about it. We're scared. Scared to let her out of our sight. Scared to put her to bed. Scared to go to sleep.
Thank you all for the kind messages you have sent! I will try to answer you all personally! Because I truly cherish all of you and your kindness and love. I'm a still a little out of it... so bear with me. But know that we have felt your arms around us, lifting us up in prayer and love.
So there you have it... What I can remember about about the scariest night of my life. One I pray we never repeat. One I pray you never experience.
Check out What I Learned From My Nightmare to read my lessons learned.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Contemporary bedrooms are all about a neutral color scheme that is elegantly accentuated by pops of color. These colorful additions can often be swapped out with ease to alter the appeal of the room and its color palette with changing trends and seasons. While blue is touted as the most popular hue in the bedroom regardless of style and season, green is the 'chosen one' for those who want to bring a hint of natural goodness indoors. Relaxing, elegant, bright and refreshing, it is a pleasant hue that comes in diverse shades ranging from the brilliant jewel-toned emerald to more subtle and modest minty greens.
Adding green to the bedroom is easy if you already have a muted color scheme going in the room. It is a color that works beautifully with the likes of white, gray and even brown. While the yellowy-greens add warmth to the bedroom, the blue-tinged variants bring a touch of coolness along with a vibrant ambiance. Here is a pick of 25 gorgeous bedrooms that incorporate green in a gorgeous fashion –
Relaxing Modern Refuge
If you believe that green does not work in a trendy and minimal contemporary bedroom, then think again! A green accent wall is easy to shape, and it brings that much needed warmth to an otherwise cool and mundane interior. Just repeat the color in the room using vivacious bedding, accessories, nightstands or even a couple of lovely vases, and you have an inviting bedroom that is both energetic and relaxing. Those who feel that an accent wall in green or green décor are not their thing can still add the color by placing a couple of potted plants to fill up those empty corners. It is an easy, eco-friendly and healthy choice that will instantly alter the mood in the bedroom.
As we alluded to earlier, green and white is a smart combination that works well in a modern bedroom and balances energetic overtones with a serene backdrop. The amount of green you use here depends on the size of the room and the amount of natural light that floods into your bedroom. Smaller bedrooms with too much green might seem both overwhelming and visually cluttered.
Accentuate Your Style!
There are a few specific styles and themes that come alive in the bedroom with the addition of a green tinge. The first that comes to mind here is the exotic tropical style. Whether you wish to combine a hint of tropical charm with modern aesthetics or you want to create a guest bedroom that is full of tropical flair, green is the color to turn to. A splash of bright or mossy green can turn your boring bedroom into a fun and playful space that reminds you of your recent holiday trip to a stunning tropical getaway. Another look that revels in green is the beach style, and you can replace the traditional white and blue blend with white, green and a hint of orange to create a unique and exquisite bedroom.
Emerald is a color that has consistently topped trend charts in recent times, and its jewel-toned glamour is perfect for bedrooms with Hollywood Regency style. The malachite pattern and color is also a smart choice if you love that luxurious look in the bedroom, while eclectic bedrooms drenched in green goodness steal the show with sheer audacity and flair!
Creative Custom Solutions
Painting the walls might be the easiest way to add green to the bedroom along with bedding and accessories in a matching hue, but think beyond the obvious if you want a truly captivating room. Painting the ceiling in green can be a fun alternative, and by leaving the walls white, you will still have a neutral and versatile backdrop that will beautifully showcase wall art and sculptural décor additions. And for those who really want a personalized solution, mixing different shades to come up with your own custom green hue is indeed an exciting and enjoyable alternative. This will ensure that you are the proud owner of a one-of-a-kind bedroom with a shade of green that you came up with!
Green in the girls' bedroom coupled with pink works surprisingly well, and it elegantly complements other colors such as brown and orange as well. Working with more than 3 or 4 bright colors in a room requires great care, perfect planning and a hint of ingenuity that lets each hue stand out while blending with the overall look. While it does sound like a risky proposition, get it right and you will have a playful kids' room that is a visual treat.


text:
Click region to switch
(click blank area of map
to stay on current page)
There are no news items for the selected dates from ALEO National
Please also refer to ALEO's full privacy policy (opens in new window)
N.B. The ALEO national website and regional ALEO and CAN websites make use of cookies.
This includes the ALEO web forum, constructed using phpBB, which uses
cookies for essential functions to ensure that we give you the best possible user experience,
cookies for Google Analytics, which provides us with various anonymous statistics
about our visitors' usage of our website and for the Addthis sharing buttons, which provide us with
anonymous sharing information. Cookies are also set on pages with Google Maps embedded.
By continuing to browse this site we will take this as your consent to our use of cookies.
For more information on cookies used on this site, please visit the
ALEO website cookies information page.
The Association of Local Energy Officers (ALEO) is a not-for-profit organisation, registered in England and Wales,
that represents local authority employees and other housing and energy professionals with a domestic energy efficiency,
fuel poverty or climate change remit.
Registered Number: 5498046. VAT Reg Number: 868 7470 65.
Registered Address: Unit 1.4 Lauriston Business Park, Pitchill, Salford Priors, Warwickshire, WR11 8SN
Please note that neither the ALEO National Executive Board, nor the ALEO National Secretariat are bound by the decisions of any of the regional ALEO or CAN fora. The regional fora do not have the legal power to enter into legal or binding agreement on behalf of the ALEO National Executive or ALEO national Secretariat. Similarly any agreements entered into by the ALEO National Executive board or the ALEO National Secretariat on behalf of the National Executive are not binding on the regional fora unless expressly agreed. ALEO is a company limited by guarantee, its liability is limited to its own agreements and actions only. It will not be liable for any actions, agreements, debts etc of any of the regional fora.
Please also note that the views and opinions expressed by individuals or organisations on the ALEO web forum, any other part of this website, at ALEO conferences and events or in the ALEO News magazine and e-bulletins, do not necessarily represent the views of ALEO, the ALEO National Secretariat, the ALEO Executive or the regional bodies. Information on this site is provided in good faith and we cannot be held liable for any inaccuracies. If you are concerned about anything posted on the ALEO website that you believe to be inappropriate or inaccurate, please contact the ALEO National Secretariat
Please also refer to ALEO's full privacy policy
Cookies are used on this site
As with most websites, we use some unobtrusive cookies, including those used by Google Analytics, Google Maps, AddThis share buttons, and phpBB (used by the ALEO Web Forum) to store information on your computer. None of these cookies are used by us to identify individuals browsing this site, except when logged in, when cookies are essential for the purposes of idenifying your posts and other usage of the ALEO Web Forum.
By continuing to browse this site, we will take this as your consent to our use of cookies. Read more about cookies used on this site.


text:
Copy of Sizing
For clothing sizing information, please read the description of the given product carefully.
If no sizing information is available, please do not hesitate to ask us before purchasing.
We will do our best to respond as quickly as possible.
Have a sizing question? Let us know.
Measure and compare, before purchase. Below here, you can see how we measure our jeans.
Measure your jeans like we do.
If you are shopping for a pair of Red Wing shoes or boots, the first thing to consider with regards to sizing is this:
Most Red Wing boots, like the well known Iron Rangers and Moc Toes run a bit ¨big¨. Therefore we recommend sizing down half a size from your sneaker-size. However, the Red Wing chukkas (3140, 3141 etc.) are true to size. Therefore we recommend ordering your sneaker-size if you are purchasing chukkas.
Please read the sizing-description on each style carefully, before ordering.
Size systems
There are many shoe size systems globally, with the US, UK, European and Japanese size systems as the most common ones. The US system also has a special category for athletic shoes.
In Europe, shoe makers are supposed to follow the same shoe-size system. Note however, that sizes might differ between e.g. France and Germany. The sizes also aren't totally standardized, which means that shoes from different manufacturers might have different sizes, although they have the same measurements.
Size chart
Size charts are used to convert between different international shoe size systems. Notice that these size charts are only to be seen as guides meant to help you find your right size. Sizes and size charts may differ notably between different shoe manufacturers and brands. See the Brund shoe/boot size chart here.
Shoe last
In order to build a Goodyear Welted boot (e.g. a Red Wing boot) to an exact size and width, the boot is constructed around a shoe last.
A last is used in shoemaking to give footwear its three-dimensional shape. Resembling the human foot, the last determines toe, heel and girth dimensions for fit, style and function.
Do notice that there is no such thing as a "normal foot" and therefore not a standard shoe last - and therefore also not a "normal shoe size". Add to that the fact that most people's right and left feet have different measurements.
Learn about Red Wing lasts and the Anatomy of a Red Wing at www.redwingheritage.com.Shoe width
Most shoemakers make some of their shoes in multiple widths, from narrow to extra-wide.
US width is measured as A, B, C, D, E, EE, with A as the narrowest, EE as the widest. The standard and most common width used in Europe is D.
The right size
A new pair of e.g. Red Wing Heritage boots should fit comfortably tight on your foot, with enough room to freely wiggle your toes.
The full grain leather upper, leather footboard and cork midsole mold to your feet, creating an enduring and customized fit over time, with each wear.
Measuring your feet
Stand up straight on a hard surface with your heel against the wall and a piece of blank paper taped to the floor, flush against the wall beneath your foot.
Have a friend mark the longest part of your foot (referred to as heel-to-toe length) on the paper with a pen, or measure yourself if necessary. Repeat with the other foot, as right and left sizes may be different. Use a ruler to measure the heel-to-toe length you marked for each foot.
View the BRUND shoe/boot size chart here
When using the chart, take note that "CM" is NOT your heel-to-toe length in centimeter (cm), but the official shoe size (CM)
If you have a medium or standard foot and use US 9,5 in New Balance Lifestyle, you will probably use US 9 in Red Wing.
I use US 9,5 in New Balance Lifestyle and my right foot measurement is 28,5 centimeters from heel-to-toe.
Confused ? – then, please read from "Size systems" again ;-)


text:
Cinemas, Swimming pools, Nightclubs, Bowling alleys and other Leisure sites..
Use this control to limit the display of threads to those newer than the specified time frame.
Allows you to choose the data by which the thread list will be sorted.
Order threads in...
Note: when sorting by date, 'descending order' will show the newest results first.
Forum Rules


text:
«Convenient search. Instant price comparison.»
«Qualified support, fast search. Helpful tips.»
«Got a dream car! Memorable drive!»
«Plenty of info. Easy instant booking. »
«Wide car range. High service standards. »
Have you ever thought about the opportunity to drive a beautiful 7-seater car hire Palma, Spain at a bargain price? Your dreams will come true with our site!
Fill in the form on our website right now and make sure how cheap and fast a car rental can be! If you have a large family and you would like to travel together, then this type of car is definitely for you. Hurry up before all the best cars are sold out!
Millions of people around the world have made sure of the convenience and reliability of our services. By using our site you will be able to find the desired car anywhere in the world instantly!
Right now you get a unique opportunity to travel the world so convenient and cheap!
Just imagine an instant vehicle search of world car hire leaders as Enterprise, AVIS, Budget, SIXT, Hertz, Thrifty, Alamo, Dollar, Fox, Payless, Ace, National, Europcar, EZ and 800 other companies.
With CarHire24h.com you have a possibility to compare prices for all vehicles of class 7-seater car hire Palma, Spain and the details of all available cars in the market! Try it and enjoy this strategy of searching guaranteed!
On our site you will find a wide range of cars of different classes:
Hurry up and don't miss your chance for getting the best car hire deal!
You just have to make your choice! If you need a large capacity car choose a 7-seater car hire Palma, Spain, 9 seater or minivan.
Chrysler Voyager, Chevrolet Uplander, Ford Galaxy Automatic, Mercedes Viano Automatic and an extensive fleet of 7-seater car hire Palma, Spain are available for you right now on CarHire24h.com!


text:
Our Customer Service and Shipping Departments are serious about service. At SharpeningSupplies.com, the service starts on the website. All of our products state if they're IN STOCK, but if there is a delay, we state it in clear language how long it will take before we can ship. Upon checkout, we give you a date when your order will ship, the method of delivery, and an estimate of the date of arrival. Our systems know the stock status of your items, and know exactly when we'll be able to ship them. It doesn't matter if it is during the day or night, a weekday or weekend, this information is always up-to-date. Once your order is placed, our Customer Service Team checks your order and sends it to our Shipping Department. All of this happens quickly and efficiently. At the end of the day, you'll get a confirmation of the shipment and a tracking number. Of course, if you have any questions, please just give us a call.
At SharpeningSupplies.com we believe in fast service. We use UPS, UPS SurePost or U.S. Postal Service for all of our shipments. We stock our merchandise in our Wisconsin warehouse. This central location is within 2 to 7 business days of the 48 contiguous states for our standard and Free shipping. Over 99% of in-stock orders received by 2:00 CST are shipped the same business day. Our fast order turnaround ensures you get your product on time and in great shape.
We offer UPS Ground service on most orders. Shipping by UPS Ground is an economical upgrade to ensure your packages arrive a little sooner than our standard shipping method. Packages shipped by UPS Ground are delivered within 1 to 4 business days to the 48 contiguous states.
We offer UPS 3 Day, UPS 2nd Day Air, and UPS Next Day Air service on most orders. These charges are based on the weight of the items being shipped. Your express shipping options and related charges will be shown during the checkout process.
We take pride in the products we sell so we want them to arrive in great shape. In the highly unlikely event of damage during shipping please just contact us and we will take care of it for you.
We believe shipping and handling charges should be fair. We have made it easy to shop with us by basing the shipping and handling charges on the price of your merchandise. Below is our ground shipping rate chart to all US addresses. View Canadian or International (Outside US and Canada) shipping and delivery information.
View Canadian Shipping Information
View International Shipping Information (Outside US and Canada)


text:
After going 0-for-3 in Tuesday's presidential primaries, a defiant Rick Santorum dismissed calls to drop out and predicted he'll win the next contest in his home state of Pennsylvania on April 24.
He'll have to — and not because it would put the former Pennsylvania senator on a path to defeat front-runner Mitt Romney, who has been racking up delegates and is increasingly seen as the inevitable nominee.
A loss in Pennsylvania, where recent polls show Santorum is weakening, would "destroy the rationale for him continuing," says Pennsylvania pollster G. Terry Madonna.
"If he refuses to get out and then loses his home state? That is going to be tough to live down," says Keegan Gibson of the nonpartisan PoliticsPA online news site.
Much can happen in the three-week lag between Santorum's losses Tuesday to Romney in Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia, and his last real opportunity in Pennsylvania. (Notwithstanding his spokeswoman's attempt Tuesday night to suggest that it's the May primary in delegate-rich Texas that the campaign is really banking on.)
Here's a look at what Santorum faces in the Keystone State he represented in Congress for 16 years.
Desperate Days, Desperate Words
Santorum betrayed his growing desperation Sunday when he attacked Madonna, the longtime and respected Pennsylvania pollster, as a "Democratic hack" after his Franklin and Marshall College poll found the former senator's state support flagging.
Two subsequent polls found much the same: Santorum's lead in the state is narrowing, and Romney is gaining.
"People know that I've been doing this a long time and the polls are accurate," Madonna told NPR. "I think what's motivating the personal stuff is that all of a sudden it looked like he was going to lose three states, and the question gets popped on him about possibly losing Pennsylvania, which is a deal breaker."
"He's also under pressure to get out [of the race], and the whole thing is turning around on him," Madonna said. "He lashed out, and that's not atypical for him."
"His performance here in this state has only been slightly about his national performance — not like Mitt Romney in Massachusetts," Gibson says. "It's not like he's had a solid base among Republicans statewide."
Electability, Gibson says, is the issue for Pennsylvania Republicans, just like everywhere else.
Fading Home-State Edge
Polls released in recent days by Madonna, Quinnipiac University and the Mercyhurst Center for Applied Politics all found a tightening race with Santorum leading. Romney is gaining, and a good swath of Republicans are still undecided.
And exit polls from Tuesday's pivotal contest in Wisconsin showed Romney making inroads with voters previously more attracted to the conservative Santorum — evangelicals and those who identify with the Tea Party movement.
"Here's the real problem for Rick," says Gibson, who worked for former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, when he was a Republican and also after he switched his party affiliation to Democrat.
"His weaknesses, which Romney has been trying to play up in other states, would play here," Gibson says. "There's Rick's 2004 endorsement of Specter [over the more conservative Pat Toomey], and Romney's argument that Santorum has 'gone Washington.' "
Both of those issues, he says, crippled Santorum in 2006 when he badly lost his Senate re-election bid to Democrat Bob Casey by a stunning 17 percentage points.
Romney's Strategy
What is occupying some of the Pennsylvania chattering class is the question of what Romney will do, particularly given the complicated method state Republicans use to distribute delegates after the primary.
(Pennsylvania is a "loophole" primary; voters pick not only a candidate, but also delegates who will ultimately commit to a candidate. The system makes it more difficult to immediately claim a specific number of delegates, which is Romney's aim.)
Romney has yet to unleash the advertising furies his campaign and friendly superPAC have used to destroy opponents — particularly Santorum — in other states. The question is, will he? Or will polls suggest to Santorum that he cut some deal with Romney?
"There are several strategies for Romney," Madonna says. "Because the delegate selection here is beyond bizarre, it could well be that he lets Santorum stay here and campaign, and he does the four other states that have primaries the same day."
"Or he could just try to beat Santorum and destroy his candidacy," he said.
Gibson says he's watching to see if Santorum's tone toward Romney "gets softer," and whether there's a full commitment by the former Massachusetts governor to campaign in Pennsylvania. (On Wednesday, Romney has one event scheduled in Pennsylvania; Santorum has three.)
A save-face scenario for Santorum? A possibility, but nobody's betting on it.
It's A Mission
If Santorum's poll numbers in Pennsylvania continue to slide, would he get out of the race before the state's primary?
"No. Absolutely not," Madonna says. "This is not just a campaign in which you win or lose. This has become a mission.
"It's evident in everything he's been doing, particularly in the last six weeks," he said. "He believes that we're on a cliff, and will fall off if Obama wins."
"If he loses [Pennsylvania], it will be a big blow to his stature in the future, but really means very little in the nomination fight now," says William Binning, former chair of the political science department and now professor emeritus at Youngstown State University.
Copyright 2016 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.


text:
Arrows in Topaz on White
Arrows in Topaz on White
Fabric Swatches
Fabric Swatches
Fabric swatches are available for color matching purposes. Computer monitors can display colors differently. If you are looking to match colors to your nursery we suggest purchasing swatches. We have lots of ready to ship swatches in stock, however some fabrics will need to be ordered and may take up to 7 days for your swatch to ship. Feel free to contact us first to see if your swatches are in stock.
Digitally printed fabrics may have subtle shade variations when printed at different times. This does not happen often, but we always make sure that all of the material for your order is printed at the same time so that there are no variations.
Important Details
Important Details
- 100% cotton
- 28 x 52 inches
- fully enclosed elastic goes all the way around for a snug fit
- deep pockets
Mini Crib Bedding is available here.
Standard Changing Pad Cover
- 100% cotton
- 16"w x 32"l x 4"
- message us for a custom fit
Contoured Changing Pad Cover
- 100% cotton
- 16 x 32 x 4
- This cover will only fit contoured pads that are raised on the long sides only.
Nursing Pillow Cover
- fits most standard nursing pillows that are approximately 22x18x6 inches.
- Has a long zipper for easy removal and washing.
- 100% cotton. (Leave a note if you would like a minky on the back. Minky is 100% polyester.)
Toddler Pillow Cover
- 100% cotton.
- Fits a 13 x 18 inch toddler pillow
- Has an envelope opening in the back for a secure fit.
Standard Pillowcase
- 100% cotton.
- Fits standard sized pillows.
- Optional: choose a second fabric for the cuff (end) piece. Leave a note at checkout with your selection.
Throw Pillow Covers
- 100% cotton
- Includes a zipper for easy washing and removal.
- pillow not included.
- The 18" cover will fit an 18" pillow, and the 20" cover will fit a 20" pillow.
- Message us for a custom size.
Lovies & Blankets
- Made with an organic cotton jersey knit on the front (94% organic cotton) and minky on the back. (100% polyester)
- *Loveys are small blankets that are only 17" square. They are perfect for little ones to hold and carry.
- Leave a note with your minky selection for the back or add it to your cart using the free menu option.
Patchwork Quilts
- 100% cotton top can include 6-8 fabrics of your choice. Add them to your cart using the "Add to Custom Quilt Design" option.
- In the middle is an 80/20 cotton/polyester filling.
- Choose any cotton print for the back or one of the super soft minky fabrics. (100% polyester.)
- You can check out with your selections and we'll send you a free digital mock up of your quilt design.
Crib Rail Covers
- Rail covers are approximately 51" long and 16" wide. They should fit most standard sized cribs.
- Side covers are approximately 16 x 27 inches.
- 100% Cotton Shell. 100% polyester filling.
- Leave a note with your trim & ties selection, or add it to your cart using the free menu option.
Crib Skirts
- 100% cotton. (Lining is a 60/40 cotton/poly blend).
- All styles have a 15" drop length and three sides.
- FLAT skirts are lined and have a straight drop.
- PLEATED skirts are lined and have a pleat in the center of each side.
- RUFFLED skirts have a gentle gather, unlined.
- LAYERED skirts have three ruffled layers. You can choose a different fabric for each layer, or use just one for all three layers. Add the skirt to your cart using the top layer selection. If you would like a different selection for the middle or bottom layer you can add them to your cart separately.
- You can add a trim to the bottom of your flat, pleated, or ruffled skirt here.
Window Valances
- 100% cotton.
- 16" long x 54" wide
- Rod pocket on top with a small header above the rod.
Curtain Panels
- Single panels are 54" wide and 84" long. 100% cotton front.
- Available with blackout lining for noise reduction and room darkening. A lightweight lining can be substituted for the blackout lining.
- Unlined curtain panels are only suggested if you have another window covering behind them to protect them from sun damage.
- Made with a rod pocket on the top. Please leave a note if you would like a small header above the rod.
- Curtain tabs can be added here.
Care Instructions
Care Instructions
We pre-shrink all our materials to make our items easy to wash! They can be machine washed on a gentle cycle using phosphate free detergents.*
DO NOT use fabric softeners with any items that contain minky, or any detergents containing fabric softeners.
Tumble dry your items on a LOW heat setting. We recommend removing minky items from the drier just before they are completely dry (minky dries fast!) Or, you can dry your minky items on a NO-Heat setting.
DO NOT iron minky.
*BLACKOUT CURTAIN PANELS should be dry cleaned only.
**Iron cotton side of curtain panels only on a warm setting.
Customize your crib bedding, toddler bedding, and nursery items with the Arrows in Topaz on white fabric.


text:
Hello everyone,
Being an expat in Nauru can turn out to be a wonderful human, social or professional adventure... with potential moments of nostalgia and homesickness along the way.
What are your personal tips to prevent homesickness?
How do you deal with such feelings?
Are there shops or stores offering products from your home country in Nauru? Or maybe venues with music and ambiance from your homeland?
Thanks for sharing your experience,


text:
All change at Crescent Trading
In the Spring, I visited Crescent Trading, the last cloth warehouse in Spitalfields, still operating in a way that Charles Dickens would recognise from his visit to a silk warehouse in 1851. Distinguished proprietors Philip Pittack and Martin White are clearance cloth merchants of the old school who have spent their entire lives in the industry, with more than one hundred and twenty years experience between them. For the past twenty years they traded from a charismatic old stable block in Quaker St, but now that the landlord has acquired planning permission to convert the building into a hotel, they are moving to an industrial unit across the road. These are momentous days for Crescent Trading, so I took my camera along to record the move.
I gasped to see the old warehouse, once packed to the rafters now cleared of cloth, and discovered Martin there, a dignified figure, ruminating like Hamlet in an empty theatre. Meanwhile Philip hauled a trolley piled with of bolts of cloth across the street outside, pink in the face with exertion and yet full of cheery resolve to make it to the new premises, where they have taken out a five year lease. "He's seventy-nine and I am sixty-seven," confessed Philip as he ran up a ladder with a roll of fabric over his shoulder, demonstrating the careless abandon of a thirteen-year-old, "When the lease finishes he will be eighty-four and I will be seventy-two." At just two thousand square feet, the new warehouse, constructed of breezeblocks with a metal shuttered door, is half the size of the old one, so Philip has invested in a racking system which means he can stack the cloth higher, but requires him to climb more ladders.
Not many men at his time of life would take on this challenge, yet with heroic enthusiasm, Philip has embraced the whole process of hauling every one of all the thousands of rolls of cloth across the road manually and installing them in the racks, then taking them down and rearranging them to achieve a satisfactory arrangement. As Martin White declared later, deliberately and without overstatement, "Philip's done a job which is a mighty one and it is quite incredible how it's been done."
Already customers are crossing the road, and they seem to like the new arrangement where everything can be seen at a glance. Crescent Trading is a treasure trove for small designers and design students who can buy cut lengths they could not get anywhere else, discovering rare high quality fabrics at a fraction of the cost they would pay at a mill. Even as Philip and I were talking, Mr Amecci, a designer in a snazzy deep blue serge trench coat with fur collar, fedora and forties moustache interposed. "Don't write this up," he begged me with winsome irony, "because I don't want everyone to know! What I like about this place is that I can get things I wouldn't get elsewhere, like mohair, mohair mixes and chinchilla at discount prices." Then Matsuri, another cool-cat designer, entered in a Guy Fawkes hat with waist-length locks straggling out beneath, and eager for blazer-striped fabric. Regretfully, Philip had to send him back across the road to the old warehouse for it.
Simultaneously excited by the custom and frustrated by the circumstance, "We've come to the point of no return where we are running back and forth across the road!" Philip admitted to me, rolling his eyes and waving his hands in self-dramatizing resignation. Yet within a month, the move will be complete and so I persuaded Philip to take me on a sentimental tour, visiting the first floor storage space that once had a lift shaft big enough to bring shire horses up to be stabled. We passed a huge reptilian conveyor belt for bringing rolls of cloth upstairs – broken ten years ago, it will never run again – and we entered the vast empty warehouse, breathtaking in its lyrical state of dereliction, and possessing a poetry that no industrial unit can ever match.
These are emotional times at Crescent Trading. "I'm petrified," admitted Philip when we were in private, revealing the nature of the passion that has driven him to manhandle every roll of cloth across the road, "We were happy. We had our feet under a table for twenty years. Now we eek out a living and times are very difficult. We have to work because all our money is sitting on the floor. This street used to be all small businesses, a trousermaker, three printers, a quilter and a dressmaker. I am angry that the council zoned this street as small businesses, and now it's going to be just a hotel and a housing block." And then, concerned that he might have lowered my spirits with this outburst, he put his hand into a box and slipped a bottle of whisky into my bag as I walked out the door.
Let me reveal, my sympathies are with Philip Pittack and Martin White for many reasons, not just because of the whisky, or because they carry the history of the textile industry in Spitalfields with them, but most importantly because they are two of the most soulful and witty gentlemen you could ever hope to meet. They are my heroes, wielding scissors and tape measures. Legends in the rag trade, they know as much as anyone could ever know about cloth and they love meeting all the young fashion students that come seeking inspiration. Whenever you visit Crescent Trading you will discover joy, because they sell it by the yard. Nobody is making a fortune, but everyone takes delight in celebrating all the varieties of fabric and the glorious multifarious human culture that attends it.
Thanks to sheer willpower, canny ingenuity and a superhuman expense of physical energy on Philip Pittack's part, Crescent Trading is still here. Everything has changed yet nothing has changed.
Philip Pittack takes a last look at the warehouse where he stored his cloth for twenty years.
Philip sits upon the conveyor belt that broke ten years ago.
Philip personally manhandled every roll of fabric across Quaker St to the new warehouse.
Martin White contemplates the old premises, soon to be a hotel.
Philip arrives at the new warehouse on the other side of Quaker St.
The old warehouse.
Ros permalinkOctober 27, 2010
Good Lord – a) to think of Philip manhandling all those heavy bales across by himself and b) to think of a hotel in Quaker Street…. amazing stories all round!
Angela permalinkNovember 4, 2010
I just want to say a big thank you to both Martin and Philip, who have served me, and made my business, the success, that it is today. I am certain that buying such great fabric, at such a decent prices, which in this day and age is very rare, you have enabled me stay in business whilst I see others collapsing, so thank you and I shall of course continue to see you at your new premises across the road.
To think that that I have been buying from Crescent Trading for that many years is in itself amazing. You are an institution that we in the East End need to treasure.
Angela -
Ingrid permalinkNovember 5, 2010
I worked right round the corner from Crescent Trading for 4 years and never knew about them. I have now gone to visit and met Philip. He's such a nice man I definitely think we need more of these type of businesses around. Good luck with the rest of the move and expect to see me more often 🙂