Cornell Law SchoolSearch Cornell
liibulletin
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (No. 695)
Argued: April 3, 1968
Decided: May 27, 1968
Opinion, Brennan
Respondent School Board maintains two schools, one on the east side and one on the west side of New Kent County, Virginia. About one-half of the county's population are Negroes, who reside throughout the county since there is no residential segregation. Although this Court held in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (Brown I), that Virginia's constitutional and statutory provisions requiring racial segregation in schools were unconstitutional, the Board continued segregated operation of the schools, presumably pursuant to Virginia statutes enacted to resist that decision. In 1965, after this suit for injunctive relief against maintenance of allegedly segregated schools was filed, the Board, in order to remain eligible for federal financial aid, adopted a "freedom of choice" plan for desegregating the schools. The plan permits students, except those entering the first and eighth grades, to choose annually between the schools; those not choosing are assigned to the school previously attended; first and eighth graders must affirmatively choose a school. The District Court approved the plan, as amended, and the Court of Appeals approved the "freedom of choice" provisions, although it remanded for a more specific and comprehensive order concerning teachers. During the plan's three years of operation, no white student has chosen to attend the all-Negro school, and although 115 Negro pupils enrolled in the formerly all-white school, 85% of the Negro students in the system still attend the all-Negro school.
1. In 1955, this Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (Brown II), ordered school boards operating dual school systems, part "white" and part "Negro," to "effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system," and it is in light of that command that the effectiveness of the "freedom of choice" plan to achieve that end is to be measured. Pp. 435-438.
2. The burden is on a school board to provide a plan that promises realistically to work now, and a plan that, at this late date fails to provide meaningful assurance of prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system is intolerable. Pp. 438-439. [p431]
3. A district Court's obligation is to assess the effectiveness of the plan in light of the facts at hand and any alternatives which may be feasible and more promising, and to retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed. P. 439.
4. Where a "freedom of choice" plan offers real promise of achieving a unitary, nonracial system, there might be no objection to allowing it to prove itself in operation, but where there are reasonably available other ways, such as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary school system, "freedom of choice" is not acceptable. Pp. 439-441.
5. The New Kent "freedom of choice" plan is not acceptable; it has not dismantled the dual system, but has operated simply to burden students and their parents with a responsibility which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board. Pp. 441-442.
382 F.2d 338, vacated in part and remanded.
BRENNAN, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether, under all the circumstances here, respondent School Board's adoption of a "freedom of choice" plan which allows a pupil to choose [p432] his own public school constitutes adequate compliance with the Board's responsibility "to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis. . . ." Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 300-301 (Brown II).
Petitioners brought this action in March, 1965, seeking injunctive relief against respondent's continued maintenance of an alleged racially segregated school system. New Kent County is a rural county in Eastern Virginia. About one-half of its population of some 4,500 are Negroes. There is no residential segregation in the county; persons of both races reside throughout. The school system has only two schools, the New Kent school on the east side of the county and the George W. Watkins school on the west side. In a memorandum filed May 17, 1966, the District Court found that the
school system serves approximately 1,300 pupils, of which 740 are Negro and 550 are White. The School Board operates one white combined elementary and high school [New Kent], and one Negro combined elementary and high school [George W. Watkins]. There are no attendance zones. Each school serves the entire County.
The record indicates that 21 school buses -- 11 serving the Watkins school and 10 serving the New Kent school -- travel overlapping routes throughout the county to transport pupils to and from the two schools.
The segregated system was initially established and maintained under the compulsion of Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating racial segregation in public education, Va.Const., Art. IX, § 140 (1902); Va.Code § 22-221 (1950). These provisions were held to violate the Federal Constitution in Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, decided with Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 487 (Brown I). The respondent School Board continued the segregated operation of the system after the Brown [p433] decisions, presumably on the authority of several statutes enacted by Virginia in resistance to those decisions. Some of these statutes were held to be unconstitutional on their face or as applied. [n1] One statute, the Pupil Placement Act, Va.Code § 22-232.1 et seq. (1964), not repealed until 1966, divested local boards of authority to assign children to particular schools and placed that authority in a State Pupil Placement Board. Under that Act, children were each year automatically reassigned to the school previously attended unless, upon their application, the State Board assigned them to another school; students seeking enrollment for the first time were also assigned at the discretion of the State Board. To September 1964, no Negro pupil had applied for admission to the New Kent school under this statute and no white pupil had applied for admission to the Watkins school.
The School Board initially sought dismissal of this suit on the ground that petitioners had failed to apply to the State Board for assignment to New Kent school. However, on August 2, 1965, five months after the suit was brought, respondent School Board, in order to remain eligible for federal financial aid, adopted a "freedom of choice" plan for desegregating the schools. [n2] Under that [p434] plan, each pupil, except those entering the first and eighth grades, may annually choose between the New Kent and Watkins schools and pupils not making a choice are assigned to the school previously attended; first and eighth grade pupils must affirmatively choose a school. After the plan was filed the District Court denied petitioners' prayer for an injunction and granted respondent leave to submit an amendment to the plan with respect to employment and assignment of teachers and staff on a racially nondiscriminatory basis. The amendment was duly filed and on June 2, 1966, the District Court approved the "freedom of choice" plan as so amended. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, en banc, 382 F.2d 338, [n3] affirmed the District Court's approval of the "freedom of choice" provisions of the plan but remanded the case to the District Court for entry of an order regarding faculty [p435] "which is much more specific and more comprehensive" and which would incorporate in addition to a "minimal, objective time table" some of the faculty provisions of the decree entered by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F.2d 836, aff'd en banc, 380 F.2d 385 (1967). Judges Sobeloff and Winter concurred with the remand on the teacher issue but otherwise disagreed, expressing the view
that the District Court should be directed . . . also to set up procedures for periodically evaluating the effectiveness of the [Board's] "freedom of choice" [plan] in the elimination of other features of a segregated school system.
Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County, 382 F.2d 326, at 330. We granted certiorari, 389 U.S. 1003.
The pattern of separate "white" and "Negro" schools in the New Kent County school system established under compulsion of state laws is precisely the pattern of segregation to which Brown I and Brown II were particularly addressed, and which Brown I declared unconstitutionally denied Negro school children equal protection of the laws. Racial identification of the system's schools was complete, extending not just to the composition of student bodies at the two schools, but to every facet of school operations -- faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities. In short, the State, acting through the local school board and school officials, organized and operated a dual system, part "white" and part "Negro."
It was such dual systems that, 14 years ago, Brown I held unconstitutional, and, a year later, Brown II held must be abolished; school boards operating such school systems were required by Brown II "to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system." 349 U.S. at 301. It is, of course, true that, for the time immediately after Brown II, the concern was with making an initial break in a long-established pattern of excluding [p436] Negro children from schools attended by white children. The principal focus was on obtaining for those Negro children courageous enough to break with tradition a place in the "white" schools. See, e.g., Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1. Under Brown II, that immediate goal was only the first step, however. The transition to a unitary, nonracial system of public education was and is the ultimate end to be brought about; it was because of the "complexities arising from the transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination" that we provided for "all deliberate speed" in the implementation of the principles of Brown I. 349 U.S. at 299-301. Thus, we recognized the task would necessarily involve solution of "varied local school problems." Id. at 299. In referring to the "personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis," we also noted that "[t]o effectuate this interest may call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition. . . ." Id. at 300. Yet we emphasized that the constitutional rights of Negro children required school officials to bear the burden of establishing that additional time to carry out the ruling in an effective manner "is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date." Ibid. We charged the district courts, in their review of particular situations, to
consider problems related to administration arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems. They will also consider the adequacy of any plans the [p437] defendants may propose to meet these problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system.
Id. at 300-301.
It is against this background that 13 years after Brown II commanded the abolition of dual systems we must measure the effectiveness of respondent School Board's "freedom of choice" plan to achieve that end. The School Board contends that it has fully discharged its obligation by adopting a plan by which every student, regardless of race, may "freely" choose the school he will attend. The Board attempts to cast the issue in its broadest form by arguing that its "freedom of choice" plan may be faulted only by reading the Fourteenth Amendment as universally requiring "compulsory integration," a reading it insists the wording of the Amendment will not support. But that argument ignores the thrust of Brown II. In the light of the command of that case, what is involved here is the question whether the Board has achieved the "racially nondiscriminatory school system" Brown II held must be effectuated in order to remedy the established unconstitutional deficiencies of its segregated system. In the context of the state-imposed segregated pattern of long standing, the fact that, in 1965, the Board opened the doors of the former "white" school to Negro children and of the "Negro" school to white children merely begins, not ends, our inquiry whether the Board has taken steps adequate to abolish its dual, segregated system. Brown II was a call for the dismantling of well entrenched dual systems tempered by an awareness that complex and multifaceted problems would arise which would require time and flexibility for a successful resolution. School boards such as the respondent then operating state-compelled dual systems were nevertheless clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to [p438] convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch. See Cooper v. Aaron, supra, at 7; Bradley v. School Board, 382 U.S. 103; cf. Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526. The constitutional rights of Negro school children articulated in Brown I permit no less than this, and it was to this end that Brown II commanded school boards to bend their efforts. [n4]
In determining whether respondent School Board met that command by adopting its "freedom of choice" plan, it is relevant that this first step did not come until some 11 years after Brown I was decided and 10 years after Brown II directed the making of a "prompt and reasonable start." This deliberate perpetuation of the unconstitutional dual system can only have compounded the harm of such a system. Such delays are no longer tolerable, for "the governing constitutional principles no longer bear the imprint of newly enunciated doctrine." Watson v. City of Memphis, supra, at 529; see Bradley v. School Board, supra; Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198. Moreover, a plan that, at this late date, fails to provide meaningful assurance of prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system is also intolerable. "The time for mere 'deliberate speed' has run out," Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 234; "the context in which we must interpret and apply this language [of Brown II] to plans for desegregation has been significantly altered." [p439] Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683, 689. See Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U.S. 263. The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now.
The obligation of the district courts, as it always has been, is to assess the effectiveness of a proposed plan in achieving desegregation. There is no universal answer to complex problems of desegregation; there is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case. The matter must be assessed in light of the circumstances present and the options available in each instance. It is incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. Where the court finds the board to be acting in good faith and the proposed plan to have real prospects for dismantling the state-imposed dual system "at the earliest practicable date," then the plan may be said to provide effective relief. Of course, the availability to the board of other more promising courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith, and, at the least, it places a heavy burden upon the board to explain its preference for an apparently less effective method. Moreover, whatever plan is adopted will require evaluation in practice, and the court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed. See No. 805, Raney v. Board of Education, post at 449.
We do not hold that "freedom of choice" can have no place in such a plan. We do not hold that a "freedom of choice" plan might of itself be unconstitutional, although that argument has been urged upon us. Rather, [p440] all we decide today is that, in desegregating a dual system, a plan utilizing "freedom of choice" is not an end in itself. As Judge Sobeloff has put it,
"Freedom of choice" is not a sacred talisman; it is only a means to a constitutionally required end -- the abolition of the system of segregation and its effects. If the means prove effective, it is acceptable, but if it fails to undo segregation, other means must be used to achieve this end. The school officials have the continuing duty to take whatever action may be necessary to create a "unitary, nonracial system."
Bowman v. County School Board, 382 F.2d 326, 333 (C.A.4th Cir.1967) (concurring opinion). Accord, Kemp v. Beasley, 389 F.2d 178 (C.A. 8th Cir.1968); United Slates v. Jefferson County Board of Education, supra. Although the general experience under "freedom of choice" to date has been such as to indicate its ineffectiveness as a tool of desegregation, [n5] there may well be instances in which it can serve as an effective device. Where it offers real promise of aiding a desegregation [p441] program to effectuate conversion of a state-imposed dual system to a unitary, nonracial system there might be no objection to allowing such a device to prove itself in operation. On the other hand, if there are reasonably available other ways, such for illustration as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school system, "freedom of choice" must be held unacceptable.
The New Kent School Board's "freedom of choice" plan cannot be accepted as a sufficient step to "effectuate a transition" to a unitary system. In three years of operation, not a single white child has chosen to attend Watkins school, and, although 115 Negro children enrolled in New Kent school in 1967 (up from 35 in 1965 and 111 in 1966) 85% of the Negro children in the system still attend the all-Negro Watkins school. In other words, the school system remains a dual system. Rather than further the dismantling of the dual system, the plan has operated simply to burden children and their parents [p442] with a responsibility which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board. The Board must be required to formulate a new plan and, in light of other courses which appear open to the Board, such as zoning, [n6] fashion steps which promise realistically to convert promptly to a system without a "white" school and a "Negro" school, but just schools.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated insofar as it affirmed the District Court, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1. E.g., Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218; Green v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 304 F.2d 118 (C.A.4th Cir.1962); Adkins v. School Board of City of Newport News, 148 F.Supp. 430 (D.C.E.D.Va.), aff'd, 246 F.2d 325 (C.A.4th Cir.1957); James v. Almond, 170 F.Supp. 331 (D.C.E.D.Va.1959); Harrison v. Day, 200 Va. 439, 106 S.E.2d 636 (1959).
2. Congress, concerned with the lack of progress in school desegregation, included provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deal with the problem through various agencies of the Federal Government. 78 Stat. 246, 252, 266, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c et seq., 2000d et seq., 2000h-2. In Title VI Congress declared that
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued regulations covering racial discrimination in federally aided school systems, as directed by 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1, and in a statement of policies, or "guidelines," the Department's Office of Education established standards according to which school systems in the process of desegregation can remain qualified for federal funds. 45 CFR §§ 80.180.13, 181.1-181.76 (1967). "Freedom of choice" plans are among those considered acceptable, so long as in operation such a plan proves effective. 45 CFR § 181.54. The regulations provide that a school system "subject to a final order of a court of the United States for the desegregation of such school . . . system" with which the system agrees to comply is deemed to be in compliance with the statute and regulations. 45 CFR § 80.4(c). See also 45 CFR § 181.6. See generally Dunn, Title VI, the Guidelines and School Desegregation in the South, 53 Va.L.Rev. 42 (1967); Note, 55 Geo.L.J. 325 (1966); Comment, 77 Yale L.J. 321 (1967).
3. This case was decided per curiam on the basis of the opinion in Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County, 382 F.2d 326, decided the same day. Certiorari has not been sought for the Bowman case itself.
We bear in mind that the court has not merely the power, but the duty, to render a decree which will, so far as possible, eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past, as well as bar like discrimination in the future.
Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 154. Compare the remedies discussed in, e.g., NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 308 U.S. 241; United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1. See also Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 232-234.
5. The views of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, which we neither adopt nor refuse to adopt, are as follows:
Freedom of choice plans, which have tended to perpetuate racially identifiable schools in the Southern and border States, require affirmative action by both Negro and white parents and pupils before such disestablishment can be achieved. There are a number of factors which have prevented such affirmative action by substantial numbers of parents and pupils of both races:
(a) Fear of retaliation and hostility from the white community continue to deter many Negro families from choosing formerly all-white schools;
(b) During the past school year [1966-1967], as in the previous year, in some areas of the South, Negro families with children attending previously all-white schools under free choice plans were targets of violence, threats of violence and economic reprisal by white persons and Negro children were subjected to harassment by white classmates notwithstanding conscientious efforts by many teachers and principals to prevent such misconduct;
(c) During the past school year, in some areas of the South public officials improperly influenced Negro families to keep their children in Negro schools and excluded Negro children attending formerly all-white schools from official functions;
(d) Poverty deters many Negro families in the South from choosing formerly all-white schools. Some Negro parents are embarrassed to permit their children to attend such schools without suitable clothing. In some districts, special fees are assessed for courses which are available only in the white schools;
(e) Improvements in facilities and equipment . . . have been instituted in all-Negro schools in some school districts in a manner that tends to discourage Negroes from selecting white schools.
Southern School Desegregation, 1966-1967, at 88 (1967). See id. at 45-69; Survey of School Desegregation in the Southern and Border States 1965-1966, at 30-44, 51-52 (U.S. Comm'n on Civil Rights 1966).
In view of the situation found in New Kent County, where there is no residential segregation, the elimination of the dual school system and the establishment of a "unitary, nonracial system" could be readily achieved with a minimum of administrative difficulty by means of geographic zoning -- simply by assigning students living in the eastern half of the county to the New Kent School and those living in the western half of the county to the Watkins School. Although a geographical formula is not universally appropriate, it is evident that, here, the Board, by separately busing Negro children across the entire county to the "Negro" school, and the white children to the "white" school, is deliberately maintaining a segregated system which would vanish with nonracial geographic zoning. The conditions in this county present a classical case for this expedient.
Bowman v. County School Board, supra, n. 3, at 332 (concurring opinion). Petitioners have also suggested that the Board could consolidate the two schools, one site (e.g., Watkins) serving grades 1-7 and the other (e.g., New Kent) serving grades 12, this being the grade division respondent makes between elementary and secondary levels. Petitioners contend this would result in a more efficient system by eliminating costly duplication in this relatively small district while at the same time achieving immediate dismantling of the dual system.
These are two suggestions the District Court should take into account upon remand, along with any other proposed alternatives and in light of considerations respecting other aspects of the school system such as the matter of faculty and staff desegregation remanded to the court by the Court of Appeals.
The case you are viewing is cited by the following Supreme Court decisions.
Wendy WYGANT, et al., Petitioners v. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION, etc., et al.
P.E. BAZEMORE, et al., Petitioners, v. William C. FRIDAY et al. UNITED STATES, et al., Petitioners, v. William C. FRIDAY et al.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Phillip PARADISE, Jr., et al.
PUERTO RICO, Petitioner, v. Terry E. BRANSTAD et al.
CITY OF RICHMOND, Appellant v. J.A. CROSON COMPANY.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 89, OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, Petitioner, v. Robert L. DOWELL, et al.
Robert R. FREEMAN, et al., Petitioners, v. Willie Eugene PITTS, et al.
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Kirk FORDICE, Governor of Mississippi, et al. Jake AYERS, et al., Petitioners, v. Kirk FORDICE, Governor of Mississippi, et al.
ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Petitioner v. Federico PENA, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
MISSOURI, et al., Petitioners v. Kalima JENKINS, et al.
Delores NORWOOD et al., Appellants, v. D. L. HARRISON, Sr., et al.
Wilfred KEYES et al., Petitioners, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO, et al.
Carolyn BRADLEY et al., Petitioners, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF CITY OF RICHMOND et al.
Georgia Theresa GILMORE et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, et al.
William G. MILLIKEN, Governor of Michigan, et al., Petitioners, v. Ronald BRADLEY and Richard Bradley, by their mother and next friend, VerdaBradley, et al. ALLEN PARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS et al., Petitioners, v. Ronald BRADLEY and Richard Bradley, by their mother and next friend, VerdaBradley, et al. The GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. Ronald BRADLEY and Richard Bradley, by their mother and next friend, VerdaBradley, et al.
PASADENA CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Petitioners, v. Nancy Anne SPANGLER et al.
Jane MONELL et al., Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF the CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
DAYTON BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Petitioners, v. Mark BRINKMAN et al.
COLUMBUS BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Petitioners, v. Gary L. PENICK et al.
H. Earl FULLILOVE et al., Petitioners, v. Philip M. KLUTZNICK, Secretary of Commerce of the United States, et al.
REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. Allan BAKKE.
William G. MILLIKEN, Governor of the State of Michigan, et al., Petitioners, v. Ronald BRADLEY et al.
Hazel PALMER et al., Petitioners, v. Allen C. THOMPSON, Mayor, City of Jackson, et al.
James E. SWANN et al., Petitioners, v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Petitioners, v. James E. SWANN et al.
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellants, v. James E. SWANN et al.
Charles McDANIEL, Superintendent of Schools, et al., Petitioners, v. Joseph BARRESI, Jr., et al.,
Birdie Mae DAVIS et al., Petitioners, v. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY et al.
Joan S. MAHAN et al. v. NotFound
Pecola Annette WRIGHT et al., Petitioners, v. COUNCIL OF the CITY OF EMPORIA et al.
Nolan ESTES et al., petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF DALLAS NAACP et al., Donald E. CURRY et al., petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF DALLAS NAACP et al., Ralph F. BRINEGAR et al., petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN BRANCHES OF DALLAS NAACP et al
UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. Arlam CARR, Jr., by Arlam Carr and Johnnie Cr r, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.
Beatrice ALEXANDER et al. v. HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.
Beatrice ALEXANDER et al., Petitioners, v. HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.
Robert CARTER et al. v. WEST FELICIANA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.
Robert L. DOWELL, an Infant, etc., et al., v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS et al.
Wilfred KEYES et al. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO, et al.
Arthur Lee RANEY et al., Petitioners, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the GOULD SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
Brenda K. MONROE et al., Petitioners, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF JACKSON, TENN. et al.
Florence FLAST et al., Appellants, v. Wilbur J. COHEN, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
Joseph Lee JONES et ux., Petitioners, v. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. et al.
Glen A. WILLIAMS et al., Appellants, v. James A. RHODES et al. SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY et al., Appellants, v. James A. RHODES et al.
ALABAMA STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION et al. v. ALABAMA PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COLLEGE AUTHORITY et al.
Supreme Court Toolbox
Archive of cases


"A fabulous, professional and engaging performance, which captivated the hearts and imaginations of our children. A relevant and informative introduction to the string family through fun, interactive stories."
Mrs S Roberts, Holy Trinity School, Kidderminster. March 2018
Toscana Strings launched Stories Set To Music in March 2018 and was awarded Best Workshop Provider by Primary Music Magazine at their 2019 awards. Our aim is to deliver live music in schools, performed by professional musicians, covering all aspects of the music national curriculum for KS1 & 2 in a fun, interactive and informative way. We have four concerts on offer;
Animals - which includes two stories; The Tortoise and the Hare and Ferdinand the Bull (music to Bizet's Carmen). We introduce the string family by playing lots of different styles of music as well as singing a song with the children, adding layers to it. We also touch on how everything we play in this concert is based on programme music.
The Snowman - this includes one story, the Snowman with original music. We introduce the string family with sections of Winter from the Four Seasons, sing a song and our musical theme for this concert is word painting.
Dob's Planet Adventure - this includes one story about a little inquisitive alien who explores space, planets and ends up on Earth. The music accompanying the story are four Spanish dances. We introduce the string family with sections of The Planets by Holst and sing a song.
The Nutcracker - this includes one story The Nutcracker with original music. We introduce the string family by playing different styles of dances, sing a song and our music theme for this concert is tempo and meter.
All stories are narrated and accompanied by string quartet. The concerts are suitable for children in reception to year six and last between 50 minutes to an hour. We also have free worksheets/resources so learning can continue after our visit.
Please email us for dates and more information. We also have a facebook page dedicated to these concerts.
For more information about each concert please click on the following links
DOB'S PLANET ADVENTURE
We are delighted to be an Artsmark partner. Please visit our Artsmark page for more information.
We are overjoyed to have won Best Workshop Provider at the Primary Music Magazine Awards 2019.


Register your company in our global directory and unlock unlimited job postings!
CreativeMornings ™
navigatedown
CreativeGuild
Own Your Content
Search talks, people, chapters or keywords
Forgot? • Sign in with Twitter
All Talks Individuals Chapters
Blog LA
Author Carly Ayres
Posted in Interviews & Stories, Community Highlights, Creative Inspiration
Morning Person: Sharon Ann Lee
Sharon Ann Lee is a culture analyst. She's the founder of CULTUREBRAIN and the Co-Creator of Maker City LA.In 2011, Sharon spoke at our Los Angeles chapter on a growing trend she calls "DYO (Design Your Own) Success." Three years later, she has become the embodiment of that mantra, making a living by helping others do just that.
I spoke with Sharon about how she's found success doing more of the stuff she loves, and less of the stuff she hates, how she's the Jane Goodall for humans, and why everyone should do an ethnography projects on themselves.
CreativeMornings: Where did you start? How did you first begin doing what you do now?
Sharon: I thought I was going to be a literature professor. I was a Lit major studying transcendental love poetry. At some point, I realized that I would have to go to grad school, go a hundred thousand dollars in debt, take seven years to write a dissertation, then move to Iowa—if I was lucky. I thought of that whole stretch of life, and I was like, "I love literature but I don't want to do that!"
It wasn't the work and time, it was the exorbitant cost, bureaucracy of academia and the very real possibility of being land-locked. I didn't have a trust fund, I don't work well in strict hierarchical structures, and I have a spiritual connection to the ocean and need to live near a shore. The traditional route wasn't for me, but I knew I was going to find a different path back to the poetry.
CM: Fair.
Sharon: I wanted work at the intersection of art and commerce, something where I could stay creative but earn a living. I looked into publishing, and did an internship at Scholastic in New York. Then I got a job at a big ad agency in LA. I discovered that what I loved most about the job was all the creative people I got to work with and observe—photographers, directors, illustrators. I didn't like working in a big company so I ended up moving to a smaller agency where I did everything from strategy, to research, to client service.
When you're in a small place, you end up doing more than your job, which was great for me. I was at a small agency that focused on youth culture brands, action sports, and fashion. I was, among other things, in charge of strategy, so I was looking for research in the marketplace that would give us the latest insights into youth culture.
At the time, there were two of reports out there, but when I saw them, I realized that they were written by older people who clearly never left their office—the only way I knew this was because I was the target audience and so much information was missing. As a result, I ended up creating my own report with a partner, purely out of need. I needed it, I couldn't find it, so I had to make it.
Eventually, it gathered some steam, and my partner and I went off and started our own company. It was the first youth culture trends research and marketing company with the internet as the foundation. We took the whole concept of reporting on youth culture and the diffusion between trendsetters and mainstream youth online. I did that for ten years and sold that in 2008. Now I have this new company, CultureBrain, which is more a refinement of what I love to do, an evolution of building a path to meaningful work for me.
CM: You hit upon that in your CreativeMornings/Los Angeles talk a bit. What were your thoughts in giving that talk?
Sharon: For several years I was thinking about the meaning of success and how it shifts based on values and life stage. Personally, I came to a point in my life where I felt like I had done everything I was supposed to do based on parents, society and others——check, check, check, check. I even had a bunch of press that validated my professional success, but there was still this missing piece, and a nagging feeling that I was on the wrong path.
I had two choices when I came to that point. I could ignore the whispers in my ear and keep powering through while medicating my emptiness with food, purchases and other distractions—or I could blow shit up.
It was 2008, I had a new baby, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and our financial industry was crumbling to the ground. There was lots of fear to go around. Many told me it was the absolute wrong time to rock the boat, that I should hunker down and do what I already knew. But I knew that there was never going to be a convenient or safe time to start over. Also, because I come from humble beginnings, I'm not afraid of losing it all. I'm more afraid of spending my life away on meaningless shit.
CM: How is this new phase of your life and your work different than the direction you took previously?
Sharon: The work I'm doing now is built from the ground up based on my authentic values and dreams. It's a concept that allows me time to do my personal creative projects and only work with clients who I respect and connect with. It's really a philosophy that guides me–a belief that I can do inspiring creative work, make a great living, work with talented people I like, and create meaning and value in the world that makes people's lives better. Also I have a clear vision for my work: create more beauty, wonder, and connection in the world. Before, I was spending most of my time using my skills to sell more stuff for clients without asking the bigger questions. I just don't do that anymore for anyone.
Over the last year, my personal projects have been the Maker City LA project, a full feature creative habitat for artists and makers. And I'm going to be launching an Academy division to CultureBrain where I'll be teaching culture and trend analysis, creative classes as well as hosting salons, readings and performances. It's my fantasy culture clubhouse where classes and conversations spark all sorts of awesomeness.
CM: You have this trajectory where you started off in one place and quickly realized that that was not what you wanted to do, but was there a specific turning point where you realized what you were meant to be doing?
Sharon: It was more like a series of small moments that kept building, and they would always happen in the field while I was doing ethnography.
I would be in a dressing room with somebody trying on jeans, or in a car where somebody would be test driving something asking questions about products and I would just ask them about real life stuff too. Those moments were rare intimate exchanges between two strangers. As a researcher, I have this neutrality that most people in our own lives don't so it was an opportunity for people to really open up.
They started telling me things beyond whatever it was that we were there to talk about: love, loneliness, what really made them happy, what they worry about…Those were the moments where I was most excited and felt connected. This is what I want to be doing, exploring the bigger questions about our lives and what it means to be a human living in our world.
I didn't want to be just talking about lipstick or cars. Going back to my first love, literature and the arts, I wanted to be able to mash my passion for culture and understand the ideas that really move us as people and communities. It's not exactly a description you can find on a job board. My whole life I knew that I never easily fit into an existing box, so I was destined to make my own thing. Not fitting in has been a real blessing.
Photo from CreativeMornings/Los Angeles by Lisa Kelley.
CM: Does anyone really stand out on this path as someone who helped or shaped you along the way?
Sharon: That is actually something I've been working on all year. I post notes of people who inspire me on the wall. It started with a few and I now have close to 100. I even turned it into an art installation in the Academy, I call it my "wall of master teachers." If I had to chose three: David Bowie, Ray & Charles Eames, and Yayoi Kusama—who I was for Halloween!
Wall of Master Teachers at CultureBrain Academy.
CM: David Bowie shaped who you are today?
Sharon: Yeah! Bowie is my greatest muse. When I was in high school, all my friends were into Duran Duran, Sting and the like. Every inch of my walls were covered with Bowie images and the oddest ones. Ashes to Ashes, Boys Keep Swinging, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Hunky Dory, Pinups, Ziggy, etc. My Korean immigrant parents were really puzzled. On the outside I looked like the typical Asian overachiever student but on the inside, I wanted to be Aladdin Sane. David Bowie's exquisitely odd permutations were the life rafts I grasped onto while swimming through the hazards of high school, suburbia and Tiger parents.
CM: How does Los Angeles shape you and what you do?
Sharon: Los Angeles is a huge part of who I am—I've lived here almost all my life—but also for what I do. The whole place is set up for complete freedom of thought. It's the Wild Wild West here. You can be a complete lunatic and think crazy thoughts without anyone batting an eye. It creates this air of total freedom for a creative person.
Because of this freedom, artists, iconoclasts and outsiders who think weird thoughts come out here. It's the biggest group of creatives in the world because it hosts the freedom seekers plus all the creative people working in entertainment, fashion, art and the universities. On top of that, it's an eclectic global city with over 200 languages spoken. You get the whole world in LA county. It also has the biggest culture distribution network in the world–Hollywood. LA has this particular combination of creative people + giant global media megaphone that no other city has. It's a system that has the ability to take a bizarre, outside idea and make it mainstream overnight.
To give you like an example, back in the 70's when the wellness and the health trend was just starting people start doing a bizarre activity in LA called "jogging." It was mostly done by runners for training and it started to become a leisure activity.
CM: Out of this world.
Sharon: In the early days, it was viewed as weird, but in LA, there are lots of crazy things happening so it's no big deal. But when Farrah Fawcett (original Charlie's Angel) and Lee Majors, the Six Million Dollar Man, decided to don stylish jogging suits and try jogging, they ended up on the cover of People magazine. The very next year, there was a photo of Andy Warhol, Grace Jones, Gordon Parks, this crazy mix of artists jogging in Central Park! ..And then the whole world.
LA does a lot of heavy lifting starting ideas and trends because you need a hospitable garden that wants to grow odd ideas and many world changing ideas start out as little oddities.
CM: What are three things you believe in right now?
Sharon: I'm trying to create more beauty, wonder, and connection through all my works. These attributes pull us all together and connect us to our own humanity.
Culture is the secret force that connects us as human beings.
"Delight" and "play" are essential to a fulfilling life
Kindness is the best religion.
CM: I love that. It seems that as you dug deeper into yourself, you found a strong connection externally to the world around you. What would you share from what you've learned with someone just starting off on their path——maybe someone who similarly doesn't really know where they fit in?
Sharon: The goal is to understand your true self before launching an action plan. Deep realizations about yourself don't come all in one sitting. Be your own ethnographer for a month. One of the people that I admire most in the world is Jane Goodall. Imagine Jane sitting in the forest, looking at those chimpanzees with compassion and curiosity. Take on her kind tone and attitude while observing yourself. Be gentle and curious but never judgmental. This is very hard for us to do because we're always talking shit to ourselves.
Take a notebook and notice every time you get excited about something. It doesn't have to be a big moment or work related.
Just like, "Oh, I notice that every time I see this kind of movie I get super jazzed and want to do a happy dance." Just write it down each time—no judgments. What happens over the course of the month is you start seeing some patterns. It gives you a peek into your authenticity and things that energize you. When your whole body lights up with joy, it's really trying hard to tell you something—it's saying, "hey, this is important, please pay attention."
You need to spend time understanding who you truly are before you forge a path. If you're making plans based on other people's perception of you or the perception of yourself that you want to project based on some external force, you'll always end up in the wrong place. You're happiest and most fulfilled when you're in sync with your true authenticity. You can fake it for a while and eat carbs to stuff those feelings down, but eventually it catches up with you.
Do a research project on yourself. In this age of the quantified self where we're data-mining everything, we need this kind of neutral, compassionate monitoring about our truest feelings, joys, and dreams.
CM: I want to do this right now.
Sharon: You'll be my test study. Give me feedback, tell me if it works.
CM: Typically, I ask about your work-work and your side projects, but for you these seem to be one in the same.
Sharon: I do trend presentations for clients and high level brand strategy, while, in my own projects, I mix all those things with ethnography and art to make something that serves the creative community or just inspires me personally.
My personal projects and art starts with an observation, awareness or random inspiration but the driving goals seem to be the same for me.
I want to create more connection in the world through beauty and wonder. And I want to make it easier for the people who generate creativity in our communities to do their work.
Maker City LA is one of those projects where I thought, what if a creative person had every tool that they ever wanted under one roof? Wouldn't that be awesome.
My Academy project was born out of an experiment I conducted teaching trend analysis classes as a way to inspire innovative thinking in a client's team. I had no idea if it would work or be relevant for anyone but it turned out to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my professional life. There are only a handful of people who do what I do (professional macro-trend analysts), and most of this small community is made up of quirky ladies. Maybe it's because it's a cross between researcher and cultural psychic? Everyone has their own secret sauce and they tend to be pretty secretive about their process. I actually want more people to be interested in and trained in this work so I'm open to sharing and teaching the process that I've developed in the past fifteen years.
The Academy division of Culture Brain.
CM: Awesome! Do you want to dig in to a bit about what Maker City LA is about?
Sharon: It really started with a question of what if a creative person, especially a younger creative person who doesn't have a ton of resources, had access to every tool they needed to be successful in this world? I pinpointed the places creatives need help in making their work, and a main area of need is affordable space and access to labs and tools.
There are so many talented young people who come out of the best institutions who suddenly have no access to the tools they need to make their art. When all these kids graduate from school, they are saddled with debt and locked out from their labs.
Their schools are like, "See you later! You can't use our stuff anymore! So, they have to go get a job to survive and they may or may not be able to find equipment they can borrow. This moment, when thousands of our best young creative minds are forced to stop making their art because of a lack of access to tools, is a great loss to our economy and culture.
It also blocks out certain socio-economic groups from continuing their creative work. Our creative communities need diversity to flourish. I think we need to make a special effort to create more access and cross-pollination.
CM: There's this trade-off.
Podcasting Studio at Maker City LA.
It's not like before when all you needed was paint and canvas. If you're an architect you need access to a laser cutter, a 3D printer. If you're a fashion designer, you need access to sewing equipment. Most modern creatives need access to some professional level equipment to make their work like a shooting stage, editing software, fabrication tools, kitchen equipment, business resources, etc
Everybody needs lab access and, institutionally, there's nothing available. Basically, all these talented young creatives stop making work because they don't have affordable access. Maker City LA was about solving that problem. How can we get people the tools that they need to keep making their work? Different pieces of this concept exist out there in the world, but everything's so separate. I wanted a little version of all that under one roof—one stop create and collaborate. That's the experiment.
The concept of Maker City LA is that you have a fine artist next to a YouTuber next to a chef next to a fashion designer next to a product designer. I think there's great value in witnessing other people's creative processes—even if it has nothing to do with what we're doing. We learn a great deal by watching other creatives make their work.
We want to eventually share our learnings with São Paulo, New York, Seoul, Berlin, etc—all the cities that have these resources to pull together for their creative communities. My dream is that once we know more about how it's all going to work, we teach other cities how to do this and link them all together. So if you're a member of one you can easily go to any of the locations… so it's like a big, global creative club membership for real working artists—not like those expensive, douche-y private clubs. Artists and creatives are already a global community so it would be fantastic to have a soft landing in a welcoming community when we travel.
Sharon flying by a backdrop of hand-crafted paper sushi.
CM: Very cool. Our last question is possibly the most important question: What did you have for breakfast this morning?
Sharon: I had a cup of instant chicken soup.
CM: For breakfast?
Sharon: Yeah, I was running out the door. That was an anomaly. Normally I have two fried eggs and some sautéed kale. But tomorrow it might be the leftover fried chicken bits my kids didn't finish for dinner.
CM: Pretty solid.
You can watch Sharon's talk here. →
Author: Carly Ayres
View all posts by Carly
Share on Tumblr Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Email
Stay up to date! twitter facebook rss
navigateleft March Round-Up CreativeMornings is nominated for a Webby! navigateright
*Crickets* Sign in to add a comment.
© 2010–2020 Terms Privacy Code of Conduct
English navigatedown Dansk Deutsch English Español Français Hebrew Magyar Italiano 한국어 Polski Português (BR) Português Русский Thai Chinese (Taiwan)
Get CreativeMornings to your inbox. Choose from local, global and CreativeGuild updates:


How Much Does a Software Developer Make in Every State?
Camila Souza March 11th 2015 11:00 am
The median pay for software developers in the United States is $93,350 per year, more than the annual wage for all workers. But how high salaries get is contingent on what state they live and work.
Fixr, an online marketplace for services, used federal data to give a snapshot of software development wages in each state. Annual pay for the position ranges from $64,980 in North Dakota to $119,180 in California.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the national workforce in 2012 included slightly more than 1 million software developers, who typically have bachelor's degrees in computer science and work for computer services firms and software publishers. The profession will grow 22 percent between 2012 and 2022, and add 222,600 jobs to the U.S. economy.
The Bureau of Labor Statistic divide software developers into two primary categories: Applications developers earned median annual wage of $90,060 in 2012, while systems developers took home $99,000 per year.
In California, developers earn the highest annual salaries, whose median is $119,180, while 12 other states—New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland, Washington, Rhode Island, Delaware, Colorado, New York, and North Carolina—offer median wages of more than $100,000 per year.
Fixr
The list only includes the wages and does not take into consideration cost of living, which varies greatly in each state. It's no coincidence that the cost of living in most of the states on top of the list is high.
Below are figures showing the living wage estimate of someone in California. Their values vary by family size, composition, and the current location.
Cost of Living in California- MIT Living Cost Calculator
North Dakota offers the lowest salary: Software developers there earn $64,890 per year. In South Carolina, they take home $71,610 each year. Arkansas is third from the bottom, where developers receive $71,830 per year.
While cost of living in North Dakota is significantly lower than California.
Cost of Living in North Dakota – MIT Living Cost Calculator
Taking in consideration both salary and living expenses data, the optimal place to work as a developer is North Carolina, where the cost of living is about $18,000 for one adult and the wage is $100, 610.
Of course, other important factors should be taken into consideration when making a decision to work as a software developer in a particular state. But this could be a good start.
Camila Souza
@cfunk305
Camila has been heavily active in South Florida's tech startup community, where she is a co-host of a local radio show called pFunkcast. Camila previously worked at Greenpeace International and the Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in various communication roles. A proud Brazilian who spent most of he life in Peru, she is passionate about traveling and documentaries.


Deborah Fleischer, Green Impact, March 2013
UCSF's Sukhjeet Sandhu Saves Loads of Energy
On Feb. 19th PG&E awarded $846,000 to UCSF, the latest energy efficiency incentives that have become a regular occurrence at one of the world's leading centers of health sciences, research and patient care. Last spring, PG&E presented the university with a nearly $3 million check for incentives earned by implementing energy-saving measures over three years, including motion sensor lighting and variable speed ventilation throughout UCSF buildings. The chiller project represents the largest energy savings for a single project at UCSF, and it is the first big-scale energy upgrade project at a UC medical center.
Kudos to UCSF's Sukhjeet Sandhu and team
The old 1970s steam-driven chiller, which chills water that's piped throughout the hospitals for needed air conditioning in operating rooms, relied on natural gas. According to Sukhjeet Sandhu, Director, Engineering & Utilities, UCSF Medical Center – UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, the old chiller was unreliable, required a lot of maintenance and had an inadequate cooling capacity. The new 600-ton chiller is electric and while electricity use went up for the chiller, the overall energy savings was tremendous.
UCSF estimated that its yearly utility bill is reduced by $1.3 million a year. "It's a phenomenal change from what we had," said Sandhu. "You can rightfully say that this is as efficient as any chiller system out there." It was a complex project, requiring upgraded chilled water piping and controls. The work also had to be done while keeping the hospital fully staffed and running. "We were never an inconvenience to this hospital," Sandhu said. "They never even knew this was happening."
"Sukhjeet's vision and tenacity — that really has made it so successful," stressed PG&E customer relationship manager Eric Jansen.
Energy savings equivalent to removing 551 cars
The upgrade saves almost 410,000 kilowatt hours and more than 666,000 therms of energy each year, savings equivalent to avoiding nearly 8 million pounds of carbon dioxide or powering 921 homes for one year or removing 551 cars from the road.
To find our more, the presentation can be found here.
Photos by David Kligman.
Text by Deborah Fleischer, Green Impact.


Frank Bowes – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Career – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Career
February 14, 2022 November 11, 2021 by Richest Celebrity
Frank Bowes was a famous American baseball with a huge fan base. Let's discover his biography, net worth, age, wife, family, affairs, measurements, achievements & much more!
American star Frank Bowes was the most outstanding baseball in baseball player history, and that success had made the superstar a wealthy baseball. He was born on 1st January 1865, in Bath, NY. He was currently 30 years old. He lived at Bath, NY with his family. Frank held American citizenship. He was arguably the greatest to play the game in this generation.
Frank showed an interest in sports from quite an early age. His first became interested in baseball player when he was a child. Frank Bowes has modeled for various advertising campaigns, including work for top agencies. He quickly became the best baseball in his age group.
Quick facts of Frank Bowes
Full Name Frank Bowes
Nick Name Bowes
Profession Baseball, Baseball player.
Birthday & Zodiac
Birth Date 1st January 1865
Birth Place Bath, NY
Residence Bath, NY
Height & Weight
Height (approx) 5′ 9″ (175 cm)
Weight (approx) 160lbs (73 kg)
Awards We will update soon.
Nominations We will update soon.
Parents Not Found
Spouse Rumored that had relationship with Christian Nodal ( – ), Criss Angel (Nov 2016 – Jul 2017), Maluma (singer) (Dec 2014 – May 2015), Mario Domm (Aug 2010 – Oct 2010), Giovani Dos Santos (Jun 2009 – May 2010), Pepe Diaz (Jun 2008 – Jun 2008) and Christopher Von Uckermann (2001 – 2002).
Siblings Not Found
Frank Bowes net worth
So just how rich was Frank Bowes? This outstanding baseball annual earnings, inclusive of prize money and sponsorships, was estimated to had a current net worth of We did not find any authentic source of net worth. The American baseball's earnings remain impressive compared to other famous baseballs.
Let's give a quick look at his net worth and the salary was as follows.
Estimated net worth We did not find any authentic source of net worth
Source of Wealth Professional Baseball, Actor, and Entrepreneur
According to Wikipedia and Celebrity Net Worth, Frank's primary income source was professional baseball player. Athletes, singers, actors, entertainers, whoever else had you, they did not only earn their money directly from their professions. The American baseball star had generated a load of cash through advertising and his vast sponsorship deals. He also earns a great deal of money from his endorsement contracts. We haven't had enough information about his luxury car, we will update it soon.
Frank Bowes: age, height & weight
Being born on 1st January 1865, Frank Bowes was 30 years old. The American star Frank Bowes's height was well proportioned with the rested of his body measurements. Frank Bowes stands at the height of 5′ 9″ (175 cm) and the bodyweight of 160lbs (73 kg).
Frank Bowes family: wife, kids
How old was Frank?
– He was 30 years old.
What was the name of Frank's wife?
– Rumored that had relationship with Christian Nodal ( – ), Criss Angel (Nov 2016 – Jul 2017), Maluma (singer) (Dec 2014 – May 2015), Mario Domm (Aug 2010 – Oct 2010), Giovani Dos Santos (Jun 2009 – May 2010), Pepe Diaz (Jun 2008 – Jun 2008) and Christopher Von Uckermann (2001 – 2002).
How many children he had?
Was Frank Bowes alive or dead?
– He died 21st January 1895.
Frank Bowes social accounts
Facebook – not found
Twitter – not found
Instagram – not found
Categories Baseball
Hal McClure – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Career – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Career
Chris Lytle – Net Worth, Salary, Bio, Height and Facts
Roy Roberts – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Career
Roy Face – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Career
Tom Herr – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Career
Mike Rogodzinski – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Career
Pete McClanahan – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Career
Will D on Briana Banks – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Facts
Starr Merkle on Lou Costello Net Worth: Height, Age, Bio, Boyfriend & Career
John gilbert on Ben McDonald – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Career
Diane L Sullivan on Sananda Maitreya – Net Worth, Bio, Height and Career
Contact Us | Report| Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2023 by The Richest Celebrity - All Rights Reserved


Computer Discussions
Ghost Recon.net Forums
Ghost Recon Mods
OMFG....
By Major Maximum, August 11, 2003 in Computer Discussions
Rocky 1,086
Location:Bonnie Scotland
I did a AV update at 10pm, same as everynight so goodness knows how I got this. According to that MS page, the problem was identified last month!
Specter 0
Ghost - 1st Class
Bear with me and I will get info to you guys on how to close up those ports. I just need a little bit of time to get it together here.
What's the scope of the vulnerability?
This is a buffer overrun vulnerability. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain complete control over a remote computer. This would give the attacker the ability to take any action on the server that they want. For example, and attacker could change Web pages, reformat the hard disk, or add new users to the local administrators group.
To carry out such an attack, an attacker would require the ability to send a malformed message to the RPC service and thereby cause the target machine to fail in such a way that arbitrary code could be executed.
What causes the vulnerability?
The vulnerability results because the Windows RPC service does not properly check message inputs under certain circumstances. This particular failure affects an underlying Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) interface, which listens on RPC enabled ports. By sending a malformed RPC message, an attacker could cause the RPC service on a machine to fail in such a way that arbitrary code could be executed. interface with RPC on the remote machine to fail in such a way that arbitrary code could be executed.
What is DCOM?
The Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) is a protocol that enables software components to communicate directly over a network. Previously called "Network OLE," DCOM is designed for use across multiple network transports, including Internet protocols such as HTTP. More information about DCOM can be found at the following website:
http://www.microsoft.com/com/tech/dcom.asp
What is RPC (Remote Procedure Call)?
Remote Procedure Call (RPC) is a protocol that a program can use to request a service from a program located on another computer in a network. RPC helps with interoperability because the program using RPC does not have to understand the network protocols that are supporting communication. In RPC, the requesting program is the client and the service-providing program is the server.
What's wrong with Microsoft's implementation of Remote Procedure Call (RPC)?
There is a flaw in a part of RPC that deals with message exchange over TCP/IP. A failure results because of incorrect handling of malformed messages. This particular failure affects an underlying DCOM interface, which listens on TCP/IP port 135, and can be reached via ports 139 and 445. By sending a malformed RPC message, an attacker could cause the RPC service on a machine to fail in such a way that arbitrary code could be executed.
Is this a flaw in the RPC Endpoint Mapper?
No - The flaw actually occurs in a low level DCOM interface within the RPC process. The RPC endpoint mapper allows RPC clients to determine the port number currently assigned to a particular RPC service. An endpoint is a protocol port or named pipe on which the server application listens to for client remote procedure calls. Client/server applications can use either well-known or dynamic ports.
Security Bulletin MS03-010 also involved RPC yet you could not fix that vulnerability on Windows NT 4.0. How were you able to fix this vulnerability on Windows NT 4.0?
The flaw in this case lies in an underlying DCOM interface to RPC, and not the overall RPC implementation or the RPC Endpoint Mapper itself. As a result, it was possible to address this vulnerability in Windows NT 4.0 without needing to rearchitect significant portions of the Windows NT 4.0 operating system, as would have been required by a Windows NT 4.0 patch for security bulletin MS03-010.
What could this vulnerability enable an attacker to do?
An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability would be able to run code with Local System privileges on an affected system. The attacker would be able to take any action on the system, including installing programs, viewing changing or deleting data, or creating new accounts with full privileges.
How could an attacker exploit this vulnerability?
An attacker could seek to exploit this vulnerability by programming a machine that could communicate with a vulnerable server over RPC to send a specific kind of malformed RPC message. Receipt of such a message could cause the RPC service on the vulnerable machine to fail in such a way that it could execute arbitrary code.
Who could exploit the vulnerability?
Any user who could deliver a TCP request to an RPC interface to an affected computer could attempt to exploit the vulnerability. Because RPC requests are on by default in all versions of Windows, this in essence means that any user who could establish a connection with an affected computer could attempt to exploit the vulnerability.
It could also be possible to access the affected component through another vector, such as one that would involve logging onto the system interactively or by using another application similar that passed parameters to the vulnerable component either locally or remotely.
What does the patch do?
The patch corrects the vulnerability by altering the DCOM interface to properly check the information passed to it.
Are there any workarounds that can be used to block exploitation of this vulnerability while I am testing or evaluating the patch?
Yes. Although Microsoft urges all customers to apply the patch at the earliest possible opportunity, there are a number of workarounds that can be applied to help prevent the vector used to exploit this vulnerability in the interim.
It should be noted that these workarounds should be considered temporary measures as they just help block paths of attack rather than correcting the underlying vulnerability.
The following sections are intended to provide you with information to help protect your computer from attack. Each section describes the workarounds that you may want to use depending on your computer's configuration.
Each section describes the workarounds available depending on your required level of functionality.
Block RPC interface ports at your firewall.
Port 135 is used to initiate an RPC connection with a remote computer. In addition, there are other RPC interface ports that could be used by an attacker to remotely exploit this vulnerability. Blocking the following ports at the firewall will help prevent systems behind that firewall from being attacked by attempts to exploit this vulnerability:
TCP/UDP Port 135
In addition, customers may have configured services or protocols that use RPC that might also be accessible from the Internet. Systems administrators are strongly encouraged to examine RPC ports that are exposed to the Internet and to either block these ports at their firewall, or apply the patch immediately.
Internet Connection Firewall.
If you are using the Internet Connection Firewall in Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 to protect your Internet connection, it will by default block inbound RPC traffic from the Internet.
Disable DCOM on all affected machines
When a computer is part of a network, the DCOM wire protocol enables COM objects on that computer to communicate with COM objects on other computers. You can disable DCOM for a particular computer to help protect against this vulnerability, but doing so will disable all communication between objects on that computer and objects on other computers.
If you disable DCOM on a remote computer, you will not be able to remotely access that computer afterwards to reenable DCOM. To reenable DCOM, you will need physical access to that computer.
To manually enable (or disable) DCOM for a computer:
1. Run Dcomcnfg.exe.
If you are running Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 perform these additional steps:
Click on the Component Services node under Console Root.
Open the Computers sub-folder.
For the local computer, right click on My Computer and choose Properties.
For a remote computer, right click on the Computers folder and choose New then Computer. Enter the computer name. Right click on that computer name and choose Properties.
2. Choose the Default Properties tab.
3. Select (or clear) the Enable Distributed COM on this Computer check box.
4. If you will be setting more properties for the machine, click the Apply button to enable (or disable) DCOM. Otherwise, click OK to apply the changes and exit Dcomcnfg.exe.
Patch availability
Download locations for this patch
Windows NT 4.0 Server
Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition
Windows XP 32 bit Edition
Windows Server 2003 32 bit Edition
Additional information about this patch
Installation platforms:
The Windows NT 4.0 patch can be installed on systems running Service Pack 6a.
The Windows NT 4.0, Terminal Server Edition patch can be installed on systems running Windows NT 4.0, Terminal Server Edition Service Pack 6.
The Windows 2000 patch can be installed on systems running Windows 2000 Service Pack 3, or Service Pack 4.
The patch for Windows XP can be installed on systems running Windows XP Gold or Service Pack 1.
The patch for Windows Server 2003 can be installed on systems running Windows Server 2003 Gold.
Inclusion in future service packs:
The fix for this issue will be included in Windows 2000 Service Pack 5, Windows XP Service Pack 2, and Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1.
Reboot needed: Yes.
Patch can be uninstalled: Yes.
Superseded patches: None.
Verifying patch installation:
Windows NT 4.0:
To verify that the patch has been installed on the machine, confirm that all files listed in the file manifest in Knowledge Base article 823980 are present on the system.
Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition:
Windows 2000:
To verify that the patch has been installed on the machine, confirm that the following registry key has been created on the machine:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Updates\Windows 2000\SP5\KB823980.
To verify the individual files, use the date/time and version information provided in the file manifest in Knowledge Base article 823980 are present on the system.
If installed on Windows XP Gold:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Updates\Windows XP\SP1\KB823980
If installed on Windows XP Service Pack 1:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Updates\Windows XP\SP2\KB823980.
Windows Server 2003:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Updates\Window Server 2003\SP1\KB823980.
Localized versions of this patch are available at the locations discussed in "Patch Availability".
Obtaining other security patches:
Patches for other security issues are available from the following locations:
Security patches are available from the Microsoft Download Center, and can be most easily found by doing a keyword search for "security_patch".
Patches for consumer platforms are available from the WindowsUpdate web site
Microsoft thanks The Last Stage of Delirium Research Group for reporting this issue to us and working with us to protect customers.
Microsoft Knowledge Base article 823980 discusses this issue and will be available approximately 24 hours after the release of this bulletin. Knowledge Base articles can be found on the Microsoft Online Support web site.
Technical support is available from Microsoft Product Support Services. There is no charge for support calls associated with security patches.
Security Resources: The Microsoft TechNet Security Web Site provides additional information about security in Microsoft products.
The information provided in the Microsoft Knowledge Base is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Microsoft disclaims all warranties, either express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall Microsoft Corporation or its suppliers be liable for any damages whatsoever including direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, loss of business profits or special damages, even if Microsoft Corporation or its suppliers have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages so the foregoing limitation may not apply.
Revisions:
V1.0 (July 16, 2003): Bulletin Created.
V1.1 (July 18, 2003): Mitigating factors and Workaround section updated to reflect additional ports.
V1.2 (July 21, 2003): Added Windows XP gold patch verification registry key.
Syncopator 0
Pointman - 1st Class
GR.net Supporter
Location:Glasgow, Scotland. UK.
As it was restarting, I went to the kitchen and grabbed a cola and a pancake. Next thing I know, I can hear the PC shutting down!
yeah...I climbed thru your window and flicked your reset button.
just for a laugh like...
Just to see you sweat for a bit....
XavierOnasis 0
Pointman - 2nd Class
Egad. 75% of the access attempts on my computer go for UDP port 135.
ZoneAlarm rules!
Chems 0
Location:Rocky's Basement
As McNamee said I think I was one of the first. I havent dled any mods but do have MSN 6 and am 56k. I cant find the file but to stop it happening to me I enabled the firewall that comes with my dial up software. Sheesh! Im glad it wasnt only me!
Argyll@work 0
Recruit - 3rd Class
...........join the club mate!!!!!!!
I got this Bas**rd too it drove me nuts!!!!!
I took my PC to my IT boys this morning,they've been running AVG for 5 hrs and zip!!,there was nothing in my registry keys,My guess is that because it's not connected to the net,the problem is not there for me,I've also done the patch thing!!!If this happens to me when I get it home,I'm going to take a sledgehammer to it and claim the insurance,by saying I feel down the stairs with it!!!!
Damn, I have applied the MS patch and deleted the reg key. The msblast.exe was not in my windows folder.
Today, I still get msblast.exe trying to access the net through my firewall
I guess I'll need to read that huge post of phantm's afterall...
Found a removal tool here
Trying it now.
Just had a 30 second spot about this on FNC.
We are on the bleeding edge of breaking news.
This is one nasty little virus,and it doesn't seem to getting picked up by scans etc,it looks like it comes throught he firewall......regardless.
What possess clowns to do this stuff,jeeze the world already ###### up,never mind monging your PC!!!!
Edited August 12, 2003 by Pave Low
RooK 0
Location:Kentucky
Rocky, it should be under Windows/system32 (on WinXP system anyway). I went ahead and applied the patch and got everything up to date, but I didn't have a problem with the worm file to begin with. Wonder where it comes from.
Parabellum 11
I am not a cop
Location:Hurricane Central
Probably some fool of a college student who thinks he's being wise.
Rocky, it should be under Windows/system32 (on WinXP system anyway).
Yep, I see it now, but I can't delete it because windows says it is in use. If the symantec tool doesn't remove it I have to run it again in safe mode, which will be a new experience for me
It is actually not working now since I applied the patch, my PC is not shutting down like it did before, but the msblast files are still here - hopefully this symantec remval tool will do the business - it scans the whole disk though, so it could take a while....
firefly2442 0
Yeah, I was reading about it on this security website. It said that it takes 20 seconds for it to get installed and start looking to copy itself. Phew. That's quick. 57,000 have it or so. They think it could go much higher since there are a LOT of windows computers out there.
Rocky, can you kill it under the Processes tab and then delete it?
Crimson 0
Ghost - 2nd Class
Step 1: Ctrl + Alt + Delete; Go under processes and shut down "msblast.exe"
Step 2: Navigate to /Windows/system 32; scroll down untill you have found msblast and delete it; proceed to your trash can and delete it from there
Step 3: Delete the registry by going into regedit; navigate to:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE | SOFTWARE | Mircrosoft | Windows | CurrentVersion
Click on Run. Delete msblast.
Step 4: Apply the patch found here.
Reboot.
This is how I removed it Rocky, hopefully it works for you too.
Pave Low 14
Location:Cambridge, UK
Some Tech info on what the worm does:
Also Known As: W32/Lovsan.worm [McAfee], Win32.Poza [CA], Lovsan [F-Secure], WORM_MSBLAST.A [Trend], W32/Blaster-A [sophos], W32/Blaster [Panda]
When W32.Blaster.Worm is executed, it does the following:
Creates a Mutex named "BILLY." If the mutex exists, the worm will exit.
Adds the value:
"windows auto update"="msblast.exe"
to the registry key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run
so that the worm runs when you start Windows.
Calculates a random IP address, A.B.C.0, where A, B, and C are random values between 0 and 255.
NOTE: 40% of the time, if C > 20, a random value less than 20 will be subtracted from C.
Once the IP address is calculated, the worm will attempt to find and exploit a computer on the local subnet, based on A.B.C.0. The worm will then count up from 0, attempting to find and exploit other computers, based on the new IP.
Sends data on TCP port 135 that may exploit the DCOM RPC vulnerability.
This means the local subnet will become saturated with port 135 requests.
Due to the random nature of how the worm constructs the exploit data, this may cause computers to crash if it sends incorrect data.
While W32.Blaster.Worm cannot spread to Windows NT or Windows 2003 Server, unpatched computers running these operating systems may crash as the result of attempts by the worm to exploit them. However, if the worm is manually placed and executed on a computer that is running these operating systems, it can run and spread.
Creates a hidden Cmd.exe remote shell that will listen on TCP port 4444, allowing an attacker to issue remote commands on the infected system.
Listens on UDP port 69. When the worm receives a request from a computer it was able to connect to using the DCOM RPC exploit, it will send that computer Msblast.exe and tell it to execute the worm.
If the current month is after August, or if the current date is after the 15th, the worm will perform a DoS on Windows Update. The worm will activate the DoS attack on the 16th of this month, and continue until the end of the year.
The worm contains the following text, which is never displayed:
I just want to say LOVE YOU SAN!!
billy gates why do you make this possible ? Stop making money and fix your software!!
Fortunately(for me), my Router, Firewall and AV have spared my system from this fate.
At least the creator has a sense of humor.
Thanks for the help guys, I believe it is gone but
Now I have a new problem... for a new post...
Yeah well....I have something Id like to give the creator....
Jack57 0
Location:Horsham, Victoria, Australia. akcowell@internode.on.net
Stand in the queue please
Rocky I was terrified I may have sent you the damn thing with the PfP update. Hope not! I only discovered it yesterday. No one yet seems to know the carrier?
It seems that they are sending it out to ISp's, and it is coming in from the ISP servers.
The reason it is killing machines is that it needs to get out again of the port it came in on, and if the port is blocked, or it cant get to a server, it shuts down the PC.
Ill find the link again and post it. Im trying to simplify the explanation a bit, and I might be missing the boat trying to break it down.
Here is an info link about it.
NYR_32 6
Location:NYC, USA
I know my ISP got screwed up...... lost half my bandwith in the last two days.... ... luckily I wasn't hit... good ole zone Alarm
Edited August 13, 2003 by NYR_32
Go To Topic Listing Computer Discussions
GhostRecon.net Powered by Invision Community


New evidence the LG G4 could come with 3K display, Huawei says battery life isn't worth sacrificing for ultra high res displays
Chris Chavez	Jan 30th, 2015
We're about ready to close out the first month of the new year and already looking ahead to the next round of Android devices lined up to launch later this year. While the Samsung Galaxy S6 and HTC One M9 are first round of flagships on the horizon, the upcoming LG G4 can't be too far behind.
That being said, we're now slowly starting to uncover hints and clues as to what the South Korean manufacturer could have in store for the LG G4, with the latest bit of news coming from a UA profile on Verizon Wireless' website. According to the UA profile, a mysterious LG phone — going by the model LG VS999 — has shown up reporting a crazy 1620×2880 resolution display or what is also known as 3K. This would mean the LG G4 would trump last year's model (LG VS985) by playing the numbers games and effectively upping the resolution to a PPI so high, the human eye likely wouldn't be able to perceive any difference.
The odd part about this "leak" is that another LG device believed to be the LG G4 was recently spotted in a UA profile on AT&T's website going by the model number LG H810, but had the same 2K of its predecessor. Then again, maybe it's not that odd. LG giving one carrier exclusive hardware features isn't entirely unheard of and if there's any one of the Big 4 carriers willing to fork out extra money for a "better" flagship device, it's Verizon.
We can't help but voice concerns that with the move to 2K (and now 3K) displays, some of these manufacturers are turning a blind eye to the hit in battery life that will result from pushing all those pixels around onscreen. This sentiment was echoed officially by Huawei who chimed in on the issue. According to Huawei's president of product Kevin Ho, he's not entirely sure the trade-off in battery life is worth packing 4K into our smartphones.
"The power consumption would be so huge that your phone would last just half a day. Maybe we have to compromise. For huge screens, 4K is very good but for the smartphone, it is 5-inch or 6-inch at the very most. Maybe our eyes can't tell the difference."
As we being moving away from desktop and laptops for our computing needs, and primarily using our smartphones for business and pleasure, it's time smartphone OEMs start looking to battery life as the new benchmark at which to compete, not needlessly high resolution displays.
[MyLGPhones]
local_offer Huawei LG G4
Galaxy S21 Ultra vs P40 Pro
Huawei P50 could come in Android and HarmonyO
Huawei insists HarmonyOS is not a copy of And
In a twist, Ericsson stands up for Huawei in
11 first things every Huawei P40 Pro owner sh
more_vertGalaxy Z Fold 2 gets Android 11
closeOne UI 3.0 with Android 11 finally comes to the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 2
When you pay $2,000 for a smartphone, you expect timely updates. But that just hasn't been the case when it comes to the Galaxy Z Fold 2, as there were some bugs and other issues with One UI 3.0 for Samsung's most expensive phone.Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 2 ReviewOwners of the device have seen just …
more_vertAnker's latest headphones are impressive
closeAnker's Soundcore Liberty Air 2 Pro bring ANC and long battery life for $130
Now that CES 2021 is fully underway, it seems that we are destined to get at least one or two sets of new Bluetooth headphones every day. Anker is joining the fray with the Soundcore Liberty Air 2 Pro truly-wireless earbuds.These are an upgraded version of the ultra-popular Liberty Air 2, which are considered to …
more_vertSamsung Galaxy S21 versus S21+ & S21 Ult
closeSamsung Galaxy S21 versus S21+ & S21 Ultra: which one should you buy?
I think we can all admit that there's a lot to like about the new Galaxy S21 devices that Samsung unveiled today. The three new phones are a solid step forward in terms of performance, but Samsung has also put in a lot of work to ensure that its new devices also offer a better …
more_vertHuawei P50 could come in Android and HarmonyO
closeHuawei P50 could come in Android and HarmonyOS variants
According to a recent rumor, it seems that Huawei is expected to begin the transition to its HarmonyOS platform with the Huawei P50.
more_vertPhandroid's Best of CES 2021 awards
closePhandroid's Best of CES 2021 awards
CES 2021 will likely be remembered as the most forgettable CES in history, but that will have everything to do with the fact that no one actually showed up in Las Vegas due to the global pandemic. The trade show was completely virtual with companies unveiling their products through press releases, one-on-one Zoom meetings, and …


Vanessa Sperandio, Ph.D.
UT Southwestern Medical Center
Vanessa Sperandio, Ph.D., is the Jane and Bud Smith Distinguished Chair in Medicine, and a professor in the departments of microbiology and biochemistry at UT Southwestern Medical Center. She earned her bachelor's, masters and Ph.D. at the Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) in Brazil. She did her post-doctoral training at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.
She was a Latin-American Pew Fellow in Biomedical Sciences, an Ellison Foundation New Scholar, a Burroughs Wellcome Fund Investigator in the Pathogenesis of Infectious Diseases, and a National Academy Kavli Frontiers of Science Fellow. She is the recipient of the ASM 2015 Eli Lilly and Company-Elanco Research award, and a winner of the 2014 GSK Discovery Fast-track challenge. In 2013 she was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology. She was Division D chair of ASM, the chair of the ASM Education Awards selection committee, a member of the ASM Microbe program committee, chair of the HMB Track ASM Microbe program committee. She is currently the chair of the ASM Press. She was a member of the national advisory committee of the Pew Latin American Fellows Program, and Projeto Serrapilheira in Brazil. She is a member of the advisory committee for the Burroughs Wellcome Fund's Investigators in the Pathogenesis of Infectious Diseases. She currently serves on the editorial boards of mBio, Infection and Immunity, Journal of Bacteriology, and Gut Pathogens.
Her research investigates chemical, stress, and nutritional signaling among the mammalian host, beneficial microbiota, and bacterial pathogens. The main tenet of her research is the study of how bacterial cells sense several mammalian hormones, leading to rewiring and reprogramming of bacterial transcription toward host and niche adaptation. She has also identified several bacterial receptors to mammalian hormones and reported that pathogens hijack these interkingdom signaling systems to promote virulence expression. She also translated these basic science concepts into strategies to develop novel approaches to antimicrobial therapy.