JACKSON &045;&045; After 14 years of operating under the scrutiny of a court order, the Natchez-Adams School District achieved unitary status in U.S. District Court Friday, meaning the district is integrated.

This &uot;demonstrates we made a genuine effort to do as we were ordered by the court,&uot; said Anthony Morris, Natchez-Adams Schools superintendent.

At a fairness hearing in Jackson Friday, U.S. District Judge William H. Barbour Jr. heard evidence and testimony on the district’s motion for dismissal of its desegregation case.

After ruling in July 1989 the district was segregated &045;&045; a ruling that changed the face of the district &045;&045; Barbour on Friday ruled the district has achieved unitary status.

The judge said he issued a ruling the same day he heard evidence because he felt his decision was of &uot;public interest.&uot;

While under the order, the district had to file annual statistical reports about the racial makeup of the schools. For any decisions the district wanted to make in regard to the facilities, such as adding new schools, the district had to first consult the court.

Morris said he had expected Barbour’s ruling to be in favor of the school district.

&uot;I’m glad it’s over,&uot; Morris said. &uot;It’s what we hoped for.&uot;

In October, people in the class of the lawsuit &045;&045; any black student or parent or guardian of a black student in the district &045;&045; were notified through postings in newspapers and on school campuses that the district had filed a motion to get out from under its court order. The district filed the motion Nov. 20, 2002, and was later joined by the U.S. Department of Justice in December of that year.

Those in the class were given the opportunity to respond to the court about the motion. Only those who made written comments would be allowed to speak at the hearing.

Three comments came to Barbour. all from previous plaintiff-intervenors in the case &045;&045; George and Deborah Harden, Lonnie and Carolyn Nichols and Kareem West, then a minor child who was represented in 1989 by his parents, State Rep. Phillip West, D-Natchez and Carolyn West.

Kareem and Phillip West were the only plaintiffs who attended the hearing Friday. Both spoke to the court, with neither objecting to the motion.

&uot;I have no just cause for opposing, myself being a former student of the Natchez-Adams School District,&uot; Kareem West said.

Kareem was 17 when the case was brought against the school district. At the time he testified in Barbour’s court.

Both Phillip and Kareem thanked the court for the previous ruling.

&uot;We have gone a long way toward all the things we would like to see in the Natchez-Adams School District,&uot; Phillip West said.

Comments from the Hardens and Nichols were opinions about why there has been an increase in the black to white student ratio in the district and what the district could do to alleviate overcrowding, according to the court’s judgment.

Barbour ruled these comments were immaterial to the district’s desire to achieve unitary status.

Morris did attest to the fact that there has been an increase in black students versus white students during the past few years but that no schools are racially identifiable, as they were deemed in 1989. He also testified that the district promotes and hires irregardless of race; that transportation is provided without regard to race; that the buildings are maintained without regard to race; and that black students are allowed and do participate in extra-curricular activities.

Norris Edney, president of the Natchez-Adams School Board, testified the school board voted unanimously to file the motion with no controversy.

Edney also said the board has no intention to change the attendance zones as they are presently set &045;&045; north and south, with north students attending Frazier Primary and Morgantown Elementary and south students attending West Primary and McLaurin Elementary.

After Barbour made his ruling, Morris said the school district has no &uot;immediate&uot; plans for what to do with the schools.

&uot;It’s a mistake to think we did this because we have some plans,&uot; school board attorney Bruce Kuehnle said. &uot;We did it simply because the order had achieved its purpose.&uot;