Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

PAGE 10 —Sept. 3, 1954 — SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS North Carolina RALEIGH, N. C. J^OR several years prior to the May 17 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court outlawing school segregation, North Carolina devoted special at tention to the problem of giving Ne groes a share of the educational dol lar which would make tangible the state’s avowed intention to have “separate but equal” schools. An indication of the trend may be found in the building program. In 1940, Negro school property was val ued at $15,154,892 while white school property was valued at $103,724,982. In 1952, Negro property values had increased to $63,391,987—a percent age increase in 12 years of 318.2—and white property values reached $287,- 262,871, a gain for the same period of 176 per cent. The percentage of school property was divided 87.2 per cent for the whites and 12.8 for Negroes in 1940; in 1952, whites had 81.9 and Negroes 18.1. “It is estimated that under the trend,” said a state school report, “property values should be equal ized (the percentage of Negroes in school would be equalled by a like percentage of property value) in five to seven years.” Current expense per Negro pupil enrolled rose from $24.05 in 1940 to $135.38 in 1952, an increase of 462.9 per cent, while the same expense for whites climbed from $41.19 to $158.73, an increase of 285.4 per cent. By the time General Assembly con vened in January 1953, however, enough doubt about the future of the “separate but equal” principle ex isted to be reflected in the special act which set up machinery for a $50 million school bond referendum. Un der the act, $25 million can be spent as the governor and State Board of Education see fit to spend it. This provision, said its sponsors, stemmed directly from the uncertainties cre ated by the school suits then pend ing before the nation’s highest tri bunal, and was designed to give state officials more latitude when North Carolina had to move to meet what ever decision came down. In October, 1953, the bond issue was approved by the people. STATE SCHOOL SYSTEM North Carolina’s public school sys tem is state-supported. The para mount administrative unit is the State Board of Education, composed of three ex-officio members (the lieutenant governor, state treasurer, and state school superintendent) and 10 members from specified districts appointed by the governor for stag gered terms. In the State Board of Education is vested by law the authority to: es tablish school districts; fix the grade, salary and qualifications of teachers; adopt textbooks; pay the teachers; set up financial records and reports for the schools; approve powers for local administrative units’ actions; select sites for consolidation and adminis ter funds from the federal govern ment for vocational education. In addition, the state supplies free textbooks through the eighth grade and provides textbooks on a rental basis through high school. The state superintendent must approve pro grams of study for standard high schools, and approve plans for school buildings, through appropriate di visions which operate under his jurisdiction. There is a Division of Negro Edu cation just as there is a Division of School Planning (plus 12 other di visions) and it is administered by a white man. The Division of Negro Education gives special assistance to Negro schools, inspects and rates them, conducts supervisory activi ties, and works for the improvement of training of Negro teachers in Negro institutions of higher learning. It also lends assistance in the field of race relations. Administratively, however, Negro school affairs are in tegrated with those of the whites. LOCAL AUTHORITY North Carolina’s 100 county ad ministrative units and 72 city admin istrative units exercise “general con trol and supervision” over the schools, subject to authority placed in the State Board. Although the state assumes the financial responsi bility for the public schools, local units may, and frequently do, sup plement the salaries of teachers and float bond issues for improvements beyond that which comes from the state. The state board must approve all budget estimates of the local units. These units are empowered to ap point county or city superintendents. They manage the school budget and other fiscal matters, and see to school plant planning, maintenance and op eration. They administer transporta tion, fix the school calendar, appoint personnel on the local superintend ent’s staff, and have final approval on all school employes’ contracts. In per capita income in 1950, North Carolina ranked 43rd among the 48 states, but only four states spent a larger percentage of their incomes on schools. For that year, per capita in come was $949. Of the total income of $3,859,000,000, the state spent $151,300,000 on schools, or 3.9 per cent of its income. There were 576,117 white children in school in the state in 1951 and 239,919 Negro children who comprise 29.4 per cent of the total enrollment. Between 1940 and 1951, the per cent change for white children was 2.9 and for Negroes the percentage in crease was 4.2. Per capita expenditures for white children in 1940 amounted to $41.69, and for Negro children to $27.30. In 1951, the per capita figure for whites was $152.20 and for Negroes, $128.67. Such expenditures for Negroes in 1940 thus were 65 per cent of ex penditures for whites, and 11 years later the percentage was 85. REACTION TO DECISION On the day following the May 17 decision, Gov. William B. Umstead said he was “terribly disappointed.” That same day, the Greensboro City School Board by a 6-1 vote directed its superintendent to begin a study and report to the board “regarding ways and means for complying with the court’s decision,” upon the mo tion of Board Chairman D. E. Hudg ins. Said Hudgins, “We must not fight or attempt to circumvent this de cision.” (Subsequently the State Board of Education voted to continue school segregation for the 1953-54 school year and it was informed that Greensboro would do likewise.) Also on May 18, the Wayne County Commissioner halted a $2,300,000 school building program, pending clarification of the decision. But Ra leigh proceeded with four buildings, because, in the words of City Super intendent Jesse Sanderson, “We’ve got to have the new buildings wheth er they’re for white or Negro chil dren.” The Elizabeth City Ministerial As sociation on May 22 passed a resolu tion which said, in part, “We would remind our people of the Biblical in junction to live in subjection to the higher powers . . . we are a govern ment not of men or of preferences, but of laws . . . and what the court has ruled is now the law of the land.” Similar resolutions came from minis terial associations in Clinton (“This decision is basically right and had to come sometime ... We are of the opinion that this is a sign of the prog ress of democracy”) and Raleigh (“The decision brought into clear focus the Christian principle of the equality of all men in the sight of God.”) With the statement that “This is no time for rash statements of the pro posal of impossible schemes,” Gov. Umstead on May 28 said he would seek the advice of others before at tempting to formulate a policy. (Later it developed that the gov ernor had asked the Institute of Gov ernment in Chapel Hill to make a study of the question for him, and he presented the results to a group of advisors he subsequently appointed.) FUNDS ALLOCATED On June 4, the State Board of Edu cation met in its first session after the decision was rendered and voted to continue segregation for the 1954-55 school year, in the absence of the im plementation decree. Its members voted to continue allotments from portions of the 50 million dollar school bond issue, but only for proj ects which are permanent and usable either in a segregated or non-seg- regated school system. This vote af fected slightly less than 15 million dollars. Another 10 million dollars, under terms of the bond issue, went in equal shares of $100,000 each to all of the state’s 100 counties. The proviso of the bond issue leav ing the spending of 25 million dollars to the discretion of the governor and the state board, said they could spend it “on the basis of need.” The board voted to “freeze” the 25 million dol lars, pending word from the U.S. Su preme Court about the implementa tion of its decree. Also, the board at its June 4 meeting began omitting all references to race in its designation of school projects. Gov. Umstead, Atty. Gen. Harry McMullan, and State School Super intendent Charles F. Carroll went to Richmond, Va., on Jun e 10 for a con ference of nine southern governors on the subject of the decision. The Governor called the meeting “help ful and instructive.” Walter White, executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, spoke in Durham County on June 13. He said there is “pathetic futility” in the agreement of “certain south ern governors” not to comply vol untarily with the decision. He added: “We are saddened, but by no means alarmed, by this display of imma turity and backwardness on the part of elected officials. Their intransi gence does not mean that the schools will not be desegregated. At worse, it is a delaying tactic designed to de ceive the most benighted constitu ent whom politicians have misled into believing that segregation was a permanent way of life.” The same day—June 13—the Exec utive Council of the Episcopal Dio cese of North Carolina adopted a res olution asking Episcopalians to ac cept the decision “in a Christian spirit” and asking them to “work toward an orderly transition to an integrated public school system in the diocese of North Carolina.” Speaking at a regional conference on school law at Duke University on June 15, Dr. Newton Edwards of the University of North Carolina said, “Race segregation in the public schools is (in itself) a denial of the equal protection of the law.” He continued: “Each and every person has a right to equal treatment under the law. Moreover, the legal rights of a person are personal to him. In determining the rights of the individ ual the courts will not rest content with ascertaining the equal treatment of different classes of citizens. What ever may be the rights of others, the individual can demand protection of his own....” During the conference, a new na tional organization on school law— as yet unnamed—was formed by law yers, school administrators and oth ers “to increase knowledge on school law and its importance in public school affairs.” Lt. Gov. Luther Hodges, chairman of the State Board of Education, ap pointed a committee from the board on July 22 to “study objectively school laws and regulations with particular reference to the legal du ties and responsibilities of the State Board.” The committee, he said, will also serve as liaison with other offi cial and unofficial groups. As one member, he appointed Dr. Harold L. Trigg, president of Saint Augustine’s College in Raleigh and the only Ne gro on the State Board. COMMITTEE NAMED On August 4, Gov. Umstead ap pointed a 19-member advisory com mittee, which he described as “not so much a fact-finding and hearing holding committee as a committee to think through the various proposals and make a study of policy and pro gram.” The Governor said, however, he would not limit the scope of the group. As chairman of the committee, whose members represent a variety of professions Gov. Umstead named Thomas J. Pearsall, of Rocky Mount, 1947 Speaker of the State House of Representatives. Appointed to the committee were two Negro presidents of state-supported colleges—Dr. F. D. Bluford of A&T College, Greens boro, and Dr. J. W. Seabrook, pres ident of Fayetteville State Teachers College, Fayetteville—and a Negro home demonstration agent, Mrs. Ha zel Parker of Tarboro. Other members are: J. H. Clark of Elizabethtown, former member of the State Senate and now chairman of the North Carolina Medical Care Commission; Miss Ruth Current of Raleigh, state home demonstration agent, Dr. Gordon Gray of Chapel Hill, president of the University of North Carolina; Fred B. Helms of Charlotte, attorney, former president of the North Carolina State Bar As sociation, and now a member of the State Judicial Council; Dallas Her ring of Rose Hill, chairman of the Duplin County Board of Education; R. O. Huffman of Morganton, busi nessman; W. T. Joyner of Raleigh, prominent attorney; Mrs. Helen S. Kafer of New Bern, administrator of the Kafer Memorial Hospital, former president of the New Bern Parent- Teacher Council and now a member of the New Bern City School Board; Holt McPherson of High Point, ed itor of the High Point Enterprise; James C. Manning of Williamston, superintendent of schools in Martin County; Dr. Clarence Poe of Raleigh, chairman of the board of editors of The Progressive Farmer; I. E. Ready of Roanoke Rapids, superintendent of Roanoke Rapids city schools; Dr. Paul Reid of Collowhee, president of Western Carolina College, and for merly controller of the State Board of Education; Judge L. R. Varser of Lumberton, formerly an associate justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, and now chairman of the State Board of Law Examiners; Arthur D. Williams of Wilson, chair man of the Wilson County Board of County Commissioners. The committee held its first meet ing Aug. 11, meeting in closed session. Gov. Umstead later said he told the committee that “The problem as I see it is to establish a policy and a pro gram which will preserve the State public school system by having the support of the people. That covers the broad objective.” When the com mittee recessed, Chairman Pearsall said, “The problem has to be met so the public school system can be pre served. . . . The committee ap proached its problem with an open mind in the hope and belief ... it can be preserved and strengthened. . . . We’re trying to reach such a so lution.” INSTITUTE REPORT Each member of the committee got a copy of the Institute of Govern ment report drafted at Gov. Um- stead’s request. The report is di vided into three sections: a discus sion of the background on the court’s decision, the text of the decision, and a discussion of the legal aspects of the decision and the alternatives open to the state. Institute Director Albert Coates outlined at least three courses open to the state. They were: 1. It (the state) can take the course that the Supreme Court has made its decision —let it enforce it; and meet the court's efforts to enforce it with attitudes rang ing from passive resistance to open de fiance. 2. It can take the course that the Su preme Court has laid down the law, swal low it without question, and proceed in the direction of mixed schools without delay and in unthinking acquiescence. 3. It can take the course of playing for time in which to study plans of action, making haste slowly enough to avoid the provocative litigation and strife which might be a consequence of precipitate and unthinking acquiescence, and yet make haste fast enough to come within the law and keep the schools and keep the peace. Atty. Gen. McMullan has indicated he is wary of accepting the Supreme Court’s invitation to file briefs in Oc tober on proposed steps to implement the court order, since North Car olina is not directly involved in any of the cases already decided. He said, however, that he will confer with lawyer-members of the governor’s committee before making a decision about participating. In connection with this, the Insti tute’s report said, "... assuming North Carolina does have a vital in terest in securing an indefinite, or a long fixed period for slow, orderly adjustment to the court’s decision, there is a strong possibility that the court will listen and that the state can win the day on this issue if it resolves to make the effort by making the ap propriate arguments.” The report added that its contents cast doubt on such proposals as set ting up a system of “private” schools. “That does not of course prevent their adoption as calculated risks or as devices for delay and postpone ment of desegregation,” said the re port. “But perhaps even their value in that respect must be weighed against the possibility of subjecting the operation of schools in North Caro lina to litigious harrassment, damage suits and possibly considerable court supervision. And surely these alter natives must be weighed against a system of orderly, slow adjustment which must entail a minimum of court interference, and a minimum of sudden change—especially in those areas where change is particularly difficult. There may be reasons that North Carolina should avoid an appearance before the court in October, the re port said, but the second decision “may prove almost as important as the first . . . and it is at least ques tionable that North Carolina’s inter ests would be adequately represented by other parties to the litigation. There is no guarantee that others will conceive or satisfactorily demon strate the case for a pattern of ad justment which will best fit the needs of this state.” The report touched on “tuition grant” proposals by which the state would advance a sum of money to the families of school-age children to be used for tuition in private schools. As an example of possible flaws, the report asked whether public funds could be spent to finance an individ ual’s education in a private institu tion operating free of state control. There is “no square precedent or rule of law to settle the private school issue,” said the report about plans to turn public schools into private schools. But, the report added, a combination of factors might lead to a court decision forbidding the free private school to deny admission to qualified Negroes. OTHER SESSIONS Chairman Pearsall said that be cause of the size of the task, the ad visory committee will continue to hold sessions until the General As sembly convenes next January. He said the group hopes to have recom mendations for Gov. Umstead ready in January, when proposed state pro cedures on the question will be given to legislators. Superintendents of city and county schools in North Carolina on Aug. 13 heard a discussion of the court de cision by Dr. John T. Fey, dean of the George Washington University Law School. “The recent Supreme Court decision on the question of segrega tion was not the end of segregation in public schools but a reopening of all segregation’s many problems,” Dr. Fey said. He called the decision “unique” because he said it was based “on the social and psychological effects on the Negro.” Dr. Fey said that all proposals to circumvent the decision are liable to be declared unconstitutional. Two such proposals he listed as gerryman dering of school districts and a “tri school” system in which there would be segregated and non-segregated schools. Cutting the list of teachers under desegregation—when fewer teachers might be needed—may prove a problem, he said, because of teacher contracts which contain a “right of tenure” clause. Dr. Fey told the superintendents, meeting in Mars Hill, not to expect miracles in meeting desegregation. He added, “State control of public education is the keystone to the pres ervation of states’ rights. To sur render this control by inaction would be to impair the existing balance be tween federal and state power.” While the white superintendents were meeting in Mars Hill, 120 Negro principals and supervisors were meeting in Durham. By a unanimous vote, they adopted this resolution: “We pledge ourselves to wholeheart ed support of the decision and stand ready to work cooperatively and faithfully for its implementation.” Meanwhile, Kelly Alexander of Charlotte, head of the state NAACP, said that petitions asking immediate action on desegregation have been made ready for circulation by local NAACP units. He said the petitions represent his organization’s move to work out a desegregation program. In Raleigh, Greensboro and Rocky Mount, interracial “citizens’ commit tees” have been formed and are meet ing regularly. Their stated purpose is to work in the field of human re lations and “to study and plan ways” in which the decision can be met.