Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

PAGE 12 —Sept. 3, 1954 — SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS South Carolina COLUMBIA, S. C. COUTH CAROLINA has tradition ally maintained separate schools for white and Negro children at all educational levels. The State Constitution of 1895, adopted after the Reconstruction period and still in effect, provides that “separate schools shall be pro vided for children of the white and colored races, and no child of either race shall ever be permitted to attend a school provided for children of the other race.” In June of 1950, before the litiga tion known as “the Clarendon county case” had crystallized into the form in which it was carried to the U. S. Supreme Court, the S. C. House of Representatives took the first overt act aimed at bringing about equali zation of school facilities as between white and Negro children. A six-man committee was authorized “to study and prepare an appropriate sales tax measure providing for the education al needs of the State of South Caro lina.” The resolution establishing the committee included this reference: “The mandate of the Federal Courts in regard to existing school problems in South Carolina requires the institution of a program for permanent improvements in our schools...” The committee recommended to the 1951 General Assembly that the state assume the burden of school construction and school bus trans portation, heretofore provided at the county or district level, and that the costly new program be supported by a three per cent general sales tax. BUILDING PROGRAM Gov. James F. Byrnes gave strong endorsement to the proposal and it was adopted by the legislature, going into effect July 1, 1951. Since that time, more than 100 million dollars has been allocated to the various school districts of the state for con struction of new buildings or the re pair, renovation, or expansion of ex isting buildings. Allocations for Ne gro schools total more than 65 per cent of the aggregate ($65,345,494). In April of 1951, the General Assembly authorized by concurrent resolution the appointment of a 15- member committee “to study and re port on the advisable course to be pursued by the State in respect to its educational facilities in the event that the federal courts nullify the provi sions of the State Constitution re quiring the establishment of separate schools for children of the white and colored races.” The committee later was organized with five members of the State Sen ate, five from the House, and five ap pointed by Gov. Byrnes. It assumed a “stand-by” role and did little or nothing until the Suoreme Court handed down its May 17, 1954 deci sion. Meanwhile, the committee’s life had been extended indefinitely by legislative action of February, 1952. In November of 1952, the voters of South Carolina approved, by a vote of 187,345 to 91,823, the repeal of a constitutional section requiring the General Assembly to provide for “a liberal system of free public schools for all children between the ages of six and 21 years.” The repeal had been urged by Gov. Byrnes in his Jan. 8, 1952 message to the legisla ture. The General Assembly readily agreed to submit the Question to the voters (as required of all constitu tional amendments). Proponents of the amendment, in cluding the governor, contended that it was needed as a “preparedness measure” in the event the U. S. Su preme Court should hold school seg regation unconstitutional. In such event, they argued, the legislature should be free to cope with the re sultant problems without being re stricted by constitutional inhibitions. FINALLY RATIFIED In the absence of any Supreme Court decision, the amendment was left hanging throughout the 1953 leg islative session. Not until March of 1954, during the closing weeks of the final legislative session at which the amendment could be ratified, was it given final legislative endorsement. Its ratification struck from the State Constitution the requirement that the General Assembly provide a school system, but it did not in itself affect the current operation of the existing public school establishment of South Carolina. The trustees of local districts (in some instances an entire county com prises one district) are virtually au tonomous regarding school affairs on the local level, subject to the super vision and orders of the county board of education. Local trustees are charged, among other duties, with providing schoolhouses, employing teachers, suspending or dismissing pupils, controlling school property, and exercising general control over the educational interests of the dis trict. Appeals are from the local board to the county board and thence to the State Board of Education for final decision, unless the matter be taken to the courts. The state-paid salary schedule is fixed by the legislature and the funds are distributed through the office of the State Superintendent of Educa tion. A teacher certification program adopted in 1945 placed white and Ne gro teachers on an equal footing with regard to state aid; their pay being determined by a formula embracing professional training, teaching ex perience, and the score attained on standardized examinations. With the initiation of the sales tax program of school equalization, con solidation and improvement, a new agency was created—the State Edu cational Finance Commission. It su pervises the allocation of construc tion funds, in conformity with certain standards of size and location, and has charge of the school bus trans portation system. SCHOOL STATISTICS In 1950, when the state’s per capita income was $844, South Carolina spent 59 million dollars on schools, or 3.3 per cent of the state’s income. In 1952, the state’s public schools had a white enrollment of 244,889 pu pils and a Negro enrollment of 182,437 (42.7 per cent of the total). The white increase since 1940 was 9.9 per cent; the Negro increase 12.5 per cent. Ne gro students outnumber white in 24 of South Carolina’s 46 counties. In 1952, the per pupil expenditure for white students was $159.34; for Negro students, $95.65. Education de partment officials report that the ex penditures include salaries of instruc tors and administrators, some of whom have duties or responsibilities in conjunction with Negro schools but whose salaries are embraced in the per pupil computation for white students since the individuals them selves are white. The generally high er rating of white teachers on teacher certification tests likewise is a factor contributing to the higher per pupil expenditure for white students. REACTION TO RULING The May 17, 1954, announcement that the U. S. Supreme Court had de clared public school segregation to be unconstitutional drew these imme diate reactions in South Carolina: Gov. James F. Byrnes said he was “shocked” by the decision, but added, “I earnestly urge all of our people, white and colored, to exercise re straint and preserve order.” Lt. Gov. George Timmerman Jr., in the closing weeks of a successful campaign for the Democratic nomi nation for governor, called for “calm courage, determination and fairness to the end that we can find means of preserving separate schools in ac cordance with the wishes of the vast majority of the parents of this state.” James M. Hinton, Negro insurance executive and state president of the National Association for the Ad vancement of Colored People, said: “Negroes, though happy, are most mindful of the seriousness of the de cision and will welcome the appoint ment of a committee composed of leaders of both races to sit down and work out plans for the best interests of all of the citizens of South Caro lina.” Reaction among political candidates then seeking Democratic nomination to state and county offices was uni versally critical of the decision, al though such criticism was in general devoid of inflammatory remarks or talks of violence. Lt. Gov. Timmerman called for public study of a plan recommended by him whereby the state would maintain schools in conformity with the wishes of school patrons in given localities as expressed by petition. His plan envisions a “free choice” system of separate schools and embraces the possibility of mixed schools for chil dren of parents who wish them to at tend integrated schools. OTHER DEVELOPMENTS On the official scene, these devel opments followed announcement of the Supreme Court decision: 1. The membership of the 15-man “Segregation Study Committee” was revised in the light of current legis lative affiliations, since several initial members were no longer legislators. The committee, headed by State Sen. L. Marion Gressette, chairman of Senate Committees on Education and Judiciary, began holding a series of closed hearings. During a recess from such hearings, a sub-committee vis ited Louisiana and Mississippi to ob serve what was being done in those states to preserve separate schools. The committee has conferred with Gov. Byrnes, with state educational officials, selected state legislators, and spokesmen from organizations such as the South Carolina Education As sociation; the Palmetto (Negro) Edu cation Association; Parent-Teacher Associations (white and Negro); the South Carolina Association of School Administrators; the South Carolina School Boards Association; the Asso ciation of County Superintendents of Education; the State Farm Bureau Federation; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peo ple; and a new organization known as the National Association for the Advancement of White PeoDle. now seeking members in several South Carolina counties. On July 28, the committee issued an interim report in which it called attention to the absence of any spe cific Supreme Court decree concern ing segregation. The report recom mended: a. That there be no extraordinary session of the legislature. b. That the public schools be op erated during the coming school year "in keeping with previously estab lished policy.” Meanwhile, the committee will continue studying the state code and constitution to determine what changes therein are desirable now or in the future, and will continue com piling and evaluating the suggestions made bv individuals, agencies and organizations which have testified be fore the committee. The gist of such testimony is being kept confidential, both by the committee and by the persons who appeared before it. REPORT EXCERPTS The following is extracted from the committee’s interim report: “Your committee construes its as signment as being the formulation and recommendation of courses of action whereby the State of South Carolina may continue its unsur passed program of public education without unfortunate disruption by outside forces and influences which have no knowledge of recent progress and no understanding of the prob lems of the present and future; courses of action whereby the State of South Carolina may offer to all children, regardless of race, color, creed or circumstances, equal educa tional opportunities in an atmos phere free of social conflicts and tensions which would tend to impede and inhibit the learning process. “Your committee is fully aware of the close inter-relationship between public education and economic, so cial and spiritual progress and of the fact that public education is a re sponsibility assumed by the State (and not imposed upon it) for the furtherance of these ends. It is cog nizant of the fact that, in any disrup tion of the system of free public schools, the Negro citizen, who has historically contributed the least to it, has the most to lose and may incur such a loss quite innocently. “In the pursuit of these ends, your committee has moved with caution and with a minimum of publicity to avoid hasty action and public misun derstanding, which could cause in flammation and friction . . . “Your committee recognizes the state’s needs and the public demand for an adequate system of public edu cation; and it also recognizes the need for a system in keeping with public opinion and established traditions and living patterns. 2. In the field of executive action, Gov. Byrnes’ first action following the Supreme Court decision was to halt the allocation of school funds for con struction purposes pending further study of possible implications of the Court’s decision. That action, an nounced by the governor on May 20, was sustained by the Educational Fi nance Commission at its June 11 meeting. At the same time, local school authorities were instructed to review pending applications for con struction funds in the light of the court decision with particular refer ence to features of location. On July 16, after the allocations had been re-appraised in most instances, Gov. Byrnes announced that the Edu cational Finance Commission (of which he is chairman) had authorized the resumption of construction work. In other executive actions, Gov. Byrnes had taken these steps: a. Told school officials, on June 1, that the schools should be operated during the 1954-55 school year on the same basis as in the past. b. Ruled out the calling of a special legislative session to consider school problems. This decision was an nounced June 14 following a confer ence with legislative leaders of both houses. 3. South Carolina’s Attorney Gen eral T. C. Callison has taken the posi tion that the State, as such, should not take part in further hearines be fore the Supreme Court. He bases his position on these three contentions: a. “That the state should not par ticipate in further argument in such a manner as to indicate that we are acquiescing in or aiding the court in Washington in drafting any decree or directive. b. “That we should insist that the Supreme Court should not undertake to direct further action even by the school district involved. (The attor ney general considers the Clarendon county case “purely a local matter so far as the parties to the suit are concerned.”) c. “That the state, as such, should avoid any action which would tend to show that we consider the state a party to this suit.” OTHER EVENTS Some additional developments: Mav—Lewis L. Butler, principal of the Ehrhardt Negro school, in a let ter to the Bamberg Herald: “In Ehr hardt, I am operating a barber shop for white trade. Through this channel I know my customers’ desires and de terminations. I am also closely identi fied with my race as a teacher, and know with a few exceptions they are satisfied with the educational admin istration. For the Negro children and Negro teachers in the South to be thrust into a most peculiar situation which will be beset with many per plexing problems and grave conse quences. I am of the opinion that the Negro children’s educational oppor tunities will suffer for the next 50 years . . May—Letter to Gov. Byrnes from Mrs. James M. Dabbs, president of the United Church Women in South Carolina: “In view of the Supreme Court’s decision banning segregation ... I wish you and the public might know the attitude of United Church Women. Both on a national level and statewise, we have always maintained that enforced segregation had no place in any Christian activity and constituted a very real threat to our Democracy .. May 25—A petition signed by some 30 parents of pupils attending Negro schools in North Augusta (S. C.) urged continuation of racial segrega tion in the schools. A spokesman for the group, Leon Pendarvis, said “there is a very, very good feeling as of now between the races which the Negro parents do not want de stroyed.” May 24—State NAACP President James M. Hinton said the Negroes would press for early elimination of segregation by petitioning for such action on the local level. He said nine such petitions are now pending about the state. May 25—The board of trustees of Morris College for Negroes (a Bap tist institution at Sumter) ordered that all qualified students be accept ed for enrollment without regard to race, color or creed. June 2—NAACP State President Hinton said no action is planned to gain admittance of Negroes to Clar endon county schools until the Su preme Court issues its decree in the case. June 11—Gov. James F. Byrnes, while attending the National Gover nors’ Conference at Lake George, N. Y., suggested the possibility of having South Carolina’s 15-man seg- gregation study committee visit Northern cities to observe how schools are operated there on a basis of “voluntary segregation.” June 16—The Clarendon County Civic League (a Negro organization) attacked County Superintendent of Education L. B. McCord for his statement that “the colored people of my county appear to be perfectly sat isfied with separate but equal schools which they now have . . .” The Civic League denied that statement and said there was no basis for such a declaration. “We consider segrega tion unchristian, undemocratic, un scientific and asinine,” the League said in its prepared statement. PETITION CIRCULATED June—Two attorneys of Laurens (S. C.), T. David Sloan and A. Arthur Rosenblum, began circulating a peti tion asking the federal government for a redress of grievances growing out of the Supreme Court’s decision. The petition states: “Whereas, we the undersigned citi zens of these United States of Ameri ca, pursuant to the inherent right guaranteed under Article One of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to petition the gov ernment for a redress of grievances believe that we have been aggrieved by the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in its ruling on segregation in the following particu lars, to wit: “That in reliance upon the long es tablished doctrine of the Supreme Court to the effect that a separation of races in public schools was consti tutional as long as these facilities were equal, we, as citizens of these United States of America, at the cost of millions of locally raised dollars and untold sacrifices, did and are con tinuing to provide these eaual but separate public schools. Therefore, we feel that a change in the separate but equal doctrine will have a dis astrous effect upon the public school system and the general welfare which can be ill afforded by the people. “Wherefore, it is our humble peti tion that these grievances be consid ered and redressed by the govern ment.” June 27—The Loris chapter of the South Carolina Farm Bureau Feder ation voted unanimously (approxi mately 80 members present) to sup port the General Assembly “in any thing they see fit to do” to prevent integration in the schools. July 6—Rep. Robert E. McNair, of Allendale county, promises to bring up the state’s compulsory school at tendance law for review and revision so as to eliminate the possibility of legally compelled attendance at mixed schools. July 14-—The Parent-Teacher As sociation of the High School of Charleston (white) disclosed that it advocated continuation of segrega tion and of the public schools. The next day, the Charleston Central Council of PTA said the announce ment was premature since the coun cil had not acted on the matter as a council. The S. C. Congress of Parents and Teachers is calling for statements from individual units but so far has made no public announcement of such statements. July 23—The York County Farm Bureau endorses continuation of public school segregation. Aug. 2—Dr. L. P. Hollis, of Green ville, a retired school administrator and a member of the State Education al Finance Commission, said he did not believe the state would abolish its public school system because of the Supreme Court decision. He said that each community must work out its own problem, regardless of what is done in Washington or in Colum bia, South Carolina’s capital.