Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 6 —Sept. 3, 1954 — SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Maryland
BALTIMORE, Md.
lyjARYLAND had no plans for a
A racially integrated school system
prior to the Supreme Court decision
on school segregation. For a number
of years there have been mixed meet
ings of county supervisors and staff
members and, gradually, of State
staff members. Increasingly, also,
various counties have held mixed
teachers meetings in the fall, but the
practice has not been statewide.
Negro and white school adminis
trators and teachers have also worked
together on educational programs
and study projects. And in 1954 the
Maryland State Teachers Association
accepted Negroes, eliminating the
need for a separate Negro teachers
organization. But the segregation of
students in schools and in school
buses has been firmly maintained.
In Baltimore City, where the school
system functions independent of
State control in many policy areas,
white and Negro teachers have served
together on workshop projects, com
mittees and staff conferences for
many years. The Public School
Teachers Association, the city equiva
lent of the State Teachers Associa
tion is an interracial group, as is the
Teachers Union and the Principals
Association. The Coordinating Coun
cil of Parent-Teacher Organizations
has had a mixed membership since
its founding in 1947. The complete
merging of the white and colored
school administrative staffs was un
derway prior to the Supreme Court
decision.
In 1952 the Board of School Com
missioners was confronted with the
application of more than a dozen
qualified Negro boys to be admitted to
a special accelerated pre-college en
gineering course at Baltimore Poly
technic Institute, a white all-male
high school. This course has acquired
so high a reputation over the years
that Poly “A” students are accepted
upon graduation as second-year men
at a large number of the nation’s best
engineering schools.
The School Board held a hearing on
the question of whether or not it
would be possible to establish a sec
ond “A” course for Negroes which
would conform to Supreme Court
standards of “separate but equal.” On
the basis of the arguments presented,
the School Board decided that a sep
arate course would not be truly
equal, particularly in terms of pres
tige value, to the Poly course, and the
Negroes were thereupon admitted to
the formerly all-white course.
DIVISION OF AUTHORITY
While the city schools are, in most
practical respects, a system unto
themselves, the public schools in
Maryland’s 23 counties have been
part of a centralized State system
since 1870. The Governor-appointed
State Board of Education formulates
statewide educational policies, adopts
the by-laws and administrative regu
lations necessary to govern the school
system, distributes the funds made
available to local school systems by
the Federal and State governments,
issues teachers certificates for both
public and private schools and sets
the minimum standards for curricula,
salaries and school business account
ing.
As the relationship between the
State Board of Education and the
county boards is explained by Dr.
David W. Zimmerman, acting State
Superintendent during Dr. Thomas
G. Pullen’s summer stay in Europe,
the State board is a “policy-making
agency” and a “consultive service.”
“Generally speaking,” he says, “the
State board is not a policing agency.”
The local school systems are auto
nomous to the extent that they select
their own books, use the report cards
of their choice, set up their own cur
ricula (consistent with the state
board’s minimum requirements) and
can pay teachers more than the mini
mum state salary scale.
Maryland as a whole, with a per
capita income in 1950 of $1,557, spent
$93,200,000 on schools, or 2.7 per cent
of its total income.
Maryland’s total public school
population in 1952 was 386,724, one-
third of which was in Baltimore City.
An additional 77,516 children in the
State were white pupils and 81,074
were Negroes, making the Negro
school population 29.6 per cent of the
whole.
Between 1950 and 1952 the white
school population rose from 269,070
to 305,650, an increase of 13.6 per cent,
while the Negro school population
went from 74,853 to 81,074, a rise of
8.3 per cent. In the decade 1943-1952,
the white school population increased
27.8 per cent, from 239,090 to 305,650,
and Negro pupils increased 32.9 per
cent, from 60,977 to 81,074.
POPULATION VARIATIONS
The percentage of Negro school
children varies considerable in Mary
land counties. Garrett county, in
western Maryland, has no Negro chil
dren in school, and in nearby Alleg
any comity there are only 284 Negro
pupils out of a total county enrollment
of 15,837 school children. In Calvert
county, on the other hand, down in
southern Maryland, the school popu
lation is almost equally divided: 1,594
white pupils, 1,578 Negro pupils. In
Baltimore City, according to the latest
figures, the Negro school population is
36.8 per cent of the total enrollment.
The expenditure per public school
pupil in 1952 for the state as a whole
was $201.31 in white schools and
$185.51 in Negro schools. Again, the
figures vary greatly from county to
county. In six counties the costs per
Negro for example, were $255.14 per
Negro and $235.92 per white child,
and Washington county $225.75 to
$199.15.
At the other end of the scale,
Somerset county spent $140.16 per
Negro pupil and $203.61 per white pu
pil and Calvert county $140.68 per
Negro and $212.10 per white pupil. In
Baltimore City the costs in 1952 were
$224.75 for white students and $191.70
for Negroes.
McKELDIN’S STATEMENT
The immediate reaction in Mary
land to the Supreme Court’s school
segregation decsiion was one of gen
eral acceptance and of willingness to
comply with whatever decrees were
handed down to bring about racial
integration. Maryland’s Republican
governor, Theodore R. McKeldin, is
sued a statement on the decision
which said, in part:
Maryland prides itself upon being a
law-abiding state, and I am sure our cit
izens and our officials will accept readily
the United States Supreme Court’s Inter
pretation of our fundamental law. . . .
I shall confer with Dr. Pullen (Dr.
Thomas G. Pullen, Jr.) state superin
tendent of schools, and other officials in
volved in the question, and I am confident
the transition can be brought about in
Maryland without confusion and without
undue delay.
Dr. Pullen, head of the state agency
which sets policy for the county
school system, borrowed a phrase
from the Bible when he said that it
was Maryland’s obligation to work
out the problem “seemingly and in
order.”
“I see,” Dr. Pullen said, “no imme
diate drastic changes in our present
plans of operation. Particular cases
will be handled as they arise locally,
and the rights of no individual will be
impaired by arbitrary and capricious
devices.”
Dr. John H. Fischer, superintendent
of public instruction in Baltimore city
schools, which are operated outside
state jurisdiction in most respects,
said that he could not see that the
Supreme Court’s decision “presents
any special problems.” We don’t ex
pect, he said, “any trouble at all as
far as the children are concerned.”
Atty. Gen. Edward D. E. Rollins
indicated that Maryland would accept
promptly the Supreme Court’s in
vitation to discuss the decrees and
said that “nothing can be accomp
lished until next year following the
court’s final ruling.” He expressed the
certainty that Maryland would “com
ply with the directives without equiv
ocation.”
When Mr. Rollins received, on May
20, a telegram from Atty. Gen. Eugene
Cook of Georgia, asking him to attend
a segregation conference in Atlanta
shortly after the Supreme Court de
cision, Mr. Rollins declined. “I wasn’t
particularly pleased with the an
nounced purposes of the meeting,”
Mr. Rollins said. “It seems to me they
are trying to circumvent, rather than
implement, the will of the Supreme
Court. I am not interested.”
Wendeall D. Allen, president of the
State Board of Education, and Dr.
Pullen, the state superintendent, at
tended the meeting called by Gov.
Stanley of Virginia. Mr. Allen told the
Richmond conference that Maryland
would not be a part of any concerted
effort to defeat the Supreme Court.
NEWSPAPER COMMENT
The Sun, of Baltimore, the most in
fluential newspaper in Maryland, said
in an editorial entitled “Challenge to
Patriots” that the “court is entirely
right in its statement that segregation,
however ‘equal’ the physical facili
ties, does put the brand of inferiority
upon Negro pupils in the schools.”
And end to school segregation was,
therefore, inevitable, according to The
Sun, and “all the state and communi
ties in which segregation is the estab
lished pattern of life now have the
opportunity to adjust themselves
peaceably to the new demands made
upon them. It is a challenge they no
longer can refuse to accept.”
Many of the county newspapers did
not comment on the decision. Those
that did have editorials on the subject
followed the general line that Mary
land must face with calmness and
courage the problems arising from
the court’s action. No calls for resist
ance were sounded.
STATE BOARD MEETS
On May 26 the seven-member State
Board of Education held its first meet
ing following the Supreme Court’s
decision. The board members were
advised by Atty. Gen. Rollins that the
Supreme Court had thus far issued
only an “opinion” and that the state’s
segregation laws would remain in
force until final decrees were issued.
He indicated that it would be unlaw
ful for any community to end its
school segregation before the issuance
of the decrees and said that any
Negro applicants to white teachers
colleges should be turned away until
after the decrees were handed down.
After a discussion indicating that
board members were anxious not to
appear to be foot-dragging on the
matter of integration, the board
adopted a statement which said in its
most pertinent parts:
The laws of Maryland specifically pro
vide for segregation In the public schools
and in the teachers colleges. In view of
this law requiring segregation, no pro
gram of integration can be put into ef
fect until the decision of the Supreme
Court becomes final and an effective date
is set by the Supreme Court.
The detailed problems in respect to im
plementing the decision of the Supreme
Court will rest primarily upon the local
boards of education. The problems in
volved in any program of integration will
vary among the different school systems
of the state, but we are confident that
they will be solved in a fair, decent, and
legal manner with good common sense.
Furthermore, we are confident that the
local school boards, the local school offi
cials and the parents will settle this prob
lem without resorting to chicanery or
devious methods and with due regard for
the rights of all parties concerned. Any
program of implementation will be based
upon professional and human considera
tions and not with coercive designs or
methods. The public school system of
Maryland has always been known for its
high professional attitude and for its un
biased and unprejudiced treatment of all
children.
OPINION CHALLENGED
Harry O. Levin, a Baltimore at
torney prominent in Republican poli
tics and also counsel to the Baltimore
Afro-American, semi-weekly Negro
newspaper, challenged Atty. Gen.
Rollin’s opinion that Maryland’s
school segregation laws continue in
force until the Supreme Court issues
its decrees. Mr. Levin said there was
nothing in the state law that makes
segregation “mandatory,” that the
law merely “permits” segregation. He
contended that any local school board
could have done away with segrega
tion, even before the Supreme Court
decision.
The Baltimore branch of the Na
tional Association for the Advance
ment of Colored People also con
demned the Rollins-State Board of
Education action as an illegal delay
ing move and announced that it
planned a series of test cases in Mary
land as an effort to have Negro stu
dents admitted to white elementary
schools and teachers colleges this fall.
No legal action has been instituted up
to August.
Atty. Gen. Rollins stuck by his
opinion by citing the section of Mary
land law which reads, “It shall be the
duty of the county board of educa
tion to establish one or more public
schools in each election district for all
colored youths....” He asked if “any
thing could be more mandatory” than
this wording of the law.
Dr. Pullen, state school superinten
dent, followed up the action of the
State board by holding a meeting of
school superintendents from each of
the 23 counties with the Attorney
General and other state officials. A
five-man committee of school super
intendents was named to (1) start
work immediately with the State De
partment of Education and the At
torney General’s office on preparation
of the Maryland brief to be presented
to the Supreme Court in October, and
(2) work out means of implementing
the Supreme Court decision “that will
be fair and equitable through the
state” and impair no individual
rights.
CITY MOVES AHEAD
While the State Board of Education
was holding to segregation for at least
another year and initiating studies of
ways and means of bringing about
integration in the future, the Balti
more City Board of School Commis
sioners was moving rapidly toward
desegregation. Shortly after the Su
preme Court decision the board wrote
to City Solicitor Thomas N. Biddison
asking for a ruling on the decision’s
effect on that section of the city code
which provides that it is the “duty of
the Board of School Commissioners of
the City of Baltimore to organize sep
arate schools for colored children.
...” Mr. Biddison’s reply to the
board’s inquiry was a terse one:
It is the opinion of this office that the
Supreme Court, by its decision has deter
mined that segregation in education, as
provided for by Article 32, section 22, of
the Baltimore City Code, is in deprivation
of the equal protection of the laws guar
anteed by the Fourteenth Amendment,
and is, consequently, unconstitutional and
invalid.
This ruling, running contrary to the
Attorney General’s opinion that seg
regation laws stand until the Supreme
Court hands down its final decrees,
was read to the Board of School Com
missioners at its regular bi-monthly
meeting on June 3. Immediately after
wards, with no public discussion
(board members had been discussing
the matter privately for many days),
the board adopted unanimously the
following resolution:
In view of the decision of the Supreme
Court regarding our public schools, and
in view of an opinion given us by the
Baltimore City Solicitor dated June 1,
1934, it is the opinion of this Board that
our system should be conformed to a
non-segregation basis to be in effect by
the opening of schools in September of
this year.
In doing so, we would ask our staff
to prepare material outlining the practical
steps to be taken and that this material
be presented at our next meeting.
The next meeting was a special one
on June 10, at which “the practical
steps to be taken” were presented to
the board by Dr. John H. Fischer,
school superintendent. The policy di
rective, unanimously approved by the
school board and issued to all staff
members, contained three main
points:
(1) Present standards pertaining
to school admission, grades and cur
ricula “shall continue in force except
that the race of the pupil shall not be
a consideration.” Transfers of pupils
from one school to another because of
changes of residence will be routinely
approved. “Transfer for other reasons
may be approved by the two princ
ipals involved or by the appropriate
assistant superintendent.”
(2) No child shall be required to
attend any particular school. Balti
more has never had school districting,
except in specific instances where a
school has been overcrowded and at
tendance has had to be limited to
neighborhood boundary lines. There
are to be no district lines generally
under the integration policy, but “as
population increases occur, it may be
come necessary in the future, as it has
in the past, to district additional
schools.”
(3) In the “assignment, promotion
and transfer of staff members, the
present policy of respecting relative
merit shall be scrupulously observed.
As in the past, it shall be the purpose
of the Department of Education to
assign each employe to that position
in which he is likely to render his
best service to the school and to the
community. No person shall be denied
any opportunity because of his race.”
On June 14, at a special meeting of
Baltimore school teachers, Dr. Fischer
answered a number of the questions
which had arisen in lay and profes
sional minds following the school
board’s action.
Will our schools be reorganized to
integrate all pupils?
“The answer to that question,” Dr.
Fischer said, “is ‘No.’ The designation
of white and Negro schools will, of
course, be discontinued, because
every school will now receive chil
dren of both races. But no effort will
be made deliberately to transfer
children of either race for the pur
pose of ‘mixing’ schools.”
Will there be a large number of
pupil transfers?
“There should not be,” Dr. Fischer
explained. “Because of the long
standing policy of our Board and our
City government, Negro and white
schools in Baltimore are operated ac
cording to equal standards. In the
construction of buildings and their
maintenance, in the professional ex
amination of teachers, in the alloca
tion of funds for books and supplies
there have been no racial distinc
tions. ...
“Where a nearby school offers ad
vantages to any pupil, white or Negro,
over the school he now attends, and
the parent requests a transfer, the
request should be granted. But only
in rare instances should a young child
be sent far from his home to another
school. At the secondary or vocational
level, distance is less important, but
in such cases a pupil in the middle of
a three-year program should be
transferred only where it is clearly
advisable for him to do so.”
Will teachers or other staff mem
bers be discharged as a result of the
new policy?
“Again,” said Dr. Fischer, “the
answer is ‘No.’ The Division of Col
ored Schools will cease to exist, but
no one now associated with that Di
vision will suffer any loss of status
because of this administrative change.
As in the past, vacancies which occur
in the future will be filled with scrup
ulous regard for merit. There will be
one eligible list for each type of posi
tion. Whenever a vacancy occurs, one
of the applicants of the five standing
highest on the list will be selected for
employment. No one will be discrim
inated against because of his race.
Nor will his race entitle anyone to
preferment over another who is better
qualified.”
Will children be required to attend
particular schools?
Again Dr. Fischer replied “No” and
elaborated on the policy declaration
adopted by the school board. “Of our
175 school units,” he said, “only about
25 or 30 which are badly overcrowded
are districted. In these cases, children
living within a prescribed area have
the right to attend the districted
school and others are excluded. But
if a child living in any district wishes
to attend elsewhere, he may do so if
the school is not itself districted and
if there is good reason for transfer
ring.”
Will it work?
Here Dr. Fischer gave a full answer,
following the theme that past experi
ences are the only guide to the future.
At the staff level we have been work
ing for many years in groups assembled
without regard to race. In workshops, in
committees, in staff conferences of all
kinds we have helped and complemented
each other. In the Public School Teach
ers Assocaition, the Teachers Union, the
Principals Association, integration has
been the pattern for many years. In our
staff, we know it has worked.
In many of our schools, Negro and
white pupils have visited each other to
exchange assembly programs, to engage
in debates, to discuss common problems.
This has worked.
For several years, the Junior Red Cross
has conducted summer workshops in
which white and Negro pupils have
worked and played side by side with
pleasure and profit. This has worked.
At the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute
(formerly all-white high school), Negro
boys were admitted to the Accelerated
Course in 1952. The faculty and student
body decided at the outset that there
would be in this school only one class of
boy—the Poly boy. The Negro students,
now some 35 of them, participated in ev
ery phase of school life. Has it worked?
The first boy is scheduled to graduate
next June. You might ask him or his
white classmates who refer to him as a
“good guy."
In our adult education program for a
number of years, without headlines or
fanfare, Negro and white students have
studied in the same classes. Within the
past month . . . we have organized an
adult evening center in which both the
faculty and the student body include
Continued On Next Page