Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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