Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 2 — Nov. 4, 1954 —SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Alabama
MONTGOMERY, Ala.
OV. GORDON PERSONS, sub
jected to increasing pressure dur
ing October to call a special session
of the legislature to consider the rec
ommendations of a legislative com
mittee on segregation, has flatly re
fused to resort to such action.
Persons said he would have no
hesitancy in calling a special session
“on a day’s notice” if convinced a
“workable plan” for meeting the
problem of school segregation had
been developed.
In September, the special legisla
tive committee set up by the 1953
legislature to study school segrega
tion recommended to Gov. Persons
that sections of the state constitution
be rewritten to pave the way for
possible abolition of public educa
tion in Alabama.
The committee, known as the
Boutwell committee for its chairman,
State Sen. Albert Boutwell of Birm
ingham, urged the repeal by amend
ment of the section of the state con
stitution requiring the state to pro
vide public schools for white and
Negro children. The committee urged
deletion of all constitutional refer
ences to “public” education, as well
as other changes in the organic law
of the state. The Boutwell plan
would enable parents to decide, on
a voluntary basis, whether they
wanted segregated classrooms for
their children, according to the com
mittee.
The Boutwell committee’s recom
mendations, if enacted, would open
the way for state-subsidized private
schools, and would grant judicial im
munity to school officials and em
ployes so that they could not be
sued. (Southern School News, Page
2, Oct. 1,1954).
SCHOOL ABOLITION DENIED
Sen. Boutwell has denied that the
plan offered by his committee is in
tended to abolish schools. He said:
The committee's plan would not require
the abolition of public schools, but con
templates that particular schools might
be discontinued if their operation should
be found to involve a substantial threat
to the maintenance of good will, peace
and order.
As summarized by Boutwell, the
committee’s recommendations pro
vide:
“(1) Amendments to various sec
tions of the constitution to permit the
state to discontinue public schools
wherever necessary to avoid friction
or disorder, and to allow the state
and its subdivisions to devote public
money to the aid of private education
when adequate public facilities are
lacking or inadequate, or public op
eration involves the adoption of coer
ced policies.
“ (2) A system permitting a degree
of individual choice of the kind of
school which parents in any area
may desire. If, for any reason, the
system does not result in an accept
able or workable solution, then the
public schools involved may be dis
continued and the education of the
pupils concerned aided or provided
for by individual public assistance.”
By the proposed constitutional
amendments relieving the legislature
of the mandatory requirement to pro
vide publication, the plan would give
the legislature “flexibility and dis
cretionary power,” Boutwell said.
On Oct. 2, the Legislative Council,
a group of 12 members of the State
House and Senate, passed a resolu
tion urging the governor to call a
special session to consider the Bout
well committee’s recommendations.
The council’s resolution did not pass
on the merits of the committee’s re
port. It merely stated that the cur
rent legislature should be given an
opportunity to review the recom
mendations and take whatever action
the lawmakers might think wise.
RESULTS OF POLL
On Oct. 8, Rep. Wallace Malone
of Houston County reported to the
governor that he had conducted a
personal poll of the members of both
houses and that “an overwhelming
majority” favored a special session.
On Oct. 12, Gov. Persons replied in
a letter to Malone that he did not in
tend taking the requested action un
til convinced that a “workable plan”
had been developed.
Malone, leader of those favoring a
special session, called Person’s re
fusal a “shabby evasion.” Malone said
he hoped Persons’ action “will be
remembered four years from now”—
an obvious reference to unconfirmed
reports that Persons intends to run
for governor in 1958.
Malone intimated that Persons,
whose term ends in January, was
passing on the knotty segregation
problem to the incoming administra
tion. (James E. “Big Jim” Folson was
nominated governor in the May
Democratic primary, which is tradi
tionally tantamount to election in
Alabama.) Tom Abemethy, GOP
candidate for governor, has attacked
both Gov. Persons for his refusal to
call a special session and Nominee
Folsom for his refusal to commit
himself to any plan which might
abolish public education in the state.
Malone charged:
Several plans (The Boutwell commit
tee’s recommendations) to meet the segre
gation issue were presented to the gover
nor a month ago. Until now he has
studiously evaded the issue. He has been
presented with the fact that the present
legislature is willing, anxious and able to
propose an amendment to our constitu
tion which enables the next administra
tion to meet the segregation issue.
Gov. Persons has a legislature, as the
poll (that an ‘overwhelming majority’ of
the legislature favors a special session)
shows, which is anxious to do this. Yet
he has refused to call it into session. He
is the only one who can do this.
Our sister states have taken prompt
action. I regret that the governor does
not embrace the opportunity for this legis
lature to do the job.
Persons said that the Boutwell
committee had spent 10 months in
the preparation of its recommenda
tions, which he, Persons, had refer
red to “some of the most able lawyers
in Alabama” for their study. The
lawyers have not had time to pass
judgment on the Boutwell recom
mendations, Persons said. Also, he
pointed to the fact that the term of
the current legislature ends the day
following the Nov. 2 general election.
Persons received considerable
newspaper support for his stand.
Although the legal changes rec
ommended by the Boutwell commit
tee had been made public in Sep
tember, it wasn’t until Oct. 20 that
the full text of the committee’s re
port, containing conclusions about
the possible effects of integration,
was released. Excerpts from the re
port follow:
VIOLENCE PREDICTED
“The recent outbreaks of violence
in border states and communities are
pale reflections of the result of a
forced integration in this state, and
if we are to save our schools and our
children from violence, disorder and
tension, it is imperative that prompt
action be taken.
“There are as many different situa
tions to be met as there are commu
nities in the state, and the committee
feels that no one solution is the com
plete answer but that several solu
tions and combinations of solutions
are necessary. The committee urges
an amendment to that section of the
state constitution requiring separate
‘public’ schools for both races, as well
as other changes in the state’s or
ganic law.
“The committee feels that under
the present legal situation some
school systems in the state may at
any time be faced with an intolerable
situation. It therefore believes that
prompt action is desirable to protect
our school officials, and to give the
elected representatives of the people
the power to modify our system of
education so as to meet the threat of
compulsory racial integration.
“The overwhelming majority of the
citizens of Alabama are unalterably
opposed to the idea of permitting the
use of the public school system to
coerce racial integration. The com
mittee believes that the vast ma
jority of Negro citizens of the state
are instinctively and genuinely op
posed to the idea of compulsory inte
gration and its effects upon the basic
harmony between the white and col
ored people of Alabama.
GOV. GORDON PERSONS
Turns Down Plea To Call
Special Session
“White employers would be strong
ly induced to withhold employment
from Negro parents who would take
advantage of the intended compul
sion, leases would likewise be term
inated, and trade and commercial re
lations, now in satisfactory progress,
would be affected.
“Under the actual conditions in
Alabama, the exact effect which the
Supreme Court assumed as to segre
gation would, on the contrary, result
from forced integration . . . Negro
children would be harmed, and
warped by belligerent resentment of
their forced acceptance, by innum
erable daily incidents emphasizing it,
and by the sharp disclosure of a gen
erally lower scholastic aptitude. This
would result in such continuous and
widespread incidents and friction as
to be subversive of the training and
education of white and Negro chil
dren alike . . . Proper and effective
education cannot take place in an
abnormal and unwholesome atmos
phere of tensions and resentment.
“The main objective of the pro
posals is to assure the recognition by
our school authorities of the right of
white people, as well as Negro peo
ple, to elect to attend schools of their
own race and to make possible the
application of tests and standards
which must be met before mixed
schools can be operated at all for
those willing to attend them.”
CALLED ‘LAST RESORT’
While the Boutwell committee’s
recommendations for constitutional
changes would open the way for the
abolition of public schools—by re
moving the constitutional obligation
of the state to provide “public” edu
cation for both races—the committee
pointed out that such was only a
“last resort” measure. The report
said:
“The power should be delegated by
the legislature to the local school au
thorities as a final resort to discon
tinue public schools and instead grant
public aid, such as tuition and trans
portation, directly to the pupils,
white and Negro, and enable them
to attend private schools . . . This
could be done without impairment of
teachers’ tenure, pensions or other
rights.”
Mainspring of the overall plan of
the Boutwell committee is “freedom
of choice.” The committee assumed
that most white parents would pre
fer all-white schools for their chil
dren, that most Negro parents would
prefer all-Negro schools for theirs.
But the committee also conceded
there might be some who would pre
fer mixed schools:
“Considered from the standpoint
of the right of free citizens of all races
to control their social and personal
contacts, the people of Alabama
might be willing to concede the right
of white and Negro families to send
their children to mixed public
schools.”
However, the report added that
such arrangement “should be accept
able to the community and the tax
payer.” This was interpreted by some
as suggesting three separate school
setups—white, Negro and mixed, all
on a voluntary basis.
Arkansas
LITTLE ROCK, Ark.
A RKANSAS’ brief to be filed with
the United States Supreme Court
in the public school segregation cases
“will not be a radical approach or
one of defiance,” State Education
Commissioner Arch W. Ford told
SERS Oct. 26.
“It will be a recognition of the de
cision by the Supreme Court and will
be an effort to point out proper ways
of implementing it in Arkansas,”
Ford said.
“It will not be a Talmadge ap
proach,” he said. “I think it will be a
reasonable approach. It will cite two
cases in Arkansas as evidence of com
pliance — at Fayetteville and at
Charleston. It will try to point out the
problems, financial and otherwise,
brought on by the decision.”
Ford said that the official policy of
the state board of education was
“not to try to satisfy the extremists
at either end, but to recognize the de
cision and not ignore the mores of
our society and our financial prob
lems.”
Specific details of the brief won’t be
revealed until next month. Prelimi
nary work on the brief is being done
by R. B. McCulloch, Sr., a Forrest
City attorney hired by several East
Arkansas school districts which had
asked the state board to request in
tervention by Arkansas Atty. Gen.
Tom Gentry.
MEETING PLANNED
Ford said that McCulloch would
complete his work in November and
that a meeting of officers of school
districts affected by the Supreme
Court decision would be called before
the state’s brief is submitted to the
Court. The school district officers will
be asked if the brief covers all prob
lems they expect to arise from the
anti-segregation decision. Arkansas
has 423 school districts and 228 of
these operate dual systems for white
and Negroes.
In general, the Arkansas suit is ex
pected to ask for a Supreme Court
ruling which would allow each dis
trict to move toward integration on
the basis of the problems peculiar to
each district. It probably will ask that
no one pattern or date be set to cover
all districts.
Whatever is submitted to Gentry
will be subject to his revision before
he submits it to the Supreme Court.
On Oct. 23, the Arkansas State
Conference of Branches of the Na
tional Association for the Advance
ment of Colored People said in a
resolution:
We deplore the action of state authori
ties in setting a statewide pattern ot
segregation in public schools by advising
all districts to wait for the second Su
preme Court edict before desegregating.
The next day, the group adopted
the national NAACP integration pol
icy which calls for work with school
boards until September, 1955, dead
line for integration and then legal ac
tion against districts which have not
complied.
HOSPITAL TEST CASE
On Oct. 20, the State Hospital for
Mental and Nervous Diseases claimed
in Federal District Court at Little
Rock that segregation of white and
Negro children was a legal and nec
essary part of their treatment.
The hospital’s brief was filed in
answer to a suit filed by relatives of
Maurice Johnson, 11, against the hos
pital for denying admission to the
boy because there was no room for
him in the ward for Negro children.
In reply, the hospital brief said in
part that an individual with psychosis
suffered from a loss of technique in
the art of society. Therefore “treat
ment should duplicate . . . the so
cial pattern which for the patient is
normal.” To do otherwise, the answer
said, would subject the patient to
disturbing factors that could hinder
recovery. It added that segregation
in itself was not discrimination as
long as facilities for treating the two
races were equal.
On Oct. 25, the state board of ed
ucation approved a record-breaking
1955-57 budget of 42 million dollars
for public schools.
The budget, an increase of about
$12,500,000 a year above present
school revenues, was described by
Education Commissioner Arch W.
Ford as “not realistic in that the mon
ey is not in sight” but as a budget
which would cover part of Arkansas’
school needs. The budget will be re
viewed by the Arkansas Legislative
Council and then by the legislature
itself.
The bulk of the extra money would
be sent to the school districts in the
form of minimum budget aid, trans
portation aid and for operation and
maintenance.
The funds would also provide for a
$2,400 minimum salary for all teach
ers, and for help to the districts in
equalizing white and Negro schools.
Institute Publishes
Segregation Analysis
The Institute of Government of the
University of North Carolina has
published for general circulation its
report to the governor of North Car
olina on the Supreme Court decision
of May 17,1954.
Entitled The School Segregation
Decision, this study was originally
designed as a report for Governor
William B. Umstead and his advisory
commission. Thereafter its contents
were made public, and the Institute
has received many requests from in
terested persons and groups from
many parts of the country who de
sired to study the report. This
prompted the decision to publish it.
The School Segregation Decision
is a legal analysis of the impact of
the Supreme Court decision. It traces
the history of segregated education
and the legal background to the
present cases. It explains what was
decided and what was not decided by
the decision rendered on May 17,
1954. It discusses in considerable de
tail the legality of various plans de
signed to evade or avoid the conse
quences of the Court’s ruling.
Thus considerable space is devoted
to the constitutional problems inher
ent in any plan to provide for con
tinued segregation by resort to a sys
tem of state-supported “private”
schools, or “tuition grants,” or to pro
vide for continued segregation in the
public schools by an “assignment sys
tem” or by resort to the “gerryman
dering” of school attendance districts
or by resort to a school enrollment
system which makes provision for
“voluntary segregation.”
The study analyzes the questions
which are still to be answered by the
Supreme Court in its next decision.
It shows why and how these ques
tions are important; it outlines th e
various alternatives which might be
adopted by the court; it sets forth
the various arguments which might
persuade the court to allow what the
court has called a “gradual adjust
ment” to its ruling; it shows how 3
decision in favor of “gradual adjust
ment” might provide the legal basis
for a long transitional period to make
the changes required by the courts
decision, how school officials might
be allowed considerable discretion i®
attempting to fashion a workable
program of “desegregation,” ho"'
considerations such as the population
ratio of Negro to white students, ex
isting racial antipathies, the academ"
background of students and the de
sires and security of students migh*
affect this program.
The problems analyzed in Tf> e
School Segregation Decision are no 1
peculiar to North Carolina. They ^
common to all southern states. While
the study concentrates on the leg® 1
aspects of segregation, it was written
for lawyers and laymen alike.
Copies of this publication may ®
procured by writing to the Institutf
of Government, University of Nor® 1
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Caro
lina. Single copies are priced 3
$2.00.
