Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.