Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

1*1 V Factual Southern School News Objective VOL. I, NO. 4 NASHVILLE, TENN. DECEMBER I, 1954 Briefs Ask District Court Jurisdiction A Book Review ‘Schools In Transition’ By RALPH McGILL Editor, The Atlanta Constitution SCHOOLS IN TRANSITION, Edited by Robin M. Williams Jr. and Margaret W. Ryan. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N. C. 272 Pages. $3.00. about the time the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision declaring the prin ciple that segregation in education on the basis of color was unconstitutional, there appeared a book titled The Negro and The Schools. It was the result of intensive so cial studies in the field of bi-racial education, long under way before the historic decision. Harry Ashmore, able editor of the Arkansas Gazette, did a masterful job of taking the great mass of carefully documented social study and putting it into form the layman could under stand. In a foreword to this volume, Owen J. Roberts, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and now Chairman of the Board of The Fund For The Advancement of Edu cation, which financed the study, defined the mission as follows: “The Fund will not undertake to argue the case for or against segre gation in public education, and in no sense will it be come involved as an advo cate on either side of the issues now pending be fore the Supreme Court .. This volume and those PROF. WILLIAMS that follow it are intended to bring into focus the dimen sions and the nature of a complex educational problem that in many ways provides a significant test of American democracy. The ultimate solution of that problem will rest with the men and women who make and execute public school policy in thousands of local school districts, and their actions will be conditioned by the degree of understanding of the general public which supports their efforts with its tax dollars. If this project serves to assist them in their task the Fund for the Advancement of Edu cation will feel that it has wisely invested a portion of the risk capital of American education with which it is entrusted.” So meticulously was the “mission” carried out, by both the study and its editorial catalyst, Ashmore, that even the most formidably-unreasonable opponents of desegre gation found nothing to criticise. Rarely has a social study “mission” so effectively attained its objective. It seems necessary to give this preamble about a book already published in discussing a second, the one to be reviewed. Well before the first volume was in manuscript form, it began to be apparent that much valuable material would be left over from what had been a most exhaustive study of all available sources. In other words, pilots would be required to fly three more “missions” with the same objective. The immediate result is Schools in Transition, which deals with com munity experiences in de segregation. Again, fortu itously I believe, a person of southern background was engaged as the editor to translate the material into a book. This was Robin M. Williams Jr., na tive southerner now at Cornell University’s So cial Research Center. He has an able collaborator, Mrs. Margaret Ryan. Again, the purpose in this volume is exactly that of the first . . . not to argue the case for or against segregation, but to make available factual information about a problem in which there is a considerable amount of emotional static elec tricity in all the carpets of life on which are transported, or those which carpet the corridors of our 20th Century lives. They give off sparks and a shock almost every time we insert the key in the door of conversation or action. But actually, little of factual nature was known. And unfortunately those who knew the least got there “fustest with the mostest” words. Or so it seemed. Schools in Transition deals in a manner completely sterile insofar as emotion or partisanship is concerned, (See NEW BOOK On Page 2) MRS. RYAN rpHE long awaited hearing by the •*- Supreme Court of arguments on how and when it should implement its decision of last May 17 declaring public school segregation unconstitu tions has been postponed again. In a brief statement on Nov. 22, the court announced “In view of the ab sence of a full court, the cases . . . now scheduled for argument Decem ber 6 are continued.” The high court action came after a decision by the Senate Judiciary sub committee to delay, until January, discussion of the nomination of Judge John Marshall Harlan to the court chair vacated in October by the death of Associate Justice Robert H. Jack- son. A new date for the hearing was not set. The court announcement preceded by a day two other developments which tied in closely with the filing of briefs by eight states and a South Carolina county earlier in November. The developments: EISENHOWER’S REMARK President Eisenhower declared at a press conference on Nov. 23 that he understood the Supreme Court did not intend to be arbitrary in estab lishing the proceedure to end seg regation in public schools. The President said he believed the court will try to find a decentralized process of desegregation, taking into consideration the practical problems evolving from such a move. James Hagerty, the President’s press secretary, said that President Eisenhower reached this conclusion after reading last May’s decision by the court. When questioned specifi cally whether the President based his statement on information received from the high court, Hagerty replied the President had no private in formation, but he would not say whether the President had discussed the case with any member of the court. One day later, on Nov. 24, the con tent of the brief filed with the Su preme Court by U.S. Attorney Gen ial Herbert Brownell, was released to the press. The government brief was found to be in substantial agree ment with briefs filed with the court hy eight states and the South Caro ls county school on two fundamen tal points. An analysis of the briefs revealed: ANALYSIS OF BRIEFS Each requested the court for ade quate time in which to comply with lts decision rendering public school se &regation unconstitutional. Each suggested that the high court "low lower courts—Federal district oourts — to supervise the imple mentation of the decision on a local level. f Erownell brief contained the allowing suggestions, technically muted to the cases before the court: c ; the court issue a decree de- racial segregation is uncon- tiri *° na l an< ^ that all laws permit- g or requiring such segregation ^ mvalid. That the court return the test to lower courts where they in ? ® rst heard for further action '^cisitf t he Supreme Court’s rnit^ at tonal school boards sub- aft^j. eae gregation plans with 90 days Plans ^ ower co urts request such • Th regar unless a satisfactory deseg- ap p _ ori Program is submitted to and 1 low e V6t * ky the lower court, the revau Cour t should order the deseg- 1011 of the schools beginning with the next school term. • That the lower court determine whether plans submitted provide for the transition “as expeditiously as the circumstances permit.” • That the lower courts should re quire detailed progress reports from the affected school boards showing progress made towards desegregation, and the lower courts, in turn, should submit reports to the Supreme Court detailing action taken in the respec tive districts “in bringing about com pliance with the requirements of the Constitution.” • That the high court may desire to appoint a special master to review such reports and make appropriate recommendations concerning them to both the Supreme Court and lower courts. • That it would be impractical for the high court to establish an overall deadline for desegregation. The brief declared however, “there can be no justification anywhere for failure to make an immediate and substantial start toward desegregation.” • That when there is “clear and con vincing evidence,” that immediate desegregation is “impractible” then the lower court should establish the shortest practible period for ending segregation. Noting that in addition to administrative and fiscal problems comfronting school authorities as a result of desegregation, “school au thorities may have to cope with a certain amount of popular hostility toward the elimination of segregation in public schools,” the brief declared, “While general community hostility cannot serve as justification for avoiding or postponing complicance with the constitutional mandate, it is relevant in determining the most effective method of ending segrega tion in the particular locality.” COMPLEX PROBLEM In commenting on the general na ture of the problem, the Brownell brief declared, “It can be expected that even within the same state, no two school districts will be faced with precisely the same problems. ... In areas where there is considerable disparity in the quality and curricula of the former white and Negro schools, the readjustment may be more troublesome. “Parents will be understandably reluctant to send their children to schools markedly inferior to those previously attended. “Teachers may have to reassigned and changes made in the method of their selection, with due regard to the safeguarding of seniority and tenure rights. In areas which now have separate eligibility lists for white and colored teachers, new lists combining applicants of both races may be established. Salary different ials may have to be eliminated.” The courts should grant due con sideration to local problems, the Brownell brief states, but “In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, . . . there should be no unnecessary delay in the full vin dication of the constitutional rights involved in these cases, and if any delay is required, it should be kept to a minimum.” By mid-November, those states submitting briefs to the court did so either as parties to the five suits or as “friends of the court.” STATE ROUNDUP Here is a state-by-state roundup on briefs submitted, and their general content: Filing briefs as friends of the court were Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Florida and Okla homa; filing briefs as parties to the suits were Virginia, Delaware and the District of Columbia. South Caro lina, as a state, did not file a brief. Attorneys for Clarendon county, South Carolina however, point of origin of that state’s test case, have submitted a brief. Out of the 17 states and the District of Columbia affected by the high court ruling, eight will not parti cipate in the . hearing. Of these, de segregation was well underway in Missouri and West Virginia; another state, Kentucky, has indicated comp liance with the high court’s imple mentation decree when delivered; three of the states, Georgia, Missis sippi, and Louisiana, have taken specific action attempting to circum vent the decision; and two states, Tennessee and Alabama, have main tained their prior attitudes of “wait and see.” A summary of the briefs: ARKANSAS argues the court should (1), not order “forthwith in tegration,” (2), permit gradual ad justments, and (3), leave problems of integration of races in public schools to enforcement by Congress. MARYLAND suggests that cases be returned to district courts and re quests a reasonable desegregation time schedule allowing for “an ef fective, gradual adjustment.” NORTH CAROLINA asks the court to proceed slowly in effecting decrees and suggests district judges be authorized to supervise change over because the alternative would be destruction of the school system and “racial bitterness.” TEXAS asks the court to rec ognize long established traditions which “should not be suddenly and abruptly destroyed,” and suggests that the court “preserve the right of free selection and choice by the patrons of public schools in select ing the school which shall be patron ized.” FLORIDA declares there is “rea son to believe that segregated schools can be ended in Florida in an equit able manner without destroying the school system itself,” but warns de segregation cannot be implemented “hurriedly or through the legal coercion of school officials.” OKLAHOMA asks the court for time to make extensive legislative and constitutional changes in the state’s complex and mandatory taxing system for public schools. VIRGINIA requests “gradual ad justment,” and supervision by district courts which should be instructed to consider the need for (1), a “very substantial period of time,” (2), phy sical problems that will arise, such as use of school buildings and trans portation facilities and (3), “intangi ble factors” such as “general levels of health, morals, and educational attainment . . . (and) the feelings of the children, their parents and the community.” DELAWARE requests the court to permit gradual adjustment through district and state court with in the limits of a definite period of time, the terminal date being estab lished by the high court. CLARENDON COUNTY, S. C. tells the court that the matter should be referred back to district courts for the issuance of decrees. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA in forms the court that no further judicial action is needed to bring about public school integration in the nation’s capital, and by Sept. 1955, the segregation issue in Wash ington will be “completely moot.” Index State Page Alabama 2 Arkansas 2 Delaware 3 District of Columbia 4 Florida 5 Georgia 6 Kentucky 9 Louisiana 6 Maryland 7 Mississippi 8 Missouri 10 North Carolina 11 Oklahoma 12 South Carolina 13 Tennessee 12 Texas 14 Virginia 15 West Virginia 9