Newspaper Page Text
i
PAGE 12 —Dec. I, 1954 — SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Oklahoma
OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla.
JNTENTION to comply fully with
the U.S. Supreme Court’s desegre
gation directives is implicit in a brief
filed before the high court by Mac Q.
Williamson, Oklahoma attorney gen
eral. But the 15-page brief describes
a unique financial tangle and sets
forth a need for more time to enact
the corrective legislation now being
charted.
Williamson filed the pleading as a
friend of the court, since Oklahoma
had no litigants in the appeal cases
leading to the May 17 edict.
The brief’s first paragraph plunges
into the problem state educators have
been pondering since May 17:
The state of Oklahoma is one of the
states requiring segregation in public
education: and principally because of
both constitutional and legislative re
strictions as to the financing of seDarate
educational facilities for white and Negro
children, it is probably more immediately
concerned than some, if not all, of the
other states having segregation in public
education in whether this court directs
that existing segregated systems be
stopped immediately, or adjusted grad
ually to a procedure not based upon color
distinctions.
At the outset, it may be noted that
Oklahoma’s dual system of tax-gathering
is unique and different from most other
‘segregation’ states.
TAX SYSTEM OUTLINED
The brief outlines the present
mandatory and complex system, un
der which district schools are main
tained for majority race children
(usually white) while minority
schools (nearly all Negro) are sup
ported on a county wide basis. As was
detailed in the September issue of
Southern School News, countywide
levies yield three operating mills and
one building bond fund mill annually
for minority schools. District and ad-
valorem revenue may reach a max
imum of 20 operating mills and five
building fund mills annually for ma
jority schools. Budgets must be
planned and financed with absolutely
no relation to each other.
And, Williamson notes:
The income and revenues allocated for
both systems are (usually) barely suffi
cient to provide auoropriate and desirable
educational facilities, separately func
tioning, for all children (of both the
white and colored races).
So that if the method of financing and
allocating revenues for the education of
one race must now be used for the educa
tion of both races (which apparently will
be the case, since the doctrine of ‘seo-
arate but equal’ has been determined bv
the court to have no place in the field of
education), then our entire fiscal pro
gram with its ‘two-pronged’ methods of
raising and dividing tax moneys ... must
needs be recast by constitutional change,
and by our next legislature (which meets
in regular session January 3, 1955).
Pointing out the Supreme Court’s
decision apparently means that Okla
homa’s minority schools and their
separate finances are illegal under the
Fourteenth Amendment, the attorney
general further pleads:
... All budgets for both majoritv and
separate schools for the current Oklaho
ma fiscal year (1954-55) have long since
been officially anproved and tax levies
made and extended UDon the tax rolls
of each of our 77 counties; and such taxes
are now payable, and in process of col
lection—the first half of all said taxes
actually becoming delinquent on Decem
ber 31, 1954. Thus the fiscal program for
all schools on the traditional and divided
basis is so far along that it would be a
clear impossibility to try at this time to
’unscramble’ the set purpose and destina
tion of tax moneys of our 77 counties for
this year, when and as collected.
Another point to consider is the fact
that hundreds of thousands of dollars are
being collected—under state constitution
al authority—for separate school district
—as the taxing unit; and if the decision
should be—under the Court’s Question 4
—’integration forthwith,’ then every dol
lar so collected (and being held by the
various county treasurers) would remain
'locked up’ and entirely unavailable for
any school purposes until new and differ
ent constitutional and statutory remedied
could be provided; this, for the reason
that Sec. 19, Article 10, Oklahoma Con
stitution, forbids the diverting of any tax
moneys away from the original purposes
of the levy.
ASKS FOR TIME
Williamson argues it will “reason
ably” take until at least June 30,1955,
to provide remedial legislation, and
tells the court such legislation
“doubtless” will be accomplished, in
dicating changes “probably will con
sist largely of new acts consolidating
revenues formerly allocated for both
district and separate schools.”
The brief is bolstered by citations
from the Oklahoma constitution
spelling out organization and finan
cing of completely divorced, but im
partial facilities for white and col
ored children. (Only those of African
descent are legally colored in Okla
homa.)
Summing up the budget headache,
Williamson tells the court:
While children of both races may be
integrated into the school district system,
as distinguished from the county separate
school system, in the state of Oklahoma,
the aforementioned limitations as to fi
nancing must be faced and solved, pri
marily by the people, and as well, by
the legislature . . . since the principal
source of revenue for schools is an ad
valorem tax levy, which has a definite
limitation by the terms of the Constitu
tion, as aforementioned.
This means, of course, that appropriate
or adequate facilities for public education
cannot be given to both white and colored
children under a newly-created and re
quired system of non-racial education
until a plan for removing or raising the
constitutional limitation on ad valorem
tax levies has been devised and sub
mitted to the electorate of the state of
Oklahoma.
In this connection, it might be pointed
out that the state Legislative Council in
Oklahoma (which consist of the entire
current membership of both Houses, and
which functions between regular legis
lative sessions) has been making a study
of this question and is in the process of
submitting its recommendations to the
Oklahoma legislature when it convenes
in regular session in January 1955.
Probably the recommendations so made
will require, and certainly will be en
titled to, debate in both houses of the
Oklahoma legislature; it being necessary
to formulate a permanent solution, by
way of constitutional amendment, of the
future financing of a single system of
public education which will include and
integrate both white and colored chil
dren.
Such proposed constitutional amend
ments will be by the legislature sub
mitted to the voting citizens of the state.
Likewise, it will be necessary for the
Oklahoma Legislature, itself, to formulate
a system to supplement, by excise taxes,
etc., revenues that will be made avail
able from ad valorem tax levies, for the
newly arranged school program.
In conclusion, Williamson cites
general and specific references re
minding the Supreme Court of its
duty as a court of equity to follow
the cases through to “entire justice”
for all affected parties, and asks that
the court “consider the financial
problems of a State—such as ours—
in determining when and how there
shall be an affirmance from this court
respecting the time for the ultimate
cessation of segregation.”
STAND WAS ANTICIPATED
Release of the brief caused no stir
in Oklahoma, since it followed expec
tations and expressed desires of all
affected agencies.
In what Oklahoma City Supt. J.
Chester Swanson calls “a unanimity
of opinion on school needs this state
has never seen before,” the numeri-
cally-powerful Oklahoma Education
Association, the state public educa
tion office, the state Congress of Par
ents and Teachers and the state legis
lative council have endorsed pro
posed amendments dovetailing with
Williamson’s statements.
Specifically, the groups want a new
countywide five mill levy to be dis
tributed to all schools as replace
ment for the presumably illegal four
mill minority school support now in
force. Allied proposals would increase
the present bonded indebtedness ceil
ing from 5 to 10 per cent of district
assessed valuation; permit use of
building levy funds for maintenance,
and virtually remove any limits on
the number of operating mills district
voters could impose upon themselves.
These measures, it is argued, would
assure a sound, all-around improve
ment in education for all children.
The Oklahoma Association of Negro
Teachers also has approved the five
mill levy plan. Leaders first recom
mended early in 1954 that the money
follow Negro children into mixed
schools on a definite per capita basis.
However, the OANT integration com
mittee’s final platform, ratified at a
state membership meeting October
28-29 in Oklahoma City, conforms to
the standard plan. The OANT pro
posal now reads, “The proceeds de
rived from said five mill levy shall
be apportioned among all school dis
tricts of the county upon the basis of
their average daily attendance for the
previous year.”
Committee proposals had been
MAC Q. WILLIAMSON
Oklahoma Attorney
General
threshed out in a series of six district
workshops designed to draw “grass
roots” ideas reflecting Negro teachers’
opinions in all sections and in schools
of all sizes.
District workshops produced some
concrete suggestions for successful
integration. One such idea was an
appeal for creation of a bi-racial hu
man relations body to serve through
out the transition period.
The OANT business council au
thorized H. C. Whitlow Jr., Booker
T. Washington high school principal
of Tulsa and integration committee
chairman, to send a request to Gov.
Johnston Murray for appointment of
such a committee. Whitlow said lead
ers hope an interracial group will be
put to work as soon as possible. How
ever, a formal request has not yet
been sent to the capitol, and it was
indicated Whitlow now intends to
wait until Gov.-elect Raymond Gary
takes office Jan. 10 and direct the re
quest to him.
Democrat Gary, following his elec
tion on Nov. 2, predicted a special
election will be necessary, and ac
knowledged the legislature could
submit amendments early in the ses
sion and continue to work on other
legislation in the pre-election in
terim. Gary indicated he will have
some proposals of his own on school
finance, involving replacement of any
tax millage lost in the change-over.
His campaign platform commits him
to a program that will not increase
taxes.
Tennessee
NASHVILLE, Term.
QN Nov. 19, Gov. Frank G. Clem
ent explained why Tennessee is
not filing a brief before the Supreme
Court in the desegregation cases.
His explanation ended months of
official silence as to what course Ten
nessee would follow. Original indica
tions from Gov. Clement and mem
bers of his administration pointed
to Tennessee’s participation in the
hearings. However, this gave way to
an official “wait-and-see” policy
which reached its fulfillment with
the governor’s statement. He said:
All the suggestions that could have
been made (to solve the problem) have
been made or will be made without Ten
nessee putting in an official appearance
before the United States Supreme Court.
He added:
We were not a party to the suits, but
the fact that we were not doesn’t mean
that we are not interested in the matter
or that we are not studying or conferring
on it. Our course of action has been in
line with what we conceive to be the best
interests of Tennessee and Tennesseans.
When the decision was handed
down last May, Gov. Clement said:
As Governor and elected representa
tive of more than three and a quarter
million Tennesseans, I must point out
that it is a decision handed down by the
judicial body which we, the American
people, under our Constitution and law
recognize as supreme in matters of inter
preting the law of the land.
This is no time for snap judgment,
quick decision or demagogic indictment.
The problems presented by the Supreme
Court’s decision must be solved only after
careful study, deliberation and judicious
appraisal.
The Nashville Tennessean, which
has opposed Clement’s two success
ful bids for governor, termed the an
nouncement “far from satisfactory.”
The Tennessean 9 s editorial, in part,
said:
In other words, Mr. Clement is satis
fied to let other states speak for Tennes
see. For two reasons, that is extremely
poor policy:
First, it implies that the state of Ten
nessee has nothing constructive to con
tribute to the deliberations on an issue to
which it is a very real party in fact even
though not in legal status. For our part,
we are unwilling to accept any such ad
mission of intellectual bankruptcy. And
those who do accept it must concede that
it is a sad commentary indeed on a state
which likes to think of itself as a leader
in the New South.
Second, it assumes that Tennessee’s
problem is no different from that in any
other states. Such an assumption is sim
ply contrary to fact. One of the reasons
the Supreme Court invited all the South
ern states to submit briefs was what it
recognized as ‘the great variety of local
conditions.”
As early as Sept. 1, The Nashville
Banner, which has twice supported
Clement’s bid for office, urged that
all affected states, including Tennes
see, file a brief with the high court.
Said The Banner:
The 17 reqiuiring it (segregation) cer.
tainly should be represented in the Fall
hearing, on the basis of which the defi
nitive action as eventually decided will
be handed down by the court.
... It is important not only that the
attorneys general present the case—the
point of view immediately and primarily
concerned—but that they emphasize by
such participation the fact that the states
do have a proprietary interest in, and
duty to, their schools.
There is the further consideration that
out of this further judicial review will
come whatever legal rulings or restraints
the court may attach by decree.
And if the states are to adjust their
own laws or constitutions to fit these
rulings, it can best be done by the com
petent advice of state authorities who
have sat in on the deliberations and are
thoroughly acquainted with the decrees
as handed down ...
While the state legislature does not
meet until Jan. 3, 1955, some legisla
tors are planning to introduce, or are
willing to consider, legislation to re
tain segregated public schools in
Tennessee.
TO INTRODUCE BILL
Sen.-elect Charles A. Stainback of
Somerville said he will introduce a
school segregation bill early in the
next session of the General Assembly.
Stainback, who comes from Fay
ette county in southwest Tennessee,
said his bill will not follow the
“Georgia plan” of abolishing the
public school system.
“I don’t think it’s necessary to
abolish the public schools,” he said.
“The present conditions can be main
tained by giving the school board of
each county authority to designate
which school each pupil shall at
tend.
“This can be done under the police
power of the state,” Stainback con
tinued, “to preserve peace, tran
quility, and public health. There is
no question of its constitutionality.”
Another new senator, James M.
Jones Jr. of Lewisburg said he “would
like to see separate schools main
tained, but I can see all kinds of dif
ficulties in such a move.”
State Representative Eugene Col
lins of Chattanooga and Robert Lee
Littleton of Dickson, expressed in
terest in such a move in the House,
but declared they were doubtful if
such a measure could be drafted to
accomplish the purpose effectively.
Workshops Study Merger Plans
OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla.
“School Merger Plans Talked”
would have been a useful standing
headline for Oklahoma newspapers
in the past month. In the most wide
spread attention noted since the
U. S. Supreme Court segregation
ruling last May, integration topped
a meeting agenda somewhere in
Oklahoma almost daily.
Having accepted the principle of
desegregation without public debate,
Oklahoma will make no official move
until Supreme Court decrees are is
sued after the new hearings. But in
the interim, school and community
leaders are urging affected groups to
talk as much as possible about the
pending change, on a cooperative,
interracial plane of mutual inquiry
and foresighted planning.
Two solid days of such talk were
programmed in Oklahoma City and
Tulsa for school, church, civic, public
and allied group representatives at
tending institutes on human relations.
The annual institutes, sponsored by
the National Conference of Chris
tians and Jews, this year followed the
theme, “Integration is Everybody’s
Business.”
Attendance tallied 250 at Okla
homa City and about 200 at Tulsa.
Both meetings featured keynote
speeches and workshop studies from
the three viewpoints of church, school
and community. In essense, all three
groups at both workshops emerged
with recommendations for more and
wider interracial contacts at all levels
before the actual merger is accomp
lished.
Oklahoma City workshoppers’ rec
ommendations were summarized as
follows:
Education:
“1. That the schools provide all
possible opportunities for the asso
ciation of all races at every level, stu
dent-student, teacher-teacher, par
ent-teacher and parent-parent.
“2. That the pupils in all schools
begin at once to do whatever they
can to condition themselves for all of
the social situations which may arise.
“3. That an evaluation be made to
find what experiences are produc
ing the best results.
“4. That all other community
groups provide many opportunities
for more association of the races.
Public and Private Agencies:
“1. That groups and individuals
work harder to develop more and
better ways of communication and
contacting each other across the
many artificial barriers of race,
“2. That an immediate study and
evaluation be made of the Oklahoma
statutes concerning segregation of
the races, for the purpose of initiating
changes or elimination of those de
signed to separate the races,
“3. That more definite individual
and group action be taken to bring
about the worth of the individual;
that a fair appraisal and use be made
of the Negro’s skill and training in
employment.
“4. That every organized commun
ity group working on this and other
common problems be encouraged to
utilize every opportunity to work to
gether. Further, we urge “that such
groups and their committees truly
represent the total community.
Religion:
“1. Every church should hang out
a sign, ‘Everyone is welcome.’
“2. Youth groups and church rep
resentatives should visit across racial
lines.
“3. Change Oklahoma laws.
“4. Negro and white churches
should support each other’s revivals.
Tulsa workshop groups advanced
similar proposals, with equal em
phasis on pleas for increased inter
racial activities in schools and
churches. Main general recoffi-
mendation was a formal motion that
Tulsa’s mayor be asked to appoint a
citywide human relations committee.
No appointments were announc
ed by month’s end.
TEEN-AGERS MEET
About 60 teen-agers representing
all high schools and religious deno
minations sat in on the Oklahoma
City meeting, with full participation
status. First immediate response to
the “more meeting” plea was ar
rangement of an all-youth integra
tion workshop.
With school administrators’ ap
proval, the NCCJ, Urban League and
other agencies set up the workshop
for about 150 high school students-
Six workshop groups were to take a
youth’s eye view of such questions
as: “What about extra-curricular
activities in mixed schools?”
meeting was scheduled at Douglas®
(Negro) high school with a Douglas®
student as co-chairman.