Newspaper Page Text
Maryland
BALTIMORE, Md.
ARYLAND’S first election in
modern times to have racial seg
regation as an open issue produced
returns that do not lend themselves
to easy analysis. While the candi
dates who took a pro-segregation
stand in school matters, breaking
with the custom of leaving racial
subjects out of politics, may have
gained or lost some votes on a local
ized basis, the final results do not
indicate that the issue had as much
significance at the polls in Mary
land as political observers had an
ticipated.
The candidate who made the great
est issue of segregation was State
Sen. Edward Turner in his bid to un
seat Republican Congressman Ed
ward T. Miller on the Eastern Shore,
a section of Maryland where racial
feelings are considered to be as in
tense as the deep South. Mr. Turner
polled 28,179 votes to Congressman
Miller’s 35,210. In the last off-year
congressional election, without the
segregation issue, another Eastern
Shore state senator, Thomas F. John
son, received 27,122 votes to Con
gressman Miller’s 36,005. The two
sets of results are near enough alike
to support a tentative assumption
that the racial issue did not make a
great deal of difference one way or
the other.
In racially conscious South Balti
more, scene of school disturbances in
late September, State Sen. George
W. Della spoke out late in the cam
paign for “white supremacy,” a
phrase not heard in a political speech
in Balitmore in many years. When
the votes were in, Mr. Della had
16,484 votes to his Republican oppo
nent’s 8,509, But when these results
are compared with the South Balti
more returns of four years ago, it
would be difficult to conclude that
segregation had played an important
part in Mr. Della’s victory. Then, he
received 16,036 votes to his oppo
nents 8,346.
added, however, that on the basis of
the 1950 returns, Gov. McKeldin had
a strong Negro following before the
school segregation issue ever came
up.
ELECTION SURPRISE
The surprise of the elections was
the winning of three seats in the
General Assembly by Baltimore Ne
groes, the first of their race to become
Maryland legislators. All three vic
tories were in the Fourth District of
the city, long dominated by a white
Democratic boss, James H. Pollack.
The Pollack organization, subject of
frequent criticism by the Sunpapers
and civic groups, operates in an area
into which Negroes have moved in
great numbers since the war, and it
had been felt for some time that be
fore long the Negro voters would be
come sufficiently united to beat the
machine.
The first break came in June when
a Negro fraternal leader, Truly
Hatchett, beat out Mr. Pollack’s own
son in the Democratic primaries.
Hatchett then went on to win a place
in the House of Delegates in Novem
ber, along with Emory R. Cole, a Ne
gro Republican lawyer. A state sen
ate seat, one of six for Baltimore, was
won by Harry A. Cole, a young Negro
Republican lawyer and assistant at
torney general who had the backing
of the Sunpapers, Afro-American,
and others.
The Harry Cole victory was par
ticularly dramatic because the Pol
lack organization had put a Negro
into the race as an “independent”
candidate to draw colored Democrat
ic votes away from Mr. Cole. The
unofficial returns made it appear that
the organization had succeeded, since
the Pollack incumbent, State Sen.
Bernard S. Melnicove, was credited
with a 132-vote margin over Cole.
But the official tally, more than a
week later, named the Negro Repub
lican the winner by 57 votes—13,931
to 13,874.
BYRD-McKELDIN race
The third candidate to make a bid
for pro-segregation support was Dr.
Harry C. Byrd, the former president
of the University of Maryland, who
headed the Democratic ticket as its
gubernatorial choice. Dr. Byrd spoke
for “age-old custom and traditions”
while his supporters played up the
supposed pro-Negro sympathies of
Republican Gov. Theodore R. Mc
Keldin. The trend in Maryland was
distinctly Democratic, with the Re
publicans losing the attorney-gen
eralship, one congressional seat, 15
General Assembly seats and many
county offices. But Mr. McKeldin
carried the state by more than 62,000
votes to become the first two-term
Republican governor in Maryland
history.
On the Eastern Shore, Dr. Byrd
carried six counties against McKel-
dm, whereas former Democratic Gov.
res f°n Lane in 1950 carried only
foree. But there is no way of telling,
short of a poll of individual voters,
whether this was due to segregation
or to the fact that Dr. Byrd is a na-
lv ® ’Shoreman who has always
[Maintained political affiliations with
e tidewater region.
g South and East Baltimore, Dr.
- vr d carried thirteen wards where
t °nner Gov. Lane had carried only
o. Segregation may have had some
caring here, although it would seem
B issue did much for Dr.
i_\' 1 ~ when it apparently did so little
151 the
same area for State Sen. Della.
Publican leaders say that McKel-
s fusses there, like those of de-
p * f e H Republican Congressman
ses> ^ ma fl Jr., were due not to
den^a^on *° the national ten-
0, ln industrial areas to blame
0n p 0 ' overtime and unemployment
Republicans generally,
supn ® yr< f' s bid for segregationist
M c g°n. s , erv ed to strengthen Gov.
sgpjj Ruin’s position in the Negro
Ci-s °f Baltimore. The 36 pre-
R 0rt i controlled by colored voters in
a Wes t Baltimore gave McKeldin
2,06o r f ln f^,083 votes to Byrd’s
ip A U?cl three all-Negro precincts
CIO C ” err y Hill ward, where the
cra t j orked hard for a large Demo-
by a turnout, went for McKeldin
Vot e of 1,527 to 102. It should be
SCHOOL DEVELOPMENTS
On the school front itself, apart
from pre-election political speeches
and post-election discussion of Mary
land’s Supreme Court brief, the sit
uation was quietly normal. The pick
eting of South Baltimore schools in
early October stopped under threat
of police arrests as abruptly as it be
gan, and gradually an uneasy calm
gave way to normal, relaxed school
relations.
At Southern high school, scene of
the worst disorder, Principal John A.
Schwatka and his teaching staff com
pared notes on what they had ob
served during the disturbances,
studied photographs taken at the
time, and concluded that only six
students had been sufficiently in
volved in stirring up the trouble to
warrant disciplinary action. These
six were suspended. Subsequently,
three were permitted to return on
probation, two were transferred to
other schools and the fate of the sixth
had not been determined as this
SERS report was written.
Mr. Schwatka, in an interview for
SERS, said that for weeks after the
disturbances the school and himself
received a heavy volume of mail
from all over this country and scat
tered foreign countries. Many of the
letters condemned mob violence and
racial prejudice, but some pro-seg
regation sentiment was expressed as
well, plus advice of all sorts. Mr.
Schwatka said that the letters were
so numerous that he turned some of
them, not addressed to him person
ally, over to his classes to answer.
EXCHANGE PROGRAM
One bit of mail was an invitation
from students at a New Rochelle,
N. Y. high school to Southern high
school students to come up and see
how smoothly integration was prog
ressing in a school with ten times as
many Negroes as Southern. Four
students made the trip at the expense
of Southern high school, and later
described it as a rewarding experi
ence. At about the same time, a doz
en students from John Marshall high
school in Oklahoma City came to
visit Southern high for a week, and
then 10 from Southern went to Okla
homa City for a week. This exchange
program had nothing to do with the
racial disturbances, having been
planned by the two principals the
previous year.
Mr. Schwatka, a great believer in
field trips of all kinds, speaks of the
New Rochelle excursion as having
been “worthwhile” from an educa
tional point of view. Just what was
gained in the way of improved race
relations was to be learned later
through reports by the students in
volved.
The one concession of school offi
cials to the racial disturbances in
South Baltimore was to put off for
the time being the assignment of a
Negro teacher to Southern high
school. The teacher had been sched
uled to take over a class there on
Oct. 1, the day that several thousand
persons demonstrated in front of the
building. School officials decided that
the change from an all-white teach
ing staff to a mixed one might well
wait for quieter times. Only four Ne
gro teachers have been assigned to
mixed classes in Baltimore so far.
The group of parents in South Bal
timore who originally protested the
admittance of Negro children to for
merly all-white schools and who
were active during the demonstra
tions continued to hold meetings in
October and November under the
name of the Baltimore Association
for States Rights. The group remain
ed small and localized, and at last re
port had declined invitations to join
the National Association for the Ad
vancement of White People and its
local affiliate, the Maryland Petition
Committee. The latter two groups,
losers of a suit in the lower courts
to compel the city to maintain segre
gated schools, filed an immediate ap
peal and then, without explanation,
dropped it in November.
OTHER OPPOSITION
Outside of Baltimore, the most or
ganized opposition to school integra
tion had been centered in a group of
representatives from about 30 PTA’s
in Anne Arundel County and near
by sections of Southern Maryland.
The group had met for the first time
in September, and had been warned
on that occasion that the governing
body of the Maryland Congress of
Parents and Teachers had already
expressed its willingness to help im
plement the Supreme Court decision
and that local PTA’s were bound by
their charters not to take a stand op
posed to that of the governing body.
The anti-integration spirit of the
September meeting was so strong
that a floor fight was held likely the
next time the full Maryland Congress
met in annual convention. But the
fight did not take place. The conven
tion was held in Baltimore in No
vember, with all delegates prepared
for a bitter debate. Instead, leaders of
the Congress and of the anti-segre
gation forces put in two days of be
hind - the - scenes discussions and
emerged with a “compromise” reso
lution which the convention unani
mously adopted. The resolution said:
The Supreme Court has rendered its
opinion that continuation of segregated
schools is unconstitutional.
State authorities have accepted the
opinion as being just and equitable and
have urged a maximum amount of local
control in bringing about desegregation
of the schools.
The Maryland Congress of Parents and
Teachers approves this approach and be
lieves that solution of the problems will
be assisted by full and frank discussion
at all levels of the PTA organization.
We shall cooperate with the state and
local boards of education and other gov
ernmental authorities for the develop
ment of sound plans to this end.
The reference in the resolution to
state authorities having urged a
maximum amount of local control
was a reference to preliminary state
ments from the attorney general’s of
fice as to the general tenor of Mary
land’s Supreme Court brief and also
to a long report, released just before
the Maryland Congress convention by
a five-man committee of school su
perintendents. The committee was
one named early in the summer by
Dr. Thomas G. Pullen Jr., state su
perintendent of schools, to work with
the attorney general’s office on the
preparation of Maryland’s brief and
to draw up a statement of principles
to guide county boards of education
in implementing the expected de
segregation decree.
The committee report, written by
its chairman, Supt. William S.
Schmidt of Prince George’s County
(bordering on the District of Colum
bia), began with a review of the offi-
SOUTHERN SCHOOL
cial Maryland reaction to the Su
preme Court decision:
1. The Attorney General of Maryland
(Edward D. E. Rollins) accepted the
opinion of the Supreme Court as being
just and equitable and publicly affirmed
his willingness to assist in the desegrega
tion of the schools of the State . . .
2. The State Superintendent of Schools
has accepted the decision of the Supreme
Court and has indicated his willingness
to implement desegregation to the best
of his ability and to the limit of the
powers of his office.
3. The State Board of Education, at its
meeting on May 26, took the position
that the final judicial authority of the
land had spoken and that it would do all
within its power to implement the deci
sion of the Court’s decree when it is fi
nally issued.
REASONS CITED
The committee then urged a “grad
ual adjustment” to desegregation
under localized controls, citing the
expressed intent of the above respon
sible officials as evidence that a
gradual approach would not become
a do-nothing approach. The report
added that “the committee would
also wish to impress upon the honor
able judges the fact that the process
of desegregation will be carried out
with the same good will and spirit
which have always characterized the
application of law in Maryland.”
The committee’s reasons for urg
ing gradual desegregation were:
(a) Since 1870, Maryland has operated
a segregated system of public education
... In many counties a duplication of fa
cilities, personnel and administrative
practices (has been created) which, if
abruptly discontinued or ignored, could
create much unrest and confusion and
ultimately result in unnecessary harm to
children and youth.
(b) Few, if any, of the county units
are nrenared for a sudden changeover if
integration should be made a mandatory
requirement. Workshons in human rela
tions on a bi-racial basis need to be insti
tuted at all levels; i.e., punil, teacher,
administrator and parent. The hopeful
outcome of such planning and prepara
tion would be to identify any problems
and tensions which now exist, and to
develop through cooperative endeavor
techniques and procedures for solving
these problems and for relieving the
tensions .. .
(c) The wide variation which exists in
the number and percentage of Negro pu
pils in the different counties of Maryland
makes obvious the view that the counties
in the state vary in their racial compo
sition as Maine varies from Mississippi.
In four or five counties the transition
would possibly create few, if any, prob
lems at all, as the number of Negro pupils
affected totals less than 500. In all other
units the total of Negro pupils involved
is considerably larger and the percentage
in one county exceeds 50 per cent of the
total school enrollment. It is apparent that
with such differences it is desirable that
the counties within the state be permitted
a gradual period of transition consistent
with local conditions.
(d) The canvass of counties also indi
cates that there is considerable variation
within a county. One county specifically
noted that desegregation would affect
four communities within that county.
While little or no opposition or tension
would be manifest on a county-wide
basis, citizens in the affected areas have
indicated a preference for a gradual pe
riod of change . . . This condition can be
duplicated in nearly every unit where
there is a concentration of Negro popu
lation.
NEW REASONING
Up to this point in the committee’s
report, the arguments presented were
just about the ones anticipated by
those close to the situation and ex
pressed what was clearly the official
thinking in state educational circles.
But from thereon the report ex
pressed an independent line of rea
soning not heard in Maryland be
fore:
The Supreme Court in abolishing seg
regation in the public schools of this
country created a new right for a mi
nority group. By the same action it abro
gated a right of the majority group. It is
specious to argue that this right of the
majority did not exist legally: it has been
countenanced as a right for nearly a cen
tury and the Supreme Court on one me
morable occasion placed its official sanc
tion on it.
Pragmatically, then, the right of the
white people in any given state, under
the approval of its state laws, to send
their children to segregated schools has
existed. More important than any other
consideration is the fact that the children
of the several states practicing segrega
tion in their schools have thought they
had this right and their thinking and their
attitudes have been conditioned by this
fact.
The Supreme Court, in rendering its
opinion to the effect that the operation of
segregated schools by any state or local
community is unconstitutional, strongly
emphasized the psychological disturbance
in Negro children due to this policy of
excluding them from schools for white
children. Supposedly, and conversely, the
mixing of children, white and colored,
will eliminate this emotional disturbance
on the part of Negro children.
Assuming for the purposes of this dis
cussion that the premise has validity, al
though the problem is not quite so sim-
NEWS —Dec. I, 1954 —PAGE 7
pie, by the same token it is reasonable to
expect that integration will cause emo
tional disturbances in those white chil
dren who have lived in a segregated
world with as clear a conscience as that
of the English, Dutch and New England
slave traders who brought the Negroes
to America for financial gain. Without
implying criticism of the Court on this
point, it might be said that justice—we
are not referring to mercy—has no con
cern with the purely psychological. Jus
tice is concerned solely with rights and
privileges—moral or legal.
But since the psychological disturb
ances of Negro children have been con
sidered in creating this new right for
them, the Court should bear in mind the
emotional disturbance it is creating in
white children by revoking the pre-exist
ing right. The practical application of this
point is that this factor should be taken
into consideration in deciding upon the
final decree.
PRINCIPLES SET FORTH
After this emphasis on the psy
chological effects of desegregation on
white children, the committee report
set forth general principles to be fol
lowed in Maryland to bring about
gradual adjustments through local
control. The most significant princi
ples were these two:
That each local school system should
develop a program of action based upon
a thorough and comprehensive study of
the local situation designed with due re
gard to the rights of every child and after
consultation with representatives of both
races . . .
That each local school system should
develop a program of action that takes
into proper consideration the psychologi
cal and other factors, both detrimental
to and beneficial of, the orderly process
of desegregation. In effect, application of
this principle means simply that desegre
gation may be more rapid in some local
school systems than in others, but it does
not mean that no step in that direction
may be taken by any local system. It does
mean, however, that no uniform rigid
pattern of desegregation can be followed
statewide in Maryland.
The committee report, while it had
been awaited with considerable in
terest, had practically no public re
action in Maryland. The Sunpapers,
which normally could be expected to
comment on a matter of such state
wide significance, had nothing to say
on either morning or evening edito
rial pages. In Baltimore, among per
sons close to the desegregation pro
gram there, some wonderment was
expressed privately as to what Dr.
John H. Fischer, superintendent of
city schools, was doing on a state
committee which talked of emotional
disturbances among white children,
because Dr. Fischer had maintained
at the start of Baltimore’s program
that children would have no trouble
adjusting, if let alone. But nobody
made public statements.
Belated reaction came from Dr
Dwight O. W. Holmes, Negro mem
ber of the State Board of Education
and former president of Morgan
State College. Dr. Holmes, five days
after the committee’s report was re
leased, branded as “childish and ridi
culous those parts of the report
which talked of the white “right” to
attend segregated schools and which
equated the psychological effect of
desegregation on white children with
that of segregation on colored chil
dren.
Dr. Holmes contended that under
fundamental American concepts no
one group has a “right” to discrimi
natory advantage over another group.
That such inequality exists, he said,
in no way makes it a “right” belong
ing to the dominant group. As for the
effects of desegregation, Dr. Holmes
asserted that the lifelong emotional
scar inflicted upon Negroes through
race discrimination can in no way be
compared to the feeling some white
children might have on the issue.
Free from adult agitation, he said,
children adapt easily and quickly to
integrated schools.
McKELDIN SPEECH
While Dr. Holmes was registering
his disappointment in the commit
tee’s report, Gov. McKeldin was
speaking in Boca Raton, Fla., against
the resolution that, if passed, would
have put the Southern Governors
Conference on record as opposing in
tegration. Among the many things
McKeldin had to say was this: “The
very suggestion that Maryland should
offer resistance, active or passive, to
the Court is fantastic nonsense, which
is a waste of time to discuss . . . No
society can exist and develop without
conforming to the law of change
which is the law of life. Even the
social patterns are subject to change,
and to deny it and fight against it is
(See MARYLAND on Page 9)