Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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)