Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—Jan. 6, 1955—PAGE 9
Maryland
BALTIMORE, Md.
HE Supreme Court brief filed by
Atty. Gen. Herbert Brownell Jr.
and Solicitor Gen. Simon E. Sobeloff
differed from that filed by Maryland’s
outgoing Atty. Gen. Edward D. E.
Rollins in two major respects.
For one, the government’s brief
would allow only 90 days for local
school authorities to prepare their de
segregation plans and would subject
them thereafter to constant pressure
to put the plans quickly into effect.
Maryland’s brief advocated no set
deadlines and urged that the timing
be established locally in accordance
with varying local conditions.
Secondly, the Brownell-Sobeloff
brief would have the lower courts
pass judgment on all desegregation
plans and maintain “continuing di
rect supervision” of the administra
tive steps taken to implement those
plans. The Maryland brief recom
mended that the school cases be re
manded to the lower courts and that
these courts decree only that “an ef
fective, gradual adjustment” should
take place.
It is “no new thing,” the Maryland
brief says, “to state that this court
should not place itself in the position
of attempting to engage in the ad
ministration of any public school sys
tem. . . . This court, or any court,
should only intervene where school
administrators on the local level can
be shown to have failed to exercise
good faith and reasonable diligence.”
Despite the Brownell-Sobeloff ad
vocacy of the type of court super
vision of local desegregation that the
Maryland brief argued against, no
Maryland officials took public issue
with the government’s position. Atty.
Gen. Rollins had no comment, critical
or otherwise, on the federal brief.
Gov. Theodore R. McKeldin said in
an interview with The Sun that he
felt that the Justice Department had
properly considered the complexities
of the segregation question and that
its brief was “a serious and thought
ful effort to assist in arriving at a ra
tional solution.”
Gov. McKeldin went on to say:
I have confidence that the Supreme
Court will deal with this question with
wisdom and statesmanship. I am equally
confident that the disposition of all re
sponsible people of both races will be to
act with moderation and in obedience to
the court’s decree, whatever that may be.
REACTION sparse
Except for Gov. McKeldin’s com
ments, Maryland reaction to the gov
ernment brief was sparse. The Sun
pointed out editorially that Mr.
Brownell had recommended grad
ual, localized adjustment to desegre
gation, as had Maryland and others.
But there was a difference, The Sun
said:
,B e (Brownell) would lay the burden
a decision as to the legality of local ap-
P 'cations upon the federal district courts,
ince the matter is now a federal one,
ls suggestion is logical. But one need
ot °e a prophet to see that it would lay
and onerous burden on those courts
states where the feeling against integra-
“°h is intense.
° ne °an also foresee, without too much
i V^ulty, that the final decree, when it
1 a U-c(l down next year, will necessari
ly embody much that can hardly be called
other name than legislation and
well 'J 1 certa m instances, the law may
Doll ” ave to be backed b y the Federal
n* power to a greater or less degree.
Popular law is difficult to enforce.
Evening Sun, noting editorially
at the government brief urged a
aadline for desegregation plans
areas the Maryland brief had not,
^ a 'd that probably the Supreme Court
°uld establish some sort of time ta-
- 6 for desegregation. But the news-
p^.^iuestioned the 90-day planning
f, ri °r. Proposed by the government,
self i ' en ^ n 9 Sun said that if local
li c °° °® c ials were to take the pub-
m ® n drely into their confidence,
p. with both white and Negro
an d allowing time for full
ade C ^* scuss * on before announcing
p r ^f^gation program (a procedure
p er ; Se d by Maryland school su-
hiivl 1t end l ? nts) ’ the planning stage
Th ti . re 9 u f re rnore than 90 days.
f ron , e Baltimore Afro-American in a
ink editorial headlined in red
'finest tu? Brownell brief the
bon i m Thanksgiving gift to the na-
t\vi Ce aginable.” The Negro-owned,
“th e ~ Wee kly newspaper said that
m atter of enforcing prompt de
segregation of schools is not the ju
diciary’s alone, but a matter for every
officer and agency of the Govern
ment, federal, state and local, which
is charged with the duty of enforcing
the Constitution and rights guaran
teed under it.”
STATE QUIET
Other than these reactions to the
government brief, Maryland was gen
erally silent on the segregation issue
during late November and December.
State school authorities had a defi
nite policy of saying as little as pos
sible, the feeling being that anything
said in advance of Supreme Court
action would be premature and would
only give anti-integration forces
something at which to shoot. The
most immediate goal of state officials,
already on record as prepared to car
ry out desegregation orders, was the
negative one of not stirring up any
controversy in advance of the meet
ing of the new General Assembly in
January.
Atty. Gen. Rollins, in the Maryland
brief, predicted that there would be
a “deluge of bills and proposals”
when the General Assembly next
met, urging “everything from the
abolition of the school system in its
entirety to the election of school
teachers by popular vote.”
If such a deluge was in the offing,
the sponsors had not revealed their
plans prior to Christmas time. There
was talk that there might be bills to
repeal the compulsory school attend
ance law, to set up physical require
ments for school admittance and to
have school boards elected, instead
of appointed by the Governor as at
present. But it was only talk, of the
unconfirmed variety common to the
weeks just prior to a legislative ses
sion.
Some legislative activity might
have been expected from the South
ern Maryland PTA groups that had
rallied in September around the
“West River Proclamation” (October
issue, Southern School Ne(ws) .
That proclamation called for the elec
tion of school boards and for a pop
ular referendum on any desegregation
program proposed by school officials.
When the PTA groups met in an
nual statewide convention in Novem
ber, however, the author of the
“West River Proclamation” was
among those who urged adoption of a
resolution (November issue, South
ern School News) which pledged
PTAs to “cooperate with the state
and local boards of education and
other governmental authorities for
the development of sound (desegre
gation) plans.”
The adoption of the resolution does
not mean the end of opposition to de
segregation in Southern Maryland,
of course—or on the Eastern Shore.
It does mean, however, that since lo
cal PTA groups are duty bound by
their charters to uphold the policy
of their parent organization, the pres
ently organized parent - teacher
groups in Maryland counties cannot
actively oppose desegregation. Any
direct opposition must come from
groups outside the PTAs, or else
present PTAs must break with their
parent organization and assume a
different name.
NAAWP INTERVIEW
In an attempt to find out what op
ponents of desegregation had in mind,
the Maryland reporter for Southern
School News had a lengthy inter
view with the leaders of the Mary
land Chapter of the National Asso
ciation for the Advancement of White
People, which late in November es
tablished its headquarters in South
Baltimore in the general vicinity of
the late September-early October
school disturbances. The headquar
ters, sparsely furnished, are in a for
mer bakery and are open only on a
part-time (mostly evening) basis.
The local NAAWP leaders said
their aim was to “combat integration
by all legal means.” They said they
presently had no specific program of
action, having filed and lost a court
suit to force Baltimore city schools to
return to a segregated basis (Novem
ber issue, Southern School News).
They said they would work for the
elimination of public schools, “if nec
essary,” and would support any leg
islative proposal which furthered
their policy. They have adopted a
proposal by a Baltimore lawyer,
George Washington Williams, to have
a Federal constitutional amendment
that would “eliminate limitations
upon the powers of the states to reg
ulate health, morals, education, mar
riage, transportation wholly within
their borders.”
One of the leaders explained that
they had been awaiting advice from
their national president, Bryant
Bowles, as to their course of action
and that Mr. Bowles had been too
tied up in the courts of late to ad
vise them. They were quite bitter
about what they termed the “trumped
up” charges against Mr. Bowles,
which they held to be tricks to keep
Mr. Bowles from furthering his and
their cause.
PRESS CRITICIZED
The Baltimore leaders were also
bitter about the “grossly unfair”
handling of the segregation issue by
the Baltimore press and by television
and radio broadcasters generally.
They said that Baltimore newspapers
were “one-sided” in their coverage
and would not print their letters
against segregation. As an example
of this “one-sidedness,” they pointed
particularly to the fact that the Bal
timore press during its coverage of
the Milford, Del. situation, had not
told readers that Delaware Atty. Gen.
Hy Young was a Jew who had
changed his name.
In conversation, the Baltimore lead
ers express almost as much resent
ment of Jews as of Negroes. In this
they reflect the line followed by Mr.
Bowles’ monthly organ, The Na
tional Forum, which in its November
issue said that “as a point of fact it
is organized Jewry, rather than the
Negroes, who are pushing hardest for
integration.” The Baltimore followers
explain the anti-Semitic material in
the Bowles publication, such as the
printing of the Jewish names of va
rious movie actors and actresses, by
saying that the Jewish War Veterans
and the Anti-Defamation League of
B’nai B’rith attacked Bowles and that
he is only fighting back.
Speaking of the Baltimore school
disturbances of late September, the
Baltimore group said the NAAWP
had been blamed for the trouble but
that Bowles had not even been near
Baltimore until the disturbances were
about over and that then he had come
only at their invitation to help them
set up an anti-integration organiza
tion. They said that Negro students
were deliberately “asking for trou
ble” when they entered Southern
High School, scene of the worst dis
turbances, because the Negroes had
a “much better school of their own
than Southern.” (The high school has
1,749 white boys and girls, 39 Ne
groes).
MEMBERS SOUGHT
Whether there would be any more
trouble or not in South Baltimore,
they said, was something out of their
hands. Their aim now, they explained,
was to get as many members as pos
sible, with the expectation of hold
ing outdoor meetings when the
weather warms up. Their member
ship drive was going well throughout
Maryland in their opinion, but the
figures were not readily available
because Mr. Bowles’ national head
quarters in Washington helps save
them paper work by receiving direct
ly all applications for membership
and attendant fees (one year, $5;
three years, $12; silver card, $25; gold
card, $50).
The other statewide group oppos
ing desegregation is the Maryland
Petition Committee, which was affi
liated with the NAAWP nationally
several months before the Maryland
NAAWP chapter was formed. The
Petition Committee, which the local
NAAWP leaders say maintains a
friendly relationship with them, has
been circulating a petition since July
which calls for the “establishment of
a system of private schools for any
group or groups which may wish to
protect the continued existence of its
own race; and make provision that
any citizen who subscribes to the
support of such a school shall be en
titled to and, in fact, shall receive a
rebatement of, or a freedom from all
taxes collected or to be collected from
him, henceforth, for all purposes of
public instruction.”
If the committee intends to press
this proposal at the General Assem
bly, the fact has not been publicized.
The opponents of desegregation are
not the only ones actively consider
ing the implications of the Supreme
Court decision. The state board of
education, which by law is empow
ered to “exercise, through the state
superintendent of schools and his pro
fessional assistants, general control
and supervision over the public
schools and educational interests of
the state,” has pledged itself to “do
all within its power to work out the
problem ‘seemingly and in order’ and
in such a manner that the rights and
privileges of no individual are im
paired by arbitrary or capricious
methods.”
In line with this policy, the state
superintendent of schools, Dr. Thom
as G. Pullen, Jr., and his professional
assistants have been talking with
county school officials and with
groups of white and Negro parents.
It is understood that desegregation
plans are rather far advanced (on
paper) in some counties, and that
other counties are making their ba
sic studies of school populations to
determine in what areas desegrega
tion can most easily be undertaken.
But neither state nor county officials
are discussing their plans publicly
at this point.
BUS PLAN DROPPED
The one small attempt at integra
tion outside of Baltimore city ended
abruptly. In Frederick County, which
lies in western Maryland and has only
a small percentage of Negroes, ar
rangements had been made to have
the white school bus pick up five col
ored children from an out-of-the-
way farm. By taking the white bus
the children saved an hour-and-a-
half ride to school each day. But
white parents objected to the arrange
ment, so the plan was dropped. The
opposition was somewhat surprising,
since western Maryland is the area
where resistance to desegregation is
considered the least intense in the
state. And in nearby Carroll County,
the white and Negro schools have
played football against each other for
some time.
PRO-INTEGRATION GROUP
In Anne Arundel county, which lies
just south of Baltimore and includes
the state capital, Annapolis, there
were two developments of note in
December. Formerly the center of the
“West River Proclamation” move
ment to prevent desegregation, the
county, just before Christmas, saw
the beginnings of a citizens’ group
which has the expressed purpose of
“becoming better informed concern
ing the best ways of integrating our
public schools, in order that we may
rightly interpret the law and thus
help implement the plans of respon
sible groups based on the decrees as
they come down from the Supreme
Court.”
Eighteen persons from seven towns
attended the first meeting and heard
a representative of the Maryland at
torney general’s office say that “we
advocate the view that segregation
should be ended as soon as possible.”
They also were encouraged by Anne
Arundel County Sheriff Joseph W.
Alton, Jr. to go to work as soon as
possible helping to pave the way for
the change. Copies of the pamphlet,
“Answers for Action,” circulated by
the Southern Regional Council, were
distributed, and the hope was ex
pressed that other “study” groups
would be formed in the county. “We
seek not to dictate,” a spokesman
declared. “We seek to understand.”
The second development was the
announcement by the Anne Arundel
County Ministerium that its members
had adopted a resolution which said,
in part:
We, the Anne Arundel County Minis
terium, hail as eminently just the unani
mous decision of the Supreme Court,
May 17, 1954 banning segregation as un
constitutional from our public schools.
We believe that God has created all men,
and with equal love, cares for each one.
We believe that laws should, with equal
justice, apply to all.
The Ministerium urged in its res
olution “that all people in the county
act with the utmost charity and work
together to implement integration in
our public schools in accordance with
the just laws of our land.”
In Baltimore city, Friends School
announced that it would admit Ne
groes to its student body in Septem
ber of this year. Prominent in private
educational circles, the Friends insti
tution will admit colored students
only to its nursery school and kin
dergarten this coming fall. The first
grade will receive Negroes in 1956,
the second grade in 1957, third grade
in 1958, etc. In announcing the
change, Dr. G. Canby Robinson,
chairman of the school’s educational
committee said:
The reasons for the change of policy are
a sense of obligation and responsibility
to encourage and support the movement
started by the decision of the United
States Supreme Court to remove dis
crimination between citizens of this coun
try of different racial origins, and to have
the policies of the school more nearly con
form to the principles of the Society of
Friends.
Another prominent private school
in Baltimore, the Park School, adopt
ed a policy of admitting Negroes
prior to the opening of the current
school year, but no qualified appli
cants presented themselves. Catholic
elementary schools went on a deseg
regated basis this past fall, integra
tion having been practiced previously
only at the secondary and college lev
els.
Elsewhere on the segregation front,
Baltimore public housing officials
were proceeding cautiously with their
policy of dropping racial distinctions
in the admittance of families to low
rent housing units (September issue,
Southern School News). Months of
preparations have gone into the
change. Outside consultants have
been hired to work out plans; con
ferences with the police and other
public and private agencies have been
held; white tenants have been ad
vised of the shift of the policy, and
Negro families have been hand
picked and briefed as to their respon
sibilities. Some integration has al
ready taken place, but so far officials
have given it just as little publicity
as possible.
COMMITTEE GETS AWARD
The Sidney Hollander Foundation
Award, given annually in Baltimore
to the individual group making the
“outstanding contribution toward the
achievement of equal rights and op
portunities for Negroes in Mary
land,” was awarded to the Committee
on Racial Equality, a small interracial
group that adheres to a passive re
sistance policy in racial matters (no
violence, no picketing). The commit
tee has been working with moderate
success to open downtown eating
places to Negro patrons, starting with
5-and-10-cent stores lunch counters
and working up currently to drug
store counters.
One of the touchiest racial situa
tions in Baltimore involves the hotels.
When the major league Orioles were
acquired last year, the question soon
rose as to whether Negro players on
visiting American League teams, such
as Larry Doby of the Cleveland In
dians, would be allowed to stay in
the same hotel with the rest of his
teammates or would have to seek out
Negro accommodations. A consider
able controversy arose, with the ma
jority of the publicly expressed sen
timent in favor of lowering the racial
bar, but the Baltimore Hotel Asso
ciation met and resolved to hold to its
color line.
The Afro-American had kept the
issue alive from time to time through
the year and in November under a
heading “Who Will Be Next?” had
pointed out editorially that “Mary
land’s Congress of Industrial Organ
izations announces it will hold no
more annual sessions in Baltimore
hotels until their accommodations are
available to all members, colored and
white.” The CIO followed, the Afro
said, “the example of a number of
national organizations, including ed
ucational and scientific associations,
The American Legion, general con
ferences of the Methodist, United
Brethren and Episcopal churches.”
Then in December the Afro had
other news for its readers: a Negro
doctor had been a guest of the Shera-
ton-Belvedere Hotel, one of the top
ranking hotels in Baltimore, and the
hotel management had told the Afro
that all guests were welcome without
discrimination. The hotel is part of a
national chain and thus follows poli
cies set outside of Baltimore. But the
Afro states that “reports have been
persistent in Baltimore for several
weeks” that the Hotel Association
was on the verge of changing its pol
icy.