Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.