Newspaper Page Text
I
PAGE 14—Feb. 3, 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
North Carolina
RALEIGH, N. C.
ITH the blessings of Gov. Luther
Hodges, bills to give city and
county boards of education “com
plete authority” over the enrollment
and assignment of pupils have been
introduced in the current session of
the General Assembly.
While this step at first seemed at
variance with statements by the gov
ernor and other legislative leaders
that school legislation now would be
premature, subsequent events indi
cated the action was consistent with
official attitudes.
For although the bills do technical
ly take some authority from the state
board of education and vest it in local
boards, the practical effect of the bills
will not be great. Instead, the bills
if enacted will write into the law a
sanction for current practices.
Also, the unspoken but neverthe
less understood purpose of the bills
(identical measures in the Senate
and House) is to forestall the intro
duction of more extreme legislation
at this session, before the Supreme
Court issues its implementation de
cree.
In his biennial message to the leg
islature, Gov. Hodges dealt with the
school problem by quoting directly
from the report made to him by the
Governor’s Special Advisory Com
mittee on Education, named Aug. 10,
1954 by the late Gov. W. B. Umstead
to study the segregation decision and
formulate recommendations for
North Carolina.
Calling the report “a unanimous
document of great significance,” Gov.
Hodges said it “gives to this General
Assembly and to all of North Caro
lina a starting point from which the
state may go forward toward a solu
tion of this problem.”
TEXT OF THE REPORT
Except for the following introduc
tion, Gov. Hodges quoted all of the
report. Said the introduction:
“The committee is of the opinion
that no other judicial decision or en
actment has ever so directly and
drastically affected the public schools
and, therefore, the lives of all the
people of North Carolina as the de
cision of the Supreme Court of May
17,1954. This decision makes a major
change in our state school law. This
new interpretation of our Federal
Constitution threatens to disrupt our
accustomed social order and disturb
the peace within many school dis
tricts of the state. So, as the com
mittee moves to perform the func
tions assigned to it, it does so with
the following objectives in mind:
“1. Preservation of public educa
tion in North Carolina.
“2. Preservation of the peace
throughout North Carolina.
“The committee approaches the
accomplishment of the above objec
tives with deep humility, knowing
that the final answers are not with
the committee but with the Legisla
ture and the people of this state. Now
as never before in this generation
North Carolinians are called upon to
act coolly, exercise restraint, exhibit
tolerance, and display wisdom. The
committe recommends that members
of all races in North Carolina ap
proach this problem of unprecedent
ed difficulty in that frame of mind.”
COMMITTEE LAUDED
Gov. Hodges incorporated the rest
of the report in his message and in
conclusion said, “I pay tribute to the
committee for its arduous labors and
its collective wisdom, and I urge that
the General Assembly accept this re
port with its recommendations.” Said
the report, under the heading of con
clusions and recommendations:
“First: the Committee is of the
opinion that the mixing of the races
forthwith in the public schools
throughout the state cannot be ac
complished and should not be at
tempted.
“The schools of our state are so
intimately related to the customs and
feelings of the people of each com
munity that their effective operation
is impossible except in conformity
with community attitudes. The Com
mittee feels that the compulsory
mixing of the races in our schools, on
a state-wide basis and without regard
to local conditions and assignment
factors other than race, would alien
ate public support of the schools to
such an extent that they could not
be operated successfully.
“Second: The Committee is of the
opinion that the people of North
Carolina look upon education as the
foundation upon which our demo
cratic institutions stand and are de
termined to provide education for all
children within the limits of their
financial ability. The Committee feels
that the people of North Carolina
desire to solve the problems created
by the Supreme Court’s decision and
provide education for our children
within the n ame work of our present
public school system, if possible. The
Committee shares that view and,
therefore, recommends that North
Carolina try to find means of meet
ing the requirements of the Supreme
Court’s decision within our present
school system before consideration is
given to abandoning or materially
altering it. Only time will tell whether
that is possible.
ASSIGNMENT PLAN
“Third: The Committee is of the
opinion that the enrollment and as
signment of children in the schools
is by its very nature a local matter
and that complete authority over
these matters should be vested in the
county and city boards of education.
With such authority local school
boards could adopt such plans, rules
and procedures as their local condi
tions might require. The Committee
finds that public school problems
differ widely throughout North Caro
lina and conditions within counties
themselves. As these problems unfold
and develop from month to month
and from year to year local school
administrative units are given com
plete authority over the matter re
ferred to above. We, therefore, rec
ommend that the General Assembly
of North Carolina enact the necessary
legislation to transfer complete au
thority over enrollment and assign
ment of children in public schools
and on school buses to the county
and city boards of education through
out the State.
“Fourth: The Committee feels that
problems arising from the Supreme
Court’s decision will be with us for
many years and will require contin
uous study, attention and perhaps
legislative action. We, therefore,
recommend that the Legislature cre
ate an advisory commission for that
purpose and that the Legislature be
represented on such a commission.
“The committee, of course, is aware
of the fact that the Supreme Court
of the United States has not handed
down its decree in the Virginia, South
Carolina, Delaware and Kansas
cases, implementing its decision of
last May in those cases, and is aware
that additional legislation might be
required immediately after that de
cree is issued, and from time to time
thereafter. We do not think, how
ever, that the legislation herein rec
ommended is premature or that it
will in any way adversely affect the
welfare of the schools of North Caro
lina, regardless of the terms of the
Court’s final decree in those cases.”
BILLS INTRODUCED
Bills designed to carry out the
recommendations were offered with
in a week. They conferred upon
county and city boards of education
“full and complete authority” over
assignment and enrollment, adding,
“No pupil shall be enrolled in, ad
mitted to, or entitled or permitted to
attend any public school in such ad
ministrative unit other than the pub
lic school in which such children may
be enrolled pursuant to the rules,
regulations and decision of such
board of education.
“In the exercise of the authority
conferred by Section 1 of this act
upon the county or city boards of
education, each such board shall pro
vide for the enrollment of pupils in
the respective public schools located
within such county or city adminis
trative unit so as to provide for the
orderly and efficient administration
of such public schools, the effective
instruction of the pupils enrolled
therein, and the health, safety and
general welfare of such pupils. In the
exercise of such authority such board
may adopt such reasonable rules and
regulations as in the opinion of the
board shall best accomplish such pur
poses.”
The bills set up the machinery for
appeals for the parents of children
in case local boards deny admission
to some children. First, an appeal
may be carried to the local board.
Failing there, parents then appeal
within 10 days to the Superior Court
in the county, where the case will be
heard de novo (as if it were being
heard for the first time) “before a
jury in the same manner as civil ac
tions are tried and disposed of there
in.” From the Superior Court, an
appeal may be taken to the State Su
preme Court.
EFFECT ‘EXAGGERATED’
A few days after the bills were
introduced, C. R. Holoman, school
budget analyst for the Budget Bu
reau, said their effect had been “ex
aggerated.” He said this while ex
plaining the school budget to the
State House of Representatives.
Local boards already are exercis
ing authority over enrollment and as
signment of pupils, Holoman said.
Any appeals, under present law, go
to the state board of education—un
der proposed law, they would go di
rectly into the courts.
Holoman said in his opinion the
bills would make local units—and not
the state as a whole—parties to any
segregation litigation. This would
mean, he said, a single court decision
would not affect all of North Caro
lina and integration “forthwith,” op
posed by Gov. Hodges and his com
mittee, could be staved off.
Under present law, he said, the di
vision of transportation of the state
board of education can “invade” local
jurisdiction in the name of economy
when school bus routes (bearing on
assignment of pupils) are not laid out
properly. The new law would forbid
this invasion.
In reply to a question, Holoman
said the lack of school bus jurisdic
tion at the state level would cost the
state an estimated $40,000 extra each
year. Rep. Carson Gregory of Harnett
said “Some counties might not be
(financially) able to take these suits
right up to the Supreme Court” and
asked Holoman how the suits could
be paid for. The question was ruled
out of order.
Holoman said that while the state
board has technical control over as
signment and enrollment through
control over purse strings in the
state-supported public school sys
tem, in practice the local boards have
control.
FEW APPEALS
That the boards have encountered
relatively few difficulties is attested
by the fact that only “fifteen or twen
ty” appeals come up to the state board
annually. “They (the appeals) create
some publicity but are not a major
problem,” he said.
Several years ago, the bills now
before the legislature would have
had a more widespread effect. Then,
a school consolidation program was
in progress. In the scattered areas
where communities strongly opposed
the merger of their schools with
schools elsewhere, local boards
clothed with the proposed authority
would have been able to rule out
consolidation. Now, however, consol
idation has been largely accom
plished. One high education official
said consolidation is presently on a
self-sustaining basis: counties, con
verted to the wisdom of consolidation,
are initiating mergers on their own.
This same official said “there is no
idea” of shifting with the authority
“a greater portion of the financial
responsibility back to local units.” He
said the bills “represent a general
idea, with details to be worked out.”
Atty.-Gen. Harry McMullan will
be asked for his opinion of the rami
fications of the legislative proposals
before action is taken on them. Many
legislators are doubtful about the ul
timate effects. They wonder, for ex
ample, whether the state board—by
having control of the money—still
would not in effect have control over
assignment and enrollment.
Legislative opponents of integra
tion—which takes in an overwhelm
ing majority of members of the Gen
eral Assembly—also wonder whether
the shift of responsibility to local
units would actually make the 100
counties, instead of the state, defend
ants in litigation. They believe one
adverse decision would cause all
suits to collapse.
STUDY GROUP SEEN
Gov. Hodges has also asked the
legislature to create a special com
mission to study, on a continuing
basis, developments in this area. The
commission would make recommen
dations for future legislation. His re
quest almost certainly will be granted.
The governor said he “earnestly”
hopes the proposed bills will not be
“confused or jeopardized” by any
conflicting proposals or rash legisla
tion. He said he was “terribly
pleased” by the way the recom
mendations had been received by the
legislature.
“It’s a great tribute to the legisla
ture, the committee and the people
as a whole,” he said, that North Caro
lina is facing the issue calmly. The
recommendations, he stressed, mean
that North Carolina is acting to meet
the issue and is acting to “protect
what we think are our rights with
out any demagoguery.”
NEWSPAPER REACTION
Generally, newspapers praised the
governor’s and the committee’s pro
posals. Nearest to a dissent was an
editorial in the Raleigh News & Ob
server:
Long before the desegregation decision
of the Supreme Court there were many
who felt that the people would be bene-
fitted by a greater decentralization of
school administration. Quite apart from
the desegregation problem, it might pos
sibly be a good idea now to “transfer
complete authority over enrollment and
assignment of children in the public
schools and on school buses to the county
and city boards of education throughout
the state.” Real questions remain, how
ever, as to how this can be done while
the state continues to pay the bill. A
greater question is involved in the official
labeling of such a move as a device in
postponement or evasion of the decision
of the court.
Even on the most practical level the
official disclosure of strategy in advance
is not generally regarded as a security
measure. Certainly in any future litiga
tion about this matter, litigants will be
provided with documentary evidence,
subscribed to by the governor, that the
purpose of this legislation was not decen
tralization but defense against desegrega
tion. This notice of purpose plus the con
tinuation of state support of such decon
trolled schools may pass the legislature;
the combination might have much harder
going in the courthouses . . .
More typical of the editorial reac
tion was this from the Winston-Sa
lem Journal:
The proposal of Gov. Hodges that North
Carolina pursue a “local option” policy of
allowing city and county school boards to
work out their school integration prob
lems is sound and in line apparently with
the thinking of Atty.-Gen. Brownell.
Mr. Brownell proposed in a brief filed
some time ago that the Supreme Court
in its forthcoming decree designed to
implement its decision on segregation in
the public schools delegate authority to
the federal district courts in the affected
states to decide how the desegregation
process should be carried out.
. . . Each community has its own
peculiar school problems. An attempt to
enforce the desegregation plan on a uni
form statewide or area-wide basis might
lead to much unnecessary confusion, and
possibly to much controversy and con
flict.
. . . The committee’s proposals repre
sent a realistic and practical approach
to a social problem that will remain deli
cate and difficult no matter how it is
approached.
In Salisbury, A. H. Anderson, prin
cipal of Winston-Salem’s Kimberly
Park School (Negro) and former
president of the N. C. Teachers Asso
ciation (Negro), told a group of
teachers that in 40 or 50 years nearly
all teachers in the South may be
Negroes.
There’s a continuing shortage of
white teachers, Anderson said, and
the field is yearly becoming less at
tractive to whites. He said Negro
teachers need not fear the loss of their
jobs when the fact of desegregation
becomes the practice in the South.
He said Negro teachers in North
Carolina are better qualified “on
paper” (the average Negro teacher
has a higher certificate than his white
counterpart) to teach than whites.
Anderson said Negro teachers are
not psychologically ready for inte
gration because Negroes in the South
have not had the chance to inter
mingle with whites and become ac
quainted with culture on all levels.
There’s a difference between inte
gration and desegregation, he said.
The former means full participation,
the latter, merely the right to attend
mixed schools. He urged teachers to
think rather than to memorize.
“The only way to get ready for lif (
is to five life,” he said.
In Lumberton, Dr. G. D. Carnes o'
Wilmington, master of N. C. Negri
Masons and pastor of the AME kiot
Church in Wilmington, addressed at
audience of more than 100 Negroes at
the anniversary celebration of the
Emancipation Proclamation.
Dr. Carnes said “equality cannot be
legislated” and urged his audience to
“continue to accept responsibility to
live under the law and uphold it.”
“We’ve come a long way froc
Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” Dr. Carnes said,
“but we must look at the past, the
present and the future. You’ve got
to be what you are and do your best
with it . . . You’ve got to pull to
gether, don’t pull off to yourselves
. . . Treat everybody right.
“I don’t want social equality. I jug
want political and economic equal,
ty and the ability to do what I warn
to do and am able to pay for. God’s
running the Supreme Court—and
everything else—and they had to
make the decision they did.”
CHAPEL HILL GROUP
In Chapel Hill a church-sponsored
organization adopted the name, The
Inter-Racial Fellowship for the
Schools, as 50 persons convened and
adopted a fist of objectives. The
Chapel Hill Ministerial Association,
sponsors of the group, invites inter
ested members of both races to the
meetings.
Lambert Davis, director of the Uni
versity of N. C. Press, gave a revie*
of Schools in Transition and said free
copies will be given to representa
tives of the Fellowship in the various
churches.
The Fellowship adopted a seven-
point program of objectives and sug
gested four specific action projects.
The seven objectives:
“1. That at all times we will at
tempt to approach our problems as
children of God, remembering that
we are all brothers, trying to apply
the Golden Rule, and having a de
cent regard for the opinions of
others.
“2. That we will carry on our work
in areas where we can by concrete
proposals and actions, reduce ten
sions in our community, and create
situations in which white and Negro
citizens, both children and adults,
may share responsibilities on an equal
footing.
“3. That we will work through the
churches and other organizations in
sofar as possible, making our group
a clearing house for ideas and pro
posals.
“4. That in our approach we will
stress education and factual informa
tion, persuasion and consideration;
rather than pressure and condemna
tion.
“5. That we try to secure and make
available information on the prob
lem of desegregation of our schools
as it will affect our community.
“6. That we try to build up a res
ervoir of good will and understand
ing between the races by the con
tacts made in our organization, ana
by providing concrete evidence that
segregation is neither necessary ° r
desirable.
“7. That we will seek and welcom £
all other people who would like $
participate in one or more of the ac
tivities we undertake.”
Approved as specific action proj
ects were proposals to “provide stud!
shelves in school and church libraries
on the desegregation question; en '
courage study groups for considera
tion of the problems and how the!
may be solved; arrange for practice'
illustrations of voluntary unsegre-
gated community activities; and sec
that articles and other forms of P u ^
licity — such as radio forums an
panel discussions—keep the P u ” u
informed and prepared for whate'
decisions the Supreme Court ®a?
make.”
Also in Chapel Hill, the Wesle!
Foundation, Methodist student groUP
on the University of North Caroling
campus, met and passed a resolud 0
upholding the Supreme Court’s °c
cision. It passed by a vote of 48 to
A spokesman said the ballot was s®
cret so “no person would feel P r ®\
sured” and so “a true represen tad
of the group would be made.”