About Southern school news. (Nashville, Tenn.) 1954-1965 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 3, 1955)
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.”
