Newspaper Page Text
PAGE &—May 4, 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
South Carolina
COLUMBIA, S. C.
'T'HE MONTH of April brought
distinct, but interrelated, actions
in state and national capitals as the
subject of racial separation in public
schools underwent further official in
quiry.
In Washington, attorneys for the
schools of Clarendon County re
newed their plea before the U. S.
Supreme Court that federal district
courts, rather than the Supreme
Court itself, be given the task of im
plementing the 1954 decision banning
racial separation. (Those arguments
were presented by Attys. Robert
McC. Figg Jr. of Charleston and
S. E. Rogers of Summerton. The
state of South Carolina did not this
time, nor has it in the past, make an
official appearance in the school seg
regation litigation.)
In Columbia, members of the South
Carolina General Assembly took
further steps aimed at preserving the
traditional pattern of separate
schools. By word and deed, the South
Carolina legislators showed them
selves as determined as ever to fore
stall any mixing of the races in pub
lic schools by direction of the federal
courts.
The most far-reaching action of
the legislature in this respect was the
state Senate’s adoption of an amend
ment to the annual State Appropria
tions Bill, providing that state funds
be denied any school forced to accept
students by court order. The amend
ment (not yet enacted into law)
makes no specific reference to race,
but is clearly intended as a device
to keep control of pupil assignment
in the hands of school officials de
spite the possibility of judicial inter
ference. The amendment is worded
in this way:
“Provided further, that the state
aid for teachers’ salaries and all oth
er appropriations for the operation of
the public school system, shall cease
and become inoperative for the time
that any pupil or pupils shall by or
der of any court attend a school other
than that which he or she is now at
tending or may be assigned by local
board of trustees or other governing
body of such school. This provision
shall not in any way affect the oper
ation of any school other than the
school affected by such court order.”
The amendment was proposed by
the five senators who are members
of a special committee conducting a
continuing study of the school segre
gation problem. At the time this was
written, it was not known whether
the provision would be written into
law, since the Senate version of the
appropriation bill had not been ac
cepted by the House of Representa
tives. The bill currently is in the
hands of the Free Conference Com
mittee, but the House, while record
ing its opposition to numerous sec
tions of the Senate-approved bill, has
said nothing concerning the school
segregation provision.
RESOLUTION PASSED
For its own part, the House has
approved a Concurrent Resolution
calling on the Supreme Court to re
frain from implementing its decision
of last May 17. The resolution, spon
sored by Reps. John C. Hart and
James M. Arthur, of Union County,
predicts “hatred, strife, chaos and
confusion” will be the direct result
of any forced integration of the races
in public schools of the state.
The proposed measure, which has
been referred to the education com
mittee of the state Senate, carries
this resolving statement:
“That at no time in the foreseeable
future is it believed possible to deseg
regate the public schools of the
country, and that the Supreme Court
of the United States is memorialized
not to implement their decision call
ing for such desegregation, thereby
giving the white citizens the same
rights of choosing conditions under
which their children will be educated
as those which are granted citizens
of the Negro race, thusly welding and
uniting the country rather than fur
ther dividing it at a time when a solid
front of democracy should be pre
sented to the world.”
TEACHER CONTRACTS
Meanwhile, the five Senate mem
bers of the special segregation study
committee have proposed still anoth
er piece of legislation aimed at
strengthening the position of local
school officials in coping with prob
lems which might arise out of court-
directed mixing of the races. This
latest proposal would simply elimi
nate from the state code a section
which now provides that public
school teachers are considered au
tomatically reemployed at the end
of each school year unless notice to
the contrary is given.
If this repealing legislation is en
acted by the General Assembly, it
will mean that year-by-year em
ployment of public school teachers
hinges upon affirmative action by
both teacher and trustees. Presum
ably, it would deprive any teacher
of a grounds for suit for fulfilment of
contract, since there would be no
such thing as the implied contract
under which teachers now continue
on the job automatically.
Final action has not been taken on
this proposal, but the Senate allowed
it to be placed on the legislative cal
endar without the usual requirement
that it be referred to a standing com
mittee.
While neither House has yet agreed
to school segregation actions pro
posed recently in the other, there
seems to be no major differences of
opinion except perhaps as to word
ing and procedure. There is no indi
cation of any slackening in legisla
tive determination to maintain sepa
rate schools to the maximum degree
possible, whatever ruling may yet
come from the Supreme Court.
Outside the legislature, there has
come some measure of criticism of
the Senate’s adoption of the amend
ment barring public funds from
schools accepting students on court
order.
Here again, the criticism seems not
to reflect an adverse position so much
as a difference of opinion as to the
necessity of the step. The Greenville
Piedmont, which is edited by a lay
member of the school study commit
tee, Wayne Freeman, has expressed
editorially the fear that the Senate’s
action might “muddy the waters.”
The Piedmont points out that the
committee as a whole has counseled
against any “hasty, premature or
precipitate action” on the school mat
ter, and fears that adoption of the
Senate proviso might be just such
action.
EVANS’ VIEWS
Meanwhile, some interest in the
state has been occasioned by the re
publication of the school segregation
views of a long dead governor of
South Carolina, John Gary Evans. In
accepting the presidency of the
state’s Constitutional Convention of
1895, Gov. Evans suggested the pos
sibility of allowing taxpayers to de
cide which schools should benefit
from their taxes. Here are Gov. Ev
ans’ words, uttered at a time when
native South Carolinians were re
gaining control of their government
after a long period of radical rule
during Reconstruction:
“Experience has proved the wis
dom of separate education of the
races, and the Constitution should
provide for the maintenance of a
white and colored school in each dis
trict of the state. Give to the citizen
the right to designate the school to
which his tax should be applied, and
leave to the trustees the distribution
of the tax of corporations upon an
equal basis.
“A common school education cre
ates a demand for a higher or colle
giate one, and it is your duty to sup
port the higher institutions of learn
ing in the state. See that no lights are
put out—rather let more be estab
lished. The great mass of the people
never complain of taxation for edu
cation when they know they derive
the direct benefit.”
The visit to South Carolina by Pres
ident Eisenhower on April 12 pro
voked an outburst from one member
of the State House of Representatives
who used the occasion to condemn the
Supreme Court’s school decision. Rep.
G. Ross Anderson Jr., of Anderson
County, one-time legislative assistant
to U. S. Sen. Olin D. Johnston, noted
with displeasure the absence of state
legislators and officials from the cap
ital on the day of Mr. Eisenhower’s
visit to The Citadel, where he was
awarded an honorary degree and was
accorded a review of the cadet corps.
(The Citadel, the Military College of
South Carolina, now is headed by
Gen. Mark Wayne Clark, long a mili.
tary associate of the President.)
Said Mr. Anderson on the floor of
the House:
“This (Citadel ceremony honoring
the President) is taking place in a
state whose government is dedicated
to preserving segregation even to the
point of threatening secession.”
He found it distasteful that South
Carolina officials should absent
themselves from their duties to at
tend an event honoring a President
who “has taken credit for the recent
Supreme Court decision which
strikes at the basic foundations of our
southern way of life, the same Presi
dent who established the nation’s
capital as a model of racial integra
tion by ordering the whites and
blacks to attend the same schools.”
Mr. Anderson’s speech drew some
applause, some criticism, from his
colleagues and from the general pub
lic. Two days later, two other repre
sentatives (both of whom had attend
ed the ceremonies at The Citadel)
arose to points of personal privilege
on the floor of the House and took
Mr. Anderson to task for criticizing
South Carolinians who took advan
tage of the “rare privilege and an
honor” to see and hear the President
of the United States.
Rep. Preston S. Marchant of
Greenville termed “asinine” the ref
erence by Mr. Anderson to the Su
preme Court decision. Mr. Marchant
pointed out that eight of the nine
Supreme Court justices who made
this May 17 decision had been ap
pointed by Democratic presidents
prior to Mr. Eisenhower’s taking of
fice.
V ir ginia
RICHMOND, Va.
■\7TRGINIA attorneys have suggested
” to the U. S. Supreme Court that its
final decree in the Prince Edward
County school segregation case “per
mit an effective gradual adjustment”
to integration.
The Prince Edward case is one of
the five involved in the Court’s anti
segregation ruling of May 17, 1954.
During oral arguments before the
Court last month, Chief Justice War
ren asked all attorneys to submit in
writing decrees which they would
have the Court enter to carry out the
1954 decision.
J. Lindsay Almond Jr., Virginia’s
attorney general, and Archibald G.
Robertson, who represents the Prince
Edward School Board, mailed to the
Court on April 21 this proposed de
cree:
“In accordance with the opinion of
this Court rendered on May 17, 1954,
the judgment of the court below is
reversed and the case is remanded to
the District Court for further con
sideration.
“The Court may, after hearing, per
mit an effective gradual adjustment
from the existing segregated school
system to a system not based on color
distinctions which will not jeopardize
the effectiveness of public high school
education in Prince Edward County,
Va.
“The Court below may retain juris
diction of the cause to enter such
further decrees as circumstances war
rant.”
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
Earlier in April, the Virginia at
torneys filed with the Court a “sup
plemental memorandum” to the brief
which they had submitted last fall.
Most of the data in the memorandum
were cited during last month’s oral
arguments, which are covered else
where in this issue of Southern
School News.
But one section of the memo
randum, labeled “Level of Educa
tional Attainment,” had repercussions
in Virginia after the Court hearing
had ended.
That section of the memorandum
reads as follows:
“More than 31,000 Virginia school
children in the eighth grade annually
are given a standard silent reading
test. These are the results most re
cently tabulated for Virginia’s cities:
Class Standing
WHITE
Highest 25%
Middle 50%
Lowest 25%
NEGRO
Reading Age
18 1/6 years
13 1/2 years
12 years
Highest 25% 11 5/6 years
Middle 50% 10 7/12 years
Lowest 25% 9 1/3 years
“Thus it was made clear that the
lowest quarter of the white students
was further advanced than the high
est quarter of the Negroes.
“This result was not unexpected.
Similar answers were obtained from
the standard psychological examina
tion of the American Council on Edu
cation, generally designed as IQ tests,
given to all high school seniors. These
were the scores obtained in the Vir
ginia cities:
Class Standing Score
WHITE
Highest 25%
Middle 50%
Lowest 25%
NEGRO
103.2
89.9
71.2
Highest 25% 63.9
Middle 50% 50.3
Lowest 25% 34.0
“It is true, though not particularly
helpful, that the results for rural areas
were slightly closer; the gap remained
wide. How can the gap be bridged?
Is it practicable to mix everyone to
gether and have one teacher instruct
ing children whose levels of attain
ment are as diverse as reading ages
of 18 and 9? Will it benefit the chil
dren in the schools for this to be re
quired?
“This is a very practical measure of
difficulties to be encountered in end
ing segregation.”
A few days after the Court hearing
had ended, Alfred L. Wingo, super
visor of research for the Virginia
State Department of Education, told
newspaper reporters that the test re
sults had been “misinterpreted” by
the Virginia attorneys.
He said that on the general aptitude
scores, for example, the lowest 25 per
cent of the city white students made
71.2 or less, while on the same test,
the highest 20 per cent of the Negroes
made 71.3 or more.
This means, he explained, that the
top fourth of the Negro students is,
generally, as far advanced as the
lowest fourth of the white students.
He cited this illustration:
“Assuming that a class is typical of
the results obtained through state
wide testing, and assuming further
that there are equal numbers of
whites and Negroes in that class, then
the lower half of the class would con
tain three-quarters of the Negroes
and one-quarter of the whites, while
the upper half of the class would con
tain three-fourths of the whites and
one-fourth of the Negroes.”
Explaining why he had made a
statement on the subject, Mr. Wingo
said:
“I’m in the business of fact finding.
We have no ax to grind. I just get
disturbed when I see facts misinter
preted.”
Atty. Gen. Almond’s reply was:
“It’s no more than the difference
between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-
Dee. If the state department of edu
cation has anything else to say about
the defense of this case, I wish they
would take it up with counsel who are
trying to save the public school sys
tem from destruction.”
Gov. Thomas B. Stanley termed as
“insignificant” the difference between
the interpretation of the figures in the
memorandum and that of Mr. Wingo.
CONTRACTS CHANGED
The state department of education
was in the news again when it an
nounced a basic change in teachers’
contracts which would permit local
school boards to fire teachers on 30
days’ notice. Heretofore, contracts
have specifically stated the length of
employment, usually nine months.
However, local boards have the
privilege of omitting the 30-day
clause if they desire, and at least
three boards—those for the city of
Richmond, the town of South Boston
and the county of Henrico—already
have voted not to include it in their
1955-56 contracts.
Department of education officials
said the 30-day clause was being au
thorized primarily because of the
possibility of sudden and unantici
pated decreases in school population
near military establishments. In dis
cussion of the matter here, however,
it was pointed out that the clause also
could be used to discharge teachers if
there should be a sudden drop in
school attendance as the result of a
Supreme Court decree ordering im
mediate racial integration. J. Rupert
Picott, executive secretary of the
Virginia Teachers Association (Ne
gro) wrote to all school boards urging
them to reject the 30-day clause, de
claring that members of the VTA con
sider it “a threat to their professional
welfare and an unnecessary action.”
‘DEFENDERS’ MEET
The board of directors of the De
fenders of State Sovereignty and In
dividual Liberties, an organization
pledged to the preservation of racial
segregation, held a six-hour closed
meeting here on April 7, after which
it issued a statement proposing that
state constitutional changes be made
to make it possible to abolish the free
school system.
The board also announced the ap
pointment of William E. Maxey Jr.,
33, as full-tune executive secretary
of the organization. Mr. Maxey re
signed as commissioner of revenue
in Powhatan County to accept the
new post.
On April 19 and 20, executive com
mittee members of the state commis
sion on public education held closed,
unannounced sessions here. Reporters
who questioned State Sen. Garland
Gray, chairman, were told only that
the group had met to “canvass the
situation.” The commission consists
of 32 members of the Virginia General
Assembly who were appointed by
Gov. Stanley to chart a public school
policy for Virginia in light of the Su
preme Court’s integration decision.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Other developments in Virginia
during April included the following:
(1) A Negro youth, Chester Hedge
peth, of Maggie Walker high school,
was selected to act as city manager of
Richmond on Student Government
Day, May 4. He was chosen by a Stu
dent City Council consisting of seven
white and two Negro students from
the city’s high schools. Student Gov
ernment Day is being sponsored by
the Richmond Citizens’ Association-
Students will “run” the city on that
day, working with their adult coun
terparts.
(2) Lieut. Gov. A. E. S. Stephens,
in a speech at Alexandria, Va., ° n
April 16, declared it was “unthink
able” that Virginia should consider
eliminating its public school system-
“Regardless of how violently we as a
people, or as individuals, may ha' e
reacted to this decision (of the Su
preme Court), the fact remains th a
our court of last resort has spoke”
and we must, each and every one °
us, give prayerful consideration to de
termining what is the right and proP®,,
thing to do under the circumstances,
he said.
(3) Negro teachers of the
mond area (Third District of the V
ginia Teachers’ Association) ,
the state board of education and A - •
Gen. Almond. They described as ®
sidious and pernicious” the boaro ,
authorization of a clause in teache
contracts which will permit 1°
school boards to fire teachers on ^
days notice. The Negro group sa ^
this clause as a device to evade raC *
integration in the schools. The
teachers denounced Atty. ^ eT l'gj e d
mond for referring, in a briet
with the Supreme Court, to relatn ^
high disease rates among Negroes,
See VIRGINIA on Page J