About Southern school news. (Nashville, Tenn.) 1954-1965 | View Entire Issue (June 8, 1955)
More Intensive School Coverage Mapped For Next Year Factual Southern School News Objective LIE! VOL. I, NO. 10 NASHVILLE, TENN. JUNE 8, 1955 Court Upholds Principle, Gives Time Reporters Meet June 11 /CORRESPONDENTS and directors ^ of the Southern Education Re porting Service will meet in Nash ville on June 11-12 to map more in tensive coverage of school develop ments in the light of May 31 deci sion of the U. S. Supreme Court. In calling the special meeting, SERS Director C. A. McKnight said: “It is clear that the May 31 decision will prompt a great deal of activity in the southern and border states in the next two years—some of it in the direction of compliance, some in the direction of evasion. “The purpose of the meeting is to make plans for stepping up our cov erage of these developments, with continued emphasis on the greatest degree of completeness, objectivity, and factual accuracy possible.” McKnight noted that Southern School News, the official publication of SERS, will go on a paid subscrip tion basis effective with the July is sue. In the opinion of the SERS direc tors, he said, Southern School News will be “an indispensable source of trustworthy information” for: • Public officials • Educators Attorneys for school boards Newspaper editors and reporters Libraries Church and civic groups Social and welfare organizations Interested private citizens .The subscription plan was an nounced in the May issue of South- School News. The overhead costs °f SERS have been underwritten by a grant from the Fund for the Ad- '■ancement of Education. Subscribers are nsked to pay for the cost of print ing and mailing only—roughly one- ourth The actual cost of each sub scription. Here is the subscription plan: $2W (July 1955_June 1956 ) $3 ^° years (July 1955-June 1957) ,, subscriptions (five or more to each Same a< ^Hressee) $1.50 per year Semi-bulk subscriptions (five or , rI °, re in one order but to different lessees) $1.75 each per year. b mgle copies, 20 cents each; 10 or more . 15 cents each, tinn ? r ^ eta ^ s about the subscrip ts pl ? n wil1 be found on the back Page of this issue. * » t Final Notice! baL 0 ^ at t4le address label on the Snr^- page y°ur copy of Tthern School News. . . ’ above your name, there is a ^* le s of numbers like this: JOHN f>. DQ£ 1 6f 7 Ely A VE . N W V ! U F , T F N v y 0u at jncans you have renewed th e 1 s f u . ription. The number at Vo,.-* ,' s l * le expiration date of If th 311 * sul,scr iption. you here are no numbers above to „ aanie ’ you have until July 1 i,/ your renewal in. Details on p What’s Inside In a special 24-page issue marking the end of the first volume year, Southern School News brings you a complete, authoritative report of the May 31 Supreme Court action and subsequent events in the southern and border states. In this issue you will find: • Reaction to the May 31 court action from 17 states and the District of Columbia—Pages 2-7. 10. The text of the court decision—Page 6. Newspaper editorial comment—Pages 8- • A series of questions and answers about the court ruling, starting on Page 1 and con tinued on Pages 10-11. • The usual state-by-state reports of other developments—Pages 11-19. • Excerpts from arguments by southern at- torneys-general and their assistants (who appar ently influenced the court considerably) — Pages 20-23. • Details of the new subscription plan for Southern School News, together with pic tures of the crack newspapermen and women who have staffed this unique journalistic enter prise this year—Page 24. Legal Puzzlers Interpreted What The Court Really Said (Editor’s Note: The following explanation of the May 31 Supreme Court action was written exclusively for SOUTHERN SCHOOL News by Prof. Robert A. Leflar of New York University. It is intended to help readers understand the meaning of the May 31 opinion. p ^ S | f 24 ° 4 Ibis issue. tat e f . ^° ur renewal came too sup '!' Processing before this is- ’ Please excuse. ^HE most striking feature of the May 31 decision is the unanimity of the court. As with the decision handed down a year ago, there is left no room for difference of opin ion. This is the law. Five key terms in the opinion give its real meaning. Four are in plain non-legal English. They are “good faith,” “practical flexibility,” “prompt and reasonable start” and “deliberate speed.” The other is “equitable principles,” which has reference to the somewhat technical but broadly fair and rea sonable procedures traditionally fol lowed in courts of equity. To lawyers, the two cases cited by the court in footnotes will go far to clarify this technical reference. These simple phrases set the tone of the opinion itself and of what is to be required under it. The decision comes closer to the position taken in argument by the southern white lawyers and attorneys general than to the arguments of NAACP counsel and of Solicitor General Sobeloff for the Department of Justice. The absence of deadlines and other detailed requirements is in this respect the difference. But the court’s clear statement that all contradictory state constitutional provisions and enactments are un constitutional was requested by NAACP counsel and by Solicitor General Sobeloff, and all parties were agreed in urging that the cases be remanded to the district courts for implementation rather than con trolled by the Supreme Court itself. The court might have required more rigorous and immediate com pliance with the constitutional prin ciples announced a year ago but the procedure now prescribed may en courage ultimate compliance with less public disturbance than might have ensued had the court’s orders been more drastic. The law prohibiting segregation in public schools is now clear. It may be assumed that many school dis tricts will obey the law with reason able promptness and without litiga tion. The judicial procedures pre scribed by the Supreme Court will never have to be applied to them. But in some states and communities litigation will be a condition to com pliance. A great deal of such litigation must be anticipated. Defendants, for the most part, probably will be seeking delay rather than ultimate victory, so that delay will be their victory. In the following questions and an swers, an effort is made to deal See QUESTIONS on Page 11 Reaction To Ruling Covered Regionally Coverage of school developments in this issue of Southern School News is divided into two sections: 1. The regular state reports on developments in May were written prior to the May 31 court ruling. They will be found on Pages 11 through 19. 2. Special reports by SERS cor respondents on reaction to the rul ing are carried separately on Pages 2 through 7. The states are arranged alphabetically for quick reference. SHOEMAKER gOUTHERNERS reacted with varying expressions of opinion—but with little specific action—to the Supreme Court decision of May 31 which handed to lower federal courts and local officials the duty of ending all racial segregation in public schools “as soon as practicable.” Southern School News correspondents, alerted to canvass all shades of opinion, reported that the decision was received with “relief,” with “a general air of caution,” as “moderate and reasonable,” and also with attitudes rang ing from “defiance to hopeful acceptance.” First reactions most often found those firmly believing in segregation and those firmly believing in integration in general agreement that the court had returned a moderate and workable decision, even though it might pro duce years of litigation. Some states cancelled plans for special legislative sessions or with drew pending legislation. On the other hand, SSN’s South Carolina correspondent, while reporting “an air of relief” in the wake of the deci sion, noted that “there was no lessen ing of opposition to last year’s deci sion outlawing racial separation in public schools and there was no slackening in determination to main tain segregated schools to the maxi mum extent possible.” Most legislators, said the report from Alabama, seemed to regard the decision as a “victory for the South.” From Arkansas: “There was gen eral agreement that few districts voluntarily would integrate immedi ately—that the Arkansas racial pat tern in its public schools would be written in its federal courts.” In Georgia Gov. Martin Griffin said: “No matter how much the Supreme Court seeks to sugarcoat its bitter pill of tyranny, the people of Georgia and the South will not swallow it.” And in Oklahoma, a border state, Gov. Raymond Gary said: “The Su preme Court ruling is fair and rea sonable—it gives the states an oppor tunity to get ready. We’re ready as far as our laws are concerned.” ‘FEASIBILITY’ THE KEY It might be said, therefore, that reaction state by state fell into the pattern made familiar by legislative or executive action in the year past. “Feasibility” suddenly became im portant, as did other phrases in the decision. Gov. Hugh White of Mississippi said that “as to feasibility that may not be possible in Mississippi for 10 or more years.” In Maryland Gov. Theodore M. McKeldin expressed the belief that county school authorities “will proceed in an orderly manner to bring an end to racial segregation.” Meanwhile, it was apparent from SSN reports that Negro leaders, while accepting the court’s decision at first with evident approval, were here and there disappointed. At a meeting in Atlanta June 4, the National Asso ciation for the Advancement of Colored People, the major protagonist in various court actions, advised its branches to press for action in the South’s school districts. “We aim to work with the states which will work with us, such as Maryland and West Virginia, said NAACP Counsel Thurgood Marshall. “We will institute legal actions in states which won’t work with us.” In a statement June 2 the NAACP had said the May 31 decision “com bined with the May 17 decision pf last year must be viewed as the latest in a series of steps toward full integra tion of Negroes into American life.” In Delaware, Bryant Bowles, head of the National Association for the Advancement of White People, com mented: “I think that the ruling was a little better than saying integrate over a certain period of time, because I think that is letting them (the Negro students) in the back door.” In Washington, Sen. Walter George See REACTION on Page 2 McKNIGHT Don Shoemaker To Head SERS r T'HE Southern Education Reporting Service will begin its second year of covering the school segregation issue under a new executive director. He is Don Shoemaker, editor of The Asheville Citizen since 1947. Shoe maker resigned his Asheville post effective May 15. Shoemaker will succeed C. A. (Pete) McKnight, former editor of The Charlotte News, who has served as SERS executive director since July, 1954. The announcement was made by Virginius Dabney, editor of The Rich mond Times-Dispatch and SERS board chairman. He said that Mc Knight is returning to newspaper work, and that he will continue as a member of the SERS board of di rectors. Shoemaker reported to Nashville on May 15. He will take active charge of the project in July, at which time McKnight will announce his plans for the future, Dabney added. The Reporting Service was estab lished here last year by a group of southern editors and educators fol lowing the Supreme Court decision declaring public school segregation See NEW DIRECTOR on Page 10
