Southern school news. (Nashville, Tenn.) 1954-1965, June 08, 1955, Image 1
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