Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 10—June 8, 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Newspapers
Continued From Page 9
“must yield to this principle.”
Inevitably, therefore, the South
must comply with this principle.
This does not mean that the schools
throughout the South must or even
should be integrated overnight. That
is neither required, nor is it expected.
It does mean, however, that the
South has far more to gain by making
a start toward compliance in good
faith than it does in using its energies
on costly and complicated subterfuges
which could jeopardize school sys
tems in which millions of dollars
have been invested . . .
Nashville Banner
. . . By setting no deadline the
court avoided the folly of precipitate
action.
By assigning to the lower courts
the responsibility of enforcement in
their states and districts, it has
localized that jurisdiction in a manner
assuring understanding treatment.
These courts are closest to the prob
lem, and far better prepared to assess
it in any given case or area than
would be either a centralized en
forcement bureau or the Supreme
Court itself, remote from the region
of conceivable dispute.
. . . The decree has been long in
coming—an interim of necessary
deliberation, attesting as we say to
the fact that the court itself was care
fully exploring this procedural path.
The same delicate problems compos
ing that study remain for solution via
the course prescribed. They pass
more specifically with this decree to
the states which have been anxiously
awaiting it.
Extremists on both sides of this
issue are well advised to restrain
themselves. The public’s case and
public interest rest on law and order,
without such caprice as would breach
both or would for its own gratifica
tion gall the states and the courts
with nuisance lawsuits.
The court has spoken and as the
final authority. It expects no trans
formation overnight. It ordered noth
ing like that.
The people of the United States,
whose Constitution it is, and whose
school system it is, respect their ob
ligations to both. With reasonable
statement of principle altering a con
cept, they can be led into orderly
adjustment. They cannot be pushed.
Chattanooga News-
Free Press
The News-Free Press has said since
the first anti-segregation ruling that
the court was usurping the power of
legislation and making its own law
according to the sociological and
political—not legal opinions of its
members; that such usurpation was
tyrannical and dangerous to free
dom. The court is now usurping
executive power to enforce its legis
lation.
Tampa Tribune
The Court’s wisdom, we think, will
dissipate the thunderhead of turmoil
and violence which had been gather
ing in southern skies since the Court
held school segregation unconstitu
tional.
It is difficult for any fair minded
person to dispute the principle of the
court’s original decision. If the Su
preme Court had been foolish
enough to order immediate opening
of segregated schools, it would have
wrecked the educational system of a
whole region.
Eventually the tradition of en
forced segregation in the South’s
schools probably will disappear. But
it won’t be done overnight by court
decree. It will wither away gradually
under the brightening sun of toler
ance. Time thus will accomplish what
an army of federal marshals could
never do. We’re thankful—and the
nation should be thankful—that the
Supreme Court was wise enough to
realize as much.
Miami Daily News
The Supreme Court has answered
the question of how segregation
would be ended. It has not answered
the question of how soon it must be
ended in Florida. That question, in its
final analysis, is the core of the
problem in Florida and other segre
gated states. That is the question that
should be kept uppermost in the
minds of every responsible public
official in reaction to the implementa
tion decision.
Miami Herald
The time for debating the issue is
past. We are not facing theories but
legal realities.
The Supreme Court recognized that
the process of desegregation in the
public schools will not come easily.
In its wisdom it has directed a
course of gradual compliance, there
by giving the South the opportunity
to adjust itself to the court’s history
making desegregation decision of
May 17, 1954.
The South must govern itself ac
cordingly.
Memphis Commercial
Appeal
It is difficult for us to see how any
state or community can believe it has
been returned to the point where the
matter began. It seems certain that
tests will be had, but it appears to us
that once a suit was filed, the judge
of the lower court would be obliged
to issue a ruling upholding the opin
ion of the Supreme Court. It opens
the prospect of delay rather than
avoidance. In practical effect, the Su
preme Court has said what has to be
done, but has not from a great dis
tance told precisely how to do it.
Dallas Morning News
... As between the bitterly con
testing sides to the argument, there
was no victory, there was no defeat.
There was what the wrestlers call a
dogfall, when both contestants are on
the ground together in such a position
that neither can win and neither can
lose . . .
Plainly the Supreme Court has
done all it could and that is not very
much. It has reaffirmed desegregation
in principle. It has affirmed that de
segregation must be carried out. But
it has looked into the dire possibili
ties and refused to use coercion or
force.
The problem is left where it is. In
all fairness, it behooves all of us to
try to work it out at the local level
with a degree of give and take that
may bring order and fairness out of
chaos.
San Antonio Express
. . . The Court’s order . . . bears
down heavily on that demand for
“good faith.” Local school authorities,
who bear the “primary responsib
ility” for integrating white and
Negro schools, must go about the task
as expeditiously as it can be done—
in good faith . . .
This State’s Attorney-General ap
parently ignores, or misinterprets,
the court’s fixing of responsibility for
the integration procedure at the local
level—the school district level. The
States whose legal spokesmen ap
peared before the Supreme Court in
the latest hearing of this case got
what they asked for, in that regard.
Then why not, in the name of com
mon sense, get right down—right
away—to the integration task, and
quit the silliness of attempting to in
voke State laws or local regulations to
the contrary which are now as though
they have never been?
Texarkana Gazette
... If segregation must be out
lawed, we believe the high court has
chosen the best possible method. By
leaving the matter up to the federal
district courts and placing respon
sibility upon individual school dis
tricts, the court has paved the way
for accomplishment of its decision
with a minimum of friction . . .
It is important that we go about
this matter in a spirit of live and let
live. Supt. W. M. Locke of the Tex
arkana, Ark. school system embodied
this spirit in his statement “There are
many complex and difficult prob
lems, some of which have been with
us for more than a century. Customs
and traditions cannot be changed
overnight. The Texarkana schools
want the thoughtful and prayerful
support of all of our citizens in arriv
ing at a reasonable and feasible solu
tion.”
Tulsa Tribune
. . . What does all this mean?
It means that the Supreme Court
has embraced a theory of gradualism.
It means, further, that since it has
produced no rule to be applied gen
erally throughout the country the ad
mission of Negro students to hitherto
New Director
Continued From Page 1
unconstitutional. Its purpose: to re
port, factually and objectively, the
developments in southern and border
states growing out of the court de
cision. The reports are carried in a
monthly newspaper Southern School
News, currently distributed to 30,000
newspaper editors, educators, public
officials, public libraries and lay
citizens.
SERS was originally set up for one
year under a $99,200 grant from the
Fund for the Advancement of Edu
cation, an independent agency estab
lished by the Ford Foundation. Mc-
Knight agreed to organize and direct
the project for that period of time,
Dabney explained.
“A recent grant of $213,884 from
the Fund made possible a two-year
extension of the project beyond
June 30, 1955,” Dabney said. “By that
time, McKnight had made other com
mitments, and we immediately be
gan looking over the South for an
other top newspaper editor.
“We could not have found a better-
qualified successor than Don Shoe
maker to continue this interesting and
important journalistic project under
the same high standards of accuracy
and objectivity established by Pete
McKnight in the first, difficult year,”
he added.
Shoemaker is a graduate of the
University of North Carolina (1934).
He was telegraph editor of The
Greensboro Record and The Ashe
ville Times before becoming asso
ciate editor of The Asheville Citizen
in 1941 and editor in 1947.
He has been active in the civic
affairs of his community, serving as
president of the Thomas Wolfe Me
morial Association, chairman of the
Buncombe County Planning Coun
cil in 1948 and president of the Bun
combe County Community Chest in
1951. He is a member of the Ameri
can Society of Newspaper Editors and
the National Conference of Editorial
Writers, and is a past chairman of
the North Carolina Conference of
Editorial Writers.
He is a contributor to magazines
and is author of Middle East Journey,
a collection of newspaper dispatches
covering a 1952 trip to Egypt, Jordan,
Israel, Greece and parts of Western
Europe. In 1950 he edited Henry
George: Citizen of the World, by the
late Anna George de Mille and pub
lished by the University of North
Carolina Press.
McKnight is a graduate of David
son College (1938) and worked on
The Shelby Daily Star before join
ing the staff of The Charlotte News
in 1939. In 1943 and 1944, he edited
the San Juan, Puerto Rico, World
Journal and served as Associated
Press war correspondent in the
Caribbean. He returned to The Char
lotte News in October, 1944, and
served as news editor and managing
editor before becoming editor in 1949.
He recently resigned his Charlotte
post.
McKnight was a member of the
Charlotte Planning Board and vice-
chairman of the Charlotte Urban Re
development Commission. He is also
a member of the American Society
of Newspaper Editors and the Na
tional Conference of Editorial
Writers.
white schools may be accomplished
only by suing in the federal district
courts having jurisdiction over those
particular districts.
. . . This opens up litigation on a
grand scale. Not only will those who
wish to end segregation be required
to sue at least once in each federal
judicial district but we may find as
many patterns for solving the prob
lem as there are federal district
judges.
Daily Oklahoman
In recommending a local approach
and a rule of feasibility for desegrega
tion the supreme court itself was
doing what was feasible.
But the doubtful immediate bear
ing of the long-awaited judgment is
apparent in the fact that neither side
in this extremely controversial mat
ter was greatly upset. As a matter of
fact the court did such a consummate
job of carrying water on both shoul
ders that the extremists on both sides
When Is A Decision A Judgment
A Decree An Order An Opinion?
When newspapers and commentators began to refer indiscriminately to
the Supreme Court’s May 31 action as a “decision”, “judgment”,
“decree”, “order”, and “opinion”, Southern School News asked Prof!
Leflar to clarify the confusion. With a highly unlegalistic touch of humor!
he replied as follows:
“The words do not all have exact technical meanings, and are to some
extent used interchangeably. A decision is any determination of a con
troverted issue. A judgment is the formal decision by a court of a case
which is before it. Sometimes the word judgment is reserved for decisions
of law as distinguished from equity cases, the word decree being the name
for the formal decision in an equity case, though sometimes decisions
in both law and equity are spoken of as judgments.
“An equity decree may be quite lengthy, setting out in detail the formal
orders and directions required by the court for compliance wih its major
determinations.
“An order is a single specific requirement entered by a court, and may
be directed to any person who owes obedience to the court, such as a
member of the court’s staff or a party or attorney in a case before the
court. An order may be entered as part of a judgment or decree, or
independently. An opinion is normally a court’s statement of its reasons
for action taken by it, and may be rendered in explanation of any deci
sion, judgment, decree or order.
“The May 31 action of the Supreme Court was a decision in the form
of a judgment supported by an opinion and containing orders to lower
courts directing them to proceed in a certain manner toward the prepara
tion of decrees adjudicating the cases before them. It was designed to im
plement the judgment entered by the Supreme Court on May 17, 1954.
Questions
Continued From Page 1
briefly, without legal technicalities,
with the principal problems that are
being raised with reference to the
May 31 decision.
1. To what extent is this decision
binding on school districts other than
the five which are parties to the
decision?
A. Only as the decision is “the law
of the land.” Separate new proceed
ings will have to be brought against
each non-complying district.
2. Does the Supreme Court decision
apply only to grade schools and high
schools?
A. No. It applies to all state-sup
ported educational institutions. This
would include state universities, col
leges, junior colleges, trade and voca
tional schools, specialized schools
such as those for the deaf, dumb and
blind, etc.
3. Does the Supreme Court decision
have any application to private
schools?
A. No. Except as private schools
may be actually sponsored by the
state, thus constituting an evasive
form of state schools rather than bona
fide private schools. But a state law
requiring segregation in private
schools is clearly unconstitutional.
4. If a school district is ready and
willing to desegregate its schools,
what is the next step for it to take?
A. It should comply with “the law
of the land” at the earliest possible
date.
5. If a school district is ready and
willing to desegregate but is deterred
by state law or pressure from outside
the district, what is its legal position?
A. No state law requiring or per
mitting segregation in public schools
is now valid. The Supreme Court is
very specific about that. The school
district may disregard such uncon
stitutional enactments. No further
legal proceedings are necessary to
establish their invalidity. As to out
side pressures, they may affect public
funds available for school purposes.
6. What is the legal position of a
school district which does not want
to desegregate?
A. It has the legal power, by ignor
ing the decision, to delay desegre
gation until it is forced by legal pro
ceedings to comply with the law.
7. To what extent is a local school
board controlled, as to its policy, by
state boards or state administrative
agencies?
A. This depends upon the law of
the particular state and the degree of
administrative independence vested
found reason for satisfaction.
But of course it was apparent all
along that the court would have to do
approximately what it did in view of
the complex intrinsic nature of the
problem before it....
by state law in local boards. It re
mains true, however, that any admin
istrative requirement that segrega
tion be maintained or any rule or
regulation which is designed even in
directly to maintain segregation is
itself unconstitutional.
8. Is there any procedure where a
school board which in good faith
wishes to proceed with a plan for
desegregation can receive judicial
approval of the plan in advance of
putting it into effect?
A. There is not. The federal courts
are by law authorized to hear and
pass only on actual “controversies.”
They will not hear “moot” cases,
There may, however, be some possi
bility of arranging litigation through
“friendly suits.”
9. What may happen if a school
board is reluctant to comply?
A. Apart from normal public pres
sures, lawsuits may be brought, but
only by persons actually deprived of
legal rights by the board’s action. In
general, this probably means that
lawsuits would have to be brought
by Negro students or their parents.
10. Will such suits be “class suits?”
A. In most cases they may be. This
means that one suit can represent all
Negroes in an entire school district
as a “class.”
11. Were the cases just decided by
the U.S. Supreme Court “class suits?
A. Apparently not. At least the
court in its final paragraph seemed
to confine its decision to “the parties
in these cases.” This presumably
does not mean, however, that “class
suits” may not be brought, if prop
erly identified as such.
12. In suits hereafter brought i®
other school districts, what relie
will be sought?
A. In most cases, plaintiffs
probably ask for declaratory judg
ments setting out their rights on the
facts proved, to be accompanied by
injunctions restraining future viola
tion of these rights. Actions for dam
ages for violation of legal rights are
possible but have not often been em
ployed in situations such as these.
13. Does the Supreme Court de
cision set a pattern for the decision
future cases? , t
A. Yes, it is a binding prece
substantively, and also indicates
way in which future cases
handled, procedurally.
14. Does the Supreme Court s -
31 opinion advance or recede ^
the position taken by the court a y
ago? .
A. Neither. It reaffirms the 19® ^
cision, makes it clear that the 19 <
cision is “the law of the l an “
issues an implementing order
lower courts in the specific cases
fore it. That is all it does.
1 it have been possi
o be more rigorous ®
impt compliance.
nly. The court has aim