Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 2—June 8, 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Reaction
Continued From Page 1
of Georgia said: “They (the court)
are saying to go slow, but to go; to
proceed with care. It is a cautionary
order, very cautious in tone. It is in
tended to appeal to the states to help
work out this problem.”
Perhaps the reaction was summed
up in two newspaper headlines:
“Integration Ruling Wins Wide Ap
proval in South” (Richmond Times-
Dispatch) and “Follows Plan Asked
By Southern States.” (Charleston
News & Courier.)
First developments were:
• In Virginia, Prince Edward County
Supervisors agreed to withdraw ef
fective support from the county’s
schools next year. On June 4 parents
of white children in Prince Edward,
under auspices of the PTA, an
nounced they would seek to raise
$200,000 to pay the salaries of white
teachers next year.
In Virginia’s Nottoway County,
supervisors tabled a proposed school
budget of $600,000, appropriated the
statutory minimum for the schools
and put the county in a position to
withdraw from public education ac
tivity if need be.
BOND SALE BARRED
And in Hanover County, a circuit
court judge barred the sale of $1,-
000,000 worth of county school con
struction bonds on the grounds the
Supreme Court decision had made
illegal the use of proceeds from any
bonds issued when the state’s seg
regation statutes were valid.
• In South Carolina, the Summer-
ton Board of Education took action
similar to that of Prince Edward
County, Virginia. “We will keep the
races separate,” said Chairman J. D.
Carson. “If any Negro applies for ad
mission to the white school when
the next term starts, we’ll just close
down the school.”
• In Alabama, Atty. Gen. John Pat
terson asked for funds to retain four
additional attorneys “primarily to
handle the multiplicity of segregation
suits.” Given this aid, he told the
legislature, “I feel sure we can ful
fill our mission (of opposing integra
tion) .”
• In Atlanta, after a Southwide
meeting at which all states save Del
aware were represented, local
branches of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored Peo
ple were advised to file suits seeking
admission of Negro children to white
schools in districts where no steps
toward desegregation are taken by
the start of school in September.
NAACP branches were given a
five-point advisory, beginning with
the suggestion to file at once a peti
tion with each school board request
ing action leading to desegregation,
following up the petition with peri
odic inquiries.
Also in Atlanta, a petition was filed
June 3 by NAACP Attorney Austin
T. Walden on behalf of nine parents
of Atlanta Negro children asking
quick school desegregation.
• In Florida, a federal district judge
(one of the very few to comment)
said he believed the decision gives
him authority to order compliance,
even though no suits are filed in be
half of a Negro child.
Here is a state-by-state account of
reaction written by SERS corre
spondents:
Alabama
SSN Correspondent William H.
MacDonald wrote from Montgomery:
“Official reaction in Alabama to the
Supreme Court’s order delegating
local school segregation questions to
the lower courts, was restrained re
joicing. Most legislators seemed to
regard it as a ‘victory for the South.’ ”
What They Said
STATE OFFICIALS
Gov. James E. Folsom: “I have
stated in the past that I am not, repeat
not, in favor of turning the public
school system over to private hands.”
(This was a reference to a number
of bills now pending before the state
legislature to convert, by a variety of
methods, public schools into private
schools. Gov. Folsom has repeatedly
expressed his opposition to such a
move. None of the bills has been re
ported out of committee.)
Lt. Gov. Guy Hardwick: "The Su
preme Court’s solution is the only
practicable approach there was to it.”
State Supt. of Education Austin R.
Meadows: “I believe if the Alabama
legislature will provide education
appropriations required and the peo
ple will vote for a bond issue (he has
proposed, and Folsom has endorsed, a
150 million dollar bond issue) for
adequate school facilities, a majority
of Negroes will agree to stay in their
own schools.
“Our people know that an over
whelming majority of Alabama wants
segregated schools in Alabama. I be
lieve that segregated schools in the
state can be worked out on a volun
tary basis ... I believe that the
overwhelming majority of Negroes
realize that segregation is what the
people in Alabama want, and I be
lieve they are friendly enough to co
operate with the majority who want
segregation . . . What this state needs
is school building and equipment. We
don’t have enough now to take care
of the whites. Desegregation won’t
give us any more school buildings.”
Rep. George Hawkins of Etowah:
“The ruling will insure that all pri
vate school bills pending in the legis
lature will be killed.”
House Speaker Rankin Fite of Ma
rion County: “I see no reason to flout
rulings of our courts.”
(At odds with such administration
sentiment were the senators from Ma
con County, which is 84% Negro;
Marengo County, 69% Negro; and
Pickens County, 47% Negro.)
Sen. Sam Englehardt of Macon, au
thor of several bills designed to pre
serve segregation (by private school
plans, or placement systems, etc.):
“As far as I am concerned, abolition
of segregation will never be feasible
in Alabama and the South. No brick
will ever be removed from our seg
regation walls.”
Sen. Walter Givhan of Dallas
County (64% Negro), active in the
White Citizens Councils movement:
“I think we have won a decided vic
tory for the South. It was brought
about by the constant fight the
southern people have put up, bring
ing to the attention of the American
public that integration wasn’t feas
ible and never would have worked,
and that the southern people under
no condition would have stood for it.”
Sen. Albert Boutwell of Birming
ham, chairman of the Legislative
Segregation Study Commission which
last October recommended action
which would pave the way for the
abolition of public school systems if
necessary:
“It is necessary that the people of
Alabama realize that the Supreme
Court decision affects the children of
Alabama now. The Supreme Court
appears to admit that local conditions
must be taken into consideration. The
committee’s recommendations will
accomplish this and leave the ques
tion of integration to the people in
the community or county involved.”
Sen. Roland Cooper of Wilcox: “I
cannot foresee where desegregation
would be feasible or local conditions
would warrant it within 100 years in
Wilcox County (79% Negro).”
Sen. E. O. Eddins of Marengo Coun
ty advocated prompt action to build
more and better schools and to “pass
every law that would be a safeguard
as far as segregation is concerned.”
He said he did not believe “it is the
desire of either race to go to school
together if left alone.”
OTHER COMMENTS
Dr. H. Councill Trenholm, president
of the Alabama State College for
Negroes, Montgomery: “I believe it
would be premature for me to com
ment on the decision. I would have to
see the text and study it first.”
Robert E. Hughes, Montgomery,
executive director of the Alabama
Council of Human Relations, called on
the people of Alabama to “demon
strate to the South a new approach
to race relations.” Hughes suggested
that a “cross-section of white and
Negro community leaders meet to
gether locally and begin to work out
a solution to the problems facing
them. ... In an atmosphere of calm
ness and understanding, differences
could be submitted to mediation,
survevs carried out and constructive
proposals made based upon facts.”
Dr. L. Frazer Banks, superinten
dent of Birmingham schools: “We’ll
just have to go ahead and study the
Supreme Court’s ruling and see what
it means. Then we can base our
actions on what we think it means.”
Mrs. J. A. Deputy, president of the
Birmingham Board of Education: “We
haven’t discussed it as yet. We’re just
going along as we always have. Of
course, we may have to do something
about it later, but we have not dis
cussed it and we haven’t made any
plans for it.”
Virgil Nunn, superintendent of
Fairfield schools: “Our views, actions
and plans will comply with the con
stitution of the state of Alabama.”
(Alabama’s constitution prohibits
race mixing in public schools.)
Dr. I. F. Simmons, superintendent
of Jefferson County (Birmingham)
schools: “A very sane type of de
cision.”
Arkansas
SSN Correspondent Thomas D.
Davis wrote from Little Rock:
“Educational, racial and political
leaders in Arkansas generally were
pleased with the May 31 decision.
Many pointed out that the ruling was
about what Arkansas officially had
asked for in suggesting how the May
17, 1954 decision should be imple
mented.
“There was general agreement that
few districts voluntarily would inte
grate immediately—that the Arkansas
racial pattern in its public schools
would be written in its federal dis
trict courts.
“There were no predictions on
when integration in Arkansas would
be accomplished.
“A survey of Arkansas school
superintendents on June 1 indicated
they expect no major trouble arising
from the decision. Some predicted a
slow, steady compliance with the
order to integrate and others said
they expected Negroes to agree to
attend their own schools for an in
definite period if the schools are
equal.
“In general, the views were that
integration would be accomplished
fairly rapidly in districts with small
Negro population and would be
drawn out longer in districts with
heavy Negro population.”
Wliat They Said
STATE OFFICIALS
Gov. Orval E. Fabus: “We are
pleased that the Supreme Court rec
ognized the local nature of the prob
lem. Of course, in announcing its
ruling, it (the court) did not solve
the problem (of integration).
“It has been my stand for some
time that the best solution can be
worked out on the local level accord
ing to the peculiar circumstances of
each school district.
“I have not yet had a chance to
study the Supreme Court decision in
the school segregation cases. How
ever, it appears that the Court has
left some degree of decision in these
matters to the federal district courts.
I believe this will guarantee against
any sudden dislocations. We must
recognize that this new legal preced
ent may ultimately pose serious so
cial problems in many communities
of the state. Our reliance now must
be upon the goodwill that exists be
tween the two races—the goodwill
that has long made Arkansas a model
for the other Southern states in all
matters affecting the relationships
between the races.”
State Education Commissioner
Arch Ford and Forrest Rozzell,
executive secretary of the Arkansas
Education Association, issued a joint
statement:
“The Supreme Court decrees may
well place a special burden upon the
professional school forces of the state.
School teachers and administrators
of necessity will find themselves di
rectly involved in any changes in our
educational system that may result
from the new legal precedents.
“Professional educators will of
course obey the law; they could not
do otherwise without violating their
own code of ethics but educators will
also be the first to recognize the spe
cial problems that may arise in some
communities as the result of the
court’s action. They can be counted
on, we are confident, to render
wholehearted assistance to their
school boards and other elected of
ficials who will be concerned with
working out solutions that are satis
factory to both white and Negro
school patrons.”
Richard B. McCulloch Sr. of For
rest City, who collaborated with Ar
kansas Attorney General T. J. Gentry
in the preparation of Arkansas’s
pleadings before the Supreme Court,
said that the integration pattern in
Arkansas must come from a series of
federal court suits to encompass gen
erally the conditions in each section
of the state.
He said that judicial guidance
would be necessary to accomplish
this.
Marvin Bird of Earle, chairman of
the state board of education, said that
generally he concurred with McCul
loch’s estimate of the situation as an
individual. He said that officially he
couldn’t speak for the board but sug
gested that the board might have a
formal declaration June 13.
Dr. Ed McCuistion, assistant edu
cation commissioner and for many
years director of Negro education in
Arkansas public schools, said he was
highly pleased at the tone and effect
of the Supreme Court decision.
Speaker of the Arkansas House of
Representatives, Charles F. Smith of
Crittenden County (in East Arkan
sas), said he was pleased because
there was no deadline in the court’s
decision. He said he thought the
Southern states would work out a
more satisfactory settlement under
the Court’s board decision than if the
Court had ordered “direct action.”
[Smith took a stand against integra
tion when in the 1955 legislative ses
sion he voted on a school assignment
officer bill designed to preserve seg
regation. Ordinarily, the speaker
doesn’t vote on bills before the
House.]
SCHOOLMEN
Virgil T. Blossom, superintendent
of Little Rock schools, expressed
hope that there would be no litiga
tion in Little Rock. “I see no reason
for it.” He said the court’s ruling was
a “very wise opinion.”
“It is reasonable,” Blossom said. “It
is wise from the standpoint that it
set no deadline because of the fact
that when we are dealing with some
thing as important as this we need
the time that is allowed in the deci
sion.”
“I think it will work out,” Blossom
said.
At Clarksville, where there are
only about 48 Negroes, Supt. A. L.
Kendall said: “We have no plans
other than whatever the courts say,
that’s what we are going to do.” He
said the Negro schools at Clarksville
now are costing the district about
three times as much as the white
schools on a per capita basis.
At Helena, in East Arkansas, Supt.
J. F. Wahl said that Negro leaders
had told him they were satisfied with
their facilities. He said no plans for
integration had been made “The Ne
gro schools at Helena are as good if
not better than the white facilities,”
he said. “The Negroes have a new
high school and two fairly new ele
mentary schools.”
[Negroes comprise about 2,200 of
the 4,000 students in the Helena dis
trict.]
At Crawfordsville, where there are
1,250 Negro students and 375 white
students, Supt. G. B. Pouncey said
he did not anticipate any trouble. He
said he thought it would be a long,
drawn-out affair. Pouncey said facili
ties had been equal for some time and
that by September, the Negroes will
have a better school than the whites.
He said he expected no reaction
among the Negroes one way or the
other.
CIVIC GROUPS
A dissent came from L. D. Poynter
of Pine Bluff, president of White
America, Inc., a group dedicated to
preservation of segregation:
“We are not satisfied with that rul
ing, and we are going to try to handle
our affairs through our state legisla
ture. If necessary, we shall try to get
our state constitution amended to
forestall this action.”
[Arkansas’ legislature will not
meet in regular session until Janu
ary, 1957.]
Billy Williams immediate past
president of the Arkansas State (Ne
gro) Teachers Association and super
intendent of the Walker School »
Magnolia, said:
“I think it is a great day. I believ 6
that we school people on the loca]
level, without too much outside intar.
ference, can work it out well to the
satisfaction of everyone concerned.
We don’t anticipate wholesale integ.
ration overnight. But give us time
and we can work it out peacefully
among ourselves.”
Wiley Branton of Pine Bluff, chair,
man of the Legal Redress Committee
of the Arkansas Conference 0 1
Branches of the National Associatioj
for the Advancement of Colored
People, predicted that some suit
would be filed in Arkansas.
Mrs. L. C. Bates of Little Rock,
president of the Arkansas Conference
of Branches of the NAACP, said that
“as long as we feel that the school
boards are working in good faith and
including members of the NAACP ia
their planning for integration, we are
willing to work with them.” She said
her membership was asking for “com
plete” integration in Little Rock and
elsewhere.
Nat Griswold of Little Rock (white)
executive director of the Arkansas
Council on Human Relations, an in-
terracial group, said: “These decrees
should help clear the atmosphere o!
uncertainty. State executives, educa
tional administrators and policy
makers have a positive guide for
translating the legal doctrine of the
court into practice.”
Delaware
SSN Correspondent William P.
Frank wrote from Wilmington:
“The U. S. Supreme Court decision
of May 31 sent Delaware school dis
trict officials into a rapid re-ex
amination of their policies regarding
integration.
“The decision came at a time when
a number of school districts in north
ern Delaware were beginning to
crystallize their plans for expanding
their partially integrated school poli
cies.
“At the same time, school district
officials in central and southern Del
aware decided to study the decision
of the Supreme Court and then cau
tiously await either the first move on
the part of the State Department of
Public Instruction or of the National
Association for the Advancement ol
Colored People.
“This wait-and-see attitude
seemed to be encouraged by the fad
that the Supreme Court had set no
ultimate date for desegregation but
had ordered desegregation on what
is interpreted as a “when feasible
within a community’s experience
basis.
“It is generally assumed that the
State Department of Public Instruc
tion, anxious to avoid another Mil'
ford-type conflict, will proceed slow
ly before it does any actual ordering
about of school districts that do no*
want to begin to comply with the Su
preme Court decision by September
1955.”
What They Said
STATE OFFICIALS
Atty. Gen. Joseph Donald Craven
“The Supreme Court has g enera ^
followed the suggestions made by tn
State of Delaware that those sta
that have had a segregated sen
system be given sufficient time
make the necessary adjustments
bring about complete integration ■ •
“The effect of the United Sta e-
Supreme Court mandate is two-1°
(1) segregation on the basis of c °
is unconstitutional, and (2)
tion will be carried out under the
pervision of local courts ^
most familiar with local condi
and best able to determine whe^
the local school districts are i
faith attempting to comply W1 g u .
mandate of the United States
preme Court.”
SCHOOLMEN de jt
Dr. Ward I. Miller, superintend
of the Wilmington public sc k°° j 0 n
“We had formulated our
plan of integration into the 1 g u .
high schools before the U. •
preme Court handed down i ® jjgjit
decision, but we feel that in th ro
of the decision of May 31, we a 1
ceeding correctly. . . js in
“The Supreme Court decisi 0 ct
line with our policy in Wil rnin Sj e u>
working out the integration P
See REACTION on Page