Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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