Newspaper Page Text
1
PAGE 4—June 8, 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Reaction
Continued From Page 3
The Negro children are to be found
mostly in 158 districts, and half of
them live in only 12 districts.
Louisiana
SSN Correspondent Mario Fellom
wrote from New Orleans:
“A mixed reaction—generally de
scribed as mild—swept over Louis
iana in the wake of the Supreme
Court’s latest segregation decision.
“Segregation supporters on one
hand hailed the decision as ‘as much
as we could hope for’ and then added,
‘We will continue segregation in
Louisiana.’
“Integration leaders, on the other
hand, alternately praised the de
cision and decried the lack of a de
finite timetable for integration.
“Meanwhile, Sen. W. M. Rainach
has met with his Joint Segregation
Committee to discuss in executive
session the high court’s decision.
“Prior to the meeting June 1 he
said that an act passed by the 1954
legislature may give Louisiana a way
of maintaining separate schools for
white and Negro children, despite
the court’s ruling.
“The act directs parish and city
school superintendents to assign
children to classrooms.
“In practice, Rainach said, it would
continue segregation.
“Rainach’s group then named a
subcommittee to work with the state
department of education in outlining
procedures for assignment of stu
dents.”
Comment came from a variety of
sources including public officials,
school authorities, Negro leaders,
political figures and civic club spokes
men, Fellom reported.
What They Said
STATE OFFICIALS
Gov. Robert F. Kennon said he had
nothing to add to previous statements
he made on last year’s Supreme Court
ruling.
However, just one week before the
court’s new ruling, he said:
“I am convinced the majority of the
people in this state want their schools
segregated. ... So long as I am gov
ernor I will try to follow the wishes
of the people.”
State Supt. of Education Shelby M.
Jackson declined comment on the
question “at this time.”
Joseph J. Davies, Jr., Arabi, La.,
principal and president of the State
Board of Education, commented:
“I don’t have anything to say about
it. The board has a meeting set for
June 27 to study college budgets. Any
other matters will be discussed at
that time.”
Sen. Rainach of Summerfield, head
of the Joint Segregation Committee
created last year: “It won’t work out
—but at least it’s gradual rather than
abrupt.”
Sen. Robert A. Ainsworth, Jr., of
New Orleans, president pro tempore
of the Senate and administration
leader in that chamber:
“The modification of the original
ruling presents additional time for us
to try to adjust to a most difficult and
perplexing social problem.
“We welcome the order’s mild tone
which furnishes us an opportunity to
examine local conditions and act ac
cordingly to get our house in order.”
Rep. John Garrett of Haynesville,
leader of the House of Representa
tive forces in the midst of pushing
through the legislature a school con
struction bill aimed at providing
“separate but eoual” facilities:
“It was the mildest decree the Su
preme Court possibly could have
handed down.
“I firmly believe the justices re
alized that they had made a mistake
May 17, (1954) and this was their
easiest way out, putting it back on
the local level.
“This is as much as we could have
honed for.”
Dr. Clarence E. Scheps, comptrol
ler of Tulane University and presi
dent of the Orleans Parish School
Board, issued a statement on behalf
of the board which said: “The Su
preme Court’s final ruling on segre
gation can have no immediate effect
on the New Orleans public school
system.
“It must be remembered that our
local schools are part of the state
system and as such are governed by
the regulations of the state board of
education and by the statutes and
constitution as interpreted to us by
the attorney general of Louisiana.
“Beyond this, however, we are
aware that the legislature, the people
of the state and the people of our
community have declared themselves
overwhelmingly in favor of the
maintenance of a separate but equal
school system for Negroes.
“The five members of the Orleans
parish school board are in unanimous
agreement that the education of both
races can proceed more effectively
under a segregated system.”
CIVIC GROUPS
Mrs. Charles Keller, Jr., president
of the Urban League of Greater New
Orleans, called the order “a just and
good decision, and one that has been
too long in coming. Integration must
take place immediately, if possible by
September.”
J. Westbrook McPherson, executive
director of the Urban League of
Greater New Orleans, issued a leng
thy statement to SERS:
“While I share the disappointment
of some that the NAACP’s recom
mendation that some kind of a time
table or target be included in the
decree was ignored, I hesitate to
question the wisdom of the court in
the manner in which it chose to urge
speed.
“At the moment, I am more con
cerned with what we can do with
what we have than with what is
wrong with what we have now as a
a result of the decree.
“The one point that annoys me is
the Supreme Court’s stipulation that
‘... the courts may consider problems
related to administration arising from
the physical condition of the school
plant...’ as a basis for granting de
lays to local school officials in the
business of implementing this decree.
“If there is a bug in the decree, I
think this is it.”
OTHER COMMENT
A. P. Tureaud, NAACP attorney in
New Orleans: “I expected the Su
preme Court to put a time schedule
beyond which local school boards
may not delay in carrying out the
decree.
“I hope that it will not be neces
sary in those states which do not have
cases before the Supreme Court to
force legal action compelling deseg
regation.”
The Very Rev. Henry C. Bezou,
superintendent of schools in the Or
leans archdiocese which includes
most of dominantly Catholic South
Louisiana, said a meeting of the arch
diocesan school board would be held
“sometime soon” and he would have
no comment to make at this time.
Leander Perez, longtime political
boss of two of Louisiana’s parishes
(counties) and leading figure in the
1948 States Rights movement, called
the high court order “a disgrace to
this country.”
He added, “The court itself cannot
expect the southern states to comply
with its unlawful communistic de
cree.
“The court has plainly usurped
powers it does not have under the
Constitution.”
Maryland
SSN Correspondent Edgar L. Jones
wrote from Baltimore:
“The willingness of Maryland to
comply with the findings of the Su
preme Court was affirmed last year
by Gov. Theodore R. McKeldin, the
State Board of Education, State
School Supt. Thomas G. Pullen, Jr.,
and the Maryland Congress of Par
ents and Teachers, following the
original announcement of the uncon
stitutionality of school segregation.
“It was decided at that time that
Maryland schools would remain seg
regated until after the Court took full
action. Only the antonomous Balti
more city school system elected to
desegregate at once.
“The official Maryland reaction to
the May 31 decision of the Supreme
Court was a reaffirmation of earlier
positions.
“The most unexpected reaction to
the Supreme Court decision came in
Calvert county, which is the only
county in Maryland to have more
colored than white school children.
As the Baltimore Sun pointed out
editorially, Calvert is ‘Maryland’s
Deep South,’ and it could have reas
onably been assumed that Calvert’s
reaction to the decision ‘would be not
too far different from that of Geor
gia or Mississippi or South Carolina.’
Instead, the county school board on
June 1 voted to ‘appoint a committee
of representative citizens to make
recommendations for the implemen
tation’ of the decision. A ‘promising
augury,’ the Sun commented.”
Wliat They Said
STATE OFFICIALS
Gov. McKeldin expressed his be
lief that county school authorities
“will proceed in an orderly manner
to bring an end to racial segregation.”
He added “the state government shall
assist and encourage them in any
proper manner.”
“It must be realized that the
problems of integration will be more
pronounced in some areas than in
others, and will therefore take longer
in their solutions. In such cases, I
urge patience, but no delaying ac
tions. It would be unfortunate and
unnecessarily costly to require hear
ings in our United States District
Court when the decision of the Su
preme Court is so clear and definite.”
Wendell D. Allen, president of the
seven-member State Board of Edu
cation, predicted that there would be
a minimum of law suits over com
pliance in Maryland, because “I feel
the county school people and the
state board and the State Depart
ment of Education will make a real
honest effort to follow the mandate
of the Supreme Court.”
Allen said that the state board
would meet in special session soon
with the attorney general and the
state superintendent of schools but
that it could not be scheduled with
in the week, due to various commit
ments to attend commencement ac
tivities around the state.
Allen said that the state board was
going “to abide by the Supreme
Court decision and do all in our pow
er to see it carried out in fairness to
all people.”
Dr. Thomas G. Pullen, Jr., state su
perintendent of schools, seconded the
belief that Maryland counties would
“act as separate entities.” He added,
however, that “we are going to see
to it that it (the Supreme Court de
cision) is carried out honestly and
fairly. There will be no chicanery.”
Dr. Pullen arranged two immediate
meetings, one with the county school
superintendents and the other with
Maryland Atty. Gen. C. Ferdinand
Sybert, who presented Maryland’s
recommendations to the Supreme
Court in a brief that had been pre
pared while his predecessor, Edward
D. E. Rollins, was in office.
Attorney General Sybert made no
formal public statement in the first
few days immediately following the
Supreme Court decision. The day
after the decision he met with Dr.
Pullen, state school superintendent,
and discussed its wording and mean
ing, point for point, emphasizing that
all local segregation laws must yield
to the court’s position. It was his un
derstanding that Dr. Pullen would
meet with the county superin
tendents and find out exactly what
their problems were. Mr. Sybert, in
an interview, said he would meet
with the State Board of Education as
legal adviser, if invited, but he de
clined to say who would or should
set a policy on desegregation.
State Sen. George W. Della, who
was reported to have told an audi
ence in his South Baltimore district
last fall that he was for “white su
premacy,” was asked what chance he
thought the Maryland Petition Com
mittee bills (seeking to establish pri
vate, segregated schools) would have
at a new legislative session, and he
replied that he does not “think the
legislature has the courage to act on
segregation.” He said that at the last
session all but two or three senators
were opposed to desegregation and
bitter over the Supreme Court action,
but that nobody wanted to “show his
hand” or “be recorded.”
SCHOOLMEN
Most of the county superintendents,
polled by the Baltimore Sun immedi
ately after the decision was an
nounced, indicated that they were
awaiting a policy statement from the
State Board of Education and the at
torney general. Only Montgomery
County, on the District of Columbia
line, was already committed to take
certain definite steps toward integra-
Southern School News
Southern School News is the official publication of the Southern Education
Reporting Service, an objective, fact-finding agency established by southern
newspaper editors and educators with the aim of providing accurate
unbiased information to school administrators, public officials and interested
lay citizens on developments in education arising from the U. S. Supreme
Court opinion of May 17, 1954 declaring segregation in the public schools
unconstitutional. SERS is not an advocate, is neither pro-segregation nor
anti-segregation, but simply reports the facts as it finds them, state by state.
OFFICERS
Virginius Dabney Chairman
Thomas R. Waring Vice-Chairman
C. A. McKnight Executive Director
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Frank Ahlgren, Editor, Memphis
Commercial Appeal, Memphis,
Tenn.
Gordon Blackwell, Director, Institute
for Research in Social Science,
University of N.C.
Harvie Branscomb, Chancellor, Van
derbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
Virginius Dabney, Editor, Richmond
Times-Dispatch, Richmond, Va.
Coleman A. Harwell, Editor, Nash
ville Tennessean, Nashville, Tenn.
Henry H. Hill, President, George
Peabody College, Nashville, Tenn.
Charles S. Johnson, President, Fisk
University, Nashville, Tenn.
C. A. McKnight, Exec. Director Sou.
Education Reporting Service
Chari es Moss, Executive Editor,
Nashville Banner, Nashville, Tenn.
Thomas R. Waring, Editor, Charles
ton News & Courier, Charleston,
S. C.
Henry I. Willett, Superintendent of
Schools, Richmond, Va.
P. B. Young Sr., Editor, Norfolk
Journal & Guide, Norfolk, Va.
CORRESPONDENTS
ALABAMA
William H. McDonald, Editorial
Writer, Montgomery Advertiser
ARKANSAS
Thomas D. Davis, Asst. City Editor,
Arkansas Gazette
DELAWARE
William P. Frank, Staff Writer,
Wilmington News
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Jeanne Rogers, Education Writer,
Washington Post & Times Herald
FLORIDA
Bert Collier, Staff Writer, Miami
Herald
GEORGIA
Joseph B. Parham, Editor, The
Macon News
KENTUCKY
Weldon James, Editorial Writer,
Louisville Courier-Journal
LOUISIANA
Mario Fellom, Political Reporter,
New Orleans Item
MARYLAND
Edgar L. Jones, Editorial Writer,
Baltimore Evening Sun
MISSISSIPPI
Kenneth Toler, Mississippi Bureau,
Memphis Commercial-Appeal
MISSOURI
Robert Lasch, Editorial Writer, St.
Louis Post-Dispatch
NORTH CAROLINA
Jay Jenkins, Staff Writer, Raleigh
News & Observer
OKLAHOMA
Mary Goddard, Staff Writer, Ok
lahoma City Oklahoman-Times
SOUTH CAROLINA
W. D. Workman Jr., Special Cor
respondent, Columbia, S. C.
TENNESSEE
James Elliott, Staff Writer, Nash
ville Banner
Wallace Westfeldt, Staff Writer,
Nashville Tennessean
TEXAS
Richard M. Morehead, Austin Bu
reau, Dallas News
VIRGINIA
Overton Jones, Editorial Writer,
Richmond Times-Dispatch
WEST VIRGINIA
Frank A. Knight, Editor, Charles
ton Gazette
MAIL ADDRESS
P.O. Box 6156, Acklen Station, Nashville 5, Tenn.
tion, once legal barriers were re
moved. All of the county boards of
education had discussed desegrega
tion problems during the past year,
and some had initial steps in mind;
others had appointed or were in the
process of appointing desegregation
study groups.
CIVIC GROUPS
The Maryland Congress of Parents
and Teachers, which is the parent
body of county PTA groups, was
checked by phone immediately after
the decision and a spokesman said
its position had not changed since its
members met in convention last fall.
At that time the congress adopted a
statement which read:
“The Supreme Court has rendered
its opinion that continuation of segre
gated schools is unconstitutional.
“State authorities have accepted
the opinion as just and equitable and
have urged a maximum of local con
trol in bringing about desegregation
of the schools.
“The Maryland Congress of Par
ents and Teachers approves this ap
proach and believes that solution of
the problems will be assisted by full
and frank discussion at all levels of
the PTA organization.
“We shall cooperate with the state
and local boards of education and
other governmental authorities for
the development of sound plans to
this end ...”
The only statewide group actively
opposed to desegregation is the
Maryland Petition Committee, which
claims some 40,000 signatures to a
proposal that the state establish a
system of private, segregated scho°
The action of the committee to ,
May 31 court decision was
from Robert M. Furniss, Jr., of b e .
sington, Md., the attorney f° r
committee who did the bulk o
legal work last fall when the c ° \
tee and the National Association *
the Advancement of White r
tried unsuccessfully to get a
Balt-' |
order against desegregation m
more - rott r. I
Furniss said the Supreme ^
did what was expected and . ^ I
it could have done under the cir c |
stances,” and that by giving th e ^
pie a chance to do something
own about desegregation, “it s 2 ;
we still have partial democracy
least.” He explained that the e° jj
tee was satisfied with the j
latest action, because it was s . J
to what the committee
mended to the Maryland A ^
General as the proper course ^
the court to take. Furniss sa ^ t |
the committee remained opP
integration.”
wrote from Jackson: _ r eted
“Mississippi officials interp 9;
implementation decree 0 jli?
Supreme Court as favorable
sissippi and the South. . -j
“Basis for these expiess
failure of the court to se
table for desegregation, an -
See REACTION on rag