Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 6—June 8, 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Reaction
Continued From Page 5
Rex Morrison, Ada school superin
tendent, reported his board plans to
continue operating Ada’s Negro
schools; while a Negro school in east
ern Pontotoc county would be trans
ferred into a white district but kept
open.
OTHER COMMENT
Mrs. Cemoria Johnson, executive
secretary of Oklahoma City Urban
League: “ (The Oklahoma City school
board) will see the need to move
ahead without delay. They could give
guidance and direction for the rest
of the state.
“There will continue to be a need
for a slow, steady education job,” she
said.
Mrs. W. Fred Scott, Oklahoma City,
new president of the Oklahoma Con
gress of Parents and Teachers: “I feel
positive the P-TA units will help in
every way possible to make it work
effectively and smoothly as each dis
trict moves into the integration pro
gram.
“We are, of course, committed to
work in close cooperation with in
dividual school districts, and to pro
ceed at whatever pace they set. But
ours is an educational program, and
being perhaps better informed, I be
lieve we’re better prepared to accept
this situation and help make it
work.”
Roscoe Dunjee, Oklahoma City
Negro newspaper publisher, long
time state Negro spokesman and a
director in the National Association
for Advancement of Colored People:
“I am frankly disappointed in that
the Supreme Court did not set a defi
nite date when the South should
cease segregation. “(The no-deadline
order will create) endless litigation—
a multiplicity of suits that could
have been avoided—and will place an
onerous burden upon the 15 million
Negroes of this nation.”
Meanwhile, registrars of both the
University of Oklahoma and Okla
homa A&M College reported they had
no new applications from potential
undergraduates in the two days fol
lowing the new ruling.
South
Carolina
SSN Correspondent W. D. Work
man Jr., wrote from Columbia:
“South Carolinians greeted the May
31 Supreme Court decision with an
air of relief.
“There was no lessening of oppo
sition to last year’s decision outlaw
ing racial separation in public schools,
and there was no slackening in de
termination to maintain segregated
schools to the maximum extent pos
sible even in the face of the 1954 de
cision. But the knowledge that im
plementation of that anti-segregation
decision would rest with the lower
federal courts was received as evi
dence of at least a partial concession
to the state, and to the South.
“Still, the realization that the Su
preme Court was looking toward
positive steps to be taken in eliminat
ing racial barriers to school admis
sion did not escape the notice of many
South Carolinians. That was especial
ly true in Clarendon County, where
the local case arose and where the
situation is more acute than any other
place in the state. Based on state
ments from school and other authori
ties in that county, there seems little
doubt but that the public school sys
tem will be closed completely if any
court—district, circuit, or Supreme—
orders the admission of children into
schools not now open to them.”
Workman reported no immediate
developments after the decision.
Wliat They Said
STATE OFFICIALS
Gov. George Bell Timmerman Jr.,
and former Gov. James F. Byrnes,
under whose four-year administra
tion the states launched its school
equalization program, had no im
mediate comment. (“It may be,”
wrote Workman, “that either or both
will have something to say at a later
date after having studied the actual
wording of the court’s decision.”)
Atty.-Gen. T. C. Callison: “It has
been my contention since the 17th day
of May, 1954, when I sat in the U.S.
Text Of The Supreme Court Opinion
Following is the text oj the Su
preme Court’s opinion May 31 on the
public school segregation cases:
These cases were decided on May
17, 1954. The opinions of that date
(footnote 1), declaring the funda
mental principle that racial discrimi
nation in public education is uncon
stitutional, are incorporated herein
by reference. All provisions of fed
eral, state, or local law requiring or
permitting such discrimination must
yield to this principle. There re
mains for consideration the manner
in which relief is to be accorded.
COMPLEXITIES
Because these cases arose under
different local conditions and their
disposition will involve a variety of
local problems, we requested further
argument on the question of relief,
(footnote 2) In view of the nation
wide importance of the decision, we
invited the attorney general of the
United States and the attorneys gen
eral of all states requiring or per
mitting racial discrimination in pub
lic education to present their views
on that question. The parties, the
United States, and the states of
Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, Maryland, and Texas filed
briefs and participated in the oral
arguments.
These presentations were informa
tive and helpful to the court in its
consideration of the complexities
arising from the transition to a sys
tem of public education freed of ra
cial discrimination. The presenta
tions also demonstrated that substan
tial steps to eliminate racial discrimi
nation in public schools already have
been taken, not only in some of the
communities in which these cases
arose, but in some of the states ap
pearing as amici curiae (friends of
the court), and in other states as
well. Substantial progress has been
made in the District of Columbia and
in the communities in Kansas and
Delaware involved in this litigation.
The defendants in the cases coming
to us from South Carolina and Vir
ginia are awaiting the decision of
this court concerning relief.
SCHOOL AUTHORITIES
RESPONSIBLE
Full implementation of these con
stitutional principles may require so
lution of varied local school prob
lems. School authorities have the pri
mary responsibility of elucidating,
assessing, and solving these prob
lems; courts will have to consider
whether the action of school authori
ties constitutes good faith imple
mentation of the governing consti
tutional principles. Because of their
proximity to local conditions and the
possible need for further hearings,
the courts which originally heard
Supreme Court room and heard the
fatal opinion on segregation of the
races in the public schools announced
by the Chief Justice of the United
States, that that court had no right
or authority to issue a decree outlin
ing the time and method when segre
gation should be terminated. I advised
and counseled everyone that the cases
should be remanded to the district
courts for such decrees as may be
for the best interest of all, based upon
local conditions and attitudes of both
races.
“Traditional equity has never been
a vehicle through which any Court
can legally amend the Constitution
of the United States of America.
Those who framed the Constitution
provided a method whereby it can
be amended. When the final curtain
has been drawn in this case this
country is left without a Constitution.
If the Court can amend the Constitu
tion with reference to one right, it
may do so with reference to any and
all rights.
“In my opinion the only alternative
to protect Constitutional government
will be congressional action providing
the machinery for a Constitutional
amendment to be passed upon by the
people and not to permit any Court
to amend the Constitution in such a
way as to bring about its complete
destruction.”
State Sen. L. Marion Gressette of
Calhoun County, head of South Caro
lina’s special school segregation com
mittee (which is expected to meet at
an early date to discuss the May 31
these cases can best perform this
judicial appraisal. Accordingly, we
believe it appropriate to remand the
cases to those courts, (footnote 3.)
In fashioning and effectuating
the decrees, the courts will be guided
by equitable principles. Tradition
ally, equity has been characterized
by a practical flexibility in shaping
its remedies (4) and by facility for
adjusting and reconciling public and
private needs. (5) These cases call
for the exercise of these traditional
attributes of equity power.
TOWARD COMPLIANCE
At stake is the personal interest
of the plaintiffs in admission to pub
lic schools as soon as practicable on
a non-discriminatory basis. To ef
fectuate this interest may call for
elimination of a variety of obstacles
in making the transition to school
systems operate in accordance with
the constitutional principles set forth
in our May 17, 1954, decision. Courts
of equity may properly take into ac
count the public interest in the elimi
nation of such obstacles in a syste
matic and effective manner. But it
should go without saying that the
vitality of these constitutional prin
ciples cannot be allowed to yield
simply because of disgreement with
them.
While giving weight to these public
and private considerations, the courts
will require that the defendants make
a prompt and reasonable start toward
full compliance with our May 17,
1954, ruling. Once such a start has
been made, the courts may find that
additional time is necessary to carry
out the ruling in an effective man
ner. The burden rests upon the de
fendants to establish that such time
is necessary in the public interest
and is consistent with good faith
compliance at the earliest practicable
date. To that end, the courts may
consider problems related to adminis
tration, arising from the physical con
dition of the school plant, the school
transportation system, personnel, re
vision of school districts and attend
ance areas into compact units to
achieve a system of determining ad
mission to the public schools on a
non-racial basis, and revision of lo
cal laws and regulations which may
be necessary in solving the forego
ing problems. They will also con
sider the adequacy of any plans the
defendants may propose to meet the
problems and to effectuate a transi
tion to a racially non-discriminatory
school system. During this period of
transition, the courts will retain
jurisdiction of these cases.
The judgments below, except that
in the Delaware case, are according
ly reversed and remanded to the dis
trict courts to take such proceedings
ruling):
“Not having had an opportunity to
study the opinion, I’m not in position
to comment on it. From the press re
ports, however, and after conferring
with Gov. Timmerman, I think it ad
visable to call a meeting of the com
mittee at an early date for the pur
pose of making a careful study of the
situation. The committee can then de
termine whether additional recom
mendations should be made to the
governor and the General Assembly.”
State Rep. Joseph O. Rogers, Jr.:
“The decision of the Supreme Court
insofar as it remands the case back
to the district court is in keeping with
the southern states’ view in their
arguments before the court. Insofar
as the decision seems to indicate inte
gration of the two races in the school
system, I think no such plan can be
put into operation in Clarendon
County or in South Carolina either
now or in the foreseeable future.”
Rep. Rex L. Carter, of Greenville:
“The Supreme Court was right in
sending it back to the district court.
I don’t see any immediate effect.”
Rep. Frank Eppes, of Greenville:
“District courts can handle it better
.. . There’s no reason to be alarmed.”
SCHOOLMEN
J. D. Carson, chairman of the local
local school board where the Claren
don County case arose (there has
been a revision of district lines since
the suit was initiated):
“We will keep the races separate.
If we have to close the (white)
schools, we’ll close. If we close one
and enter such orders and decrees
consistent with this opinion as are
necessary and proper to admit to
public schools on a racially non-dis
criminatory basis with all deliberate
speed the parties to these cases. The
judgment in the Delaware case—or
dering the immediate admission of
the plaintiffs to schools previously
attended only by white children—is
affirmed on the basis of the princi
ples stated in our May 17, 1954, opin
ion, but the case is remanded to the
Supreme Court of Delaware for such
further proceedings as that court may
deem necessary in light of this
opinion.
It is so ordered.
Footnotes:
(1) 347 U.S. 483; 347 U.S. 497.
(2) Further argument was re
quested on the following questions,
347 U.S. 483, 495-496, N. 13, previous
ly propounded by the court:
“4. Assuming it is decided that
segregation in public schools violates
the Fourteenth Amendment,
“(A) Would a decree necessarily
follow providing that, within the lim
its set by normal geographic school
districting, Negro children should
forthwith be admitted to schools of
their choice, or
“(B) May this court, in the exer
cise of its equity powers, permit an
effective gradual adjustment to be
brought about from existing segre
gated systems to a system not based
on color distinctions?
“5. On the assumption on which
questions 4 (A) and (B) are based,
and assuming further that this court
will exercise its equity powers to the
end described in question 4 (B),
“(A) Should this court formulate
detailed decrees in these cases;
“(B) If so, what specific issues
should the decrees reach;
“(C) Should this court appoint a
special master to hear evidence with
a view to recommending specific
terms for such decrees;
“(D) Should this court remand to
the courts of first instance with di
rections to frame decrees in these
cases, and if so, what general direc
tions should the decrees of this court
include and what procedures should
the courts of first instance follow in
arriving at the specific terms of more
detailed decrees?”
(3) The cases coming to us from
Kansas, South Carolina and Virginia
were originally heard by three-judge
district courts convened under 28
U.S.C. Sections 2281 and 2284. These
cases will accordingly be remanded
to those three-judge courts. See
Briggs v. Elliott, 342 U.S. 350.
(4) See Alexander v. Hillman, 296
U.S., 222, 239.
(5) See Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321
U.S. 321, 329-330.
school we will close them all. We will
treat everyone alike. We have been
thinking and planning what we would
do ever since this case started... if
any Negro applies for admission to
the white school when the next term
starts, we’ll just close down the
school.”
J- W. Phillips, principal of the white
consolidated school of the district:
“I think the minute there is a
choice between integration and clos
ing down, we will close down. There
will be nothing else to do. The
Negroes have us outnumbered eight
to one. I certainly would not want to
be responsible for maintaining order
and good feeling under integration.”
Clarendon County Superintendent
of Education L. B. McCord: “If we
desegregate, neither race will receive
any benefit. Both races will be hurt.
Here’s the situation: The Negro chil
dren have not had the educational
advantages in the past that the whites
have had. They haven’t even taken
advantage of the opportunities that
they have had. Therefore, you’ll find
then that the Negroes, as they come
in on the age level and grade level
with the whites, you’re going to have
a retarded bunch there.”
George C. Rogers, superintendent
of Charleston city schools: “It appears
less drastic than we expected.”
L. M. Sherer, York County super
intendent of education: “I think it
was a wise decision that the issue was
left to local courts to pass on com
pliance by the schools with the Su
preme Court order ... We feel that
all our children and school patrons
in York County are satisfied with the
progress made in recent years.”
W. C. Sullivan, superintendent of
the Rock Hill school district: “I po r .
sonally think the Supreme Court was
wise in setting up the ruling as it did
since conditions vary with different
sections of the country ... I think it
is a good thing that the people are
using more control and not making
wild statements one way or the other
following the ruling. I hope the ap
parent calmness with which the rul
ing has been received is an optimistic
sign.”
C. B. Blakely, superintendent of
education for Chester County: ‘T m
favorably impressed that the Su
preme Court is giving as much lati
tude as it has to local courts to work
out the problems.”
CIVIC GROUPS
J. M. Hinton, Negro insurance
executive, South Carolina head of
NAACP: “The decree from the Su
preme Court, returning the jurisdic
tion to the district court for the
supervision of the Clarendon County
segregation issue, meets our approval.
The fact that the school board will
be required to submit a report to the
district court showing ways and
means of eliminating segregation will,
within itself, achieve the objectives
and bring the relief sought in the
original suit. We always have resort
to the Circuit Court of Appeals as
well as the U.S. Supreme Court if the
school board fails in meeting the full
obligation set up in the 1954 decision
from the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Harris A. Marshall, president of I
the South Carolina Education Asso- 1
ciation and superintendent of the
Orangeburg city schools: “In every
decade it seems that some issue arises I
which is very often considered a crisis
in education. When I began teaching
in 1931, the crisis at that time was
money to pay the limited salaries of
teachers. School systems reduced ,
their terms from nine months to eight
and in some instances even as short
terms as six months. The majority of
the teachers in the state were paid on
vouchers or script.
“Today, we are confronted with
what seems to be a major crisis, but
it has been my observation that all
seemingly important crises have been
met wisely and in most instances ex
peditiously. Consequently, I believe
that we have the know-how, the ap
proach and the courage to face with |
wisdom what seems to be a major
problem. Personally, I am very glad
that the Supreme Court has delegated j
the responsibility of adjusting to its i
decision to the lower federal courts.
This places the responsibility where
the problem can best be understood
by all parties concerned. I believe
that the state of South Carolina will
continue to accept as its responsibili
ty the provision of a program of edu- ]
cation for all youth.”
Tennessee
SSN Correspondent Wallace West-
feldt wrote:
“Initial recation to the decree here
was quiet, generally marked by re
lief and ‘no comment’ statemen
from Tennessee officialdom..
“School system officers maintaine
the attitude adopted after the Su
preme Court’s ruling in May
of withholding comment until
state department of education e
dares its policy on the ma
The ‘wait-and-see what the co ^
does’ stand has now shifted t®,
‘wait-and-see what the state
“In what on and off the record o®
cial comment there was ava 'T, at '
there was the clear impression
most believed the court was leni
to the South, perhaps as u t
the court could have been wu
actually reversing itself on the en
question. The absence of a s P®,jy
desegregation deadline was us
singled out as the most impor
part of the decree. a.
“There were no immediate e ^
opments, legal or otherwise, af er ^
decree was announced. But there ^
speculation that the impact of gS ,
cree might be felt sooner in T e
see than generally expected. ,
“The speculation arose from <1
tions on the status of two casea jj,
pending in federal district co
Knoxville and Memphis.
See REACTION on Page '