Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—June 8, 1955—PAGE 9
Newspapers
Continued From Page 8
public schools is a cautious, but firm,
step toward righting a long-condoned
wrong.
One fear held by those who recog
nize the injustice of segregated
schools is that the Court is moving
s o cautiously that it may allow some
states to get away with segregation
for untold years to come.
That is a danger . . .
But it also is a fact that integration
of whites and Negroes in our public
schools is an explosive question in
some localities . . . therefore, the
gradual approach is the one most
likely to accomplish a lasting solu
tion with a minimum of disturb
ance . ..
With its latest order, the Court
lias given all the time it should be
expected to give. What doesn’t come
gradually in the next year or two
will have to come drastically . . . for
“principles cannot be allowed to
yield . . ”
Tuscaloosa News
It should also be remembered that
Alabama was not one of the states
brought before the court on this mat
ter. While it is true that the ruling
given by the court is broad enough
in its application to cover the situa
tion generally it is not specifically
directed at our state. This gives us
more time to think, to plan and to
act on a program that we hope will
prove acceptable to the court and
to our people . . .
We do not see that the statement
made by the Supreme Court alters
our need for calm, considerate and
thoughtful appraisal of the problem.
And we further believe that the $150
million bond issue proposal in the
legislature is one of the best methods
of bringing our education system up
to a standard where educational op
portunities will be available to all
our children on a higher and more
equal basis.
Birmingham News
It is evident and very gratifying
that the high court is seeking to avoid
precipitate action that would endan
ger public well-being and community
peace . . .
This paper has suggested that sin
cere efforts be made toward recog-
nizing and respecting both the prin
ciple laid down by the court and
strong community sentiment against
auxed schools. Support of school seg
regation is, of course, very strong in
the South. We have suggested con
sideration of a plan looking toward
(1) acceptance of the principle pro
nounced by the court by recognizing
hat compulsory segregation is in con-
nict with that ruling, and (2) toward
. untary, cooperative local action
^hhed at avoidance of compulsory
“hd trouble-producing integration in
'he schools.
Out of such efforts, carried forward
h good will and with respect for the
courts and for sincere and widespread
feel;
ly
■ In gs, conceivably might eventual-
, , c °' ne a system of schools under
eh there would be no compulsory
shegation, no compulsory integra-
vof ant ' a S enu i ne ly free choice in-
white, colored and mixed
Chattanooga Times
th(wt^ U P remc Court • .. ruling take
tr e yUnder out of the effort of ex
d»i! llISt ' s to st ' r U P strife over thi
hcate question . . .
C^ere i n the ruling does th
w retne Court attempt to outlav
selio sc h°°ls for the races if thosi
their S are attended voluntarily b;
q° ^ Pupils. The court would havi
but . to d° so even if it wishei
denied U1S1Sts that no child shall b
scho-i achnission into any publi
^ ^6C31ISP rvf
because of race.
Sc hool j° Urt: . re cognizes “revision <
into P h^tricts and attendance are
iPigj,. 0rn P ac t units,” a system whic
lute accomm °date both races.
May w gration in the public school
°hs or» ? tart ® rst in the mountain
^est e Jf n ii es East Tennessee an
PopojfTl Kentucky where the Negr
letups b° n * s so sma ll that no at
ffegfQ heen made for adequat
Wp _, S .| °°l s and where Negroe
school, 1 keen barred from whit
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
. . . Again the principle that there
can be no constitutional discrimina
tion on racial grounds in public
schools is reaffirmed.
How is this to be implemented?
. . . Now that it is announced, the
procedure falls short of what many
had hoped for and others had ex
pected. Perhaps the best way to ap
praise the new decision is to say that
it is good as far as it goes, but that
for many citizens it does not go far
enough in view of the epochal char
acter of the 1954 decision . . .
Chief Justice Warren’s considered
statement goes so far as to suggest
that the lower courts “may find that
additional time is necessary to carry
out the ruling in an effective man
ner.” These lower courts, so the War
ren opinion says, “may properly take
into account local problems.”
This has the effect of taking back,
so to speak, some of the landmark
decision of a year ago. For the law
of the land, as declared in the 1954
decision, is apparently not the law
of the whole land—at least not now.
Yet if local areas decide to take ad
vantage of the indefiniteness of the
new decision, they will find them
selves in violation of that part which
calls for a “prompt and reasonable
start.” If “local problems” may be
taken into account by local courts,
they cannot be accepted indefinitely
as an excuse for doing nothing.
The test of the second decision will
come when the parents of school
childen, still discriminated against,
push for their rights as citizens. Then
it will be the obligation and responsi
bility of the local judges and school
officials to remember the unequivocal
outlawry of segregation in the first
decision.
The Alabama Journal
Our social-minded Supreme Court
has learned much about the facts of
life during the past year, and, if the
Court’s members remain mentally
alert, they will learn much more dur
ing the coming year. . . . Thank God,
the court has now seen some light
and learned that it cannot create a
sociological revolution overnight.
Therefore, the court has backtracked,
passed the buck . . . The court should
know . .. that it will never be “feasi
ble” to mix the races, and convert
this country into a mongrel nation in
the intimate manner proposed . . . No
doubt we face endless litigation. . . .
The Montgomery
Advertiser
The . . . ruling will please neither
the latter-day abolitionists nor the
South. . . . The .. . approach . .. was
one of moderation .. . The court does
not expect the races to be mixed to
morrow morning. But neither does it
leave any reason to doubt that the
court expects eventual compliance.
What the white South does not rel
ish is that, whatever the willingness
of a federal judge to proceed leisure
ly, he is nevertheless bound by a clear
and unmistakable Supreme Court
ruling that school segregation is il
legal . . .
Obedience to the Supreme Court’s
ruling will leave Alabama judges with
the feeling of putting their people
to the sword.
The Mobile Register
The end of racial segregation in
the public schools is not in sight. . . .
No state in the Union is told by the
Supreme Court that it must or should
begin placing white and Negro pupils
in the same classrooms by a particu
lar time.
The small agitating minority in
the United States which has sought
feverishly to get desegregation rail
roaded down the throats of the peo
ple, especially the people of Ala
bama and other Southern states, is
not likely to crow as noisily of victory
today as it did when the court handed
down its decision of May 17, 1954.
Although the Supreme Court takes
the view—a mistaken view in our
opinion—that separate schools for
white and colored are incompatible
with the Constitution, its implement
ing order is equivalent to a rebuff
for the clamor crowd which has de
manded an abrupt end to segrega
tion.
The more we examine this order
of the court, the more it impresses us
as providing support for our un
changeable opinion that the court
was mistaken in the first place in
holding school segregation of the
races to be unconstitutional....
Charleston (S.C.)
News and Courier
. .. First and most noteworthy from
the standpoint of the South, the court
did not grant the petition of the Na
tional Association for the Advance
ment of Colored People to order com
pliance “forthwith.” It set no dead
line. Instead, it has placed on local
school boards the burden of doing
whatever must be done to remove
what the court has called “discrimi
nation.”
The court has not, in so many
words, ordered that white and Negro
pupils must be educated in the same
classrooms . . .
If the school facilities offered sep
arately to white and Negro pupils
are acceptable to the people of both
races, the great bulk of pupils
could continue going to their respec
tive schools exactly as in the past . . .
The Supreme Court has placed in
the hands of leaders of the Negroes
a powerful weapon to require a good
brand of public education for their
people. Steps already have been taken
toward this goal. The white people
in authority have shouldered the
additional responsibility. For their
part, the Negroes are offered a chal
lenge to go along with this state of
affairs in the interest of harmonious
relations. How they will meet this
challenge may determine the smooth
ness with which the transition men
tioned by the court is carried out.
Without written rules on the subject,
legal “discrimination” does not exist.
Practical “discrimination” likewise
would end with equal school oppor
tunities for both races. The doctrine
that equality cannot be achieved in
separation need not become a local
court issue if nobody presses it. The
Supreme Court’s declaration could be
accepted as a principle without literal
enforcement in every detail.
With good will and mutual respect,
already the rule rather than the ex
ception between the races in the
South, our people can continue to
progress and to live together in peace.
The Greenville News
It should not be overlooked that
the Supreme Court has said nothing
that can he construed as forcing in
tegration of the races against the
wishes of individuals involved. It is
still constitutional for Negro children
to attend all-Negro schools volun
tarily. The same is true for White
children.
It follows that in South Carolina
where Negro schools are being rapid
ly improved there is no need for
trouble over integration. The more
responsible Negro parents will want
their children to go to schools taught
by members of their own race. Many
of them will have the opportunity of
attending better schools than some
of the White children. Voluntary seg
regation is the “escape” from difficul
ties that will leave their marks on
the children, and it is not illegal.
The Court’s decree is about all the
South was justified in hoping for un
der the circumstances. It gives the
states some leeway in working out
their own peculiar problems and that
they will do best by a minimum of
interference by the courts.
The State (Columbia)
“As The State sees it, the Court has
come to realize that it has a bigger
problem on its hands than it recog
nized when it made its ruling of May
17, 1954. There is a tone of leniency
(if that is the right word) in the im
plementation order that was not pres
ent in the original pronouncement.
The court evidently has taken cog
nizance of the various things that
have happened in the last year, not
all of them in the South, hence the
cautious, and sometimes almost off
setting language of the decree. But if
our sizing up of the situation is cor
rect, and we believe it is, while the
court has taken a circuitous, rather
than a direct route of approach it is
still headed in the same direction—
integration, though the court knows
that unwilling travelers are difficult
to transport, and that in the last
analysis, in a matter affecting so
many people, it is helpless to enforce
a decree unless supported by public
opinion, which presently is lack
ing. . . .
We anticipate no early attempts at
forced integration in this state. Even
the Supreme Court apparently senses
the inadvisability of attempting im
mediate enforcement of its new rule.
But let no one be led to believe that
because “time” has been allowed, the
question of segregation in public
schools is no longer a live issue. We
are simply passing through another
phase of the fight, one that bids fair
to be punctuated by endless litigation
as efforts are made by legislative de
vice to practice segregation within
the ruling, or school authorities sim
ply offer passive resistance by doing
nothing, and waiting to see what hap
pens.
Roanoke World News
The Supreme Court’s school racial
integration decree is the most liberal
that the South could have expected.
This newspaper can only reiterate
what it said of the decision last year:
this is a time for common sense and
Christian forbearance. Let us keep
clear heads, remembering that the
highest legal authority has spoken
and whether we like it or not, this is
the law of the land.
Roanoke Times
Moderation is the keynote of the
high court’s ruling. Our state and
local authorities should comply in the
same spirit, for, whether we like it or
not, attempts to evade what has been
declared the law of the land would
be futile, serving only to disrupt our
educational system. The thing for all
thoughtful citizens to do now is to
work together harmoniously to the
end that there shall be no weakening
of the public schools. We cannot af
ford to place the welfare of future
generations in jeopardy.
Lynchburg Daily Advance
There will be a widely held sus
picion that the Supreme Court placed
itself in a position which it now seeks
to ease out of by passing the toughest
part of what it brought into being
on to the lower courts . . .
It is clear now that men in high
places have blundered. Good citizens
will work to ameliorate the blunder
ing. It may be that the two races will
by now have learned that drastic so
cial change is dangerous when it
comes too rapidly and so be con
cerned with improving all those con
ditions which handicap the fullest
racial co-operation among American
citizens.
Richmond News Leader
In May of 1954, that inept fraternity
of politicians and professors known
as the United States Supreme Court
chose to throw away the established
law. These nine men repudiated the
Constitution, spit upon the tenth
amendment, and rewrote the funda
mental law of this land to suit their
own gauzy concepts of sociology. If
it be said now that the South is flout
ing the law, let it be said to the high
court, You taught us how.
From the moment that abominable
decision was handed down, two broad
courses only were available to the
South. One was to defy the court
openly and notoriously; the other was
to accept the court’s decision and
combat it by legal means. To defy the
court openly would be to enter upon
anarchy; the logical end would be
a second attempt at secession from
the Union. And though the idea is
not without merit, it is impossible
of execution. We tried that once be
fore.
To acknowledge the court’s au
thority does not mean that the South
is helpless. It is not to abandon hope.
Rather, it is to enter upon a long
course of lawful resistance; it is to
take lawful advantage of every mo
ment of the law’s delays; it is to seek
at the polls and in the halls of legis
lative bodies every possible lawful
means to overcome or circumvent the
court’s requirements. Litigate? Let
us pledge ourselves to litigate this
thing for 50 years. If one remedial law
is ruled invalid, then let us try an
other; and if the second is ruled in
valid, then let us enact a third . . .
When the court proposes that its
social revolution be imposed upon
the South “as soon as practicable,”
there are those of us who would re
spond that “as soon as practicable”
means never at all.
Charlotte News
. . . Obviously, the time element is
the key to the whole tortuous prob
lem. It is so closely linked with other
cornerstone principles — preserving
the personal security of the children
who attend the schools, preventing
racial antipathy from jeopardizing
the proper functioning of the schools,
geographic variations within the
states, preserving the academic
standards in the schools.
It may be argued that the court
should order immediate vindication
of constitutional rights which are
shown to be abridged. Ordinarily this
would be true. But the court wisely
recognized that here was no ordinary
“civil rights” case. Not one or a
dozen but millions of people are in
volved . . .
Local communities, however, will
not be permitted to use the leeway
for the purposes of outright evasion.
Clearly, reasonable progress must be
made. This is as it should be. The law
must be respected—not subjected to
mockery.
Baltimore Evening Sun
. . . The high court says that the
lower courts will have power to re
quire local authorities to make a
sincere effort to carry out the law.
This does not necessarily mean that
every locality will have to follow the
same schedule. It does, in our judg
ment, mean that every locality will
have to make a start at implementing
the decree.
This principle is underscored by the
declaration a few paragraphs further
on that “the vitality of these constitu
tional principles cannot be allowed to
yield simply because of disagreement
with them.” Here are words which
seem to say to the die-hard opponents
of desegregation, “Your feelings and
local practices will be considered in
applying the law, but the law must be
supreme in the end . .
To sum up: The court has laid down
guiding principles which can be inter
preted in such a way as to take full
account of local conditions. This is
proper and necessary in handling a
difficult social adjustment of the kind
involved here. On the other hand, the
principles enunciated can be used in
such a way as to prevent the defeat of
the law by virtue of local disagree
ment or resistance. If we are to have
a government of laws, that, too, seems
wise. May the wisdom be justified by
events.
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
The Supreme Court’s ruling sub
mits a superb appeal to the wisdom,
intelligence, and leadership of the
Southern States, starting, so far as we
are concerned, with Virginia.
Most of these States, none more
strongly than Virginia, have argued
with validity that they must have
time. Now the time is theirs for the
asking, provided only they show the
indispensable good faith and reason
ably prompt action in the first
steps . . .
For all this the Supreme Court pro
claims no time limit of any kind. It
refers once to “all deliberate speed,”
and undoubtedly it will not be satis
fied with dawdling; but it places more
weight on honest effort and clear pur
pose in struggling with practical
problems than with a specified time
for the ending of the period of transi
tion . . .
Somewhere in the South a State
will rise to leadership in this probably
long and difficult duty. We hope it
will be Virginia.
Nasliville Tennessean
. . . Here in the South, where so
much has been heard about states’
rights and local control of the schools,
this realistic ruling should now be ac
cepted as an opportunity to show that
we can work out the problem in
keeping with the constitutional prin
ciple firmly established by the Su
preme Court.
It should not be seized as a license
to stall or to resort to schemes cal
culated to frustrate the court’s de
cision of last year. For in their
opinion yesterday, the justices strong
ly reaffirmed their ruling that “racial
discrimination in public education is
unconstitutional.”
That stands as the law of the land,
and “all provisions of federal, state or
local law requiring or permitting such
discrimination,” the court declared,
See NEWSPAPERS on Page 10