Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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