Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 10—FEBRUARY 1957—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
New Legislation oil Schools, Court Tests
COLUMBIA, S. C.
outh Carolina laws aimed at pre
serving racial segregation in the
public schools and elsewhere were be
ing tested in the courts and new laws
were being proposed in the state legis
lature as 1957 opened.
A handful of new pro-segregation
measures were introduced in the open
ing weeks of the South Carolina Gen
eral Assembly, while an act of the 1956
legislature was being transferred, at the
direction of a three-judge court, from
federal to state courts. The court action
involved a law banning employment by
state, county, school district or munici
pal agencies of members of the National
Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (see “Legal Action”),
but even as it was being challenged,
other anti-NAACP laws were being
proposed by individual legislators. (See
“Legislative Action.”)
Efforts were launched in both the leg
islative and executive branches of the
state government to have the case of
South Carolina and the South, with
respect to segregation and states’ rights,
presented both to Congress and to non-
southem legislatures now in session.
(See “Legislative Action.”)
Six men have been arrested in Ker
shaw County and bound over for trial
in connection with the December beat
ing of a Camden high school bandmas
ter.
LEGAL ACTION
A split decision of three federal
judges switched a test suit of a South
Carolina law from federal court to state
court in January. The suit (Ola L. Bryan
et al v. M. G. Austin et al) involves the
challenge by 17 Negro school teachers
of a state law which forbids the em
ployment of NAACP members by agen
cies of the state, its counties, school dis
tricts or municipalities. The plaintiffs,
all former teachers at the Elloree Train
ing School, of Orangeburg County,
either resigned or were refused re-em
ployment when they refused to sign
statements indicating their membership
in the NAACP, their attitude toward
the organization and toward integration.
The case was argued Oct. 22,1956 be
fore a three-judge panel comprising
Circuit Judge John J. Parker of Char
lotte, N.C., and District Judges Ashton
H. Williams of Charleston, and George
Bell Timmerman of Columbia. Judges
Parker and Williams agreed that the
federal courts had jurisdiction. Judges
Williams and Timmerman agreed that
if jurisdiction was present, then federal
court proceedings should be stayed until
the issues had been settled by the state.
The court said, in part:
“It is ordered that the case be re
tained and remain pending on the
docket but that proceedings therein be
stayed to permit the plaintiffs a rea
sonable time for the exhaustion of state
administrative and judicial remedies
after which such further proceedings,
if any, will be had by this court, as may
then appear proper in the premises.”
VIEWS OF JUDGES
The order embraced a brief statement
of the respective judges’ opinions, which
were set out in greater detail in separate
opinions containing these observations:
Judge Parker: “The court can and
should protect the rights of plaintiffs for
the future by declaring the statute un
constitutional and enjoining the defend
ants from enforcing it against plaintiffs
either by denying them employment
because of membership in the NAACP
or requiring them, as a condition for
employment, to make affidavit or answer
questions with regard to such member
ship. In my opinion, decree to that ef
fect should be entered without await
ing action in the state courts, as the
statute is unambiguous and clearly un
constitutional ...
“The [NAACP] organization is en
gaged in activities for advancing the
interests of colored people and this has
involved its engaging in matters of pub
lic controversy such as the segregation
cases, the results of which have been
very unpopular in some sections. This,
however, is no reason why it may be
proscribed by law or its members denied
the right of public employment. The
right to join organizations which seek
by lawful means to support and further
what their members regard as the pub
lic interest or in the interest of a par
ticular part of the public, is protected
by the constitutional guarantees of free
speech and freedom of assembly; and
such right is one of the bulwarks of
liberty and social progress. The fact
that organizations may render them
selves unpopular with the majority in
a community is no reason why the ma
jority may use its power to enact leg
islation denying to their members the
fundamental rights of constitutional lib
erty.”
TO PROTECT YOUNG MINDS’
Judge Timmerman: “The statute is de
signed to protect young minds from
the poisonous effects of NAACP prop
aganda. It does not, as is surmised, out
law membership in the NAACP. It
doesn’t even attempt to do so. It only
prevents its members from carrying out
their programs in the classrooms of
public schools where it is deemed to be
against the public interest to have them
do so. . . .
“It is clear that the power to dictate
the terms upon which the public schools
may be operated by the states was not
in the Constitution delegated to the
United States or its judges. It is also
equally clear that there is nothing in
the Constitution which denies to the
states respectively, the power to com
pletely control their established public
schools so long as equality of treatment
is accorded to the races. And, futher,
there is nothing in the Constitution
which says that the equal treatment, re
quired by the Constitution, is itself dis
crimination and is, therefore, unequal
treatment.
“While the purpose of this case, in a
sense, is camouflaged, it is not too well
Occupy
hidden. It is to secure this court’s ap
proval of the exercise of a veto over
local matters. . . . The Bible has been
ruled out of the public schools. The
fight here is to rule NAACP’s theories
of knowledge into them. If that is done,
the government of its judges would
thereby become invaders of the homes
of citizens, superseding the authority
and interest of parents in the rearing
and training of their children. Knowing
the inherent danger in such a vicious
procedure, I unhesitatingly register my
opposition to it: and may God protect
the children of America if the courts
will not and their parents cannot do so.”
Judge Williams: “In the instant case,
there is no question that the Supreme
Court of South Carolina is in a better
position than the federal court to inter
pret the state statute. The fact that there
might be a delay, inconvenience and
cost to the parties does not call for a
different conclusion. We are here con
cerned with a much larger issue as to
the appropriate relationship between
state and federal authorities function
ing as a harmonious whole.”
The opening of the 1957 legislative
session in South Carolina brought with
it the introduction of several bills ap
parently aimed at further strengthen
ing state defenses against integration
efforts. None of the measures has yet
had time to go through committee ac
tion and floor debate, but the follow
ing have been proposed for enactment:
A bill (by Rep. George Sam Harrell
of Florence County) to close automat
ically under the state’s police powers
any school which is desegregated, and
to authorize the governor to make tui
tion grants for attendance at private
schools if the public school in question
cannot be reopened in an atmosphere of
peace and tranquility.
Carolina
A bill (by Rep. Harrell) barring state,
county and local police from aiding fed.
eral officers in making arrests or using
South Carolina jails for prisoners
charged with opposing integration ac.
tivities.
BILL AGAINST BARRATRY
A bill (by Sen. John Carl West of
Kershaw County) “to make unlawful
the promotion of litigation by any or
ganization and to provide punishment
for such promotion.” The West bill was
made more stringent by the Senate
judiciary committee and was adopted
by the Senate in a form which carries
a $5,000 fine or two years’ imprison
ment as the maximum punishment for
wilfully inciting or soliciting another to
“bring, prosecute or maintain” legal ac
tion, when such person has no direct
or substantial interest in the relief
sought, or seeks to defraud or mislead
the court, or intends to harass any party
to the action, or who directly or indi
rectly receives compensation for bring
ing the action. Any such actions would
be classed as barratry under South Car
olina law. The law is admittedly aimed
at the NAACP.
A bill (by Rep. Donald H. Holland of
Kershaw County) requiring each
NAACP chapter to file a list of mem
bers with the secretary of state.
ASK TO BE HEARD
Aside from the proposed legislation,
the General Assembly is asking the Ju
diciary Committee of the U.S. House of
Representatives to allow South Car
olina to be heard in opposition to the
enactment of the “civil rights” bill
pending in Congress. A resolution to
that effect was adopted by the legisla
ture after its sponsorship by Rep. Rob
ert E. McNair of Allendale County, and
the House members of the Special Seg
regation Committee.
Meanwhile, similar requests for an
opportunity for the state to be heard
were sent to Congress by Gov. George
Bell Timmerman Jr. and by Atty. Gen.
T. C. Callison.
(Continued on Next Page)
South
Report from Washington
Corning Replies to Congressmen; Ike Asks Federal School Aid
WASHINGTON, D.C.
JpSTRiCT School Supt. Hobart M. Cor
ning last month rejected school sys
tem changes recommended by a spe
cial House District subcommittee and,
in effect, accused members of having
made up their minds in advance of
hearings.
In a report to the board of education,
Coming said a subcommittee proposal
to return to separate but equal schools
in the nation’s capital “would be illegal
. . . and would result in chaotic up
heaval” within the school system.
“By way of general comment,” Corn
ing said, “. . . that recommendation
alone seems to indicate the prime pur
pose of the committee which is un
doubtedly basic to its various findings
and recommendations.”
The re-segregation recommendation
was attached to the District school re
port by a southern majority of the sub
committee after two of the six members
refused to sign the document and is
sued a minority report of their own.
These members, Reps. DeWitt S. Hyde
(R-Md.) and A. L. Miller (R-Neb.),
said the subcommittee headed by Rep.
James C. Davis (D-Ga.) went out of its
way to find fault with the District
schools.
MAJORITY MEMBERS
Members of the southern majority,
in addition to Davis, are Reps. John
Bell Williams (D-Miss.), Joel T. Broy-
hill (R-Va.) and Woodrow W. Jones
(D-N.C.), who no longer is in Congress.
Corning wrote that the congressional
school investigators failed to heed his
testimony to “any appreciable degree.”
Coming was questioned one full day of
the public hearings last fall.
The superintendent recalled that he
was asked by Rep. Williams what leg
islative recommendations might im
prove District schools. Corning said he
replied “that our most pressing need
is for more teachers so that classes can
be smaller.” This was not mentioned in
the subcommittee series of legislative
proposals, he said.
“We need more teachers for special
classes, more supervisors and an ex
panded testing department and to re
lieve serious overcrowding, we need
more school buildings and we need
them more rapidly than is possible un
der the present ‘pay-as-you-go pro
gram,’ ” Corning reiterated. School offi
cials are seeking legislative authority
to borrow $70 million over a five-year
period to erect needed school build
ings.
Coming said “if the committee is
sincerely seeking for things that will
help, these are the things that are of
primary importance.”
The subcommittee’s contention that
District school integration proceeded
at an unwarranted speed is an unfair
charge, Corning said.
District school officials were prepared
for the start of integration, Coming
said in refuting a subcommittee claim
to the contrary. “Testimony shows,”
Coming said, “that prior to the decision
of the Supreme Court, the staff offi
cers with the superintendent in a se
ries of many conferences and work ses
sions, studied for two years the means
of bringing about an integrated school
system.”
ALTERNATIVES
Those who claim the transition took
place too quickly should consider the
alternatives, Corning went on. “Un
doubtedly, had the board of education
not acted promptly, there would have
been repeated and intensified tensions
and demonstrations due to the exces
sively overcrowded conditions in the
colored schools when there was avail
able space in the white schools,” Com
ing said.
During the last several years of segre
gation, Corning recalled, 21 schools had
been transferred (from the white to Ne
gro division) and “in each case there
was controversy, dissatisfaction and un
rest.”
Had the school board delayed integra
tion, Coming said, McKinley High
School, at least one junior high school
and several additional grade schools
would have been transferred to Negro
use “because it would have been unten
able to require colored children to con
tinue to pass half-filled white schools
on their way to overcrowded colored
schools.”
WOULD NOT WORK
Coming underscored his belief that
a year-by-year integration plan would
not have worked. Families would have
been divided and such a program would
have taken 13 years to accomplish,
(kindergarten through senior high.)
“In other words, the schools and the
community would have been contin
uously disturbed over a long period of
\ . . You’re an Odd Looking
—Greensboro (N.C.) Daily News
time because the issue had not been
faced squarely at the beginning,” Corn
ing said.
MOVEMENT OUT
Many of the problems listed by the
Davis subcommittee are not problems
which resulted from school integration,
Corning said. For example, he said, the
subcommittee claims that there has
been an accelerated movement of the
white population to the suburbs.
“In this connection,” Corning said,
“the subcommittee seems to have ig
nored testimony of the superintendent
and material supplied from the research
department of the schools which show
that the migration of the white popu
lation to the suburbs has been going
on for many years.”
Coming denied the subcommittee’s
charge that sex problems in integrated
schools have aroused parents and con
tributed to the exodus of the white pop
ulation from the city. Coming said the
reported number of illegitimate births
and venereal disease among children
“are indeed astounding and tragic.”
But, he said, “it cannot be claimed
that these conditions are the results of
school integration.”
DISTRICT FINANCES
The subcommittee statement that
Washington schools are more adequate
ly financed than other school systems
is not true, Corning said. Nor is the
subcommittee charge true that inte
gration has caused an undue number
of teacher resignations and early re
tirement, Corning said.
Coming made these statements on
specific subcommittee school recom
mendations:
Liberalization of present student
transfer policies “would leave the ad
ministration without adequate control
of total enrollment in any school.”
Creation of trade schools for pupils
of low mental ability is akin to current
plans to set up a citywide school for
boys who need a shop-centered type of
program.
Establishment of separate schools for
the “best interest” of these youngsters
who are better off in special classes in
regular schools.
NAACP CRITICIZES
The District branch of the National
Association for the Advancement of
Colored People criticized the Davis
subcommittee report as “defaming” Ne
groes and released excerpts of a report
the association will publish soon.
Eugene Davidson, president of the
local branch, said the subcommittee
had “defamed the Negro race and given
aid and comfort to southern communi
ties which are resisting and violating
the law against segregation.”
The NAACP analysis of integration
in the Washington public schools shows,
the report says, that “integration of
public schools in Washington is success
ful and there is absolutely no scientific
evidence which will support a contrary
opinion.”
The NAACP report states: “The theo
ry that Negroes possess an intellectual
capacity inferior to white persons is
scientifically unsound ... there are no
racial differences in capacity to learn
. . . there are no studies which offer
conclusive evidence that there are in
herent biological racial differences in
the capacity for intellectual achieve
ment . . . recognition of data on su
perior Negro pupils refutes any gen
eralization that the Negro is inferior to
whites.”
SCORES ON TESTS
Lower scores scored by some Negro
students on intelligence tests reflect the
less favorable social and economic back
ground of these students, the report
states.
Responses to questionnaires sent to
District teachers and administrators by
the NAACP “evidence a generally fa
vorable attitude regarding the success
of integration” here, the report states.
A majority of the respondents said
social activities should be integrated t
as rapidly as regular classroom activi
ties, and expressed a belief that par
ents are “becoming more liberal” in
their attitude toward integration.
OPPOSE AMENDMENT
Appearing on a television panel dis
cussion Jan. 13, the District Commis
sioners said they would oppose a con
stitutional amendment allowing District
schools to be segregated again. Com
missioner David B. Karrick said there
was “something to be gained . . . from
the academic point of view but not on
integration” from information in the
report of the Davis subcommittee.
In an appearance at a National Press
Club luncheon, Commission Chairman
Robert E. McLaughlin, sometimes de
scribed as “Washington’s mayor,” was
asked: “Is the Davis subcommittee re
port on District integration an objective
one?”
He answered: “How much disservice
you can do the District in general [be'
cause Congress runs it] in being pe r "
fectly frank is a problem. I tend
agree with those who find it not to have
been an objective report.” Asked
whether integration had been “an over
all success,” he responded that it de
pended on how “over-all” was defined
and added: “The most important prob- >
lem under the dual system was tha
colored schools were not fairly treated-
LEGISLATIVE ACTION
What disposition the full House Pj*
trict committee would make of the V?
vis subcommittee report on DisW_
school integration was problematical
the month ended. On Jan. 6 the Was
ington Evening Star reported: “A ch
yesterday showed substantial opp 0 -^
tion [to the report] already had crys_
lized among some committee membe
Others appeared to be on the fence.
the Supre^
not eager
Court.”
to challenge
Rep. Davis had not said how or "
he expects to follow up the report.
John L. McMillan (D-S.C.), chairm
(See DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Page 16)
when