Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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