Newspaper Page Text
I
PAGE 2—FEBRUARY 1957—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Main Features of Assignment Laws Adopted in 7 States
Intent
Alabama
To insure efficient educa
tional program with pub
lic support and mainten
ance of order and goodwill
Arkansas
To insure equal educa
tional opportunities un
der state’s police powers
to promote health, peace,
safety, happiness and
morals
Florida
“Under the police and
public welfare powers” to
promote health, safety,
good order and education
Louisiana
To implement act 555,
which states as its pirn-
pose to preserve segrega
tion
North Carolina
To provide for enrollment
of pupils in their respec
tive administrative units
Tennessee
To regulate assignment,
admission and transfer of
pupils
Virginia
To give governor power to
assign pupils, to determine
school attendance districts
and to provide adminis
trative procedures and
remedies for the ag
grieved
Authority
Local school board
Local school board; may
delegate
Local school board
Parish or city superinten
dent of schools
Local school board
Local school board
Governor, delegated to
Pupil Placement Board
created by companion act
Criteria
Availability of space,
teaching capacity, trans
portation
Suitability of established
curricula for particular
pupils
Psychological qualifica
tions of pupil for type of
teaching and association
involved
Psychological effect upon
pupil of attendance at a
particular school
Possibility of breaches of
the peace or ill will or
economic retaliation with
in the community
Morals, conduct, health
and personal standards of
pupil
Geographical location of
pupil’s residence in rela
tion to schools
Adequacy of pupil’s aca
demic preparation for ad
mission to particular
school and curriculum
Effect of admission of pu
pil upon academic pro
gress of other students in
a particular school or fa
cility thereof
Possibility or threat of
friction or disorder among
pupils or others
Maintenance or severance
of established social and
psychological relationships
with other pupils and with
teachers
Request or consent of
parents or guardians and
the reasons assigned
therefor.
Results of uniform tests
to determine intellectual
ability and scholastic pro
ficiency
Sociological, psychological
and like intangible social
scientific factors as will
prevent as nearly as prac
ticable any condition of
socio-economic class con
sciousness among the pu
pils
Effect of admission of new
pupils upon established
academic programs
Psychological, moral, eth
ical and cultural back
ground and qualifications
of pupils applying as com
pared with other pupils
previously assigned to
particular school
Space, teaching capacity,
suitability of curriculum
None
To provide for “orderly
and efficient” administra
tion of public schools, “ef
fective instruction,” health
safety and general wel
fare of pupils
“In the exercise of such
authority such board may
adopt such reasonable
rules and regulations as in
the opinion of the board
shall best accomplish such
purposes.”
Effect of the enrollment
on the welfare and best
interests of such pupil and
all other pupils in partic
ular school as well as the
effect on the efficiency of
operation of the school
Scholastic aptitude and
relative intelligence or
mental energy or ability
of the pupil
Effect of admission upon
prevailing academic stand
ards at a particular school
Home environment of the
pupil
Any and all other factors
which the board may con
sider pertinent, relevant
or material in their effect
upon the welfare and best
interest of the applicant,
other pupils of the county,
city or special school dis
trict as a whole and the
inhabitants of the county,
city or special school dis
trict
Health of child as com
pared to other children in
school.
Effect of any disparity be
tween physical and men
tal ages of child when
contrasted with average
physical and mental ages
of group with which child
might be placed
Such other relevant mat
ters as may be pertinent
to the efficient operation
of the schools or indicate
a clear and present dan
ger to the public peace
and tranquility affecting
the safety or welfare of
the citizens of the school
district
Appeal
To local school board for
hearing; to local circuit
court for jury trial; to
state supreme court
To local school board, lo
cal circuit court, state su
preme court
To local board for hear
ing; to state board of edu
cation for review; to Cir
cuit Court of Leon County
To superintendent, local
school board, state district
court, State Court of Ap
peals
To local board for hear
ing; to superior court of
the county for jury trial;
to state supreme court
To local board for hear
ing; chancery court; state
court of appeals or state
supreme court
To governor for hearing;
to circuit or corporate
court; to State Supreme
Court of Appeals
Status
Untested
Untested
Under attack in Palm
Beach County
Held invalid on its face
by three-judge federal
court
Held not unconstitutional
on its face
Untested
Held invalid on its face
in Norfolk and Newport
News cases
All of the criteria set out by the legislatures under which pupils may be assigned to public schools similar. Sixteen of Arkansas’ 19 factors are identical to criteria set out in the Tennessee act and three
are included in the table above. However, since many of the criteria in the various states are similar, are similar. The Alabama and Arkansas acts state 15 factors in identical language. There are similari-
if not identical, they are not repeated for each state. For example, 14 of the 16 factors for assignment ties also between criteria as stated in the Florida and Virginia acts with the Tennessee law. Those
set out in Alabama’s pupil assignment act were incorporated in the Tennessee act and two others are factors unique to a particular state are listed under that state’s heading.
Placement Acts
(Continued From Page 1)
federal to state courts in a split decision
by a three-judge federal court, one
member of which held that “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 legis
lation denying to their members the
fundamental rights of constitutional
liberty,” while another held that the
state anti-NAACP law “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.”
Tennessee
Tennessee is the most recent state to
write the pupil placement system into
its statutes, the legislature adopting a
five-point program recommended by
Gov. Frank Clement within two weeks
after convening. In two key court deci
sions a district judge upheld Nashville’s
projected first-grade desegregation in
1957-58 and a circuit court overruled
the state’s “stairstep” plan of college
desegregation.
Texas
Eleven pro-segregation bills, includ
ing a pupil placement plan, have been
introduced in the legislature. Houston
indicated it would be ready by May 1
to announce a plan of compliance with
the U.S. Supreme Court’s school deci
sions.
Virginia
Virginia’s pupil placement act was
declared unconstitutional by a federal
judge while another judge declined to
set a deadline for desegregation in
Prince Edward County. Meanwhile, a
circuit court order delayed court-or
dered desegregation of Charlottesville
and Arlington County schools.
West Virginia
Retiring Gov. William C. Marland,
commenting on statewide desegregation
under his administration, said “we have
worked and I am glad to say that those
who have studied the segregation and
integration programs of the public
schools of the nation have been loud
in their praise of West Virginia’s efforts
in this field.”
Assignment Laws
(Continued From Page 1)
means by which segregation is to be
achieved. It provides that each parish
superintendent of schools throughout
this state shall, each year, determine
the particular school within each par
ish to be attended by each school child
applying for admission to public
schools, and that no school child shall
be entitled to enter a public school un
less assigned in accordance with pro
visions of the act ... For the reasons
stated in the opinion of this court sit
ting with three judges . . . the legisla
tive plan for maintaining segregation in
the public schools of Louisiana is in
valid. Since the administrative remedy
outlined in Act 556 is part of the plan,
it is invalid on its face and may be dis
regarded.”
HOFFMAN NOTES INTENT
Similar reasoning was behind the
opinion of Federal Judge Walter Hoff
man in his recent ruling in the Norfolk
and Newport News cases in Virginia.
There he specificially noted that the
pupil assignment act was part of the
“massive resistance” program designed
to prevent any desegregation anywhere
in the state.
Judge Hoffman cited the resolution
of interposition as indicative of the
legislature’s intent to “resist” the Su
preme Court in this regard. He also
cited the General Appropriations Act
of March 31, 1956, which defines an
“efficient” system of education as a
separate system for white and Negro
pupils. He cited further the amended
General Appropriations Act of Sept.
29, 1956, the act creating the Pupil
Placement Board, and asserted: “The
pattern is plain—the legislature has
adopted procedures to defeat the Brown
decision. In doing so it is safe to say
that Chapter 70 (the Pupil Assignment
Act) is invalid on its face.”
The assignment acts in North Caro
lina and in Florida are under direct
attack in cases arising in Caswell
County and Palm Beach County on
precisely these grounds. However, the
attempts to show intent to circumvent
the desegregation decisions are based
on specific features of other measures
rather than on the tenor of recent leg
islative programs. In the North Caro
lina case, the plaintiffs allege that the
legislature’s resolution of protest
adopted last year shows that the policy
of the state is to retain complete seg
regation in the schools. In Palm Beach
County, Fla., a resolution of the school
board that it intends to continue its
school operations on the same (i.e.,
segregated) basis as in previous years
is the ground on which the case stands.
SOME FEATURES UPHELD
Meanwhile, the U. S. Fourth Circuit
Court—to which the case before Judge
Hoffman will be appealed—has held,
once directly and again indirectly, that
some features of pupil assignment laws
are valid. The common feature of the
acts which have this court’s approval
are the authority of local school boards
to assign pupils on the basis of factors
relevant to education, and the individ
ual character of administrative proce
dures and remedies provided for in such
cases.
The Fourth Circuit Court, in a case
from McDowell County, N.C., also rec
ognized the necessity of the enrollment
powers of school boards in these terms:
“Somebody must enroll the pupils in
the schools. They cannot enroll them
selves; and we can think of no one bet
ter qualified to undertake the task than
the officials of the schools and the school
boards having the schools in charge. It
is to be presumed that these will obey
the law, observe the standards pre
scribed by the legislature, and avoid
the discrimination on account of race
which the Constitution forbids. Not un
til they have beeen applied to and have
failed to give relief should the courts
be asked to interfere in school admin
istration.”
OTHER FEATURES INVALID
A feature common to most of the as
signment acts, which the circuit court
has held invalid, is the extension of
administrative remedies from the school
board’s ruling through state courts.
Beyond review of a local board’s ruling
by other administrative or executive
agencies, the court has held, the ap
peals are judicial in nature and may go
directly into federal courts, hy-passing
state judicial channels.
Authorities in school administration
have raised several questions as to what
the courts might consider in determin
ing the intent of pupil assignment leg
islation.
Will the statement of intent in each
state’s act suffice? It didn t in the Nor
folk and Newport News cases, where
Judge Hoffman looked also at other
acts adopted by the Virginia Assembly
to determine not only the express in
tent of the assignment act but the ulti
mate effect of the whole legislative
program.
Will other legislation enacted since
1954 be considered? If so, what will be
the court’s criteria—the intent of such
legislation to prevent all desegregation
or the intent to prevent only forced
desegregation or the intent to permit
some degree of segregation on a volun
tary basis?
Will resolutions of interposition or
protest, adopted by all the states which
have pupil assignment laws, be consid
ered by the courts as statements of
legislative policy in seeking to deter
mine legislative intent?
Will the courts consider debate over
the bills and statements of the sponsors
in arriving at their decisions? For ex
ample, Sen. Sam Engelhardt Jr., said,
when queried about the May 31, 1955
Supreme Court decision at the time his
pupil assignment act was under con
sideration in the Alabama legislature:
“As far as I am concerned, abolition of
segregation will never be feasible in
Alabama and the South. No brick will
ever be removed from our segregation
wall.”
On the other hand, Col. William T.
Joyner, vice chairman of the North
Carolina Advisory Committee on
Schools, said concerning the assignment
plan he helped design: “I think that
some mixing in schools is inevitable
and must occur. I think that the result
of free choice and honest assignment
according to the best interest of the
child will be separation so substan
tially complete as to be tolerable to
our people.... I do not hesitate to ad
vance my personal opinion, and it is
that the admission of less than one per
cent—for example, one-tenth of one
per cent—of Negro children to the
schools heretofore attended only by
white children is a small price to pay
for the ability to keep the mixing with
in bounds of reasonable control.”
SCOPE OF ISSUE
Some school authorities question
whether special placement laws are
necessary at all. They point out that
most of the states which have adopted
such statutes already had on their
books other statutes giving local school
boards implied, if not specific, assign
ment powers. These powers enabled
them to control the educational, schol
astic and aptitudinal character of the
student bodies under their jurisdiction.
Other school authorities says that
these implied powers need to be made
more specific by setting up standards
for school assignment. Administrators
in Florida have found that the new
laws enabling them to delve into back
ground of pupils are actually helpful—
the segregation-desegregation issue
aside—in dealing with children.
Colleges
(Continued From Page 1)
i
ably does not exceed 2,000 during the
regular term.
Aside from the Brown case, invalidat
ing educational segregation generally, ,
the most significant Supreme Court de
cision relating to colleges and universi
ties seems to have been the 1956 ruling
in the Florida case of ex rel Hawkins v. ,
Board of Control. There the court ruled
out delay in admitting Negroes to grad
uate and professional schools such as it
had allowed for primary and secondary (
education.
PATTERN DEVELOPS
Against this legal backdrop, the fol- (
lowing pattern has developed at the col
lege and university level:
Policies of desegregation applying to
all state-supported institutions and o* ,
all class levels have been adopted > n
Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Ken
tucky, West Virginia, Maryland and
Delaware. Negroes in relatively smad |
numbers entered some of the institu
tions in these states, none applied a ‘
others; and some white students we®
into schools formerly maintained & (
Negroes. In West Virginia, where P er "
haps the greatest influx of white an
Negro pupils into schools formed?
maintained for the opposite race too*
place, there is some evidence that tn
trend is being reversed.
Partial desegregation has taken
in some public colleges and university >
in Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, No r ‘
Carolina and Louisiana. Texas Univ e '_
sity, which accepted Negroes at
graduate level in 1950, began desegPy
gation at the undergraduate level ‘
fall. Seventeen of about 45 public i nS ^.
tutions now accept students of n°
races in Texas.
The Tennessee State Board of Edu c *
tion in 1955 adopted a five-year des&\
regation program for the colleges 81
universities under its jurisdiction, ! ^
did the Board of Trustees at the U
versity of Tennessee, which later P°".j
poned its program. The Sixth C 1I ' C ,,
Court last month reversed a dist
court decision approving this pl an ', j‘
gro graduate students are enrolled*]
three predominantly white instituti
including the University of Tennes 5
which first admitted them in 1952 uu
court order.
VIRGINIA PROCEDURE
Four of Virginia’s nine predominujbj 1
white schools have 41 Negroes on
(Continued on Next Page)
l