Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 2—JUNE 1957—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Texas Legislators Pass
Pupil Assignment Law
AUSTIN, Texas
pupil assignment law and a
requirement for approval at
elections before other school dis
tricts integrate were passed by the
legislature and signed by the gov
ernor. (See “Legislative Ac
tion.”)
A modified permanent injunc
tion against the National Associa
tion for the Advancement of Col
ored Peop'e was issued by a state
judge at Tyler. (See “Legal Ac
tion.”)
A federal court heard the Hous
ton school board’s plea for delay
before ordering integration. (See
“Legal Action.”)
The University of Texas received
national publicity because a Negro
girl was dropped from the public per
formance of an opera, where she was
to sing a romantic part opposite a
white boy. (See “In the Colleges.”)
Dallas public school staff members
in an “opinionaire” showed more than
71 per cent opposing immediate inte
gration. (See “Under Survey.”)
Two laws sponsored by pro-segrega
tion East Texas legislators were signed
by Gov. Price Daniel, effective Aug.
22, 1957.
These are HB 65 by Rep. Jerry Sad
ler of Percilla and HB 231 by Rep.
Virginia Duff of Ferris.
HB 65 prohibits future integration
until it is approved by a majority at a
school district election. More than 100
Texas districts already desegregated
will not be affected, although the new
law provides the means for elections
to be called to restore segregation,
upon petition of 20 per cent of the
electors.
HB 231 is a Pupil Assignment Act
similar to laws passed by several other
southern states, notably North Caro
lina.
BOTH SIDES PLEASED
Both pro- and anti-segregation leg
islators seemed fairly well satisfied
with the results of their battle. The
segregationists predict that the two
bills will permit local wishes to pre
vail and will give school administrators
guidance. Disputes on pupil assign
ment will be appealed to state courts,
before getting into federal courts.
The anti-segregation minority was
pleased that 10 of the bills sponsored
by segregationists failed to pass. These
mostly died in the Senate, where two-
thirds majority was needed to bring
up the bills. Filibusters were con
ducted against the bills by two south
Texas senators, whose districts con
tain many Latin-Americans.
Atty. Gen. Will Wilson declared one
bill to be unconstitutional, HB 239 by
Rep. Joe Chapman of Sulphur Springs.
It would have required state registra
tion of those organizations whose prin
cipal activity is to advocate integration
or segregation. Wilson said the bill
violated rights of free speech and free
press.
This was the only bill of the segre
gation series to be sent to the attorney
general. That was done by a Senate
committee.
DANIEL APPROVES TWO
Gov. Daniel, a former attorney gen
eral, said the two laws he signed were
constitutional. He disregarded pleas by
opponents of the bills to send them to
Atty. Gen. Wilson for a ruling. Daniel
said he would have requested an opin
ion if he had any serious question
about constitutionality.
Daniel declared that objections have
been “leveled at the manner in which
the bills will be applied rather than at
the language and provisions of the bills
themselves.
“It is conceivable that these and
many other bills could be administered
and applied in an unconstitutional
manner, but that is not the question
before a governor or a court when
called upon to decide upon the lang
uage contained on the face of a legisla
tive act,” he continued.
NO ASSIGNMENT CHANGE
The governor asserted that the
pupil assignment law would not
change previous laws prohibiting seg
regation of Texas children of Mexican
descent in the schools. On the contrary,
Daniel quoted language in the assign
ment act which prohibits any evalua
tion based on “national origin of the
pupil or the pupil’s ancestral lang
uage.”
Under HB 65 (election law) Texas
school boards must decide promptly if
they intend to order integration with
out an election. The effective date is
Aug. 22, or 90 days after the legisla
ture adjourned.
Under the election law, a district
partly integrated by board order ap
parently can abolish segregation en
tirely without an election.
ELECTIONS REQUIRED
Otherwise, the law says: “No board
or trustees nor any other school au
thority shall have the right to abolish
the dual public school system nor to
abolish arrangement for transfer out
of the districts for students of any mi
nority race, unless by a prior vote of
the qualified electors residing in such
district the dual school system therein
is abolished.”
An election could be called on peti
tions signed by at least 20 per cent of
the qualified voters in the district. If
the election fails, at least two years
must elapse before another is called.
The same procedure is set up for an
integrated district to renew segrega
tion.
The law provides that any district
violating its provisions shall lose its
state school aid. A person violating the
act could be fined up to $1,000.
17 ASSIGNMENT FACTORS
A new law which attracted more at
tention in the legislature is the pupil
assignment act. Seventeen standards
are set for placing children in schools.
Included are availability of space and
transportation, adequacy of a pupil’s
preparation, scholastic aptitude and
relative intelligence, psychological ef
fect on the student and on other stu
dents, possibility of friction, health,
morals, personal standards and sex.
Rep. Duff of Ferris, where schools
have more Negro than white pupils
enrolled, said her bill will strengthen
local authority and will provide for
disputes to be taken to state courts
before going into federal courts.
“This is not a flat-out segregation
bill,” she added. “Under this, a school
district may be integrated if it chooses.
Until now, our schools have had no
state law to rely on in this field.”
10 OPPOSED ALL
Sen. Wardlow Lane of Center, who
led the Senate segregationists, said the
assignment bill is “basic... by far the
most important.” Seven segregation
proposals passed by the House died in
the Senate, where at least 10 of 31 sen
ators opposed every one. Lane was
able to muster a two-thirds majority
on the two bills only, and both of these
ran into filibusters.
Sen. Abraham Kazen, Jr. of Laredo,
one of the filibusterers, said he felt
the proposals are unconstitutional. He
commended his opponents as “high
type people.”
Another opponent, Sen. Henry Gon
zalez of San Antonio, said “the harm
was minimized” because only two of
the 12 bills passed.
“Time worked in our favor,” he
added. “We did serve the purpose of
focusing public opinion on this type
of legislation.”
GALLERIES HEAR FILIBUSTER
The main filibuster was conducted
by Sens. Kazen and Gonzalez against
HB 231. They spoke continuously for
thirty-six and one-half hours, after
which the Senate passed the bill at
2:25 a.m. The filibusterers had a gal
lery of white and Negro citizens. At
one night session, the galleries were
ordered cleared by the presiding offi
cer for ignoring repeated warnings
against demonstrations.
It was a pro-integration crowd
largely. Kazen and Gonzalez received
many telegrams of encouragement.
The segregationists also have re
ceived much favorable mail and many
messages during the session. Both
groups also have received critical and
even scurrilous communications. Seg
regation leader Chapman said that let
ters encouraging his stand were re
ceived by many persons from northern
and eastern states.
LEGAL ACTION
State Dist. Judge Otis T. Dunagan of
Tyler issued an order permanently en
joining the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People
from certain acts, but he did not re
quire the group to stop operating in
Texas as requested in a lawsuit filed
by former Atty. Gen. John Ben Shep-
perd. (State v. NAACP, see SSN, Oc
tober-November, 1956.)
The final trial was conducted by as
sistants under Atty. Gen. Will Wilson,
including Davis Grant, who had han
dled the case from the beginning. C. B.
Bunkley Jr. and W. J. Durham of Dal
las represented the NAACP, with as
sistance from its national counsel,
Thurgood Marshall.
Durham said after Judge Dunagan’s
decision: “Officers and committee
members of the Texas conference
[NAACP] are not seriously aggrieved
by the judgment of the Tyler court.
They feel they are not enjoined from
any act they could have done lawful
ly under our charter before the Tyler
suit.”
APPROVAL PREDICTED
Judge Dunagan said that NAACP
has “been enjoined from all of the
abuses that they have been charged
with in this state.” He predicted also
that the judgment would stand in the
highest court.
The injunction bars the NAACP, its
branches and personnel from:
1) Engaging in the practice of law or
financing a suit in which they have
no direct interest.
2) Engaging in political activities or
in lobbying activities contrary to state
law.
3) Soliciting lawsuits, either directly
or indirectly.
4) Hiring or paying any litigant to
bring, maintain or prosecute a law
suit.
The order also held that the NAACP,
which has done business in Texas since
1915, is a non-profit organization and
as such is not required to obtain a state
permit but “under the law is required
to file franchise tax reports or returns
and to pay franchise taxes for the priv
ilege of operating as a corporation.”
The NAACP was ordered to pay all
accrued franchise taxes, plus interest
Year-End Summary
1) Integration continued but at
somewhat slower pace than in the
previous school year. An estimated
3,400 Negroes—of 248,532 enrolled
in public schools—attended classes
with white pupils. Some 40 schools
began integration during the year,
making a total of more than 100.
2) Resistance to integration
seemed stronger in East Texas,
whose legislators successfully
sponsored new laws providing for
pupil assignment and banning fur
ther desegregation until approved
by local voters.
3) Five senior and 14 public
junior colleges were accepting Ne
groes as well as white students.
The University of Texas took the
lead in abolishing segregation at
all levels. Some 150 Negroes en
rolled at the state university with
about 18,000 white students. Be
cause of scholastic difficulties,
school officials do not expect any
important increase in Negro en
rollment next fall.
4) The National Association for
the Advancement of Colored Peo
ple was enjoined by a state district
court from alleged unlawful acts,
including promotion of integration
lawsuits. But the association won
its fight to stay in Texas.
5) Negro patrons, backed by
white ministers and some others,
continued their pressure to end
segregation in other places, no
tably Houston and Dallas. Law
suits were being maintained in
both cities.
and penalties, within 30 days after the
amount due the state is determined.
Failure to comply will mean the for
feiture of the right to do business in
Texas.
The next step will be an appeal to
the Court of Civil Appeals in Texar
kana. And if the district court ruling
is upheld an appeal to the supreme
court of Texas would be the next
move.
At Houston, U. S. Dist. Judge Ben
Connally took under advisement the
petition to end segregation. (Ben
jamin et al v. Houston LSD). After a
four-day trial, Judge Connally directed
attorneys to file briefs by June 20 giv
ing their arguments.
Attorneys for the Negro plaintiffs
contended that the Houston school
board had not proceeded in good faith
and with deliberate speed toward com
plying with the U. S. Supreme Court’s
decisions.
NEED UNTIL 1960
The school board majority replied
that it needs until 1960 to complete a
$30 million building program. Any
earlier order would be “forced inte
Sen. Henry B. Gonzalez of San Antonio, who filibustered futilely against the
Texas pupil placement law last month, is shown here talking to the empty seats
of his colleagues during the 36-hour talkathon. Sen. Abraham Kazen of Laredo
also spoke at length.
gration,” according to Glenn Fletcher,
administrative assistant to Supt. W. E.
Moreland. Present crowded conditions
in the Houston schools would prevent
a liberal transfer policy which the
board contemplates, Fletcher told the
court. At one point, Judge Connally
observed that there is a distinct differ
ence between racial desegregation and
“forced integration.” “You are talking
about a system of forced integration
as distinguished from desegregation
aren’t you?” Judge Connally asked in
reference to a school system map
showing residence of each school child.
“You understand the difference, don’t
you? The decision of the Supreme
Court does not in any sense require
that schools be integrated, but it does
require that forced segregation be
abolished, the distinction being thus:
there is no prohibition, so far as I
know, against a liberal transfer policy.
“That is, if a Negro child wishes to
go to school used totally by white stu
dents, and if he lives nearest that
school, he may do so. And if a white
child wants to go to a school used to
tally by Negro children, he may do so.
That’s a vastly different thing from
saying you have got to put every white
child and every Negro child that live
side by side in the same block side by
side in the same school.”
GOOD FAITH ARGUED
Attorneys for the school board pre
sented additional witnesses to support
the board’s position that it is proceed
ing with good faith and reasonable
speed toward eventual desegregation.
Dr. Alexander Frazier, assistant su
perintendent for curriculum and in
struction, testified about the results of
achievement tests which showed a dis
parity between white and Negro stu
dents which widened as they advanced
in school.
Mrs. Jewel Askew, director of ele
mentary schools, told the court of the
pioneering work being done to develop
a remedial program in the Houston
schools to reduce this disparity. She
said that it is a long-term program and
that it would be complicated by im
mediate, complete desegregation.
ON LEARNING CAPACITY
Frazier, in his testimony, said under
cross-examination that psychologists
and sociologists are agreed that there
is no difference between races in the
capacity to learn. He was asked by the
court for his explanation of why the
disparity between white and Negro
students in the Houston schools, as
shown by testing, increased the higher
they went in school.
“Is it due to inability to learn or not
getting the same opportunity to
learn?” Judge Connally asked.
Dr. Frazier suggested that the ex
planation was a very complex one with
many factors, perhaps including less
teaching skill by Negro teachers and
differences in pressures and values
which children encounter in their
homes.
Attorneys for the Negro plaintiffs at
tempted to discredit the Houston tests,
contending that the nationally stand
ardized tests were not designed for use
in a segregated school system. Frazier
readily admitted that the national
sample used as a basis for the tests
probably did not include 25 per cent
Negro students, which is about the
percentage in Houston.
Dr. Frazier earlier had quoted a
committee report listing these as some
of the instructional problems which
would be encountered under a pro
gram of desegregation: Provision for a
wide range of individual differences
among students, extension of remedial
services, consideration of grouping stu
dents by achievement or ability, ad
justment (particularly by Negro stu
dents) to new standards of achieve
ment and adjustment to new standards
for control and discipline.
REPORT ON STANDARDS
Dr. Harry J. Walker, professor o:
sociology at Howard University, tolc
the court that integration of pub!
schools in the District of Columbis j
had not lowered standards but had re
sulted in great improvement in the
performance of Negro students.
Questioned about a congressional
sub-committee report on Washingtor
schools, Dr. Walker said that the com
mittee’s report was contrary to facts}
which he personally knew about. A:
one point, Dr. Walker said: “I knot
more about it than the committee did
Board attorney Bert H. Tunks triec i
to keep Walker from testifying anc
then to get his testimony stricken
This was overruled by Judge Connal
ly. Tunks complained that the school,
board had refrained from getting into
sociological aspects of the problem.
15-YEAR PROGRAM
Other witnesses included Supt. ol
Schools W. E. Moreland and Joe Kell;
Butler, chairman of the study com
mittee which recommended that de
segregation be carried out over
period of about 15 years.
Opinion was expressed in court that
some mandatory order will be require,
for the present Houston school boart
to desegregate. The present board h*
a pro-segregation majority, and mos
of these were said to feel they “ WL
not voluntarily vote for any plan »
desegregation.” Five of the seve
board members are classed as pro-seg
regation. |
A committee proposal for a 12-5®
integration plan, to begin after t!
building program is completed, **
discussed by the board in a close 1
meeting.
A group of Negroes meanwhile ask e -
the U. S. Fifth Circuit Court in b e
Orleans to set aside the decision 1
Dist. Judge W. H. Atwell that
public schools needed more time
plan for desegregation. Judge At"'
had dismissed a lawsuit seeking to
mit Negroes to white schools in Vt>*\
(Bell v. Rippy). cl
Attorneys for the Dallas board t[>
the Circuit Court that the boa(“J
actively studying problems ass0 fL
with integration. “The school b.
view is that there must be a c0l Ju
ance with the Supreme Court h° .
but they must do it at the sarIie
mindful of their obligation to fa ^
adequate education,” the court
told. .. m#
The Dallas board meanwhile
public the results in the
series of surveys concerning in
tion.
225 QUERIED
It covered a cross-section
aire” of 225 members of the
school staff, including about 6 ^
groes. This is approximately the^jp
of white to Negro pupils in the
district.
The survey showed that
cent of the staff is opposed
diate desegregation. Supt. W.
called the opinions “representatn ^
those held by people who woU p a [- :
tually handle the children when
desegregates. i ft
Broken down, the study show ^
48.5 per cent of the group indict ^
definite disfavoring of integrate I
(Continued On Next P&% e '
71-7 t
.o irrfa 1 '. I
T- *?"■'