Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—OCTOBER 1957—PAGE 7
RICHMOND, Va.
V IRGINIA LAST MONTH came to
the brink of a showdown over
whether public schools would be
closed to prevent integration, but
a legal maneuver staved off any
such critical test, possibly until
the beginning of the next semester
in January.
A federal district judge had or
dered that Negroes be admitted
to white schools in Arlington
County on Sept. 23. On Sept. 18,
however, he granted a stay pend
ing the appeal of his order to the
Fourth Circuit Court. (See “Legal
Action.”)
Federal district courts temporarily re
strained school officials in Richmond,
Norfolk and Nansemond County from
enforcing the state’s pupil placement
law, while a special three-judge federal
court listened to nearly four days of
testimony in a suit attacking the con
stitutionality of Virginia’s so-called
“NAACP laws.” (See “Legal Action.”)
FEW NEGROES APPLY
In Arlington and in West Point, a few
Negro students applied for admission to
white schools on the opening day of the
fall session. They were referred to
Negro schools, and there was no dis
order. (See “Legal Action” and “School
Boards and Schoolmen.”)
Two legislative committees continued
their probes of NAACP activities and of
circumstances surrounding the filing of
desegregation suits in Virginia. (See
“Legislative Action.”)
School segregation continued to far
overshadow all other issues in the guber
natorial campaign.
The state’s “massive resistance” to in
tegration came close to facing a show
down in Arlington County as a result
of this series of events:
When Arlington schools opened
Sept. 5, eight Negro children appeared
at white schools seeking admission. In
each case they were turned away by
school authorities. There was no dis
order and no demonstrations by white
parents and students.
On Sept. 11 NAACP attorneys asked
U.S. District Judge Albert Bryan at
Alexandria to order immediate enforce
ment of his July 27 ruling requiring de
segregation of Arlington schools this fall
<Thompson v. Arlington County School
Board). The petition was filed on behalf
of seven of the Negro children who were
denied admission to white schools on
Sept. 5.
On Sept. 14, Judge Bryan announced
I nis decision. He issued an order direct-
mg Arlington school authorities to ad-
ri 'it the seven Negro pupils to white
schools on Monday, Sept. 23. Specific-
i y> he restrained the school board
voni refusing to “enroll or educate
mem [the Negro children] at the
schools to which they had made appli
cation for admission.”
■fudge Bryan said he could not “fairly
acquire the plaintiffs even to submit
“'em applications” to the Pupil Place-
. mcnt Board.
assent to segregation’
Submission to [the pupil placeme
“ c amounts almost to assent to rack
Abated schools,” he said. “But m
jt aie f°rm be signed ‘tinder prote
■Petitioner would not have an i
ctered and free tribunal to act
request.”
u the wake of Judge Bryan’s ord
appeared possible that, as state De
Kathryn H. Stone of Arlingi
J? mente d, Virginia has “reached i
nt its rope ” in its fight agai
mgration.
jo Ut on Sept. 18, at the request of 1
school board, Judge Brj
hat a stay ™ K* s or d er to give 1
ap 6 ®Pd the county the opportunity
„ Pealing his decision to the Foui
lrcu U Court.
iHOOLS WOULD CLOSE
op) see ki n g the stay, school board at-
^ a d argued that if Negroes
| the schools, the schools would
'i'aot ° Sed un der Virginia law and a
* c situation would result, with
^Pils enta l results to more than 5,000
Atty. Oliver W. Hill, fighting
paying effort, charged that the
1 1 hoard was trying to drag the
: n j until the next legislature meets
r s A'Pury “so they can dot a few more
lij] d cross a few more T’s so they
ace’> ve m °re legislation for us to
J if'
Vi f „. Sc h°°l s must be closed to “bring
: ha la i° its senses,” he added, “then
1 ctt <! f C i? ne r we reach that crisis the
>KN-°R’ s move
Negroes had entered the
J
Legal Maneuver Staves Off Showdown
In Virginia, All Areas Segregated
schools on Sept. 23, the schools would
have had to be closed under Virginia
law. Then, if the procedure in the law
had been followed, the governor would
have taken over control of the schools
from local authorities and would have
attempted to find a way to return the
schools to a segregated basis, possibly
by trying to persuade the Negro chil
dren to go back to their own schools.
If his efforts had failed and he de
sired to do so, he could have turned
control of the schools back over to the
local authorities, but state grants would
not have been available for the schools
there. About $1,400,000 of Arlington’s
annual school budget of $10,800,000
comes from the state.
Or, if the schools remained closed,
the state funds could have been used
to provide tuition grants for pupils to
attend private non-sectarian schools.
NEXT SEMESTER
As a result of Judge Bryan’s order
staying integration pending the appeal,
it appears that Negroes will not actually
attempt to enter white schools in Vir
ginia until the beginning of the next
semester. Even if the courts rule for
them, the Negroes’ attorneys have indi
cated that they would not try to get
the children entered in mid-semester.
It also means that the showdown
over the state’s resistance policy may
come in Norfolk, Newport News or
Charlottesville just as soon as in Ar
lington.
The reason is that desegregation also
has been ordered in all three of those
cities, but those orders also have been
stayed pending Supreme Court action
on the Norfolk and Newport News
cases, in which the constitutionality of
the pupil placement law is the major
issue.
PRINCE EDWARD SHOWDOWN
Such a showdown possibly could come
also in Prince Edward County, though
the situation there is a little different,
in that while desegregation has been
ordered there, District Judge Sterling
Hutcheson has declined to set a definite
date by which desegregation must be
accomplished. This case, Davis v. School
Board of Prince Edward County, is one
of the original five on which the U. S.
Supreme Court based its desegregation
decision of May, 1954.
Latest development in the Prince
Edward case came on Sept. 19, when
the NAACP filed a brief saying that
the judge had erred in failing to set
a specific deadline.
The brief declared, in part: “The
district court seems to have rested its
position upon the erroneous assumption
that changes in attitude must precede
desegregation. Public opinion and ac
ceptance are important factors in ob
taining effective desegregation, but in
many instances they follow rather than
precede the enforcement of non-segre
gation.
‘GREATER IN ANTICIPATION’
“Examination of actual changes from
public school segregation to non-segre
gation clearly indicates that resistance
to desegregation is greater in anticipa
tion of the change to non-segregation
than where desegregation actually oc
curs.”
In another case, Judge Hutcheson
temporarily restrained the enforcement
of the pupil placement law in Rich
mond. It came about in this manner:
When schools opened in Richmond,
from 100 to 150 Negro children showed
up without their parents having filled
out the required pupil placement forms.
Some of these children were sent home,
but others continued to attend school
under a 15-day grace period allowed
in certain circumstances.
NEW SUIT FILED
On Sept. 14, a few days before the
grace period was to end, a suit attack
ing the constitutionality of the pupil
placement law was filed in U. S. Dis
trict Court in Richmond on behalf of
103 Negro children and their parents or
guardians. (William C. Calloway Jr. et
al v. Andrew A. Farley et al. Farley is
a member of the three-man Pupil
Placement Board, all members of which
are defendants in the suit, along with
the Richmond school board and superin
tendent.)
On Sept. 17, after hearing arguments
in the case, Judge Hutcheson granted
an order temporarily restraining the
enforcement of the pupil placement law
in Richmond. Negro pupils who had
been denied admission because of fail
ure to present placement forms imme
diately returned to school.
Judge Hutcheson had sought vainly
to get the two sides to come to an
agreement under which the children
could attend school. He suggested that
a longer period of grace be given, pend-
Whew!
SCHOOLS .
—Richmond Times-Disvatch
ing action on the pupil placement law
in other courts, or that Negro parents
sign the forms under protest. Both sug
gestions were rejected.
CHILDREN PARAMOUNT
The judge then said that he felt the
welfare of the children was of para
mount importance and that he felt
great harm would be done them if they
could not attend school. Whereupon he
issued the restraining order.
The Placement Board has estimated
that throughout the state about 5,000
placement forms were signed with a
notation, “under protest.” The children
involved are being permitted to attend
school.
For nearly four days in mid-Septem
ber, a three-judge federal court listened
to arguments in a suit in which the
constitutionality of Virginia’s so-called
“NAACP laws” is being challenged.
Here are some of the highlights of
arguments and testimony in the case:
HARASSMENT CLAIMED
The NAACP claimed the laws result
in harassment of its members and a
decline in the association’s membership
and finances. W. Lester Banks, execu
tive secretary of the Virginia NAACP,
said the membership for the first eight
months of this year was 13,595, com
pared to 19,436 for the corresponding
period of 1956, 16,130 in 1955 and 13,583
in 1954.
Roy Wilkins, national secretary, said
the national association received $37,-
470.60 from Virginia this year through
Aug. 31, while the total for the 12
months of 1956 was $49,966.44 and for
1955, $39,435.56. He said most of the
money has been collected for this year.
Banks said prospective members fear
economic reprisals.
Oliver W. Hill, chairman of the
NAACP’s legal committee for the state
said the association never solicits legal
business, has “never done any ‘ambu
lance chasing’.” He said the Prince Ed
ward County case started when some
Farmville students called him, and that
the suit was instituted after conference
with the students’ parents. He said the
same general pattern was followed in
other suits.
WHITE WITNESSES
Several white persons testified they
were subject to threats, anonymous
phone calls or obscene remarks after
becoming publicly identified with in
tegration matters.
Five Negro plaintiffs in the Prince
Edward case testified they did not know
until a few months ago that their names
were on the suit filed six years ago.
Each, however, in later cross-examin
ation, identified their signatures on
papers authorizing litigation in the
original suit.
The five testified variously that they
had signed the paper thinking it was
“for better schools,” or “to get a new
school” or “to help the children.” They
said they learned that they were plain
tiffs in the case when investigators
from a legislative committee visited
them a few months ago.
OTHER PLACEMENT ATTACKS
In addition to the Newport News and
Norfolk cases now on appeal to the
U. S. Supreme Court, four other cases
involve the constitutionality of the
pupil placement law.
One of these (DeFebio v. School
Board of Fairfax County) is pending
before the state supreme court and is
on the docket for the term beginning
Oct. 7.
Last spring Mrs. Theo T. DeFebio,
who is white, refused to sign pupil
placement forms for her two sons,
Thomas, 14, and Dominick Nicholas, 9.
As a result, the boys were suspended
from school. Mrs. DeFebio then brought
suit challenging the constitutionality of
the placement law.
DeFEBIO PLEA REJECTED
On Sept. 6 the state supreme cour
rejected Mrs. DeFebio’s petition that
school authorities be ordered to reinstate
the two boys pending a decision on the
constitutionality of the law. Chief Jus
tice Edward W. Hudgins said the peti
tion was denied because Mrs. DeFebio
had a right to sign th« placement
forms without prejudice to her rights."
The state did not oppose Mrs. DeFebio’s
petition.
The DeFebio boys are now attending
a Catholic school.
The three newest cases attacking the
pupil placement law were filed Sept.
25 and 26 in the U. S. District Court at
Norfolk (Walden et al v. Farley et al,
Estes et al v. Farley et al and Jordan v.
Farley).
These suits were brought on behalf
of eight Negro children who were barred
from enrollment in the schools in the
cities of Suffolk and Norfolk and the
county of Nansemond because their
parents refused to sign pupil place
ment forms.
The Norfolk court is presided over
by Judge Walter Hoffman, who, in the
Norfolk and Newport News cases, found
the placement law “unconstitutional on
its face.”
On Sept. 29, Judge Hoffman granted
a temporary injunction restraining en
forcement of the pupil placement act in
Norfolk and Nansemond County. He
said if he did not, he would be reversing
his previous opinion that the act is in
valid.
The General Assembly’s Committee
on Law Reform and Racial Activities
last month conducted two days of
closed-door hearings devoted primarily
to probing circumstances surrounding
the filing of the Arlington desegregation
suit.
Witnesses accused the committee of
“witch hunting” and “Gestapo tactics.”
There also was criticism of the commit
tee investigators’ practice of using hid
den recording devices to record answers
to questions asked in pre-hearing con
versations with potential witnesses.
The hearings were held Sept. 19 and
20 in the Arlington County Courthouse.
First witness called was Edwin C.
Brown, regional counsel for the
NAACP. Later, Samuel W. Tucker of
Emporia, Va., a member of the NAACP
legal staff, who acted as Brown’s per
sonal attorney, said Brown refused to
turn over his personal financial records
to the committee.
SUBPOENA BOOKS
The committee the next day secured
a court order from Arlington Circuit
Judge William D. Medley requiring
Brown to turn over his attorney fee
book for the period from June 1950
through June 1955. Committee Chair
man James M. Thomson explained that
Brown had given the committee some
of his records but not those for the
period from June 1954 to June 20, 1955.
Others among the 15 witnesses heard
during the two days were:
• Mrs. A. J. E. Davis, a white woman
who escorted three Negro pupils to the
white Stratford Junior High School in
Arlington on the opening day of the
term in an unsuccessful effort to get
them enrolled.
® Jack Orndorff, a white parent who
originally was a plaintiff in the Arling
ton case but who withdrew in July
1956, under pressure of what he said
were abusive phone calls and harass
ment.
HIDDEN RECORDERS
• Mrs. Margaret I. Firmer, a white Ar
lington woman who entered the school
case after Orndorff withdrew. Mrs.
Firmer criticized the use of hidden re
cording devices in interviews with pros
pective witnesses, saying she did not
know at the time of her interview that
her words were being recorded. (Later,
Chairman Thomson told reporters the
committee expected to continue using
the devices. He said the investigators
did not voluntarily tell persons being
interviewed that their words were being
recorded but that the use would have
been admitted if any such person had
asked.)
• David H. Scull of Annandale, Va., a
vice president of the Fairfax Council
on Human Relations. Scull gave the
committee a prepared statement saying
he believes the committee is part “of
a whole legislative program of intimida
tion and harassment” and lacks “prop
er jurisdiction to pursue its inquiry.”
The committee secured an order from
Judge Medley directing Scull to appear
in the court on Oct. 8 for a hearing on
why he should or should not answer
specific questions.
9 Attorneys Albert I. Kassabian and C.
Douglas Adams Jr., who represent Mrs.
DeFebio in her suit challenging the
constitutionality of the pupil placement
law. (See “Legal Action.”) Committee
Chairman Thomson said later that tes
timony indicated the DeFebio case had
been “free from any influences other
than the normal attorney-client rela
tionship.”
TESTIMONY EVALUATED
As to the hearings as a whole, Thom
son said “the testimony clearly indicates
the attorneys’ fees and/or court costs
have been paid by others than the plain
tiffs in the [Arlington] suit.” He said
“the individual plaintiffs did not have
control of their suit.”
Twelve plaintiffs, in an open letter
to the committee, labeled the Thomson
charge “preposterous.” They said the
attorneys conducted the suit in accord
with the plaintiffs’ wishes, securing fav
orable decisions in five court actions
since the suit was filed in May 1956.
Commenting on the Little Rock vio
lence over integration, Virginia’s two
major party candidates for governor
said, in part:
J. Lindsay Almond Jr., Democrat:
“The sad situation in Little Rock is but
a token of what will transpire in Vir
ginia and throughout the South if these
states are compelled to mix the races in
their public schools . . . We have here
a clear example of the operation of Mr.
Dalton’s [the GOP candidate] assign
ment plan. I dread to contemplate the
consequences of the operation of such
a plan in Virginia ... If this should
transpire in Virginia, thousands of our
people will withdraw their children
from the schools. Any hope of maintain
ing an effective and efficient system of
education would be destroyed . . . Little
Rock is a living example of Mr. Dalton’s
concept of limited integration.”
•VIRGINIA POWDER KEG’
Ted Dalton, Republican: “Mr. Almond
and his cohorts are boating down the
river to demagoguery at a time when
we need to reason clearly in the de
fense of our public schools ... In their
panic Mr. Almond [and other Demo
cratic leaders] are trying to pin on the
pupil assignment plan the chaos they
know their own program of cut-off-the-
funds-and-close-the-schools will bring
to public education in Virginia. Judge
Bryan’s order to integrate [in the Ar
lington case] hangs like a sword over
their program, and when the sword
drops, as it will in a few weeks, there
will be nothing left for Virginia’s de
fense. The Democratic machine’s only
concern is that the sword not fall until
after the votes are counted on Nov. 5 . . .
North Carolina is embarked on a peace
ful solution that will save her separate
public schools, but Virginia is a powder
keg around which the Democratic ma
chine is doing a political dance.”
In its platform released during the
month, the state Democratic party said:
“We will oppose with every facility at
our command, and with every ounce of
our energy, the attempt being made to
mix the white and Negro races in our
classrooms. Let there be no misunder
standing, no weasel words, on this point:
We dedicate our every capacity to pre
serve segregation in the schools.”
Schools opened quietly in Virginia
for the 1957-58 school year. Negroes
sought admission to white schools in
Arlington County (see “Legal Action”)
and in West Point, a town in King Wil
liam County.
In the latter case, six Negroes, ac
companied by an adult, walked into the
West Point High School auditorium
during an assembly which was being
addressed by H. A. Humphries, prin
cipal.
The Negroes waited in the rear of the
auditorium, and then accompanied
Humphries into his office. They told
him they preferred West Point High
to the high schools in King William
County and King and Queen County
which are attended by Negroes from
West Point.
After a discussion of the matter, the
Negroes left quietly, saying they would
enroll in the school in King and Queen
County.
# # #