Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 10—NOVEMBER 1957—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
U. S. High Court Strikes
At Virginia Placement
RICHMOND, Va.
harsh blow was administered
the Virginia pupil placement
law by the U. S. Supreme Court
Oct. 21.
The court refused to review a
lower court decision in the Nor-
folk-Newport News desegregation
case in which the placement law
had been declared invalid. (See
“Legal Action.”)
The month of October also saw
activity in an array of other cases
involving the placement law and
Virginia’s so-called “NAACP
laws.” (See “Legal Action.”)
On the political front, approach of
the Nov. 5 gubernatorial election
brought virtually unanimous expression
of opinion by newsmen and other ob
servers that the odds were heavily in
favor of the election of Democratic
candidate J. Lindsay Almond Jr., sup
porter of “massive resistance” to school
integration. It was generally agreed
that President Eisenhower’s action in
sending federal troops to Central High
School in Little Rock, Ark., had hurt
the chances of GOP candidate Ted Dal
ton.
EACH CHARGES INTEGRATION
Each candidate, meanwhile, charged
that the program of the other would
lead to widespread integration. (See
“Political Activity.”)
The General Assembly’s Committee
on Law Reform and Racial Activity
centered its attention on northern Vir
ginia and ran into opposition, includ
ing the refusal of one witness to tes
tify despite a court order. (See “Legis
lative Action.”)
Virginia’s pupil placement law, the
state s first line of defense against
school desegregation, collapsed last
month when the U. S. Supreme Court
refused a petition for a writ of certiorari
in the Norfolk-Newport News desegre
gation case. (School Board of the City
of Newport News and School Board of
the City of Norfolk, et al., v. Jerome
A. Atkins, et at.)
The case originated in the Norfolk
U. S. District Court, where Judge Wal
ter E. Hoffman ruled in favor of the
Negro plaintiffs and ordered schools in
Norfolk and Newport News to desegre
gate.
He also declared the pupil placement
law unconstitutional on its face when
he denied a motion by the state to
dismiss the suit on the ground that the
Negro plaintiffs had not exhausted the
administrative remedy set up in that
law.
PLACEMENT CENTRAL ISSUE
It had been generally considered that
the constitutionality of the placement
law was the central issue in the Nor
folk-Newport News case, so the Su
preme Court’s refusal to review the
case was immediately interpreted as
meaning that the law is unconstitu
tional.
However, on Oct. 22, the day follow
ing the Supreme Court’s action, A. B.
Scott of Richmond, attorney for the
Pupil Placement Board, declared in a
statement in a hearing in Judge Hoff
man’s court on another case that the
law had not been declared unconstitu
tional.
Judge Hoffman himself commented
that the effect of the Supreme Court’s
refusal to review the case “may in the
eyes of the public be a complete affirm
ance of my opinion.” Then he added: “I
don’t necessarily agree.”
NOT ALWAYS INOPERATIVE’
Later, Atty. Gen. Kenneth C. Patty
said: “1 do not consider that the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held
that the Virginia placement act was in
operative in all instances.”
And Gov. Thomas B. Stanley said
the placement board would continue
to operate “until I am notified that the
act is not operative.”
However, NAACP attorney Oliver W.
Hill said that “for all practical pur
poses the pupil placement act is dead.
... It can no longer be used anywhere
in Virginia as a defense against a de
segregation suit, and that has been its
only reason for existence.”
NO EFFECTIVE REMEDY
Whether the law has been declared
unconstitutional is debatable, but there
is no question about the fact that the
courts have said the placement law pro
vides no effective administrative rem
edy for Negroes who wish to enter
white schools.
The consensus among lawyers here is
that the law might be considered by
the courts to be valid when its opera
tion in no way relates to racial segrega
tion. For example, a white parent who
refuses to sign the required placement
form for his child conceivably might
be ordered to do so.
A case involving that specific point
is now pending before the Virginia Su
preme Court of Appeals. (DeFehio v.
School Board of Fairfax County.)
In that case, Mrs. Theo T. DeFebio
of Fairfax County brought mandamus
action against the county school board
in an effort to force the board to admit
her two sons to public schools. She
asked the court to declare the place
ment law unconstitutional.
ORAL ARGUMENTS
Oral arguments were heard on Oct. 9.
Mrs. DeFebio’s attorneys argued that
the law violates both the federal and
state constitutions — the Fourteenth
Amendment in the U. S. Constitution
and Section 133 of the Virginia Con
stitution which vests school supervis
ory authority in local school boards.
The latter section is violated, it was
argued, because the three-man state
board has taken pupil assignment out of
the hands of the local school boards.
The state denied both allegations.
The Norfolk district court hearing of
Oct. 22—in which the placement board’s
attorney argued that the placement law
had not been declared unconstitutional
—was one of a series of hearings in
suits in which Negroes successfully
sought to enjoin operation of the law
in their respective localities.
That particular case was brought by
Negroes in Hampton, and Judge Hoff
man ruled in favor of the petitioners,
just as he had done in cases involving
Norfolk City, Norfolk County, Nanse-
mond County, Suffolk and the Isle of
Wight, and as District Judge Sterling
Hutcheson had done in a Richmond
case.
ENJOIN IN 7 DISTRICTS
District Judge John Paul had en
joined operation of the placement law
in Charlottesville, so the law was inop
erative in seven localities even before
the Supreme Court declined to review
the Norfolk-Newport News desegrega
tion case.
District Judge Albert V. Bryan or
dered Negroes admitted to schools in
Arlington without their having to sign
placement forms, but he declined to
issue a similar order in the case of a
12-year-old white boy whose parents
had refused to sign. Judge Bryan said
that in the white boy’s case, race was
not involved in any way and that the
boy’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. Samuel
G. Kletin, had shown “absolutely no
irreparable injury nor the probability
of it.”
The Prince Edward County case—one
of the original five in which the U. S.
Supreme Court issued its 1954 desegre
gation ruling—was active again last
month. (Formerly Davis v. School
Board of County of Prince Edward,
style of this case has been changed to
Eve Allen et. al. v. School Board of
County of Prince Edward. Attorneys
explain the Davis girl has finished
school and is no longer involved).
PRINCE EDWARD APPEAL
On Oct. 14 the Fourth Circuit Court
heard arguments in Richmond in the
NAACP’s appeal from a ruling of Dis
trict Judge Sterling Hutcheson. Judge
Hutcheson had declined to set a speci
fic date for the beginning of desegre
gation in Prince Edward. (See South
ern School News, February, 1957.)
T. Justin Moore, an attorney for the
school board, told the court that the
white people of Prince Edward are pre
pared to close the public schools if in
tegration is ordered.
Commenting on that point, NAACP
attorney Oliver W. Hill declared: “This
threat, a blackmail threat about closing
up the schools, is more blackmail than
anything else. . . If they think we are
going to stand by and let the public
schools be closed, they are wrong.” He
added that the NAACP lawyers would
go to the courts to prevent such closing.
LOCAL CONDITIONS
In their written brief, the state and
the county school board told the circuit
court that the Supreme Court had au
thorized district judges to take into ac
count local conditions in carrying out
the desegregation decision.
“Here an able judge, familiar with
local conditions, had availed of that dis
cretion to arrest the exercise of judicial
power for a temporary period because
of impelling cultural and civil factors,”
the defendants declared.
“The appellants pursue a relentless
course. They are not, of course, the
named appellants; they are the organ
ized Negro NAACP lobby who appear
as ever by the same counsel. They seek
to overturn not only the district court
but the Supreme Court. They assert
that the Supreme Court was sociologi
cally wrong in thinking that local fac
tors are important; they assert that im
mediate amalgamation is always the
best solution. . . . We accept the rule
of discretion; we suggest that the only
question at issue here is whether this
court can say that, in the light of the
school segregation decisions and the
facts of record here, it would be un
reasonable for a reasonable judge to
hold that immediate action was not re
quired.”
(The appellants’ brief, which was
filed earlier, was quoted from in the
October Southern School News.)
‘NAACP LAWS’ CONSIDERED
A special three-judge federal court—
consisting of Circuit Judge Morris A.
Soper and District Judges Sterling
Hutcheson and Walter E. Hoffman—has
taken under advisement the question
whether the five “NAACP laws” en
acted by the Virginia General Assembly
last year are constitutional. (NAACP
v. Almond and NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund v. Almond.)
Three of the laws deal with the illegal
practice of law, while the others require
registration and disclosure of member
ship and other data by organizations
involved in racial matters.
The NAACP spokesman claimed that
the laws hurt the organization in va
rious ways and also interfere with free
dom of speech and assembly.
LEGAL SITUATION
In summary, the legal situation in
Virginia as October ended was this:
With the pupil placement law dead,
specific dates for desegregation appar
ently could be ordered in Norfolk, New
port News and Charlottesville at any
time.
The Norfolk-Newport News case was
the one which went all the way to the
U. S. Supreme Court with the state
failing to get desegregation orders for
those two cities overturned.
Charlottesville was directly involved,
too, in that a desegregation order pre
viously issued there had been stayed
pending the Supreme Court’s action in
the Norfolk-Newport News case.
SHOWDOWN IN FEBRUARY
It appeared likely that the showdown
would come at the beginning of the
next school semester in February, un
less the state can find other legal means
to stave off the clash. NAACP attorney
Oliver W. Hill already has announced
that he will ask District Judge Hoffman
to order integration in Norfolk and
Newport News in February. A similar
petition is considered likely in Char
lottesville.
Desegregation also has been ordered
in Arlington County, but the order has
been stayed pending an appeal.
The General Assembly meets early
in January, and efforts may be made
then to draft new laws in the hope of
delaying the desegregation showdown.
The U. S. Supreme Court’s decision
in the Norfolk-Newport News case
(see “Legal Action”) brought from Re
publican gubernatorial candidate Ted
Dalton a statement urging Gov. Stan
ley to convene the General Assembly
in extra session so that new laws could
be passed to fill the “statutory vac
uum.”
He said the collapse of the pupil
placement law had created “an emer
gency condition which calls for emer
gency action,” and that the localities,
left “defenseless” against integration,
could not wait for the Legislature to
meet in regular session in January.
Gov. Stanley rejected the plea. He
said there was no cause for alarm,
that other state laws remained intact
and provided an “orderly course” to
prevent integration.
GOVERNOR, SENATOR DISAGREE
The governor and Sen. Dalton also
disagreed as to the effect of the court’s
decision on the current gubernatorial
campaign. Each claimed it would help
his party’s effort.
Meanwhile, the campaign itself con
tinued in high gear with the school
segregation issue claiming virtually all
attention. Dalton continued to plug for
a school pupil assignment plan, while
Almond continued arguing that that
plan would lead to integration.
There was considerable sparring over
a statement which Almond was said to
have made in a television interview
over a Washington, D. C. station to the
effect that “no doubt” there would be
court-enforced integration in some
areas of the state. Almond said later
there had been “malicious distortions”
of his stand by the “integrationist Re
publican Washington Post.”
In Lynchburg two days later, Dalton
said in a radio broadcast: “Mr. Almond
admitted Sunday on TV that no doubt
some integration would occur in Vir
ginia. Later he tried to wriggle out of
this admission by asserting his remarks
had been distorted by a newspaper.
“But press association reports taken
from the TV transcript prove that Mr.
Almond made that precise admission
with his usual fog of words. He cannot
escape it.”
U. S. Sen. Harry Flood Byrd got into
the campaign with a speech in Rich
mond on Oct. 11 in which he said that
the school segregation issue dominates
the gubernatorial campaign because
“the Republican party has made it so.”
Byrd said Dalton “sharpened the is
sue” by saying recently that the Dem
ocrats’ “massive resistance” program is
setting the stage for “Little Rocks in
Virginia.”
BYRD ‘ASSUMES’ FORCE
“By this comparison with Little
Rock,” Byrd said, “I assume Mr. Dalton
is predicting that school integration in
Virginia will be enforced by use of the
Army just as it is being done today in
Little Rock.. .
Dalton replied later, saying that
A Shattered Sword
—Richmond, Times-Dispatch
Byrd’s speech “adds up to only one
thing — that he and Mr. Almond in
tend to close Virginia’s schools. Beyond
that they offer nothing as a defense.
Mr. Almond has admitted publicly they
have no other plan.”
A 42-year-old Fairfax County printer
refused to testify before the General
Assembly’s Committee on Law Reform
and Racial Activities despite a court
order which was, in effect, sustained by
U. S. Chief Justice Earl Warren.
David H. Scull, vice-president of the
Fairfax County Council on Human Re
lations, was first called before the com
mittee on Sept. 20. The committee then
secured an order from the Arlington
County Circuit Court directing Scull to
appear before the committee to testify
on Oct. 23.
Scull sought to get the Virginia Su
preme Court of Appeals to reverse the
order, but that tribunal turned him
down on Oct. 15. In his motion to the
court, Scull argued that the committee
is violating the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Federal Constitution by seeking
to “harass, villify and publicly embar
rass members of the NAACP and others
who are attempting to secure inte
grated public schooling in Virginia.”
WARREN REFUSES STAY
Next, Scull turned to the U. S. Su
preme Court, but on Oct. 22 Chief
Justice Warren, without comment, re
fused to stay the lower court order.
The next day Scull appeared before
the committee but again declined to an
swer questions. Whereupon the Arling
ton Circuit Court issued an order for
him to appear Oct. 30 to show cause
why he should not be fined for con
tempt.
The committee also ran into opposi
tion when the chairman, Delegate
James Thomson, asked school superin
tendents in four northern Virginia com
munities to furnish lists of textbooks
and reference books used in the schools.
(There is more sentiment for integration
in northern Virginia than in other parts
of the state.)
MOUNTAINOUS JOB’ DECLINED
Supt. T. Edward Rutter of Arlington
County supplied the textbook list but
refused to undertake what he termed
“the mountainous job” of listing all
reference books.
After news stories concerning this
controversy were published, two mem
bers of the committee—State Sen. Mills
E. Godwin Jr. of Suffolk and Del.
Charles B. Cross Jr. of Norfolk County
sent telegrams to Thomson implying
that the book probe was undertaken
without knowledge of the full commit
tee. They asked that any further efforts
along this line be deferred until the en
tire committee could get together.
Several legislators of northern Vir
ginia protested the effort to secure the
book lists. Among them, Del. Harrison
Mann wrote the committee to “stay out
of Arlington schools,” and Sen. Armij.
tead L. Boothe of Alexandria said the
committee “is seeking to exercise
power expressly denied to it by the
General Assembly.”
DISTORTION CLAIMED
Chairman Thomson then issued a
statement declaring that the purpose of
the school book investigation had been
“deliberately distorted by certain
would-be politicians.” He said the com
mittee simply wanted to find out
whether school books contain material
encouraging racial integration.
The Thomson committee, set up by
the General Assembly last year, went
out of existence on Nov. 1.
About 2,000 teachers in the Tidewater
area of Virginia, in a district meeting
of the Virginia Education Association
at Portsmouth on Oct. 11, declined to
pass a resolution favoring “our present
system” of schools. Instead, they stuck
to last year’s policy resolution which
said the teachers “again affirm our be
lief in public education” and in “our
system of public schools.”
The State Department of Education
reported that the latest available state
wide figure (for 1956-57) showed that
there were 22,555 white teachers and
6,730 Negro teachers in Virginia, mak
ing a total of 29,285.
The average salary was $3,473. Here
was the average as broken down by
race and sex: White male, $3,908; Ne
gro male, $3,518; White female, $3,386:
Negro female, $3,500.
Average for all white teachers was
$3,464.60. Average for all Negro teach
ers was $3,502.44.
Latest total pupil enrollment figure
is 774,698, including 584,285 white and
190,413 Negro.
There is a slight increase this year in
the number of Negroes attending state-
supported institutions of higher learn
ing. The biggest jump was in the Med
ical College of Virginia, which had 11
last year and has 20 this year. Two
schools of the college—nursing and den
tistry—have Negroes for the first time.
Negroes in other colleges include 1"
at the University of Virginia, plus a
few part-time students; three at Vir
ginia Polytechnic Institute, and about 5
in the evening school of the Richmond
Professional Institute. A majority of the
state-supported colleges still do not
have Negro students.
The Virginia Congress of Parents and
Teachers, meeting in Roanoke Oct. 23,
tabled without discussion a resolution
which would have put the organization
on record as condemning the Supremo
Court “for its sociological decisions th*
have brought so much grief to the pa 1 '
ents and school authorities of Virginia-
W. Lester Banks of Richmond, execu-
tive secretary of the Virginia Confer
ence of the NAACP, told the annum
meeting of the organization at Sun°
early in October that the Virgmjjj
membership had decreased by
from last year’s total of 23,000.
Spokesmen from several branches re
ported they had lost members b eca
“underground intimidation” caused
groes to fear they would lose the
jobs if they joined.
•VIRGINIA RESPONSIBLE’
Francis Pickens Miller, who HhSH^
cessfully opposed Sen. Byrd hi
Democratic primary in 1952, told .
Religious Observance Committee
Northern Virginia, “Wherever 10 ^ g
gather in a southern town, where
home is dynamited or a public buH
blown up, we Virginians share the
sponsibility.” _ Ipe d
He added that Virginians n
create the inflammatory atmosP ^
throughout the South which I0 ^'
such things possible.” cartef'
A Negro businessman, Floyd C ^
has been appointed to the Board o ^
pervisors of Charles City C°un > Re
Circuit Judge Conway H. Shiel ^
succeeds Edward T. Banks, also
gro, who died Oct. 17 after se
about half of a four-year term- ^
population of the county is about
cent Negro. * f