Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 8—JANUARY—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
DELAWARE
Court To Hear Arguments
On Grade-a-Year Program
DOVER, Del.
T he Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit in Philadelphia
on Feb. 15 will hear oral argu
ments on briefs to affirm, or re
verse, a district court order ap
proving a grade-a-year desegrega
tion plan for Delaware. In
December, three attorneys and
the Delaware attorney general
filed briefs in defense of the grad
ual plan. (See “Legal Action.”)
The Delaware Supreme Court
refused to hear reargument in the
case of Alonzo H. Shockley, who
was dismissed as principal at the
Dunbar School in Laurel. Shock-
ley claims bias on the part of the
Laurel board because he attempt
ed to enroll his daughter in the
white school at Milford. (See “Le
gal Action.”)
Delaware has spent $34,542.08 in legal
fees since the desegregation suit en
tered the courts in 1956. (See “School
Boards and Schoolmen.”)
The state Board of Education has ap
proved building requests from Negro
schools in the amount of $584,286. (See
“School Boards and Schoolmen.”)
Legal activity continued to dominate
the Delaware desegregation scene. Three
attorneys and the attorney general
filed briefs with the Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia in
defense of the 12-year desegregation
plan.
Oral arguments on briefs filed are
scheduled to be heard on Feb. 15. Louis
L. Redding, attorney for Negro students
in the case, asks the appellate court to
reverse a July 6 order by Judge Caleb
R. Layton III of the federal district
court in Wilmington.
First to file in answer to Redding was
Atty. Gen. Januar D. Bove Jr., who
represented the state Board of Educa
tion. Other briefs were then submitted
by James M. Tunnell Jr. and James H.
Hughes III, who represent four Sussex
County school boards. Tunnell defended
Milford, Seaford, Laurel and Green
wood. Hughes is also attorney for Mil
ford.
A separate brief was then presented
by Everett F. Warrington, attorney for
the Milton school district.
THREE MAIN ARGUMENTS
Bove presents three main arguments
why the grade-a-year plan should be
upheld.
1) The evidence and the fact findings
of both the district court and the state
board should cause the appellate court
to affirm the lower court’s decision.
2) The district court properly consid
ered the variety of obstacles to any
more immediate plan.
3) The order of the district court is
consistent with prior court mandates
and with the Brown decisions.
In his opening argument, Bove makes
reference to the Nashville case.
“In the Nashville case, the court re
fused to alter a plan providing for de
segregation of each successive grade in
successive years. The court recognized
that, where there is a need for such a
delay, courts should approve a gradual
plan such as that which the district
court has approved in the case at the
bar.”
OBSTACLES CITED
Bove cites specific obstacles which he
said would arise under a more imme
diate plan, including these:
• Space—To desegregate on any more
immediate basis than the plan submit
ted by the state board would result in
extreme overcrowding in particular
school districts, while leaving others al
most vacant in some instances.
• Finances—Delaware schools are fi
nanced largely by the state. The ex
penses of Negro schools both for oper
ation and construction are paid 100 per
cent by the state. No Negro school dis
trict has ever raised money for either
purpose. With respect to white school
construction, the state pays 60 per cent
and the school district 40 per cent. The
money furnished to white districts for
operation is supplemented in 46 districts
by local taxes which must be approved
by a vote of the residents. The residents
would have to vote even more funds
more quickly if a more immediate plan
of desegregation is approved. A gradual
plan will best insure public support
and financing, Bove said.
9 Good Faith — Kent and Sussex
counties are rural areas with small
towns. There is segregation of whites
and Negroes in virtually every area of
conduct. These deep-rooted customs,
traditions, institutions and behavior
patterns have existed for 150 years.
Previous incidents involving desegre
gation of schools in Lower Delaware
have resulted in boycotts, disorder,
threats, closing of schools, general tur
moil and lack of administrative control
in the schools involved. Nothing estab
lishes the good faith of the state board
so much as the fact that, in September
of 1954, in the face of a mob, repre
sentatives of the board personally op
erated a desegregated school in Milford
in a critical situation which involved in
ternational headlines, Bove said.
The evidence of community attitudes
were properly considered by Judge Lay-
ton, according to Bove’s brief. This evi
dence of community attitudes was ad
missible to show the hurdles which the
state board faced in implementing the
Brown decision, Bove argues.
“The record . . . demonstrates that the
success or failure of any plan in large
part hinges on community attitudes
which affect the entire educational pro
gram for both Negroes and whites.
These attitudes affect the financing and
redistricting of a desegregated school
system. The overall functioning of the
school system is also affected.”
ORDERS HELD CONSISTENT
In conclusion, Bove holds that Judge
Layton’s orders are consistent with pri
or court orders in the litigation and
with the Brown decisions.
Bove denies that the district court de
cision deprives the plaintiffs of rights
forever guaranteed under the Brown
decisions.
“This argument assumes that plain
tiffs had immediate rights under these
decisions. Aside from the fact that most
of the plaintiffs have graduated or quit
school, in the second Brown case, the
United States Supreme Court recog
nized that no person was given any im
mediate right by that decision. Under
that decision the rights of these plain
tiffs were made to depend upon the ‘ad
justing and reconciling’ of ‘public and
private needs.’ ”
The “personal interest” of plaintiffs,
Bove argues, was made subservient to
the “public interest” in the elimination
of the variety of recognized obstacles
in a systematic and effective manner.
“In the Brown cases,” Bove says, “the
United States Supreme Court ordered
the immediate admission of no person
to any school. It ordered that systematic
plans of desegregation be adopted with
all deliberate speed.”
MILTON BRIEF
Warrington, in his brief filed for Mil-
ton, argues that because public school
districts were not actually required to
admit Negro students to white schools
before the 12-year plan went into ef
fect, the plaintiffs cannot legally com
plain they have been deprived of their
rights by the court order.
Warrington’s brief asserts the appel
lants are under the erroneous impres
sion that former Chief Judge Paul Lea
hy of the district court directed their
admission to Milton and other Kent and
Sussex county schools in an order dat
ed July 15, 1957. Warrington’s brief in
cludes a transcript of a hearing Judge
Leahy conducted in his chambers on
Aug. 6, 1957 to clarify his desegregation
order of the previous month.
The transcript shows that while the
plaintiffs are “entitled” to admission, the
paragraph referring to them and the
district schools is not “injunctive lan
guage,” but “a declaration of decisional
law.”
Warrington, according to the tran
script, told Judge Leahy he asked for
the hearing because he was under the
impression that if Negro pupils applied
for admission on Sept. 5 (at the opening
of schools) the board could not refuse.
Judge Leahy explained he was com
pelled to make the “decisional law”
declaration relating to Negro pupils and
districts under decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court.
UP TO BOARD
But he said he didn’t know how the
law was to be enforced; that it was up
to the state board to work out a plan.
Warrington also contends that Judge
Layton’s order “did not assume to
vary” the Court of Appeals mandate,
as Redding claims. The higher court
ordered the district court to set new
dates for a desegregation plan prepared
by the state board to become effective.
Warrington’s brief supports the stair
step plan, calling it “the best plan
which can be devised in view of the
varied local problems presented.”
The Tunnell-Hughes brief, which also
contains the transcript, says Judge
Leahy explained that two paragraphs
of his order declared and defined con
stitutional rights, while others per
tained to its operation.
CHANGED DATES
The appellate court, it is contended,
did not vary the Leahy order except for
changing the effective dates for submis
sion of a state board plan.
The brief adds that the Court of Ap
peals made no suggestion for separating
the plaintiffs from the class they were
representing. (The opinion used the
phrase “minor plaintiffs ... and children
similarly situated ...”)
Tunnell and Hughes argue that if the
appellate court had fixed an admission
date instead of leaving the matter to the
lower court, there would have been no
need for a plan.
By leaving the “timetable” matter to
the district court, the brief asserts, the
higher court must have decided to dele
gate direction of “an orderly and well-
thought-out plan.”
The brief also backs the state board’s
view that immediate admission of the
plaintiffs, regardless of geographic loca
tions and academic levels, might disrupt
an otherwise orderly changeover.
SHOCKLEY CASE
Elsewhere on the legal front, the
Delaware Supreme Court refused to
hear reargument in the case of Alonzo
H. Shockley, former principal of the
Dunbar School in Laurel, versus the
Laurel Board of Education. The Su
preme Court previously ruled there was
evidence of insubordination in Shock
ley’s administrative record, the reason
given for his dismissal by the Laurel
board in 1957.
Shockley claims the board was biased
because he attempted to have his
daughter enrolled in the all-white
school at Milford.
Justice Bramhall, who wrote the Su
preme Court decision, commented that
“nowhere in the record did the appel
lee specifically charge the board with
being biased.”
He continued that while the court re
gretted the Laurel board’s having to
pass upon the question of its own bias,
it is necessary.
“Where substantial evidence is pre
sented showing that such a board is
guilty of bias, a court will examine
c’osely both the evidence before the
board and the reason or reasons upon
which its findings are based.”
But the decision denying the reargu
ment nevertheless makes it clear that
the Laurel board must hear any evi
dence of bias which Shockley wishes to
present and then again determine if its
former ruling was correct.
The final decision of the Laurel board
is reviewable by the Superior Court.
Delaware schools in Kent and Sussex
counties have spent $34,542.08 from a
special state fund for legal fees since
the desegregation suit was entered in
1956.
The General Assembly, shortly there
after, made available $70,000 to the lo
cal districts for “extraordinary legal ex
penses.”
Since that time, 55 claims by attor
neys or allied individuals have been ap
proved for payment by the state Board
of Education.
According to Dr. R. L. Herbst, as
sistant state superintendent in charge of
business administration for the state
Dept, of Public Instruction, $24,389.10
remains of the $70,000.
Claims against the fund were paid for
nine downstate schools, including
Greenwood, Milford, Laurel, Seaford,
Dover, Caesar Rodney, Clayton 119,
John M. Clayton, and Milton.
The bulk of the money, $19,964, went
to law firms with which James M. Tun
nell Jr. has been associated. A total of
$12,216.84 went to Tunnell and Tunnell.
Later, $6,734.52 went to Morris, Nichols,
Arsht and Tunnell after Tunnell joined
that firm.
Tunnell is a former member of the
state Supreme Court.
REQUESTS APPROVED
At its monthly meeting on Dec. 17, the
state Board of Education approved over
$5 million in building requests from
local districts, including $584,286 for
construction projects at Negro schools.
The Negro schools include T. D. Clay
ton ($390,000), Millside 132 ($38,286)
and William Henry ($156,000).
Rejected by the state board were re
quests for auditoriums at two Negro
high schools, L. L. Redding at Middle-
town and William Henry at Dover.
# # #
OKLAHOMA
Neighborhoods Get Study
In Oklahoma City Section
OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla.
N ORGANIZED NEIGHBORHOOD-
STABILIZATION effort such as
has proved successful already in
Tulsa appears in the works for
Oklahoma City’s uneasy northeast
residential sections.
A planning session scheduled
for early January will consider
the recommendations of a recent
clinic conducted by the National
Conference of Christians and
Jews. It was at this clinic that the
stabilization of a neighborhood
around an integrated Tulsa school
was described. (See “Community
Action.”)
One thousand Negro clubwomen have
pledged their help in resisting any move
to eliminate or reduce the status of
Langston University. (See “In the Col
leges.”)
A nationally known Negro newspaper
man, asserting the country needs a
“crash program in morals,” declared the
biggest obstacle to progress in this di
rection is the citizen “caught up in a
cult of cowardice with a slick label
called moderation.” (See “What They
Say”)
White residents in northeastern sec
tions of Oklahoma City have been un
easy since Negro families began cross
ing a sort of unofficial “boundary line”
at Northeast 23rd Street about a year
ago. A previously white elementary
school, Edison, located north of
that street, became integrated for the
first time when a dozen Negro pupils
enrolled there for the fall semester. At
least two neighborhood committees have
been organized to try to forestall “panic
selling” of property by white home-
owners (See Southern School News,
June and August 1959).
These localized efforts apparently will
get a helping hand from the National
Conference of Christians and Jews and
various community resources. The
NCCJ program committee was to have
met in mid-December to consider the
recommendations of a “changing neigh
borhood” clinic held in Oklahoma City
in November. However, a conflict in
dates caused postponement of the meet
ing to the first week of January, Donald
F. Sullivan, regional NCCJ director for
Oklahoma, reported.
One of the principal recommendations
of the clinic was establishment of a
standing committee to deal with the
problems of the changing neighborhood
in northeast Oklahoma City. Such a
committee would have representation
from the Oklahoma City Board of Real
tors, the Society of Residential Apprais
ers, the Board of Education, the Okla
homa City Council of Churches, the
Catholic Inter-racial Council, the police
and city planning departments, the
NAACP, the Urban League and the
Community Council. In addition, repre
sentatives of the neighborhoods affected
would be asked to serve on the com
mittee.
AREAS PINPOINTED
Sullivan pinpointed three areas in
which some activity along this line has
been started or interest has been shown.
One is the area north of Northeast
23rd east of Eastern Avenue, where the
Consolidated Homes Assn, was organ
ized earlier this year. Another group
formed before this to cover the area
west of Eastern.
A second major area was identified
as the neighborhood around Northeast
18th and Kelley, where some activity
towards co-operation is getting under
way. A number of church groups have
shown interest here, Sullivan reported.
The third area is what is known as
the medical-capitol section. This ranges
from the University of Oklahoma Medi
cal Center on Northeast 13th to the
state capitol on Northeast 23rd. Interest
has been shown here, too, Sullivan said,
but nothing has crystallized yet.
As a matter of fact, he went on, the
movement is not nearly as far advanced
in Oklahoma City as it is in Tulsa,
where the neighborhood people took the
initiative. There the Reservoir Hill-
Burroughs School Neighborhood Or
ganization has managed to hold de
partures by white families to a
minimum, even though Negroes in the
integrated Burroughs School are now
in the majority.
However, more and more interest is
being shown on a local level in Okla
homa City, Sullivan said, adding: “We’ll
help them along, of course, by provid
ing liaison with real estate and other
people in the community.”
He pegged these NCCJ objectives: To
give advice and counsel to local groups;
to provide a link between local neigh
borhood groups and realtors, the board
of education and so forth, and to fur
nish a channel of regular communica
tion.
Most of the migration of Negro fami
lies so far has been into the neighbor
hoods just north of Northeast 23rd,
although a few Negroes are said to be
living now in the medical-capitol area.
Sullivan said the Park Estates addition,
an area of fairly nice homes farther
north of Northeast 23rd, probably will
be affected next. A Negro physician is
reported to be building an expensive
home there now, he said.
RE-SEGREGATION’ DISCUSSED
An editorial in the Black Dispatch,
Negro weekly newspaper, asserted it is
“not entirely true” that “re-segrega-
tion” of the area south of Northeast
23rd, caused by white families moving
out, is a result of the Supreme Court
decision outlawing segregation in the
public schools.
“. . . And, if it were,” the editorial
stated, “it does not diminish the fact
that Negroes have gained for themselves
the constitutional right to attend the
public schools and other educational
institutions supported by public funds,
free from distinctions based upon race
alone, and that is largely what we have
been and are interested in as a group.”
The newspaper contended whites
started moving out of the area after
the Supreme Court outlawed racially
restrictive covenants with respect to
real property. This was prior to the
1955 decision concerning public schools.
One of the suggestions passed along
to a legislator-citizen committee meeting
in Oklahoma was to abolish Langston
University or turn it into a junior col
lege. The all-Negro school is character
ized by low enrollment and high per-
capita cost.
One of the first reactions came from
the Langston University Alumni Assn.,
which urged instead that the school be
given a “beefed-up” curriculum to
attract students on an integrated basis.
Now another group has come forward
in Langston’s behalf. It is the Oklahoma
Federation of Colored Women’s Clubs.
Its president, Mrs. O. V. Ragsdale, wired
Gov. J. Howard Edmondson emphati
cally opposing any move to eliminate
Langston or to change it to a junior
college.
“The strategic services offered by
Langston University,” said the group,
“ . . . give it a priority for continuation
not characteristic of the numerous small
colleges of the state. Langston Univer
sity is the only institution for higher
education in the state offering adequate
opportunities for fostering and develop
ing Negro leadership. It is the one insti
tution where youth of many races may
gain knowledge of Negro life and cul
ture in all its aspects and is, therefore,
an irreplaceable unit in the educational
program of the state.
ADVANTAGES CLAIMED
“Its superior opportunities for student
employment place a college education
within the reach of many youth with
out funds to attend institutions requir
ing a greater financial outlay. The effec
tive guidance and counseling service
afforded all youth enrolled in the
university assures each ample oppor
tunity for all-around development:
intellectual, social, physical and spirit
ual.
“The quality of the educational pro
gram of Langston University rates with
that of the major educational institu
tions of the nation. North Central accre
ditation has been maintained over a
long period. Langston University gradu
ates have made superior records in the
professions, the educational institutions
of the nation and in varied occupational
areas.”
The Black Dispatch said editorially
Langston has been the victim of political
considerations throughout much of 11 s
40-year history.
It was established for the primary
purpose of allowing Negroes of the state
to have an institution of higher learning
(See OKLAHOMA, Page 9)