Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 14—JUNE I960—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
46 Active School Desegregation Cases Reported in 13 States
(Continued From Page 1)
the county’s segregated schools before
September.
The Houston, Tex., school board has
called a referendum election for June
4 on the question of whether the dis
trict shall desegregate its schools, as
ordered by federal court.
U. S. District Judge J. Skelly Wright
ordered the Orleans Parish (county)
school board to begin desegregating its
schools in September and the judge
gave the board a plan to follow. At
present, Louisiana is one of five Deep
South states maintaining complete seg
regation in its grade schools. „
The Pulaski County, Va., schools are
under a federal court order to admit
14 Negroes to a previously all-white
school in September. This is one of 13
active, school desegregation cases in
Virginia, more than any state in the
region.
Mississippi has had no cases concern
ing school desegregation. Alabama,
Kentucky, the District of Columbia and
Oklahoma have had school integration
suits but none are active at present.
Here’s a state-by-state report on ac
tive school litigation:
Alabama
r J'HERE are no public school integra
tion cases pending in Alabama,
although Negroes in Birmingham and
Montgomery have indicated they may
go to court to compel action.
Birmingham Negro parents have pe
titioned local school authorities on sev
eral occasions to initiate desegregation.
Last fall, in an obvious attack on the
state’s school placement law, they
asked that particular Negro students
be assigned to specified all-white
schools. All requests have been turned
down.
An early attack on the placement
law was thwarted in 1958 when a
special three-judge district court in
Birmingham held that the 1955 law was
valid “on its face,” though it may later
prove unconstitutional in application.
The petitioners had not, at that time,
challenged its actual application to
specific cases. The district court’s rul
ing was upheld Nov. 24, 1958, by the
U. S. Supreme Court.
Rev. F. L. Shuttlesworth, Birming
ham Negro leader who participated in
that attack and has been active in
subsequent efforts to effect integration,
has said future court action seemed
inevitable. Last fall’s petitions were
interpreted as groundwork for a new
case.
FORMALLY ASK
A committee of the Montgomery
Improvement Assn., led at the time by
Dr. Martin King Jr., formally asked
the Montgomery City-County Board of
Education early last fall to make a
start of some kind toward complying
with the U. S. Supreme Court’s rul
ings.
Later in the fall, having received no
answer from the board, King indicated
court action was in the offing. King
moved to Atlanta early this year and
there have been no further indications
of Negro plans for action on the school
front in Montgomery.
ORDERED INTEGRATED
The only public-supported educa
tional institution in Alabama ordered
desegregated was the University of
Alabama. On orders of the U. S. Dis
trict Court in Birmingham, following
a three-year legal fight, the university
opened its doors to Autherine Lucy in
1956.
Her appearance as a student Feb. 3
precipitated a three-day demonstration,
which at times reached riot pro
portions. She was subsequently ex
pelled after she publicly accused uni
versity authorities of conspiring in the
demonstrations. Her expulsion was up
held by the same federal judge who
had ordered her admitted. However,
the ruling she won applied to all Ne
groes and still stands.
Arkansas
Kansas has had five major suits
in connection with school desegre-
tion. Two of them still are active.
In chronological order the major
lawsuits are:
Matthews v. Launius, filed June 20,
1952. U. S. District Judge John E. Mil
ler of Fort Smith on Oct. 4, 1955, or
dered the Bearden School Board to
start changing to a racially non-dis-
criminatory school system by produc
ing a plan within a year. In confer
ences Judge Miller held with both
sides, the parties agreed to co-operate
in improving school facilities.
When the board presented its plan
for desegregation, March 19, 1957, the
board and the Negro plaintiffs had al
ready worked out a satisfactory ar
rangement without Negroes going to
the white schools. Judge Miller issued
no order but left the case in abeyance,
retaining jurisdiction.
There has been no court action in
the case since then and there have
been no incidents in the district.
HOXIE DISTRICT
Hoxie School District v. Brewer et
al. In July 1955, Hoxie, in northeast
Arkansas, admitted its Negro pupils
(then about 25) to its white schools.
After about three weeks of school
without incident, a new Hoxie Citizens
Committee called a protest meeting. A
series of meetings followed, later char
acterized by the courts as consisting of
“inflammatory speech-making and de
nunciations, all of the same character
and purport, and revealing a concert
of action and general agreement on
their part to compel, by force and in
timidation, a recission of the (school
board’s) order.”
The Hoxie board filed suit Oct. 13,
1955, in federal court, asking for a
declaratory judgment on its obligations
under the Supreme Court rulings and
for an injunction to prevent interfer
ence. The Justice Department, inter
vening in its first desegregation suit,
sided with the school board. After
Federal Judge Thomas C. Trimble of
Lonoke had issued a temporary order
restraining the defendants, retired Dis
trict Judge Albert L. Reeves of Kansas
City granted a permanent injunction.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
at St. Louis, in October 1956, upheld
the district court decision, saying that
school boards have a federal right to
be free from “direct and deliberate in
terference” in complying with the
Brown decision. There has been no ac
tion in the case since then.
VAN BUREN
Banks v. Izzard, filed Oct. 28, 1955.
After the suit was filed, the school
board produced a plan for gradual de
segregation, which was started in Sep
tember 1957. Judge Miller dismissed
the suit Sept. 21, 1957.
In September 1958 some students
went “on strike” against desegregation.
After a few days the Negro plaintiffs
asked Judge Miller for an injunction.
He said the situation was improving
and refused it. The “strike” died out
and the Van Buren desegregation plan
is being carried out.
LITTLE ROCK
Aaron v. Tucker filed Feb. 8, 1956.
The complaint was that a gradual de
segregation plan, previously announced
by the school board, was too gradual.
But Judge Miller and the appeals court
at St. Louis both approved it.
In September 1957, on the eve of de
segregation, Gov. Orval E. Faubus sur
rounded Central High with National
Guard troops and refused to allow the
Negroes to enter. Not until the federal
court issued a direct order to him not
to interfere did he remove the Guards
men, three weeks later. After mob
violence occurred, the government sent
the 101st Airborne Division to disperse
the mobs and protect the Negro stu
dents.
In June 1958, District Judge Harry
J. Lemley of Hope granted a two and
one-half-year delay in the Little Rock
plan on toe ground that desegregation
was disrupting the educational system,
but the appeals court threw out that
ruling.
In September 1958, Faubus closed all
four high schools to avoid a second
year of desegregation at Central. In
September 1959, with the school-clos
ing laws ruled invalid, a new school
board reopened the schools, with token
desegregation at two of them and with
assignments made under Act 461 of
1959, the Pupil Placement Law and an
addition to the original plan.
The Negro plaintiffs now have chal
lenged the board’s use of the place
ment law. They contend that the board
is using it to restrict desegregation and
they argue that students should attend
the schools nearest their homes regard
less of race. This issue probably will
be decided before next September.
DOLLARWAY SUIT
Dove v. Parham filed Feb. 6, 1959.
Federal court first ordered the three
Negro plaintiffs admitted to the white
high school, but the appeals court said
they had to comply with the state
placement law. Completing the ad
ministrative procedures under the
placement law used up the 1959-60
school year without any of the Negroes
being admitted to the white school.
Then district court ordered the Dol
larway board to produce a “statement
of affirmative policy” to end racial dis
crimination. In that statement, the
board said it would try, when possible,
from now on to admit first grawe pu
pils to the school preferred by then-
parents, though it did not know
whether this would bring about de
segregation and that it did not approve
of transfers from one school to an
other at any grade higher than the
first. (There are only two schools in
the district, each with 12 grades and
one for whites and one for Negroes).
The court approved this statement,
but the Negro plaintiffs have appealed.
In May three Negro children applied
for enrollment next September in the
white school. The board has not acted
on the enrollments yet. Further hear
ings on the “statement of affirmative
policy” will come during the summer.
Dollarway has about 1,200 white and
1,200 Negro students.
Delaware
J^elaware has but one significant
court case dealing with school de
segregation, but that one covers all its
public schools.
Segregation, as such, is not the sali
ent point.
At issue in Buchanan v. Evans is
gradualism versus integration at all
grade levels.
Currently, the case is before the
U. S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals
in Philadelphia, which was asked on
April 22 to set aside a district court
order approving grade-a-year desegre
gation.
The plan, which was approved by
Judge Caleb R. Layton ni in July
1959, went into effect in the first grade
last September, and will embrace the
first and second grades this year.
TOLD COURT
But Louis L. Redding, who repre
sents 26 Negro pupils who sued for ad
mission to white schools in 1956, told
the court of appeals that the decision
“completely deprives the plaintiffs of
any right to desegregated education.”
All of his clients, he says, are past
the first grade.
Furthermore, Redding holds, the dis
trict court decision “invalidly assumes
to vary the mandate of the appellate
court,” which upheld District Judge
Paul Leahy in 1957.
Judge Leahy’s decision, Redding
says, entitled his plaintiffs to admis
sion at all grade levels.
CLASS ACTION
As a class action, this would mean
that all others similarly situated would
be entitled to enter any school, and
this is the point the State Board of
Education opposes.
Atty. Gen. Januar P. Bove Jr., who
represents the state board, denies that
the Negro pupils have any immediate
right to be admitted to white schools.
“If they have a present, immediate
right, that would mean immediate de
segregation in all grades in all the
schools in the land, which the U. S.
Supreme Court itself has rejected,” he
told the court.
It is anticipated that the three judges
who heard the appeal will give their
verdict in June.
The only other case before the fed
eral court in Wilmington is Dennis v.
Baker, which seeks to extend integra
tion to higher elementary grade levels
at Dover. The court has not held a
hearing on the case.
District of Columbia
T® District school system com
plied immediately with the U. S.
Supreme Court’s 1954 decision and de
segregated. There are no current court
cases on school desegregation.
Florida
J^LORIDA HAS pending a total of five
school integration suits, with the
prospect of “many more” this fall.
Two suits have been in the courts
more than four years. Both the Gibson
case in Dade County and the Holland
case in Palm Beach County were be
gun in 1956. Both have been to the
Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting ev
ery time in victory for the Negro peti
tioners. None has yet been admitted to
a white school.
The Gibson case, involving six Mi
ami children, was dismissed twice by
the federal district judge and twice re
instated by the appellate court with
instructions to the local school board
to proceed with a desegregation plan.
In the latest action, the court has ap
proved a letter to all parents by the
school board, informing them of their
children’s rights to apply for admission
to any school. However, the long-
pending applications of six Negro chil
dren to attend white schools were
turned down recently on the grounds
it would disrupt classroom procedure
at this time.
The Holland case, also, has resulted
in mandates from the appellate court
for the county school board to proceed
toward desegregation. However, the
Holland boy is still attending a Negro
school. In his case, he has not only
won a court directive but has followed
pupil assignment laws by appeals to
the county and state school boards.
NEW CASES
Three other cases are new. In Hills
borough County (Tampa) a group of
Negro children sued through their par
ents to enter a nearby white school,
contending they were transported daily
nearly 10 miles to a Negro school. The
district court dismissed the action but
the Court of Appeals reversed the de
cision recently and remanded the case
for further action. (See Southern
School News, May 1960)
The Escambia County (Pensacola)
case (Augustus v. Board of Public In
struction of Escambia County) involves
two Negro children. It is still in the
early stages of arguments on motions.
The Volusia County case is unique
on two counts: It is in the state court
and the school officials are suing the
Negro (and some white) petitioners.
RESIDENTS PETITIONED
In this instance a group of residents
petitioned the school board to proceed
with a desegregation plan. The school
board attorneys sued for a declaratory
decree, holding that the petitioners had
no right to make such demands, for
residential and other reasons, and that
the school board was not obligated to
consider the petition.
The state headquarters of the Na
tional Assn, for the Advancement of
Colored People at Tampa announced
during May that suits were being pre
pared for filing in “many counties” in
Florida next fall in what the state
ment called a “massive legal assault”
on segregated schools.
Georgia
^^NLY one court case involving school
desegregation is on the active
list in Georgia, but it is one about
which all Georgia is thinking and de
bating.
On Jan. 11, 1958, the case of Calhoun
v. Latimer was filed. Ten Negro plain
tiffs, suing on behalf of 23 Negro chil
dren, asked an injunction against the
operation of segregated schools in At
lanta.
The usual legal delays slowed issu
ance of a decree in the suit. But Judge
Frank A. Hooper of the U. S. District
Court in Atlanta promised a decision
prior to the opening of schools for the
September 1959 term. Judge Hooper
later ordered desegregation of the At
lanta system but did not set a date for
compliance. He called upon the Atlanta
Board of Education to come up with
a desegregation plan.
PUPIL PLACEMENT
The board recommended a pupil
placement plan to begin with the 12th
grade and to work downward a grade
a year. The plan was called to the at
tention of the Legislature but the leg
islators ignored it.
Instead, a special legislative sub
committee, the Sibley school study
commission, surveyed the public’s
views on school desegregation and re
ported on May 1 (See SSN, May 1960).
After noting the Sibley report, Judge
Hooper announced May 9 that he
would give the Legislature one last
chance to alter Georgia’s rigid stand
against integration at its next session
in January 1961. In any case, the judge
ruled, the desegregation plan must go
into effect in Atlanta on May 1, 1961,
looking toward operation of the plan
for both the 12th and 11th grades dur
ing the session beginning in September
Kentucky
present, Kentucky has no active
court cases seeking further deseg
regation of its public schools.
Louisiana
^^fter eight years of successful court
battles against integration, Louis
iana faces its first desegregation when
public schools open in September.
U. S. District Judge J. Skelly Wright
at New Orleans May 16 presented the
Orleans Parish (county) School Board
his own plan for integration after the
board refused to comply with a court
order to draft a written plan for de-
gregating elementary and secondary
schools.
Judge Wright directed the board to
follow a grade-a-year plan beginning
with the first grade in September.
Though additional legal action is ex
pected from the school board and state
attorney general’s office, the Wright
order is expected to be activated when
the new school term begins.
OLDEST CASES
Oliver Bush Jr. v. the Orleans Parish
School Board is one of the oldest school
segregation cases. It was filed Sept. 4,
1952, amended August 20, 1955, to com
ply with the Supreme Court ruling
against segregated schools, and went to
the U. S. Supreme Court three times.
Final orders from Judge Wright to
the board to draft a plan of integra
tion were handed down July 14, 1959.
Wright also has issued a summary
judgment against continued segregation
of the schools in East Baton Rouge and
St. Helena parishes, the only other
public school cases now active in
Louisiana.
NEXT MOVE
The state has 90 days from the date
of the judgment—April 28, 1960—to file
an appeal but as yet has not indicated
its next move.
Clifford Eugene Davis Jr. v. East
Baton Parish School Board was filed
Feb. 26, 1956. The case of Lawrence
Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board
was filed in September 1952.
Both cases lay dormant at times, al
though a series of motions were heard.
Attorneys representing Negro plaintiffs
pushed the Bush suit in Orleans Parish
as the primary desegregation case.
Also on April 28, Judge Wright
handed down another summary judg
ment on desegregation involving six
trade schools operated by the state in
Acadia, Natchitoches, St. Helena, Cal
casieu, St. Landry and Caddo parishes.
TRADE SCHOOLS
All trade school cases except the one
involving Caddo Parish were filed Feb.
24, 1956. The Caddo case was filed in
July 1958. The state has now the right
of appeal until July 28, 1960.
The request for the summary judg
ment involving the St. Helena and East
Baton Rouge parish public schools and
the six trade schools was based pri
marily on the federal court victory for
Negro plaintiffs in the Orleans Parish
case.
A. P. Tureaud, NAACP attorney in
Louisiana, said plans have not been
made to date for any new actions
against either elementary, secondary,
or college level public institutions.
Maryland
T^he one active school desegregation
case in Maryland is a one-pupil
challenge of the pupil placement pro
cedure in a single county: Pettit v.
Harford County Board of Education.
Pettit is a Negro youth who sought
to transfer last fall to the ninth grade
of a white high school, at which time
the desegregation timetable extended
only to the eighth grade.
Pettit submitted to the screening
process, which had been established for
those seeking to become exceptions to
the timetable, and was declared to be
a poor transfer risk. The transfer re
quests of several other Negroes of like
category were approved.
JUDGE RELUCTANT
At a hearing early in May, Chief
U. S. District judge Roszel C. Thom
sen said he was reluctant to upset the
screening process, which he himself
had approved in 1957 (Moore v. Board
of Education of Harford County), and
which subsequently was upheld by the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Slade
v. Board of Education of Harford
County) in a case the Supreme Court
had refused to review.
At the same time, Judge Thomsen
said, he was surprised to learn that
young Pettit had been screened out on
the basis of tests that were two or
three years old. The judge said he was
impressed by the argument that
screening was no longer necessary.
Near the end of the month the judge
ordered Pettit admitted to the white
school.
Mississippi
Tyjississippi, which maintains com
plete classroom segregation, has
had no suits to desegregate schools.
Missouri
r J^HE only school case pending in
court is a suit for writ of manda
mus to permit two Negro children to
(See LITIGATION, Page 15)