Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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)