Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—APRIL 1961—PAGE II
Arkansas
i'
pearce,
(Continued from Page 10)
school board president, said the
had taken the objections under
and hadn’t made a final
^deration
BeJ vision on Dunbar.
*s
to.
Us,
•-
l:
h
%
hd
I 4
Negro protests were raised at
^ board meetings Jan. 30 and Feb.
f ( Branton and about 200 Negro resi
dents attended the February meeting,
gjnnton said the new school would be
unwise economically.
“We are objecting to building Dunbar
s a school for Negroes. If they are
^building new schools in that area
|), e n they should build one for all
bids, not just 65 Negroes on a segre-
pted basis,” he said. A building of
jjjjee classrooms and a cafeteria is
planned as part of a $2,550,000 school
program.
Recommended in Survey
a?,
at
fc
nbe
itn
SVf
bte
lar-
ick-
nit
irt-
iet
at
ari
M
t
er
nts
ait
Pearce said the construction had
been recommended in a survey of the
school district made by George Pea
body College of Nashville, Tenn.
Pearce said Branton also had made
some general objections to the Fort
Smith desegregation plan.
“Branton said he didn’t think it
complied with the law. We figure it
does and won’t change it. We consid
ered objections to our integration plan
on the spot and decided not to take
any action but to keep our plan like
it is,” Pearce said.
Fort Smith started its desegregation
plan in 1957 in the first grade, adding
one grade each year. So far one Negro
pupil has entered the desegregated first
grade each year, making four in the
desegregated schools so far.
Community Action
i
lit;
in
In':
>E
is-
it
re
lit
tt
i
It
e-
s
£
id
II
X
It
Citizens Council
In Little Rock
Elects Guthridge
t mis Guthridge, Little Rock
1 attorney and well known seg
regationist leader, was elected
president of the Capital Citizens
Council on Jan. 31, succeeding
Dr. Malcom G. Taylor, osteopath.
Guthridge disclosed this on March
7 and declined to give the names
of the other officers. This has
been the policy of the Council for
the last couple of years—to meet
privately and to announce each
year only the president. Guth
ridge was one of the founders in
April, 1955, at Little Rock, of
White America, Inc., which later
became the Capital Citizens
Council. He has been a director
and counsel for the organization
all the time.
On the same day that he announced
his election as council president, Guth
ridge also issued
a statement on the
new ruling by the
U.S. appeals court
in the Little Rock
desegregation case.
It said:
“Parents of Lit
tle Rock now face
race mixing of
their junior high
schools next Sep
tember with the
race mixing of
their elementary schools following the
next September. In many schools one
half of the enrollment will be white
and one half black. The Capital Citi
zens Council presented a plan to the
school board in July of 1957 that would
have worked but the Board scornfully
rejected it. That plan was to have an
integrated school for all who wanted
to integrate and to keep the rest of the
schools segregated.
“The Little Rock school board is now
caught in its own integration trap,
which it adopted and which is known
as the Blossom plan. A school board
is the only answer as to whether or not
total inter-mingling of white and black
children in all of our schools is to be
our forced permanent way of life. The
present school board members, calling
themselves ‘moderates,’ are facing flat
failure since an attempt will be made
of forcing ‘immoderate’ complete race
mixing upon them and the children of
Little Rock. Their situation and that
of the citizens of Little Rock is a sad
one.
“The board members and the white
parents of Little Rock have a decision
to make: Accept tyrannical, permanent
mixing of all of our little children
with all of the known implications, or
set a pattern of liberty for our school
children and those all over the South.
That pattern is to have school board
members who cannot and will not un
der any circumstances surrender our
schools and our children to any out
side force. The decision made will be
final and forever.
“If this school board will take such
a stand and maintain it, well and good.
But if for any reason they cannot, let
them gracefully withdraw and help get
a board appointed whose members will
GUTHRIDGE
Officers of Arkansas Christian Movement
The Rev. N. Nichols, treasurer; the Rev. Rufus King Young, secretary; the Rev.
Roland Smith, president.
have hickory logs for backbones and
who think more of our children and
generations to follow than they do the
old cry of ‘We must submit or we
might lose a garment factory.’ ”
★ ★ ★
Non-violent Negro sit-ins were sup
ported by the Arkansas Christian
Movement in a resolution adopted at
its annual meeting Mar. 2 at the Bethel
AME Church at Little Rock. About
20 persons attended. The movement is
an organization of about 200 Negro
ministers in Arkansas, formed in 1957
to contest the segregation laws adopted
by the legislature that year. The res
olution said:
“We commend the students for the
dignified, unemotional and fearless
manner in which they conducted the
demonstrations. We pledge them our
unstinting moral, spiritual and finan
cial support as long as they are con
ducted on a moral and Christian
level.” The reference was to sit-ins at
Little Rock last year by students from
Philander Smith College of Little
Rock, a Methodist institution.
Officers of the movement were re
elected. They are the Rev. Roland
Smith, president; the Rev. N. Nichols,
treasurer, and the Rev. Rufus King
Young, secretary, all of Little Rock.
Political Activity
Old School Crisis
Affects Politics
Four Years Later
T he national administration
has changed from Republican
to Democratic for the first time
since the Little Rock school crisis
of 1957. And in Democratic Ark
ansas the enmities and friendships
formed during the crisis are now
having their effects on appoint
ments to political jobs.
The first to feel this effect was Har
old Jinks of Piggott, a former post
master who was regional field secre
tary for the Democratic National Com
mittee the last few years. Jinks got
lined up to be appointed regional di
rector of the Post Office Department
with headquarters at St. Louis, Mo., a
$17,500 a year job. But Sen. Stuart
Symington (D-Mo.) and the St. Louis
branch of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People
both objected.
When Jinks was working for the
Democratic Committee, he had a hand
in planning a party “Harmony Dinner”
at Little Rock in the fall of 1959, at
which Sen. Symington, then in the
running for the presidential nomina
tion, was to be the main speaker.
When Arkansas Democratic Negroes
found that they were to be segregated
at the dinner meeting, most of them
boycotted it, and Sen. Symington can
celled his invitation to attend and
speak. The St. Louis NAACP cited
that incident in objecting to Jinks.
Jinks didn’t get that job but he
got another one, as head of the Di
vision of Postmasters in the Post Office
Department at Washington, at $15,000
a year.
Another Dispute
In that position Jinks was quickly
involved in another dispute over pat
ronage stemming from the Little Rock
school crisis.
The Little Rock postmaster an
nounced that he was retiring at the
end of April from the job, which pays
a minimum of $10,075 a year. Congress
men get to select postmasters as a
matter of patronage. The congressman
for Little Rock is Dr. Dale Alford,
strong segregationist, former member
of the Little Rock school board and
write-in winner in 1958 over Brooks
Hays, longtime congressman who had
taken a moderate stand in the school
situation.
Rep. Alford picked Ed I. McKinley, a
lawyer, banker and planter, who was
elected to the Little Rock school board
in December, 1958, and recalled from
it in May, 1959 along with two other
members. The three had voted to fire
44 Little Rock teachers for their views
on desegregation and for other reasons.
An outfit called “Stop This Outrageous
Purge” sprang up overnight and got
McKinley voted off the board within
four weeks.
As soon as McKinley was mentioned
for acting postmaster, the protests be
gan to flow into Washington. Alford
made a week-end trip to Little Rock
and came under much pressure to an
nounce the name of his choice for the
job. He telephoned the Post Office De
partment in Washington and spoke to
the man in charge of postmasterships
—Jinks. Jinks gave Alford authority to
announce the choice of McKinley. Then
the protests increased.
Within days Postmaster General J.
Edward Day announced that “serious
questions have been raised about (Mc
Kinley’s) community acceptability”
and added that he was having a thor
ough investigation made into McKin
ley’s background. The Post Office De
partment refused to say who was mak
ing the protests or what the nature of
the protests was, but Alford promptly
blamed the protests on “racial inte-
grationists.” Alford said he was stand
ing by his recommendation of McKin
ley and that “I heartily endorse him as
a Christian father of a cultured family
and as my close personal friend.”
# # #
Text of Court Order Telling Little Rock To Speed Desegregation
The V.S. Eighth Circuit of Appeals on
March 2 ordered the Little Rock school
hoard to speed up its desegregation plan.
Excerpts from the ruling follow:
Relief was sought to restrain defendants from
’fusing to admit plaintiffs and intervenors and
j other Negro students who present themselves
admission to such Little Rock senior high
* h °ols as they may be entitled to enter pursuant
the prescribed school attendance areas.
,/dter a trial of the issues on March 22 and 23,
Plaintiffs were denied any relief, their motion
*** dismissed, and the trial court found there
®as no reason for the court to retain jurisdiction
° the cause since enforcement of the asserted
Shts is personal to those who may claim a
Ration thereof.
'bile we are convinced that assignment on the
jjjf 8 °f pupil residence was contemplated under
original plan of integration, it does not follow
the school officials are powerless to apply
rational criteria in making initial assignments
p ^assignments. We recognized in Aaron v.
£$ >eT ■ • • that implicit in the plan was con-
ration of criteria other than residence,
p must he remembered that following the ap-
'al of the original plan, the State of Arkansas
oted two pupil assignment or placement
®hi if S ’ 0ne -^6 and the Act of 1959 under
Eatin hoard is now proceeding. This legis-
Pra r c l ear ly designed to invalidate the
done 6 enr ollment according to residence
Controlling Question
tj 0J1 ' ' 7n the final analysis, the controlling ques
ts tor determination is whether the consti-
'Sa] 0 ^ rights of children not to be discriminated
Of in school admission on grounds of race
° lor » have been violated.
e Proper application of pupil assignment
. ITla y be an effective tool to accomplish
aee 0 , desegregation in an orderly manner, in
^ ance with the Supreme Court’s directive,
also
Atk” 50 recognize that there is nothing in the
S placement law or the implementing
kRiev ° n “ clear ly inconsistent with a continuing
* °i compulsory racial segregation” Gibson
all
°ord of Pupil Instruction. . . .
It
titj l6 u hlic spirited citizens, have devoted much
of th at ^ rea t personal sacrifice to the operation
a dv er 6 sc hools of Little Rock, under the most
Votip 56 conditions. The Board was required to
Via W against a background which included past
opposition on the part of many citizens of
may be conceded that the defendants,
the city and officials of the State of Arkansas to
integration of schools on any level, or to any
degree. . . .
. . . Conceding that individual members of the
board did act in good faith, we must reiterate
our statement in Dove v. Parham .We
. . . have regarded the board as having been
acting with subjective good faith. The question
here, however, is not state of mind but required
action. Required action is measured only by
objectivity.” In reviewing the actions of the
board objectively, the facts belie the assertion
that the schools were operated in a non-dis-
criminatory manner
All Possible Speed
On July 14, 1959, shortly after the school closing
act was declared unconstitutional, a decision was
reached to open the high schools with ail possible
speed ....
. . . Initial assignments were made, apparently
from long lists previously prepared by the Super
intendent’s office. Three of the five Negro students
who previously had been admitted to Central
High during the 1957-58 year were initially as
signed to Central, three Negroes were assigned to
Hall, all remaining Negro students were assigned
to Mann, despite their areas of registration, and
the white students were assigned, apparently
without exception, according to the school at
which they had registered.
At the trial, members of the board defended
their action with the plea of the pressure of
time and other duties; that they had “insufficient
information” as to the Negro students who had
registered at Central, Hall and Technical, and
that they felt that the rights of students could be
adequately protected upon reassignment hearings.
It is established without any serious dispute that
the board’s assignment criteria under the pupil
placement laws was not applied to any white
student in making these initial assignments; that
no white student was refused assignment to the
school of his residence area or registration; and
although controverted, the evidence convincingly
establishes that in making the initial assignments
of plaintiffs and other Negro students, the board’s
action was motivated and governed by racial
considerations.
The procedures heretofore outlined in making
initial assignments were clearly in violation of
the constitutional rights of plaintiffs, and we so
rule.
... In accordance with the board’s published
regulations, numerous white and Negro students
filed applications for reassignment. A total of 49
applications were prosecuted in their entirety, 32
of these by white students, 17 by Negroes. Of the
32 applications of white students, 24 were granted
reassignment, 8 were denied; of the 17 Negro
applications, 3 were approved, 14 were denied.
While none of the intervenors individually
directly attacks the board’s decision denying re
assignment, and although we have ruled that the
procedures in making the initial assignments, in
and of themselves, were discriminatory and a
violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, never
theless, we discuss in some detail the board’s
action in processing these applications for re
assignment.
First and Foremost
. . . First, and foremost, of course is the cir
cumstance that all 32 applications by white
students were for the purpose of seeking transfer
to schools outside of their areas of registration.
The applications of Negro students were for the
purpose of seeking reassignment to schools within
their residential area, with the exception of one
Central area student requesting assignment to
Hall. . . .
Prior to evaluation of the applications for re
assignments by the board, and at the request of
the board, home investigations were made by
social workers, and psychological and intelligence
tests were administered to those seeking reas
signment. Due to the press of time, it was
testified that it was possible to conduct only 20
such investigations; however, all 17 of the Negro
applicants were subject to these tests. . . .
. . . The board urges that there was no intimi
dation or unfair dealing as to any student, and
that each was allowed a public or private hearing,
as desired ... We do not mean to quibble with
the board as to the action taken on any particular
student; however, even a cursory examination of
the transcripts of the hearings illustrates that
white students were given a perfunctory exami
nation, in contrast to extensive cross-examination
of the Negro students. . . .
... We are convinced that Negro students were
subjected to different treatment in the reassign
ment procedures, that the board was preoccupied
with considerations not ordinarily deemed rele
vant to normal school criteria, and that, con
sciously or otherwise, the standards and criteria
were applied by defendants for the purpose of
impeding, thwarting and frustrating integration.
We also appropriately observe that under the
plan it was contemplated that integration was
to be effectively completed not later than 1963.
On the record before us it is difficult to make
determination of the present status of the situ
ation . . . However, as we approach the 1961-62
school year, sufficient time has elapsed to compel
affirmative action in this regard, to the end that
there may be integration on more than a token
fashion.
Reiterate Responsibilities
To summarize, and to reiterate the responsi
bilities of the defendants:
(1) The defendants, and their successors, are
under an injunction which prevents them from
engaging in any acts which are capable of serving
to impede, thwart, or frustrate the execution of
the integration plan which, as found herein, may
be supplemented by a proper application of the
Pupil Assignment Act of Arkansas. This injunc
tion further requires that they “take affirmative
steps, on their own initiative” to facilitate and
accomplish operation of the school district on a
non-discriminatory basis. (Emphasis supplied by
the court.)
(2) The standards and criteria of the pupil
assignment law cannot be given application to
preserve imposed segregation. The obligation to
disestablish imposed segregation is not met by
applying placement or assignment standards, edu
cational theories or other criteria so as to produce
the result of leaving the previous racial situation
existing as it was before. If application of stand
ards and criteria has the effect of preserving a
created status of constitutional violation, such
application fails to constitute a sufficient remedy
in dealing with the constitutional wrong. . . .
(3) The standards and criteria of the pupil
assignment law must be applied objectively in
the making of initial assignments of all students
in the Little Rock school system to the end that
imposed segregation is discontinued in the Little
Rock Schools as contemplated by the plan of
integration. (Emphasis supplied by the court.)
(4) The standards and criteria of the pupil
assignment law must be applied objectively in
processing applications for transfers or reassign
ments, and without discrimination based on race
or color to the end that imposed segregation
is discontinued in the Little Rock schools as
contemplated by the plan of integration.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is
remanded, and the district court is directed to
retain jurisdiction of the cause to the end that our
views as herein expressed are carried into effect.
# # #