Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

Factual (id-fc M CrUAAT VO * S N 3 HiV N 0 ISI A Io SNOlilSinODV S3 I fclVb8 I 1 VI0HO3O 30 AINA 8002-8-29 K-nr News Objective & FEBRUARY, 1962 LAND Court Refuses Negro Transfer [uto University U. JACKSON S. District Judge S. C. Mize on Feb. 3 refused to order a ;j e gro admitted to all-white Uni versity of Mississippi. He held that the university “is not a rac ially segregated institution.” Arguments in the case of James H. jleredith had been closed Jan. 27 in ,3ckson, and Judge Mize promised that his decision would come soon under a mandate from the U. S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. His ruling came in exactly a week. The judge held that the 28-year-old Segro, seeking to transfer to “Ole Miss” horn Jackson State College for Ne groes, had failed to prove that his ap plication was turned down by univer sity officials for racial reasons. Meredith had sought to enter the university’s senior class in the second semester, starting Feb. 6. Meredith is the first Negro to seek sdmittance to a public school or col- ege in Mississippi through court action. Judge Mize said the evidence “fails to show that the application of any iegro or Chinaman or anyone of any see has been rejected because of his race or color.” Not Segregated, Judge Says He added: “The proof shows on this trial, and I find it a fact, that there is io custom or policy now, nor was iere any at the time plaintiff’s appli- ation was rejected, which excluded iiialified Negroes from entering the 'adversity. The proof shows, and I find s a fact, that the university is not a | racially segregated institution.” The judge said he followed the ap pals court’s instruction to consider the * without reference to Meredith’s ack of recommendations from five uni- •ersity alumni or to the fact that Mere- *4 was seeking to transfer from a •unaccredited school. The alumni re tirement has been ruled unconstitu- •onal by the court of appeals, and ackson State has been accredited since Meredith case started. Even after failing to consider these ?J aspects, Mize declared, “the evi nce shows rather conclusively that he Meredith) was not denied admission ^eause of his race.” Meredith had petitioned for a per cent injunction against university parities refusing to accept him as a ^Juent. A married military veteran . lives in Attala County (Kos- ®Usko), he has been seeking admission «tce February of 1961. He said he i® 8 unable to get recommendations U 1)1 “Ole Miss” alumni because “no '^gr° had ever attended the univer sity.” Earlier, Judge Mize refused to issue ' temporary injunction, which action j! 3 upheld by the U.S. Fifth Court of ^®Ms, with instructions to the South- !let ® ss * ss *PPi district judge to com- v 6 a hearing on the merits of the j without further delay. West Tennessee School Desegregates Three Negro students, accompanied by their parents, arrive to enroll at previously all-white Tigrett Junior High School in Jackson, Tenn., on Jan. 25 after the school board had voluntarily approved their transfer request. (See Tennessee report). THE REGION 5 Districts Desegregate Schools for First Time the recent hearing, counsel for the contended that Meredith was not (See UNIVERSITY, Page 6) F our Tennessee school districts and one in Virginia desegre gated in January for the first time, as two previously desegregated districts in Florida announced ex pansion of their programs. The new desegregations make 910 districts in the 17 Southern and border states having policies permitting Ne groes to attend classes with whites. The region has added 127 new desegregated districts so far this school year. The Maryland Board of Education held two closed sessions in January and then issued a call to local school boards to comply fully with the Supreme Court’s rulings on school desegregation. Two Texas districts have decided to establish their first biracial schools next fall. Steps toward desegregation of church-related schools occurred in January in Arkansas, Maryland and Oklahoma. Political Picture The school desegregation issue ap peared in the political picture in six states. Legislation on this subject is un der consideration—but attracted little attention—in the general assemblies of Georgia and Virginia and in the na tional Congress. One of Tennessee’s new desegregated school districts, the weststate city of Jackson, voluntarily approved the trans fer of three Negro eighth-grade stu dents to the formerly all-white Tigrett Junior High School. Approval of the students’ requests under the state’s Pu pil Placement Law came after quiet negotiations between white and Negro leaders. The state’s other districts desegregat ing in January acted under court order. Eight Negroes entered three formerly white schools in Humphreys County, and 13 began attending two formerly white schools in Wilson County. Water- town Elementary School, operated by the 16th Special School District in Wil son County, was under court order to desegregate but no Negroes applied. Broward County, Fla. (Fort Lauder dale), which began school desegrega tion last fall by admitting 21 Negro students into classes with whites, an nounced that this number has increased to 56. Hillsborough County (Tampa) has raised the number of Negroes in biracial schools this year from one to three. The county has completed ar- (See SUMMARY, Page 11) State Board Issues Call For End of Race Factors BALTIMORE T :ie Maryland Board of Educa tion issued a call to local school boards on Jan. 30 “to guar antee that procedures respecting transfer, bus transportation, and assignment shall apply without regard to race” and to “provide that all future educational pro grams be made in the expectation of and in the furtherance of de segregated schools.” Its multipart statement was issued after the board had met about four hours on Jan. 3 and two hours on Jan. 30 in a closed-door review of desegre gation on a county-by-county basis. Its members said that the board “finds much to be commended, some hesitation to be regretted, but derives satisfaction from the fact that such progress as has been made has been accomplished with noticeably little friction and with little or no bitterness between the two races.” The board’s statement was unani mous, revealing no evidence of a previously reported split between board members who wanted to issue a force ful statement and those who did not. The agreed-upon statement, forceful in intent if not in language, was the first formal expression of desegregation policy by the Maryland board since 1955. The gist of the statement was that the board had made the complete eli mination of racial considerations a oart of the declared educational policy of Maryland. The board’s statement reviewed its own statements of 1954 and 1955 in “unqualified support” of implementing “the decree of the Supreme Court” and its advice to local school boards to be gin their compliance. In respect to what has happened since then the seven- member board said: “The State Board of Education is mindful of the problems that have beset the local school authorities. Although desegregation has not moved as rapidly in some parts of the state as in others or not at all; nevertheless, the state Only Border States Have Biracial Special Schools D esegregation of state-operated trade schools and special schools—ones for the blind, deaf, dumb, orphan, exceptional, re tarded or delinquent children— has occurred only in the border area around the South. Maryland and the District of Colum bia admitted Negroes to previously all- white schools for handicapped children as early as 1954. But most of the desegregation of public special schools and trade schools in Maryland as well as in Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia came in the more recent years. The Maryland School for the Blind desegregated voluntarily in 1954, as did the Maryland School for the Deaf. feciAL REPORT Should Public Records Specify Race? ^ttouLD public records be kept . race? This has been one • iroversial question acccmpany- ^school desegregation. °se who oppose racial identifica- 4 'I 1 Public records believe that it 0^ Pwitation to discrimination. ^e other side, the principal i(j e . ent is that racial statistics pro- V, l ^ orm ation essential to the solu- Problems involving race. Some kw at the absence of racial statistics bn - S opportunities for di crimina- M^'th reduced risk of detection. a * n taining that statistics by race ece ssary, Dr. James B. Conant -Utjf, * n his recent study, “Slums and Wbi ,hi “ it is difficult if not to get statistics about school enrollment and employment in terms of the categories white and Negro.” “How can we improve a situation,” the educator asked, “if we are deprived by terminology from knowing what the situation really is?” Separate statistical information for Negroes and whites continues to be the general practice in the 17 Southern and border states. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s school desegregation ruling in 1954, three states—Missouri, Oklahoma, and West Virginia—have stopped keeping school records by race. Delaware and Maryland record sepa rate figures for white and Negro stu dents but these are not announced to the public and are made available only for special research. School records continue to be kept by race in Arkan sas and Florida but with certain exceptions. The District of Columbia and-the 10 other Southern and border states main tain complete school statistics by race and make them public. These states are Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Lou isiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Missouri and West Virginia last re corded their Negro enrollments in 1954, and since then no racial breakdown has been available. School statistics have not been kept by race in Oklahoma since 1955, when (See STATE, Page 15) A court suit failed to stop the volun tary admission of Negroes to the Rose wood Training School for mentally re tarded children in 1954. The Esther Loring Richards Chil dren’s Center for emotionally disturbed children opened in Maryland in 1958 as a desegregated institution. The Jacob E. Finesinger Unit, also for disturbed children, opened in 1961 also as a biracial facility. Court Decision Maryland’s four state training schools for delinquent youths, two for boys and two for girls, were desegregated in March, 1961, following a state court ruling that continued segregation would be unconstitutional. Segregation in the state training schools had been an issue for several years before the court’s decision. The State Board of Public Welfare had sought to merge the separate insti tutions for white and Negro girls as an economy move. The General Assem bly declined to change the laws to make the merger possible. In February, 1961, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld a lower court finding that the training schools were an “integral part of its system of edu cation” and subject to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling on public school segregation. In the lower Circuit Court, Judge Charles E. Moylan had declared that the term “public education” en compasses “not only the conventional schools, but hundreds of schools pro vided ,by the state at public expense for specialized groups with varying ap titudes, abilities, handicaps and prob lems.” The Court of Appeals restricted its decision to the white reform school but the Maryland Attorney General’s office held that it applied to all the training institutions. (See RULING, Page 12) board believes that a climate of opinion has developed over this period that will make the ultimate transition possible with the same kind of spirit prevailing between the races where it has been accomplished.” Declaration of Policy In the light of its findings, the state board sets forth “as a declaration of the educational policy of the State of Mary land” that “every local school board” is to: “(a) Initiate and carry out a resurvey of its progress or lack of progress in the desegregation of the schools under its jurisdiction. “(b) Revise, if found advisable as a result of such resurvey, its policies and procedures respecting desegregation in accordance with the declared educa tional policy of the state. “(c) Confer with its local committees composed of white and Negro citizens in resurveying the present status of de segregation and in revising, if advisable, its policies and procedures. “(d) Guarantee by its procedures that the rights of no child be impaired by arbitrary or capricious methods. “(e) Guarantee that procedures re specting transfer, but transportation, and assignment shall apply without re gard to race. “(f) Provide that educational pro grams and facilities be the sole deter mining factors in the enrollment of pupils. “(g) Take all reasonable steps to as sure that no child shall be required to resort to hearings and court action to insure his constitutional rights. “(h) Provide that all future educa tional programs be made in expectation of and in the furtherance of desegre gated schools.” ‘All Deliberate Speed’ In setting forth its principles the board recognized that the requirements in subsections (e) and (f) “may be ap proached ‘with all deliberate speed.’ ” However, “any delay in the full im plementation of this policy statement,” the board states, “may take place only where a policy is in effect for ultimate, full compliance with the Supreme Court’s decree at the earliest practic able date. The state board recognizes the fact that the members of the local boards of education are representative of the finest type of citizenry in the state, and it believes that they can be trusted to carry out the law of the land.” The state board has, in effect, con verted the decisions of the federal courts on school desegregation into Maryland educational policies. In the process it has indicated that its mem- (See MARYLAND, Page 2) In This Issue State Reports Alabama 12 Arkansas 4 Delaware 5 District of Columbia 7 Florida 3 Georgia 5 Kentucky 13 Louisiana 8 Maryland 1 Mississippi 1 Missouri 9 North Carolina 13 Oklahoma 19 South Carolina 3 Tennessee 16 Texas 11 Virginia 14 West Virginia 7 Special Articles The Region 1 Special Schools 1 Public Records and Race 1 School and Community (Md.) 2 Expenditures by Race (Miss.) 6 Compulsory Attendance (La.) 8 Man on the Bench 9 Books and the Issue 12 State-by-State 16