Newspaper Page Text
ARKANSAS
SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—NOVEMBER, 1962—PAGE IS
Court Orders Negro Admitted to Dollarway 10th Grade
LITTLE ROCK
I n an order and memorandum
opinion dated Oct. 24 Federal
Judge J. Smith Henley ruled in
the Dollarway case (Dove v.
Parham) that:
• The Dollarway school board could
continue to use its grade-a-year de
segregation plan this year and to make
initial assignments for the 1983-64
school year, although the judge con
tinued to express his doubt that the
plan was needed. He again said it was
not producing satisfactory progress to
ward the elimination of unconstitu
tional segregation.
• The board must admit Sarah How
ard, 14, Negro girl, to the 10th grade
of the white Dollarway High School
by the start of the second semester, in
January, unless the board can convince
the court by Jan. 1, 1963, that there
is a valid reason for not admitting her
under the criteria of the state pupil
assignment law.
This order was the result of the
intervention in the Dollarway case of
Sarah Howard, daughter of George
Howard Jr., attorney for the Dollarway
plaintiffs and also state president of
the NAACP.
The Dollarway District, lying partly
inside the city limits of Pine Bluff,
has an enrollment of 1,403 whites and
1,345 Negroes, and has two main
schools containing all 12 grades, Town
send Park School for Negroes and
Dollarway School for whites.
Beginning Plan
Under court order, the district began
desegregation with a plan, still only
tentatively approved, for the admission
of qualified Negro pupils only at the
first grade of the Dollarway School
and opposing the transfer of students
from Townsend Park to Dollarway
at grades above the first grade.
For the current school year, not a
single Negro pupil applied to enter
the Dollarway first grade; Sarah How
ard asked for a transfer in the 10th
grade from Townsend Park to Dollar
way, and two of the four Negro chil
dren previously admitted to Dollarway
had moved away. This left two Negro
children in the Dollarway second grade.
In his memorandum opinion Judge
Henley discussed both parts of his or
der at length.
He said he is worried about the
desegregation plan because it does not
seem to him to be eliminating compul
sory segregation within a reasonable
length of time. He said he has not yet
decided why that is.
Judge’s Comments
His comments included:
“It may be assumed that the Board’s
plan would work satisfactorily in a
school district in which there is a sub
stantial demand among Negro patrons
an integrated or desegregated
school system, but there seems to be
a dearth of such demand at Dollar-
wa y- • • • The lack of Negro applicants
for assignment to Dollarway has a
cause - If that cause is that the plan
dself is deterring Negro applicants,
8 r ave doubt exists as to the plan’s in-
erent validity. On the other hand, if
ere is no real demand for integration
® Dollar-way, then it may be doubted
. t Ihe Board needs or may be per-
n Rtted to operate under a grade-a-year
*j?L~~ s P ee di er action may be required,
at j° Wever ’ the Court is not prepared
this time to blame the Board or
cam Plan ^ or the lack of Negro appli
es or to say that simply because
ere we re no such applicants at the
Non-South
(Continued From Page 14)
anH 6 i c re ^ om “ lant ly white or all-
s were “racially segregated.’
cent c 7* e l em entary schools, I
tend “ • ^ egro anc l white pup
, racially separate” schools,
eem f ^ the public schools, f
snt]v°i\T 6 Negroes attend pred
two e ® ro or all-Negro school
whitePg^ Cant at tend predomi
of /l 1 a h the public schools, 76 pr
White 6 w , tes attend predomi
cent ° r . a h~white schools and tv
schools® tenC * Predominantly
a §ainst f u epa ^ te formal com ]
k° a rds t _ Glen Cove and Ma
^Aapp° plication were filed \
sione r n f the New York co:
pla mts .R edUcation on Sept. 5- The
ra ciallv ar ^ e( t Glen Cove with 1
Un es gerrymandered
‘equal ° re gated and e<
al elementary schools.
Arkansas Highlights
A federal judge overruled the Dol
larway school board Oct. 24, and
ordered a Negro girl admitted to the
10th grade of the white school by the
second semester. He also gave the
board permission to use its desegre
gation plan for another year, al
though he said it is not producing
a satisfactory amount of desegrega
tion.
State voters apparently killed
constitutional Amendment 51 which
had been called a dangerous threat
to the state’s pupil assignment law.
The attorney for the Negro plain
tiffs asked the Little Rock school
board for a policy on Negro partici
pation in extra-curricular activities
at desegregated schools.
lower grade levels when assignments
for the current school year were made,
that situation will continue. As noted
in this Court’s August 1961 opinion,
some progress has been made at Dol
larway in that some Negro students
have been admitted to the Dollarway
School and in that there has been es
tablished a class of eligible Negro
pupils who may reasonably expect to
be permitted to attend the Dollarway
School if they apply for admission to
that school at the lower grade levels.
The Court still believes, as it believed
in 1961, that the existence of this class
and public knowledge of its existence
may well encourage additional appli
cations in future years, particularly if
uncertainty and controversy can be put
to rest.
No Final Conclusion
“Hence, the Court is unwilling to
draw any final conclusion with respect
to the overall plan at this time, and
the Board will be permitted to con
tinue to operate under it in general
for the remainder of this school year
and to undertake to make assignments
under it with respect to the 1963-64
session. However, the Board will do
well to keep in mind the fact that
its plan has not been approved except
to the very limited extent indicated,
and that its validity is giving the
Court concern. In the circumstances,
which include an apparent limited
demand for integration, the Board
may consider it wise to give considera
tion to a liberalization of its program.”
Turning to Sarah Howard’s inter
vention, Judge Henley justified his
consideration of this administrative de
cision on an individual student—the
board’s assignment of her to Townsend
Park instead of Dollarway—on the
ground that the court was responsible,
at least in the early stages of transi
tion, for deciding whether individual
assignments violated a student’s fed
erally protected rights.
He found nothing to dispute in the
board’s finding of facts in her case.
He took note that Sarah lives nearer
the Townsend Park School than she
does to the Dollarway School and that
the board had not considered this fac
tor in making her assignment, because
it does not consider place of residence
in making any assignments.
The judge found from the record that
Sarah’s assignment to Dollarway would
not violate any of the criteria of the
pupil assignment law, Act 461 of 1959,
or of the board’s own regulations.
Thus, he wrote, “it is inferrable that
the Board’s basis for denial of the ap
plication was an automatic and uncrit
ical application to intervenor of its
policy against lateral transfers.”
Felt Justified
This might be accepted if there were
more progress in the lower grades un
der the board’s desegregation plan but
there is not, Judge Henley wrote, so
he felt justified in overruling the
board’s assignment of Sarah Howard.
“When the situation at Dollarway
is viewed realistically, it is clear at
once that a rigid application of the
Board’s policy against lateral transfers
at the upper grade levels will have the
practical effect of keeping the upper
grades compulsorily segregated for a
number of years. As indicated, this
might be tolerated were the Court
convinced that the Board’s overall plan
amounts to a sufficient compliance with
the Board’s obligation to put an end
to compulsory segregation at all grade
levels within a reasonable time. . . .
The Court does not find that enough
demonstrable progress is being made
under the plan to justify the Board
in making an automatic application of
its policy against lateral transfers so
as to deny to the single Negro appli
cant for such a transfer her general
right to attend a nonsegregated school.
And this is particularly true in view
of the fact that no showing has been
made that the intervenor would not
be able to do satisfactory work at Dol
larway or that her assignment to that
school would overtax that school’s fa
cilities.”
The judge continued, “This is not to
say that the Board might not have
found on the basis of legitimate assign
ment criteria that intervenor’s applica
tion should be denied, but the Board
has not yet so found, or at least no
such finding appears in the report
which is before the Court.”
So he ordered Sarah Howard ad
mitted to Dollarway School unless the
board could show him, before Jan. 1,
1963, that there was a valid reason
under the assignment law why she
should not be admitted.
Political Activity
Proposal To Amend
Slate Constitution
Gets Close Vote
In the Nov. 6 election, the vote was
close on a proposal to amend the state
constitution to guarantee a free public
education to children who refuse to at
tend school with another race. With
2,002 boxes reported from a total of
2,348, the count stood at 103,137 for the
amendment and 114,353 against the pro
posal.
Almost forgotten since it was sub
mitted by the 1961 state legislature,
proposed constitutional Amendment 51
began to draw some attention during
October as the election date of Nov.
6 drew nearer.
In a routine survey of election issues
distributed by the Associated Press
Oct. 16, this amendment was described
as the “stepchild” of the five proposed
amendments on the ballot since no one
seemed to be pushing it nor was any
one opposing it. But that changed right
away.
Later that same day, the proposed
amendment was analyzed and called
a dangerous trap before a meeting of
school administrators at the Arkansas
Education Association building at Lit
tle Rock. The analysis was made by
Eugene R. Warren of Little Rock,
attorney for the AEA, who had been
asked by Forrest Rozzell, executive
secretary of the AEA, whether the
proposal would stand up as constitu
tional in a federal court test.
The text of the proposed amendment,
sponsored by Gov. Orval E. Faubus
through the 1961 legislature, was: “No
child shall ever be denied his or her
right to a free public education to
which he or she is otherwise entitled
under the Constitution of this State,
by reason of his or her refusal to
attend school with a student or stu
dents of another or different race when
he or she shall prove to the satisfaction
of his or her school board that to do
so would be inimical to his or her
welfare.”
Actually, proposed Amendment 51
What They Say
CBS Reports
Harry Reasoner of CBS-TV, who
covered the Little Rock crisis in 1957,
came back for another look and his
report was shown on the network the
night of Oct. 24.
He showed films of the 1957 violence,
then some scenes this year at Central
High—white and Negro students going
through the halls, exercising in the
gymnasium, playing softball, in a biol
ogy laboratory.
Three white students and two Negro
students were interviewed, bringing
the comment from a Negro girl that
“I’ve had many happy moments here,”
Also interviewed were Everett Tuck
er Jr., school board president, and
Gov. Orval E. Faubus. Tucker said
Little Rock “tolerated” desegregation,
if it hadn’t “accepted” it, and Faubus
said that many of those who now go
along with desegregation were just
taking the easy way out by staying
with the “strongest force,” as they al-*
ways would no matter which side was
strongest.
Next day, Faubus called the show
“another damn propaganda piece, pure
and simple.” He said he had been
Decorum
X
—Graham, Arkansas Gazette.
had opposition from the very be
ginning, from the Women’s Emergency
Committee for Public Schools, which
objected to it even while it was being
considered by the 1961 legislature
(SSN, March 1961).
But very little had been heard about
it since then, possibly because the
organized school forces have been oc
cupied, during and since the 1961 legis
lature, with other measures dealing
with school financing and the teacher
retirement system which have taken
most of their time and energy.
The Women’s Emergency Committee
opposed the proposal in principle and
also because its provisions already ap
pear in four separate state statutes.
Warren in his analysis dealt solely
with the possible invalidity of the
amendment. His written answer to
Rozzell included:
“This appears to be a prohibitory,
or negative statement of state policy
or public policy rather than a self
executing constitutional provision. It is
evidently intended as a springboard
or foundation for later legislation
which in some manner will seek to
carry into effect the public policy an
nounced in the proposed amendment.
Whether this enabling legislation will
offend against the Constitution of the
United States as interpreted by the
Federal Courts, will depend upon the
wording and effect of the enabling or
subsequent legislation viewed in the
light of the United States constitutional
proscriptions.
'Of Grave Concern’
“Of grave concern to the public
schools of Arkansas, however, is the
fact that this amendment constitutes
a very serious threat to the future of
the Pupil Assignment Law. The Ar
kansas Pupil Assignment Law has been
upheld by the Federal Court as con
stitutional on its face for the reason
that the court refused to assume that
the assignment of students under that
act was based upon racial criteria.
Parham v. Dove, 271 F. 2d 132. The
court accepted it upon its face as a
method of orderly compliance with
the mandate of the United States Su
preme Court in the now famed Brown
decision. The language of this pro
posed amendment makes it crystal
clear that its true intent is to declare
a policy of the State of Arkansas aimed
at avoiding desegregation. Unless it
does this, it would not be wanted or
desirable by those who sponsor it. If
it does establish this intent of avoid
ance of the Brown decision as the
stated policy of this State, then its
adoption may be construed as undis
putable evidence that this State does
not intend the Pupil Assignment Law
for what makes it facially constitu
tional and the Federal Courts may
justifiably conclude that it is simply
a subterfuge for avoidance. . . .
“When this possible result is con
trasted with what could be ultimately
gained by adoption of this amendment
and its subsequent enabling legisla
tion which must conform to the man
date of the Brown decision, it is ap
parent that the adoption of the
amendment is extremely risky and
conceivably could result in a court
declaration that both the amendment
and the Pupil Assignment Law were
in conflict with the United States Con
stitution and Arkansas would again
be the center of racial turbulence.”
Speaking to the school administra
tors, Warren said that Amendment 51
would unwittingly destroy the one ef
fective measure “standing between the
complete and immediate integration of
Arkansas public schools.” He added,
“If I were head of the NAACP, I
would say ‘Vote for it.’ ”
Faubus Differs
Gov. Faubus said the next day that
he thought Warren was all wrong in
the way he interpreted the amendment.
The Arkansas Democrat, afternoon
paper at Little Rock, also disputed
Warren’s view in an editorial Oct. 26.
Instead of being aimed at avoiding de
segregation, the proposal simply re
stated what was already written in the
statutory law, the Democrat said.
“The proposal doesn’t deprive, any
body of anything. It states anew that
Arkansas children would not have to
forfeit educational privileges under our
state constitution in order to exercise
the right of free association. It does
not discriminate, for, conceivably, Ne
gro parents as well as white parents
might object to assignment of their
children in certain schools,” the Dem
ocrat said.
In Arkansas, each regular session of
the legislature is allowed to submit
three proposed constitutional amend
ments, of which 51 was one this time.
There also were two other proposed
amendments plus two referred acts
on the ballot this year.
★ ★ ★
Sen. J. W. (Bill) Fulbright (D-Ark)
was opposed for re-election this year
by Dr. Kenneth G. Jones, Little Rock
bone surgeon running on the Repub
lican ticket. Fulbright won easily.
Although this was Dr. Jones’s first
appearance in political life and he was
not accorded much chance of winning,
he was backed by an unusually lively
Republican Party effort, and Fulbright
for the first time since 1944 made a
statewide campaign.
In the course of the campaign, both
men adopted views on desegregation
that would not damage them with what
is known to be the majority sentiment
of Arkansas voters.
Fulbright, although he signed the
(See ARKANSAS, Page 19)
Again on Little Rock
asked during his interview for his
idea of how to solve the problem and
he had given it, and he especially
wanted his solution to get nationwide
presentation. But he said CBS cut out
that part.
★ ★ ★
Desegregation Issue
Brings More Comment
More comments in Arkansas in the
wake of the disorders in Mississippi:
William H. Bowen, lawyer and presi
dent of the Little Rock Chamber of
Commerce, speaking to the Sales and
Marketing Executives Club, Oct. 8,
said Little Rock has closed ranks and
developed new strengths as a result
of the lessons learned in the school
crisis.
“The good effect that has come out
of the travail five years ago is that
we are a closely knit city,” Bowen
declared. “Equally important, we find
ourselves with this social revolution
largely surmounted, so that we can
turn our attention toward building our
city and state at a time when much
of the South is confronted with the
problem.”
I. S. McClinton, Negro president of
the Arkansas Democratic Voters Asso
ciation, speaking at a men’s day pro
gram at the Shiloh Baptist Church,
North Little Rock, Oct. 14, said race
relations have been set back for years
by Southern demagogues who have en
couraged racial strife for their own
political benefit.
L. C. Bates, field representative for
the NAACP, in an interview, Oct. 8
said race relations in Little Rock in
1956 were as good as or better than
in any city in the South. “Now,” he
said, “there is too much hatred be
tween the Negro and white commu
nity. Places which were integrated in
1956 have become segregated since and
everything we get now we have to
fight for.”
Cedric Foster, national radio news
caster, in a speech to Little Rock Ex
ecutives Dinner Club, Oct. 3, declared
that “the South will solve its problems
if it is left alone. You will never legis
late equality. You can’t do it in India
and you can’t do it in the United
States.”