Newspaper Page Text
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—JANUARY, 1963—PAGE 15
in.
«Jt
ol.
ate
ii
eol
at
the
?es
ite:
for
of
the
ear
>ge$
.eo.
en-
iase
,542
in
,694
> in
» in
■ak-
I in
Speakers
(Continued From Page 1)
“The board has done nothing what-
goever to arrange for the closing of
college.” Quattlebaum said.
A similar sentiment was expressed
by the 22 members of the state legis
lature who replied to an Associated
Press mail survey on school closing.
Only one, Rep. Julian LeaMond of
Charleston, said without equivocation
that he would shut down a school
ordered to desegregate.
Several others said the question of
keeping open secondary schools should
be left to the county or district af
fected.
Other comments:
Dillon Rep. Jewell P. McLaurin:
“The state should not let one Negro
disrupt 50 years of progress in educa
tion.”
Oconee Rep. J. Dawson Addis: “No—
not after Mississippi. We cannot go
against the federal law, though I am
still for segregation.”
Pickens Rep. Harris P. Smith: “The
investment and efforts of so many
years and the importance of educa
tion persuade me that it would not be
wise to close the schools.”
Legislative Action
eges
men
in-
pas:
met
', at
stn-
col-
om-
>rity
lblic
.gri-
in
lege
en-
The 1962 legislature appears to have
modified in effect South Carolina’s
pro-segregation laws.
Although a 1955 act would cut off
state funds from any school to which—
and from which—a student is ordered
transferred by the courts, the 1962 ap
propriations bill includes a clause
which reads:
“No institution or activity for which
the General Assembly has herein pro
vided shall be discontinued.”
For the second consecutive year,
funds for institutions were not granted
“on a racially segregated basis only.”
Judge Takes Stand
has
are
ar i
:, ffl
This
d by
ons
fegro
otale
ir an
n for
se of
3,161
hoot
55 or
a fo:
. 125
; on f
in i*
ts i»
d n»
jubl*
*0
,ftb*
i t*
trvrt*
[t ap'
» r c
tivet
ltii" 1 '
ren^
on
if
nr” 1 '
gatin';
*0
i #
j0
,th eI<
&
,f *
in ^
JSF
0
,e0-
Circuit Judge James A Spruill, a
former Rhodes scholar, told a legal
meeting that “whether we like it or
not, we do not stand where Calhoun
stood. . . . We may admire the old
South; we may also regret it was built
on slavery.”
Spruill also said:
• The 10th Amendment does not
mean what it once did.
• South Carolina can anticipate that
the power of the U. S. will be used
to implement federal court decisions.
• The “deliberate speed” interpreta
tion of the 1954 desegregation decision
at least recognizes some understanding
°f Southern history.
• Education is a vital necessity.
Newspaper Editorials
Columbia’s two daily newspapers,
e State and the Columbia Record,
s ° called for calm and moderation.
ai< * The State editorially: “. . . it
PPears *hat the issue is no longer one
whether there shall be integration,
one of how reasonably it will be
Dr . Ug , a bout ... If wisdom is to
vict' ’ even “1 the face of the con-
the "? ns , mos * South Carolinians of
Wwi ** ' n the federally en-
tion P r °cedure, large-scale integra-
v -,„ Wou ld appear still to be many
away.”
11 ®, Accord’.? lead editorial of Dec.
u said;
pru dent student of public school
lieved S f tion over nat ' on bas be-
South’ r long mon tbs now, that
coujj Carolina’s segregated system
the p_. SUrv ive. All have realized that
r °Wed y 6tt ?, ^ tate wa s living on bor-
era) *' ^torial then called on the gen-
lav’. 112enr y for “obediance to the
bl e Public officials for “responsi-
Mth •'^b° n . ■ • • and co-operation
v olved”. *^ U ^ ons anf t individuals in-
com pl; ’ 011 the schools for “continued
pr ° v isio C f w bh court directives and
-ivj du ., n for the protection of all in-
St b^. m their care;” and on stu
nting 16s tor “behavior expected of
gentlemen and ladies . . .”
Otters from Educators
S f ro e ^ tor 'al drew forth two let-
n direpfl ^rsons who probably will
Se gre Kat; y hivolved in any future de-
/CT moves -
St j^^^sing the editorial, Pres
“Vi
C. Edwards of Clems
<0 U ni
“Set- t ™ ay rest assured that at t
0 £ t e • • • I have every inte
.,‘*1 el eat ,, ln § a public position whi
i f State. y ln< hcate to the people
ISScl . ft South Carolina how i
wrSi w *th any problem
11 Cow _ ov *’’ n g out of the integrati
■bf, j ffnding in the courts.”
IV 'tivigj, _ ar tts_l e Holler, director
^Sijw, °* instruction of the S.
°t Education, also wre
Voice Pleas for Moderation and Restraint
a laudatory letter to the Record.
"... I endorse it (the editorial) 100
per cent and commend you for the
courageous stand . . .”
Legal Action
Court Overturns
State Contention;
OK’s Class Suits
South Carolina’s principal legal ar
gument against desegregation was
overturned by the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals on Dec. 7.
Meeting in Richmond, Va., the three-
judge panel ruled that mixing suits
may involve multiple plaintiffs and
“others similarly situated;” that is,
they may be brought as class actions.
The ruling came in a decision on a
case initiated in the Summerton Dis
trict of Clarendon County. In this ac
tion (Brunson et al v. Austin et ol),
42 Negro plaintiffs asked to be admit
ted to white schools and claimed that
South Carolina’s pupil assignment laws
offer an inadequate administrative
remedy.
Federal District Judge C. C. Wyche,
hearing the case at Charleston, ruled
on May 31 that all of the plantiffs but
the first, Bobby Brunson, should be
strickened and an amended complaint
filed.
Full Trial Ordered
Plaintiffs’ attorneys appealed this
ruling to the higher court and the Dec.
7 decision had the effect of reversing
Judge Wyche’s order. The case was
sent back to the District Court in
Charleston for a full trial on its mer
its.
Legal authorities expressed belief
that the Fourth Circuit’s decision may
serve as a precedent for other suits.
Already pending in District Court are
attacks on the segregation policies of
school districts in Charleston and
Darlington counties, both brought as
class actions.
The state’s two largest institutions of
higher learning, the University of
South Carolina and Clemson College,
also are currently defending against
desegregation suits which were brought
on behalf of the primary plaintiff “and
others similarly situated.”
Some lawyers think the ruling may
be applied first in the Charleston suit
(Brown et al v. School District 20 of
Charleston County). Thirteen Negro
children are involved in this action,
including the daughter of Arthur
Brown, head of the NAACP in the
state.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in this
case allege they have exhausted all
administrative remedies, generally a
necessary precedent to asking relief in
VIRGINIA
(Continued From Page 14)
Elementary School. But he directed
that schools remain open pending an
appeal of the case to the Fourth Circuit
Court.
Powhatan officials indicated several
months ago that they would close pub
lic schools, if necessary, to prevent de
segregation.
★ ★ ★
In an order issued at Richmond on
Jan. 3, Judge Butzner directed the ad
mission of six Negro children to
predominantly white schools in Fred
ericksburg. (Scott v. Fredericksburg
School Board.) Three Fredericksburg
schools were desegregated by voluntary
action last September.
★ ★ ★
Counsel for the Powhatan County
School Board and the State Pupil
Placement Board appeared to have
agreed, in a hearing Dec. 21, that all
disputed placement applications filed
by Powhatan Negro children should be
disregarded. (Powhatan School Board
v. State Pupil Placement Board.)
This case originally involved a stated
disagreement between the two boards
as to which should process certain
applications from Negro children for
admittance to white schools. The liti
gation has prevented action on the
applications for several months.
In the hearing before Judge E. W.
Hening Jr. in the Richmond Circuit
Court, attorneys for both boards ap
peared to agree that the applications
.rv,: TiiiiniiPBiiiMiiiiBWiBiiiiiiiiMiiMiiBBiiai
S. C. Highlights
South Carolina politicians, school
men and newspapers voiced pleas for
restraint and moderation as deseg
regation suits against the state’s
completely segregated school system
moved nearer decisions.
The dismissal by a District Court
judge of Negro Harvey Gantt’s suit
to enter Clemson College was ap
pealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The Fourth Circuit Court threw
out one of the state’s leading argu
ments against the current desegrega
tion suits when it ruled that the suits
could be brought as class actions.
The University of South Carolina,
answering a complaint by a Negro
girl that she had been denied ad
mission, said she had not exhausted
her administrative remedies.
the federal courts. This is not the sit
uation in the Summerton case, which
merely alleges that these remedies Tin
der S. C. law are inadequate in that
another law requires the closing of
the school if transfers are court-or
dered.
Federal court rules require that
plaintiffs, in order to establish a class
action, must show that “there is a
common question of law and fact af
fecting several rights and that a com
mon relief is sought.”
Judge Wyche had held that “it is
the individual who is entitled to the
equal protection of the law and, if he
is denied a facility which under the
same circumstances is furnished to an
other citizen, he alone may com
plain . . .”
The Summerton trustees, in their
brief, had contended that there was no
common question of fact involved be
cause the students were of different
aptitudes, backgrounds, residence loca
tions, ages, etc.
Common Questions
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals,
made up of Judges Morris Soper of
Maryland, Clement Haynsworth of
South Carolina and Spencer Bell of
North Carolina, said:
“Whether the school board is as
signing pupils involuntarily, on the ba
sis of race, is a question of fact which
is common to all of these objecting
plaintiffs. The right of each to some
relief will turn on that question of
fact . . .
“The adequacy of the administrative
remedies is another common question.
The plaintiffs have not pursued avail
able remedies, but they allege that
those . . . are inadequate. Whether
they are or not is a question common
to all of these plaintiffs.”
★ ★ ★
were not properly filed and therefore
were not valid. Judge Hening took
the case under advisement.
Schoolmen
Alexandria Board
Cites Disapproval
Of Tuition Grants
The Alexandria School Board on
Dec. 19 certified a list of pupils eligible
for state tuition grants, but at the
same time expressed disapproval of
the grants program.
Two of the six members voted
against certifying the list.
Supt. T. C. Williams told the board
that 14 of the schools attended by the
grants pupils are outside of Virginia.
This led board member James A.
Donovan to remark:
“I think we should take pride in
the quality of education the city pro
vides. I fail to see any reason why the
board should not express some disap
proval to a law that takes students
from our public schools and enables
them to enroll in 14 schools outside
Virginia.”
Chairman G. C. Ridgely expressed
the view that the board was “morally
committed to say that the students are
Gantt Appeals Dismissal
Of Suit to Enter Clemson
Dismissal of Negro Harvey B. Gantt’s
suit to gain admittance to all-white
Clemson College was followed immedi
ately by an appeal to the Fourth Cir
cuit Court of Appeals.
Federal District Judge C. C. Wyche
threw out the case on Dec. 21 on
grounds that Gantt has not completed
requirements for admission to Clem-
son’s School of Architecture.
The jurist ruled that, based on the
evidence presented, Gantt had not been
denied admission or discriminated
against solely because of race. He said
that at the time the suit was brought,
Gantt had not even been turned down
by Clemson.
“No court has held that an appli
cant must be admitted to a college
solely on the grounds of race. Colleges
have the right and duty to pass on
each application submitted on its mer
its,” Judge Wyche wrote in his opinion.
Injunction Denied Earlier
Lawyers for Gantt, who dropped out
of Iowa State University in November,
immediately appealed to the Circuit
Court, which had previously denied
his request for an injunction ordering
entrance to Clemson pending trial of
his case on its merits.
In remanding the case to Judge
Wyche after an October hearing, the
Fourth Circuit told the lower court to
speed up action on the case so that
young Gantt, a native of Charleston
and the first Negro to sue in an effort
to gain entry to a South Carolina col
lege, could apeal and, “should he pre
vail,” be ready to enter Clemson for
the semester beginning in February.
Judge Wyche, complying, heard the
case in Anderson during November
and issued his opinion at least two
weeks before it was expected. The
Fourth Circuit has said it will hear
the appeal during its term which be
gan on Jan. 7.
In his opinion dismissing the suit,
Judge Wyche reviewed steps taken by
Gantt to enter Clemson in 1961 and
again in 1962, and actions taken by
the college on his letters and submis
sions.
Letter from Dean
Among them was a letter from the
dean of the School of Architecture re
questing a portfolio of Gantt’s archi
tectural designs and drawings, and ad
vising him that a date for an inter
view with the dean would be set.
Judge Wyche wrote: “The college
had the right and the duty to make
the evaluation from a complete tran
script of his record and should not be
compelled to admit him or any other
student, Negro or white, without it.
“Instead of telephoning or writing
the Dean of Architecture . . . the
plaintiff, on July 7, 1962, filed a com
plaint against the college . . .”
eligible and meet the requirements of
certification,” regardless of how the
board members feel about the grants.
H. M. Early moved that the list be
approved but that local legislative
representatives be notified of the
board’s views concerning the tuition
grants program.
★ ★ ★
One hundred and two Negro chil
dren of Prince Edward County are be
ing educated elsewhere in the state
this year under sponsorship of the Vir
ginia Teachers’ Association (Negro),
Dr. J. Rupert Picott, executive secre
tary of the VTA, said on Dec. 27.
The association originally set a goal
of 200 children to be placed in homes
elsewhere in Virginia and to attend
schools in those communities.
Dr. Picott said the 102 “are doing
satisfactory in the respective schools
in which they are in attendance and
adjusting very well to their new en
vironments.”
★ ★ ★
One of Prince Edward County’s
closed public schools is being re
opened, but not for school purposes.
The county school board on Dec. 10
voted to allow a Negro congregation
to use the Mercer Seat School as a
temporary meeting place until the
church building recently damaged by
fire can be repaired. Mercer Seat was
used as a Negro school before the
county ceased operating schools in
1959.
The judge said that an inspection of
the admission applications, a number
of which were put in evidence by the
plaintiff’s attorneys to show that Gantt
had not received the same treatment
as others, “did not disclose any dis
crimination . . . because of race.”
“Difficult Problems’
Noting that Clemson had kept
Gantt’s records in a vault, the judge
observed, “In my opinion the admin
istrative authorities had reason to as
sume difficult problems might arise
when the plaintiff was admitted, as
has happened in other parts of the
country.
“The college authorities had to antici
pate all the contingencies that might
occur. This is unfortunate but cannot
be ignored.
“If a white person had pursued ex
actly the same course seeking a trans
fer ... I should not and would not
enter an order to compel Clemson Col
lege to admit him.”
Gantt’s lawyers had contended that
South Carolina’s laws were designed to
establish a segregation policy. On this
point, Judge Wyche said that the laws
indicate a legislative policy “. . . not to
prohibit but to discourage integration
of the races in its state-supported col
leges.”
As to Closings
The judge mentioned a statute
which directed college trustees to close
their institutions in the event of court-
ordered desegregation, and also to close
S.C. State College for Negroes.
“These acts ... do not make it un
lawful for the board of trustees or
administration of any college to admit
a Negro student. The statutes are di
rected against the admission by order
of court,” Judge Wyche wrote.
“The Legislature ... is in favor of a
policy of segregated schools as far as
it may do so in conformity with the
law as it now exists. There is no statute
which makes it illegal ... to admit
the plaintiff as a student. . . .
“If the plaintiff, or any other Negro,
should file an application and meet the
requirements for admission, he could
not legally be denied admission be
cause of his race, and it would be the
duty of this court to order his admis
sion.”
★ ★ ★
University Says Negro’s
Lawsuit Is Premature
The University of South Carolina is
claiming that a Negro girl suing to
enter the all-white institution has not
properly pushed her application and
is not yet entitled to seek relief in the
federal courts.
This contention was put forth in the
state university’s answer to an action
brought against it by 17-year-old Henri
Monteith, a Columbia Negro. The reply
was filed Dec. 18 with the U.S. District
Court in Columbia. The suit itself was
entered on Oct. 31. U.S.C. was granted
a 30-day extension for answering.
Miss Monteith, now a freshman at
the College of Notre Dame for Women
in Baltimore, Md., was said to have
filed an application at South Carolina,
the state’s largest school, last May. Her
mother, Mrs. R. R. Monteith, a Colum
bia school teacher, said her daughter’s
application was rejected in a letter
from the registrar that said the univer
sity could “not act favorably on the
application.”
The director of admissions and regis
tration, Rollin E. Godfrey, is one of
the defendants in the suit (Monteith v.
University of South Carolina et al).
Return Acknowleged
In its answer, filed by Attorney Gen
eral Daniel R. McLeod and Assistant
Attorney General James S. Vemer, the
university denied that Godfrey had the
sole and independent authority to act
upon applications for admission. It
acknowledged that he had returned
Miss Monteith’s application.
The University’s answer said, how
ever, that the girl had “failed to pur
sue and exhaust the administrative
remedies available to her and that as a
result she had not stated a claim against
the school in which any relief could
be given by the federal courts.
The answer also denied that the suit
could be brought as a class action,
which was done in the complaint.
U.S.C. then asked the District Court
to dismiss the suit.
If the normal procedure is followed,
the next step will be a preliminary
hearing on a request by Miss Monteith
for a temporary injunction admitting
her to the university while the court
is hearing her case on its merits.
U. S. Again Moves To Enter Lawsuit