Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

If 2? Factual THIRN SCHOOL NEWS SfOl Objective APRIL, 1963 Decision A VO ‘SN3H1V noisiaia snoilrsinoov . 53IHV88I1 V I 08030 JO AINf) : 8003-H-C9 NOP _m_ w pil Transfer Plans NASHVILLE 4 TT0RNEYS REPRESENTING Negro plaintiffs and several school ! systems in Tennessee are awaiting an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court which on March 21 took under advisement a request to strike down pupil transfer plans in Davidson County and Knox ville. Lawyers for both sides described the forthcoming opinion as “tremendously significant,” because of its possible ef fect on desegregation plans now fol lowed by school districts in Tennessee I and in other states in the South. Although only the school boards of Davidson County and Knoxville are in volved directly, the school systems of Memphis and Chattanooga joined in defending the pupil transfer provisions. Several other school officials from Southern cities were on hand for the arguments before the high tribunal on March 20 and 21. A decision is expected sometime be fore the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June. Some of the attorneys . said it could be handed down in April. Major Question The major question to be decided by | the court is whether the transfer pro visions, under which students of both races may transfer from schools where their race is in the minority, are un constitutional as contended by Negro petitioners and the Justice Depart ment’s civil rights division. Also presented before the court were arguments on whether the transfer pro visions deprive Negro students of their rights under the 14th Amendment by expressly recognizing race as a grounds for transfer. Attorney K. Harlan Dodson of Nash ville, representing the Davidson County board of education; Attorney S. Frank Fowler of Knoxville, counsel for the Knoxville board of education and At torney Jack Petree of Memphis, repre senting the Memphis board of educa tion, defended the transfer plan in their arguments. The Memphis and Chattanooga boards were allowed to file “friend of the court” briefs supporting the position taken by the Davidson County and Knoxville boards. Attorney Jack Greenberg of New York, counsel for the National Asso ciation for the Advancement of Colored People, presented arguments for the Negro plaintiffs who had appealed the decision of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati. The appeals court upheld the transfer provisions in April, 1962 in both cases (Maxwell et al v. Davidson County Board of Edu cation and Goss et al v. Knoxville Board of Education.) Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall, chief of the Justice Depart ment’s civil rights division which also entered the case as a “friend of the court,” contended that school boards could not use race as the basis ol transfer. Nashville attorney Avon N. Williams Jr., counsel for Negro plaintiffs in both cases, assisted Greenberg. Greenberg opened his attack on the transfer provisions by charging that both school systems adopted them pri marily to maintain as much segregation as possible. Today’s Supreme Court: Another School Case Sealed: Associate Justices Tom C. Clark and Hugo L. Black, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Associate Justices William O. Douglas and John M. Harlan. Standing Associate Justices Byron R. White, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart and Arthur J. Goldberg. ALABAMA Parents Join Government In Desegregation Suits ty’ s eti- ’"j a- iia' s t W Ik an* for res' ped thd \<r ft* lUH* LtioO 0 the - MONTGOMERY JUOVING INDEPENDENTLY of Jus- j tice Department suits filed if n . ^ against school boards in f bl e and Madison (Huntsville) •^unties, Negro parents in both M 6 - ^ ed class action suits in a'l f ■ s f e ki n g desegregation of ac ilities for all Negro students not just those from federally ^cted .families. of M ^ uc ^ e Daniel H. Thomas a m .. set a hearing for April 25 on ,erf iDor^ n b .y 11 Negro parents for a b:i e r ary abjection against the Mo- late h sc hool board. No hearing heen set on the petitioners’ ' n juncti 60US re< l uest l° r a permanent =nits . 1° end segregation. The Board of 1 ^ 8 ^ V ' Mobile County *ere n j °°l Commissioners et al) ™ March 27 in behalf of 20 ?ated _-(hen now attending segre- ° f°°k Mobile. (For back- °t suits, see SSN, March.) The fi Parents File Sui t (breh ji' e ,? un l sv ille parents filed suit “otrd of e ^° rd et al v - Huntsville (■- 1,^, 'vacation), contending that ■abarrw ^hool authorities had used : ' r Petuat S Placement Law to He ^ segregation. U.S. District e XDcof j Groom s of Birmingham ln iun r ,r 6c to hear the motion for t>Moh? “April- .1‘ssue >„• 6 su 'l requested the court C'-ials /"Junctions to prevent school (Stem” in '""Derating a “dual school 'V° tl tile 6 c °unty “based wholly C action aCe an< ^ color” of students. ijAcp /vas filed by New York b? Jack Greenberg, Hk a uu Baker Motley and gained Bel1 Jr- B 0 ?^ e ^ en hants are the Mobile !;/,^ tiliam r> School Commission- J- lack p Crane, Charles E. Mc- 1 ■ K e ‘ , lalee - Arthur Smith .^h^ord 6 H . Ss With SCh001 ; .r- a {* Qr ary and the motion for a and , Unction ask for speedy [ finick trial on the merits of the case. On March 29, Judge Thom as set April 25 for a hearing on the motion for a temporary injunction. A court order is asked to enjoin the defendants from “continuing to oper ate a dual school system in Mobile County based wholly on the race or color” of students, continuing to as sign teachers, principals and other professional personnel to schools on the basis of race and continuing to designate certain schools as Negro schools and certain schools as white schools. Also asked is an order to stop the appropriation of funds for segregated (See MOBILE, Page 8) The New York lawyer also told the court the plan is discriminatory. He said that while all the pupils are as signed first to schools on a residential zone basis, white students can transfer to white schools but Negro students cannot. Greenberg asserted the provisions are an attempt to “preserve segregation” and while “voluntary in a sense,” ac tually are state-enforced. “I don’t think they can require the school system to enforce their private prejudices,” he added. The lawyer said the Negro plaintiffs In This Issue State Reports Alabama 1 Arkansas 9 Delaware 2 District of Columbia 1 Florida 14 Georgia 15 Kentucky 16 Louisiana 3 Maryland 7 Mississippi 10 Missouri 4 North Carolina 13 Oklahoma 11 South Carolina 14 Tennessee 1 Texas 12 Virginia 5 West Virginia 12 Special Articles The Region 1 SERS to Prepare Book 4 SSN Receives Award 4 did not “quarrel at present with gen eral transfer provisions” in Nashville and other Southern cities, but he said these also could be “dangerous” if used to preserve segregation. “This is a racial rule set down by the state as to which child is permitted to transfer,” Greenberg said, referring to the provision under attack. Appearing first for the respondents, Dodson told the court that school zones had been formed without “gerryman dering” and without reference to race. He said no white or Negro student has been denied a request for transfer. While he said his appearance was in behalf of the Davidson County board of education, he told the high tribunal he also was “representing the interest” of the 354 Negroes in the county who voluntarily transferred back to Negro schools as well as the 288 white stu dents who returned to white schools. Dodson added: “A basic fallacy in the position of the petitioners and government is that an assignment made by the school board on request of the parents is state action. There is no difference between an assignment and permitting a transfer on request.” Number of Negroes In Biracial Schools Up The attorney also said the number of Negroes in biracial schools had in creased from 51 during the first year of desegregation in 1961 to 185. The sys tem was ordered by Federal Court to desegregate the first four grades in 1961, with a grade a year thereafter. Folwer said the Knoxville board of education would permit more transfers to biracial schools if it were convinced there would be “no disturbance.” The Knoxville attorney contended that forcing a student to attend a school where he was not welcome could re sult in possible violence. At the least, he continued, Negroes could be called bad names and white students in a Ne gro school could be called “poor white trash.” Fowler also told the court that too rapid desegregation “could lead to the collapse of the whole thing” as white people would move to the suburbs. He (See SUPREME COURT, Page 6) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Celebrezze Expects U. S. To Operate Base Schools WASHINGTON S ecretary of Health, Educa tion and Welfare Anthony J. Celebrezze announced March 5 that the new nonsegregated ele mentary schools which the gov ernment plans to build on military installations in segregated South ern communities “will be fed erally operated in every sense.” Celebrezze said arrangements for operation of the on-base schools will be made with the Department of De fense. He ruled out the possibility that local school boards in communities near THE REGION Five School Boards Adopt Plans F ive public school districts in the Southern and border states voluntarily adopted plans during March for new or addi tional desegregation, and four others were ordered by federal courts to take similar action. In addition, Negro plaintiffs seeking desegregation filed federal court suits against school boards in five districts. All of the new or accelerated plans adopted voluntarily are scheduled to become effective with the opening of the 1963-64 school year. Four of the districts are in Kentucky, the other in Texas. The Lampasas Independent School District in Central Texas announced that it would desegregate next Sep tember. In Kentucky, similar action was taken by the Allen County Board of Education, and the Barren County Board of Education adopted a plan to conduct biracial classes in six schools. Action taken by other Kentucky dis tricts included the adoption of two pos sible plans by the Simpson County Board of Education and a “complete in tegration” program approved by the Oldham County Board of Education. Partial desegregation has been under way in Oldham County since 1956. A fifth Kentucky district, Caldwell County, voted to close an all-Negro high school in a move interpreted as paving the way for biracial classes at the high-school level. In Louisiana, the Baton Rouge School Board, under federal court orders to present a plan before July 5, approved a staff study of problems and proposals in connection with desegregation. Orleans Parish Plan The Orleans Parish School Board, which desegregated the first and second grades under court orders last fall, designated single, nonracial attendance districts for the first two grades and proposed a grade-a-year plan to com plete desegregation of the system, fol lowing desegregation of the third grade in September, 1964. Negro plaint iffs objected to the plan, still pending in U.S. District Court. In response to federal court orders, the Leon County (Tallahassee) district in Florida submitted a grade-a-year plan, effective in September. A federal judge ordered desegregation of Gates- ville Independent School District in Texas’ Coryell County, also beginning in September. In Tennessee, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Taylor approved an accele rated plan which calls for biracial classes in both the fifth and sixth grades in the Knoxville district. The Lynchburg, Va., district, which began biracial classes in the first grade last fall, approved desegregation of the second and third grades in 1963-64 and, in compliance with a federal court order, voted to abolish dual attendance zones for whites and Negroes. In Fort Worth, Texas, a federal judge took under advisement a Negro request to order a speedup in that district’s grade-a-year plan scheduled to begin in September. A North Carolina federal court ordered Negro plaintiffs and school of ficials to formulate a desegregation plan for Transylvania County. Two of the five new desegregation (See FIVE, Page 12) the military bases will be given the option of running the federal schools. Celebrezze’s announcement reversed an earlier statement by Assistant Sec retary of HEW James M. Quigley, who had suggested that the local school boards might receive federal funds for operating the on-base schools. Quigley’s statement had drawn sharp criticism from the NAACP, the South ern Regional Council and other anti segregation organizations which had charged that the result would be a three-school system—nonsegregated on- base schools and separate schools for whites and Negroes off the military bases. Year-Old Decision Acting under a year-old decision that segregated schools would be held “un suitable” to receive federal funds for educating dependents of government personnel residing on federal property, HEW announced in February that on- base schools would be opened next fall at Fort Jackson and Myrtle Beach Air Force Base in South Carolina, Fort Stewart and Robin Air Force Base in Georgia, and Fort McClellan and Fort Rucker in Alabama. Two more installations—Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, and England Air Force Base, Louisiana—were added to the list March 15. The HEW announce ment said: “The two school districts affected were advised in late January of the department’s intention to build on-base schools if the districts themselves would not provide a suitable education.” In his March 5 announcement, Cele brezze stressed that the segregated local school systems will not be given the opportunity to operate the new on-base schools “and will not, therefore, receive any federal funds with respect to the education of these children.” Celebrezze said that “with few ex ceptions,” the government expects chil dren residing on-base to attend the new nonsegregated schools He did not mention on-base high school students who presumably will con- (See SCHOOLS, Page 2)