Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—APRIL. 1963—PAGE 3
LOUISIANA
Orleans Parish Sets Up Nonracial Attendance Zones
the
ela.
P*
surt
U
na-
onal
met
i the
de-
de-
the
was
itior.
the
wa;
pilot
Lgt<*
the
Hay;
jived
ty of
State
1 the
low
pt#'
> *
meri'
tigto 11 -
ie the
. c0®'
f
tari® 5
lharr
dt-i*
V
NEW ORLEANS
S ingle, nonracial attendance
zones for the first and second
grades of the Orleans Parish
public schools were designated
L 0 replace the dual units of the
existing system.
The new district lines were approved
by a 3-1 vote °f the Orleans Parish
School Board and will become effective
upon approval by the U.S. district
court.
Opposition to the plan developed
promptly- Plaintiffs in the Orleans
school case (Bush et al v. the Orleans
Parish School Board) filed a complaint
with the district court protesting the
redistricting, and the Citizens Council
criticized the plan, alleging that it
would put several thousand Negro chil
dren in hitherto white schools next
fall.
At its March 11 session, the board
approved a resolution setting the new
zone boundaries and specifying a “plan
for the desegregation of the public
schools of this parish, to implement its
existing plan and to establish appro
priate procedures to place it into op
eration.”
The “existing plan” referred to is
the board’s proposal of Aug. 27, 1962,
under which 107 Negro pupils were
admitted to the first and second grades
(mostly the first) last fall and a grade-
a-year progression was scheduled be
ginning in September, 1964. That pro
posal still is before the court.
The Resolution
In its resolution, the board asserted:
• “Compulsory segregation based
upon race is abolished in grades 1 and
2 of the elementary schools of the
parish of Orleans for the scholastic
year beginning in September, 1963, and
thereafter for one additional grade be
ginning with each subsequent school
year, i.e., for grade 3 in September,
1964; grade 4 in 1965, etc.
• “Beginning with the opening of
schools in September, 1963, the district
for the administration of the first and
second grades of each of the public
elementary schools in the parish of
Orleans shall be as is shown on the map
annexed hereto . . .; and thereafter,
said districts will be effective for one
additional grade beginning with each
subsequent school year . . .
• “The attendance districts for each
public elementary school, as presently
adopted by the Orleans Parish School
Board, shall remain in effect for all
children, except those in the first and
second grades for the scholastic year
1963-64.
0 “Every student entering the first
3n d second grades in September, 1963,
an d other grades as hereafter desegre-
?ated, will have the right to attend
e school designated for the zone in
"hich he or she resides, in keeping
a dministrative regulations which
" e a Pplied without consideration of
race.
* Applications for transfer of first
, sec °nd grade students in the
. olastu; year beginning in Septem-
he- 1?®’ f° r other grades as
,f ? . er desegregated, from the school
? ; v eir z °ne to another school, will be
Tante^ 316 ^ cons ideration and will be
cuts ^ w ^ en made in writing by par-
fo4i° r tutors or those a ting in the
’he- T P are nts when good cause
P'arti V s s ^ own and when transfer is
--L consistent with sound
, °L a<J nunistration.
her e u ” e Orleans Parish School Board
"ban4 re * ;a ' ns the right to modify or
‘o ln ^ any sc h°°l district lines in order
“ou'ic 6 m ost efficient and eco-
tk Use °f its facilities and to meet
?n<j an ds of a changing population
% conditions resulting from
' J^OoJ ^ OAta W 1 rtli /-vf VL TLTIT
of the construction of new
% Th
“ r ebv % ^Pcrintendent of schools is
. ' tk y directed te
% a * rec 'ted to establish dates for
- • er y registration of all children
“be -
( t,e? '4 enroll in the first and sec-
_ u a v s - °f the public schools of
V e rc- J^tes , f 1 , which said registration
Kt '953: ^ a , U b e no later than June 6,
e#- f° give full and complete
° * ‘Thp °f sa >d registration plan.
dii -| rect ed * boa rd’s attorney is hereby
6 vivt •A 1 ° Present, immediately, the
K set forth to the
a J? tes District Court for the
:;’ J kv a i lst rict of Louisiana, for its
_ sa 'd plan shall not be-
‘es* j t j s lye > nor operative, until and
oP 5 '
approved by said court.’
^ ° ne Dissenting Vote
dissent^ S ac fl° n was taken, with
Unn 11 ^ ,y o fe and one member
Sim? tae recommendation of
°- Perry Walker. In a
administration
arising from the physical condition of
the school plant, the school transporta
tion system, personnel, and the revi
sion of school districts and attendance
areas into compact units.”
Explaining further, the superinten
dent said: “In fixing the boundaries for
the attendance districts of each school,
your staff studied the present location
of each elementary school in the sys
tem, the location of new buildings, the
number of public school children liv
ing in each square in the entire city
of New Orleans, the present enroll
ment in each school, and the estimated
1963-64 enrollment.
“The designation of recommended
attendance districts was complicated
by the fact that, for at least the past
75 years, elementary schools in the
city of New Orleans were constructed
and districts for said schools were
drawn for a dual system. As a result
there are elementary schools in the
city located within one or two blocks
of each other, thus making it impos
sible to draw school attendance dis
tricts for a single zone, which districts
would be of equal size and have a
symmetry of shape.
Barriers Followed
“Furthermore, major traffic arteries
were used as the permeter of a school
attendance district, wherever possible,
so as to avoid the necessity for ele
mentary children to cross these dan
gerous thoroughfares. Also considered
were natural barriers such as water
ways, railroad tracks, parks, cemeteries,
housing projects, apartment units and
subdivision boundaries.
“In addition,” the superintendent
continued, “the staff, recognizing the
fact that elementary schools should be
neighborhood schools, attempted to
draw boundaries to coincide with the
general characteristics of the neigh
borhood surrounding each school,
wherever possible . . .
“In some instances it was necessary
Legal Action
Louisiana Highlights
The Orleans Parish School Board
designated single, nonracial attend
ance districts for the first two ele
mentary grades and proposed a
grade-a-year plan to complete de
segregation of the public schools.
NAACP attorneys protested to the
U.S. District Court in New Orleans
that the redistricting plan of the
Orleans Parish School Board is “in
adequate, unreasonable and inequit
able.”
Staff work began in East Baton
Rouge Parish to collect data the
school board will need to devise a
plan of desegregation as directed by
the federal court.
A hearing was held in federal
court at Shreveport on the Bossier
Parish School Board’s petition for
dismissal of the Justice Department’s
suit seeking to desegregate the par
ish schools attended by children of
federal personnel and supported by
federal funds.
to establish bus districts and the loca
tion and size thereof was dictated by
the number of available pupil stations
in each school and by the number of
buses available for transporting chil
dren from overcrowded areas to schools
with available pupil stations.”
Supt. Walker also pointed out that
in the absence of pupil preference
surveys and of practical experience
with the new zoning system that the
proposal should be accepted for one
year only, with provision made for
altering it as need arises.
“Furthermore,” he said, “based upon
the experience in this scholastic year
1962-63, it is anticipated that the par
ents of many children will prefer hav
ing their children attend the schools
they are presently attending rather
than attend the school assigned to their
residential district.
“It is therefore strongly recom
mended by the staff that you do not
attempt to abolish compulsory segrega
tion under a schedule calling for more
than one additional grade each year.”
★ ★ ★
Baton Rouge Begins
Desegregation Studies
Staff studies of problems and pro
posals for desegregation of the public
schools in Baton Rouge began March 8
on orders of the parish school board.
The board resolution calling for the
exploratory surveys came just three
days after federal district Judge E.
Gordon West directed the board to pre
sent a plan of desegregation by July 5.
This action, taken with stated re
luctance by the board, countered a
policy in effect since the court first or
dered desegregation “with all delib
erate speed” in 1960. Until the March 8
meeting, the administrative staff was
under specific instructions to refrain
from making any inquiries or gather
ing any data bearing on the desegrega
tion of the parish public schools.
Under the new directive, staff work
began immediately. Supt. Lloyd Lind
sey said on March 9:
“We are going to start work as of
today to comply with the board’s in
structions of yesterday. The first step
is for the supervisory and administra
tive staff to meet and outline the
questions we want answered and the
information we need to gather. We will
then meet with the board members to
ascertain what detailed information
the board needs.
“As we develop a method of pro
cedure, we will meet with the board
members frequently to keep them in
formed outside of the regular meeting
Zone Plan Called ‘Unreasonable’
“Inadequate, unreasonable and in
equitable” were the labels applied by
NAACP attorneys to the Orleans Par
ish School Board’s proposal for re
zoning the school system. Their op
position was stated during a pre-trial
conference held March 5 by U.S. Dis
trict Judge Frank B. Ellis with at
torneys for the contending parties in
in the case of Bush et al v. Orleans
Parish School Board.
Attorneys A. P. Tureaud of New
Orleans and Jack Greenberg of New
York asserted that there is no legally
acceptable reason to justify further
delay in completing desegregation of
the New Orleans public schools.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
had amended a district court order,
they recalled, to provide for an end
of the dual system of white and Negro
districts in the first two grades by next
fall, and in the first five grades the
following year.
Under the board’s proposal, the dual
districts will be combined into single
districts for the two lowest grades in
September. 1963, and the single district
scheme will advance one grade a year
thereafter.
Under the board’s plan, the attorneys
argued, children now in the second
and third grades will never have an
opportunity to attend desegregated
classes, as the circuit court has en
visioned in its order.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs also ob
jected to provisions in the board’s
plan which said that pupils will “have
a right” to attend the school in their
district.
This does not say that the pupils will
be assigned to the schools within their
districts as a matter of course, the
protestants said, and implies that pupils
who fail to apply for transfers will
stay in their present schools.
Further objection was voiced because
the plan does not prohibit the grant
ing of transfers on grounds of race
and does not establish specific criteria
for evaluating transfer requests.
Other Objections
Other objections were listed as:
• Constitutional rights to a non-
discriminatory education are ignored
under this proposal for children above
the second grade.
• The plan fails to come to grips
with inequities existing in Negro
schools, including overcrowding, inade
quate physical facilities, inequitable
distribution of school funds, and dif
ferences in curriculum.
• No provision is made for desegre
gating kindergartens at any time or
for the prompt desegregation of such
special schools as those for the handi
capped and gifted or those offering
special vocational training, or summer,
evening and adult programs.
• No provision is made for assign
ment of teaching staffs on a non-
discriminatory basis or to assure future
school plans and location without re
gard to race.
Judge Ellis set April 24 as the date
for hearing arguments in the case.
Bossier Board Denies
U.S. Pact Violated
The Bossier Parish School Board
violated its contract with the federal
government by accepting federal aid
as an “impacted” area then operating
the schools thus supported on a seg
regated basis, the federal government
argued in a district court hearing
March 22.
Not so, countered a battery of state
and parish attorneys for the school
board. No contract exists between the
board and the federal government,
certainly not one predicated on deseg
regated schools, attorneys for the re
spondent argued.
And besides, the Justice Department
is acting beyond its authority in bring
ing suit to desegregate the school sys
tem that has accepted the federal aid,
they added.
Judge Ben C. Dawkins gave the
school board attorneys 90 days to file
briefs to support their petition asking
for dismissal of the case and gave the
Justice Department 20 days beyond
that deadline to file its answer.
The hearing was the first in the case
brought by the Justice Department to
end segregation in Bossier Parish pub
lic schools which serve some 3,600
children of personnel assigned to the
Barksdale Air Force Base and the
Bossier Air Force Base.
A total of $1,737,486.41 has been re
ceived by the board for school con
struction since the aid to impacted
areas went into effect in 1950, and
$2,623,213.17 has been received for
operations.
The hearing was on the petition filed
by the defendants claiming that under
the acts of Congress authorizing the
program, the federal government has
no authority to try to upset existing
patterns of segregation.
Order for St. Helena
Desegregation Asked
In other legal actions, the U.S. district
court at New Orleans was asked to
order the St. Helena Parish School
Board to submit a desegregation plan.
Attorneys for the Negro plaintiffs filed
their motion March 8.
In it they noted that a motion asking
for a plan of desegregation had been
presented to the court Jan. 31, 1961.
At that time the school board sought
to delay compliance on grounds that
the state legislature had enacted a local
option law that would have permitted
localities to decide by the ballot if they
would maintain or close their public
schools when faced with desegregation.
A federal constitutional court subse
quently enjoined enforcement of the
local option law, but no action has been
taken in St. Helena Parish since.
St. Helena is a largely rural parish
bordering on Mississippi in the tier of
parishes north of Lake Ponchartrain
which are generally known as the Flo
rida parishes. Its enrollment of some
2,900 pupils is about 63 per cent Negro.
The federal district court in New
Orleans on May 25, 1960, first enjoined
the St. Helena board from requiring
segregation in the public schools “from
and after such time as may be neces
sary to make arrangements for ad
mission of children to such schools on
a racially non-discriminatory basis with
all deliberate speed.” The case is styled
Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board.
56 Indian Children
Call Schools Triracial
Fifty-six Indian children also went
into the federal district court March 29
asking for abolition of the triracial
system of public school they said is
operated in Terrebonne Parish.
Charging that the board has estab
lished three school attendance areas—
for whites, Negroes and Indians—and
assigns pupils on the basis of their race,
the suit asked that the school board
and superintendent be enjoined from
continuing this practice.
The complaint also alleged that the
plaintiffs presented themselves for en
rollment at the white schools in
September, 1962, but were denied ad
mittance.
The class action, in behalf of the
plaintiff and “all other Indian children
similarly situated,” asked for the case
to be advanced on the docket and
brought up for a speedy trial.
schedule, and of course some of this
procedure also will come up in regular
meetings.
“It will be a united effort involving
me, the assistant superintendent, the
supervisor of research and all super
visory staff members.”
Lindsey said conferences with school
authorities in New Orleans, the only
district in the state having begun de
segregation, would be helpful, but that
board approval of travel expenses
would be necessary to enable staff re
searchers to visit other cities.
At the March 8 meeting, board mem
bers debated the ramifications of their
action authorizing the study. Several
noted that this action did not neces
sarily mean they would devise a plan
for desegregation and present it to the
court. As adopted the board’s resolu
tion only specified that a study be
made.
The board’s resolution, offered by
member J. Randall Goodwin, directed
that the staff be ordered “to immedi
ately commence work to present to the
board at an early date its recommen
dations as to the best method of com
plying with the previous judgment of
the court, including such alternatives
as it considers possible and practicable,
in order that the board may determine
whether or not it is possible to devise
a plan which is feasible and acceptable
to all parties concerned.”
‘Mandate from Courts’
Goodwin prefaced his motion by
saying that “not one member of this
board wants to see a racially integrated
school system, but regardless of that,
we have received a mandate from the
federal courts. In respect for the
judicial system of the United States,
even though we disagree with the de
cision, we should begin to try to work
in good faith.”
Board member John White Jr. op
posed the resolution with a lengthy
statement, and, with member T. H.
Montgomery, voted against it. Nine
members approved.
In opposition, White asserted, in
part:
“It is now certain that the East Baton
Rouge Parish school system will be
racially integrated. No power on earth
can prevent it, and many powers on
earth insist upon it.
“There is one last choice left to this
school board: whether or not we sub
mit a plan of integration to the federal
court. The board’s legal counsel has
advised that we can decline to submit
a plan of integration and face no
penalty for contempt of court. No
member of this board is therefore com
pelled by law to vote for a plan of
integration.
“Under these circumstances I believe
the board should decline to submit a
plan of integration, because to do so
would constitute a voluntary sponsor
ship of what will follow. We do not
know what will follow, but experience
in other integrated school systems and
the opinion of educators concur in
supporting the prediction that educa
tion will be impaired.
“. . . The board has no responsibility
to participate in what its individual
members have said they oppose . . .
“This board should decline to par
ticipate in plannning integration of this
school system. At the same time, it
should indicate that any plan ordered
by the federal court will be complied
with only because every legal recourse
has been exhausted.
‘Appeal to Public’
“This board should appeal to the
public to exercise restraint from any
act of violence or disorder. The final
answer to usurpation of power is not
violence but political action of the most
concerted and persistent form.”
In response to White’s remarks, Mrs.
John E. Coxe said, “I think we were
elected (to the school board) to be the
leaders in our community for the
school system. If we sit on our hands
and do nothing, we will be acting like
immature adults.”
And in the discussion that followed,
board member A. T. Furr Jr. said, “As
I understand this resolution it doesn’t
mean that we will necessarily prepare
a plan. It simply means that we free
the staff to gather information we may
need and frees us to explore other
integrated school systems to learn how
to avoid the pitfalls, if we can avoid
them.”
However, White replied, “There is
no point in studying plans if we don’t
intend to submit a plan. I don’t think
we should toy with the judge or keep
our tongues in our cheek for four
months.”
And board president Ben Peabody
concluded by remarking, “I feel it is
imperative too that we study various
(See ORLEANS, Page 5)