Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 18—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—JUNE, 1963
1
WEST VIRGINIA
Desegregation
Hikes College’s
Enrollment
CHARLESTON, W. VA.
TIT est Virginia State College,
** organized as a Negro insti
tution, has grown largely because
of desegregation, its president,
Dr. William J. L. Wallace, said in
a review May 11 of the school’s
last 10 years.
He said the college has changed from
a very good institution for a minority
group to one accepted for all citizens.
It has experienced the highest percent
age growth of all colleges and universi
ties in West Virginia, he added.
In 1954 when the Supreme Court or
dered desegregation authorities had
feared there might be trouble on the
campus, Dr. Wallace said, but there
has been no real strife.
There have been complaints on cam
pus that discrimination has developed
in reverse, that white enrollees have
run into prejudice from the Negro on-
campus majority.
But there has been no all-out dis
cord. And State has slowly become an
institution where white and Negro stu
dents attend classes together, or en
gage in other campus activities with
out any significant problems.
Difficult Period
Dr. Wallace noted in an interview
that one of State’s most difficult periods
came after the post World War II col
lege boom. In 1947 there were 1,791
students, but by 1952 the total had
dropped to 859.
“I began to wonder why,” Dr. Wal
lace said. “Some of the reasons were,
of course, evident. West Virginia’s Ne
gro population had started to decline
and schools in the Southern states,
from which we drew many students,
were being improved.”
To counteract this trend, Wallace and
his staff started a program to encour
age more West Virginia Negroes to at
tend college, and enrollment made a
slight gain the next year.
When the Supreme Court ruled, and
the state board endorsed its decision
with a desegregation directive, there
was no immediate influx of white stu
dents, “but there were enough to show
that the community would accept us,”
Wallace said.
Then the growth pattern started and
the total today is 1,505. A significant
factor in this growth had been the in
crease in part-time students.
Dr. Wallace said the college today
operates with two primary objectives—
excellence in racial relations and in
academic programs.
It is in the field of race relations
that the college has received widest
attention. “I think we have achieved an
outstanding objective here,” said Dr.
Wallace.
“I can’t say race has been completely
eliminated as a factor,” he went on,
“but it is a minor factor in the opera
tion of the college.”
In addition to the student body, the
staff, faculty and nearly all student ac
tivities have been desegregated.
Legal Action
Hearing Awaited
On Suit To Speed
Desegregation
Parties to a suit that has an increased
desegregation tempo as its objective
still are awaiting a decision by South
ern District Federal Court as to when
the suit will go to trial.
Federal Judge John A. Field of
Charleston has not set a date for the
case of Taylor v. the Raleigh County
Board of Education. The National As
sociation for the Advancement of Col
ored People is a party to the suit on
the side of the plaintiff.
The suit was brought several years
ago and has been held on the inactive
calendar since the Raleigh board
agreed to racial desegregation of the
public schools on a voluntary basis.
This action grew out of a case in
Greenbrier County which went to trial
but was terminated after two days of
testimony when the board agreed to
the voluntary desegregation policy.
The Raleigh County case was re
opened by the NAACP last year when
its county leaders decided school de
segregation was not moving fast
enough.
Judge Field said several months ago
that he would arrange the hearing for
this spring.
GEORGIA
Desegregation on Increase Outside Atlanta
MACON
T he tempo of school desegre
gation in districts outside
Atlanta appeared to be on the
increase in Georgia as activity
was noted in Savannah, Macon,
Columbus, Augusta and Bruns
wick.
Atlanta schools removed color bars
in the classrooms under court order in
the fall of 1961 and is the only deseg
regated school district in the state.
Here, in brief, is the situation:
Savannah: The Chatham County
Board of Education set up a commit
tee to submit a grade-a-year desegre
gation plan and to implement it this
fall when the 1963-64 school term be
gins, after being ordered to do so by
the U. S. Fifth Circuit Court of Ap
peals.
Macon: A suit to desegregate Bibb
County schools’ students, faculties and
administrative facilities is expected to
be filed in federal court in the very
near future.
This move came after board of edu
cation lawyers asked a superior court
judge if the board had authority to
operate segregated schools and an at
torney for the Negroes asked the court
to declare unconstitutional the segre
gation section of the board’s charter.
The case was taken under advise
ment and lawyers given 20 days in
which to file briefs.
Augusta: Similar action was taken in
Augusta when the Richmond County
Board of Education asked a superior
court to determine whether the board
has authority to establish or operate
public schools other than separately
for Negro and white children, and if
the board has legal authority to put
Negro and white children in the same
school.
Columbus: The U. S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare asked
the Muscogee County Board of Educa
tion to submit a plan for educating
high school students from nearby Fort
Benning on a desegregated basis.
No deadline for the plan was set
and the board members did not dis
cuss the request after receiving it at a
May 13 meeting. At the same time, a
group of Negro citizens warned that
unless their desegregation requests are
met, “outside forces” may come into
the city to lead a drive.
The requests included desegregation
of all public facilities. Muscogee Ne
groes petitioned some time ago for an
end to discrimination in the schools on
the basis of color.
Brunswick: W. W. Law, president of
the Georgia chapter of the National
Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, said the Glynn County
Board of Education is discussing the
possibility of desegregation with Negro
leaders.
The Savannah situation, because of
the federal appellate court order and
the legal arguments of defense law
yers at an earlier federal district
court hearing in Brunswick, attracted
the most interest.
U. S. District Judge Frank M. Scar
lett presided at a hearing on a Savan
nah school desegregation suit which
was opposed by attorneys for white
youths using what they described as
a new technique.
The action, listed on court dockets as
Ralph Snell and others against the Sa~
vannah-Chatham Board of Education,
was originally filed in January, 1962,
by 36 Negroes seeking to enter a white
school in Savannah.
A group of white parents filed a mo
tion to intervene in the suit, based on
alleged damage to white students forced
to desegregate. They asked the court
to require the board to maintain seg
regated schools in addition to desegre
gated ones if desegregation was or
dered. Judge Scarlett termed the in
tervention approach “novel” and ruled
on March 29 to permit the interven
tion.
Representing the white youths seek
ing to intervene were Charles J. Bloch
of Macon, R. Carter Pittman of Dalton
and J. Walter Cowart of Savannah.
Bloch and Pittman are veterans of
many court battles over various aspects
of segregation and both are strong
states rights advocates.
They said they were laying the foun
dation for an entirely new type of ap
peal to the U. S. Supreme Court by
using the same type of arguments ad
vanced by the NAACP in the five
cases leading to the U. S. Supreme
Court desegregation decisions in 1954.
Mrs. Constance Baker Motley of New
York, a well-known NAACP attorney,
was the leading lawyer for the Negroes.
Gov. George Wallace of Alabama had
his legal adviser present and said prior
to the hearing:
“For the first time white children
will appear in court seeking appropri
ate protection of their educational op
portunities.”
Scarlett announced that the Negroes
were entitled to an injunction allowing
them to enter the Savannah white
schools in the fall of 1963 unless:
• The Negroes fail to prove to him
that they would be injured by con
tinuing segregation, or
• The defendant school board or the
intervening white students justify to
him the operation of a biracial system.
Dr. R. T. Osborne, professor of psy
chology and director of the student
guidance center at the University of
Georgia, testified that a published study
by him showing Negro students have
lower learning capacity was made on
the basis of statistics from the Savan-
nah-Chatham County schools.
Testimony Called
Inadmissible
Mrs. Motley questioned Scarlett’s
admission of testimony by the psy
chologist and said, “I’m sure that
after the three times the U. S. Supreme
Court has ruled segregation is uncon
stitutional there is no basis for admis
sion of this testimony.”
Scarlett answered that he was de
termined to permit a thorough airing
of the psychological evidence which the
white students’ attorneys said they in
tended to introduce in great depth.
Osborne said on cross-examination
that his tests did not take into account
any differences that may exist in the
facilities or the curriculum in the Sa
vannah schools. But he said the tests
“indicate desirability of separate edu
cational treatment of white and Negro
students.”
The psychologist said he set up the
achievement testing program for the
school system in 1954 and it has been
tabulated annually since on the basis of
tests administered by the teachers in
both Negro and white schools.
Another psychologist, Dr. Henry E.
Garrett, professor emeritus of psychol
ogy at Columbia University and now
teaching at the University of Virginia,
said that national tests proved “the
Negro child does not do better when
conditions are equalized.”
Garrett, an avowed segregationist,
further testified: .
‘Ruin White Schools’
“If you integrated massively you
would ruin the white schools—it would
pull the grade level down one to three
grades. This would bring frustration,
aggression, broken windows and mug
gings which are common results where
schools fail to challenge their pupils.”
The Negro ranks low in “abstract in
telligence,” Garrett said, and called that
the reason “there hasn’t been a civili
zation in Africa for 5,000 years.”
George S. Leonard, Washington, D.
C., lawyer brought in to assist in the
presentation of the case of the white
students, said his purpose was to prove
that differences among white and Ne
gro students require different educa
tional treatment for their own welfare,
calling for separate schools.
Mrs. Motley said all the attorneys for
the Negroes have to prove is that Sa
vannah’s schools are segregated to win
their case, and no efforts would be
made to rebut the testimony for the
intervenors.
Leonard said this was essentially the
same position which segregationists
took in 1954. At that time, he said,
psychological evidence was offered by
Negroes seeking desegregation, but the
defendants made no effort to rebut it
“because they thought they had the law
on their side.”
‘Fraud’ Against
Court Charged
Lawyers for the white youths argued
the 1954 psychological testimony repre
sented “a fraud” against the Supreme
Court.
Dr. Clairette Armstrong, a former
chief psychologist at New York’s Belle
vue Hospital, testified that in dealing
with juvenile delinquents she found
that on the average Negroes were less
intelligent than whites.
She said a study showed a third of
Negro truants in New York ran away
because of classroom problems, and
added they might have stayed in
school if they “had been in a har
monious group progressing at a rate
they could understand.”
She said she thought it was very
detrimental to a Negro child to attend
a desegregated school.
Dr. Ernest Van den Haag, professor
of psychology and sociology at New
York University and the New School
for Social Research, said, “Psychologi
cal injury from segregation is far less
than forced integration to both white
and colored races.”
He cited to the court one of his pub
lished articles titled, “Prejudice About
Prejudice,” and said some authorities
often ignore scientific evidence in favor
of moral opinions on the subject.
Van den Haag criticized authorities
cited in the 1954 Supreme Court de
segregation ruling and said one refer
ence in the decree actually found ex
actly the opposite to what the court
indicated. He said other statutes cited
in the decision were unsound.
The Dutch-bom, European-educated
sociologist said he knew of no study on
the effects on Negro children from en
tering a hostile white school, but he
said one study showed that the crime
rate rose as the amount of contact be
tween racial groups increased.
He testified one study showed aware
ness of race began at the age of three
or four years, and said members of
groups, including racial groups, tend to
identify with other group members and
prefer to associate with members of
their own group.
Favors Individual Choice
On cross examination by Negro at
torneys, Van den Haag said he would
favor racial association by individual
choice.
Dr. Wesley C. George, professor
emeritus of embryology and histology
at the University of North Carolina,
said, “No educational program could be
devised suited to both races.”
He cited studies which he said
showed that the brain of the Negro is
smaller than that of the average white
person, and his own studies which he
said showed that the relative weight
of the brain determines learning ca
pacity.
On the average, Negro brains are
about eight per cent smaller than those
of whites, George said.
George, who wrote “The Biology of
the Race Problem” while employed by
the State of Alabama, said desegre
gated schools would not eliminate any
hereditary traits of “intelligence or
behavior.”
Mrs. Motley and Derrick Bell of New
York, another NAACP lawyer, left the
courtroom in mid-aftemoon of May 10
to go to Jackson, Miss. They turned
the case over to B. Clarence Mayfield,
a Negro attorney from Savannah.
Dr. Robert Gayre, a Scottish educa
tor and editor of “Mankind Quarterly,”
a scientific publication dealing largely
with racial matters, was to have been
the first witness for the white students
on May 13. But Judge Scarlett, under
a Court of Appeals order to decide the
case on that date, did so.
A few hours after Leonard said fur
ther testimony would be repetitious and
the hearings ended, Judge Scarlett de
nied the injunction to desegregate
schools in the City of Savannah and
Chatham County.
Judge’s Conclusions
In a 10-page statement of findings, he
concluded:
• “White and Negro school children
have equivalent rights before this court
and are equally entitled to be consid
ered in the scope and content of con
stitutional rights.
• “A reasonable classification within
the meaning of the equal protection
clause of the Constitution would be one
which secures the maximum results in
the educational process for all students
and the minimum injury to any.
• “The classification of children in
the Savannah-Chatham County schools
by division on the basis of coherent
groups having distinguishable educa
bility capabilities is such a reasonable
classification.”
The Negroes’ efforts to obtain an in
junction ordering desegregation in Sa
vannah moved to the Fifth U. S. Cir
cuit Court of Appeals. The State of
Georgia, not a party to the case but
lending legal assistance to Savannah-
Chatham school board, asked the court
to deny the motion for the injunction.
Attorney General Eugene Cook ar
gued:
The board had “already made a good
start toward implementing the decisions
of the Supreme Court . . . dealing with
desegregation of the public schools” at
the time the suit was filed in January,
1962. The board had appointed a com
mittee to study desegregation and it
was holding public hearings.
Evidence presented by white inter
venors in the case “presented for the
first time substantial issues” not previ
ously brought before the Supreme
Court or any other court. This in
cluded testimony by psychologists that
“enforced integration inflicts far greater
injury upon personality development
and education processes than any ills
heretofore thought to flow from en
forced separation.”
On May 24, the appellate court ruled
that all segregation in the Savannah-
Chatham County schools must be ended
with at least one grade fully desegre
gated by September, 1963.
The order further stated that a pljj
of desegregation must be submitted l-
July 1, and the court rebuked Judgi
Scarlett for not issuing a preliminary
injunction.
Judge Scarlett’s order denying th (
petition for a preliminary injunction
providing for desegregation was called
“a clear abuse of its (the district
court’s) discretion.” Scarlett was or-
dered to make the appellate courts
judgment his order, and to issue an in.
junction to that effect as the ruling 0 f
the Southern District of Georgia.
The appellate court said the plan or-
dered must include a statement that
the maintenance of separate schools for
white and Negro children of Savannah
shall be completely ended with respeq
to one grade during the school year
commencing September, 1963, and with
respect to at least one additional grade
each school year thereafter.
The Fifth Circuit’s unanimous opinion
was handed down by Chief Judge H-
bert P. Tuttle and Judge Griffin B. Bell
of Atlanta, and Judge Richard T. Rives
of Montgomery, following a 90-minute
hearing.
The court said that the 1954 Supreme
Court decision that segregated schools
are a violation of the 14th Amendment
should have ended the matter for the
district court, and the district court
should have done what the Supreme j
Court directed, that is to require that
the defendants make a prompt and
reasonable start toward complete de
segregation of schools.
“Instead of doing this,” the appellate
court said, “the trial court permitted
an intervention by parties whose sole
purpose was to adduce proof as a fac
tual basis for an effort to ask the Su
preme Court to reverse its decision in
Brown v. Topeka.”
Continuing, the order said:
“The district court for the Southern
District of Georgia is bound by the
decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
as are we, until that court overrules
its decisions ... no trial court may
upon finding evidence of a segregated
system, refrain from acting as required
by the Supreme Court merely because
such district court may conclude that
the Supreme Court erred either as to
its facts or as to the law.”
The appellate court noted that “since
it has now been more than nine yean
since the Supreme Court made it pl ai:
what the duties of boards of education
are under such circumstances,” ar ‘ L
further delay might prevent the b e ;
groes from enjoying “their clear rights
next fall, “we must determine what re
lief should be granted.”
Leonard argued during the hearW?
that the Savannah school system
not segregated but merely maintaine-
separate schools for white and N eSr y
children on the basis of their diff erir '
educational qualifications.
‘Pettifoggery’ Chaiged
“That is pettifoggery,” Judge
said, noting that Judge Scarlett
already found the system was se? 1 *
Leonard said studies have been
to show that desegregated schools o
side the South are more harmful
beneficial to Negroes.
“I can understand your argum
ient
ho*
Judge Bell said, “but I dont see rClfi
a lower court can overrule the S->P
Court.” o ra »-.
Three days later. Dr. Darnell
ner, president of the Chatham t „
School Board, named a commit * ,
work out a desegregation $-
headed by Julian Halligan, an
ance man. at tor-
Cowart said he and two °tn er . p
neys for the white parents plan 11
★ ★ ★
In the Colleges
Georgia University
Conduets First
Biracial Graduation
. the Uni'' er
Graduation exercises at tne ^ c .
sity of Georgia ma ked
school in Athens for Hamilto
and Charlayne Hunter. , j eI its “
The two, the first Negro stu ^ ^
attend a public biracial sc en tei^
educational level in Georg l%i un^
the university in January, ’
federal court order. Dnosellt f*
U. S. Sen. Richard B. R L®
dressing the first desegrega
ating class, said: oU r
“Much of the stability of pec^y
ernment has come from oU gn d 0
the choice of the majon > . ^ ,
abiding by this choice, even ^
have to accept^the verdict
vprsp maioritV.”
i
l
i
i
1
(
(
i
c
a
f
I
1
c
t
(
t
f:
r
A
o
E
b
tl
Ci
o:
P
0]
tr
w
o]
it
R
A
va
nc
Pi
sh
fo:
Cc
sei
Pr
W<
th<
of
me
an,
fu]
be]
mi
yoi
ex<
wil
Pet
695
in
tier
«
spe
trej
Edv
wil]
tty
Pro;
iPri
thej
Meg
T}
Pain
r ais<
spon
fam
St
Or
Sa