Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—JULY. 1963—PAGE 7
SOUTH CAROLINA
USC Acknowledges Admission Denied Because of Race
‘‘ COLUMBIA
.y
y HE University of South Caro-
i j X lina acknowledged in U.S.
® pistrict Court June 21 that it had
■j denied admission to a 17-year-old
Negro girl because of her race,
af * But attorneys for the school argued
* that Henri Dobbins Monteith’s suit to
m admission (Monteith v. University
to of South Carolina et al) was premature
t^cause she had not made application
• for the 1963-64 school year.
In addition, South Carolina lawyers
i. told Judge J. Robert Martin at the
is preliminary hearing that the suit
r- , s h 0U ld not be brought as a class action.
The hearing on the case, pending
'• since Oct. 31, 1961, lasted just an hour.
a ' The number of witnesses and the a-
1 m ount of testimony was reduced when
the university agreed to a stipulation
le that the girl’s May 15, 1962 application
ce for admission was rejected because she
is a Negro.
of Matthew J. Perry, a Negro attorney
ty from Columbia who was associated in
i- Harvey B. Gantt’s successful suit to
, gain admission to another state-sup-
of ported college (Clemson) last fall, gave
i- the principal arguments for the plain-
a- tiff. The university was represented
lg j by Attorney General Daniel R. Mc
Leod, Assistant Attorney General
James S. Vemer and David W. Robin
son, a lawyer in private practice who
a- has been hired by the state to assist
ve in previous school desegregation suits,
as
.. 3 Witnesses Called
En Route to Courtroom
he
lly 1
he
«- i
to i
ed
to
on
rer '
n-
d
nd
iv- !
•e-
m-
is
ma i
the
nd
al- i
la-
jes
aid
ich -
in
iti-
o*
the j
ion
ion !
ing
®d
ual
do
gal
jal
,Cf
in-
as
aeir
0-
3 eif
ited
DC'
i a®
niS'
for
the
juif
a*”
ffi-
jr<r
pud
ioXO
Perry called only three witnesses—
Miss Monteith; Mrs. Rebecca M. Con
nolly, administrative secretary of the
S.C. Regional Education Board; and
Rollin E. Godfrey, director of admis
sions and registration at the university.
The defendant called none.
Miss Monteith told of receiving a
letter from Godfrey telling her that her
application could not be “favorably
considered.” She testified that she then
entered the College of Notre Dame
for Women at Baltimore, where she
had a “B” average.
Godfrey testified that his office car
ries out the policies of the school with
regard to admissions. He also said Miss
Monteith was turned down because of
race.
He acknowledged that the girl’s 1962
application was in order except in one
minor detail.
Mrs. Connolly testified about South
Mrs. R. R. Monteith, a Columbia schoolteacher; lawyer Matthew Perry, litigant
Henri Monteith.
Carolina’s program for providing schol
arship and travel funds for Negro stu
dents to attend out-of-state schools
when courses they seek are not offered
at state-supported S.C. State College
for Negroes.
She told the court such grants are
also available to white students.
In final arguments, Perry said, “The
proof is incontrovertible that she filed
an application . . . and it was returned
to her because of her race and color.”
‘Policy of Superiors’
He said Godfrey, in rejecting the
application, ‘reflected the policy and
attitudes of his superiors.”
He also noted a Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals decision in the Gantt case
(Gantt v. Clemson Agricultural Col-
Alabama
(Continued From Page 6)
®ue a desegregation injunction would
to create confusion without accom-
Plishmg anything.
flAArp ®° ns ^ ance Baker Motley,
A attorney representing James
lren^ r ° n ff hi behalf of his four chil
li i Judge Lynne’s decision was
Sh. ** abuse of judicial discretion.”
“obvi 6S ? r ^ e d the placement laws as
segreg^- a device for retarding de-
r esponr|kj an *' S a ttomey, Reid Barnes,
to j. ea that the burden of moving
Plaintiff gre§ate rests with the Ne e ro
Ce durp S ’ Wb ° must comply with pro-
Mrs ° ut * n the placement act.
in . ey said: ‘The law is settled
seeking ClrcLat that Negro plaintiffs
*fn unc tive relief against the
te® neeH operat t on of a school sys-
^Biedv n0t ex h aus t an administrative
w t r d t d by a state p u p°
kg law before injunctive relief
Neg^ ran , t;e .^ w hen it is shown that
Jurist ,.° Ptaintiffs, prior to invoking
^tition e ? n ,, °t the federal court, have
legate tk 6 sc hool authorities to de-
^ have r % wheels and these authori-
tarled or refused to do so.”
Ij ^"'tes Board Inaction
Plaintiffs had petitioned the
"° ac fion v, ese S re gation, she said, but
X been taken.
^tinned - requested,” Mrs. Motley
l he Se J, Is n °t merely the transfer
n<>* , White gr ? c hildren desiring to at-
Ute schnr.1 c k..A . ■
bl^
,ve#
ion*
d &
opl £ -
ion 3
rus-
of tb SChools > hut the reorgani-
" ! '° tl raciai schools system on
les said
that^tb evi dence had been ad-
-jA ° n the b boar d had assigned chil-
^ en terW fi aS ‘ s of race —“but rather
Negj. st-grade students, white
-"° u ght all ke, ■
t r lunta rHy
Si e '’iden C e added
°PPosi+f ' ‘ ’ Ih®* there is a very
4! ° f aU r‘r ° n the P®rt of aU citi-
I\ rent ra ce „ 6S the mixing of the
S a PPeal * sch ools.”
Judges—Judge Elbert
invariably were
to schools by the
“There is undis-
Tuttle of Atlanta, Judge Richard T.
Rives of Montgomery and Judge Walter
Gewin of Tuscaloosa—were expected to
rule quickly on the case.
★ ★ ★
The Justice Department announced
June 27 it would appeal a federal court
ruling that the department does not
have the right to sue for school deseg
regation.
U.S. District Judge H. Hobart Grooms
of Birmingham ruled May 29 (SSN,
June) that the Justice Department was
“without authority” in its Jan. 18 suits
to desegregate schools at Huntsville and
in Madison County.
The Justice Department based its case
on the number of children of personnel
at Redstone Arsenal, and at related
space and missile facilities, attending
schools in the city and county.
Grooms noted that Congress had re
peatedly rejected desegregation riders
on bills granting federal aid to educa
tion in impacted areas.
“Except in the field of voting rights,”
Grooms said, “the Congress has granted
the government no authority to bring
such a suit as this. In fact, it has re
fused to grant such permission.” (SSN,
June.)
★ ★ ★
The University of Alabama Board of
Trustees filed notice June 19 that it
would ask the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals to overturn a Birmingham dis
trict court’s order refusing a delay in
admitting Negroes to the university.
The board had asked Birmingham
District Judge H. Hobart Grooms to de
lay an admission order because of
recent racial trouble in Birmingham.
Judge Grooms refused (SSN, June) and
two Negroes were admitted on the main
campus at Tuscaloosa June 11 and at
the university’s Huntsville Center June
13.
The effect of the board’s appeal, if
sustained, would be to remove the
Negro students already attending
classes. The appeal was generally re
garded in Alabama as a pro forma
gesture.
lege of S.C. et al) which said there
was little difference in discouraging de
segregation, as District Judge C. C.
Wyche ruled South Carolina’s laws do,
and requiring segregation.
Robinson, summing up for the state,
said there are legal precedents which
indicate the case should not be brought
as a class action but should be “limited
to the party to the action.”
Noting that Miss Monteith has not
applied for the upcoming school year,
Robinson said she has “the same stand
ing ... as any white applicant.”
After the hearing Miss Monteith told
reporters she would soon apply for the
1963-64 term.
Later in an interview with a news
paperwoman, she said;
“When I was a senior at St. Francis
de Sales (in Powhattan, Va.), I was
thinking about places to go to college.
I applied for admission to the uni
versity . . . because it was close to my
home, offered the courses I wanted to
take . . . and it would be cheaper than
having to board somewhere at college.
I hoped to be a day student.”
(The Monteith family lives on a
small farm less than 10 miles from the
University of South Carolina’s main
campus in Columbia.
She says she wants to study medicine
eventually.
In another portion of the interview,
she said that she doesn’t believe in
“racial fanaticism.”
Schoolmen
Catholic Schools
To Be Biracial
By September 1964
South Carolina’s 37 Roman Catholic
parochial schools will be desegregated
by September, 1964.
This timetable was announced June
24 by The Most Rev. Francis F. Reh,
bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina.
He said it is possible that some schools
may desegregate during the coming
school year.
“It is a simple moral question. We
have no choice,” Bishop Reh said.
“Segregation is contrary to the law
of Christ. We cannot tolerate this un
willingness to give dignity to the
children of God.
“We realize that this may be difficult,
but Christ often calls upon us to act
in difficult situations. I expect my
Catholic people to be full Christians
and cooperate in all matters.”
The bishop said that all South Caro
lina priests support the plan.
The bishop suggested that there is
an “exaggerated fear of the difficulty
involved” and pointed out that St.
Anne’s school in Rock Hill near the
North Carolina border has had a bi
racial student body since 1954.
This is the only Catholic school in
the state now desegregated. It had 105
students, including 14 Negroes, during
the last term.
There was some indication that de
segregation will come quicker in the
smaller parishes. Said Father James
R. Gorski of Columbia’s St. Peter’s:
“Doubtless the need is more pressing
in areas where there is only one Cath
olic school.”
South Carolina has approximately
36,000 white and 4,000 Negro Catholics.
More than a third of them are in the
Charleston area where Bishop Reh sits.
All Methodist
Colleges May
Desegregate
Methodist-supported colleges in South
Carolina now are free to desegregate
if they choose.
The South Carolina Conference of
the Methodist Church, meeting in Co
lumbia June 13, adopted a resolution
which placed “no restraints” on the
boards of trustees of the colleges.
The denomination maintains three
colleges in the state—Wofford (for men)
at Spartanburg, Columbia (for women)
at Columbia, and Spartanburg Junior
College (co-educational) near Spartan
burg.
The resolution that was approved was
offered as a substitute for one that
would have opened the institutions to
all qualified students, regardless of
race.
The resolution expressed confidence
in the boards of trustees of the three
schools “both as regards their spiritual
dedication and their administrative
wisdom.”
It said the conference placed “no
restraints on them in their policy
making activities in regard to the ra
cial or other composition of the student
bodies . . .”
After the resolution passed, the pre
siding bishop of the conference, South
Carolina-born Paul Hardin, made
a statement which he said was promp
ted by the tense racial situation in the
South.
‘Source of Grief’
“. . . it is a source of grief to me to
see my beloved Southland and the
Methodist Church torn by the race
issue.
“My anguish is all the more acute
when I realize that basically the main
issue is not race but simple justice
and personal diginity. It is as natural
for a colored person to seek his place
under the sun as it is for a white man
South Carolina Highlights
The University of South Carolina
acknowledged that a Negro girl was
barred because of her race but said
her suit for admission was filed pre
maturely.
Catholic Bishop Francis F. Reh
announced that the S.C. diocese’s 37
parochial schools will be desegregat
ed by September, 1964.
The state Methodist conference
gave boards of trustees a “no-re
straint” right to desegregate the de
nomination’s three colleges.
The NAACP outlined nine goals
during a meeting at Columbia.
Legislators failed to pass a bill
aimed at thwarting the federal gov
ernment’s impacted-area aid program.
to do so,” Bishop Hardin continued.
“The words ‘integrationist’ and ‘seg
regationist’ have become epithets. They
form a smoke screen which beclouds
the issue and divides our ranks. It is
as wrong and as sinful to despise your
brother over the race issue as it is
sinful to hate him for any other reason.
“Let no Christian, therefore, scorn
fully refer to anyone as a ‘segregation
ist’ and let no Christian angrily call
his brother an ‘integrationist.’. . .
“In Christian calmness and dignity,”
he concluded, “let us work together in
an effort to grant justice and oppor
tunity to all people—not because of
economic and political pressure but
because we believe that justice is the
common property of all free men.”
Bishop Hardin received a standing
ovation from the assembled ministers
and lay delegates.
Connecticut Students
Favor Biracial Policy
Ten University of Connecticut stu
dents, touring South Carolina on a one-
week ‘Come and See’ tour, left the
state June 8 still firm in their con
viction that desegregation is best for
Southern schools.
Designed to give the students a
greater insight into Southern problems
and progress, the tour was sponsored
by the South Carolina Christian Action
Council and was co-ordinated by the
Rev. Warren Molton, a South Caro
linian who is director of Connecticut’s
University Christian Fellowship.
The group, composed of six girls and
four boys (all from New England ex
cept one Chicagoan), reviewed political,
(See SOUTH CAROLINA, Page 9)
Community Action
Banning of School Segregation
Among Goals NAACP Outlines
The “banning of racial segregation
in all school districts in keeping with
the May 17, 1954, Supreme Court de
cision” was one of nine goals laid out
by South Carolina NAACP leaders at
a conference in Columbia June 5.
The announcement was accompanied
by a threat of “massive demonstrations”
and brought a sharp legislative retort
from Sen. L. Marion Gressette, chair
man of the State School (segregation)
Committee.
Some 75 NAACP leaders met with
President J. Arthur Brown of Charles
ton and Field Secretary I. Dequincy
Newman of Columbia.
In addition to school desegregation,
the Negro group’s announced aims in
cluded: appointment of biracial com
mittees in each community; removal
of racial signs in public buildings;
desegregation of hotels and motels; de
segregation of all eating places open
to the public; banning of racial dis
crimination in all county and city edu
cational and penal institutions; estab
lishment of “merit employment” and
the general upgrading of Negro em
ployment opportunities in various pri
vate businesses and public agencies;
appointment of Negroes to city com
missions and committees; desegregation
of public libraries, recreational and
park facilities.
Newman said a copy of the statewide
goals would be delivered to the Gen
eral Assembly before scheduled ad
journment the next day.
Sen. Gressette, noting the legislature
was adjourning, decided not to wait
until he received his copy before re
plying. He rose in the Senate and
NEWMAN BROWN
called the NAACP move “a virtual
ultimatum on the state, the private
businessman and the citizens of South
Carolina.”
He said it was prompted by the fact
that there had been racial progress in
South Carolina “without noisy and
provocative antics to claim credit and
collect funds.
The legislative leader said that Negro
school children have benefited from
more than $100 million in state spend
ing for school construction and in
struction during the past decade.
He urged South Carolina Negroes to
“take a look at how far they have
gone in this generation, where they are
now and what the prospects are for
the future.”
Despite Gressette’s speech, Negro
leaders did not wait long to implement
their program. The first of a month
long series of demonstrations or “prayer
marches” was staged in Charleston
three days later (June 9). Demonstra
tions, sit-ins, etc., were concentrated
in Charleston during the remainder of
the month.