About Southern school news. (Nashville, Tenn.) 1954-1965 | View Entire Issue (July 1, 1963)
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.
