Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 2—APRIL, 1964—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
»
GEORGIA
U. S. Supreme Court
Weighs Legality of Atlanta Plan
(Continued From Page 1)
and a grade a year—in descending
order—-has been added since. The
eighth grade is to be desegregated this
fall.
Mrs. Motley told the court that about
150 of a total of some 56,000 Negro
students in the city have been admitted
to formerly white schools. Desegregation
will not reach the first grade until 1971,
she said, and the results of racial
assignments will not be phased out of
the school system until 1978—“almost
a quarter of a century after this court
held racial segregation in public edu
cation to be unconstitutional.”
Teaching Staffs
The NAACP counsel also took ex
ception to the city’s maintenance of
racially separated teaching staffs.
“When a school has an all-Negro
staff or an all-white staff, that labels
the school as an all-Negro school or an
all-white school just as effectively as
a sign on the door saying ‘Negro’ or
‘white,’ ” Mrs. Motley said.
Marshall told the court that the
Atlanta case provided a welcome op
portunity for review of the deliberate
speed concept in school desegregation.
Citing desegregation statistics for the
Deep South states, he said they “do
not show widespread compliance” and
in some instances reflect “no movement
at all.”
The Assistant Attorney General re
ferred to Washington, Baltimore, St.
Louis and Louisville as cities that had
moved to desegregate more rapidly
than had Atlanta, and added that even
in New Orleans, Norfolk and Little
Rock, where there were “severe prob
lems,” the pace has been more rapid.
Assures Compliance
But Latimer urged the court to sus
tain the “evolutionary process” adopted
in Atlanta, and assured the court that
the school board’s philosophy is and
has been “compliance—not defiance.”
“We don’t propose to take 30 years
to desegregate the Atlanta school sys
tem,” he said. “We don’t propose to
do it tomorrow if we are allowed
gradualism—but we do want to show
motion.”
Latimer said desegregation of At
lanta teaching staffs “will occur some
time,” but he said this problem should
be deferred until after the grade-a-
year desegregation plan has been per
mitted to run its course.
Latimer conceded that some of the
pupil-transfer criteria used in the past
were unconstitutional. But he said the
plan is now fully consistent with court
decrees, and told the high tribunal
that “Atlanta points with pride to its
accomplishments.”
School officials in Georgia and other
Southern states have studied the At
lanta desegregation pattern closely. A
similar plan was put into effect in
Chatham County (Savannah) and the
Bibb County (Macon) Board of Edu
cation has proposed a similar schedule
to a federal court. Birmingham and
Mobile, Ala., have plans much like
Atlanta’s.
Plan Called Evasive
Attorneys for the National Associa
tion for the Advancement of Colored
People argued Atlanta’s plan is an eva
sive scheme to retain a segregated sys
tem rather than a means of eliminating
it.
An estimated 58,041 whites and 55,764
Negroes are students in the Atlanta
system. A total of 145 Negroes are in
12 schools with whites.
The case was taken to the Supreme
Court after U.S. Judge Frank A.
Hooper of Atlanta denied a requested
speedup and the denial was later up
held by the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The transfer plan, which requires ap
plications from students wishing to
change schools, is not “an effective ve
hicle for desegregation because it pre
serves the biracial (separate) school
structure,” the NAACP brief argued.
The burden of leveling the structure
is placed on each individual child, the
brief contended, adding, “It is painfully
apparent that the plan calls for a war
of attrition, in which only the hardiest
will be able to bear the burden of a
contest with state power.”
‘Administrative Net’
Moreover, said the NAACP, “the
theory not only depends upon enmesh
ing each child in an administrative net,
but depends as well upon clothing re
spondents (the Atlanta Board of Edu
cation) — admitted wrongdoers — with
practically unreviewable discretion over
the quality and extent of their own
reformation.”
It was argued that Atlanta’s plan had
such an influence as to hamper school
desegregation elsewhere.
The new brief renewed a plea for
desegregation of teaching and admin
istrative staffs.
The U.S. Department of Justice on
March 6 asked the Supreme Court to
speed up school desegregation in At
lanta. But the city was quickly sup
ported by the State of Georgia in a
legal fight against the move.
Atlanta school officials were reported
angry over the justice department step.
They claimed the city had “bent over
backward” to comply with federal court
desegregation orders and now is being
punished “because things axe going so
well.”
State Attorney General Eugene Cook
said at a news conference that he had
been directed by Gov. Carl Sanders
to intervene as a friend of the court
on Atlanta’s side of the case because of
the justice department’s action.
The justice department brief, signed
by Solicitor-General Archibald Cox and
Assistant Attorney General Marshall,
said, “In Atlanta there is no present
obstacle to acceleration (of school
desegregation) and the Atlanta school
board has enjoyed three years of
experience . . .”
The plan originally approved by
Judge Hooper contained 19 steps which
a Negro had to take to be admitted
to a previously white school. All but
two of the steps—the reverse stairstep
feature and the requirement that new
or transfer students live near the school
in question—have been voluntarily re
moved by the school board.
‘National Concern’
The justice department said effective
implementation of the Supreme Court’s
school desegregation ruling “is a mat
ter of national concern” and said the
Atlanta case is of “unusual significance
in that it is the first to involve broadly
the merits of a school desegregation
plan.”
The aim of the appeal is in the direc
tion of complete desegregation of all
grades in the Atlanta system by Sep
tember, 1965, or six years earlier than
this would occur under the plan.
Attorneys A. C. (Pete) Latimer and
Newell Edenfield prepared a defense
brief which the board reviewed March
10.
Officials were reported concerned
about the city’s prospects in the case,
based on the reasoning that the Su-
prem Court would not have agreed to
hear the appeal had it not been anxi
ous to break new ground in court
decisions governing the pace of deseg
regation.
Faculty Issue
Local officials pointed out that the
court has never spoken on desegrega
tion of school faculties, which is part
of the appeal.
Latimer said there is a possibility
that the court will define what it meant
when it originally said school desegre
gation must proceed “with all delib
erate speed.” This guideline was given
by the high tribunal in its decision
on May 17, 1954.
Atlanta school officials noted that as
of next fall, all Negroes now in the
seventh-grade level will enter high
schools under the city’s “feeder” plan,
which sends students normally to the
schools nearest them.
★ ★ ★
Daugherty County Orders
Court-Approved Plan
In Albany, the Dougherty County
Board of Education ordered desegre
gation of the first and second elemen
tary-school grades and two vocational
cox
Georgia Highlights
The U. S. Supreme Court con
sidered arguments on whether there
should be a speedup in Atlanta’s
grade-a-year school desegregation
plan, and Atlanta education officials,
as well as those in Savannah, Ma
con, Columbus and other Georgia
communities, watched closely to see
if the court gives instruction as to
what pace constitutes “all deliber
ate speed.”
A federal appellate court ordered
desegregation of the first and sec
ond elementary grades and two voca
tional schools next September in
Dougherty County (Albany).
Negro plaintiffs objected and a
federal district court set hearings
for April 13 on a proposed desegre
gation plan for Bibb County (Ma
con).
Answering a desegregation suit,
the Muscogee County (Columbus)
Board of Education said four Ne
groes have been accepted for en
rollment in white schools next fall.
schools March 24, following a federal
court order.
Desegregation of the schools in the
South Georgia city, scene of many ra
cial clashes in the past few years, will
begin in September of 1964. Countywide
school registration is scheduled for
April 6-10.
U.S. District Judge J. Robert Elliott
of Columbus approved the board’s pro
posed grade-a-year school desegrega
tion plan in 1963 but Negro parents
appealed. On March 20, the Fifth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in New Or
leans ordered a modification, saying
that the first two grades should be de
segregated as a first step, along with
the vocational schools.
In announcing compliance, the
Dougherty board called on all parents
to co-operate “in this change in the
operation of the schools ... so that
the change may be orderly and har
monious.”
Under the approved plan, children
will register at the school they desire to
attend. Assignments will be made on
the basis of nearness to the school, stu
dent capacity and availability of trans
portation facilities.
Jurisdiction Retained
The appellate court retained juris
diction in the case, pending at U.S.
Supreme Court decision on the valid
ity of Atlanta’s grade-a-year school
desegregation program.
Members of the appellate court were
Chief Judge Elbert Tuttle of Atlanta,
Judge John Minor Wisdom of New Or
leans and Judge Harold Carswell of
Florida.
Negro attorney Derrick Bell of Al
bany said the plan’s requirements on
school proximity, capacity and trans
portation would impose “severe restric
tions” on Negro students’ applications.
He also said that, under the plan, de
segregation would occur only if Negro
pupils apply for admission to a white
school, and there is no automatic as
signment of pupils to schools except
under a still-existing racially zoned
school system.
Judge Carswell said that since the
plan does not go into effect until next
fall, the Negro plaintiffs in the case are
“anticipating a problem” before it has
arisen.
Bell said desegregation of Dougherty
County schools was delayed a year be
cause of “community hostility,” among
other reasons.
Judge Tuttle said even the “danger
of bloodshed” cannot be a reason for
delaying desegregation, and cited an
earlier court ruling in an Arkansas
school case.
Jesse Walters, attorney for the school
board, said the original school deseg
regation plan had not been implemented
yet because of community hostility and
also because the plan was approved
only a few days before opening of the
schools in September, 1963, and it was
thus administratively impossible to put
into effect at that time.
Appellate Court Hearing
In the appellate court hearing, Walt
ers argued that the grade-a-year plan
already was functioning in other cities
with federal court approval and would
guarantee an orderly transition “with
out chaos and confusion.”
Judge Tuttle answered, “The criteria
of your plan could be applied in good
faith, and still not one single instance
of desegregation could be accom
plished.”
Judge Wisdom said, “I can see an
opportunity for finagling under this
plan (the grade-a-year plan) . . .
There is room for manipulation.”
Walters argued that the board would
keep faith in implementation of the
plan.
★ ★ ★
Board Says Desegregation
To Start with Fall Term
Four Negroes have been accepted for
enrollment in September, 1964, in two
previously white schools, the Musco
gee County (Columbus) Board of Ed
ucation announced March 19.
The board disclosed its acceptance of
the Negroes in answers to a desegre
gation suit filed last year with U.S.
District Judge J. Robert Elliott in be
half of five Negro children.
A grade-a-year desegregation plan
for the 1964-65 school term was re
vealed in answers to a series of ques
tions posed by attorneys for the Negro
children. The board said it had ac
cepted transfers until last Feb. 15 and
transfer requests of four Negroes had
been approved. One of the 12th-grad-
ers will go to Columbus High and three
to Baker High School.
Judge Elliott set March 31 as the
date to hear arguments in the suit.
★ ★ ★
A constitutional revision policy com
mittee is rewriting Georgia’s constitu
tion and will submit it to a special
legislative session in May. It was re
ported a subcommittee reviewing edu
cation laws of the state will strike a
clause saying that “separate schools
shall be provided for white and colored
races.”
What They Say
Wilkins Warns
Against Hatred;
Georgia Lauded
Roy Wilkins, executive secretary of
the NAACP, at the 12th annual South- *
eastern Conference of the organiza
tion in Macon, warned against hatred
of white people and stressed the im
portance of Negroes registering and
voting.
At the same meeting, the Rev. R. L.
Smith, a Negro minister from Jackson.
Miss., said Georgia should be “praised
for the way it is handling its race prob
lems.”
★ ★ ★
Both “pessimistic leaders and over-
optimistic leaders” of civil-rights ef
forts are “false prophets,” Dr. Benjamin
E. Mays, president of Atlanta’s More
house College, told a meeting at the
Butler Street YMCA in Atlanta. He
called for “sane realism” and said “the
nonviolent method is the best way” in
the present crisis.
★ ★ ★
Dr. Martin Luther King of Atlanta, i
a Southern Negro desegregation leader,
predicted in an interview that civil
rights demonstrations will reach record
proportions this year.
Compromises and “concessions” will
not solve Atlanta’s racial problems,
Hamilton Douglas, chairman of Mayor
Ivan Allen’s Committee on Racial Mat- j
ters, said.
He said, “This is not an Atlanta
problem or a Georgia problem. It’s a
worldwide social revolution and it’s not j
going to stop until the full measure |
of rights guaranteed are actually
granted.”
Miscellaneous
19 Students Get
Tuition Grants
The State Department of Education
announced that only 19 students are
currently receiving state grants for tui
tion at private schools. All attend Burke
Academy in Waynesboro.
More than 1,200 Georgia pupils re
ceived tuition grants during the 19° ' j
63 school year, amounting to about $1 1
each.
The law was passed in 1961 while
Ernest Vandiver was governor and
designed to give state financial assi
ance to students who preferred pnva e
segregated schools to public desegre
gated schools. Many of the appli 031 )
who received the grants were alrea^f
in private schools when the law
passed.
The law was amended in 1963 to r*
quire local school boards and theiCO i
ty governing body to certify a ne ™__
the program and to require local ^
payers to pay the same proportion ^
the grants as they paid public sen. J
under a Minimum Foundation Progr
for Education formula.
Bibb County Hearing Set April 13
Judge W. A. Bootle of U.S. Middle
District Court of Georgia set April 13
for a hearing on the Bibb County
(Macon) school desegregation plan.
Negro attorney Donald L. Hollowell
of Atlanta requested the hearing after
labeling “grossly inadequate” the plan
submitted by court order by the Bibb
County Board of Education.
The Bibb plan would provide for
desegregation in reverse stairstep fash
ion, beginning with the 12th grade in
September, 1964, but encompassing two
grades in some years so that complete
desegregation of the system would be
completed with inclusion of the first
grades in 1972.
Objections by Hollowell said the plan
is “entirely inconsistent with reason
or necessity.” He said that since the
board’s plan would allow eight years
to extend some desegregation to all
grades and it has already been nearly
10 years since the Supreme Court ruled
segregated education unconstitutional,
“the defendants’ proposal that some 18
years after handing down of the deci
sion as being a reasonable time for
completion of desegregation of the pub- j
lie schools of Bibb County is ... j
objectionable.” I
Under the plan, Supt. Julius Gholson
would act on applications of Negro stu
dents to transfer to previously white
schools. Hollowell objected to this on
grounds that “no criteria are enumer
ated by which the superintendent is to
be guided in making such designation;
nor is there any procedure set out gov
erning the appeals from the superin
tendent to the board should there be
some dissatisfaction with the designa
tion. Also, there is no procedure enu
merated by which one might appeal
from the action of the board to the
State Board of Education.”
NAACP Objections
Hollowell objected that “there has
been no revision in ‘the identification
of residential areas or in the identifi
cation of the high school to which
pupils graduating from the several
grammar schools are assigned,’ nor is
there any suggestion that any change
might be affected in the near future,”
and because “no basic plan is reason
ably established for bringing about a
transition to a unitary nonracial system
at any time in the immediate future.”
Factors to be taken into account by
the superintendent in granting or re-
iing to grant requests of Negro
nts for reassignment “withou s ^
% out what those general factors ^
tre objected to as “so gener
ve little meaning.” > to
Hollowell objected to a P r0 ?° sc { 1 od
: up a biracial committee o ^
ministrative personnel or tea i
vise on the plan as “too § e jgd
d said it did not establish a j,?
re limit for action. Considerau ^
; committee, the Negro attorn ^
aid take many months an rga „
“paration of “an effective
rable plan.” . t the
finally, Hollowell objected ^ flf
in appeared to place the sVS teir
tiating change in the P rese ,. ho ut
those seeking transfers w ^ard 1
fendants (members of r evi^
tiating any real action m
icil
present dual system. roufl 1
a a speech before the ft 3C ° ^illiaP)
Human Relations March »> g gib°
Randall, a Negro leader, sam ^
mty school desegregation P year
aid desegregate four gt*** ^
-ting with the 12th, 1 ’ ota bl e ’ a '
and grades would be a f juteg 1 *"
vould “at least give token
l in three years.