Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.