Newspaper Page Text
i
PAGE 6-B—MAY, 1964—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
TEN YEARS IN REVIEW
MISSOURI
Attorney General Dalton Held
Law Invalidated by Decision
ST. LOUIS
T he attorney general of
Missouri ruled July 1, 1954,
that Missouri public school dis
tricts could permit white and Ne
gro children to attend the same
schools, under the U.S. Supreme
Court decision.
Attorney General John M. Dalton
(who is now governor) declared, how
ever, that until the Supreme Court’s
final decree was entered, he could not
hold that Missouri public schcool dis
tricts had to desegregate their classes
immediately. He said he could not state
until the final decree was entered the
method by which the separate school
system had to be abolished and the
date by which the desegregation had
to be completed.
The opinion held that provisions of
the Missouri Constitution and laws that
required the maintenance of separate
schools for Negro and white children
“are superseded by the decision of the
United States Supreme Court and are,
therefore, unenforceable.”
Because of this, Dalton ruled, there
was then no valid law in Missouri
that either required or permitted seg
regation of the races in the public
schools.
The State Board of Education had
asked Dalton for the opinion so
Missouri public schools would be ad
vised on how to proceed under the
Supreme Court’s decision.
Commission Reports
At least 95 per cent of Missouri’s
Negro school children were attending
schools in desegregated districts by
May of 1959, the Missouri Advisory
Committee of the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights reported June 7, 1959.
Figures on school desegregation tend
to be misleading, however, the re
port said:
“ . . . the percentage of Negroes in
desegregated situations bears no direct
correlation to the numbers of Negroes
actually attending schools with white
children.
“Even where desegregation has been
Gov. John M. Dalton
Issued a ruling
sincerely attempted on all grade levels,
the vast majority of Negro pupils are
still attending segregated schools. This
anomalous situation is the direct result
of residential segregation.”
The 119-page report was based on
a survey of 100 school districts in which
91 per cent of the state’s estimated
77,000 Negro school children were en
rolled in 1958-59. Of the 100 districts,
55 responded to queries as to the year
in which desegregation was initiated
or completed, the report said. Of these,
21 desegregated in 1954-55, 13 in 1955-
56, 10 in 1956-57, eight in 1957-58 and
three in 1958-59.
“If these figures actually reflect the
progress of desegregation in Missouri,
it might be assumed that desegrega
tion attained its peak in 1954,” the re
port continued. “Therefore the process
seems to have slowed up.
“Perhaps there has crept in a certain
amount of complacency as a result of
the favorable comments which Mis
souri’s attitude toward desegregation
has elicited outside the state.”
Legislation
(Continued from Page 5-B)
ened old ones concerning barratry—
the illegal solicitation of lawsuits. Such
actions were directed primarily at the
National Association for the Advance
ment of Colored People, whose law
yers have represented complainants
in most school desegregation cases.
Southern states and those bordering
the North took opposite courses in
their creation of committees, commis
sions or other groups for action in
connection with segregation-desegre
gation problems.
Committees concerned largely with
means of preserving school segregation
or minimizing desegregation were
provided by legislation in nine Sou
thern states and were appointed by
governors without legislation in Ark
ansas and Texas. Some—such as South
Carolina’s Gressette Committee—have
continued highly active to the present.
Six Southern states—Alabama, Arkan
sas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi
and Virginia—provided additionally
for state sovereignty commissions or
similarly named groups to work on
behalf of “states’ rights.”
Rights Commissions
On the other hand, all the six bor
der states, and the District of Colum
bia provided for human-rights com
missions or similarly named bodies,
Arkansas
(Continued from Page 4-B)
Faubus, in 1962, won his fifth con
secutive term, over the strongest op
position he had faced thus far. Never
theless, another constitutional amend
ment sponsored by him was defeated
in November. It would have guaranteed
a segregated education for any child
who wanted it.
Mansfield and Gosnell desegregated
in September, 1962, and Pine Bluff,
having postponed its start during the
Little Rock strife, got its program go
ing the following year. That made 13
districts with some desegregation. Two
more, Texarkana and North Little
Rock, have promised to begin in the
fall of 1964. Gov. Faubus has announced
he will run for a sixth term.
inclined toward desegregation and
dedicated to seeking means for recon
ciliation of racial differences. The only
such commission in a Southern state
so far is in Tennessee, where it was
appointed by Gov. Frank G. Clement
this year without enabling legislation.
During the years immediately fol
lowing the Supreme Court’s decision
in the Segregation Cases, protests
emanated from practically every Sou
thern legislative hall. Nine states took
steps resorting to the doctrine of inter
position—a historic concept of inter
posing state authority between the
people and the national government.
But efforts by the Arkansas and Lou
isiana legislatures to apply interposi
tion during school controversies were
voided as unconstitutional by federal
courts.
There were various forms of pro
tests and proposals for limitations of
federal power over the field of edu
cation. Georgia legislators sparked a
move in 1955 toward a federal con
stitutional amendment to give states
sole authority over public schools.
Mississippi legislators asked Congress
to limit the jurisdiction of federal
courts. Georgia lawmakers in 1956
called for impeachment of six Supreme
Court justices in connection with their
positions on school-desegregation;
Florida solons condemned what they
called the corut’s “usurpation of
power.”
In years to follow, Alabama legisla
tors asked the Supreme Court to
modify its school desegregation de
cree, urging its members to “restore
the rule of law” and also proposing
limited terms for members of the fed
eral judiciary. In 1957, the Tennessee
General Assembly by resolution pro
tested what it called federal encroach
ments on rights reserved to the states.
Texas legislators took a similar posi
tion, and they called for establishment
of formal qualifications for U.S. judges.
In 1959, while legislation against
desegregation and criticism of federal-
court decisions continued to pour from
Southern state capitols, the Maryland
legislature voted to ratify the 14th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution—
the 91-year-old basis for the deseg
regation decision.
By the end of the 1963-64 school
year, the state had an estimated 90,000
Negroes attending schools in the de
segregated districts, but only about 40,-
000 of these were believed enrolled in
schools with whites. Most of the state’s
Negroes in biracial schools are concen
trated in the large cities, St. Louis and
Kansas City.
St. Louis Acts
The St. Louis Board of Education
announced June 22, 1954, that racial
segregation would end Feb. 1, 1955, in
St. Louis high schools and in Septem
ber, 1955, in elementary schools. In
unanimous action at a special meeting,
the board said the process of desegre
gating white and Negro students would
be completed in St. Louis by the open
ing of the 1955 fall term.
The board started in September, 1954,
with desegregation of Harris and Stowe
Teachers Colleges and special schools
for handicapped children. The board
said it would be “possible” to end school
segregation in St. Louis by September,
1954, but the board declared such a
move would be “educationally undesir
able” for many children.
It defended its plan to space the pro
gram through a full year, arguing that
there would be “fewer mistakes and
fewer misunderstandings if we proceed
in orderly steps.” A main problem, the
board said, was revising new school
district boundary lines and explaining
them to parents.
Under the board’s plan, students at
tended school in the district in which
they lived, with two exceptions. One
allowed authorities to transfer students
from one district to another to relieve
overcrowding. The other exception al
lowed a student already enrolled at a
school to continue there through grad
uation, even when the new boundaries
placed him in another district.
Teachers and non-teaching employes
remained in the assignments they held
Demonstration in St. Louis
Parents protest, 1963
at that time “whenever possible.” They
were transferred “only to meet the
needs of the service.”
The St. Louis board also said in its
desegregation announcement that
teachers would be treated on an equal
basis, without regard to race or color,
and that their tenure rights would be
preserved. The same policy applied to
lunch room workers, matrons, custo
dians and other non-teaching employes.
Philip J. Hickey, superintendent of
instruction for the St. Louis public
schools, was cited on May 17, 1955,
by the Metropolitan Church Federa
tion of Greater St. Louis for his execu
tion of plans for racial desegregation
of the schools there.
The citation called attention to the
“thoughtful planning that went into
successful integration of the high
schools, the careful preparation of the
people of the community for the step
and the rapport established among
community leaders and agencies of the
city.”
With two exceptions, racial deseg
regation in the public schools of St.
Louis and St. Louis County was com
pleted when classes began in Septem
ber of 1955. The upper grades of the
city technical high schools were to
remain segregated until the new John
O’Fallon Technical High School was
ready for use in September, 1956. ^
St. Louis County, the junior and sen
ior high schools in Webster Groves
were to be operated on a segregated |
basis until September, 1956.
Board officials said that desegrega
tion in the elementary schools enabled
the schools to distribute more evenly ,
the pupil load. Under the board’s de
segregation policy, elementary school
boundaries were re-arranged “to pro
vide the best use of the facilities of
a given school year by the students
living in that area of that school.”
The redistricting changed boundaries
of 62 of the city’s 119 elementary
schools. Supt. of Instruction Hickey
said that once desegregation took place
all racial designations would be re
moved from school records.
The St. Louis Board of Education’s
instruction department reported Sept.
13, 1956, that racial desegregation in
the St. Louis public school system had
been “a continuing success” and had
materially eased the shortage of class
room space.. After the redistribution
was completed, the report said, “no
longer were there seriously over
crowded schools in the vicinities of
schools with vacant rooms or duplicate
facilities.”
(See STATE, Page 7-B)
NORTH CAROLINA
Gradual Change Began in 1957
WINSTON-SALEM
G radual desegregation of pub
lic schools in North Carolina
came voluntarily without major
violence. Desegregation began in
September, 1957, when the state’_s
three largest cities, Charlotte,
Winston-Salem and Greensboro,
reassigned 12 Negro children to
previously all-white schools.
Currently 1,865 Negroes attend
schools with whites in 40 of the state’s
171 school districts. This total includes
372 Negro children in a school with
12 white children.
When the U.S. Supreme Court made
its May 17, 1954, decision outlawing
public school segregation, North Caro
lina took no immediate action to im
plement the decision. North Carolina,
however, did in 1955 create an Advis
ory Committee on Education to make
proposals on this topic. This resulted
in 1955 in the passage of the Pupil
Placement Law, and repeal of the
teacher tenure law. Race was dropped
from any requirements for schooling
or assignments.
In 1956, the General Assembly met
in special session to consider the so-
called Pearsall Plan, which passed. The
proposals, also approved in a state ref
erendum, provided:
Set Procedure
• Local school units have the right
to assign pupils to schools, and a set
procedure was established for trans
fers. Parents who do not want their
children attending biracial schools may
request transfers to schools with mem
bers of their race.
• A community may vote to close
schools if it finds desegregated schools
unacceptable.
• The State is authorized to pro
vide education expense grants to chil
dren whose parents object to their
attending interracial schools. Grants
are available for attendance only to
accredited nonsectarian private schools.
The grants and closing sections of
the bill have never been used. Only
one couple tried to obtain a grant, but
their plea failed because their child
did not attend an accredited private
school. Although the Pupil Placement
Law has been challenged a number
of times in state and federal courts,
it has been upheld each time.
The September, 1957, desegregation
came as a result of a series of meet
ings among Greensboro, Charlotte and
Winston - Salem
HODGES
school officials.
Even after their
schools had
opened, Gov. Lu
ther Hodges
urged Negroes to
agree to volun
tary segregation,
claiming that
“mixing the races
in our public
schools is bad for
both races . . .”
He called the U.S. Supreme Court rul
ing “a tragic mistake.”
Except for a few unpleasant inci
dents during the first week of school,
the changes in the three systems was
harmonious. Two anti-integration law
suits were filed by white parents in
Superior Courts in Greensboro and
Charlotte, but both failed.
During the 1958-59 school years,
Wayne County opened its schools to
three Negro children of servicemen sta
tioned at Cherry Point Marine Air Sta
tion. The first three cities continued
their policies. Three more districts
were added in 1959-60 as 40 Negro
children attended predominantly white
schools in seven districts.
Compulsory desegregation came to
North Carolina for the first time in
the 1960-61 school year as a result of
Griffith v. Robinson et al, filed Nov. 11,
1959, in the U.S. District Court. Judge
Wilson Warlick ordered 10 Negro chil
dren admitted to two previously all-
white high schools in Yancey County.
Two other districts, Raleigh and Chapel
Hill, desegregated schools voluntarily.
iKulingsl in two suits, Wheeler v.
Durham City Board of Education and
WARLICK
Spaulding v. Durham City Board o;
Education, filed in 1960, have become
the basis of possible mass desegrega
tion in various school systems. The fW;
eral courts have ordered the sch°j>
board to stop the use of dual attend
ance zones and to end application
the state Pupil Placement Law in
unconstitutional manner.
Desegregation Increases
Desegregation increased on a vojj®
tary basis in the 1961-62 and 1962- •>
school years. Compulsory desegreg 3
tion came to Caswell County in J 311
ary, 1963, as a result of the defers^
Whitney case, filed originally in ■
District Court in 1956. After one
of violence, there was peaceful dese
regation of Caswell County schoo
In Durham, U.S. District Judge Ed
win Stanley ordered admission of ^
gro children to the schools of ^
choice (except senior high schcw ) ^
1962-63 and to all schools m
until Durham presents a suitable P
for desegregation. Currently 311
mated 500 Negroes attend P r ^
inantly white schools there. Ci y ^
Negro attorneys are now work®6.^
a program satisfactory to hot ^
A similar ruling was made for
well County. ^
Since then, suits have been
by a number of Negroes a S a ^ gt
er school systems. Federal judg ^
school personne
encouraging
plaintiffs to work out plans
am 1
L Off
puuuiuis IU »»»■ 1. _, an s
themselves, then submit the P
the court. This method, which
used successfully in several^sy^g
would avoid lengthy legal pr
and actions. These actions >
tiffs are now calling for de ^ oD pel
tion of faculties, staffs and P -j. th e
During the 1963-64 school y,
number of desegregated so ^ pa
triots doubled and now totals g. &
Uiua uuuuicu aii« -— . -g
ing 1964-65, more districts
pected to open previously ^gly ^ 0
schools to Negroes,
a token basis. ,<*>!'
At the college level, all P u ( j ese gh'
leges and universities have ^
gated in practice or policy. gilP
schools have Negroes
scnoois nave at rth ^
whites. The University of hv ^
wnnes. ine by <y '-
lina first desegregated m a ct f '
order. Most of the public co ^q- s .
on a voluntary basis in t e