Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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the Missouri Constitution and laws that required the maintenance of separate schools for Negro and white children “are superseded by the decision of the United States Supreme Court and are, therefore, unenforceable.”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