Southern school news. (Nashville, Tenn.) 1954-1965, December 01, 1964, Image 11

Georgia Historic Newspapers

Southern school news., December 01, 1964, Image 11

About Southern school news. (Nashville, Tenn.) 1954-1965 | View Entire Issue (Dec. 1, 1964)

Page of 12

Prev Issue Next Issue

Text PDF JP2 (2.1 MB) Clip/Print Image

Page of 12

Prev Issue Next Issue

Return to Top

Newspaper Page TextSOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—DECEMBER, 1964—PAGE II VIRGINIA U. S. Court Invalidates Two Counties’ Use of Grants Public School Desegregation in Virginia 1958-59* 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 Desegregated Districts 4** 6 11 20 31 55 81 Desegregated Schools 11 19 43 75 140 282 XXX Negroes in Desegregated Schools 30 103 211 536 1,230 3,721 11,883 ‘Desegregation began in February, 1959. “Includes Warren County, which actually had no mixing in the classrooms until the following fall, as no whites attended the desegregated (by policy) school. (Continued from Page 1) e along with the State Board of | ideation. In each of the localities, ac- ording to the plaintiffs, private schools have been started so that white children do no t have to attend desegregated oublic schools if they do not wish to do so. The attorneys filed figures with jhe court to show that these private schools receive money through the tu- ' ition grants program. The state constitutional amendment, adopted in 1956, permitting tuition grants, and subsequent statutes enacted j pursuant thereto, have caused “the cre ation of an extra official system of schools for those white children whose parents would oppose the constitution al principles which the Supreme Court enunciated” in the school desegrega tion cases, according to the plaintiffs’ brief. In addition to the tuition grants pro gram. the Negro attorneys also attack ed other statutes, which they said were intended to encourage establishment of private segregated nonsectarian schools. Among these is the law that provides that teachers employed in such private schools established after Dec. 2, 1956, may participate in the ( state’s employe retirement system. As to the tuition grants law, the brief declared that “it cannot be seen as being anything but the means by ' which Virginia sought to educate the overwhelming majority of its school age ! children in racially segregated schools.” i Different View But a different view of tuition grants was presented to the court Nov. 30 by attorneys representing the state. They filed a brief defending grants as a means of implementing the state’s “neutral position” in matters of race. The grants are not aimed at perpetuat- ' ing racial segregation in the schools, the brief said. The brief cited public school desegre gation in a number of cities and coun ties in spite of the use of grants by some students in those localities. “Nothing in the federal Constitution requires a state to adopt a policy of 1 withholding scholarship aid from stu dents whose parents choose to exercise | their constitutional right to send their , children to a school which follows a policy of racial exclusiveness,” the brief argued. Legislative Action Assembly Enacts Bills to ‘Purify’ contributions to private nonsectarian schools. • Repeal the law prohibiting the State Department of Education from refusing to accredit a private school because it does not meet state school building requirements. Schoolmen 81 School Districts Have 11,883 Negroes Enrolled with Whites The number of desegregated school districts in Virginia increased from 55 last year to 81 this year, and the num ber of Negroes attending classes with whites rose from 3,721 to 11,883, ac cording to findings in a Southern School News survey. The 11,883 figure is far larger than the earlier estimate that about 6,000 Negroes were enrolled in desegregated schools. The larger figure was develop ed in a district-by-district check in which official statistics were supplied, in most instances, by the district super intendents. A total of 422 schools are desegrega ted this year, as against 282 during the 1963-64 school year. The 81 desegregated districts have a combined enrollment of 585,491 white children and 189,046 Negroes. Slightly over five per cent of the state’s Negro school children are enrolled in desegre gated schools. Virginia has 130 school districts al together, and 128 of these have both white and Negro students. Fifteen of Virginia’s 21 predominantly white publicly supported colleges have Negroes enrolled, according to findings in the Southern School News survey. One of the two predominantly Negro publicly supported colleges has whites enrolled. The other Negro college is desegregated by policy, but no whites are actually attending. Total enrollment of the white and predominantly white colleges is 42,420, and of the Negro and predominantly Negro colleges, 4,173. There are 36,870 whites and 1,832 Negroes attending formerly all-white schools. Virginia Highlights Virginia’s tuition grants program, as applied in Prince Edward and Surry counties, was held unconsti tutional by the U. S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Another case challenging consti tutionality of tuition grants was be fore a three-judge district court at Richmond. The General Assembly enacted a package of legislation described as a means of removing racial aspects from the tuition grants program. The number of Negroes attending public schools with whites in Virginia this year is three times larger than last year. Education Journal Charges Tuition Grant Abuses Many superintendents, many school boards, many legislators and local gov erning bodies are becoming less and less enchanted with Virginia’s Pupil Scholarship Program because of its patent abuses,” according to an editor ial in the November issue of the Virgin ia Journal of Education. The editorial was written by Dr. Robert F. Williams, executive secretary of the Virginia Education Association. The VEA, in annual convention in Richmond Oct. 29, adopted a resolution urging repeal of the state’s tuition grants program. (SSN, November.) “Everyone knows,” Dr. Williams wrote, “that the intent of the General Assembly in establishing the scholar ship program was to provide an escape for any pupil who might object, or whose parents object, to actually at tending the same school with children of another race. The Pupil Scholarship Program would never have been enact ed into law if the General Assembly had not been searching for a constitu tionally valid way to subsidize private education for those who object to racial integration in the public schools. “Certainly the intent was not to sub sidize private education generally. The Pupil Scholarship Program is being so greatly abused as to increasingly defeat its orginal purpose.” The editorial said that of the 12,181 scholarships (tuition grants) awarded in 1963-64, a total of 10,776 were used in private schools, many of which were also desegregated. “Thus,” the editorial declared, “par ents are using the grants to send their children to integrated schools, which the entire purpose of the legislation was to avoid.” The editorial said the following ques tions are being asked by Virginians: “(1) Are the people of Virginia re sponsible for the total or partial finan cing of private education out of public funds? “(2) Is it wise to drain away from our local public schools (which we now have difficulty in financing) funds so urgently needed? “(3) Will not the easy availability of up to $275 per student in pupil tuition grants encourage the establishment of schools of low standards, producing youngsters who will not only be ed ucationally deprived but who might encounter severe difficulty in seeking to attend colleges, admission to which is becoming more and more selective?” The editorial concluded by saying that some citizens are hoping the Su preme Court may declare the tuition grants program unconstitutional, while others are predicting that the Virginia legislature “may abandon the program if its abuse continues.” ★ ★ ★ School Supt. John C. Albohm of Alexandria told City Council Nov. 10 that use of all-Negro Parker-Gray as a high school will be largely discontin ued after this school year, and that most of the students will be transferred into other schools in the city. Seniors will have the option of re maining at Parger-Gray for their final year. Primarily, however, Parker-Gray will be converted into an intermediate school, Albohm explained. The superintendent said that since 1959, Parker-Gray has been losing en rollment, as Negro students have been transferring to the two predominantly white high schools in the city. He told the council that neither of the present predominantly white high schools, nor a new high school slated to be put into use next year, “will be permitted to become predominantly racially imbalanced.” Political Action Negro Attorney Loses Election Negro attorney S. W. Tucker, who has participated in most school de segregation cases in Virginia, was un successful in his effort to unseat Fourth District Rep. Watkins M. Abbitt in the Nov. 3 general election. Official figures showed that Abbitt received 53,857 votes to Tucker’s 23,682, Abbitt is a Democrat. Tucker ran as an independent. The Fourth District is located in Southside Virginia, which has a heavy Negro population . Prince Edward County is one of the 22 counties and cities in the district. The Virginia Conference of the NAACP has urged Gov. Harrison to appoint Tucker to fill a forthcoming vacancy on the State Supreme Court. Tucker is chairman of the legal com mittee of the Virginia NAACP. Text of Decision on Tuition Grant Use Grants Program j The Virginia General Assembly com- j Pjeted action Dec. 3 on a package of I hills which state attorneys said were J “Signed to “purify” the school tuition grants program of any racial taint. The bills were presented to the legis- hture at the Capitol on Dec. 2 at , almost the same moment the U.S. ourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a ock away in the federal building, was lssu ®g a decision outlawing tuition grants in Prince Edward and Surry ^unties. The assembly was in special ^ssion called primarily to redistrict the e gislature in compliance with a federal court order. Gov. Albertis S. Harrison Jr., who -*« the bills to the lawmakers, th" them in a letter that passage of ( ® measures would enable Virginia to a “neutral position which d allow parents a free choice con- wIvl’ character of the schools ich their children should attend. . . .” Seven Measures ^e bills: ' Prohibit localities from provi< ^ °n grants in amounts that ex< -.l,Per - Pupil cost of operating t schools. Permit teachers in any pri’ ^“Sectarian school to participate , state retirement system. Previ< teachers had to be in pri' tv. ccLu'ian schools organized a Member, 1956. ttj .^P e al the law permitting te; by . re Pay state college scholars ^ohing in private nonsecta ° t dinan *° ^ oca ^ zoning or bui b^^epeal the law authorizing s< to chjlrt 0 prov ^ e transportation g * ar ' an sT j^ tten< ^ n S private no: ties ^ ^ aw Permitting lc Srant tax credits to citizen Following are major excerpts from a decision of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued on Dec. 2, in connection with tuition grants in Prince Edward and Surry counties, both in Virginia In both appeals the program attacked by the plaintiffs was designed and has made it possible for these counties to continue to offer their school age pop ulation education at public expense on a segregated basis, in the teeth of the Brown decisions. The central issue is therefore the constitutionality of the use of public funds for such a purpose. In the decade in which federal courts have been expounding the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education they have again and again met and disposed of a variety of devices designed to stave off, if not to frustrate, the desegrega tion of public instruction. Prince Ed ward County’s hard and bitter resis tance included, as we have seen, the extreme step of shutting down all pub lic schools for five years. Only under the direction of the Supreme Court has it reopened them, and then only on its own terms—terms calculated still to preserve the segregation of the races. Thus, after 13 years of struggle in the cotuts and after five years of total educational deprivation, Negro children returned this fall to the same segregated schools to which they or their older brothers and sisters were assigned in 1951 when legal proceed ings were first initiated to end public school segregation. Surry County sim ilarly attempts to circumvent the Brown decision by establishing and maintaining a separate and ostensibly private school system open to whites only. True, in Prince Edward and in Surry, the newly established white schools are nominally no part of the counties’ school systems, but they are in fact the counties’ schools, supported by the counties and indeed, tailor-made to continue their initially avowed and persistently pursued policy of segre gation. Not only are these Foundation schools supported almost entirely by public funds in the form of tuition grants, but their student bodies consist of those white children who previously attended the public schools, and no sig nificant number comes from outside the respective counties. The faculties of the Foundation schools consist of the teachers who formerly taught the same white stu dents in the public schools. There is no evidence indicating that any white teacher remained in the public school system or failed to take a job in the Foundation schools. Under Virginia law the transfer to Foundation schools or ganized after December 29, 1956, in volved no loss of retirement benefits available to them as public school teachers. Furthermore, up until 1959 the recipient of a teacher scholarship from the State Board of Education had to satisfy his repayment obligation by teaching one year in a public school. Since that time, one year of teaching in a private school approved by the Board has been deemed adequate. Through these arrangements the coun ties offered additional inducements to public school teachers to transfer to segregated private” schools without any sacrifice. ‘Remarkable Feat’ If such strategic maneuvers resorted to in response to the law’s requirement, pass muster, Prince Edward and Surry have indeed accomplished a remarkable feat, stultifying a decade of judicial effort to bring about compliance with Brown v. Board of Education. But the label applied to these Foundation schools cannot blind courts, or anyone else, to the realities. It is of no impor tance whether grants are made directly to Foundation schools or indirectly through the conduit of pupil subven tions for restricted use as tuition fees. In the circumstances disclosed in the present cases there is a transparent evasion of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Lee v. Maccm County Board of Education, 231 F. Supp. 743 (MD. Ala, 1964) (three-judge court). The in volvement of public officials and public funds so essentially character izes the enterprise in each of the coun ties that the Foundation schools must be regarded as public facilities in which discrimination on racial lines is constitutionally impermissible. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961). Our decision in no way conflicts with Sherbert v. Vemer, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), which the officials cite as authority for the proposition that no First Amend ment freedom may be “infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege.” The de fendants assert that injunctions pre venting the use of tuition grants to maintain a separate school for white pupils will infringe the white pupils’ right of association.” There is a right of association which the Constitution respects and protects. However, to in voke the right in the manner of Prince Edward and Surry is merely to assert euphemistically a right to enforce in voluntary segregation of the races in public facilities. This is precisely the claim which a unanimous Supreme Court has rejected in Brown v. Board of Education and in numerous other decisions. No First or Fourteenth Amendment freedom or other consti tutional right is infringed by an injunc tion restraining the paying out of pub lic grants to support a publicly operated segregated school system. The clear and unavoidable implication of the Brown decision is that white persons have no constitutional right to associate in pub licly maintained facilities on a segre gated basis. We do not deal here with the right of persons to send their child ren to segregated schools at their own expense. The Prince Edward case is remanded to the district court. Under different circumstances the most appropriate remedy would be to order the desegre gation of the Foundation schools; how ever, in the circumstances of this case, we feel that the district court should enter an order enjoining the defendants from processing or paying tuition grants to parents desiring to send their children to the Foundation schools as long as those schools remain segregated, or to any other segregated school that is, in effect, an extension of the public school system. Left undecided by the district court was the demand of the plaintiffs for an injunction against discriminatory practices in respect to faculty and other personnel assignments. We need not pass on the view adopted by the court that the pleadings did not explicitly raise the question. We hold that the plaintiffs’ motion of June 29, 1964, to modify the judgment order of June 17, 1964, may be treated as a motion for leave to amend the pleadings; and, as such, the motion may in the court’s discretion be granted, or in the alter native the court shall permit a sup plemental complaint. The plaintiffs have standing to raise this question in both counties. Injunction Affirmed In the factual context disclosed, where the actions of the county officials were found to have been taken to evade and defeat the mandate of the Brown decision, Judge Butzner’s injunction against the payment of scholarship funds was appropriate, and we affirm it. The defendants point out that Judge Butzner’s order could be understood to include in its sweep situations quite unlike these cases. It has been sug gested that it could be read to forbid any form of payment for any purpose which might conceivably bring an incidental benefit to a truly private institution that may happen to practice discrimination to the smallest degree. Such, of course, is not the pur pose or effect of the order, but to avoid all doubt Judge Butzner should amend his order, by directing it specifically to the present situation. Obviously, we leave future cases for decision when their facts are properly developed. What may be held to constitute or not to constitute state action and within the proscription of the Fourteenth Amendment “can be determined only in the framework of the peculiar facts (See TEXT, Page 12)