Newspaper Page Text
'
</) £
1*1 „ ,
Factual
,7
Southern
VOL- II. NO. 7
At Meeting in Little Rock
While House Advisor Brooks Hays; his son, Steele Hays, member of the Arkansas
Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission; Leslie Dunbar of the
Southern Regional Council.
ARKANSAS
Schoolmen Meet To Hear
Civil Rights Regulations
LITTLE ROCK
T'he school desegregation re-
*- quirements of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, under regulations ef
fective Jan. 4, 1965, were laid out
for Arkansas schoolmen Dec. 7 at
a meeting at Little Rock spon
sored by the Arkansas Advisory
Committee to the U.S. Civil
Rights Commission.
In essence, desegregation is required
lor participation in any program of fed-
fral aid, except those for milk and
lunches, and a school district’s desegre
gation plan must be at least as broad as
that required by the federal courts in
that area.
About 150 of the 500 persons at the
*eeting were school officials. Brooks
Rays, White House advisor and former
congressman from Little Rock, and
J*slie W. Dunbar of Atlanta, executive
“hector of the Southern Regional
Council, were the principal speakers.
Hays said it is time for the South to
find
ways of doing things with the Ne-
rather than for him. Dunbar said
j nation is firming up its historical
etn °cracy through the Civil Rights Act
®ul such other programs as the War on
°verty and the reapportionment of
legislatures.
‘Cool Reception’ Reported
At the sectional meeting for school
q Pj e > the speakers were Mrs. Ruby
| ■ Martin, a Negro lawyer, and Dean
tfman, both of the Civil Rights
Emission staff. Most of the school
^°ple were white, and the Arkansas
, v. e , tte they gave Mrs. Martin a
j ^ reception.”
. ^eral aid comes to about $3,600,000
i° r the Arkansas school districts
i >„ ^eluding nearly that much for
'^es and milk.
•aiw school district expecting to re-
, 4 g? federal aid after Jan. 4 will have
^ e an acceptable desegregation plan
'ie TT ^ omm i ss i° n er Francis Keppel in
'■ci Office of Education, Mrs. Mar-
sard. Commissioner Keppel must
Ii jI° Ve die plan before any federal aid
Th^ t0 a district, she added.
5t Mch inc ^ U( f es those school districts
'hp , are °Perating under a voluntary
»hj c , of desegregation as well as those
mg are still segregated,” Mrs. Martin
p Under Court Orders
•Ader t ^ ose districts already operating
: -av e c ? Ur t desegregation orders, they
C 0 ' OIU y to file copies of court orders
Wl er Wlt h their pledges to abide by the
say 1 ^ modifications of them,
bth er
' r ic>W " an that, she said she did not
kind of desegregation plan
sai^ rn *f sioner would find acceptable
' tti u>tUiT. S ” e bought it logical that the
required would be what the
courts in the area have included in
their orders. She said most of the courts
now were rejecting grade-a-year plans
and were requiring two or more grades
a year.
“In the 10 years that have elapsed
since the first school desegregation
cases, the requirements of school de
segregation have developed rather
slowly, but have become quite definite
on some points,” Mrs. Martin said. “The
most recent court cases have clearly
stated that it is the responsibiliy of the
school boards, and not Negro parents,
to initiate the desegregation process.
The defense sometimes offered by the
school boards that the Negro pupils
have not applied for admission to white
schools is being given little or no con
sideration by the federal courts today.”
Perhaps Unacceptable
She said that some of the volunary
desegregation plans being used might
not be acceptable to the commissioner.
“The elimination of dual boundary
lines for white and Negro schools and
the rezoning of schools on a nonracial
basis seems to be essential features of
an acceptable desegregation plan,” she
said.
Supt. Floyd W. Parsons of Little Rock
and B. E. Whitmore of Pine Bluff, Jef
ferson County school supervisor, who
were on the platform with Mrs. Martin,
both spoke briefly.
Parsons said Little Rock is using the
state pupil assignment law, not attend
ance areas, and assumed that it could
continue this way since the federal
(See RIGHTS, Page 6)
OriJAAI
2 0SC«- ?9 ‘SN3H1V
S N 0 I S I A I 0 SNOlllSinODV
s 3 i a v a 8 n
V I 9 8 0 3 9 JO A IN n
w
Department of Justice Institutes
First School Suits Under New Law
WASHINGTON
T he U.S. Department of Jus
tice filed school desegrega
tion suits against Campbell
County, Tenn., and Bossier Par
ish, La., on Jan. 4, 1965—the first
such actions under the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
The suit filed in U.S. District Court
at Chattanooga, Tenn., against Camp
bell County, comes under Title IV,
which allows the federal attorney gen
eral to bring suit when he receives a
complaint from people unable to take
such action themselves.
In the case of Bossier Parish, the
government is intervening in a suit al
ready before the court, Lemon v. Bos
sier Parish School Board (See Louisi
ana report). The original suit was filed
Dec. 2, 1964, in U.S. District Court at
Shreveport on behalf of eight Negro
children. The justice department on
Jan. 4 asked to participate in the suit
under civil rights act provisions that
authorize the attorney general to in
tervene in segregation cases he be
lieves to be of general public
importance.
Acting Attorney General Nicholas
deB. Katzenbach, commenting in
Washington, said: “We have brought
suit in both these cases only after at
tempting to seek voluntary compliance
with the law.”
The intervention in the Bossier
Parish case represents the govern
ment’s second attempt to desegregate
the district’s public schools. In Jan
uary, 1963, the justice department
asked the district court to desegregate
the parish schools because they re
ceived federal aid to impacted areas.
District Judge Ben C. Dawkins dis
missed the case on Aug. 20, 1963, and
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Ap
peals on Aug. 25, 1964, upheld the
dismissal.
★ ★ ★
Seven Government Agencies
Announce New Rules on Aid
Seven federal departments and
agencies—including the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare—an
nounced on Dec. 4 the rules they will
follow in carrying out Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1984, which bars
racial discrimination in federally as
sisted programs or activities.
The regulations, approved by Presi
dent Johnson, were published in the
Federal Register (Vol. 29, No. 236) on
Dec. 4, to go into effect 30 days later.
The seven agencies and departments,
which administer the major federal aid
programs, were, in addition to the De
partment of HEW, the Departments of
Interior, Agriculture and Labor, the
General Services Administration, the
Housing and Home Financing Agency
and the National Science Foundation.
The White House indicated that other
government agencies would issue their
regulations for implementation of Title
VI within a few weeks.
In a statement announcing his ap
proval of the regulations, President
Johnson described them as “just and
reasonable,” and said they will “insure
that disputes or failures to comply with
the principle of nondiscrimination in
administering federal programs will be
FLORIDA
17,000 Negroes Boycott
Schools at Jacksonville
MIAMI
Tl/I' ore than 17,000 Negro pupils
■ * boycotted the Duval County
schools Dec. 7 as a protest against
what the leaders of the movement
called “general conditions in the
schools and elsewhere.”
The mass movement in and around
Jacksonville was touched off by action
of the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools. On Dec. 1 it removed
accreditation for all 15 high schools in
the county on grounds that they did not
receive adequate support to meet edu
cational standards.
SACS had warned the Duval authori
ties they were on probation over a year
ago.
While the community was in an up
roar over the decision, Negro groups
called the boycott to dramatize the
plight of Negro pupils, which they said
called for special consideration.
Rutledge Pearson, a social studies
teacher at Jacksonville’s Cookman
Junior High School and chairman of
the Florida NAACP, announced the
“sit-out” at a news conference called
several days in advance.
Pearson said it was supported by the
NAACP. He submitted a 10-point list
of grievances that went beyond the
quality of education provided Negro
youngsters. Among his complaints on
behalf of the Negro community were
“complete lack of representation in
(See NEGROES, Page 7)
SOUTH CAROLINA
Furman Trustees Maintain Stand
COLUMBIA
F urman University’s trustees,
ignoring an adverse vote on
the point by the 1964 South Caro
lina Baptist Convention, reaf
firmed on Dec. 8 their previous
decision to admit qualified stu
dents without regard to race.
The action brought an outcry from
segregationist leaders in the denomina
tion. There were also threats that fi
nancial aid from some chinches would
be cut off.
The issue between Furman, located
on a new campus in the foothills just
north of Greenville, and its parent
organization was joined in October of
1963 when the board of trustees an
nounced Negroes would be accepted.
The state convention a month later
debated the issue at length and finally
asked Furman to delay its decision
pending a year-long study by a com
mittee of the denomination’s General
Board. That board recommended that
the trustees of the various Baptist-
affiliated colleges in the state be al
lowed to set their own admission
policies.
But in November the representatives
of the over half-million Baptists in the
state voted 943-915 to reject the Gen
eral Board’s recommendation. Then on
a specific motion on whether the con
vention favored “integration” in its
schools, it said “no” by a 905 to 575
margin.
Chairman’s Statement
The announcement that the univer
sity’s trustees had decided to ignore
the convention votes came in a state
ment from Board Chairman J. Wilbert
Wood of Anderson. It said:
“The board has approved a recom
mendation from the executive com
mittee that the existing policy of
admissions be reaffirmed by the board.”
He would not elaborate but others
quickly made it clear that he was
talking about the suspended 1963 policy
to admit qualified Negroes.
Dr. Francis M. Bonner, vice presi
dent and dean of Furman, said the
next day that the university has re
ceived no recent inquires from pros
pective Negro students and that, to
his knowledge, it had never received
any formal applications.
Dr. Bonner is acting as chief ad
ministrative officer of Furman until
Dr. Gordon W. Blackwell, now head of
Florida State University, assumes the
presidency on Feb. 1.
“My position,” said Dr. Bonner
“is that the trustees have acted in the
best interests of the university and
as administrator I will carry out poli
cies set by the trustees.”
He added that direction of policy
is granted to the trustees by the
school’s charter and that the action of
(See FURMAN, Page 8)
promptly and justly decided.”
The President added that “the na
tion’s commitment to the principle of
equality of treatment and opportunity
for all Americans will be well served
by the new regulations.”
Federal officials have been instructed
to co-operate with state and local gov
ernments and private organizations “to
ensure that there is complete under
standing of the regulations and
compliance with the congressional
mandate,” Johnson said.
In discussing the regulations during
a talk Dec. 10 to the Community Action
Assembly of the National Urban
League, Johnson stressed that “our
first objective will always be to assure
nondiscriminatory operation rather
than to put an end to programs which
are vital to the welfare of all Ameri
cans.”
The HEW regulations require that
all applications for new or renewed
federal financial assistance must be
accompanied by “assurance” of non
discriminatory operation.
School Regulations
In the case of elementary and sec
ondary schools, the regulations state,
the requirements will be satisfied if
a school or school system:
“1) is subject to a final order of a
court of the United States for the de
segregation of such school or school
system, and provides an assurance that
it will comply with such order, in
cluding any future modification of such
order, or
“2) submits a plan for the desegre
gation of such school or school system
which the Commissioner of Education
determines is adequate to accomplish
the purposes of the Act and this part,
and provides reasonable assurance that
it will carry out such plan.”
The regulations note that in any case
where a court orders school desegrega
tion after submission of a compliance
plan to HEW, the plan must be amend
ed to take the court order into effect.
In the case of institutions of higher
learning, “the assurance required by
this section shall extend to admission
practices and to all other practices
relating to the treatment of students,”
the regulations state.
Provision is made for periodic review
of compliance with Title VI and for
“prompt investigation” of complaints
that discrimination is being practiced
in federally aided programs.
Procedure Spelled Out
Under the regulations, federal funds
may not be withheld until:
“1) the responsible Department offi
cial has advised the applicant or re
cipient of his failure to comply and
has determined that compliance cannot
be secured by voluntary means;
2) there has been an express finding
on the record, after opportunity for
hearing, of a failure by the applicant
or recipient to comply with a require
ment imposed by or pursuant to this
part;
3) the action has been approved by
the Secretary . . . ;
“4) the expiration of 30 days after
the Secretary has filed with the com
mittee of the House and the committee
(See JUSTICE, Page 2)
In This Issue
Monthly Reports
Alabama
Arkansas j
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana 10
Mississippi
North Carolina 9
South Carolina 1
Tennessee 5
Texas 2.
Virginia 4
Washington ...1
