Newspaper Page Text
<7.27
Factual
Southf™ €ruA 0L News
£
Objective
VOL. II. NO. 8
20502 VO *SN3Hi.V
SNO I S I A I 0 SNO I 1 I S> inoov
S3 I 8 VH 8 I1
VI08030 JO AlNf)
FEBRUARY, 1965
Most States Indicate compliance with Act
ALABAMA
Leaders Decide
To Delay Action
On Assurances
MONTGOMERY
A T A meeting in Montgomery
/V Jan. 18, most of Alabama’s
city and county school superin
tendents decided to delay signing
pledges of compliance with the
1964 Civil Rights Act—pledges
demanded by the U.S. Depart
ment of Health, Education and
Welfare by March 4 as a prerequi
site to further federal school aid.
At stake for Alabama public schools
is $32,000,000, allocated for the 1965-66
fiscal year under various programs,
plus whatever the state’s share of the
administration’s new aid-to-education
proposal might be.
About 100 school officials attended
the Jan. 18 meeting, which was closed
to the press. Local systems have been
directed by HEW to sign assurances of
nondiscrimination or face the loss of
federal moneys. Attending the meeting
were presidents of state-supported
colleges and trade-school directors as
well as superintendents of state and
county school systems.
Prior to the meeting, Dr. Austin R.
Meadows, state superintendent of edu
cation, said after the forms were
received Jan. 4 that loss of federal
funds would have a “crippling effect
on education in Alabama.” The state
is tentatively scheduled to receive
$32,434,000 in federal funds during the
1965-66 fiscal year, he said.
“If this money is lost and made up
on the state or local level it would
result in us losing our vocational edu
cational program, the lunchroom pro
gram would be wiped out, and other
services would suffer. It would have a
crippling effect on education.”
Various Programs
The “assurance of compliance”
j forms are to be used by local boards
* applying for federal funds under
various school programs. The
boards, in signing, would give assur-
®oe that they would comply with
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which
^ys in part that “no person in the
United States shall, on the grounds of
1 ce , color or national origin, be ex
cluded from participation in, be denied
benefits of, or be otherwise sub-
,ec * * e< i to discrimination under any
Program or activity for which the ap-
^ can ! receives federal financial situ-
a on from the Department.”
Meadows said that “assurance of
ooipliance” made no mention of de
legation, referring only to “dis
semination.” Any application after
jTJ 3 must carry this affirmation, he
Til deadline being March 4.
he HEW order puts Alabama
. ool officials in a difficult position,
"* added:
^ We are damned if we do sign, but
jOe-damned if we don’t. If a school
IJJ d refuses to sign this assurance,
It d onl y advertise the fact that
pj ^ n °t plan to abide by the Civil
l*0v k this in turn would
Tin °-L e a desegregation suit under
J IV of the same act.”
^eadows pointed out that school
w,' s a T rea dy desegregated under
Jtgj. or ders—Birmingham, Huntsville,
sry f*? County, Gadsden, Montgom-
iT L COn County, Bullock County
°bile—would not be affected by
lir e * e t w requirement. Schools which
^ed°* unt ^ er suc h orders would be
^Pt U ^° n *° submit to the depart-
'•hat a desegregation plan to show
D, n ° < ^ scr rmi n ation existed.
^Pia • ^ t ^ le curT ent fiscal year, Ala-
, receivin g about $21,000,000 in
Pat e ] v mods for schools. Approxi-
•b «• a third of this is being awarded
Pile i?? cted areas,” principally Mo-
v he re “'mtsviUe and Montgomery,
'Psevr SC ^°°^ S already have started
? 19ftf a ^° n —Mobile and Huntsville
l«g a i ^ ^ Montgomery last fall (see
(S*«^er $8,987,000 was allocated this
ee superintendents, Page 4)
ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE REGULATION UNDER
TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(Name of Applicant)
(hereinafter called the "Applicant”)
HEREBY AGREES THAT it will comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(P.L. 88-352) and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation of the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare (45 CFR Part 80) issued pursuant to that title, to the end that,
in accordance with title VI of that Act and the Regulation, no person in the United States shall,
on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which
the Applicant receives Federal financial assistance from the Department; and HEREBY GIVES
ASSURANCE THAT it will immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this agree
ment.
If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the aid of Federal financial
assistance extended to the Applicant by the Department, this assurance shall obligate the
Applicant, or in the case of any transfer of such property, any transferee, for the period during
which the real property or structure is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial assist
ance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits.
If any personal property is so provided, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant for the
period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property. In all other cases, this
assurance shall obligate the Applicant for the period during which the Federal financial assist
ance is extended to it by the Department.
THIS ASSURANCE is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all
Federal grants, loans, contracts, property, discounts or other Federal financial assistance
extended after the date hereof to the Applicant by the Department, including installment pay
ments after such date on account of applications for Federal financial assistance which were
approved before such date. The Applicant recognizes and agrees that such Federal financial
assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations and agreements made in this
assurance, and that the United States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement of this
assurance. This assurance is binding on the Applicant, its successors, transferees, and assign
ees, and the person or persons whose signatures appear below are authorized to sign this assur
ance on behalf of the Applicant.
Dated
(Applicant)
By.
(President, Chairman of Board, or comparable
authorized official)
(Applicant's mailing address)
HEW-441
(12-64)
SOUTH CAROLINA
Official Says Form Calls
For Full Desegregation
COLUMBIA
S outh Carolina schoolmen
were told Jan. 26 that unless
their districts are “fully inte
grated” they cannot legally sign
the compliance forms under the
1964 Civil Rights Law.
This firm warning came from Dr.
Jesse T. Anderson, veteran state super
intendent of education. It came at the
end of a month of information-gather
ing and deep soul-searching by the
public school leaders.
When the Civil Rights Law became
effective at the first of the year, the full
impact of its meaning hit the educators
and they sought in a series of meetings
to find solutions.
They are faced with the loss of mil
lions of dollars in federal education
grants. No one would estimate precisely
how much money is involved but its
loss would hit hard in many areas,
especially in the poorer school districts
with limited local tax bases.
There were scattered cries of defiance
but indications are that compliance will
be widespread before the 60-day grace
period, beginning Jan. 3, expires.
State Leaders
Almost to a man, state leaders, from
Gov. Donald S. Russell on down, seem
to be advising this course, although not
in so many words.
Gov. Russell said
Jan. 4 that he
does not believe
South Carolina
schools are in
danger of losing
any substantial
amount in federal
aid. He said at
that time that the
school districts
could meet one of
the three methods
of compliance laid down by the federal
government. They are:
• Signing assurance forms that the
RUSSELL
district is operating under a policy of
complete nondiscrimination as re
quired by Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act.
• Being subject to court orders to
desegregate and providing assurance of
compliance.
• Submitting a plan for desegrega
tion.
The governor’s remarks came follow
ing publication by a Columbia news
paper in its Jan. 1 issue of an
interview with David Seeley, an official
of the U.S. Office of Education. Seeley
told Reporter Jack Bass of The State
that “strict compliance with the regu
lations are likely.”
Although 11 of the state’s 108 schools
districts have accepted Negro transfers
(See STATE, Page 7)
In This Issue
Monthly Reports
Alabama 1
Arkansas 12
Florida 3
Georgia 6
Louisiana 14
Mississippi 2
North Carolina 5
South Carolina 1
Tennessee 10
Texas 9
Virginia 16
Washington 1
Special Article
The Region 1
Text
Federal Regulations 8
THE REGION
Statewidk Meetings Held
^ of
In Four De^r^South States
M ost Southern states indicate they will comply with provisions of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in order to continue receiving federal
aid to education.
In four states—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina
—educators and public officials conducted statewide conferences and
debated what course to take before the March 4 deadline of compliance
set by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
State boards of education in Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas
and Virginia agreed in January and early February to sign statements
that they would comply with provisions of Title VI of the new rights
law. Florida and Tennessee state departments of education have es
tablished special staffs to assist local districts in complying with the
law.
North Carolina’s state board, at its February meeting, deferred
action on the question.
The statements of compliance signed by individual school districts
and by the colleges and universities came mostly from those already
desegregated. A few segregated districts and colleges announced they
had signed the agreements to end discrimination.
Here is the status of each Southern
state on the issue of compliance state
ments, with the names of districts and
schools announcing new desegregation
policies:
Alabama
State and local officials are reported
pondering whether to sign agreements
that would allow them to continue
receiving approximately $32 million
annually in federal money. After a
Jan. 18 meeting of city and county
school officials, trade school directors
and college presidents, most of them
decided to delay signing. The state
superintendent of education, Dr. Aus
tin D. Meadows, has warned that the
loss of federal funds would have “a
crippling effect” on the state’s educa
tion. Meadows expressed the same
views heard from many Southern edu
cators when he said:
“We are damned if we do sign, but
twice-damned if we don’t. If a school
board refuses to sign this assurance,
this will only advertise the fact that
it does not plan to abide by the Civil
Rights Act, and this in turn would
provoke a desegregation suit under
Title IV of the same act.”
Alabama’s situation is complicated
further by a federal court opinion of
last year in the Macon County school
desegregation case. A special three-
judge district court, in Lee v. Macon
(SSN, August, 1964), put state and
local officials on notice that “within
a reasonable time” it expected them
to end the use of state money for
segregated public schools.
Arkansas
The state Board of Education voted
unanimously on Jan. 17 to sign the
HEW department’s statement of com
pliance, and school districts and col
leges in the state have begem
submitting their signed agreements.
The state legislature repealed a seg
regation provision in a 1957 act that
would have prevented the acceptance
of federal aid in a vocational school
construction program.
Gov. Orval E. Faubus acknowledged
in early January that he considers the
1964 civil rights legislation “the law
of the land.” “Congress has now passed
a Jaw .... I think it is unconstitu
tional but the procedure was proper.
The act has been ruled constitutional
by the United States Supreme Court,”
he said.
Florida
The state, which receives about $29
million annually in federal aid to
education, has provided a special staff
to assist school districts with
compliance. After a closed session with
federal officials who explained the new
regulations, most superintendents of
the remaining segregated counties
indicated they would sign compliance
statements before the deadline. Semi
nole County (Sanford) desegregated
two schools immediately and two
other county systems, Manatee and
Polk, announced they would desegre
gate. Two private colleges, Rollins
College and the University of Tampa,
also signed compliance statements.
(See SCHOOLMEN, Page 9)
Pledges Arrive
From 18 States
In First Month
WASHINGTON
E ighteen state departments of
education, including two in
the Southern border region, filed
“statements of compliance” with
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 by Feb. 1, the U.S. Of
fice of Education reported.
The compliance forms, required
under federal regulations issued Jan.
3, certify that racial segregation has
been or will be eliminated in all edu
cational programs receiving federal
financial assistance.
Under the regulations, compliance
forms must be submitted to the De
partment of Health, Education and
Welfare within 60 days of the Jan. 3
announcement.
Delaware and Oklahoma were the
two border states included in the first
group filing compliance statements. The
other states were Colorado, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michi
gan, Nevada, New York, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Utah and Vermont.
Education agencies of the District
of Columbia and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico also filed compliance
forms before Feb. 1.
Cover 12 Programs
The compliance forms cover 12 fed
eral aid programs administered by the
U.S. Office of Education:
• Equipment acquisition under Title
III of the National Defense Education
Act.
• Guidance, counseling and testing
under Title V-A of the National De
fense Education Act.
• Educational statistics services
under Title X of the National Defense
Education Act.
• Vocational training under the
Smith-Hughes Act.
• Vocational training under the
George-Barden Act.
• Vocational education programs
under Section 3 of the Vocational Edu
cation Act of 1963.
• Work-study programs under Sec
tion 13 of the Vocational Education
Act of 1963.
• Training arrangements under the
Manpower Development and Training
Act of 1962.
• Training arrangements under Sec
tion 16 of the Area Redevelopment Act.
• Adult basic education programs
under Title II-B of the Economic Op
portunity Act.
• Public library services and con
struction.
• Educational improvement for
handicapped children and youth.
The compliance forms executed by
state education departments certifiy
that these programs “are being and will
(See 18 STATES, Page 8)