Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

<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)