Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—MARCH, 1965—PAGE 3
Alabama
LOUISIANA
(Continued from Page 2)
gjafls, and segregated special programs
including programs for the handicapped
or gifted, adult, vocational and com
mercial classes and kindergartens.
Three Demands
plaintiffs made three demands: (1)
that initial pupil assignments be made
0 n a nonracial basis or that the school
hoard adopt a “genuine freedom of
choice plan”; (2) that all grades be
desegregated; and (3) that letters go
to all parents explaining the desegre
gation plan and that notices be posted
in the schools.
Objection was raised to the fact that
Negroes must apply to the school board
administrative office for transfer to a
white school while Negroes wishing to
go to a Negro school have only to
present themselves at the school. The
objection contended that this puts too
heavy a burden on Negro parents.
Plaintiffs also said there is “no valid
reason why grades three through eight
can’t be desegregated.” Unless this is
done, “it is likely that pressures and
other concerns will reduce to a small
number the Negro parents willing to
submit admission of their children into
white schools,” it was contended.
In the Bullock case, plaintiffs ob
jected to the proposed desegregation of
all high-school grades by 1966 and sub
mission of a plan for elementary grades
prior to Jan. 15, 1967. The defendants,
Negroes argued, “propose to prolong
the desegregation period indefinitely in
violation of the accelerated standards
for all deliberate speed set by the Su
preme Court.”
Other objections in the Bullock case
were similar to those in the Mont
gomery case.
‘Constant Harassment’
In Mobile, the school board replied
strongly Feb. 23 to a Negro “motion
for further relief” in the continuing
school desegregation case there. The
board asked to be “freed from the con
stant harassment of annual motions to
completely revamp and radically alter
the administration of a large and com
plicated school system.”
An NAACP petition demanded that
all grades in all schools be desegregated
through assignment of pupils to the
school nearest their homes, granting
Negro children the further privilege of
selecting the “nearest available form
erly all-white school” in the event the
nearest was overcrowded.
School board attorney George Wood
contended that the present plan of the
board is constitutional, proper and in
accordance with administrative pro
cedures. It would affect half the grades
* 1965-66 and all by 1969-70 and
should not be altered at the whim of
Plaintiff’s counsel.” The plaintiff in the
motion for further relief is Birdie Mae
^vis; her counsel, Derrick A. Bell Jr.
0 the NAACP Legal Defense Fund
* New York City.
u/* WaS tbe secon d motion for “fur-
" er relief’ to be filed by NAACP law
yers since desegregation began in Mo-
DUe schools in the fall of 1963.
Adjective Questioned
The school board denied, in
~' s ' ver to the latest, that the Fifth C
t Court of Appeals, ordering a fas
wee of desegregation last year, insis
at segregation be eliminated at
** r hest “possible” date. The corr
“Elective should be “practicable,”
ward said.
The board also denied that “only
egroes were able to apply” for tra
* f 1 1964 -65. The opportunity v
said k° hundreds of Parents, the bo;
sou k Ut the parents of on ly 16 pui
ght transfers. Seven were approv
ow ,, enied on grounds not involvi
ace ’ the board added.
also moved to strike i
allegation that only “nine h
3.. '; hl dren have experienced deseg:
•hat ,, educa tl° n ” in Mobile, insisti
the constitutional prohibition
Ch H Un ^ ed by the U S - Supreme Coi
ms discrimination but does not .
catin 3111, < right ” to a desegregated ed
"rope" factors. eXClUSi ° n ° f ^ 0tl
c harn° der n ed hy the board was 1
had k ° y tbe Plaintiff that Negri
aaj denied transfer for “arbitr;
s ch_,l CaRrici ° US ” reasons and tl
iaf- ■ s attended solely by Negroes ;
nor to white schools.
Jacksonville State
Enrolls First Negi
JailleJ 316 !, ‘January, Jacksonville
becam e the fourth fo
by sta * e Alabama college sup
"•cidenf fUnds to accept Negro
nts were reported as Capt.
State Board of Education Declines Agreement;
Leaves Compliance Question to Local Systems
NEW ORLEANS
he Louisiana State Board of
Education declined March 1
to sign the nondiscrimination
agreement required by the U.S.
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare. Instead, the board
issued a policy statement that, in
effect, leaves it up to local school
boards to qualify for continuation
of federal aid.
The board said it could not accept
the broad wording of the federal agree
ment, nor could it delegate to the fed
eral government, powers vested in the
board under state law, nor could it
“operate contrary to acts of the legis
lature” or “supercede” the legislature.
The statement of policy was approved
unanimously by seven of the 11 board
members attending the meeting. Nash
Roberts, board member from New Or
leans, said the board “has reason to
believe” HEW will accept the policy
statement as an alternative to the re
quired pledge of compliance.
Key to the policy declaration is this
statement: “The State Board of Edu
cation will receive and disburse federal
financial assistance to any agency of
the state or local subdivisions of gov
ernment that wishes to participate in
federally assisted programs for which
they have qualified.”
For its part, the board agreed to re
frain from discrimination in providing
services, financial aid or other benefits,
in the use of facilities and in student
participation or in privileges afforded
students by it. It agreed also to han
dle federal funds allocated for local
school districts that comply with the
federal requirements and to administer
property and structures improved with
tederal funds in a nondiscriminatory
manner.
Prepared Statement
In a prepared statement, the board
said of its action:
“This statement of policy does not
desegregate or change the admission
policies of any institution, college, uni
versity, vocational-technical school
that is operating under a state law that
chartered or organized the college,
university, institution, vocational-tech
nical school or special school as a
segregated institution. However, it af
fords those colleges, universities and
vocational-technical schools which are
under court orders to receive funds for
federally financially assisted programs.
“The policy also allows local school
boards that are under court orders to
qualify and continue receiving federal
funds. And it allows any other local
school board its constitutional right to
receive federal funds if it desires to
qualify for such funds and does of its
own accord qualify.
. . The state board is following
the broad policy established by the
governor that says in effect that the
state will assist the local boards in
carrying out their decisions and not
stand in their way of receiving or re
jecting federal aid.
“It enables our institutions under
court order to accept federal funds. It
upholds the Louisiana Constitution and
all Louisiana laws that are now in ef
fect and continues operating those in
stitutions and schools under the State
Board of Education as the Louisiana
laws provide that they shall op
erate. . .
St. John the Baptist Parish School
Board, ordered Jan. 28 to desegregate
next fall, announced on Feb. 11 that it
would sign the federal pledge. West
Feliciana Parish School Board on Feb.
9 discussed the matter but took no ac
tion, and the Ascension Parish School
Board likewise took no action at its
meeting of Feb. 4.
Last month, the Plaquemines Parish
School Board rejected the federal de-
Shegog, stationed at Fort McClellan,
became the first Negro to register at
the institution.
A graduate of an Ohio college, he
enrolled for one special course. Prev
iously accepting Negro students have
been the University of Alabama, Au
burn University and Florence State.
All four were among the Alabama
colleges and universities to sign assur
ances of compliance, certifying that
their programs will be non-discrimina-
tory, to qualify for a share in an esti
mated $5,033,521 Alabama would re
ceive under President Johnson’s pro
posal for college improvement and edu
cation of low-income students.
Others signing were St. Bernard Col
lege, Sacred Heart, Tuskegee Institute
and Alabama A&M.
Louisiana Highlights
The State Board of Education de
clined to sign the compliance agree
ment required by the U.S. Depart
ment of Health, Education and
Welfare, and left it for local boards
to decide whether to qualify for
continuation of federal aid.
The Iberville Parish School Board
authorized pupil-assignment proce
dures to be used in desegregating the
11th and 12th grades next fall.
A case was filed in federal court
seeking a sweeping injunction to
prevent distribution of state funds to
any school district in the state that
continues to operate on a segregated
basis.
Four state-operated trades and vo
cational schools were the targets of
two desegregation suits filed in fed
eral courts.
Louisiana has made a belated en
trance into the federally financed
Manpower Development and Retrain
ing Program.
mand and the Orleans Parish School
Board resolved to comply. During Feb
ruary, the Orleans board authorized
Samuel I. Rosenburg to dispatch the
necessary documents to the State Board
of Education and, in light of the con
fused situation at the state level, to
send copies directly to the U.S. Depart
ment of Health, Education and Welfare.
Under Act 504 of the 1964 legislature,
the governor is required to approve all
agreements between a state agency and
the federal government. Gov. John J.
McKeithen authorized the Orleans Par
ish School Board’s compliance and said
he would do the same for any local
school board that chose to meet the
federal requirements.
Middle Way
Most school boards in Louisiana were
expected to seek a middle way out of
the dilemma by neither signing nor
rejecting the nondiscrimination agree
ment demanded by HEW as the price
for continued federal aid to school
programs.
Harry McKenzie, president of the
Louisiana School Boards Association,
said Feb. 13, “I believe many school
boards simply will take no action at
this time on civil rights compliance,
waiting for possible federal court law
suits to force desegregation.”
Gov. McKeithen last month said he
doubted that many boards would sign
because it would be “political suicide”.
But he made it clear that the state
could not afford to make up the losses
in revenue the school boards might
Legal Action
Legal action was initiated Feb. 17
seeking to halt distribution of state
funds to segregated schools throughout
Louisiana.
The case, Lebeauf v. State Board of
Education, was filed in U.S. District
Court at Baton Rouge and asked that
a three-judge court be convened
promptly to hear the case. The petition
asked that Article 12, Section 14 of the
Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana
Revised Statutes 16:14 (pertaining to
allocation of state money) be declared
in violation of the due process clause
of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Con
stitution.
The petition asked that the defend
ants, who include also W. E. Whetstone,
president of the state board; and Supt
William E. Dodd, be enjoined with
their agents and successors from en
forcing the cited laws.
The case was filed by A. P. Tureaud
Sr., chief counsel in Louisiana for the
Legal Defense Fund of the National
Association for
the Advancement
of Colored People,
acting on behalf
of 25 Negro school
children and their
parents in St.
Charles Parish.
The sweeping
suit, however,
looks far beyond
that still-segre
gated parish
school system and
suffer if they fail to comply.
A state education official, who de
clined to be quoted by name, said the
decision to defer decision was gaining
popularity among school boards
throughout the state. He said many
boards seemed to have arrived at the
conclusion that if they should lose
federal aid for non-compliance it
would be only a matter of time before
federal court suits were filed to force
desegregation. Then they could apply
for reinstatement of federal aid by fil
ing with HEW a copy of the court’s
desegregation order, which is one of
the alternatives now open to school
boards.
At the state level, the problem is
twofold. The State Board of Education
initially was asked to enter into the
non-discrimination agreements on be
half of the state colleges (all except
LSU and its affiliates) and the trades
and special schools under its direct
jurisdiction.
Then in February, the U.S. Depart
ment of Agriculture announced that
the state board would have to enter
into nonsegregation agreements with
it as the price for continuing federal
aid for the state school lunch program.
Said Max Avantz, assistant state sup
erintendent of education, on Feb. 10:
“We have been advised that in the
event the state agency (the education
department) does not sign the required
assurance of compliance, or submit an
alternative plan as called for in the
regulations, then the procedures for
discontinuance of federal funds will be
carried out.”
Avantz made his remarks after a
lengthy discussion of the problem with
John Slaughter, director of the Agri
culture Department’s Southwest divi
sion, at Dallas.
$32 Million at Stake
At stake in all this is some $32 million
allocated for Louisiana school programs
during 1965. The total is expected to
increase to $41 million under school aid
programs now pending before Congress.
About half of the present total goes into
the school lunch program.
Part of the State Board of Education’s
dilemma stems from legal uncertainty
as to whether any valid state laws
would prohibit its signing the compli
ance agreements. State Attorney Gen
eral P. F. (Jack) Gremillion in January
was asked for a legal opinion and on
Feb. 1 issued a ruling stating only that
the decision was the responsibility of
the board.
He did not say at that time whether
laws enacted in previous years provid
ing for withholding of state funds from
desegregated schools could or would
be used against boards that sign the
compliance pledges. And on Feb. 9 he
said he had no reason to expand his
initial opinion.
asked that state allocations for all local
school systems in the state be taken
into the court’s purview as well as
allocations for trade schools, special
schools and schools for the blind and
deaf.
★ ★ ★
Suits Ask Desegregation
Of Four Trade Schools
Desegregation of four trade and
vocational schools operated by the
State Board of Education was sought
in two separate suits filed in federal
district court in February.
In one case, Mrs. Leotha Willis Gar
rison and Hilton J. Jacob sought to
win admission to the Jefferson Parish
Trades School. In the petition they con
tended that Mrs. Garrison has applied
for admission Jan. 26 and Jacob had
applied Jan. 28. The plaintiffs claimed
they are qualified in every respect to
be admitted to the school but were
denied admission because Act 349 of
1948 limits attendance to whites.
The class action named as defendants
Ralph W. Bentley Jr., director, of the
school; the State Board of Education,
W. E. Whetstone, president; and State
Supt. William E. Dodd.
The plaintiffs asked for a temporary
restraining order and then a temporary
and permanent injunction to prevent
the defendants from denying admission
because of race.
Gov. McKeithen has said that he
knows of no valid reason why boards
should not sign if they chose to.
Question of State Law
State School Board President W. E.
Whetstone of Monroe has said, how
ever, that he has been told by many
lawyers that “our schools are set up
as segregated schools under Louisiana
law,” the inference being that local and
state boards are not at liberty to enter
into the nondiscrimination agreements.
On Feb. 9, State Rep. Parey Branton
of Webster Parish called for a court
test of the federal requirement. He said
the state attorney general or the State
Sovereignty Commission should chal
lenge the constitutionality of the HEW
directive.
Sovereignty Commission Chairman
John B. McKinley on Feb. 23 reported
that he had conferred in Montgomery,
Ala., with Gov. George Wallace con
cerning just such a legal test.
The federal demand for the nondis
crimination agreements also came
under attack during the month by Fred
Tannehill, member of the State Board
of Education for the Eighth Congres
sional District, and Leander H. Perez
Sr., president of the Plaquemines Par
ish Council.
Speaking at Tioga, a small community
in Rapides Parish, Tannehill said the
federal requirement has far-reaching
implications. He said it demands not
only compliance with the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 but requires school boards
to bind themselves to accept future
orders of the federal government. He
said he did not intend to sign.
‘Paltry Sum’
Perez spoke before the Young Men’s
Business Club of New Orleans on Feb.
11. He said his research has showed
that Louisiana
spends $225 mil
lion for education.
Local govern
ments put up $35
million and, he
said, “federal and
special contribu
tions amount only
to $8,842,000.
“For this paltry
sum, the Health,
Education and
Welfare Depart
ment in asking compliance under Title
VI would bribe the people of Louisiana
to sell their souls and their children
down the river with no safeguards, no
rules for due process of law.”
The Citizens’ Council, meanwhile
threatened to inaugurate recall action
against any member of the State Board
of Education who approved the non
discrimination agreement. Spokesmen
said they were prepared to circulate
(See STATE, Page 7)
In the other suit, filed at Baton
Rouge, 13 Negroes requested the court
to order their admission to three state
trades and vocational schools in the
south portion of the state. The schools
are Sullivan Memorial Trade School
at Bogalusa, the Teche Area Vocation
al-Technical School at New Iberia, and
the Jefferson Davis Vocational-Tech
nical School at Jennings.
The state operates some 30 trades and
technical schools in various parts of the
state. Several already have been or
dered desegregated, notably those at
New Orleans, Lake Charles and
Shreveport.
★ ★ ★
The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 1
declined to hear a Justice Department
appeal in its effort to require desegre
gation of public schools in Bossier Par
ish which receives federal funds in
compensation for providing schooling
for children of military personnel at
two Air Force bases.
The case, U.S. v. Bossier Parish
School Board, has been in the courts
since Jan. 18, 1963. It was dismissed by
Judge Ben Dawkins on Aug. 20, 1963,
and that decision was affirmed by the
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on
Aug. 25, 1964. The appeal to the Su
preme Court followed.
Fund Ban Asked for One-Race Schools
TUREAUD
PEREZ