Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

: 1 < i i PAGE 8—JUNE, 1965—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS ARKANSAS Little Rock Policy, West Memphis Proposal At Issue (Continued from Page 7) Legal Action Plaintiffs Attack Free-Choice Policy And Board Attitude Negro plaintiffs in the newest Little Rock school case (Clark v. Matson) filed a strongly-worded 13-page attack May 21 in federal court at Little Rock on the school board’s new freedom-of- choice plan and its general attitude. After the board’s voluntary shift from pupil placement to freedom of choice on April 22, there was a meeting of counsel for both sides with Federal Judge Gordon E. Young on May 6, according to the filing, at which time the plaintiffs stated the following ob jections to the new plan: • It does not meet the requirements of the Supreme Court because “the Board has not borne the ‘heavy’ burden of justifying any additional delay” and because the choice plan is not adequate to reorganize the school system on a nonracial basis. • The lateral transfer provisions are too vague and work only to perpetuate segregation. • There is no provision for setting school zone lines on a nonracial basis. • It does not eliminate the use of budgets, new facilities or disbursement racial factors in planning curricula, of funds. • It does not say how faculty and staff will be desegregated. • The notice to Negro parents is in adequate. • The choice forms should be modi fied to include both first and second choices and “to modify the requirement that the student and both parents sign the form.” • Not enough time was allowed for pre-registration and filling out prefer - ene forms. Three Questions Now, the document says, three basic questions are presented by the position of the Little Rock School Board. They are: “1. May defendants continue to op erate a dual set of public schools for Negro pupils and white pupils? “2. Is defendants’ plan as amended capable of affording plaintiffs and other Negro pupils in the Little Rock school system the relief to which they are now entitled? “3. If defendants’ plan as amended is constitutionally inadequate, what im mediate steps are required of defend ants to comply with the Brown case?” The plaintiffs prepared to answer the third question with these sugges tions: That the board set up nonracial attendance zones so that generally all pupils would attend the school nearest home; that all teachers be assigned on a nonracial basis; that no more facilities be created on the basis of race (“this is a relevant to the Ish Elementary School now under construction”); that student-teacher, substitute and visiting teacher programs be desegregated; that competent Negro persons be employed or promoted to responsible staff posi tions; and that interschool extra-cur ricular activities be started between all schools. They discussed the other two ques tions at length. They used numerous citations from Aaron v. Cooper and Norwood v. Tucker (both of which are the original Little Rock case) to show that the board was under court order to end segregation in its school system, and to show that the Appeals Court had twice questioned the good faith of the board. It then described the present system in detail to show that segrega tion still existed. ‘Vigorously Object’ A discussion of the second question included the following: “Plaintiffs vigorously object to the institution of a ‘freedom of choice’ plan for the Little Rock Public School Sys tem. First, inasmuch as the schools re main segregated in violation of appro priate court orders, defendants are required to immediately rectify this system by affirmative action taken un der this court’s supervision. . . . “Second, we again emphasize that the court approved plan contemplated geographic assignments of all pupils. The school district in 1956 committed itself to develop school attendance areas with respect to present and future physical facilities and to make school assignments pursuant thereto. The Board has never developed one set of school attendance areas; instead, the Board has squirmed away from the at tendance area plan asserting no at tendance areas for the purpose of re taining segregated schools. But as testified . . . the Board retains its 1956 school zone lines. Moreover, almost all pupils in the city attend public schools on the basis of these previously drawn lines. Plaintiffs submit that since de fendants maintain these dual school zone lines, defendants are required to redraw school lines in accordance with their court approved plan and effectu ate a general reassignment of pupils on the basis of those lines. “Third, defendants’ proposed ‘free dom of choice’ plan demonstrates their continued determination to retain as much segregation as possible. In the past they operated a system where a pupil’s ‘choice’ was unthinkable. The pupil attended the school in his racial zone unless he could convince the Board that there were compelling rea sons why this was impracticable. . . . One has to query why a pupil’s choice has suddenly become so popular. The reason is obvious, as adduced from abundant trial testimony and reinforced in the statement by Mr. (Everett) Tucker. The Board believes that most white people prefer segregated schools and most Negroes also prefer segre gated schools. The Board thus has a policy of wanting to retain segrega tion. . . . ‘Two Kinds of Schools’ “The only practical result possible under defendants’ plan is two kinds of schools: Tokenly mixed schools and segregated all-Negro schools. And we again emphasize that the Supreme Court has condemned all-Negro schools, especially those operated in a histori cally segregated context, as being un equal. Brown requires that this system created by this corporate defendant be disestablished by it and the present Board members.” But if the choice plan be upheld, the document went on, then the least that should be granted the plaintiffs is the right to make new choices for 1965-66, with the Negro parents amply notified, and that those choices be granted as a matter of course. Harold B. Anderson of Little Rock and Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabritt HI and John W. Walker of New York signed as attorneys for the plaintiffs. A hearing date had not been set by Judge Young at the end of May. ★ ★ ★ West Memphis Lawsuit Taken Under Advisement Federal Judge Gordon E. Young heard testimony May 26 at Little Rock in the West Memphis desegregation lawsuit (Yarbrough v. Weaver) and took it under advisement. This was on the objections of the Negro plaintiffs to the freedom-of-choice plan filed April 20 by the school board. It covers tides on a variety of ideas and devel opments in education. Programs re ported will be placed in their com munity settings. While the publication will not urge the adoption or rejection of any program, evidence of success or failure, of problems and pitfalls, will be reported. Part-time correspondents, each a newspaperman in his own state, have done most of the writing for Southern School News. Full-time staff members will do the bulk of the writing for Southern Education Report, although the publication may make extensive use of articles written by contributors. Received Three Awards In the 11 years of its publication, Southern School News has received three awards. The first was the Russ- wurm Award, presented in 1956 by the National Newspaper Publishers Asso ciation “in recognition of outstanding achievement.” From Texas Southern University the paper in 1962 received the “layman’s citation for distinguished service in the public journals.” The Lincoln University Board of Curators in 1963 selected Southern School News for its annual award for “significant contributions to better human rela tions.” In addition to Southern School News, Southern Education Reporting the first six grades this year, three more grades in 1966 and the top three grades in 1967. The plaintiffs want all 12 grades desegregated according to school attendance zones. The witnesses were B. J. Yarbrough, father of two of the plaintiffs, Supt. O. M. Shultz Jr. and Harold E. Weaver, president of the school board. Yarbrough said the plan placed the burden on the Negroes because they would have to state a preference in or der to get into a white school, while white children would go to those schools without doing anything. He also said Negroes would be afraid to ask for admission to white schools for fear of economic reprisals, that Negroes would be “locked in” segregated schools be cause only pupils entering the first, seventh and ninth grades, after this year, would have a preference, and that some of the plaintiffs who are in high school would be graduated before the plan reached them. Shultz testified that every pupil, white and Negro, entering the first grade in September would have to state a pref erence. He said the reasons against lateral transfers were educational, not racial. He said that to attempt to de segregate all 12 grades at once would “demoralize” the district. ★ ★ ★ The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis upheld May 7 the latest ruling of Judge John E. Miller of Fort Smith in the Fort Smith school deseg regation case (Rogers v. Paul). Miller’s ruling had been to dismiss the com plaint except for the part relating to faculty and staff, thus denying the principal request of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were a Negro high- school girl and her parents who wanted her transferred from Lincoln High School, for Negroes, to Northside High School, for whites. But Fort Smith is following a grade-a-year desegrega tion plan, started in 1957 and now in the eighth grade, and Judge Miller re fused to break outside of it to accom modate the Rogers girl. The appeals court agreed. “We are satisfied that the action of the school authorities in their desegre gation effort constitutes good faith and implementation of the governing con stitutional principles,” the appeals court said. “Desegregation in Fort Smith schools stands out in bold contrast to desegregation efforts in some biracial districts where there has been a hard core of opposition to any semblance of integration. ’ The court also noted that Lincoln High School for Negroes is fully ac credited. “The transfer would constitute a discriminatory action in her favor, would open the door to other similar requests and would weaken the stability of the entire geographic attendance system,” the court said. ★ ★ ★ The contest over the election of Arthur H. Miller, Negro college pro- Service has published an annual sum mary of school desegregation statistics. The summary has included cumulative lists of court cases and legislative acts. SERS will continue to publish an an nual statistical summary, but its con tent will be limited to the figures on enrollment by race in public schools and colleges. Grants From Ford Since 1959 SERS has administered funds, included in grants from the Ford Foundation, for the publication of Race Relations Law Reporter, edited in the School of Law of Vanderbilt Univer sity. In March the Ford Foundation made a direct grant to Vanderbilt to support the legal publication for two more years, beginning July 1. SERS will continue to handle the circulation of the Law Reporter. With its establishment in 1954, SERS began to compile a library of current materials on race relations in the United States. The collection now con tains approximately one million items from newspapers, periodicals and other sources. Each item is classified and cataloged. Under the new SERS pro gram the library will collect only ma terial dealing specifically with educa tion. Annually the additions to the library are microfilmed. Sold under the title “Facts on Film,” this microfilm is lo cated in some 60 libraries in 25 states. fessor, to the Dollarway School Board, ended May 10 at Pine Bluff when Rob W. Bryant, white, conceded defeat. In the election last September, Miller won, 602 to 595, over Bryant, the in cumbent, while a third candidate, W. C. Hosman, white, got 80 votes. Bryant sued in Circuit Court and Miller counter-sued. Bryant challenged the votes in Dollarway School box, pre dominantly Negro, which went heavily for Miller. When the Dollarway ballots were checked in court, enough of them were thrown out to leave Bryant leading by 10 votes. Then under Bryant’s coun tersuit, the votes from the Townsend Park and Hardin School boxes, pre dominantly white, and which went heavily for Bryant, were checked, and Bryant lost votes. He conceded that he had lost the election by about three votes. Community Action North Little Rock Relations Council Objects to Plan In a letter dated May 21, the North Little Rock Council on Human Rela tions spurned the North Little Rock School Board’s new freedom-of-choice desegregation plan. John W. Smith, chairman of the council’s Committee on Education, said the council's objec tion also had been sent to the U. S. Office of Education. Smith, when the board first an nounced its plans for 1965-66, said he thought they might be acceptable even though they fell far short of what the Negro community had requested. The board plans to change from pupil assignment to freedom of choice and expand its desegregation from grades one and two through the first six grades. Now the Human Relations Council has gone back to its original request- full desegregation of all grades and of faculty and staff. It is the responsibility of the school board to desegregate the system, the letter said, but the new plan places the burden squarely on the Negro parents. ‘Second Choice’ The letter also accused the school board of not even following its own plan by making “second choice” assign ments without consulting the Negro students or parents. Deputy Supt. George Miller said the only instances in which that had happened were when sixth-graders were requesting seventh grade in white junior highs that already were crowded and when the only un crowded seventh grade was in a Negro school. Normally, if a student’s first request cannot be granted, he gets to make another choice. The letter, which also covered other The collection for the decade 1954-64 having been filmed, SERS will discon tinue its microfilming program. How ever, an agreement has been reached with Tennessee Microfilms, which has done all the filming to date, giving it the privilege of microfilming materials added to the collection but not yet filmed. The firm also will be the ex clusive sales agent for all of the micro film produced or yet to be produced. SERS still will operate an informa tion service. The library will remain open to the public. Requests for infor mation will be filled to the extent that resources and staff time permit. Xerox reproductions of materials collected will be available for purchase. SERS has issued monthly press re leases based on Southern School News. Press releases will be issued periodically in the future. Two books have been published un der SERS auspices, and the manuscript for a third is almost complete. Harper and Brothers in 1957 published the first of these books, With All Deliberate Speed, edited by Don Shoemaker, then executive director of SERS. Edward D. Ball and Patrick McCauley, as execu tive director and assistant director, edited Southern Schools: Progress and Problems, which SERS published in 1959. Harper and Row will publish The Ordeal of Desegregation: The First Decade by Reed Sarratt, present SERS executive director. This Is Final Issue Of SSN (Continued from Page I) complaints about the schools, ended “We feel that no millage increase will be granted unless representatives from all parts of our city can sit down with the school board and decide what is best for our district. We strongly urge the school board to exert its tremendous knowledge, influence, and moral sup. port of an integrated school system, in stead of using the advice of lawyers and others who would minimize com pliance, almost to the point of defi ance.” ★ ★ ★ Jacques E. Wilmore, director of the Memphis regional office of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, expressed serious doubts at Little Rock May 22 about the workability of the freedom- of-choice desegregation plans. This was at a conference sponsored by the Ar kansas Council on Human Relations to study Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Economic Opportunity Act. Wilmore said he did not see how there could be complete desegregation under the choice plans but that he understood they were to be only temp orary and transitional, anyway. He said they could become a farce, depending on how much choice Negroes really have. He asked that a close watch be kept to see whether Negroes’ rights were being protected under the choice plans and that if they were not the Civil Rights Commission in Washing ton should be notified. Wilmore said he had little confidence in the choice plans. “I know the law says total desegregation in 1967 but if there are going to be freedom-of-choice plans in 1967, there are going to be segregated schools,” he said. With James Forman of Atlanta at tending, the Student Non-violent Co ordinating Committee held a statewide meeting attended by about 50 per sons May 22-23 at Ferncliff, a Pres byterian camp a few miles outside of Little Rock- Forman, the ex ecutive secretary of SNCC, held a press conference in town but oth erwise the meeting was closed to the press. Afterward, James O. Jones, SNCC project director for Arkansas, released a report on what the meeting had done toward outlining a civil rights program for Arkansas. Among other objectives it included these: • To challenge school districts that try to evade complying with the 1964 Civil Rights Act; • To show that freedom-of-choice desegregation plans hold no advantages for Negroes in Arkansas. Such a plan “really offers neither freedom nor choice when the facilities of segregated Negro schools are overwhelmingly inferior to those of white schools,” the statement said. .. Forman at his press conference sai that Arkansas had been neglected by SNCC, but that from now on more workers would spend more time in the state. ★ ★ ★ The Drew County Citizens’ Council held a “mobilization meeting” ° n night of May 14 at Monticello atten ?l t by about 55 persons. It was the nrs public Citizens’ Council meeting in Ar kansas in several years. j Lewis Fox, Monticello grocer an chairman, had sent out 2,000 letters invitation. Fifteen of the audience joj® the council after the meeting and said this made the membership One of those who attended was S Sen. Jim Raney of Warren. He ^ he was forming a Citizens’ Counc Bradley County and that was why was at the meeting. wans The speakers were Medford of Jackson, Miss., and Amis Guthri . of Little Rock, both longtime Ci Council leaders. Gutbridge’s me i B . was that the segregationists are ^ ning the battle against integration ^ that the news and press service not tell the truth about it. ruth' The next day in Little Rock, ^ ridge said he had heard from P® in four Arkansas school distric ^. vate were thinking about setting UP P g { schools to keep their children ^ gj. desegregated public schools. S a ucation Commissioner A. _ 0 thin£ commented that he had hear ^, on that line and doubted that trict in the state would attemP