Hide Article Text (OCR)
Segregation Any Monday'Tn»w/\»»t*Aiw A/\nl lt;1 L! —A. — : _ . t • — ii’i *t. •_ • * ■They declared that even if the ^||court had authority to abolish seg-rn-rjmn if con’d n«t t itself on as a super board of educationto tell States how to operateFoiTomorrow could be an historicday.The Supreme Court is due to rule any Monday from now until June on racial segregation in public schools. The decision is expected to he one of the most momentous in the history of the tribunal.The deep-rooted elements areinvolved in five cases. Here’s some of the background:THE CASES District of Columbia. Parents of several Negro children sought a District Court order to compel school authorities to admit them to Sousa Junior High School after they were refused admission in September. t950. Judge Walter M. Bastian dismissed the plea He followed a I’nited States Court of Ap-Kansas. When this suit was begun by Negro parents in 1951 in Topeka, segregation was practiced only in the elementary schools of that city in accordance with a State permissive law. applying to cities of more than 15.000 population. A three-judge Federal court, although observing that segregation was ‘•detrimental to Negro children, saw nothing unconstitutional about the Kansas law and til© system in Topeka.Delaware: This case differsfrom the four others in that a state court ordered admission of Negro children to two white schools in Wilmington because Negro schools were inadequat#. '.’he State Supreme Court uphell Jiis order, but did not pass on the| peals decision upholding the sep-I question of constitutionality. State j arale-but-equal doctrine in an i authorities appealed to the United! earlier case States Supreme CourtVirginia. This case originated in Prince Edward County and concerned high school^. A three-judge Federal court in March. 1952. directed county authorities to equalize Negro and white school facilities with all reasonable diligence and speed,” But it upheld the segregation as required by the Virginia State constitution. That court described such segregation as a way of life and said it did “noTHE ISSUES The main question before thehigh court is whether racial segr4 gation in public schools, especially at the elementary and secondary level, is in itself contrary to the 14th amendment, and to the fifth amendment in the case of the District.The fifth amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, provides among I other things that no person shall j “he deprived of life, libertyoropertv without due processharm to either race. | be deprived of life, liberty orSouth Carolina. tnce before this j ororertv v;n-.oi.it due process of case reached the Supreme Court j law.” The 14th amendment, adopt-as a result of a suit started by Negro parents and pupils against officials of School District 22 in Clarendon County. A three-judge Federal Court in 1951 agreed unanimously that the Negro schools were inferior, ft ordered that equal facilities be provided “as soon as humanly possible. But two of the judges felt that segregation was constitutional. This was appealed to the Supreme Court, which returned the litigation for further lower court con-sider.-Pinn The three-judge Federal panel heard the matter again, in March, 1952. It found that satisfactory progress was being made in equalizing schools, and sustained segregation.ed in 1868, provides in its first section that no state shall “deprive any persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.The Supreme Court has never yet ruled conclusively on constitutionality of segregation of races in I he public schools. It. of course, has ruled often on segregationvs. Ferguson the tribunal laid down the doctrine that segregation is constitutional as long as separate facilities for Negroes and whites are equal. That opinion sustained a Louisiana law for segregation of train passengers. It mentioned. in passing, that States had been permitted to operate segregated schools.Subsequent decisions never overruled “Plessv vs. Ferguson.THE TON OF ITLitigants opposing school segregation claim, in general, that it is essentially discrimination and therefore denies to Negroes the fundamental rights guaranteed to all Americans. They denounce seg rogation, no matter how fairly conducted, as putting a badge of inferiority on Negroes and robbing them of genuine equality of educational oportunity with whites.They want the Supreme Court to order outright abolition of such segregationTHE ‘PRO’ OF fTThe Justice Department helices that school segregation should be ended only because the 14th amendment “compels a State to grant benefits of public educa- | cation to all its people equally without regard to differences of race or color. Attorney General Brownell's brief says this is the basic question: Is there equality between persons Not: is there equality between schools.Virginia and South Carolina declare that segregation is all right under the Federal Constitution and in full accord with the proper powers of the individual .Slates, They defend it also as bejng in the best interests of the Negroes.Kansas and Delaware, while notof putting integration Into effect if segregation were ruled null and void. The queries, striped of legal language, were substantially these:In approving the Nth amendment. did the 39th Congress and the ratifying States understand that it would abolish segregation in public schools?| If that congress nr those States did not understand the arnend-I ment to require immediate abolition of school segregation, did the framers contemplate that - rne future Congress or court could legally act under that amendment and abolish segregation?Do the courts alone today have power to interpret the amend ment. in itself, as abolishing seg. rogation?Assuming that segregation were found unconst t- tional, would Ihe court necessarily ha'e to order that Negro children should ‘ forthwith” he admitted to schools of their choice within limits of normal geographic school districts? Or would it have the right to allow an effecti’.e gradual adjustment from segregated to integrated schools?How should a change-over bo worded out1' Should ihe Supreme Court issue detailed decrees in the individual cases? Should the court designate a special master to hoar 1 evidence and syggest procedures.’ Should the cases be sent back to lower Federal courts in the respective jurisdiction*? If so. what methods, surveys or conferences should those courts use in arriving' at specific terms of detailed decrees’.’VARIF.I) WSWERSVirginia officials contended there is no substantial evidence-■ --| i'uhxok, ..mu, no. is mi suusianuai evidencesi'-ts of various kinds. Including j so emphatic, look upon the fate of that the Congress which approvededucational. As recently as 1950 it ordered Negro students admitted to graduate schools in severalState universities.The court’s most debated ruling in ’ the field of segregation—and the one that would collapse if the court decided that school segregation is unconstitutional — was handed down in 1896. In “Plessyschool segregation in a State as necessarily and constitutionally in !b° hands of the State.In the further oral arguments last December the courts asked for answers to several questionsor the States which ratified the 14th amendment intended that it should wipe out school segregation. They maintained that thecourts have n- power to do so and that any change js lip (0 j]1erelating to the intent and applica- State Legislature They concluded lion Of the 14th amendment, the that the court, if it banned seg-, extent of judicial and concession- rogation, could permit an effec-1 al authority, and the mechanics five gradual adjustment ” But 1Delaware authorities said their case poses no constitutional question They explained that their State court did not rule on validity of segregation hut on an as-,:/'rted lack of equal facilities under the segregated system directed by the State constitution.Kansas attorneys for the Topeka | education hoard which last September ordered an end to school segregation in that city felt that the 14th amendment never was in-1 tended to interfere with State management of public school*. They denied that the Federal judiciary has power to interfere with that phase of a State * activities | Justice Department Officials I told the court it can constitutional- ! ly outlaw school segregation. They I said the legislative history of the 1’th amendment is “not conrlu- 1 sive. But they maintained there 1 ■ was no rjiv.il;t that the amf^dnent ‘ was designed to secure full and complete equality for Negroes under the law and to abolish al! legal distinctions based on race or eolnr. They recommended that State and District authorities be j given about a year in which to ef feet transition Attorneys for Negro appellants aimed at all forms of racial discrimination and “any sort of caste system. They urged the court to cod segregation outright. While not asking the impossible and recognizing that some administrative adjustments cannot be made overnight, they found “no compel- | ling reasons why the States and j the District could not he ordered to achieve integration by the beginning of the next school year in ; September.POSSIBLE EFFECTS What will happen if segregation is banned?That is another and possibly even longer story Justice Jackson was about the j only one to utter a hint about the j future. Irrespective of what the j court might rule he remarked that “I foresee a generation of litiga tion.PTI The r forwa“II real i j Not I The ! nouk, j riia, r : states j The this ccntui w hat i have i anothlt; all tin tory.77ic school ha* nr prefer the F formmore Comm insists pride first, t French Carri Like j from a The foi count rjare inc they ■ skins.The I life an life. He dressed or bah with \V horsebc and jaz the sax tra. Hi and leiHA*. BOYLEGlinwse Into F^'urs:Roger said, “I and the other machines have just kopt enough people breeding and feeding to keep us oiled and functioning. There have been no wars. And for aJust to see what would happen, i stammered Adam.‘Well, the ne t t me it happens, j you'll be tu-cd out to starve We don't wnat anv change* Vmi hwGems Of ThoughtKINDNESSW;se sayings and garrulous talk may fall to the ground, rather than on the ear orlir-nrt nf thr hnnrrr- hut nsession He oi palace tinning, garage to the c most in a Budd! worship of silvei The 1 bachelo children royal clt; the QueSever
Newspaper Details
Greenville Banner
Greenville, Texas, US
Sun, Apr 04, 1954
Page 2
Full Page
Clipped by
Brian G.
USA 10 Dec 2024
Other Publications Near Greenville, Texas
The Greenville Morning Herald
Greenville Banner
Greenville Evening Banner
Herald Banner
Greenville Herald Banner
