University of South Carolina Libraries
PAGE 2—The Newberry Sun, Newberry, S. C., Thursday, March 6, 1969 1218 College St., Newberry, S. C. 29108 PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY 0. F. Armfield, Jr., Owner Second-Class Postage Paid at Newberry, South Carolina SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $2.00 per year in advance. Six Months $1.25. ‘Law of Land’ spelled out by Lawrence By David Lawrence (Reprinted from U. S. News & World Report Ever since the Supreme Court of the United States rendered its opinion in 1954 and 1955 dealing with desegre gation and racial discrimina tion in public schools, there has been a tragic indifference to what is often called the “law of the land.” Local school boards have been under pressure not only to “integrate” but to bring about a “racial balance” by transporting Negro children to schools in white areas or whites to schools in Negro sections. Indeed, federal funds have been withdrawn as a means of pun ishing those public institutions which have not taken positive action to correct “racial imbal ance.” Disturbances and disor ders have arisen in many cities in the North as school officials have been unwilling to bow to demands that children be bused from one school district to an other so as to achieve “racial balance”. It has also been in sisted that a certain propor tion of whites and Negroes be assigned to faculties of public schools. But the Supreme Court of the United States has neve r ruled that there must be “in tegration,” much less that “rac ial balance” must be corrected, when segregation is the result of normal conditions and con stitutes no deliberate act oi discrimination by a public ag ency. The Supreme Court has let stand a decision handed down on July 15, 1955, by a three- judge court—consisting of two Circuit Court judges and one District Court judge—in t h e case of Briggs vs. Elliott. Its opinion, which is at present the “law of the land" on dis crimination in public schools, said in part: “Whatever may have been the views of this court as to the law when the case was originally before us. it is our duty now to accept the law as declared by the Supreme Court. “Having said this, it is im portant that we point out ex actly what the Supreme Court has decided and what it has not decided in this case. It has not decided that the federal courts are to take over or reg ulate the public schools of the States. It has not decided that the States must mix persons of different races in the schools or must require them to attend schools or must deprive them of the right of choosing the schools they attend. “What it has decided, anc all that it has decided, is that a state may not deny to any person on account of race the right to attend any school that it maintains. This, under the decision of the Supreme Court, the State may not do directly or indirectly; but if the schools which it maintains are open to children of all races no violation of the Constitution is involved even though the children of different races vol untarily attend different schools as they attend different churches. “Nothing in the Constitu tion or in the decision of the Supreme Court takes away from people the freedom 1o choose the schools they attend. “The Constitution, in other words, does not require inte gration. It merely forbids dis crimination. It does not forbid such segregation as occurs as the result of voluntary action. It merely forbids the use of governmental power to enforce segregation. The Fourteenth Amendment is a limitation up on the exercise of power by the State or State agencies, not a limitation upon the freedom of individuals. “The Supreme Court has pointed out that the solution of the problem in accord with its decisions is the primary res ponsibility of school authori ties and that the function of the courts is to determine whe ther action of the school au thorities constitutes ‘good faith implementation of the governing constitutional princi ples.’ ” The Congress of the United States, in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, carried out the basic concepts set forth by the Sup reme Court decisions, and pro vided for desegregation in pub lic education. This statute says “ ‘Desegregation’ shall not mean the assignment of stu dents to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance . . “Nothing herein shall em power any official or court oi the United States to issue an> order seeking to achieve a ra cial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance.” This same law authorizes each federal department or ag ency which extends financial assistance to any program or activity to issue “rules, regu lations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial as sistance.” But it makes the following stipulation: “No such rule, regulation, oi order shall become effective un less and until approved by the President.” While President Johnson ap proved some regulations issue' on Dec. 3, 1964, by the Depart ment of Health, Education and Welfare, nowhere as men tion made of the specific pro hibition in the law against is suance of any order seeking to achieve racial balance in any school.” But the “guidelines” distributed by the Department of Health, Education and Wel fare actually have the effect of imposing a requirement that there shall be certain percent ages or quotas of Negro pupils in various public schools. State and local governments have been told that compliance is “voluntary.” But they never theless have been threatened by punitive action if they failed to carry out the edicts. In the issue of Feb. 6, 1967, this writer said: “The U. S. Commissioner of Education is insisting on what might be called ‘compulsory volition.’ The States and cities are told that the “guidelines” are purely voluntary. If, how ever, these yardsticks are not applied, the local governments then can lose federal funds. “It is the duty of the Presi dent of the United States to insist that regulations be issued from threatening to withhold to prohibit any Department school funds or from taking other actions which directly or indirectly seek ‘to achieve a ra cial balance in any school.’ “Why shouldn’t officials of our Government be required to obey both the spirit and the letter of the law? “To ignore an Act of Con gress or to violate its explicit provisions is hardly a good ex ample of government u.'.- , “r a system of ‘law and order.’ Dr the contrary, it is, unfortunate ly, another tragic infringement during our era of ‘civil’ disob edience.’ ” Will President Nixon, who has just taken an oath to sup port the Constitution, permit the “guidelines” of the De partment of Health Education, and Welfare to remain in ef fect insofar as they threaten punishment unless" racial im balance” is corrected? In many areas of the coun try efforts have been made to put into operation “freedom of choice” plans, and certainly there is no reason why school boards shouldn't open their in stitutions to students who come from any part of the city. There is, on the other hand, no reason for the Federal Govern ment to punish a school hoard when it chooses to admit only the children who live within a particular district as long as admission is open to all, with out regard to race or color. at9,000places in South Carolina The “law of the land” prop erly calls for an end to segre gation. But it does not require “integration” as a means of correcting “racial imbalance” which is due to residential pat terns or other circumstances not connected with discrima- tory practices. Yet we have observed in the last few years agencies of the Department of Health, Educa tion and Welfare proclaiming “guidelines” which, in effect, seek to correct “racial imbal ance” by transporting children away from the school which they would normally attend, while other children are bused to that same school. Faculty members are being assigned on a racial basis. The object is to have in some instances at least the same percentage of white and Negro teachers as students in a school. The big question before the country today is whether the new Administration at Wash ington will show the indiffer ence to the “law of the land” that has been previously exhi bited. Within the last few days, Robert M. Finch, the new Sec retary of Health, Education and Welfare, granted a 60- day extension to five Southern school districts which were scheduled to lose federal funds because of an alleged refusal to abolish segregated school systems. Mr. Finch said he has not had an opportunity to es tablish and review the facts in these cases and has dis patched a team of investiga tors to each district “to de velop workable and effective alternatives within the law.” He recalled that Mr. Nixon during the election campaign had set forth “the proper con struction of this provision of the law.” The Republican presidential nominee, in a public speech in October, said: “No child, black or white, should be deprived of an ade quate education. I would en force Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I oppose any action by the Office of Ed ucation that goes beyond a mandate of Congress. A case in point is the busing of stud ents to achieve racial balance in the schools. The law clearly states that ‘desegregation shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial im balance.’ ” The total vote given to Mr. Nixon and to Wallace was in part a reflection of the bitter feeling that had developed thruout the country because the Johnson Administration per mitted the issuance of illegal “guidelines,” along with threats to curtail federal funds, in or der to attain “racial balance” in the schools. The fact is there are various ways of moving toward racial balance through the voluntary action of the residents in dif ferent communities. Our citizens want a fair deal for every race, and they do not want governmental power used as a means of correcting “rac ial imbalance” arising from natural causes. The “law of the land” must be properly admin istered to retain the support of an overwhelming majority of the American people. (Copyright 1969, U. S. News & World Report, Inc.) fight birth defects ^MARCH OF DIMES State of South Carolina, County of Newberry By FRANK H. WARD, Probate Judge Whereas, Virgil C. Harmon hath made suit to me to grant him Letters of Administration of the Estate and effects of Carroll R. Harmon deceased. These are, therefore, to cite and admonish all and singular the Kindred and Creditors of the said Carroll R. Harmon de ceased, that they be and ap pear before me, in the Court of Probate, to be held at Newber ry, S. C. on March 4, 1969 next after publication hereof, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon, to show cause, if any they have, why the said Administration should not be granted. Given under my hand this 20 day of February, A. D. 1969. FRANK H. WARD, Probate Judge, Newberry County 2t Here’s Our ANTI POVERTY PROGRAM The best insurance that money can buy ... at competitive rates. Talk to us! “YOUR PRIVATE BANKERS’’ 1418 Main Street Phone 276-1422