The sun. [volume] (Newberry, S.C.) 1937-1972, March 06, 1969, Image 2
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withdrawn as a means of pun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