1 20 146 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/4827a71e530de79ee4eb6fae6628477b.pdf de69a1388a6dd0f86f349cbf646df8be PDF Text Text THE AMERICAN NATIONALIST COURT DECREES MONGRELIZATION NAACP Pushes Plan For Bringing Total Mongrelization To The South LOS ANGELES—Nowhere in America is the cult of “ brotherhood” taken more seriously than in California, where from kindergarten on the child Is continuously taught the blessings of racial equality and the horrors of “ bigotry” This year some of the visible results of this . “ tolerance” propaganda were especially apparent to the parents of Los Angeles when the tax-supported Los Angeles City College, largest junior college In the U.S., celebrated its 25th anniversary. Chosen as queen of the silver anniversary event was Barbara Lee Cooke, an attractive white co-ed. The “ king” fornia and a life-long advocate of , however, was a Negro as black as race-mixing. Warren’ new mis­ s the ace of spades. “ Brotherhood” sion, it would seem, is to extend , quite obviously, was beginning to jCalifornia's racerm ix'ng p rogra m pay off in Los Angeles. . . to all the 48 states. . . Although several states, includ­ A LESSON Actually, the disgraceful spec­ ing California, have long main­ tained interracial schools, 21 states tacle at Los Angeles City College and the District of Columbia have should provide a lesson not only continued to segregate Negroes to the parents of Los Angeles and whites. It is on these states (many of whom originally came s from the deep South) but to par­ that the real impact of the Court’ radical decision will fall, because ents everywhere. P is this: if they contain a substantial major­ white children are educated with ity of the nation’ entire Negro s Negroes, sent to church with them, population. The p o p u l a t i o n of thrown into constant and intimate Mississippi, for example, is about social contact with them, and in addition are continuously impres­ half white and half Negro. In the District of Columbia, which Eisen­ sed with the virtues of racial hower has fatuously designated as equality, then such things as this a “ pilot model” for the various are inevitable. Young people who states to emulate, 57% of the stu­ are taught all their lives that it dents enrolled in public schools is wicked to discriminate between are Negro while only 43% are black and white cannot be blamed white. too much if they fail to discrim­ ULTIMATE EFFECT inate between a black “ king”and The ultimate effect of the Su­ a white queen for their school preme court’ ruling against seg­ s anniversary, nor, for that mattter, if they fail to discriminate be­ regated schools will not, however, be apparent for many years. The tween a white or black marriage process of mixing whites and Ne­ partner. . . groes in the classroom may, as a SEGREGATION CASE matter of fact, be relatively slow Ironically, the episode at Los in many cases. Angeles City College occurred on The real damage will be done the eve of the Supreme Court’ s on the psychological front. The child will be conditioned at first to accept the mere presence of Negro students in the classroom. Later he will be taught that all races are -equal in ability and intellectual capacity and that there is no essential difference between the various racial groups. He will be inoculated against the evils of “ bias”and “ prejudice", and train­ ed to look upon any manifestation of racial pride or consciousness as anti-social, if not criminal. . . BRAINWASH Only when this process of brain­ washing is far enough along will the student be introduced to the joys of interracial social activities. Needless to say, it is only a step from there to interracial lovemaking and marriage, and as a matter of fact the legal barriers against interracial marriages have already been obliterated in some This interracial cake-cutting ceremony was states. And if all this seems far­ the highlight of the 25th Silver Anniversary fetched and over imaginative, it celebration at Los Angeles City College. should be remembered that this An entire generation o f California’ young s people have been brain-washed with "tol­ very thing has already occurred erance" and "brotherhood" propaganda in in some states, as the photographs preparation for this sort of thing. of Los Angeles City College will d e c i s i o n o u t l a w i n g segregated attest. . . schools. And fittingly enough, the N.A.A.C.P. Court’ anti-segregation decision s In this connection it would be was read by chief-justice Earl well to give some attention to the Warren, former governor of Cali­ National Association for the Ad- Shown here Is a preview of what Supreme Court's anti-segregation ruling mately means for parents everywhere. above event occurred recently when the ulti­ The the v a n c e m e n t of C o l o r e d People (NAACP) which in the main was responsible for bringing about the school s e g r e g a t i o n ruling. The NAACP b r o u g h t f o u r separate suits challenging the legality of segregated schools and it was on the basis of this action that the Court rendered its startling deci­ sion outlawing segregated schools. SILENT REVOLUTION This, incidentally, is but the latest of a series of court victories achieved by the radical, trouble­ making NAACP — victories which have brought about a “ silent revo­ lution” in race relations in this country within the past decade. The NAACP's most notable vic­ tory previous to the school segre­ gation case was, of course, the ruling under which the Supreme Court outlawed restrictive cove­ nants, thus making it possible for Negroes to force their way into previously all-white neighborhoods. The NAACP won another out­ standing victory when it obtained a Supreme Court ruling which compels Washington D.C. restau­ rants and hotels to cater to Ne­ groes—a precedent which is bound to be applied elsewhere as time goes on. In other Supreme Court cases the NAACP won decisions which insure Negroes the “ right”to at­ tend white universities and to ride with whites in public con­ veyances. . . There have been other similar cases. In each instance it was the NAACP bringing suit; in each case the Supreme Court either up­ held obscure and little known anti-segregation laws, or it out­ lawed statutes under which seg­ regation was enforced. OTHER VICTORIES The NAACP has also advanced the “ silent revolution” with the help of the executive branch of the government. Its greatest vic­ tory in this field was the "inte­ gration”of Negroes and whites in the Armed Forces. Under the “ in­ tegration” program—started under Truman and completed this year student-body at Los Angeles City C ollege chose a Negro "king” and a white queen to preside over the school's 25th Silver Anniversary celebration. . . by Eisenhower — all branches of the military have been mongrelized, with Negroes and whites serving t o g e t h e r in interracial units for the first time in Amer­ ican history. In many respects the NAACP regards this as its great­ est victory, surpassing even the school segregation case in impor­ tance. LITTLE F.E.P.C. Another NAACP victory, won with the help of organized Jewry, was the so-called “ little F.E.P.C.” which Eisenhower instituted last year. The “ little F.E.P.C." compels all government contractors to hire Negroes and members of other minority groups under threat of having their contracts cancelled, thus imposing over a substantial portion of American industry a de facto FEPC. . . THE PATTERN This, then, is the pattern of the “ silent revolution” silent, creep­ —a ing, insidious revolution w h i c h even at this moment is stealing upon this Republic like an assas­ sin in the night. And it should be noted that this revolution is not being promoted by legislation, but by executive decree and court de­ cision. Not a single one of the above described "civil rights”vic(Continued on next page) RACIAL SELF-RESPECT The advocates of racial mon­ grelization are again dusting off the canard about children hav­ ing no inborn racial conscious­ ness. They argue that children acquire racial awareness from their g r o wn u p s , who teach them racial “ prejudice” . . . They are right, too. Children ARE born without racial pre­ judice. They are also bom with­ out any prejudice against an open flame, a sharp instrument or a poisonous insect. The point is that children must be taught the difference b e t w e e n good and bad, right and wrong, black and white. . . —Frank L. Britton �THE AMERICAN NATIONALIST The Goal: M ongrelization Unlimited! (Continued from Page One) tories was obtained through an act of Congress. . . BEHIND N.A.A.C.P. This brings us to the question as to what the NAACP’ ultimate s objective really is. This is impor­ tant because we know from past experience the NAACP no sooner wins a concession than it makes new and even more extreme de­ mands, each victory is followed by new agitation. It is appropriate, therefore, to examine the NAACP’ s program in some detail. JEWISH LEADERSHIP Before doing that, however, it is necessary to correct a popular misconception as to the leader­ ship of the NAACP. Because it is not really and truly a Negro or­ ganization at all. The people be­ hind the NAACP are not Negroes, but Jews. This will come as a sur­ prise to some because the organi­ zation invariably uses Negroes as fronts for its activities, and the rank and file of its staff is Negro. Nevertheless t h e president of NAACP, and the real power in the o r g a n i z a t i o n , is the Jew, Arthur Spingarn. When this fact is digested the revolutionary pro­ gram of the NAACP becomes a little more comprehensible. . . THINGS TO COME The NAACP’ objective for the S next ten years is no secret. On the contrary it has been mapped out in detail and publicized under the slogan, "Free by 63” The “ . Free by 63” campaign was launched last March at a Washington D.C. meet­ ing with the blessings of Ike Eisenhower, who addressed t h e convention. The plan calls for the raising of a million dollars an­ nually for the next ten years and the announced goal is the total abolishment of racial segregation. THE GOAL In simple terms, the NAACP’ s goal is to “ integrate" Negroes into SUPREME COURT These are the nine left-wing political appointees who have decreed that your child must hereafter attend school with Negroes: To begin with there is Felix Frank­ furter, a Jew and an ardent defender of Sacco and Vanzetti—and a character witness for Alger Hiss during his per­ jury trial . . . There is Hugo Black, who twice accepted awards from the “ Southern Conference for Human W el­ fare"—one of the most notorious Com ­ munist-front organizations in existence . . . There is Stanley Reed, who, with Frankfurter, appeared as a voluntary character witness for Alger Hiss at his trial . . . There is the contemptible Robt. Jackson (the hangman of Nurem­ berg) who helped draw up the ex post facto “ war crimes" statutes at Nurem­ berg—and then proceeded to prosecute the helpless German leaders under those same laws . . . There is William Doug­ las, a fanatic leftist who tried desper­ ately to save the atom spies, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, from the electric chair with an extra-legal stay of execution last year . . . And finally there is the Negro-loving Earl Warren, who was not even a member of the Court when the segregation case was being argued, yet who used his leverage as Chief Justice to bring in a unanimous decision against segregation—-as he had obviously agreed to do before his appointment. . . These men, and these men alone, have "outlawed" segregated schools. S<\ Each year the student-body at the taxsupported Los Angeles City College, fargesi junior college in the U.S., puts on a “ Howdy H op "—a dance to welcome new students into campus society. In recent years these affairs have to an increasing extent assumed an interracial flavor, and the spectacle of a buck Negro dancing with a white coed has becom e a common­ place occurrence. Last September this interacial motif reached a sort of apex when a white gueen and a black “ king" were selected to reign over the “ Howdy Hop". And within a ten-month period Los Angeles City C ollege was the scene of two such interracial "coronations" in which colored “ kings" were paired off with white girls. And just as race-mixing has com e to Los Angeles, so it wilt com e to your community, to your school, perhaps to your family. The Supreme court has so decreed it. . . whi t e residential neighborhoods until the “ black belt”and the all white neighborhood are merged and thus cease to exist as such. The NAACP’ program is based s upon the premise that anti-dis­ crimination laws now in existence are ineffective so long as Negroes and whites continue to occupy separate residential communities. Under p r e s e n t conditions, the NAACP argues, Negro business establishments operate o n l y i n Negro communities, while white business places service only white districts. Negro civil servants—i.e. police, firemen, postal employees, etc. — generally are assigned to Negro areas, while white civil servants w o r k in white areas. Schools in Negro districts are attended exclusively by Negroes, and by the same rule whites often attend their own schools even in states where there is no official school segregation. Negro districts have their own social organiza­ tions and churches, as do the whites. Similarly, swimming pools, social affairs and sports activities tend to follow along the same lines, although there are many ex­ ceptions to the rule. Thus, accord­ ing to the NAACP’ reasoning, the s races will not freely mingle so long as they reside in different neighborhoods. This is the key to the entire situation. “ FREE BY ’ 68” The NAACP’ proposed solution, s therefore, is to mix up whites and Negroes until there is no such thing as a white or black residen­ tial area. Then, and only then, will Negroes and whites mix at school, at work, at church, in res­ taurants, at the swimming pool, at sports and in social activities. That, in essence, is the goal of the NAACP's “ Free by 63“campaign. the outlawing of restrictive covenants, the president’ “ s little F.E.P.C.” and other similar developments are but the first steps in this process. You have only to look again at the pic­ tures shown at the beginning of this article to see what the eventual out­ come will be. Somewhere along the line Americans are going to have to take a stand. They are going to have to take a stand or it will forever be too late. . . SIGNIFICANCE: It is impossible to review this particular situation without experiencing a chill of horror over what is happening. The Jewdominated NAACP has outlined what amounts to a declaration of revolu­ tion; a revolution more sweeping and profound in its total effect than any­ thing we have ever experienced in our history. The ultimate goal is to bastardize our civilization; to place Negroes in our schools, in our resi­ dential neighborhoods, in our social clubs, and even in our living rooms. NOTE: The above reprint originally ap­ peared in the June issue of the AMERICAN NATIONALIST. O N RACE-MIXING It has been said that "G o d made the white man, And God made the blaclc man, But the DEVIL made the mulatto" ... — Unknown You can help defeat the NAACP's pro­ gram for compulsory mongrelization in two ways: (1) You can distribute additional copies of this tract. (2) You can subscribe to the AMERICAN NATIONALIST, America's most forthright and fearless patriotic journal. THE AMERICAN NATIONALIST Box 301, Inglewood, Calif. FRANK L. BRITTON, Editor ~ □ One year $3.00 □ Two years $5.00 Name................................. Alvin Spingarn, president of NAACP This s Alvin Spingarn, the Jew who has headed the NAACP since 19 9 the fact has 3. been generally suppressed, but the NAACP is, and has been from its inception, a Jew-controlled organization. Street................................. They will never rest until every racial barrier and restriction has been destroyed. The school segregation ban Packets of this tract may be purchased at following rates: Packet of 1 for $1.00; 2 Packet of 30 for $2.00; Packet of 1 0 for 0 $5.00; Packet of 10 for $45.00. 00 , City................................... State.................................. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Court Decrees Mongrelization Description An account of the resource In May of 1954, the students of Los Angeles City College elected a white Queen and Black King in honor of the college's 25th anniversary. A matter of days later, the Supreme Court handed down the Brown v. Board decision. Frank L. Britton, of Inglewood California, was the editor of "The American Nationalist," a bimonthly newspaper from which this broadside was reprinted. In it, Britton connects these two events as indicating that a trend of miscegenation-- which many white racists like Britton saw as an abomination. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Frank L. Britton Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource June 1954 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The American Nationalist: Court Decrees Mongrelization Description An account of the resource Issue of the segregationist newsletter The American Nationalist from circa 1954. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Photograph Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context RG07_SG1_S8_F19_The American Nationalist The Court Decrees https://projectdaps.org/files/original/048a137650d9214d0a038ebe80767362.pdf ef90ecb531d2c4d86c2491120fd1c494 PDF Text Text Leading Ed5.tor.-ial from The Ksv; York Times May 18, 1954- "ALL GOD'S CHILLIIN" The Supreme Court took a long and careful time to arrive at the unanimous decision re id yesterday by Chiei? Justice barren that "segregation of children in the public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities end other 5 tangible! factors nay be equal, deprives the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities," But the decision reached was inevitable in the year 1954 regardless of what may have been the case in 1868, when the Four­ teenth Amendment was adopted, or in 1896, when the "separate but equal" doctrine uas laid down in the case of flossy v. Ferguson, In the case under consideration the facilities offered to Negro children appeared to be equal, or were to be made equal, "with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications end salaries of ojachers and other 'tangible1 factors," to those available to white children. The question, therefore, was more fundamental than in any previous case. It was whether Negro children segregated solely on tie basis of race, even though offered equal facilities, were thereby deprived of equil educational opportunities. The court holds that such segregation does have ” i detrimental effect upon the colored children," that it had "a tendency to rstrrd (theirj) educational and mental development «** and to deprive them of som of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system," The eonrt, speaking thr. igh Chief Jus tice Warren, therefore concludes that "separate educational facil5.ti.rs .-re inherently unequal," that the plaintiffs and o'ih' rs similarly situated "are by reason of the segregation complained of deprived c ' - he equal protection of the lavs guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment," The due process clause is not involved. It is not needed. What the court is saying, is its formal, out, not complicated style, is a part c:' ihat Eugene O'Neill said in a play called "All God's Ch3.11un Got Wings." It in true, of course, that the court is not talking of that sort of .equality" which procucos inter-racial marriages. It is not talking of a octal system at all. It i3 talking of a system of human rights which 5 s foreshadowed in the second . p; n graph of the Declaration of independence, which stated "that all. men are crested equal." Mr. Jefferson and the others who ere responsible for the Declara­ t o r did not intend to say that all men are squally intelligent, equally good or eiual in height or weight. They meant to say that men were, and ought to be, equal before the lrw. If men are equal, children are equal, too. There is an oven greater necessity in the case of collaron, whose opportunities to advance them­ selves and t s be useful to the community may bo lost if they do not have the right tc be educated. No one ;an deny that the mingling of the races in the schools of the seventeen slates which have required rep-opvtion and the three states which have permitted io will creawe problems. The fo' -ways in Southern communities will have to be aJapred to now conditions if while ond egre children, together with white and Nogr> teacher s, are to enjoy not only equal facilities but the same facilities in tie same ichools. The Constitution and tie Bill of Rights are at times hard �» Editorial, Uew York Tines, May IS, 1954 - 2, :ias era. The court has recognized these difficulties by withholding a decree and 37 nvitlng "the full assistance of tho parties in formulating decrees." The sas s are therefore restored to the docket .aid the Attorney General, of the United its es and -;he Attorneys General of the stales requiring or permitting segregation .a ublic ee.ueation will be permitted to appear before the court next fall. There ;il. be somi delay before orders issue and it may be that petitions for rehearing and modification will take up a good deal, of time. These matters cannot be hurried. A constitutional principle inherent in the Declaration of Independence and iev r entirely forgotten, even in the days of human slavery, has, however, been •es ated. ' M s nation is often criticized for its treatment of racial minorities, -and particularly of the Negro. There have been / - this criticism. Little r >7 . ittls, however, in the folic customs and in such decisions as the one rendered yesterday, ve move toward a more perfect democracy, vlhen some hostile propagandist rises in Mo; cow or Peiping to accuse us of being a class society vie can if we vis! recite the courageous words of yesterday's opinion. The highest court in ■ve land, the guardian of our national sorsoience, has reaffirmed its faith— . i the undj ing American faith— in the equality of all men and all children before 'd -le law. �2 - " � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Leading Editorial from The New York Times May 18, 1954 "All God's Chillun" Description An account of the resource Typed editorial letter regarding the Supreme Court decision holding public school segregation to be unconstitutional as in line with the ideal of 'equality under the law', the Declaration of Independence, and the 14th amendment. 3 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource unknown Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-5-18 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_1_1 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/f3113a48cbc55083127f70dc2393de73.pdf da6e011de3cd2f885940ccc6f6543ff4 PDF Text Text Fr-om the "Richmond News Leader" of Mondays May 17, 1954. TEXT OF HIGH COURT RULING ON SCHOOL SEGREGATION Washington, May 17 - (AP) - The text of the Supreme Court's decision in the racial segregation cases, read by Chief Justice Warrens These cases come to us from the State of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware, They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion. In each of the eases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representa­ tives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a non-segregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attendedby white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, In each of the oases other than the Delaware ease, a three-judge Federal District Court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine announced by this court in Plessy v, Ferguson, 163 United States 537, Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools. Said Deprived The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal." and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the court took jurisdiction. Argument was heard in the 1952 term, and rs-argument was heard this term on certain questions propounded by the court, Beargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Anendment in 1868, It covered exhaustively consideration of the amendment in Congress, ratification by the States, then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the postwar amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic bo both the letter and the spirit of the amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the State Legislature had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. An additional reason for the inclusive nature of the amendment's history, with respect to segregated schools, is the status of public education at that time* In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race was illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by �Text of High Court Ruling on School Segregation - 2 , law in some States. Today, in contrast, many Negroes hare achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public education has already ddvaneed further in the North, but the effect of the amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public educa­ tion did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudi­ mentary! ungraded schools were common in rural areas 5 the school term was but three months a year in many States; and compulsory school attendance was virtually un­ known, As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education. Six Cases In the first cases in this court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the court interpreted it as proscribing all Stateimposed discriminations against the Negro race. The doctrine of "separate but equal® did not make its appearance in this court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v, Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation, American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this court, there have been six eases involving the "separate but equal" doctrine in the field of public education. In Gumming v. County Board of Education, 175 T » S, 528, and Gong turn v. J Rice, 275 U, S„ 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. In more recent cases, all on the graduate school level., inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications, Missouri ex rel, Gaines v, Canada, 305 U, S, 377| S&puel v, Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631| Sweatt v. Painter, 339 0. S, 629; Mclaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U, S, 6.37, In none of these cases was it necessary to re-examine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v„ Painter, supra, the court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy Ferguson should be held .'inapplicable to public education. In the instant cases, the question is directly presented. Here, uitlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized with respect to buildings, curricula, qualification and salaries of teachers and other "tangible" factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education. In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v, Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws. Biggest Function Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for �Text of High Court Ruling on School Segregation ~ 3 . education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. We come then to the question presented2 Does segregation of children in public schools, solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does0 In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this court relied in large part on '"those qualifies which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations2 his ability to study, engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general to learn his profession." Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs? "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law| for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system." Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. �Text of High Court Ruling on School Segreation - 4. Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question— the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance o£ the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the court for the reargument this term. The Attorney-General of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attomeys-General of the States requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by Sept. 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by Oct. 1, 1954. It is so ordered. (End of Supreme Court decision) Memorandums Questions 4 and 5, mentioned in the last paragraph of the idSBision above, were set up by the Supreme Court before the anti-segregation ruling. Questions 4 and 5 l/ ares If segregation were held unconstitutional, should the Court decree that within limits set by normal geographic school districting, Negro children forthwith should be admitted to schools of their choice, or might the Court exercise its powers for a gradual adjustment from segregated to ncnsegregated schools? Should the Court formulate detailed decrees, what specific issues should such decrees reach, should the court appoint a special master to hear evidence and recommend specific terms for the decrees, cr should the Court send the problem back to the lower courts with directions to frame decrees to put into effect the will of the high tribunal? 1/ Summarized by The Washington Post and Times Herald for May 18, 1954. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Text of High Court Ruling on School Segregation, May 17, 1954 Description An account of the resource Washington, May 17 - (AP) - The text of the Supreme Court's decision in the racial segregation cases, read by Chief Justice Warren. 4 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource unknown Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-5-17 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_1_3 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/648d9d028000db949b517dd94e0a4744.pdf 0a93d25a6054b889e684ee6acbf428d7 PDF Text Text COMMDNWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RICHMOND SUPTS. MEMO. NO. May 23, I95U 3025 TO: Division Superintendents and Chairmen of Local School Boards FROM: Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction SUBJECT: Ruling of Attorney General of Virginia - Opinion of Supreme Court of the United States. I am enclosing a copy of an opinion rendered by the Attorney General in reply to an inquiry propounded to him by the State Board of Education at its meeting Thursday, May 27, I95H. I also quote below the action of the State Board of Education following receipt of the opinion: "In view of the opinion of the Attorney General on this day rendered, to which we adhere, the Board proclaims the following policy: "The local Boards of Education are hereby advised to proceed as at present and for the school session 195** - 55 to operate the public schools of this State on the same basis as they are now being operated and as heretofore obtained." �COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RICHMOND SUPT3. IQ-10. NO. 3025 May 23, 1954 TOi Division Superintendents anil Ciiairmen of Local School Boards FROM: Dowell J. Howard. Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Virginia SUBJECT! Ruling of Attorney General of Virginia— -Opinion of Supreme Court of the United States, I am enclosing a copy of an opinion rendered by the Attorney General in reply to an inquiry propounded to him by the State Board of Education at its meeting Thursday, b.y 27, 1954. Ruling by Virginia Attorney General J. Lindsay Almond, ir., May 27, 1954 While the basic iss- d before the Court has been determined, yet, the Court has ordered the case rostered to the docket and has not entered, end will not enter, a final decree adjudicating the respective rights of i.be parties litigant until further hearings aid proceedings are had and held., Ponding a final adjudication, it Is my opinion that section 140 of the Constitution of Virginia, and. the statute of Virginia enacted pursuant thereto, remain intact and unimpaired, imbued with full logal vitality and efficacy, I" is clearly manifest from the Court's opinion that it reserves , judgment on the matter of final, disposition of the causa before it until it could be further advised as to matters procedural relating to adjustment to the Court's opinion on the basic issue. You have also requested my opinion, in the event I conclude that our constitutional tic statutory provisions retain vitality, as to whether the State Board of Education would be within its legal rights to direct the division Superintendents throughout the State to proceed with plans for the coning school year on the same basis as have heretofore obtained. If is my to issue question qx.es tion opinion that the Board would have full legal authority such directives, in view of the Court’s retention of the as to how end when the Court's opinion on the basic is to be implemented. (See ne:rt page) �Supts. Memo Ho. 3025 - continued, I also quote below the action of the State Board of Education following receipt of the opinions "In view of the opinion of the Attorney General on this day rendered, to which we adhere, the Board proclaims the follow ing policys The local Boards of Education are hereby advised to proceed as at present and for the school session 1954-55 to operate the public schools of this State on the same basis as they are new being operated and as heretofore obtained." � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Commonwealth of Virginia, State Board of Education, Richmond, Superintendent's Memo No. 3025 May 23, 1954 Description An account of the resource Memo from Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Virginia to Division Superintendents and Chairmen of Local School Boards regarding the Ruling of the Attorney General of Virginia on the Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. 3 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Virginia Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-5-23 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_1_7 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/49554811bedc419bb3599d9488e1970e.pdf 79bf154d4064c6dd6c133a17a7069b6d PDF Text Text COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Office of THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Richmond. May 2J, Honorable Blake T. Newton, President, State Board of Education, Hague, Virginia, M y dear Mr. Newton; The State Board of Education at its session on this date propounded the following inquiry upon which it has requested my opinion: In view of the opinion handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 17 in the case of Dorothy E. Davis, et al.. Appellants, - V - County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al,, what is the legal vitality and efficacy of section 1*40 of the Constitution of Virginia, and the statute enacted pursuant thereto, providing, in substance, that white and colored children shall not be taught in the same school? I am sure the Board is familiar with the opinion of the Supreme Court is, this case. In its opinion, the Court said; !We conclude that in the field of public education the ! doctrine of “separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. * * * l t As an integral part of the Court's conclusion, the following language was employed; "Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the considera*tion of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question - the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this term. * * •" Question U referred to by the Court is as follows: "Assuming it is decided that segregation in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment �2. "(a) would a decree necessarily follow providing that, within the limits set by normal geographic school districting, Negro children should forthwith be admitted to schools of their choice, or "(b) may this Court, in the exercise of its equity powers, permit an effective gradual adjustment to be broughtabout from existing segregated systems to a system not based on color distinctions?” Question 5 is not deemed material in answering your inquiry. While the basic issue before the Court has been determined, yet, the Court has ordered the case restored to the docket and has not entered, and will not enter, a final decree adjudicating the respective rights of the parties litigant until further hearings and proceedings are had and held. Pending a final adjudication, it is my opinion that section 1*40 of the Constitution of Virginia, and the statute of Virginia enacted pursuant thereto, remain intact and unimpaired, imbued with full legal vitality and efficacy. It is clearly manifest from the Court's opinion that it reserves judgment on the matter of final disposition of the cause before it until it could be further advised as to matters procedural relating to adjustment to the Court's opinion on the basic issue. You have also requested my opinion, in the event I conclude that our constitutional and statutory provisions retain vitality, as to whether the Stats Board of Education would be within its legal rights to direct the Division Superintendents throughout the State to proceed with plans for the coming school year on the same basis as have heretofore obtained. It is my opinion that the Board would have full legal authority to issus such directives, in view of the Court's retention of the question as to how and when the Court's opinion on the basic question is to be implemented. Sincerely yours, /s/ J. LINDSAY AIMOND, JE. J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General. 10-20 COPY � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond May 27, 1954 Description An account of the resource Copy of a letter from Virginia Attorney General J. Lindsay Almond, Jr. to Blake T. Newton, President of the State Board of Education, regarding the legal vitality and efficacy of Section 140 of the Constitution of Virginia. 2 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource J. Lindsay Almond, Virginia Attorney General Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-5-27 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_1_10 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/1c933a7cf675bd3f5897f29353293945.pdf bdfbae8174052d7a3e0a4561e4ec7789 PDF Text Text COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Richmond SUPTSo MEMO. NO* 3029 June 73 1 9 h % TO; The Division Superintendent FROMs Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction You received the opinion of the Attorney General and Statement of the State Board of Education regarding the recent Supreme Court decision. You are also aware of the Statement of Governor Stanley calling for the operation of our public schools at present and for the session 195 -55 on the basis of segregation in accordance with U Section l j 0 of the Constitution* l. I am confident you recognize it as your duty and mine, as those charged with the responsibility for administering our public schools, to fully respect this authority. I am confident, also, that your local school boards with the State Board of Education will conform as they may give consideration to any modification of their existing policies. To me this is fundamental and essential until such time as we may receive decrees from the Supreme Court and advice from the Attorney General and the Governor of Virginia. To this end I solicit your wholehearted cooperation. It seems wise that I make the following statement regarding the school construction program. There has been no change in the policies of the State Board of Education regarding school building construction; the amount of State money to which each locality is entitled has been allotted, and the need for school facilities in many localities remains serious. It is my opinion that the better the facilities the less complicated will be the solution regardless of the final decree of the Court. Each community presents a different problem. M y recommendation is that each locality consider the problem in view of existing conditions. If you need the facility, have the proposed facility located properly, have or can arrange for financing, and have an agreement with your local school board, I recommend that you proceed without delay. If you should need assistance from the State Department of Education in modifying your previous decision, we stand ready and anxious to cooperate. I can also assure you of the earnest consideration of the State Board of Education. In the meantime it will be most helpful if you will submit the information on the basis requested in Supts. Memo. No. 3022 - Survey of School Building Needs. I am aware of the grave concern of many prompted by the decision of the Court and conscious of the fact that neither Court decisions nor Legislative Acts change the customs and beliefs of people. The nature of the final decree will determine the degree of difficulty involved in making the necessary changes in the administration of our public schools. In the meantime, the problem must receive the calm/ 'deliberate, forthright and prayerful consideration of all Virginians. It is the duty and, I know, the desire of those charged with the responsibility for administration to participate fully. �- 2- We are aware that problems are not solved by sudden decisions. Man's destiny has been and will continue to be shaped by what he believes to be right and by what he finally desires, not by hasty and faulty action.. The ultimate solution will come in varying degrees « The degree of difficulty will > vary with the problems as they present themselves in each school division of the State. Definite procedures cannot culminate until such time as we have knowledge of the final decree. In the meantime, however, the situation warrants our best thought. I will, as early as feasible, ask for a meeting of the Superintendent's Advisory Council to give me the benefit of their counsel. By this means I will have their sound advice in assuming to the best of m y ability the responsibilities of this office. This will also give me the opportunity to inform you through the Council of the present thoughts of the State Board of Education and the State Department. As we give thought to the matter we must consider ways and means of strengthening rather than weakening our public schools. It seems extremely wise, also, that we all be informed thoroughly of the situation in the State and in each locality and that we avoid public statements offering panaceas for the solution of the problem which will not clearly present itself until we are informed of the final decree of the Court. I will greatly appreciate your cooperation. DJH/p � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Commonwealth of Virginia, State Board of Education, Richmond, Superintendents Memo No. 3029 June 7, 1954 Description An account of the resource Memo from Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Virginia to the Division Superintendent regarding the opinion of the Attorney General and the Statement of the State Board of Education for the continuation of Section 140 of the Constitution of Virginia. 2 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Virginia Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-6-7 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_1_11 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/ac700e33fadfba6a858bb0c10de61562.pdf 422318049bdeb28ababa10388ec3448e PDF Text Text COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Richmond SUPTSo MEMO. NO. 3029 June 7 195U , TO: The Division Superintendent FROM: Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction You received the opinion of the Attorney General and Statement of the State Board of Education regarding the recent Supreme Court decision. You are also aware of the Statement of Governor Stanley calling for the operation of our public schools at present and for the session 195U-55 on the basis of segregation in accordance with Section lUO of the Constitution. I am confident you recognize it as your duty and mine, as those charged with the responsibility for administering our public schools, to fully respect this authority. I am confident, also, that your local school boards with the State Board of Education will conform as they may give consideration to any modification of their existing policies. To me this is fundamental and essential until such time as we may receive decrees from the Supreme Court and advice from the Attorney General and the Governor of Virginia. To this end I solicit your wholehearted cooperation. It seems wise that I make the following statement regarding the school construction program. There has been no change in the policies of the State Board of Education regarding school building construction; the amount of State money to which each locality is entitled has been allotted, and the need for school facilities in many localities remains serious. It is my opinion that the better the facilities the less complicated will be the solution regardless of the final decree of the Court. Each community presents a different problem. My recommendation is that each locality consider the problem in view of existing conditions. If you need the facility, have the proposed facility located properly, have or can arrange for financing, and have an agreement with your local school board, I recommend that you proceed without delay. If you should need assistance from the State Department of Education in modifying your previous decision, we stand ready and anxious to cooperate. I can also assure you of the earnest consideration of the State Board of Education. In the meantime it will be most helpful if you will submit the information on the basis requested in Supts. Memo. No. 3022 - Survey of School Building Needs. I am aware of the grave concern of many prompted by the decision of the Court and conscious of the fact that neither Court decisions nor Legislative Acts change the customs and beliefs of people. The nature of the final decree will determine the degree of difficulty involved in making the necessary changes in the administration of our public schools. In the meantime, the problem must receive the calm,' 'deliberate, forthright and prayerful consideration of all Virginians. It is the duty and, I know, the desire of those charged with the responsibility for administration to participate fully. C J �- 2- We are aware that problems are not solved by sudden decisions. M a n ’s destiny has been and will continue to be shaped by what he believes to be right and by what he finally desires, not by hasty and faulty action.. The ultimate solution will come in varying degrees. The degree of difficulty will vary with the problems as they present themselves in each school division of the State. Definite procedures cannot culminate until such time as we have knowledge of the final decree. In the meantime, however, the situation warrants our best thought. I will, as early as feasible, ask for a meeting of the Superintendent’s Advisory Council to give me the benefit of their counsel. By this means I will have their sound advice in assuming to the best of m y ability the responsibilities of this office. This will also give me the opportunity to inform you through the Council of the present thoughts of the State Board of Education and the State Department. As we give thought to the matter we must consider ways and means of strengthening rather than weakening our public schools. It seems extremely wise, also, that we all be informed thoroughly of the situation in the State and in each locality and that we avoid public statements offering panaceas for the solution of the problem which will not clearly present itself until we are informed of the final decree of the Court. I will greatly appreciate your cooperation. DJU/p � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Commonwealth of Virginia, State Board of Education, Richmond, Superintendents Memo No. 3029 June 7, 1954 Description An account of the resource Memo from Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Virginia to the Division Superintendent regarding the opinion of the Attorney General and the Statement of the State Board of Education for the continuation of Section 140 of the Constitution of Virginia. 2 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Virginia Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-6-7 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_1_12 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/70dd7f1895f3efa682a167341b50ea3c.pdf 297b0b0fd79d428ec9415d422194d3e8 PDF Text Text Report of a Speech by Attorney General J. Lindsay Almond of Virginia From Washington Po3t and Times-Herald, June 8, 1954. RICHMOND, Juns 7 (Associated Press).— Proposals ranging from aban­ donment of public education by the state to prompt and full integration of races :m the public schools were placed before State department heads today. Attorney General J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., told the state agency luncheon group the views were among some of many proposals he had heard put forward in the wake of a Supreme Court decision May 17 holding public school segre­ gation to be unconstitutional. Almond said ha was urging no specific course of action on his own part at this time, in relaying the suggestions to t&e department heads. The meeting was closed to the press but reporters learned that Almond cit8d t.t least seven suggestions that had come to him from various quarters. These included: 1. Outright abandonment of the State's traditional role in public education, leaving parents to educate their children within their own discretion end at their own expense. 2. Prompt and voluntary integration of pupils and teachers, without waiting for the final decrees in which the court is expected to spell out how ana when segregation must come to an end. 3. The drawing of school districts, wherever possible, on geographic and residential limes in order to keep the races separate to the maximum extent. A. Repeal of the State's compulsory attendance law and related school bus transportation service. 5. Designation of specific schools to be staffed with white teachers and other specific schools to be staffed with Negro teachers, 3,eaving parents their option of where to send their children. 6. Adopting a policy of not compelling any child of any race to attend a school in which he would find himself part of a racial minority, 7. Vesting local schools officials with authority, on the written petition of s. parent or guardian, to transfer a child whenever school officials and parents agree that a transfer would be for the pupil's best interests. �pt t- trz z 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Report of a Speech by Attorney General J. Lindsay Almond of Virginia, From Washington Post and Times-Herald, June 8, 1954 Description An account of the resource Report of a closed meeting between the Attorney General J. Lindsay Almond, Jr. and a 'state agency luncheon group' regarding proposals suggested to him in wake of the Supreme Court decision May 17 holding public school segregation to be unconstitutional. 2 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Washington Post and Times-Herald Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-6-8 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_1_13 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/ea28758fdb5400fe3c12b7c9c17a1ebc.pdf b82ef58cdb8d1117aecc87811eb4d372 PDF Text Text COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDOCATION Richmond 16 SUPTS. MEMO. NO. 3154 June 1, 1955 To: The Division Superintendents From: Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction Subject: Text of the Supreme Court’ Opinion s Washington, May 31 (AP) - Following is the text of the Supreme Court's Opinion today on the public school segregation cases: (About 1400) These cases were decided on May 17, 1954. The opinions of that date declaring the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconsti­ tutional, are incorporated herein by reference. All provisions of federal, state, or local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to this principle. There remains for consideration the manner in which relief is to be accorded. "Because these cases arose under different local conditions and their dis­ position will involve a variety of local problems, we requested further argument on the question of relief. In view of the nationwide importance of the decision, we invited the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorneys General of all states requiring or permitting racial discrimination in public education to present their views on that question. The parties, the United States, and the states of Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Maryland and Texas filed briefs and participated in the oral argument. "These presentations were informative and helpful to the court in its consideration of the complexities arising from the transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination. The presentations also demonstrated that substantial steps to eliminate racial discrimination in public schools already have been taken, not only in some of the communities in which these cases arose, but in some of the states ap­ pearing as amici curiae, and in other states as well. Substantial progress has been made in the District of Columbia and in the communities in Kansas and Delaware involved in this litigation. The defendants in the cases coming to us from South Carolina and Virginia are awaiting the decision of this court concerning relief. "Full implementation of these constitutional principles may require solution of varied local school problems. School authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving these problems; courts will have to consider whether the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles. Because of their proximity to local conditions and the possible need for further hearings, the courts which originally heard these cases can best perform this judicial appraisal. Accordingly, we believe it appropriate to remand the cases to those courts. "In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the courts will be guided by equitable principles. Traditionally, equity has been characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling �Supts. Memo. No. 3154 - 2 - June 1, 1955 public and private needs. These cases call for the exercise of these traditional attributes of equity power. "At stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a non discriminatory basis. To effectuate this interest may call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated in accordance with the constitutional principles set forth in our May 17, 1954, decision. Courts of equity may properly take into account the public interest in the elimination of such obstacles in a systematic and effective manner. But it should go without saying that the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them. "While giving weight to these public and private considerations, the courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling. Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner. The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a non racial basis, and re­ vision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems. They will also consider the adequacy of any plans the defendants may pro­ pose to meet the problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially non discriminatory school system. During this period of transition, the courts will retain jurisdiction of these cases. "The judgments below, except that in the Delaware case, are accordingly reversed and remanded to the district courts to take such proceedings and to enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially non discriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases. The judgment in the Delaware case — ordering the immediate admission of the plaintiffs to schools previously attended only by white children — is affirmed on the basis of the principles stated in our May 17, 1954, opinion, but the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Delaware for such further proceedings as that court may deem necessary in light of this opinion. 'It is so ordered. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Commonwealth of Virginia, State Board of Education, Richmond 16, Superintendents Memo No. 3154, June 1, 1955 Description An account of the resource Memo from Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction, to The Division Superintendents, relaying the text of the Supreme Court's Opinion on the public school segregation cases. 2 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dowell J. Howard, Superintendent of Public Instruction Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1955-6-1 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_1_14 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/fdd014888cf6483e02a7a4657df8faeb.pdf d794050d37e456fdcbe5ebb8382a02a0 PDF Text Text IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E E A S T E R N DISTRICT O F COLUMBIA A L E X A N D R I A DIVISION C O N S T A N C E C A R T E R , an infant, b y Eleanor Taylor, her parent and next friend, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. : : : THE SCHOOL B O A R D OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRG I N I A , a body corporate, et al., : Defendants, A L I C E B A I L E Y , an infant, by G e o r g e L. Bailey, her father and next friend, A R T H U R B R O W N , an infant, b y Dorothy B r o w n , his m o t h e r and next friend, G E R A L D B U L L O C K , an infant, by J a m e s E. Bullock, his father and next friend. S H E R M A N B U L L O C K , an infant, by R u b y Green, his m o t h e r and next friend. R O B E R T A F L A C K , an infant, by Irene Flack, her m o t h e r and next friend, S A M U E L F R E E M A N , an infant, by Lindsey F r e e m a n , his father and next friend, O Z E L L A G A T L I N G , an infant, by William Gatling, her father and next friend, H E L E N G E E , an infant, by Ellen Richardson, her m o t h e r and next friend, R O B E R T G O O D I N E , an infant, by Robert Goodine, his father and next friend R U T H G R E E N , an infant, by G e o r g e Green, her father and next friend, W I L L I A M G R E E N , an infant, b y Celestine Green, his m o t h e r and next friend, R I C H A R D H A R R I S , an infant, by Richard S. Harris, his father and next friend G E O R G E H E A T L E Y A N D J A C K H E A T L E Y , infants, by Julia Heatley, their m o t h e r and next friend, : : : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL A C T I O N N O . 331 �D A N I E L J O H N S O N , an infant, by Daniel Johnson, his father and next friend. G E O R G E M A N S F I E L D , an infant, b y H a r r y Mansfield, his father and next friend, G E O R G E M A R S H A L L , an infant, by A n n a Marshall, his m o t h e r and next friend, JANE! M I N O R , E L A I N E M I N O R and F L O R E N C E M I N O R , infants, by Lola Minor, their m o t h e r and next friend, J A M E S H E N R Y M O O R E and J O H N R O B E R T M O O R E , infants, by E m m a M o o r e , their m o t h e r and next friend. F R A N K N E W M A N , an infant, by F. N e w m a n , his father and next friend, E R M O N N I C K E N S , an infant, by John Nickens, his father and next friend, A L V I N P O L L A R D , an infant, by Pauline Nealj her m o t h e r and next friend. B A R B A R A P R I C E , an infant, by Pauline Neal,, her m o t h e r and next friend, T H E L M A R U S S E L L , an infant, by O. Russell, her m o t h e r and next friend, J A M E S S H E P H E R D , an infant, b y Milton Shepherd, his father and next friend G E O R G I A T A Y L O R , an infant, by M a r y Lockett, her m o t h e r and next friend, J A N I E T I L L M A N , an infant, b y J. M , Tillman, her m o t h e r and next friend, W A L T E R V O L L I N S , an infant, b y Lucille Vollins, his m o t h e r and next friend, P A V E L L B E S S , an infant, by Lucille Bess, his m o t h e r and. next friend, O T T O H U G H B O S W E L L , an infant, by M a r y H, Boswell, his m o t h e r and next friend, K E N N E T H B U R T O N , an infant, b y Ruth Burton, his m o t h e r and next friend, W I L L I A M B Y R D , an infant, by Corrine Byrd, his m o t h e r and next fripnd, F R E D C O U N C I L , an infant, b y Aileen Council, his m o t h e r and next friend, B E R N A R D F E R N A N D E R S , an infant, by M a r y Fernanders, his m o t h e r and next friend. �JA M E S G A SK IL L , a n in fa n t, by Jo h n G a s k ill, S r . h is f a th e r and n e x t fr ie n d . A R C H IE G R E E N , a n in fa n t, b y G e o rg ia G re e n , h is m o th e r a n d n e x t fr ie n d IRVING G R E E N , an in fa n t, b y H e n ry G re e n , h is f a th e r and n e x t f rie n d , • BERN A RD H A RRIS, J R . , a n irfa n t, b y B e r n a r d H a r r i s , S r . , h is f a th e r and n e x t f rie n d , E A R L O . L O C K E T T , a n in fa n t, by H a ttie B ro w n , h is m o th e r a n d n e x t frie n d , ENNIS P IN K E T T , an in fa n t, by H e le n P in k e tt, h is m o th e r and n e x t f r i e n d , B E R N A R D S C O T T , an in fa n t, b y E n lie S c o tt, h is m o th e r and n e x t f rie n d , JA M E S S H E P P A R D , a n in fa n t, b y M ilto n S h e p p a rd , h is f a th e r a n d n e x t fr ie n d , W A L T E R SM ITH , an in fa n t, by F l o r e n c e S m ith , h is m o th e r a n d n e x t fr ie n d , C A R R O L L TH O M PSO N , a n in fa n t, b y C la r e n c e "T h o m p so n , h e r f a th e r and n e x t frie n d , L IL L IE TH O M PSO N , an in fa n t, b y R o b e rt T h o m p s o n , h e r f a th e r and n e x t fr ie n d . E R N E S T W ASHINGTON, a n in fa n t, by W illie W au ls, h is m o th e r and n e x t f r ie n d . R O B E R T W A T ER S, an in fa n t, by In n a W a te r s , h is m o th e r and n e x t fr ie n d , : and G E O R G E L . B A IL E Y , D O RO TH Y BROW N, JA M E S E . B U L L O C K , RUBY G R E E N , IR E N E F L A C K , LIN D SEY : F R E E M A N , W ILL IA M G A T L IN G , E L L E N R IC H A R D ­ SON, R O B E R T GO ODIN E, G E O R G E G R E E N , : C E L E S T IN E G R E E N , R ICH A RD S.. H A RRIS,- JU LIA H E A T L E Y , D A N IE L JOHNSON, H A RRY M A N SF IE L D , ; ANNA M A R SH A LL, LOLA M IN OR, EMMA M O O RE, F . NEW M AN, JO H N N ICK EN S, S T E R L IN G H . HARRIS : P A U L IN E N E A L , O. R U S S E L L , M IL T O N S H E P H E R D , M ARY L O C K E T T , J . M . T IL L M A N , L U C IL L E V O LU N S: L U C IL L E BESS, M ARY H . B O S W E L L , R U TH B U RTO N , C O R R IN E BY RD , A IL E E N CO U N CIL, MARY F E R N A N D E R S , JO HN G A SK IL L , S R ., GEORGIA G R E E N HENRY G R E E N , BERN A RD H A RRIS, SR. , H A T T IE : BROW N, H E L E N P IN K E T T , E N L IE SC O T T , M IL T O N S H E P P A R D , F L O R E N C E SM ITH , C L A R E N C E : TH O M PSO N , R O B E R T TH O M PSO N , .W ILLIE W AULS, AND INNA W A T E R S, : A p p lic a n ts fo r In te rv e n tio n �MOTION TO INTERVENE 4 T h e a b o v e - n a m e d applicants for intervention respectfully m o v e the Court for an order permitting them, as m e m b e r s of the class on behalf of w h i c h this action is brought, to intervene as parties-plaintiff in this action, and permitting their proposed complaint in intervention annexed hereto to be filed, in order to assert the matters set forth therein, upon the following grounds: 1. Infant applicants for intervention are a m o n g those generally classified as Negroes, are citizens of the United States and of the C o m m o n ­ wealth of Virginia, and are residents of and domiciled in the County of Arlington, Virginia. T h e y are within the statutory age limits of eligibility to attend the public senior high schools of said County and possess all quali­ fications and satisfy all requirements for admission thereto, and are in fact'/ attending one of the public schools, torwit, the Hoffman- B o s t o n High School, of said County under the supervision, operation and control of defendants. 2. Adult applicants for intervention are a m o n g those generally classified as Negroes, are citizens of tho United States and of the C o m m o n ­ wealth of Virginia, and are reSiddSts of and domiciled in the County of Arlington, Virginia. T h e y are parents or guardians of infant applicants for intervention, and are taxpayers of the United States and of said C o m m o n ­ wealth and County. All adult applicants for intervention having control or charge of any u n e x e m p t e d child w h o has reached the seventh birthday and has not passed the sixteenth birthday are required to send said child to attend school or receive instruction (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 12, Article 4, sections 22-251 to 22-256). 3. Applicants for intervention should be permitted to intervene as parties-plaintiff in this action upon the following grounds: (a) T h e y are m e m b e r s of the class on behalf of which the original action is brought. (b) T h e y have a substantial interest in the subject matter of the action. (c) T h e representation of their interest by the original plain­ tiff and/or plaintiffs by intervention in this action is or m a y be inadequate for the reason that the original plaintiff �5 has withdrawn f r o m the H o f f m a n - B o s t o n High School, and one of the two intervening plaintiffs has been graduated f r o m said school, and the other of the intervening plain­ tiffs is expected to be graduated f r o m said school during the current school session and before the fin.al adjudica­ tion of this action. (d) T h e y are and will be bound by any judgment, decree or order heretofore or hereafter entered in this action. (e) Their interest and the m a i n action have questions of law and fact in c o m m o n . (f) Their intervention will not to any extent delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. 4. T h e interest of applicants for intervention is such that their intervention in this action is necessary to the protection of their interest b e c ause of the following facts: (a) Infant applicants for intervention are within the statutory age limits of eligibility to attend the public senior high schools of the County of Arlington, Virginia, and possess all qualifications and satisfy all requirements for a d ­ mission thereto, as hereinbefore set forth in para g r a p h 1 hereof. (b) Adult applicants for intervention having control or charge of any u n e x e m p t e d child w h o has reached the seventh birthday and has not p a ssed the sixteenth birthday are required to send said child to attend school or receive instruction (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 12, Article 4, sections 22-251 to 22-256), as hereinbefore set forth in para g r a p h 2 hereof. (c) Defendants have denied, and are denying, because of their race or color, infant applicants for intervention, and all other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, public senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facili­ ties equal to the public senior high school educational o p p o r ­ tunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, and have enforced and e x e ­ cuted and are enforcing and executing laws of the C o m m o n ­ wealth of Virginia, and have enforced, executed and pursued and are enforcing, executing and pursuing, policies, practices, c u s t o m s and usages, which prohibit, because of their race or color, infant applicants for intervention, and all other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, f r o m attending the only public senior high, school of said County affording a senior high school education equal to that afforded all other qualified students w h o are not Negroes, and w hich c o m p e l infant applicants for Intervention, and all other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, to attend a public school segregated and set apart for N e g r o students residing in said C o u n t y , and thereby have denied, and are denying, infant ap­ plicants for intervention their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States, their liberty and property with­ out due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws, secured by the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t of the Constitution �of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured by Title 8, United States Code, section 41® (d) Defendants have denied, and are denying, because of their race or color, adult applicants for intervention, and all other parents and guardians of Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, because of their race or color and/or the race or color of their respective children, rights and privileges of sending their respective children to the only public senior high school established, operated or maintained by defendants affording public senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities equal to the public senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County who are not Negroes, and thereby have denied, and are denying adult applicants for intervention, and other parents and guardians of Negro children of public school age similarly situated re­ siding in said County, their privileges and immunities as citi­ zens of the United States, their liberty and property without due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws, se­ cured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the right secured by Title 8, United States Code, section 41® (e) Applicants for intervention are members of the class on be­ half of which this action is brought, and are entitled to the benefit of and are affected by any judgment, decree or order entered herein. (f) The representation of the interest of applicants for inter­ vention by the original plaintiff and/or the plaintiffs by intervention in this action is or may be inadequate for the reason that the original plaintiff has withdrawn from the Hoffman-Boston High School, and one of the two intervening plaintiffs has been graduated from said school, and the other of the intervening plaintiffs is expected to be graduated from said school during the current school session and before the final adjudication of this action. (g) If the original fail, the cause brought a class duly intervenes plaintiffs and the plaintiffs by intervention of action fails, even though they may have action, unless some other member of the class as a party-plaintiff. "WHEREFORE, it is prayed that an order may be entered permitting the above-named applicants for intervention to intervene as parties-plaintiff in this action, and permitting their proposed complaint in intervention annexed hereto to be filed, in order to assert the matters set forth therein. /s/ - 6 - Oliver W. Hill________ Oliver W. Hill 623 North Third Street Richmond 19, Virginia �/s/ Martin A. Martin Martin A. Martin 623 North Third Street Richmond 19, Virginia /s/ Spottsrrood W. Robinson, III Spottswood If Robinson, III f. 623 North Third Street Richmond 19, Virginia /s/ Leon A. Ransom_____________ Leon A. Ransom 1939 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. Counsel for Applicants for Intervention. �POINTS AMD AU1H0RI11ES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR INTERVKDITION 1. Intervention must be granted when the representation of the ap­ plicants’ interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate and the appli­ cants are or may be bound by a judgment in the action, and may be granted when the applicants’ claim and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. Rule 24(a), (b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judg­ ment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment. Title 28, United States Code, section 2202. /s/ Spottswood W. Robinson. Ill______________ Of Counsel for Applicants for Intervention. - 8 - �IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION CONSTANCE CARTER, an infant, by Eleanor Taylor, her parent and next friend, et al.. Plaintiffs, vs. : THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a body corporate, et. al., Defendants, ALICE BAILEY, an infant, by George L. Bailey, her father and next friend, ARTHUR BROWN, an infant, by Dorothy Bronvn, his mother and next friend GERALD BULLOCK, an infant, by James E„ Bullock, his father and next friend, SHERMAN BULLOCK, an infant, by Ruby Green, his mother and next friend, ROBERTA FLACK, an infant, mother and next friend, by IreneFlack, her SAMUEL FREEMAN, an infant, by Lindsey Freeman, his father and next friend, OZELLA GATLING, an infant, by William Gatling, her father and next friend, HELEN GEE, an infant, by Ellen Richardson, her mother and next friend, ROBERT GOODINE, an infant, by Robert Goodine, his father and next friend, RUTH* GREEN, an infant, by George Green, her father and next friend, WILLIAM GREEN, an infant, by Celestine Green, his mother and next friend, RICHARB HARRIS, an infant, by Richard S. Harris, his father and next friend, GEORGE HEATLEY and JACK HEATLEY, infants, by Julia Heatley, their mother and next friend. - 9 - : : : : : : : : s ! s s ! s s CIVIL ACTION NO. 331 �DANIEL JOHNSON, an infant, by Daniel Johnson, his father and next friend, GEORGE MANSFIELD, an infant, by Harry Mansfield, his father and next friend, GEORGE MARSHALL, an infant, by Anna Marshall, his mother and next friend, JANE MINOR, ELAINE MINOR and FLORENCE MINOR," infants, b y Lola Minor, their mother and next friend, JAMES HENRY MOORE and JOHN ROBERT MOORE, infants, by Emma Moore, their mother and next friend, FRANK NEWMAN, and infant, by F. Newman, father and next friend, his ERMON NICKENS, an infant, by John Nickens, his father and next friend, ALVIN POLLARD, an infant, b y Sterling H. Harris,' his father and next friend, BARBARA PRICE, an infant, by Pauline Neal, her mother and next friend, THEIMA RUSSELL, an infant, by 0. Russell, her mother and next friend, JAMES SHEPHERD, an infant, by Milton Shepherd, his father and next friend, GEORGIA TAYLOR, an infant, b y Mary Lockett, her mother and next friend, JANIE TILLMAN, an infant, by J. M. Tillman, her mother and next friend, WALTER VOLLINS, an infant, by Lucille Vollins, his mother and next friend, PAVELL BESS, an infant, by Lucille Bess, his mother and next friend, OTTO HUGH BOSWELL, an infant, by Mary H. Boswell, his mother and next friend, KENNETH BURTON, an infant, by Ruth Burton, his mothdr and next friend, WILLIAM BYRD, an infant, by Corrine Byrd, his mother and next friend, FRED COUNCIL, an infant, by Aileen Council, his mother and next friend, BERNARD FERNANDERS, an infant, by Mary Fernanders, his mother and next friend, - 10 - �JAMES GASKILL, an infant, by John Gasld.ll, Sr., his father and next friend, ARCHIE GREEN, an infant, by Georgia Green, his mother and next friend, IRVING GREEN, an infant, by Henry Green, his father and next friend, BERNARD HARRIS, JR., an infant, by Bernard Harris, Sr., his father and next friend, EARL 0. LOCKET, an infant, by Hattie Brown, his mother and next friend, ENNIS PINKETT, an infant, by Helen Pinkett, his mother and next friend, BERNARD SCOTT, an infant, by Enlie Scott, his mother and next friend, JAMES SHEPPARD, an infant, by Milton Sheppard, his father and next friend, WALTER SMITH, an infant, by Florence Smith, his mother and next friend, CARROLL THOMPSON, an infant, by Clarence Thompson, her father and next friend, LILLIE THOMPSON, an infant, by Robert Thompson, her father and next friend, ERNEST WASHINGTON, an Infant, by Willie Wauls, his mother and next friend, ROBERT WATERS, an infant, by Inna Waters, his mother and next friend, j i : • j s : : : ; : : : and GEORGE L. BAILEY, DOROTHY BROWN, JAMES E. BULLOCK, RUBY GREEN, IRENE FLACK, LINDSE' FREEMAN, WILLIAM GATLING, ELLEN RICHARDSON, ROBERT GOODINE, GEORGE GREEN, CELESTINE GREEN, RICHARD S. HARRIS, JULIA HEATLEY, DANIEL JOHNSON, HARRY MANSFIELD, ANNA MARSHALL, LOLA ICHOR, EMMA MOORE, F. NEWMAN, JOHN NICKENS, STERLING H. HARRIS, PAULINE HEAL, 0 . RUSSELL, : MILTON SHEPHERD, MARY LOCKETT, J. M. TILLMAN, LUCILLE VOLLINS, LUCILLE BESS, MARY H. BOSWELL, RUTH BURTON, CORRIHE BYRD, AILEEN COUNCIL, MARY FERNANDERS, JOHN GASKILL, SR., GEORGIA GREEN, HENRY GREEN, BERNARD HARRIS, SR., HATTIE BROWN, HELEN PINKETT, ENLIE SCOTT, MILTON SHEPPARD, FLORENCE SMITH, CLARENCE THOMPSON, ROBERT THOMPSON, WILLIE WAULS, and INNA WATERS, Interveners - 11 - s • . : s s ! i �INTERVENERS 1 COMPLAINT I I INTERVENTION I 1. (a) The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title 28, United States Code, section 1331. This action arises under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the Act of May 31, 1870, Chapter 114, section 16, 16 Stat. 144 (Title 8, United States Code, section 41), as hereinafter more fully appears. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and cost, the sum of value of Tnree Thousand (53,000.00) Dollars. (b) United States Code, section 1343. The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked under This action is authorized by the Act of April 20, 1871, Chapter 22, section 1, 17 Stat. 13, (Title 8, United States Code, section 43), to be commenced by any citizen of the United States or other person 'within the jurisdiction thereof to redress the deprivation, under color of a state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitu­ tion of the United States, section 1, and by the Act of May 31, 1870, Chapter 114, section 16, 16 Stat. 144, (Title 8, United States Code, section 41), pro­ viding for the equal rights of citizens and of all persons within the juris­ diction of the United States, as hereinafter more fully appears. (c) The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked under Title 28, United States Code, section 2281. This is an action for a permanent injunction restraining, upon the ground of unoonstitutionality, the enforcement, operation and execution of provisions of the Constitution and statutes of the Common­ wealth of Virginia by restraining the action of defendants, officers of such Commonwealth, in the enforcement and execution of such Constitutional provisions and statutes, as hereinafter more fully appears. (d) The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked under Title 28, United States Code, section 2202. This is an action for the granting of further necessary and proper relief, based on a declaratory judgment, against adverse - 12 - �parties whose rights have been determined by such Judgment, as hereinafter more fully appears. 2. This action is a proceeding under Title 28, United States Code, sections 2201 and 2202, for a judgment declaratory of the rights and other legal relations of interveners, and all other Negro children attending the public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and their respective parents and guardians, similarly situated and affected with reference to the matters here involved, and an injunction, for the purpose of determining and redressing questions and matters of actual controversy between the parties, to-wit: (a) The question whether the action of defendants, or either of them, in enforcing cr executing against infant interveners, or any other Negro child of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington,' Virginia, or either or any of them, the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia hereinafter specified in paragraph 15 hereof, or either or any of them, which laws prohibit, because of their race or color, infant interveners, and all other Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, from attending the only public senior high school of said County affording a senior high school education equal to that afforded all other qualified students who are not Negroes, and which compel infant interveners, and all other Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, to attend the senior high school department of a segregated public school set apart for Negro students in said County, denies infant interveners, and other Negro children of public school age similarly situated, residing in said County, their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States, their liberty and property without due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws, secured b y the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured b y Title 8, United States Code, section k-1, and is for these reasons unconstitutional and void. (b) The question whether the action of defendants, or either of them, in enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other - 13 - �Hegro child of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington Virginia, or either or any cf them, the policy, practice, custom and usage hereinafter specified in paragraph 16 hereof, which policy, practice, custom and usage prohibit, because c-f their race or color, infant interveners, and all other Hegro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, from attending the only senior high school of said County affording a senior high school education equal to that afforded all other quali­ fied students who are not Negroes, and which compel infant interveners, and all other Hegro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County to attend the senior high school department of a segregated public school set apart for Negro students in said County, denies infant interveners, and other Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States, their liberty and property without due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws, secured b y tbs Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured by Title 8 , United States Code, section 1(1, and is for these reasons unconstitutional and void* (c) The question whether the action of defendants, or either of them, in enforcing, executing or pursuing against adult interveners, or any other parent or guardian of Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, or either or any of them, the policy, practice, custom and usage hereinafter specified in paragraph 18 hereof, of denying them, because of their race or color and/or the race or color of their respective children, rights and privileges of sending their respective children to a public senior high school in said County with educational opportunities, advantages and facilities, including those hereinafter specified, equal to the educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County who are not Negroes, denies adult interveners, and other parents and guardians of Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States, their liberty and property without due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws. - It - �secured 'by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured by Title 8, United States Code, section kl, and is for these reasons unconstitutional and void. 3. Infant interveners are among those generally classified as negroes, are citizens of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are residents of and domiciled in the County of Arlington, Virginia. are with­ They in the statutory limits of eligibility to attend the public senior high schools of said County, and possess all qualifications and satisfy all requirements for admission thereto, and are in fact attending the senior high school department of one of the public schools, to-wit, the Hoffman-Boston High School, of said County under the supervision, operation and control of defendants. b. Adult interveners are among those generally classified as Negroes, are citizens of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, residents of and domiciled in the County of Arlington, Virginia. and are They are parents or guardians of infant interveners, and are taxpayers of the United States and of said Commonwealth and County. All adult interveners having con­ trol or charge of any unexempted child who has reached the seventh birthday and has not passed the sixteenth birthday are required to send said child to attend school or receive instruction (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 12, Article k, sections 22-251 to 22-256). 5 . Interveners bring this action in their own behalf, and, there being common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of all other Negro children attending the public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and their respective parents and guardians, similarly situated and affected with reference to the matters here involved, who are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring all before the Court, and a common relief being sought, as will herein­ after more fully appear, bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as a class action, also on behalf of all other Negro children attending the public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and their respective parents and guardians, similarly situated and affected with reference to the matters here involved. - 15 - �6. Defendant County School Board of Arlington County, Virginia, exists pursuant to the Constitution and lavs of the Commonwealth of Virginia as an administrative department of the Commonwealth of Virginia discharging governmental functions (Constitution of Virginia, Article IX, section 133; Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, sections 22-1, £2-2, 22-5 to 22-9, Chapter 6, Article 1, sections £2-b^ to 22-57> Chapter 6, Article 2, sections 22-59 to 22-88.2, Chapters 7 to 15, sections 22-101 to 22-330), and is declared b y law to he a Body corporate (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 6, Article 2, section 22063). 7. Defendant William A. Early is Division Superintendent of Schools of the County of Arlington, Virginia. He holds office pursuant to the Consti­ tution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia as an administrative officer of the public free school system of Virginia (Constitution of Virginia, Article XX, section 133; Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, section 22-1, 22-2, 22-5 to 22-9, Chapter 22->+5 to 22-330). k, sections 22-31 to 22-lt-l, Chapters 6 to 15, sections He is under the authority, supervision and control of, and acts pursuant to, the orders, policies, practices, customs and usages of, and established by, defendant County School Board of Arlington County, Virginia. He is made a defendant herein in his official capacity. 8. The Commonwealth of Virginia has declared public education a State function. The Constitution of Virginia, Article IX, section 129, provides "Free schools to he maintained. The General Assembly shall establish and maintain an efficient system of public free schools throughout the State". Pursuant to this mandate, the General Assembly of Virginia has established a system of public free schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia according to a plan set out in Title 22, Chapters 1 to 15, inclusive, of the Code of Virginia of 1950. The establishment, maintenance and administration of the public school system of Virginia is vested in a State Board of Education, a Superintendent of Public Instruction, Division Superintendents of Schools, and County, City and Town School Boards (Constitution of Virginia, Article IX, sections 131-133; Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, section 22-2). - 16 - �9. The public schools of the County of Arlington, Virginia, are under the control and supervision of defendants, acting as an administrative department or division of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, sections 22-1, 22-2), Defendants County School Board of Arlington County, Virginia, is empowered and required to establish and maintain an efficient system of public free schools in said County (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, sections 22-1, 22-5); to provide suitable and proper school buildings, furniture and equipment, and to maintain, manage and control the same (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, Article 1, section 22-72, Article 4, section 22-97); to determine the studies to be pursued, the methods of teaching, and the government to he employed in the schools (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 6, Article 4, section 22-97, Chapter 12, Article 2, sections 22-233 to 22-240); to employ teachers (Code of Virginia, I95O, Chapter 6 , Article 1, section 22-72, Article 1 , section 22-97, Chapter 11, section 22; 202); to provide for the transportation of pupils (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 6, Article 1, section 22-72:; to enforce the school laws (Code of Virginia, 1950, Chapter 6, Article 1, section 22-72, Chapter 6, Article 4, sec­ tion 22-97); and to perform the numerous other duties, activities and functions essential to the establishment, maintenance and operation of the schools of said County (Code of Virginia, I95O, Chapter 1, sections 22-1 to 22-10, Chapters 1 to ; 6 , sections 22-30 to 22-88,2, Chapters 4 to 5, sections 22-30 to 22-44, Chapter 6, Article 1, sections 22-4-5 to 22-58, Article 4, sections 22-89 to 22-100, Chapters 4 -to 15, sections 22-30 to 22-330, Chapters 7 to 15, sections 22-101 to 22-230). 10. On the 4th day of September, 194-7, the original plaintiff, and infant, among those generally classified as Degrees, residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, b y her mother, filed her complaint in this Court alleging that the then defendants had pursued, and were pursuing, policies, practices, customs and usages of denying, because of their race or color, said plaintiff, and other Hegro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities - 17 - �equal to those afforded children similarly situated residing in said County who are not Negroes, and thereby had denied, and were denying, them the equal pro­ tection of the laws secured b y the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured by Title 8, United States Code, section 4-1. In her complaint, said plaintiff sought a judgement or decree declaring that the policies, practices, customs and -usages aforesaid were violative of the Constitution and laws, aforesaid, and a permanent injunction restraining said defendants from making such distinctions or any distinction based upon race or color in the opportunities, advantages or facilities afforded for the education of Negro children and children who are not Negroes residing in said.County, or, in the alternative, a permanent injunction restraining said defendants from denying said plaintiff, and those on whose behalf she sued, admission to the enrollment in the senior high school established, maintained and operated exclusively for children of public school age residing in said County who are not Negroes. 11. On the 2kth. day of October, 19^9> Julius Brevard and Peggy Council, each infants, among those generally classified as Negroes, residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, by their respective parents, filed their petition alleging that defendants herein had denied them senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities, equal to the senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded and avail­ able to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County who are not Negroes, and seeking intervention as parties- plaintiff, and praying for the same relief sought by the original plaintiff. By an order entered on the 2^th day of October 19^9, their intervention was as parties-plaintiff permitted. 12. On the 7th day of December, 19^9, this Court rendered a written opinion determining that the original plaintiff and the intervening plaintiffs had not shown that defendants had unlawfully discriminated against them or other Negro children of public school age residing in the County of Arlingon, Virginia, On the 12th day of December, 19^-9, this Court entered a final judgment dismission the complaint and petitions. - 18 - �13. Said plaintiffs having appealed from the judgment aforesaid to the United States Court of Appeals for the Four-fo Circuit, said Court, on the 31st day of May, 1950, rendered an. opinion holding that defendants had denied, heeause of their race or color, said intervening plaintiffs, and other Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities equal to those afforded and available to children of public school age residing in said County who are not negroes, which said opinion, and a mandate issued to this Court, reversed the aforesaid judgment of this Court and remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings in accordance with said opinion. 14. On the 8th day of September, 1950, this Court entered a judgment providing in part as follows: "Pursuant to said opinion and mandate, and sections 2201 and 2202 of Title £8 of the United States Code, it is DECLARED: "1. That the action of the defendants, and each of them, in denying, or in refusing or failing to afford, because of their race or color, plaintiffs Julius Brevard and Peggy Council, or any other Hegro child similarly situated, the same or equivalent public educational opportunities, advantages and facilities for a senior high school education as those afforded white children similarly situated, or in making any other distinction based upon race of color in any of the educational opportunities, advantages or facilities afforded by said de­ fendants for the public education of senior high school children residing in Arlington County, Virginia, has denied, and is denying, said plaintiffs, and other Negro children similarly situated, the equal protection of the laws secured by section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and the rights secured by section tl of Title 8 of the United States Code: and "2. That the defendants must provide said plaintiffs, and all other Hegro children similarly situated, the same or equivalent public senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities in conformity to the equal protection clause of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Consti­ tution of the United States, and the provisions of section it1 of Title 8 of the United States Code, and must provide them as soon as they do for pupils of any ether group or race. "A. It is therefore ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that the defendants, the School Board of Arlington County, Virginia, and William A. Early, Division Superintendent of Schools of Arlington County, Virginia, and each of them, their successors in office, and their agents and employees, be, and they hereby are, permanently and perpetually restrained and enjoined forth­ with from denying, and from refusing or failing to afford. - 19 - * �"because of their race or color., said plaintiffs, or any other Negro child similarly situated, the same or equivalent public educational opportunities, advantages and facilities for a senior high school education as those afforded white children similarly situated, and from making any other distinction "based upon race or color in any of the opportunities, advantages or facilities provided "by said defendants for the public education of senior high school children residing in Arlington County, Virginia, * * * * * * * ” 15. Article IX, section 1 4 0 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth *-, of Virginia provides as follows? "White and colored children shall not be taught in the same school," The Code of Virginia of Title 22, Chapter 12, Article 1, section 22-221, provides as follows? t "White and colored persons shall not be taught in the same school, but shall be taught in separate schools, under the same general regulations as to management, usefulness and efficiency." l6o Defendants, and each of them, and their agents and employees, have pursued, and are pursuing, the policy, practice, custom and usage of establishing, maintaining and operating separate public schools for children of public school age who are and are not, considered to be of Negro descent, respec­ tively, residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, and of denying all Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing§in said County, because of their race or color, the right and privilege of attending the public senior high school, to-wit, the Washington-Lee High School, established, maintained and operated exclusively for children of public school age residing in said County who are not Negroes, and of compelling all Negro children residing in said County, including all infant interveners, and all other Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, because of their race of color, to attend the senior high school department of a segregated public school, to-wit, the Hoffman-Boston High School, set apart for Negro students in said County0 17o Defendants, and each of them, and their agents and employees, have enforced, executed and pursued, and are enforcing, executing and pursuing, against infant interveners, and all other Negro children of public school age - 20 - �similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, the policy, practice, custom and usage of denying them because of their race or color, public senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities, including, those hereinafter specified, equal to those afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County who are not Negroes. The senior high school department of the Hoffman-Boston High School, which defendants, and each of them, and their agents and employees, require infant interveners, and all other Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, to avail themselves, is unequal and inferior in plant, equipment, curricula, and in other opportunities, advantages and facilities, and in all other material respects, to the public senior high school established, maintained and operated for all other children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County who are not Negroes. Infants interveners, and all other Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, are required to avail them­ selves of said unequal and inferior opportunities, advantages and facilities because of their race or color. 18. Defendants, and each of them, and their agents and employees, have enforced, executed and pursued, and are enforcing, executing and pursuing, against adult interveners, and all other parents and guardians of Negro child­ ren of public school age similarly situated residing in the county of Arlington, Virginia, the policy, practice, custom and usage of denying them because of their race or color and/or the race and color of their respective children, rights and privileges of sending their respective children to a public senior high school in said County with educational opportunities, advantages and facilities, including those hereinbefore specified, equal to the educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County who are not Negroes. 19o Defendants, and each of them, and their agents and employees, have pursued, and are pursuing, the policy, practice, custom and usage herein­ before specified in paragraph 16 hereof in the enforcement and execution of the - 21 - �laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia hereinbefore specified in paragraph 1J hereof, but for which laws defendants would not have pursued, and would not be now pursuing, the policies, practices, customs and usages hereinbefore specified in paragraph 16 to 18, inclusive, hereof, and would not have denied, and would not now deny, infant interveners, or other Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, the right and privilege of attending the public senior high school established, maintained and operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County who are not Negroes, and would not have deprived, and would not continue to deprive, infant interveners, or other Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said county, of their rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as hereinbefore and herein­ after more fully set forth. 20. Infant interveners, and all other Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, are separated, segregated and excluded, as aforesaid , and they, and adult interveners, and all parents and guardians of Negro children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, are discriminated against, as aforesaid, on the basis of and because of their race or color.' 21. It is impossible for infant interveners, or any other Negro child of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, or either or any of them, to secure or obtain public senior high school educational opportunities, advantages or facilities, including those hereinbefore specified, equal to those afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County who are not Negroes, or for adult interveners, or either or any of them, or any other parent or guardian of a Negro child or children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, to secure or obtain rights and privileges of sending their respective children to a public senior high school in said County with educational opportunities, advantages and facilities, including those herein­ before specified, equal to the educational opportunities, advantages and - 22 - �23 facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, as long as defendants, or either of them, or their agents or employees, enforce or execute against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, the laws of the C o m m o n w e a l t h of Virginia specified in p aragraph 15 hereof, or either or any of then, or enforce, execute or pursue against t h e m the policy, practice, c u s t o m and usage specified in p aragraph 16 hereof, or in any other m a n n e r pursue any policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage of segregating students, on the basis of race or color, in the public senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded students residing in said County. Infant interveners, and other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, can obtain equality of public senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities in said County only if no distinction be m a d e on the basis of race or color in the consideration of applicants for admission as students to the public senior high school established, maintained and operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, and by the admission, e nrollm e n t and education of infant interveners, and all other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, to and in any public senior high school establi shed, maintained and operated for children of public .school age ‘ Similarly situated residing in said County or any race, color or group, at the s a m e time, and under the s a m e t e r m s and conditions, and with the s a m e treatment, that children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any other race, color or group are admitted, enrolled, e d u ­ cated and given therein, whether or not the discriminations specified in p a r a ­ graph 17 hereof are eliminated. 22. T h e action of defendants, and each of them, in enforcing and executing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, or either or any of them, the laws of the C o m m o n w e a l t h of Virginia specified in para g r a p h 15 hereof, or either or any of them; and/or in otherwise acting pursuant to �24 said laws, or either or any of them, to preclude, on the basis of race or color, the admission, enrollment or education of infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said Gmnty, or either or any of them, to and in any public senior high school established, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race, color or group, at the s a m e time, and under the s a m e t e r m s and conditions, and with the s a m e treatment, that children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any other race, color or group are admitted, enrolled, educated and given therein; and/dr in enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, the policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage specified in p a r a ­ graph 16 hereof, and/or in establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age simi- ■ larly situated residing in said County, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage which prohibits theqi, because of their race or color, f r o m attending the| only public senior high school of said County affording a senior high school education equal to that afforded all other qualified students w h o are not Negroes, and/or in establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant inter­ veners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of then, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage which c o m p e l s them, because of their race or color, to attend the senior high school department of the segregated public school set apart forj N e g r o students in said County, and/or in establishing, enforcing, executing orj pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school a g e similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy , practice, c u s t o m or usage m a k i n g any distinction, on the basis of race or color, in the consideration of any applicant for admission as a student to any public senior high school established, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race, color or group; and/or in establishing, enforcing executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age �25 similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage which precludes the admission, enrollment or education of infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, to and in the public senior high school established, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race, color or group, at the s a m e time, and under the s a m e t e r m s and conditions, and with the s a m e treatment, that children of public school age similarly situated of any other race, color or group are admitted, enrolled, educated or given therein, and/or in enforcing, ■executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of thesm, the policy, practice, c u s t o m and usage hereinbefore specified in paragraph 17 hereof, of denying them, because of their race or color, public senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities, including those hereinbefore specified, equal to the public senior high school opportunities, advantages, and facilities afforded and avail­ able to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, and/or in establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age s i m i ­ larly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage of denying, or having the effect of denying, them, because of their race or color, public senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities, including those hereinbefore specified, equal to the public senior high school educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes; and/or in m a k i n g any dis­ tinction, on the basis of race or color, in the consideration of infant inter­ veners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated r e ­ siding in said County, or either or any of then, as an applicant for admission is a student to any public senior high school established, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said �26 County of any race, color or group, and/or in denying, refusing, or in any w a y hindering, because of their race or color, infant interveners, or either or any of them, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, admission, enrollment, or education to and in any public senior high school established, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race, color or group, at the s a m e time, and under the s a m e t e r m s and conditions, and with the s a m e treatment, that children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any other race or group are ad­ mitted, enrolled, educated and given therein, denies infant interveners, and other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, their privilege and immunities as citizens of the United States, their liberty and property without due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws, secured by the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured by Title 8, United States Code, section 41, and is for these reasons unconstitutional and void. 23. T h e action of defendants, and each of them, in enforcing, e x e c u ­ ting or pursuing against adult interveners, or any other parent or guardian of N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, or either or any of them, the policy, practice, c u s t o m and usage hereinbefore specified in para g r a p h 18 hereof, of denying them, b e ­ cause of their race or color and/or the race or color of their respective childdren, rights and privileges of sending their respective children to a public senior high school in said County with educational opportunities, advantages and facilities, including those hereinbefore specified, equal to the educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, or in establishing, enforcing executing or pursuing against adult interveners, or any other parent or guardian of N e g r o children of public school age similar­ ly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage of denying, or having the effect of denying, them, because of their race or color and/or the race or color of their respective �27 children, rights and privileges of sending their respective dhildren t o a public senior high school in said County with educational opportunities, advantages and facilities, including those hereinbefore specified, equal to the educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, denies adult interveners, and other parents and guardians of N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States, their liberty and property without due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws, secured b y the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured b y Title 8, United States Code, section 41, and is for these reasons unconstitutional, and void. 24. Notwithstanding that the discriminations aforesaid have been of long standing, and have been the subject of complaint to defendants and their predecessors in office upon n u m e r o u s occasions in the past, and notwithstanding that it has been d e m a n d e d that defendants, and each of them, cease and desist therefrom, defendants, and each of them, continue to deny, because of their race or color, infant interveners, and all other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, the right and privilege of attending the public senior high school established, maintained and operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, and refuse and fail to act favorably upon such requests or dema n d s , and will continue to refuse and fail to admit any of t h e m to any public senior high school established, maintained and operated exclusively for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, because of the laws of the C o m m o n w e a l t h of Virginia specified in p aragraph 15 hereof, and because of the policies, practices, c u s t o m s and usages specified in paragraphs 16 to 18, inclusive, hereof, and each defendant has continued and still continues to enforce and execute against infant inter­ veners, and all other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, the laws of the C o m m o n w e a l t h of Virginia specified in p aragraph 15 hereof, and to enforce, execute and pursue against t h e m the �28 policies, practices, c u s t o m s and usages aforesaid, and has m a d e , and continues to m a k e , the aforesaid and other distinctions because of race or color in the opport unities, advantages and facilities provided by t h e m for the public senior high school education of children of school age residing in said County. 25. Defendants, and each of them, will continue to enforce and e x e ­ cute against infant interveners, and all other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, the laws of the C o m m o n w e a l t h of Virginia specified in paragraph 15 hereof, and will continue to engage in other action pursuant to said laws, and will continue to pursue against t h e m the policies, practices, c u s t o m s and usages specified in p a ragraphs 16 to 18, inclusive, hereof, and will continue to deny t h e m admission, enrollment and education to and in any public senior high school established, maintained and operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, and will continue to discriminate against t h e m in the m a n n e r hereinbefore set forth unless restrained and enjoinec by this Court f r o m so doing. -26. Interveners, and those similarly situated and affected on wt^ise behalf this action is brought, are suffering irreparable injury and are threatened with irreparable injury in the future by reason of the laws, the policies, practices, c u s t o m s and usages, and the actions of defendants, herein complained of. T h e y have no plain, adequate or complete r e m e d y to redress th£ w r o n g s and illegal acts herein complained of other than this action for a declaratory judgment and an injunction. A n y other r e m e d y to w hich interveners and those similarly situated could be remitted would be attended by such u n ­ certainties and delay s as to deny substantial relief, would iqvtolve a multipli­ city of suits, and would cause further irreparable injury and occasion da m a g e , vexation and inconvenience, WHEREFORE, interveners respectfully pray that, upon the filing of this complaint as m a y appear prop e r and convenient to the Court: 1. T h e Court convene a three-judge District Court, as required by Title 28, United States Code, sections 2281 and 2284. �29 2. This Court advance this action on the docket and order a speedy hearing on this action according to law, and upon such hearing: . (a) This Court adjudge, decree and declare the rights and legal relations of the parties to the subject matter here in controversy in order that such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree. (b) This Court enter a judgment or decree declaring that the action of defendants, and each of the m, in enforcing or executing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, or either or any of them, the laws of the C o m m o n w e a l t h of Virginia hereinbefore specified in paragraph 15 hereof, or either or any of them, and any and all action which precludes, on the basis of race or color, the admission, enrollment or education of infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, to and in any public senior high school established, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race, color or group, at the s a m e time, and under the s a m e t e r m s and c o n ­ ditions, and with the s a m e treatment, that children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any other race, color or group are admitted, enrolled, educated and given therein, denies infant interveners, and all other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States, their liberty and property with­ out due process of law, and, the equal protection of the laws, secured by the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured b y Title 8, United States Code, section 41, and is for these reasons unconstitutional and void. (c) This Court enter a judgment or decree declaring that the action of defendants, and each of them, in enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, or either or any of them, the policy, practice, c u s t o m and usage hereinbefore specified in paragraph 16 hereof, or in establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing aginst infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage which prohibits them, because of their race or color, f r o m attending the only public senior high school of said County affording a senior high school education equal to that afforded all other qualified students w h o are not Negroes, or in establishing, e n ­ forcing, executing or pursuing against infant inter­ veners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage which c o m p e l s them, because of their race or color, to �30 attend a segregated public senior high school set apart for N e g r o students in said County, or in establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage m a k i n g any distinction, on the basis of race or color, in the consideration of any a p ­ plicant for admission as a student to any public senior high school established, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race, color or group, or in establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage w h ich precludes the admission, enrollment or education of them, or either or any of them, to and in any public senior high school established, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race, color or group, at the s a m e time, and under the s a m e t e r m s and conditions, and with the s a m e treatment, that children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any other, race, color or group are admitted, enrolled, educated and given therein, denies infant interveners, and other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, their privileges and immunities, as citizens of the United States, their liberty and property without due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws, secured b y the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t of the Constitution ^of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured by Title 8, United States Code, section 41, and is therefore unconstitutional and void. 9 (d) This Court enter a judgment or decree declaring that the action of defendants, or either of t h e m in m a k i n g any dis­ tinction, on the basis of race or color, in the consideration of infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, or either or any of them, as an applicant for a d ­ mission as a student to any public senior high school esta­ blished, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race, color or group, or in denying, refusing, or in any w a y hinder­ ing, because of their race or color, infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, admission, enrollment or education to and in any public senior high school established, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race, color or group, at the s a m e time, and under the s a m e terms, and conditions, and with the s a m e treatment, that children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County or any other race, color or group are admitted, enrolled, educated and given therein, denies infant interveners, and all other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States, their liberty and property without due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws, secured by the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t of the Constitution of the United States, section 1 and the rights secured b y Title 8, United States Code, section 41, and is for these reasons unconstitutional and void. �31 (e) This Court enter a judgment or decree declaring that the action of defendants, or either of them, in enforcing, executing, or pursuing against adult interveners, or any other parent or guardian of N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, or either or any of thejn, the policy, practice, c u s t o m and usage hereinbefore speci­ fied in p aragraph 18 hereof, of denying them, because of their race or color and/or the race or color of their respective children, rights and privileges of sending their respective children to a public senior high school in said County with educational opportuni­ ties, advantages and facilities, including those h e r e ­ inbefore specified, equal to the educational opportuni­ ties, advantages and facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, or in establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing against adult interveners, or any other parent or guardian of N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either of any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage of denying, ar having the effect of denying, them, because of their race or color and/or the race or color of their respective children rights and privilege of sending their respective children to any public senior high school in said County with educational opportunities, advantages and facilities, including those hereinbefore specified, equal to the educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, denies adult interveners, and other parents and guardians of N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States, their liberty and property without due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws, secured by the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured b y Title 8, United States Code, section 41, and is for these reasons unconstitutional and void. (f) This Court enter a p e r m a n e n t injunction perpetually restaining and enjoining defendants, and each of them, their successors in office, and their agents and employees, forthwith, f r o m enforcing or executing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in the C ounty of Arlington, Virginia, or either or any of them, the laws of the C o m m o n w e a l t h of Virginia h e r e ­ inbefore specified in p aragraph 15 hereof, or either or any of them, and f r o m any and all action pursuant to said laws, or either or any of them, w h ich precludes, on the basis of race or color, the admission, enroll­ m e n t or education of infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, to and in any public senior high school established, m a i n ­ tained or operated for childrep of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race. �32 color or group, at the s a m e time, and under the s a m e t e r m s and conditions, and with the s a m e treatment, that children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any other race, color or group are admitted, enrolled, educated and given therein, upon the ground that such laws deny infant interveners, and all other N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States, their liberty and prop erty without due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws, secured by the F o u r ­ teenth A m e n d m e n t of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured by Title 8, United States Code, section 41. (g) ' This Court enter a p e r m a n e n t injunction perpetually restraining and enjoining defendants, and each of them, their successors in office, and their agents and employees, forthwith, f r o m enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in the County of Arlington, Virginia, or either or any of them, the policy, practice, c u s t o m and usage herein­ before specified in paragraph 16 hereof, and f r o m establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage w h ich prohibits then, because of their race or color, f r o m attending the only public senior high school of said County affording a secondary E d u ­ cation equal to that afforded all other qualified students w h o are not Negroes, and f r o m establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage which c o m p e l s them, because of their race or color, to attend a segregated public senior . high school set apart for N e g r o students in said County, and f r o m establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage m a k i n g any distinction, on the basis of race or color, in the consideration of any applicant for admission as a student to any public senior high s chool established, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race, color or groip, or in establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing against infant interveners, or any other N e g r o child of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage w hich precludes the admission, enroll­ m e n t or education of them, or either or any of them, to and in any public senior high school established, maintained or operated for children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County of any race, color or groupi at the s a m e time, and under the s a m e t e r m s and conditions, and with the s a m e treatment , that children of public school age similarly situated �33 r e s i d in g in s a id C ounty of any o th e r r a c e , c o lo r o r g ro u p a r e a d m itte d , e n r o lle d , e d u c a te d and giv en th e r e in , upon th e g ro u n d th a t s u c h p o lic ie s , p r a c t i c e s , c u s to m s and u s a g e s , and e a c h of th e m , deny in f a n t .i n t e r v e n e r s , and o th e r N e g ro c h ild r e n of p u b lic s c h o o l ag e s i m il a r ly s itu a te d r e s i d in g in s a id C ounty, t h e i r p r i v il e g e s and im m u n itie s a s c itiz e n s of th e U n ited S ta te s , t h e i r lib e r ty a n d p r o p e r ty w ith o u t due p r o c e s s of law , and th e e q u a l p ro te c tio n of the la w s, s e c u r e d by th e F o u r ­ te e n th A m e n d m e n t of th e C o n fu ta tio n of the U nited S ta te s , s e c ti o n 1, a n d the r i g h ts s e c u r e d by T itle 8, U n ited S ta te s C o d e , s e c tio n 41, and a r e t h e r e f o r e u n c o n s titu tio n a l and v o id , (h) T h is C o u rt e n te r a p e r m a n e n t in ju n c tio n p e r p e tu a lly r e s t r a i n i n g a n d e n jo in in g d e fe n d a n ts , and e a c h of t h e m , t h e i r s u c c e s s o r s in o ffic e , and t h e i r a g e n ts and e m p lo y e e s , fo rth w ith , fr o m m a k in g any d is tin c tio n , on th e b a s i s of r a c e o r c o lo r , in the c o n s id e r a tio n of in fa n t i n te r v e n e r s , o r any o th e r N e g ro c h ild s i m il a r ly s itu a te d r e s i d in g in th e C ounty of A rlin g to n , V irg in ia ! o r e it h e r o r any of th e m , a s a n a p p lic a n t f o r a d m i s s io n a s a s tu d e n t to any p u b lic s e n i o r h ig h s c h o o l e s ta b lis h e d , m a in ta in e d o r o p e ra te d f o r c h ild r e n of p u b lic s c h o o l age s i m il a r ly s itu a te d r e s id in g in s a id C ounty of any r a c e , c o lo r o r g ro u p , and fro m d e n y in g , r e fu s in g , o r in any w ay h in d e rin g , b e c a u s e of t h e i r r a c e o r c o lo r , in fa n t i n te r v e n e r s , o r any o th e r N e g ro c h ild of p u b lic s c h o o l age s i m il a r ly s itu a te d r e s id in g in s a id C ounty, o r e it h e r o r any of th e m , a d m is s io n , e n r o llm e n t o r e d u c a tio n to and in any p u b lic s e n i o r h ig h s c h o o l e s ta b lis h e d , i m a in ta in e d o r o p e r a te d fo r c h ild r e n of p u b lic s c h o o l age s i m i l a r l y s itu a te d r e s i d in g in s a id C ounty of any r a c e , c o lo r o r g ro u p , a t th e s a m e tim e , and u n d e r th e s a m e t e r m s and c o n d itio n s , and w ith th e s a m e tr e a tm e n t, th a t c h ild r e n o f p u b lic sc h o o l age s i m il a r ly s itu a te d r e s i d in g in s a id C ounty of any o th e r r a c e , c o lo r o r g ro u p a r e a d m itte d , e n r o lle d , e d u c a te d and g iv e n t h e r e in upon th e g ro u n d th a t s u c h a c tio n d e n ie s in fa n t i n t e r ­ v e n e r s , a n d o th e r N e g ro c h ild r e n s i m il a r ly s itu a te d r e s i d in g in s a id C o u n ty , t h e i r p r i v il e g e s and im m u n itie s a s c it i z e n s of th e U n ited S ta te s , t h e i r l ib e r t y and p r o p e r t y w ith o u t due p r o c e s s of law , and th e e q u a l p r o ­ te c tio n of th e la w s , s e c u r e d by th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d ­ m e n t of th e C o n s titu tio n of th e U n ite d S ta te s , s e c tio n 1, and th e r i g h ts s e c u r e d by T itle 8, U n ited S ta te s C ode, s e c tio n 41, and i s f o r th e s e r e a s o n s u n c o n s titu tio n a l a n d v o id . (i) T h is C o u rt e n t e r a p e r m a n e n t in ju n c tio n p e r p e tu a lly r e s tr a in in g a n d e n jo in in g d e fe n d a n ts , and e a c h of th e m , t h e i r s u c c e s s o r s in o ffic e , and t h e i r a g e n ts and e m p lo y e e s , fo rth w ith , fro m e n fo rc in g , e x e c u tin g o r p u r s u in g a g a in s t a d u lt i n te r v e n e r s , o r any o th e r p a r e n t o r g u a rd ia n of N e g ro c h ild r e n of p u b lic s c h o o l a g e s i m il a r ly s itu a te d r e s i d in g in th e C ounty of A rlin g to n , V irg in ia , o r e it h e r o r any of th e m , the p o lic y , p r a c t i c e , c u s to m and u s a g e h e r e in b e f o r e s p e c if ie d in p a r a g r a p h 18 h e r e o f , of d e n y in g th e m , b e c a u s e of t h e i r r a c e o r c o lo r , a n d / o r th e r a c e o r c o lo r of t h e i r r e s p e c t iv e c h ild r e n , r i g h ts and p r i v il e g e s o f se n d in g t h e i r r e s p e c t iv e c h il d ­ r e n to a p u b lic s e n i o r h ig h s c h o o l ip s a id C ounty w ith �34 educational opportunities, advantages and facilities including those hereinbefore specified, equal to the educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, and f r o m establishing, enforcing, executing or pursuing against adult interveners, or any other parent or guardian of N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, or either or any of them, any other policy, practice, c u s t o m or usage of denying, or having the effect of denying, them, because of their race or color and/or the race or color of their respective children, rights and privileges of sending their respective children to a public senior high school in said County with e d u c a ­ tional opportunities, advantages and facilities, in­ cluding those hereinbefore specified, equal to the educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available to children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County w h o are not Negroes, upon the ground that such policies, practices, c u s t o m s and usages, and each of them, deny adult inter­ veners, and other parents and guardians of N e g r o children of public school age similarly situated residing in said County, their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States, their liberty and property without due process of law, and the equal protection of the laws, secured by the Fourteenth A m e n d m e n t of the Constitution of the United States, section 1, and the rights secured b y Title 8, United States Code, section 41, and is for these reasons unconstitutional and void. (j) This Court allow interveners their costs herein, and grant such further, other, additional or alternative relief as m a y appear to the Court to be equitable and just in the premises. /s/ Oliver W . Oliver W . 623 North Richmond /s/ Martin A. Martin A. 626 North Richmond, Hill Hill Third Street 19, Virginia Martin_____ Martin Third Street Virginia /s/ Spottswood W . Robinson, III Spotiswood W . Robinson, III 623 North Third Street R i c h m o n d 19, Virginia /s/ L e o n A. R a n s o m L e o n A. R a n s o m 1939 Thirteenth Street, N. W . Washington, D. C. Counsel for Interveners. � https://projectdaps.org/files/original/a43f032f11575f00ce9b182f7c74a5ac.jpg 37341e294650ee42bc6dd583f871107e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Civil Action No. 331 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Columbia, Alexandria Division Description An account of the resource Move for applicants to intervene as plaintiffs in addition to Constance Carter in Civil Action 331 against the School Board of Arlington County. 34 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Counsel for Interveners, Oliver W. Hill; Martin A. Martin; Spottswood W. Robinson, III; Leon A. Ranson Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant unknown (1950s?) Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_2_1 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/dc5cf6d45ca4419f5f855d291c69f42e.pdf bf843f18432cae2e57653dd068b13c54 PDF Text Text Committee to Study Probloaa of Integration In the Arlington Public Schools Appointed June 12, 195^ Chalrsrans Sr, Joseph 0. McCa.skill, U6^k Ho, 26th St., -----Offloes EH 7-1820, Ext. V*76 Ball, Prank L., Sr. Burton, Mrs. B. A. Bavin, Mrs. A. J. E. Poster, Bev. William H. Prisbie. Alfred E. Groom, Col. J. Puller Hanoook, George Holland, Edwin I. Jacobs, Mrs. Haskell Johnson, Sr. Harold MaoPheraon, Mrs. Colin C. Pollard, Joooo Higdon, Mrs. James S. Schwarts, Br. Haymond Shirley, Mrs. Mary Sweeney, Claude A. Taylor, Theodore V. Tuthill, Br. Curtis E. Watt, Mrs. William G. IU37 Ho. Court House Ed. 9TO Ho. Livingston St. 5210 Ho. 27th St. 1106 Ho. Inglewood St. 636 So. 25 th St. 206 Badio Building 3^iO So. 22»d St. 2926 Columbia Pika 6 teh Ho. 26th St. 2901 Ho. Lexington St. 6201 Ho. ISth Boad ljlh So. Poe St. h223 Ho. 2nd Boad 1301 Ho. Highland St. 1962 Ho. Culpepper St. 1726 Ho. Cameron St. 706 Ho. Frederick St. 5612 Ho. 2hth St. 1600 Ho, Highland St. Staff Members: Blue, Victor, Jr. Halstead, Mrs. Eathor Lambert, Miss Lillian Loving, Miss Sally Blehordson, George Wolfo, Miss Lena 9517 So. Uth Street 2«52 So. Lowell St. 625 Ho. Emerson St. 5617 Ho. Washington Blvd. 2h21 So. Lowell St. 1763 Queen’ Lens s � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Arlington Public Schools Appointed June 12, 1954 Description An account of the resource List of members and respective addresses of appointed members to the committee Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Arlington Public Schools Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-6-12 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_5_1 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/9ba50f2c59c8b0d5ce52286dbb3bb6ca.pdf 4fb44ddc08134a64abc982e171167f82 PDF Text Text Qjl [C •— Committee to Study Problems of Integration', in the, Arlington Public Schools Appointed June 12, 1954 by Mrs. Elizabeth P. Campbell, Chairman, Arlington School Board, and T. Edward Rutter, Superintendent of Schools Prank L. Ball, Sr., 1437 North Court House Road, senator. Attorney, former State Victor Blue, Jr.r 5517 South 4th Street, Health and physical education teacher at Wakefield junior-senior high school. Rev. Jackson A. Browne, 2706 24th Road, South. Immediate past president of the Arlington Ministerial Association} minister of Lomax A.M.E. Zion Church, Mrs. R. A. Burton, 940 North Livingston Street. Association of University Women, — Jofronh ■ H.-'Cagmz6133„Hcacth 12th Street. Washington builder-;—^ 3 Member of the American Employed by Edward R. Carr. Inc., Dr. Claire Christman. 1S00 North Edison Street. school health services. Mrs. A. J. E. Davis, 5210 North 27th Street. Arlington Council of Church Women, Director, Arlington public First vice-president of the Rev. William H. Foster, 1106 North Inglewood Street, Presbyterian Church. /'''Alfred E. Friable, 6 3 6 25th Street, South, the Arlington County Board. 2„0ol. J. Fuller Groom, 206 Radio Building. Northern Virginia Real Estate Board. Broker, former chairman of Realtor and member of the Mrs. Esther Halstead. 2452 South Lowell Street. . ggKooI."""'— Pastor of Trinity Teacher at Drew Elementary George Hancock, Executive Secretary, Veterans1 Memorial YMCA, 3 4 4 0 22nd Street, South. {.J!dwin T. Holland, President, Old Dominion Bank, 2926 Columbia Pike. Mrs. Haskell Jacobs, 6424 North 26th Street, Immediate past vice-president of the Women's League, Arlington-Fairfax Jewish Center. S~- �Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Arlington Public Schools - 2 . (P Dr. Harold Johnson, 2901 Worth Lexington Street. Physician and chair­ man of the Board of Managers, Veterans' Memorial XM3A. Miss__Lillian Lambert^ 625 North Emerson Street. Elementary School, Principal of Fairiington Miss Sally Loving^5817 Worth Washington Boulevard. at-Washington-Lee high school. s. Colin C. MacPherson, 6201 - 18th Road, Worth, Virginia Council of Republican Women. Social studies teacher Former president of the Joseph C. MeCaskill, 4-634- 26th Street, North. Vice-chairman of the board of directors of the Arlington YMCA. Staff assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Jesse Pollard, 1314- South Poe Street, Architects president of the HoffmanBoston Parent-Teacher Association. George Richardson. 2421 South Lowell Street, Principal of Hoffmah-Boston elementary-arid junior-senior high schools. Mrs. James D. Rigdon, 4223 - 2nd Road, North. Former president of the Northern Virginia Deanery of Catholic Women. Raymond Schwartz, 1301 North Highland Street. Arlington Hospital. (IfJ * Mrs. Mary Shirley, 1962 North Culpepper Street. retired school teacher. Chief of Medicine, Former secretary, NAACP? Ilaude A. Sweeney, 1726 North Cameron Street. Army Post Office Department| vice-president of the Langston Citizens1 Association. £J£hbodore W. Taylor, 706 North Frederick .'Street. Management specialist in the United States Indian Service^ Arlington County Council, P.T.A. Dr. Curtis E. Tuthill, 5612 North 24th Street. Member of the faculty at George Washington University and former member, Arlington School Board. &. William G. Watt, 1600 North Highland Street. Newly elected vice-presi­ dent of the Virginia Federation of Women’s Clubs. Miss Lena Wolfe, 1763 Queen’s Lane. Principal, Swanson junior high school. �7 * b '2-2-3 * L-t /?s-y � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Arlington Public Schools Appointed June 12, 1954 by Mrs. Elizabeth P. Campbell and T. Edward Rutter Description An account of the resource Annotated list of names, respective addresses, and employers of appointed members to the committee. 3 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Arlington Public Schools Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-6-12 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_5_2 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/ca99c1e109a4bec19e4737e664ba7075.pdf 621c7b205543f46719ef682216460b40 PDF Text Text Minutes of Meeting of Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Arlington Schools October 18, 1954 (Approved by Dr. McCaskill and Mrs. Campbell.) The second meeting of the Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Arlington Schools was held at 8 p.m., October 18, at the School Administration Building, with Dr. J. C. McCaskill, chairman, presiding. Roll call showed the following members present: Victor Blue, Jr., Mrs. R. A. Burton, Joseph I . Carr, William I Parker, representing Dr. Claire Christman, Mrs. A. J. 3 . Davis, Rev. William I . Poster, Alfred E. Prisbie, Col. J. Puller Groom, t firs. Esther Halstead, George Hancock, Mrs. Haskell Jacobs, Dr. Harold Johnson, Miss Lillian Lambert, Miss Sally Loving, Jes3e Pollard, George Richardson, Mrs. James D. Higdon, firs. Mary Shirley, Claude A. Sweeney, Mrs. William G. Watt, Miss Lena Wolfe. Present from the school board were Mrs. Edmund D. Campbell, chairman, and Warren Cos; from the school adminis­ tration, T. Edward Rutter, Superintendent; Dr. C. Glen Ilass, Charles J. Walsh, Stanley V. Smith and Mrs. Art Brown. After roll call and approval of the minutes of the June 23 meeting of the committee. Dr. McCaskill reported that ho had previously called together a snail group of members of the committee, the school staff and the school board to plan the agenda for this meeting. At Dr. McCaskill's request, the mem­ bers approved the agenda as follows: 1. Report by firs. Campbell of discussion at a meeting in Warrenton of school board members from northern Virginia. 2. Report by Mr. Rutter of state developments. 3. Report by Mrs. Burton on findings of the sub-committee on research, appointed by action of the entire Inte­ gration committee. �- 2 - Dp . McCastei.il then said he wished the committee to consider whether it would be desirable to issue a "fact sheet* for community distribution in Arlington concerning integration. In Mrs. Campbell’s report she explained that the 41 school board members from northern Virginia who attended the Varrenton conference are much concerned about the situation with regard to segregation or integration, because the indi­ vidual boards are the ones who must deal with the problem and who will be held responsible in each community for what is done. "There was general agreement at the Varrenton meeting," Mrs. Campbell said, "that there is need for local option in the natter of integration, since Virginia communities vary so much in their proportion of white and Negro public school pupils and also in the general conditions existing in the communities." Mrs. Campbell said she is hopeful that Virginia edu­ cational authorities will ask for suggestions from school board members when the time comes to deal with natters of integration. She also said there is need for action as soon as possible after the Supreme Court announces how and when they wish integration to be pat into effect. Mr. Rutter, in his report on the state-wide situation, told of a meeting of school superintendents from northern coun­ ties and cities of Virginia. "The school superintendents took the position," Mr. Rutter said, "that nothing should be done to impair the public school system of the state." Mr. Rutter then reported on the ruling by Virginia's Attorney General that the Virginia Constitution and State Code provisions providing for sogregation of the races in the public schools is still in force. Ue also reported on instructions received by all superintendents in the state to conduct the schools this year on a segregated basis. Other developments reported by Mr. Rutter were these: Statement by Governor Stanley that ho intends to retain segre­ gation in Virginia schools, poll of Virginia legislators showing desire to retain segregation, appointment by Governor Stanley of a commission from the General Assembly to frame a state policy on the issue of segregation, and the announcement of the first public bearing by this commission to be held November 15. �- 3 - It was also reported that Attorney General Almond of Virginia will present a brief at the hearing before the Supreme Court in Washington on December 6. Mr. Rutter pointed out that Arlington schools receive funds from both the state and the federal government, and that local oommunities will be in a difficult situation if the state and federal authorities disagree on the matter of inte­ gration in the schools. The roport by fire. Burton of the sub-committee on re­ search included the following: 1. A "fact sheet" on integration would be of value but should be limited absolutely to facts, with no matters of opinion or emotion included. 2. Kits might be prepared by the Integration Committee for use by speakers and organizations desiring infor­ mation. 3. If Arlington schools wish to hold seminars similar to those held in the District of Columbia last year to help teachers prepare for integration, the American Friends Service Committee is willing to direct such seminars. Mrs. Burton's report told of th© situation in many oommunities where integration is being Instituted or has been in effect. She mentioned the wide newspaper coverage in troubled areas and said: "It is to be hoped that some responsible news gathering agency will later give us a detailed, factual report of the successes as well as the failures." After completion of the scheduled items on the agenda, Alfred E. Frisbie moved that the Integration committee recommend to the school board that a factual reporting 3heet be issued at intervals as needed, outlining the various steps in the move toward integration and that this reporting sheet make no attempt to interpret what has been done. Rev. William 1 . Foster seconded the motion which was 1 passed unanimously. �- 4 - There was some discussion concerning how often future meetings of the committee should bo held. Reverend Poster ex­ pressed the opinion that the entire community needs to be given information concerning the integration problem, and made a motion that regular monthly meetings be held. Br. Johnson seconded the motion and it was passed. Mrs. Campbell told the members of the committee: "The members of our Arlington school board want to do the best they can in the matter of integration. It strengthens us to have this committee advise us." � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes of Meeting of Committee to study Problems of Integration in Arlington Schools October 18, 1954 Description An account of the resource Minutes from the second meeting of the committee on October 18, 1954. 4 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Arlington Public Schools Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-10-18 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_5_4 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/4c0df2835db061d24c6e8e3ce6ee78ee.pdf 6a10c650c0c7d4a65843b0b9bdffba3a PDF Text Text A R L IN G T O N C O U N T Y P U B L IC S C H O O L S Office of the Superintendent 1-426 n o r t h Q uincy s tr e e t telephone: jackson A rlington 7. V irginia April 21, 1955 To: Members of the Committee Studying Problems of Integration in the Arlington Public Schools Prom: Mrs. Edmund Campbell,, Chairman of the Arlington School Board and Joseph C. McCaskill, Chairman, Integration Committee This is to remind you of the meeting of the Integration Committee, to be held this coming Monday evening, April 25, at 8 p.m., for which you re­ ceived a notice a few weeks ago. Please note, however, a change in place. The committee will meet at Hoffman-Boston high school, 1^15 South Q,ueen Street. As you know, HoffmanBoston is Arlington1s modern high school for colored students. Another change for this meeting is that the social hour will come at the beginning. Our committee has been invited to meet a dozen white and negro educators who will be at Hoffman-Boston next week to evaluate the school in preparation for its final accreditation by the Southern Associa­ tion of Secondary Schools and Colleges. Refreshments, buffet style, will be served from 8 to 8:3Q p.m., to our committee, to the visiting educators, to the Hoffman-Boston faculty, and to members of the School Board. Those present will be introduced to the entire group. Our business meeting will be held at 8:^5 p.JB. and will adjourn by 10 p.m. The Integration Committee meeting at Hoffman-Boston next Monday eve­ ning is part of a program of information which the School Board wishes to present to the Integration Committee. We have previously met at WashingtonLee and we hope later to meet at Wakefield, so the committee members may get to see each of our three high schools. We sincerely hope you can attend. To get to Hoffman-Boston: Remember the date — next Monday evening, April 25 at HoffmanBoston. Turn south off Columbia Pike at South Rolfe Street. Go two blocks to 13th Road; then left one block to Queen Street. Go one-half block right on Queen Street to the school. 2-7700 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Arlington County Public Schools Office of the Superintendent April 21, 1955 memo to the Members of the Committee Studying Problems of Integration in the Arlington Public Schools Description An account of the resource Memo to the committee from Elizabeth Campbell, Chairman of the Arlington School Board and Joseph C. McCaskill, Chairman, Integration Committee regarding an upcoming meeting of the Integration Committee Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elizabeth Campbell and Joseph C. McCaskill Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1955-4-21 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_5_8 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/7383e9983c5fe81d9e8e7ba94ef90519.pdf b10a7d8f8ae2ebb032717ad7ab91628f PDF Text Text B eesaber 1 5 , 195** M inutes o f A rlington, O o g aittaa To Study Problem® o f I n te g r a tio n A r e g u la r e a s tin g o f th e In te g r a tio n O o sa itto e was held" a t 8 p .su Deeenher 1 5 , 195U In th e o f f ic e o f I . Edward S u t t e r , A rlin g to n S u p e rin te n d en t o f S chools, OOKBlttee aerabore p re s e n t wars D r, Jo sep h C. KcOaskillo chairm an, p r e s id in g , Mrs. S„ A. B a rto n , Dr, Clair® C h r ls ta s a , A lfre d E , I V is b ie , Col, ,1, F u l l e r Croon, Mr*, E s th e r H a lste a d , Georg® Hanoocfc, Mise M i l l e r . l e e b e r t . M iss S a lly lo v in g , Jo n es P o lla r d , George R ich ard so n , B r. Reyaond Schw arts and Claude; A, Sweeney. A le s p re s e n t wore Mrs, Edmund Campbell, D r, 1 . Clark® K eatin g „ Dr, X, E , D ra lie is and Warroa Cor froE th e School Board, S u p erin ten d en t R a tt e r , pd Mr*. A rt Brown, s e c re ta r y o f th e o o n a itta s , 1!b» u in n te o o f th e p re v io u s s e a tin g , a s n a ile d t o osoh c o rae ittae n e n h e r, wore approved w ith o u t b e in g re a d . AS th o f i r s t item o f b u s in e s s , th e chairm an asked f o r a n e v a lu a tio n o f th e Ifeot Sheet a s t o c o n te n t and d i s t r i b u t i o n . Mrs, Brown re p o rte d on th e d i s t r i b u t i o n sb fo llo w s; Croups r e g u la r ly re c e iv in g th e P a c t Sheet in clu d e th e fo llo w in g ; 1. 2. 3. b. 5» 6. 7. S, 5, P r e s id e n ts o f P a re n t-T e a c h e r A s so c ia tio n s in A rlin g to n P u b lic Schools Motiboi'a of oohool A dvisory Committees E d ito r s of A rlin g to n P a re n t-T e a c h e r A sso c ia tio n b u l le t in s A ll to a e h s r s , p r i n c i p a l s , o u p srv lg o ra aad msmbera of tho a d m in is tra tiv e e t a f f i n th e A rlin g to n sc h o o ls, Member* o f th e A rlin g to n d e le g a tio n to th e V irg in ia S ta te Assembly Meobers o f th e County Board and th e County Manager A rlin g to n p u b lic l i b r a r i e s Oongrusoaian J o e l 5 , B ro y h ill Herabsrs o f th e Committee t o Study Probleras o f I n te g r a tio n in the A rlington 3choole 'is a d d itio n t o t h i s , th e A rlin g to n leag u e o f Woaen T o te re hae r e ­ c e iv e d 25 c o p ie s of each o f th e two leo n e s o f th e E a st S h e e t. A number o f in d iv id u a l o itl s c n e have asked f o r c o p ie s and a few secondary school o la a e e s have re q u e ste d c o p ie s . 1 he Claremont P a re n t-T ea c h er A e so c ia tlo n planned to d u p lio a te 600 c o p ie s f o r t h e i r member*, th e W akefield h ig h school pap er r e - p r i n t e d more th an one (d a m n of in fo rm a tio n from th e Toot S h e e t. I t was th e o p inion o f th e oo aratttse t h a t th e School Beard should n o t is s u e th e Eact Sheet i n any la r g e e d it i o n , b u t t h a t o rg a n is a tio n s wish­ in g t o d i s t r i b u t e I t t o t h s l r own members should have tits in fo rm a tio n d u p li­ c a te d a t i h e l r own expense. S r . Schw arts m entioned t h a t he b e lie v e s th e m a te ria l which has appeared in th e P a c t Sheet i s a lre a d y f a s t l i a r to p a rso n s I n te r e s te d in th e p ro b le a o f in te g ra tio n �e — lira, S a r to s p o in te d out t h a t th a in fo rm a tio n In th e P a c t Sheet 1* e x tre m e ly v a lu a b le . “ I t would tak a hours o f work t o g e t t h i s in fo rm a tio n I f va d id a o t h a re I t oondensed In th a a c c u ra te form in which I t appears In the P a c t S h e e t,” M rs. B arto n s e ld , " I t w i l l he o f In c re a sin g im portance to h a re th o se f a c t a a v a ila b le when th e Supreme C ourt d e c is io n la made." Bra McCngfclll th en asked i f th e committee would c are t o sponsor a t l e a s t one se m l-p a h llo m eeting t o a c q u a in t le a d e r s in A rlin g to n w ith the e n t i r e s i t u a t i o n re g a rd in g s e g re g a tio n o f the ra c e s in th e A rlin g to n schools and th e problem s r e l a t i n g to in te g r a tio n . A fte r soma d ieo u e eio n th e committee members agreed not to epsnsor such a s a e tln g . I n s te a d , th e . fo llo w in g m otion, made by Mr. T ria b le was p a sse d unanim ously; “I move th a t t h i s comm ittee su g g est t o th a School Board t h a t i t would he good b u sin e ss f o r th s Board and members o f th e A d m in is tra tiv e s t a f f to appear b e fo re th e v a rio u s B e rrio s c lu b s and o th e r o rg a n is a tio n s of i t s choice t o o i t a th e f a c t s up t o and In c lu d in g th e p re s e n t day concerning s e g re g a tio n and i n te g r a tio n In A rlin g to n p u b lic sc h o o ls," S u p e rin te n d en t R u tte r th e n gave a r e p o rt f o r th e p a s t f iv e y e a rs showing ;he i n t e r - r e l a t i o n between l o c a l , s t a t e , and f e d e r a l fu n d s in su p p o rtin g th e schools o f A rlin g to n . A com parison o f th e se f i g u r e s f o r th e school y e a r 1950*51 w ith th o se o f th e p re s e n t f i s c a l y e a r , i s a s fo llo w s: Pram lo c a l ta x a t io n , A rlin g to n sch o o ls r e o s ir e d $2,772,16^ f iv e y e a rs a g e , and $5,U69,882 t h i s y e a r. Prom th e s t a t e o f T ir g l n l a , A rlin g to n re c e iv e d $712»*>75 i n 1950-51i and $1,116,725 t h i s y e a r . S h is was baaed on average d a ily a tte n d an c e in our (schools; rolm bursem snt on school bus t r a n s p o r ta tio n ; p a r t i a l payment of th s s a l a r i e s o f th e su p e rin te n d e n t o f s c h o o ls, th e d lr o o to r o f i n s t r u c t i o n , h e lp in g ts a o h e r s , and members o f th e su p e rv iso ry s t a f f ; s u b s id ie s f o r horns economics and v o c a tio n a l e d u c a tio n , f o r purchase of t e x t books, and f o r o p e ra tio n o f th e tsa o h e rs* sio k le a v e p la n . from f e d e r a l so u rc e s , A rlin g to n r e o e lr s d $289,188 in 1950*51• oud Of t h i s sum, $600,000 w i l l come to A rlin g to n t h i s y e a r under P u b lio law 815, which p ro v id e s f o r F e d e ra l A ssis­ tan c e f o r m aintenance and o p e ra tio n o f sch o o ls In a community w ith a la rg e In c re a se ,n p o p u la tio n doe to f e d e r a l a c t i v i t y . The rem ainder o f the fe d e r a l a llo tm e n t t o A rlin g to n l a from th e school lu n ch su b sid y o f $62,000 and a pay­ ment o f $h,000 in l i e u o f ta x s e on f e d e r a ll y owned p ro p e rty in th e c ounty. $666,000 ?or th e p re s e n t school y e a r . I. summary s h e e t o f th e f ig u r e s g iv en by Mr. R u tta r i s a tta c h e d . i t was a ls o p o in te d out th a t under P u b lio Lav S j h , a f e d e r a l appro­ p r i a t i o n o f $1,730,000 was giv en t o A rlin g to n toward th e o o n s tru e tlo n o f b llx la m e b trg J u n io r h ig h school and $580,000 to b u ild Tuckahoe elem entary sohool. There was some d la o u s tlo a es to w hether th e fig u r e s giv en by Mr, R u tte r should be in clu d e d l a a coming Paot S h e e t, b u t i t was th e o p in io n t h a t I t l a s o t y e t th » t l a s t o p u b lis h th e s e f ig u r e s . ''the iuseting adjourned. D e lls Brown, S e c re ta ry � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource December 15, 1954 Minutes of the Arlington Committee to Study Problems of Integration Description An account of the resource Meeting minutes from the December 15 meeting at the office of T. Edward Rutter, Arlington Superintendent of Schools. 2 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Arlington Public Schools Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-12-15 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_5_10 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/a0c85ec8260184305d5e5ae7ff14e138.pdf e949d86ef0a27eedf2d0ccd43371e142 PDF Text Text I moors or oteojuticb o h i t s Kssrcra, ohte , mss 22, 1955 The Oomslttee to Study Problems of Integration In the Arlington School* M t at Si20 p.a., Jana 22, at the School Administration Building, with Dr. Joseph 0. HoCasklll, chairmen, presiding. She minute* of the previous meeting vsrs approved. Members present, In addition to th* chairman* vers Victor Blue, Mrs. Edith Burton, Dr^tflalre Christman, Hr*. A. J. E/^Bayis, Bsv. William Ho foster, AlfredJT Trlsbio, Mrs. Esther Halstead,JU A > St. Holland, / Sr. Harold JohzfaonK'filis Mlllatt/Lambert, Jesse Folfdrd, George Biohartfson Claude i. Sweeps';Theodore W. Xuylor and Mrs. W l j p i 0. Watt. i^Lt Suporintendoat of Schools 9. Edvard Butter, Sr. Stanley 7. Smith, direstor of research; and all members of the School Board were also present. Mrs. Elisabeth Cambell, School Board chairman, explained that the meeting vas called to get advloe and suggestions from the oomoittee concerning some tentative proposals for oonerote notion worked out by the sohool administrative staff and to be presented to the committee by Hr. Batter. Mr. Butter first rsvlevsd the Supreme Court decision and the Gray Commission report. He then told of the Sohool Planning Committee, a group of sohool staff members, both vhlte and Hegro, vhleh he reported hod been meeting monthly to study problems involved In sohool Integration. Mr. Butter said the Sohool Planning Committee had considered several possible plane for Integration drawn up by members of the school administrative staff. She plans vore revised and then presented to the Sohool Board. Hr. Butter outlined these plans to the members of the Integration Committee and ae c d them to vote, shoving vhleh plans they le preferred. These are given at the end of these minutes with the vote on eaoh. In connection with the discussion of the plans, three maps shoving sohool boundary linos and the number and looation of Hegro students expected to bs In our sohools In i960 vers explained and examined Hr. Stanley Smith of the sohool reoearoh staff explained that because of the olose knit Hegro residential communltlee, integration on the elementary sohool level vonld affeot only about 60 Negro children and loss than 5 vhlte. Hr. Taylor brought up the question of orientation of teaohsrs and students. Both Mr. Batter and Mr. Biohardson agreed that vork with the teachers would bs dsslrable. In discussing the timing of integration at the various levels, it vas brought out that because of the serious orovdlng at Wakefield, integration at the junior and senior high levels vonld not be desirable until the aejplatlan a* another junior high. NT, Triable expressed the opinion that integration is impossible this fall in view of the various unresolved questions. He also expressed �doubt whoa the Committee m e naked to vote preference on the recommcndetione end tentatIre tine eohedvd.ee. Be felt that the Gomnittea did not have eoffleient factual information to reach a sound deolelon and that responsibility met ha left to the Sohool Board. Mrs. Campbell eald the reoognissd that the Sohool Board haa the final reeponalhillt/ hat ■he naked for guidance h/ the expression of opinions h/ the group on the rarioue proposals. Enoh member of the group m asked to write thane preferencea. The vote m e at follows: Six neater* of the oonnlttee favored adoption of the following resamendatloni Any Begro parent living oatelde a Xegro school distrlot would ha free to make application for hie children to ha adulttad to a white elementary or Junior high school in vhloh school distrlot he lives. After a conference, the ohlld or children would he transferred. Parents of senior high sohool ilegro pupils would he eligible to apply for admission to e white high sohool. (Boffnan-Boston may he closed to senior hiah sohool students.) Ten members of the committee voted to endorse the following reooauoendation; Maintenance of present polio/ on eehool distrlot lines. Horn ever, no ohlld in grades 1=9 would he required to attend a publlo sohool in whioh another rasa is in a majority. (Hoffaaa-Boston senior high sohool will he closed.) Bus transportation will he provided under both the above reoomaendatlone. The vote m e as follows on the proposed sohool year whan integration sight ho pat into effect in the different grades of the Arlington eohoolel _ I n in IT T 5 2 1 2 6 Grades 1 - 6 1955-56 1955-56 1955-56 1956-57 1956-57 7-9 1955-56 1956-57 1956-57 1956-57 1957-58 9-12 1956-57 1956-57 1957-58 1956-57 1957-58 Totes for / s Idith Burton i/ Secretary, Pro T r en � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes of Integration Committee meeting, June 22, 1955 Description An account of the resource Meeting minutes from the June 22 meeting at the School Administration Building. 2 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Arlington Public Schools Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1955-6-22 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_5_12 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/7b633fd6844a4203d2a3c597de12b1bf.pdf 61b922d039f6ba883130df5837cbd50d PDF Text Text ARLINGTON SCHOOL BOARD STATEMENT CONCERNING THE COMMITTEE TO STUDY PROBLEMS OF INTEGRATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS June 23, 1954-* The Committee on Integration was set up because the Arlington School Board needs help from many different segments of our Arlington population con­ cerning the important matter of putting Into effect the recent United States Supreme Court ruling prohibiting segregation of races in our publio eohoola. Arlington is a Virginia community where separation of white and Negro pupils has been practiced ever since public education was first established in the State. While there are many fine citizens who favor integration, there are many equally fine citizens who have sincere reservations. With this situa­ tion, the best thinking of our community needs to be enlisted so as to study and make recommendations as to the wisest way to bring about the changes which will be required during the next few years because of the Supreme Court ruling. The School Board took into account these principles in setting up the committees 1. The Committee should be large enough to represent many different areas of thinking among our citizens. -2. Persons were not named officially as representatives of groups. (For this reason no presidents of organiza­ tions were asked to serve on the committee.) Rather, the individuals named are connected with representative local organizations and are familiar with the thinking and policies of such groups. They will not be official representatives and therefore will not be required to poll their members in order to suggest or approve a course of action on any matter coming before the committee* '3. Since many diverse aspects of school Integration will probably be studied, the Board named enough people so the Committee can be sub-divided to study these different questions. It is expected that other citizens will be asked by the committee to serve on sub-committees. Also, the School Board requests that at least one school staff member be invited to serve on each sub-committee. There Is great public interest in the work of this body. Because the committee" activities must be so closely tied in with school board policies, the School Board asks that all press releases be approved jointly by the chairman of the Integration Committee and the chairman of the School Board. The Arlington School Board earnestly needs the help of this Inte­ gration Committee. However, it must be made clear that the work of the committee can be only advisory. The committee will make recommendations to the School � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Arlington School Board Statement Concerning the Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Public Schools, June 23, 1954 Description An account of the resource Statement explaining the School Board's decision to set up the committee Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington School Board Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-6-23 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_5_13 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/57a60a6eabfe018be60f7b9d3e1bb6d3.pdf cb5b8fcefdfd13c2db7eed9b3984c2f4 PDF Text Text FIRST MEETING G? COMMITTEE TO STDDI PROBLEMS Oi IBfBBRATIOS 3$ i ARLIKGTOM PUBLIC SCHOOLS Juno 23, 1954 (Approved V Br. McCaakill and Mrs. Campbell) TWenty»tw® of tha 29 asabars of tho Intonation Caamlttao wsro present at tho first meeting of tha group, hold at Washington-Lee high school, at 8s30 p r . Modnssday, June 23, 1954° .a, Sicas present wore Rot. Jackson A. Browne, Mrs. R, A Burton, Joseph H . . Carr, Dr. Claire Christman, Mrs. A.J.E. Davis, Alfred E. Friable, Col. J. Fuller B o a , S r . Esther Halstead, George Hancock, Edwin T Holland, Mrs. Haskell r c s is . Jacobs, Dr. Harold Johnson, Miss Lillian Lambert, Miss Sally Loving, Dr. J C. McCaakill, lease R Pollard, Georgs Richardson, Dr. Raymond . . Schwarts, Mrs. Mary Shirley, Claude A Swaenoy, Mrs. Killian G. Hatt, . Mias Lena Wolfe. Tho following BCEbsrs of tho camnlttso woro absent? Frank L Ball, Sr., . Victor Blue, Jr., Rov. William H Foster, Mrs. Colin MaePhsrson, Mrs. James D . . Rigdon, Sheedar® W. Taylor, Dr. Curtis E, Tuthill. Mrs. Elizabeth Campbell, Chairman of t a School Board, presided and fs introduced the various casmltteo members, as well as the other members of the Arlington School Boards Mr. Warren Cos, Dr. Barnard Joy, Dr. E R . . Dr&hota, and Dr. L. Clark Keating; Superintendent of Schools T Edward Rutter . and Charloa J. Walsh, Assistant Superintendent in charge of personnel. Each person present was provided with a folder of informational material. Mrs. Campbell then read the policy drawn up by the Arlington School Board te guide the Integration Committee in its w r , ok �- 2- Dr, Jey showed / largo cape of Arlington indicating tho location of > the Qegro schools. Each aap also contained information as to ths hems addrassos of Bs@?o pupils in ths school system, la reply to question* from the eeasiltteo, Sr. J g explained that th® cArlington schools operate on a district teals with tho children required to attend the School to which t o r arc zoned. Io also pointed out that, hj ' in order to hasp th® aehool attendance balanced jAroperly with tho spaco in each building, it ia sometimes nscossary for pupils to bo so l d to attend a ie school which is farther away from their hemes than another aehool building i s th® area. Ha also explained, in response to a question, that th® school s beard has t&a authority to sat up the school districts and that th® diotrletiag ia based on information f o a ths aehool research department. rs Mrs. Campbell suggested teat nominations for ohai;miaa of the Gcsamittss b® by written ballot. The members agreed to m l s thair nominations in at teat manner with tho arrsngsEont teat the two persons who received tho highest number of votes should bo tho naaineas. Dr. Joseph t MeCaakili , and Alfred E. Frioblo war® the two nominated. In tho subsequan'- olection. Dr. MeCaofcUl was named chairman. Before tee election an opportunity was given for the membere to ‘ •.vootion t i nominees and to discuss briefly various phases of tho committee's wort, le l r . Gaapbell suggested that it would bo moat helpful to the School Board ie if the members of tho cazaittse would note what questions are being asked concerning integration in Arlington) also teat it would ba helpful if the members of the committee would bo willing to report what these questions are, and what would be their answers, individually end as a committee. �-3- Mra. Campbell also cold that cambers of the School Board wish to attend matings of tha group. Seas discussion arose as to whathar or not the Integration Committee should ba merely a "sounding board" to got the opinion of the community or whether tho committee should suggest concrete plana for putting integration into effect. It aaa generally agreed that tho cessn t e will eventually ito be asked to suggest plans for integration but the most valuable contributions at tha beginning will bo in tho collection of information and in helping the community to prepare for the e a i g change in tho school system. rsn Mrs. a. A Burton suggested that a steering committee should ba named. . After discussion it was agreed instead that ary committee appointed at this time should be a research committee. Mr. Frlsbio moved that the chairman be empowered to appoint such a committee of not moro than 7 members. Ths motion was carried unanimously. It was suggested that a vice-chairman bo named. Mrs. iUJ.E. Davis nominated Jossa R Pollard, who was elected unanimously, . Ths meeting adjourned subject to the call of the chairman. July 7 - Th® following members of the Integration Committee were , named by Dr. J. C. ticCaokill to serve as members of the sub-committee on research: Mrs. R. A Burton, chairman, Mrs. A.J.E. Davis, Rev. William H . . Poster, Mrs. Esther Halstead, George Hancock, Edwin X Holland, Miss Sally . loving. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource First Meeting of Committee to Study Problems on Integration in Arlington Public Schools June 23, 1954 Description An account of the resource Meeting minutes from the committee's first meeting on June 23, 1954 at Washington-Lee high school. 3 pages Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Committee to Study Problems of Integration in the Arlington Public Schools Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-6-23 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington Public Schools Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_5_14 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/294729916b773f9318bd7e9072dd7ef9.pdf 5956f404998a706b3e379415414afff4 PDF Text Text c 0 p Y Culpeper, Va» July 29, 1951l Members Northern Virginia Superintendents Oroup Bear Pallows 1 Oi July 16th we had a meeting of the Superintendents4 Advisory Council in Bicamond and discussed mainly the problems that may arise from the Suprema Court ’0 decision on segregation. Tlere is not too much information that can be given out on this until after the State Board meets and approves certain recommendations of the State department. In fact I do not think that any of this should be given to the papers, but I am giving to you confidentially the general trend of thought as expressed at this meeting. 1. It is the responsibility of the State and local superintendents of a :hools to operate in keeping with the policiee of their governing b>arda and in compliance with constitutional and atatuatory preferences. 2. 1; was the unanimous feeling of the group that it would be inappropriate a. this time to make public statements regarding procedures that might bi proposed to meet the impact of the Supreme Court 13 decision. 3. When the final decree of the Court is made public our position as administrative officials should be governed by the stated legal authority o.‘ the State of Virginia. In the meantime, however, it ia very important that we give calm and thoughtful consideration to the problema that may present themselves as well as to the problem of the moment. 1. * In Implementing whatever the decree might be, we should give more consid­ eration to preserving and strengthening the public schools of the State, The impact of the decision varies oonaiderably in degree and intensity in the various school divisions of the State. In advocating any procedure nnw or in the future the situation existing in a given locality is of great importance. 5. In would seem advisable to extablish framework for the State within which the various local divisions nay and can operate. Local discretion should tx given full consideration. Mandatory policies which would impose undue difficulties in localities should be avoided. 6. Suggestions from local superintendents of schools regarding their problems atd their recommendations for solution will be welcomed. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Members Northern Virginia Superintendents Group Memo July 29, 1954 Description An account of the resource Report to Northern Virginia superintendents from a meeting on July 16th of the Superintendents Advisory Council regarding the Supreme Court decision. 1 page Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools, 1909-2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource unknown Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-7-29 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_3_1 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/c385854406a9a2e4eb776ee963aa480d.pdf 06a08dd399f809fa30aacc325c263f70 PDF Text Text Wilmington, Delaware POLICIES BSGAEDIKO ISTEGHATIOH 1. The Board desires to take at ones each steps •• as are practical and possible toward the implementation of the decision of the Supreme Courto The integration of the summer school program, of the course in practical nursing and of certain classes in special education, constitute initial steps toward that objective. 2, The following policies are approved and the Superintendent is author­ ized to put them into effeot Immediately, A. Policy regarding elementary schools Attendance areas will be established around eaoh elementary building unit. While pupils living in a particular area would normally attend the school located in that area, nevertheless) In accordance with the polloy now in effeot, parents may request transfer of their children to another unit. Reassignment will be made if space elsewhere ie available. B. Policies regarding attendance of pupils in trade and industrial courses at the Brown Vocational High School and the Howard High School. a. All courses offered in only one of these high eohools shall be open to all students regardless of residence. b. If found qualified, pupils now enrolled in ths Electricity oource at Howard may transfer to Brown after completion of the units on "Wiring.1 1 o. Bequests for enrollment In the above courses b y students already registered in other course will be approved only after a conference with the counselors and the prlnolpals of the sohools concerned. d. Opportunity for new registration In the courses listed above and guidance conferences will be provided up to August 20, 195U. 0. Policies regarding reassignment of teaching staff. Transfer and reassignment of the teaohlng staff shall be made as necessary to implement tho above polloles. D. Polloles regarding evening schools end all activities of extended services All approved olasses shall be open to students on an equal basis. E. Policies regarding Junior and senior high schools The integration of Junior and senior high schools presents dif­ ficult problems which will require further study. Therefore, for'the school year 195**-55> no change will be made la the operation and at­ tendance of the Junior and senior high sohools, with the following e x ­ ception: Students in the eleventh or twelfth grades desiring advanoed work In olasses not offered in o m school may transfer to another in which such courses are given. �Hr« Graham discussed with the group the present policy of distributing State Department bulletins and asked for suggestions for inprovemsnt of this policy* He had reference, of course, to such bulletins as language arte, mathematics and physical education that have already been completed and sent to you* There is in the making now music, social studies and library manuals. The following procedures ware recommended and accepted by Mr. Grahamo 1. Send a memo to the euperintendents along with one copy of the bulletin 2. Superintendents request number of copies needed for examination by supervisory 3taff and key teachers 3. Superintendents estimate number of copies that will be needed for teachers in the system I might explain the reason for this discussion was that soms teachers and principals have written in to the Department asking for bulletins when it is not the policy of the Department to give out these bulletins except to the Superintendents. It was learned that some of these bulletins have rsmained in the superintendents4 office, and have not gone out either to the supervisory group and to principals or given to teachers. It was the feeling that all of these requests should come through the superintendent4s office. Ai explanation was made of the forms for use in accounting for school activity funds, but you have already received these forms and there is not any point in making any comment on them. Wien I receive further information on the segregation queation or anything else trnt I think would be of importance and interest to our group I shall write ; r u or call a meeting. jo With best wishes Sincerely yours. / s/ Paul Hounshell Division Superintendent of Schools PH*mjb � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools Description An account of the resource Record Group 07 contains the incomplete and unofficial records of the Arlington County, Virginia, public school system. The entire collection measures 20.85 linear feet, and ranges in date between 1909 and 2004. The bulk of the material is from the period 1946-1988. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wilmington Delaware Policies Regarding Integration Description An account of the resource Wilmington Board's approved policies towards the implementation of desegregation. 2 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 07, Arlington County Public Schools, 1909-2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Paul Hounshell, Division Superintendent of Schools Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource No date Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1950s Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource This image is subject to copyright. Unauthorized use of the images in the Local History Collections of the Arlington Community Archives is prohibited. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 7_1_8_3_2