15 20 1839 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/cb6c8d7cc2facc570d4fac5650ad3dd1.jpg 2edda9d60a814775e0cdb221599c29e8 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/4df63e66e2531b0ed5427d4c080766a8.pdf e053de8f2f6a370195f7276f8a99fdbd PDF Text Text Christian Race Rela Must Be Natural m mm By D r. L. N e ls o n B e ll ASHEVILLE, N . C. �With that temerity often attributed to morons and their like, we would like to make a few suggestions which might possibly help to clarify our thinking on the matter of true Christian race relations. We are fully aware that what we write will not T please extremists on either side of this controversial matter. However, here goes: Within the scope of those rights prescribed by law, every American citizen is equal. For that reason it is futile to defend any law which restricts the legal rights of any individual, or group of individuals. Therefore, segregation by law cannot be legally defended. This in no way precludes the expediency, wisdom and right of voluntary alignments along racial or other social lines (and it should not be forgotten for one minute that it is the Christian thing at times to be expedient). In like manner, forced integration cannot be de­ fended, either on legal or moral grounds. Both forced segregation and forced integration infringe on the legal right of the individual. The great difficulty in the South today is that too many people are talking at odds because they are talking about different things. Another difficulty stems from those Northern friends who affirm a certain procedure as the only “Christian” procedure and who fail to be realistic, even in their own back yards. At present the discussions in our church are based on three different factors: A. The decision of the United States Supreme Court, declaring segregation in the public schools to be illegal. 2 �B. The actions of our General Assembly stating that the Christian answer to the race problem is integration of the races within the area of Church relationships. C. The feeling of many that integration of the races is both impracticable and unwise. Regardless of the actions outlined in “A” and “B” above, there is a great host of people, repre­ sented in “C,” who do not have the remotest idea of complying with these actions. Some do this with minds which are prejudiced and utterly un-Chris­ tian in their attitudes to the Negro. Some do this from genuine fear, the fear of a minority living in the midst of a majority of another race—this situa­ tion is particularly true in certain areas of the deep South. There are others—and they are as Christian in their thinking and practices as any in this world —who believe that it is un-Christian, unrealistic and utterly foolish to force those barriers of race which have been established by God and which when destroyed by man are destroyed to his own loss. There is no possible excuse for the attitude of those who hate people of any race, whether it be Yellow, Black, White or Red. That such hate exists is but a tragic reminder of the sinfulness of the human heart. There is but one Christian attitude between people, regardless of race, and that is that we are all equally precious in God’s sight and equally in need of His redeeming grace in Christ Jesus. The Assistant Attorney General of the State of North Carolina has recently said: “Race conscious­ ness is not race prejudice. It is not intolerance. It is a deeply ingrained awareness of a birthright held in trust for posterity. 3 �“There have been in every group, and are in­ dividuals, who, despising their birthright, have been faithless to their trust. So it has been and so it is in North Carolina. But the majority of North Caro­ linians have been taught from infancy, and they understand how it came about that Israel became a great nation, while Edom faded into oblivion, and they agree with the great Disraeli, who said: ‘No man will treat with indifference the principle of Race, for it is the key to history.’ It is utterly foolish to think that wishful think­ ing, an act of the Supreme Court or an act of the General Assembly—any of these—can destroy race distinctions which are God ordained. In too much of the discussions and actions today there is an attempt to create an unnatural situation, to force something, in the name of Christianity, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Chris­ tianity. In communities where there are but few of one race it could be the wise and natural thing to absorb all races into one Church group. But, it is unnatural and forced to bring about integration where separa­ tion is desired and desirable. Let me illustrate: to hear some of our ardent integrationists today one would think that only those churches which have integrated congregations are Christian. Just how foolish can we get? In New Orleans there is a great Chinese Presbyterian Church. Are they unChristian because they prefer to worship together? Is it not rather an illustration of the natural selec­ tion of individuals for those of similar race and cultural backgrounds? Carried to its logical con­ clusion the reasoning of some of our integrationists would lead to the abandoning of this Chinese church 4 �and the absorption of the members into various congregations predominatingly White. There is little in this to commend it as Christian, natural or realistic. At the same time, should it be the natural thing in some community for an individual or family of another race to become associated with a White or Negro or Chinese church then it would be most un-Christian to refuse membership to them because of race. Our dilemma is caused by those who would force an unnatural association, in the name of Christian­ ity. The problem cannot be solved by force, either pro or con. It must be solved on the basis of local conditions, and in the light of what would be the natural contacts and alignments. This is already done within the confines of each race. The Church has never attempted to force social relationships of any kind. It is an inherent right of the individual to choose his or her own intimate friends and associates and this does not imply anything deroga­ tory to those not so chosen. When that barrier is broken, either within or outside racial lines, the right of the individual is violated. It is the feeling that just such violation is contemplated by some which makes others both fearful and resentful. In this connection we feel constrained to say that the greatest enemies of a solution of the problem are those integrationists who say the ultimate solu­ tion of the race issue lies in intermarriage of the races. Not only is this being said but, in some instances, it is being advocated. With all the restraint we can muster we would ask this question: what possible “solution” is there to be found in crossing racial barriers, barriers which 5 �man had no part in making? Such thinking comes from a basic philosophy so distorted and so out of keeping with Christian realism and God-given com­ mon sense that it should make all Christians stop and ask for time for prayer and study. Until the attempts to force an unnatural situation are stopped there will be no right solution. The writer lived with, associated with and loved the people of another race for twenty-five years. Many times here in America he has been associated with people of still another race on terms of close friend­ ship and intimacy. Wherever it is the normal Chris­ tian thing to do so he is willing to accept any natural association. But, it is his judgment that there is nothing Christian or natural in manufactur­ ing situations for forced relationships whether those relationships be with people of the same race, or some other race. Too little has been said about where Christian race relations must really begin. They begin in those daily contacts where courtesies, considerations and love should be shown everyone, regardless of color. They begin in divesting our minds and hearts of prejudice and pride and hatred and in treating every other person as we would have them treat us. They begin in looking on every individual who is out of Christ as a person for whom Christ died and who is loved by Him. If this involves membership in the same church as its natural outgrowth, then proceed as a Christian should. But, there is nothing un-Christian in natural selections and preferences and those who would, in the name of Christianity, force other alignments do little credit to the cause they would promote. 6 �R E P R I N T OF A R T I C L E PUBLISHED nff TH E AUGUST 17, 1955, ISSUE or T H E SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL Additional Copies Available At 15c Per Dozen Or $1.00 Per Hundred Postpaid W RITE FOR FREE SAM PLE COPT OF T H E SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL A Presbyterian weekly magazine devoted to the statement, defense and propagation of the Gospel, the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints A ddress: W eav xrv uxe, Finn Piuntuto 7 N. C. � 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 18: Personal Papers of Barbara Marx 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 Booklet, "Christian Race Relations Must Be Natural, Not Forced," 1955 Description An account of the resource Booklet entitled "Christian Race Relations Must be Natural, Not Forced," by L. Nelson Bell, 1955. Bell writes of how legal segregation is not right, but forced integration also infringes on individual rights. He maintains that separations based on race are natural based on local conditions, all people should be treated equally as individuals, but forcing integration is unnatural. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1955 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 18, Personal Papers of Barbara Marx Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource L. Nelson Bell 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 18_2_1_17_16 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/70f0d8af79c9ec350eab186338f59d58.jpg 119a37e832a394dfba7a27a198d8c4d7 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/b1fdf6bb68717405fa2868255366d907.pdf c674d6b8b9173c99cc8adb1882248cdd PDF Text Text IT/11 1 . I 1U lM 11 1 God’ Plan and s G od’ P urpose s -B y- HENRY W. FANCHER, Sr. , What has God, Nature and Christ said or done about it? Mr. H enry Ford, Sr. is r e ­ p orte d to have said a short w h ile b e fo r e his death that, “ // the A nglo-Saxon race is ever preserved, it tcill be p reserv ed in th e South.” B ut this w ill n ot b e don e unless w hite p e o p le figh t f o r it. T h ese articles are p u b l i s h e d w ith th e h o p e that they will stim ulate ou r desires, am bitions, and e f ­ forts to k e e p o u r b lo o d lin e pure. �INTRODUCTION BY A LAYMAN DR. H. W. FANCHER Minter, Alabama 1 Took his A.B. degree at Howard College, Bir­ . mingham, Alabama, 1899. 2. Became Master of Theology at Louisville Semi­ nary in 1902. 3. Post graduate work in Harvard, Boston, Mass., 1904-’ . 0 5 4. Was pastor at Demopolis, Alabama; Rome, Georgia; Mobile, Alabama; Winchester, Ten­ nessee; Clanton, Alabama; and Russellville, Alabama. 5. Retired from the active ministry in 1936. 6. Is author of “ Fellowship With God”and “ Ten Reasons For Tithing.” 7 Borrowed money to buy land and cattle. . Copyright 1954 by H en ry W. Fancher, Sr. Minter, Alabama 8. Surprised himself, his family and his friends by producing a sizeable estate. 9 Dr. Fancher has lived with the negro race all . his life. He has always been their friend and they have been his friends. He has preached in their churches and visited in their hospitals and homes. Dr. Fancher says that the decision to write a spir­ itual and scriptural analysis of segregation and inte­ gration came to him while he was reading Acts 17:26 and 2 . 7 Paul was visiting the Athenians. The Athenians were the scholars of that day. They had erected monuments to the many gods whom they wor­ shipped. Among these there was one that they called the “ Unknown God.” That gave Paul his text. He preached about the one real God. In ef­ fect he said, “ You don’ know him but I do.” t The 26th verse (in plain language) reads as fol­ lows “ And out of one he hath made the several na­ tions that dwell on the face of the earth and he hath determined their time and seasons and the bounds of their habitations In the 26th verse (quoted in plain language) there are 4 facts, namely: 1 The origin and unity of the races. . 2 The number of races produced or made. . 3 The destiny of the rise and fall of nations. . 4. The territories in which they should live. [3] �The 27th verse (in plain language) reads as fol­ lows: “ They that might seek after him, if perchance they might feel after him and find him.”Paul here is giving the one reason why God per­ formed the four acts in Verse 26. His sole aim was their spiritual salvation. To Dr. Fancher, it seemed as if his own eyes had been opened, so he wrote the article on “ Segregation Right or Wrong—Which?”He was prompted to write because he believes that the forces of communism and the devil are the source of the mighty powers that are against segregation. He believes that those Christian people who accept the abolition of segre­ gation are acting ignorantly and blindly. Dr. Fancher believes segregation is God’ business. s God is not like the politicians. When He decided to send the flood, he did not ask the people if they would like it. He sent it. When God sent Japheth west and north by land and by sea to the Isles of the Seas, Europe, Asia and America, — he did not ask him if he wanted to go. He sent him. He gave to Ham, the black son of Noah, all of the countries south of Gaza, the Dead Sea and the Red Sea, in­ cluding Africa and Egypt. Shem had the eastern and central divisions of the earth. God had the absolute right to divide this earth because it is His. The people of the earth were created and made by Him. He had absolute authority to divide them and to send them to the territories, where he wanted them to live. There is not anything in the Bible that teaches or even suggests the in­ tegration of races. All efforts to defeat God’law of segregation cannot s be expected to succeed. If it should succeed it would be to the detriment of all the races, which were made by God Himself. This is what the Apostle Paul said, — not the Supreme Court. The authority for what the Apostle Paul said in Acts 17:26th and 27th verses must stand or fall on that basis. In this matter of segregation we are dealing with the Supreme Ruler of the universe and not the Supreme Court of the United States. No man or group of men can annul the law of God or de­ feat His will. Dr. Fancher closes his book as he began. The open­ ing sentence is, “ Segregation is Wrong, God Al­ If mighty Stands Condemned.” Again, Dr. Fancher points out that it was Thomas Jefferson and not the Supreme Court that conforms to the Scripture. He said, nature, habit, and opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between the two races, and that they cannot live in the same government. J. BRUCE HENDERSON Millers Ferry, Alabama [ 4] God and Segregation If segregation is wrong, GOD Almighty stands condemned. Anyone who possesses a passing knowledge of the old Testament knows that the most stringent segre­ gation laws ever enacted and enforced were those used by GOD in the development of his chosen peo­ ple, Israel. The wisdom of this method of develop­ ment is forcibly demonstrated in the contributions which this people made to humanity. The Jews wrote our BIBLE, they have set the highest stand­ ard of morality of any race on earth, they gave us the most perfect woman, the Mother of JESUS, and from their loins came the one and only CHRIST, the son of man and the son of GOD. Through the en­ forcement of these austere laws of separation, GOD was qualifying his people spiritually, morally, men­ tally, and physically to become the channel through which HE might transmit spiritual light and life to all men. God has sought through the centuries to keep races separated according to HIS own purposes. This is clearly exhibited at the building of the tower of Babel. It is quite evident that the people came to­ gether as one man to form a federation and to make for themselves a great name. It is quite clear that Nimrod was to be their dictator and Ninevah was to be the seat of their government God was dis­ pleased with the plans and purposes of this people. At that time the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. As evidence of GOD’ disap­ s proval, HE came down and confounded their lan­ guage that they might not understand one another’ s speech. “ The Lord scattered them abroad from So thence, upon the face of all the earth; and they left off building the city.”Gen. 11:8. Two verses of Scripture give us a concise and comprehensive expression of GOD’ plan and pur­ s pose for the segregation of the races on the earth. These verses are — Acts 17:26 and 27, and read as follows: “ And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath, determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him.” FIRST—The origin of the Races—“ one” The of . BIBLE everywhere is consistent in its contention that humanity on the earth is due to the creative act of GOD and as it is recorded in the book of Genesis. SECOND—The development of the Races—“ every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Why do we have so many different races on the earth today and all coming from a common stock? Paul does not say where, how or when, but he does state unequivocally that GOD is the founder of all the peoples on the earth. GOD worked from “ one” to “ every nation of men” Those who oppose segre­ . gation want to work from “ every nation of earth” to “ one” race. The chief aim of the opponents of [5] �separation in America is integration—the intermar­ riage of whites and blacks. (Read “ What the Ameri­ ca n Negro Wants” U. S. News and World Report” , , September 5 1952). If GOD had wanted only one , race to inhabit HIS earth, all HE had to do was to retain the “ status quo.”For some divine reason HE proposed to populate HIS earth with several nations and so HE made “ many” from “ one.” THIRD—The Rise and Fall of Nations—“ having determined appointed seasons.” “ There is a destiny that shapes our ends, rough hew them as we may.” Make no mistake about it, GOD reigns on the earth as well as in the sky, HE rules in the affairs of men. The rise and fall of nations are to be explained solely on the ground of their obedience or disobe­ dience to the laws of GOD. FOURTH—The Habitations of the races—“ and the bounds of their habitation.” GOD not only deter­ mined the appointed seasons of the races, but HE also determined the bounds of their habitation. The Greek word for “ bounds” shows how determined GOD was that HIS plan for keeping the races sep­ arated should not be interfered with or defeated. This word is made up of two small Greek words: “ horos” (mountain) and “ tithamy” (to set up). “ Bounds” literally means “ mountain-setups.” The lines separating one place of habitation from another were selected where there would be natural bar­ riers such as mountains, seas, lakes or rivers. Dr. H. B. Hackett expresses this fact in these words—“ The various lands which the different fami­ lies of mankind occupied, with all the advantages connected with their position, GOD had assigned to them.”See also Dr. R. J. Knowling on these verses. FIFTH—GOD’ high aim in the separation of the S races, “ that they should seek GOD, if haply they might feel after HIM and find HIM.”The ultimate goal of GOD in all HIS dealings with men is their spiritual salvation. The one objective of GOD in the enactment of HIS laws of segregation was that HE might bring men to HIM that they might be saved. The records of history prove the wisdom of GOD’ S plans for mankind. No one becomes a child of GOD in the physical birth, but blood will out, and the off­ spring of wellbred parents are more susceptible to the teachings of CHRIST and the influence of the HOLY SPIRIT. We would do well to emulate the example of Abraham who made his chief servant swear that he would not choose a wife for his son Isaac from the Canaanites, but rather from his own people. Gen. 25:1-67. Abolition of segregation will ultimately populate America with a mongrel race, one with a stronger proneness toward lascivousness and infi­ delity. These verses of Scripture are meaningless if they do not teach that GOD advocated and practiced segregation, and that HIS one aim in so doing was to give mankind a heavenly bent, to cause men to seek HIM, if haply they might feel after HIM and find HIM. NOTE (The reader is not to infer from what I said about Jesus being the offspring of the Jewish [ 6] race, that I therefore believe He inherited the sinful nature of Mary. The Bible everywhere consistently maintains the sinlessness of the Son of God. The most wonderful and significant miracle ever wrought by God was the birth of the God-Man. What regenera­ tion is to sinful man, the incarnation was to Jesus Christ.) SEGREGATION IN CREATION The principle of segregation is embedded in all created things. This is apparent in all vegetation. All grasses, herbs, and trees were qualified and ordered by the CREATOR to propagate and pro­ duce—after their kind. “ And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding FRUIT AFTER HIS KIND, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding SEED AF­ TER HIS KIND, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.”Gen. 1:11-12. What if GOD had not made every grass, herb, and tree so they would propagate and produce after their kind? There would be miscomfort among all creatures feeding upon their products, and uncer­ tainty and confusion among all peoples because they could not provide food for their own needs, or for the fowls and animals upon which they subsist or upon which they depend for labor. When you sow oats and reap oats, or plant a peach tree and gather peaches, or plant a vine and pull grapes, give credit and thanks to GOD. Creation germinates, propagates and produces according to divine laws. If it had not been for the disobedience and interference of man, saturated and dominated by sin—, the material, animal, and human world would be as it was in the beginning, perfect. No wonder GOD looked upon it with pride and joy, and pronounced it very good. “ And GOD saw everything that HE had made, and behold it was very good. And the evening and the morning, were the sixth day.”Gen. 1:31. All of the lower animals have the inclination to segregation embedded in the elements of their bodies, and when left to themselves associate and cohabit with their kind. “ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which THE WATERS BROUGHT FORTH ABUN­ DANTLY, A F T E R T H E IR KIND, and every WINGED FOWL AFTER HIS KIND, and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the LIVING CREATURE AFTER HIS KIND, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”Gen. 1:20-25. [7 ] �The law of separation permeates and saturates the very fiber of everyone of GOD’ creatures and this S law is strictly adhered to and practiced by them, when they are allowed to live their own lives undis­ turbed and unmolested by the only sinful creature in the world, fallen man. Notice how frequently the ex­ pressions “ after their kind” or “ after its kind” is used in the account of creation. Not one thing is left out. If these verses of Scripture, which I have quoted, do not exhibit the operation of segregation, which had its origin in the mind and heart of GOD, then they teach nothing. I have seen hundreds of coveys of quail, and many flocks of doves, but never feeding or flying together. I have never known of a red bird mating with a blue bird. Sheep do not congregate with goats. GOD evidently abhors mixed breeds in HIS sky, in HIS waters, and on HIS land. I can understand why people of mixed breeding are so opposed to segre­ gation. They should have our profound sympathy, for they have no distinct color, and they belong to no certain race. Like GOD they despise their origin. Mankind would do well to study and learn from the habits and practices of the lesser creatures of the all-wise CREATOR, that blindly and unerringly follow HIS laws hidden in their bodies. When sin entered into the heart and life of man, he became an entirely different creature. He became rebellious toward GOD and disobedient to all of HIS divine laws. In fact, disobedience was involved in the sin­ ful act. By one man’ disobedience, sin fell on all. s Sin in its essence is disobedience and lawlessness. So to develop a race that would propagate accord­ ing to HIS purpose and plans, GOD had to issue new laws and orders. The object of these laws was not to save men spir­ itually, but to bring them to the highest point pos­ sible physically, mentally, and morally. The Old Testament clearly reveals that GOD had a purpose at heart and an object in mind, when HE selected Seth not Cain; Jacob, not Esau; David, in preference to either of his brothers. He was growing a blood line that would ripen into the son of man, JESUS CHRIST. Read the family trees of JESUS recorded in the first chapter of Matthew and in the fourth chapter of Luke. Both of them give double emphasis to the fact that GOD is interested in breeding good men physically. When HIS work culminated HE had a man who could command the definite article. JESUS is THE son of man, not a son of man. HE is THE son of GOD, not a son of GOD. When and if the Supreme Court of the United States outlaws segregation, family trees will no longer be popular. Don’ allow yourself to be de­ t ceived, for the abolition of segregation means the intermarriage of whites and blacks. The seed of the downfall of America will be sown when it is popu­ lated with mongrel people. LAW OF SEGREGATION For the convenience of the reader I am copying the entire seventh chapter of Deuteronomy which [8 ] contains GOD’ segregation law for the Jews. Notice S JEHOVAH’ intense love for HIS people, the rich and S manifold blessings HE promised them, if they kept this law, and the swift destruction HE would send upon them, if they disobeyed it. Read the story of how Solomon lost the kingdom during the reign of his son because he disregarded this law of separation in the eleventh chapter of First Kings. The people of Israel suffered great mental anguish and spiritual agony when they dis­ obeyed this law. For this account read the ninth chapter of Ezra. Seventh Chapter of Deuteronomy When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amororites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2) And when the LORD thy God shall de­ liver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3) Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4) For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5) But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6) For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. 7) The LORD did not set# love upon you, nor choose you, his because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8) But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9) Know there­ fore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth the covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; 10) And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face. 11) Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I commanded thee this day to do them. 12) Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye harken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the cove­ nant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fath­ ers: 13) And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware [9 ] �unto thy fathers to give thee. 14) Thou shalt be blessed above all people; there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle. 15) And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee. 16) And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee. 17) If thou shalt say in thine heart. These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them? 18) Thou shalt not be afraid of them: but shall well remember what the LORD thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt; 19) The great temptations which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the LORD thy God brought thee out: so shall the LORD thy God do unto all the people of whom thou art afraid. 20) Moreover the LORD thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide them­ selves from thee, be destroyed. 21) Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible. 22) And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little; thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the best of the field increase upon thee. 23) But the LORD thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed. 24) And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them. 25) The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire; thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them; nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God. 26) Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing. CHRIST AND SEGREGATION The last word on segregation so far as Christians are concerned is the word of CHRIST. The main question for us to consider is what HE said, or did not say, on this subject. We must also study HIS conduct in reference to HIS relationship toward other races. We tried to point out in our first article that the Jewish race is the definite product of the most rigid segregation laws that are known to history either sacred or profane. Did CHRIST advocate the annul­ ment of these regulations? I have previously pointed out that JESUS, the son of man, is the high achieve­ ment of the ALMIGHTY in growing a special peo­ ple for HIMSELF. Did JESUS disapprove of the method of HIS FATHER in building up the race to which HE belongs and of which HE is the chief off­ spring? Did HE repudiate HIS breeding or speak lightly of HIS family tree? Did HE by word of [10] mouth or by any act of conduct reflect upon HIS Jewish blood? Why did HE not order that no record be made of HIS lineage, if HE believed that segre­ gation should be done away with and that the na­ tions which HIS FATHER made to dwell on HIS earth should intermarry? Am I disobedient to the teaching of CHRIST when I contend that white people should marry white people, and that negroes should marry negroes? Was I wrong in teaching my children to select the best of my race as their as­ sociates, and life companions? Was Abraham wrong when he sent his chief servant to his own people to find a wife for his son, Issac? Am I inconsistent to my Christian confession when I adhere to those customs and practices that will safeguard my wishes and beliefs that my decendants should marry mem­ bers of their own nationality? Am I casting reflec­ tion on other races because I preach segregation? Men know a great deal about breeding fine horses and good cattle. They believe in breeding for the best in all kinds of fowls and animals. They have learned the wisdom and necessity of sticking to strict rules of selection. They have good reasons for elimi­ nating certain members and retaining others. I do not find one utterance of JESUS in which HE dis­ approved of HIS FATHER’ way of building up or S growing HIS race, or in which HE showed or ex­ hibited disrespect for HIS own pedigree. I am sure that no people can protect, keep pure, or grow to the highest point possible their blood line, if they disregard the laws of separation. It is the duty of fathers and mothers to try to select the best asso­ ciates for their children and those they would like to have them marry. Children cannot make the best and wisest choice of their life companion without the advice and help of their parents. What do small children know about selecting their associates and companions? One of the saddest articles that I have ever read was written by a father, but who declined to sign his name. The title of this pathetic story was “ Our Daughter Married a Negro.”The couple gradu­ ated from the same college and doubtless were thrown together for many years in the same school. There may be countless like expressions of grief if the ordinances establishing segregation are erased from our law books. The opponents of segregation seem to base their argument upon the tenet that all men are born equal. I know our declaration of independence af­ firms that all men are created equal, but did our forefathers mean what the enemies of separation would have us believe they meant? Did the author mean that all men and races are equal from every point of view from which you may analyze them? Are all equal physically, mentally, socially, and spir­ itually? I do not believe we have any ground for so construing this statement. But regardless of what this great statesman meant to say, I make claim that the Bible no where af­ firms and that CHRIST no where teaches that men are bom equal in the literal meaning of those terms. GOD’ method of establishing a fine people s on the earth was based on the hypothesis of the in[U] �equality of men. GOD’ choice of Seth and not Cain s grew out of the fact that HE saw and knew that Seth was a better, and would be a greater man than Cain. The records of history demonstrate that the CREATOR knows man, knows how to evaluate him, and that HIS selection was the result of keen insight and sound judgment. Study every case where GOD made choice between men in the breeding of HIS chosen people and you will see that HIS selection is based upon the inequality of men and that HE invariably picked the best, when HE did not allow HIS will to be thwarted lay the will of men. CHRIST’ call of his apostles was based upon the S knowledge of the fact that all men are not born equal in the literal and absolute sense of the term. Why did HE take so much care in the calling of these twelve men? Why did HE pray so long and so earnestly before their selection, if there were other twelve men who were their equal and equally qualified to do the work the MASTER had for this twelve to do? Why did he choose Peter, James, and John to be HIS most intimate friends, if there were three others who were just as trustworthy and deserving of that big honor? Why did only certain members of the Hebrew family write the Bible, if there were others just as gifted to do this work as efficiently and well as these? If there was another nation as good and capable as the Jews, why was it not declared that the gospel should first be preached to them? The gospel, according to the program of GOD, was to be offered and proclaimed first to the Jews, not only because they merited it, but also because they were superior from GOD’ S point of view to any other people, and best fitted for leaders in the establishment of HIS kingdom in the world. GOD’ high estimate of the character S of HIS people and HIS profound appreciation of the contributions which they made to the spread of the truth, and the establishment of HIS kingdom in the world, is convincingly proven in the fact that the twelve names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel, and that the twelve names written on the twelve foundations thereof are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev. 21:9-14. The Jews are under a curse today because they rejected and crucified the SON of GOD and the son of man, the offspring of David, and the finest issue their blood could produce, but GOD has not for­ saken them or branded HIS work in their breeding a failure. HE will ultimately subject them to a dras­ tic testing to the end that HE might bring a rem­ nant of HIS chosen people back to himself. Consider CHRIST'S selection of HIS associates and friends, those who were closest to HIM, out­ side the twelve Apostles. While JESUS had no home during the closing days of HIS life, notice how much of HIS spare time in HIS busy life HE spent in the company of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary. They were members of what race? What was the charac­ ter of this man and his two sisters? What other family was as close to JESUS as this Jewish house[ 12] hold? Some will cite the incident where the MAS­ TER talked to the Samaritan woman at the well as evidence of the fact that Christians should put themselves upon a plane of social equality with any and all people they meet or with whom they work. Certainly this example of the MASTER teaches us that we should not hold ourselves aloof from indi­ viduals who need CHRIST as their Saviour. We should not be actuated by self-pride, and above taking the good news to any lost soul, regardless of his station in life. No Christian can consistently look down upon, despise, or hate any man, but it is equally clear that JESUS does not show here that HE looked upon this woman as the equal of Martha and Mary, and as one worthy of being HIS inti­ mate friend. We are urged to move among all peo­ ple with GOD’ message of love and life, but we S are enjoined not to be of them. We will get a clear understanding of how to weigh CHRIST’ teaching and conduct in regard to this sub­ S ject, if we get a correct conception of the one pur­ pose of HIS coming into the world. Let CHRIST tell us why HE came. Here is what HE said about the motive of HIS advent: “ For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost.”Lk. 19:10. In the following familiar words the beloved Apostle tells why the FATHER gave HIS son: “ For GOD so loved the world, that HE gave his only be­ gotten Son, that whosoever believeth on HIM should not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16. The Apostle Peter tells what JESUS accomplished for us in HIS death on the cross when he wrote: “ Who his own self bear our sins in HIS body upon the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righte­ ousness: by whose stripes ye are healed.”I Pet. 2:24. But there are those who say our gospel is a social gospel. They claim that JESUS came to redeem men socially. To be sure Christianity makes men better members of society. Our Churches should work to improve the social conditions of all men; but the one aim of the coming of our LORD was to save lost souls. The gospel of Christ blesses every phase of man’ life, but these are byproducts of our s religion. We could just as appropriately say our good news was a mental, moral, or financial gospel as to refer to it as a social gospel. Men who preach a social gospel proclaim a limited gospel. That is all they have to offer the world. You may find these reformers among those who would overthrow our segregation laws. The MASTER in HIS intercessory prayer made this plea: “ Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” Jno. 17:11. Recently some writer quoted the words “ may be one” as an argument for doing away with our re­ quirements of separation, and as a reason why white people should attend the services of negro churches, and vice versa, if not join them. But what kind of oneness does JESUS have in mind in this phrase? Do not the following words, “ even as we are” tell what HE meant? Since GOD and HIS son exist only [ 13] �as Spirits, their unity could be nothing but spiritual. JESUS must, therefore, be making a petition for the spiritual unity of all believers. It is very clear that those who oppose separate schools, colleges, churches, and public gathering for white peoples and negroes want to destroy both races and people our country with mulattoes. Those who want to put the MASTER’ stamp of approval upon the inter­ S marriage of whites and blacks do not find authority to do so in this verse of scripture. I have stated previously that all men are not bom equal in the literal and absolute sense of this word. But all men are born wholly equal from two stand­ points. All of us are b om equal from the standpoint of the fact of sin, but not the extent of sin. Paul declares. “ For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of GOD.” Rom. 3:23 A.S.R. He further affirms, “ But the Scripture concluded all under sin.”Gal. 3:22. A.S.R. All men are also equal in the offer of divine and saving grace. GOD declared that the purpose of the gift of HIS son was that “ every one who believed on HIM should have eternal life.” Jno. 3:16. If the reader wants further information on the fact that the MASTER recognizes the inequality of men, let him turn to Matt. 25:15-25. The Apostle Paul makes a strong argument against the conten­ tion that all men are equal, in comparing the dif­ ferent members of the Christian church to the organs of the human body. I Cor. 12:4-30 and Rom. 12:4-31. Christ did not ignore the inequality of individuals and races. CHRIST did not advocate the erasure of the lines which the FATHER set up to separate the nations which he had made to dwell on HIS earth. All efforts to destroy the races which God made to populate HIS world, and to make out of them a motley people are blind or willful acts of devotees of doctrines which are incompatible to our beliefs and, if embraced and enforced, would utterly oblit­ erate our way of life in the United States of America. SEGREGATION OF RACES Since I wrote my four articles on segregation, now published in pamphlet form, the Supreme Court of the United States has rendered its announced unani­ mous decision prohibiting segregation in public schools, colleges, universities, transportation, and places of amusement and recreation. But this ruling does not make segregation ethically wrong. The de­ cisions of this tribunal may embody and compose the laws of our land, but they do not and cannot supersede the laws of our Lord, certainly not so far as Christians are concerned. I am not advocating revolt against this opinion, certainly not to the point of violence, but I am pleading for opposition in every way short of physical combat. I think Chris­ tians and all people who believe in GOD and desire to obey the teachings of the Bible have good and sufficient grounds and authority to say to our law­ makers and leaders, in the language of the apostle Peter; “ whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye.” Acts 4:19. [14] • * * i It has been suggested that since the Supreme Court has made its ruling, that I should desist writ­ ing any more on this subject. I do not intend to cease writing and calling peoples’ attention to what God’ word has to say on this important question. s And this subject is vitally important. We are deal­ ing here with a problem that concerns our sons and daughters, the most valuable possession of fathers and mothers. Some may contend that it is useless for me to argue in favor of segregation from the standpoint of the Bible, claiming that very few will be in­ fluenced by this line of reasoning. My reply to this contention is that our citizens would do well to listen to the words of the Bible and try to conform to its teaching, for ultimately they will have to reckon with the author of this book, who according to Paul determined their (Nations of earth) “ appointed sea­ sons” their rise and fall. There are many prominent , and highly educated men and women who place immeasurable value and importance upon the Bi­ ble and urge a close study of it. Dr. Kittredge of Harvard in a burst of sharp sarcasm at the seniors of that college, who were in his class, because they could not tell him the author of these words which Shakespeare puts in the mouth of one of his actors: “ are of your father the devil,—for he is a liar, Ye and the father thereof” Jno. 8:44, said in part: “ e­ . R gardless of what you may think of the Bible, after all, it is the Book of books.” I recommend that the reader turn and read the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of Genesis. This section of Scripture is unique. The historical facts recorded here are not to be found in any other re­ liable source of information. The only dependable or trustworthy voice that speaks on the happenings of the human family during the flood era and dur­ ing a thousand years thereafter is the voice of the Bible. If you reject this report of the sacred writer as unreliable, this becomes a definitely blank period. But there are some noted scholars who do not look upon these writings as scraps of paper, somethings we cannot rely upon. In speaking of the tenth chapter of Genesis, Dr. Rawlinson says that “ this genealogy of the sons of Noah is the most authentic record that we possess for the affiliation of the na­ tions.” Dr. Kalisch in writing of this chapter says that it is an unparalleled and deep research, and “ no less valuable as an historical document than as a lasting proof of the brilliant capacity of the H e­ brew mind.” It is an indisputable fact that the majority of stu­ dents of the customs and moral nature of men regard this table as of the very highest value, and speak of all races as either Semitic, ai-yan or turanian. Scientists have finally adopted a threefold division of the human family conforming to that al­ ready given us by Moses. Here are the progenitors of all peoples according to the record; “ and the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah: and of these was the whole earth overspread.”Gen. [15] �8:18, 19. Let any interested person read these chap­ ters and decide for himself whether or not this his­ tory is worthy of our consideration and acceptance. Notice with what definiteness, confidence, courage, and authority the author writes. Jesus was a close and constant reader of the Old Testament, the only Bible then in written form. He believed in these Scriptures and that their truths and laws were of permanent value. Regarding this fact, he said “ For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass one jot (the smallest letter in the Greek and He­ brew alphabet) or one tittle (ornamental curl of He­ brew letters) shall in no wise pass from the law, till all things be fulfilled.” Matt. 5:18. A study of the prophetic announcements made regarding the characters and missions of the three sons of Noah will give us a preview of the kind of people that were to populate the earth. These men had the same father and mother, but how different or unlike in their character, conduct, and capacities. They had reason to be proud of their father for “ Noah was a just man, and perfect in his genera­ tion; Noah walked with God” Gen. 6:9. Noah was . very close to God, he was his mouthpiece. What he said about what his sons and their descendants would do in their lives, and what success or failure would attend their efforts, has the stamp of divine authority. Noah walked with God, but he stumbled one time, but only one, according to Moses’ account. He drank too much wine and became drunk. It is universally the habit of biblical writers to tell the good and the bad about men, even when they are God’ favorites. Ham ran across his father in this s spree, naked in his tent, and he went and told his brothers without, in the streets. When Noah awoke from his drunkenness he “ knew what his youngest son had done unto him,” and he said, “ cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”Gen. 9:24, 2 . 5 Does it seem that God dealt too harshly with Ca­ naan, who now takes the place of his father, Ham, for this seemingly small, insignificant misdemeanor? Read the record closely. Notice these words, “ knew what his son had done unto him.”These words seem to point out some certain specific act of conduct. Remember that the sons of Noah were born and grew up to be grown men on the other side of the flood. They had lived their early years, the forma­ tive period of life, among a very wicked, corrupt, and ungodly people. They had formed certain def­ inite ideas of life, and adopted a precise code of morals for their lives. In the sixth chapter of Genesis you find a de­ scription of the character of the antediluvians. Gen. 6:1-5. “ And it came to pass, when men began to multi­ ply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There [16] were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wicked­ ness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart, was only evil continually.” This is the darkest picture of the wickedness and moral depravity of men that was ever painted by any writer. And the hardest words spoken were by man’ Creator—God. These are the associates and s friends of Shem and Ham, and Japheth while they were growing into manhood. Some of these men and women were their own kindred. It is per­ fectly logical to conclude that these sons of Noah would carry over with them across the flood like propensities to sin, wickedness, and lasciviousness. Ham is most likely exhibiting here a like moral degeneracy. It is remotely possible that he com­ mitted the unspeakable moral act with his father. Evidence points conclusively to the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah were inhabited by the offspring of Ham, and Moses relates that the populace of these two cities practiced this debasing sin. Regardless of the nature or kind of this specific sinful act, it appears very reasonable that Ham did more than look upon his father, drunk, and naked in his tent. God does not arbitrarily and without just cause pronounce this curse upon Canaan, making him be­ come a servant of servants, or to perform the most menial kind of servitude. It would take a work of divine, saving grace, a marvelous miracle, to save Ham and his brothers from being overpowered by the influence of the depraving tendencies of this dark era, and the proneness toward sin, embodied in their nature. In writing down the genealogy of Ham, Moses paused long enough to give us a brief historical sketch of a very wicked grandson of Noah, the son of Cush. 8) And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9) He was a mighty hunter, before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. 10) And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11) Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, 12) And Resen between Nine­ veh and Calah: the same is a great city. Gen. 19:8-12. The name of this grandson of Cush was Nimrod, which means “ rebel or let us rebel.” He was the engineer and builder of the tower of Babel. He is spoken of as being “ mighty one”in the earth. This a may mean that he was a giant physically, one who possessed superhuman strength, like the men before the flood. Reference may be made to such a man or men when Moses said, “ The Nephilim (giants) were in the earth in those days, and also after that” . Notice those words. They certainly point to the future. He is also described as being “ mighty a [17] �hunter before Jehovah” Some think that this pic­ . tures him as standing before God defiantly, and this interpretation is in keeping with the significance of his name. If this is the meaning of this phrase, then the builders of this tower were saying by its erection, “ We will defy and defeat God’ plan of s salvation of mercy and grace, and demonstrate that we can ascend to the throne of heaven by the works of our hands.” When God confounded their language, Nimrod was stung by his defeat, and went down into Assyria and built the first empire of the world. Nimrod was the first great political p o­ tentate of the world. He built four cities in Assyria in close proximity to each other, which finally be­ came a quad-city and assumed the name “ Nineveh” . This possibly explains the expression, “ the same is the great city.” When Moses finished the list of the names of the sons of Ham he tells what portion of the earth they are to occupy in these words: “ And the border of the Canaanite was from Sidon as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza, as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboim, even unto Lasha” Gen. 10:19. Since the time of the writing . of these generations, Sodom and Gomorrah have been destroyed by fire, and an earthquake has put their ashes underneath the water of the southern end of the Dead Sea. Scholars have not been able to identify the other cities, but the last city named was possibly located on the southern end of the Persian Gulf. If this was the site of Lasha, then the boundary separating Ham and his sons from Shem and his sons, would run from Gerar and Gaza to the southern end of the Dead Sea, and from thence, along the southern coast of the Red Sea, to the southern end of the Persian Gulf. The families of the earth at that time certainly knew the location of the lines which divided the earth, even if we are not able to perfectly trace them. Nimrod rebelled against God’ plans of dividing his earth, of allots ing to each of the three sons of Noah that portion which he wanted them to occupy, and of forcing these sons and their families to move on to the lands chosen for them. Either by persuasion, coer­ cion, or trickery this great monarch gained a multitudinous following and made a masterful stroke to defeat the leadership of God in the world. His defeat at the tower of Babel was a forecast of what was to befall him in Assyria. No man or peo­ ple can succeed in any effort that has as its aim the defeat of God's purposes and plans. The fate of Babel was the fate of Nineveh. “ The prophecies of Nahum (all 3 chapters) and Zepheniah (2:13-3:8) paint in realistic colors the tragedy that over­ whelmed the great lion of the nations. The catastro­ phe was so disasti'ous and the results so complete that Xenophon with his 10,000 Greeks, who passed the ruins in the beginning of the 4th Century B.C., could not ascertain what they represented. From that date almost to the middle of the last century the identity of these ruins was a mystery to every traveler who saw them.” New Stand. Bible Diet. (Funk-Wagnalls). [18] Another act of opposition to God’ plan for the s division of the earth and the separation of his peo­ ples was committed by Canaan, seemingly the most prominent son of Ham. When he took possession of Palestine and populated it, so complete was this ex­ ploitation that this teritory become known as “ the land of Canaan.”Palestine was a part of the earth given to Shem and his generations. It was specifically promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and it is repeatedly called “ the land of promise.”Some may have found it hard to understand why the Jews were allowed to and helped by Jehovah to wrest this piece of land from the hands of the Canaanites, but it is clear when we see how He bequeathed this property to Shem and his heirs. That was an outburst of bitter resentment when the great patriarch remarked as he passed thi-ough this terri­ tory, “ and the Canaanite was still in the land.” Abi-aham knew the bounds of the habitations of the races of the earth, and looked upon this son of Ham as a usurper, and spoke with indignation about him. Nimi-od likewise was a squatter, and he, too, went down in ignominious defeat under the omnipotent hand of the God of the Hebrews. “ Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant” Gen. 9:26. In these words . we have the blessing pronounced, not upon Shem, but the God of Shem, and the place he would oc­ cupy among the nations of the world. Jehovah is blessed because of what he has done, and is to do through his peoples to all humanity. And what rich and manifold gifts God has bestowed upon mankind through the Jews, culminating in what Paul de­ scribes as “ the unspeakable (indescribable) gift” , and for which the apostle gives hearty thanks. II Coi\ 9:15. The Jews have also made valuable con­ tributions to all the achievements, developments and progress of the human families. “ God shall enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem.” Gen. 9:27. Moses tells here the blessing conferx-ed on Japheth, and his intimate relationship with Shem. I think this is the cor­ rect translation. I do not believe that “ him”of the last phrase refers to God. The present reading is more natui*al and sensible. The part Japheth and his sons have played in the advancement of civiliza­ tion has for the most part been very similar to that of Shem and his sons. His most valuable donations have been spiritual ones. Shem and his sons were God’ first representatives, and the chief exponents s of His religion in the old dispensation, while Japheth and his offspring have been the leaders in the propagation of the good news of God in the new era. Japheth took up where Shem left off. They mutually supplement each other in matters of re­ ligion, and in all the activities of mankind, for the advancement of civilization. What have Ham and his sons done for the growth and progress of the human race through the cen­ turies? Profane history will have to tell that story. I have recited the information the Bible records as to the activities and achievements of the black man, the unquestionable descendant of Ham. Noah did [19] �not bestow a blessing upon this, his younger son, but he did put a curse upon him. We read frequent statements made as to the progress and advance­ ments of negroes in modern times, but I do not know of any outstanding and worthwhile contribu­ tion this race made in past centuries. And when you are evaluating the growth of this people you will have to take into account what the white man’ s money and help has meant to the negro in his step upward. I trust they are growing better morally. If the reports I have read are true, when the U. S. was trying to cure our citizens of veneral diseases, negroes were found to have as many of these dis­ eases as all the white people, even though the white i-ace outnumbered them ten to one. And the chil­ dren of the white people of the U. S. are the ones the Supreme Court is trying to force to go to school with the children of this people. White people have nothing to be proud of, when it comes to morals, but there is no reason for making matters worse. One of the most shameful acts of immoral conduct that I know of is for a white man to cohabit with a negro woman. I have known of white men living with negro women and raising a family by and with them. Such men should be ostracized by white peo­ ple and frequently are, when known. For the good and the protection of the morals of our children, and I may say for the good and the protection of the morals of good negroes, children should be kept separate. Remember God’ reason for keeping his s races separated. According to Paul, God’ aim was s a spiritual one, the salvation of men. Some one is asking, “ what makes the negro black, and was that a part of the curse put upon Ham and Canaan?”the son who takes his place. I addressed the first question to a smart doctor friend of mine, and he replied, “ is a certain pigment that makes It the negro black.” I asked him where the black man got this pigment. He replied, “ That I do not know.”We know from Paul that God made all the nations on the earth from or out of one (man or blood). But the black race is quite different from the white race. God made this difference. It is very logical to conclude that God put the pigment in Ham’ or his offsprings’ s blood that made them black. Ham was given this name because he was black, or was to be made black. Dr. David Livingston, the great English missionary and explorer, and one who spent most of his mature years among the black natives of Africa, expresses my conviction on this question in these words, “ God made the white man white because He wanted him white, and He wants him kept white; God made the black man black because He wanted him black, and He wants him kept black; the devil made the mulatto.” By a study of the names in the table in the tenth chapter of Genesis, we can find the origin of nearly all the white people who live or have lived in Europe, America and a large part of Asia. Scholars point out the names of the forefathers of the Greeks, Ro­ mans (Latin), Germans, Russians, Italians, Span­ iards, Medes, Persians, French, and several other smaller races, and these occupy the portion of the [ 20] earth assigned to Japheth. Read Isa. 49:1-6. You see from this passage that America was included in Japheth’ inheritance. Compare these words “ s O isles” “ , gentiles” with the description Moses gave of the land to be inhabited by him. Notice the extent of his kingdom, expressed in these words, “ unto the end of the earth.” To the O. T. writers “ the isles of the Gentiles” embraced all lands west of Palestine, or the sea. Isaiah was called to be a messenger, not only to Judah and Israel, but to the Gentiles of the earth, all descendants of Japheth, the other white race, besides the Hebrews. What information do we gather here about Ham and his offspring? We learn that his name means “ black” We learn that the name of his son, Cush, . designates the Ethiopians, including also the South­ ern Asiatics. Cush is generally rendered “ Ethopia” in the authorized Version of the Bible. Mizriam, another son of Ham, in the O. T. is the name for Egypt or die Egyptians. The origin of the MeroeEthiopians and Sabeans is to be found in the family of Ham. We learn from this table that the land south of Gerar and Gaza, and south of the Dead Sea, and south and west of the Red Sea, was Ham’portion of the earth, and we see that the peo­ s ple who then or later populated that territory were the offspring of Ham, the black son of Noah. We know today that Africa is the home of the black race, and that country is the divinely given heritage to them when God divided his earth. In our study of the generations of Noah and his sons, we did not discover the origin of the Mon­ goloid group of people. But we are to keep in mind that scholars have not yet been able to figure out the meaning of the names given to some of these men listed in these genealogies, and it could be that these individuals are the forefathers of these races. There have always been intermarriages be­ tween the nations of the earth, and it is possible that the beginnings of these families are to be found in the children of these parents. Let us end this article on a happy note. I have written at length about the tower of Babel. There have been many sermons preached about it and its builder. I doubt if you have ever heard one about another tower which was made during these same times, and on account of the same historical and divine act. In the genealogy of Shem there was a man by the name Heber (Eber). From this word we derive this name of the Jews—“ Hebrew” Heber . was very much impressed by the division of the earth. He was quite a different man to Nimrod, the builder of Babel. His feeling about this work of God was just the opposite to that of Ham’ grand­ s son. The kind of tower he erected was very unlike the one set up at Babel. Nimrod’ was made of s brick and mortar; Heber’ was composed of blood, s flesh, and spirit. This Hebrew had a son bom to him about the time of the partitioning of the earth. He called his son Peleg. Now this name means di­ vision. So we know that Heber gave his son this name because of this allotment of the lands to sons [ 21] �of Noah. When you think of God’ division of His s earth among His races, think of these two towers. One was a monument of opposition and rebellion; the other is a monument of approval and coopera­ tion. One was destroyed; the other is immortal. What kind of monument are we erecting to com­ memorate God’ segregation of his nations? s THE MIRACLE OF SEGREGATION We cannot fully appreciate the importance God placed upon His plan of segregation of His peoples until we understand the extent to which He went to have His program put into operation. Study closely the statement Moses made about the lan­ guage and speech of the descendants of Noah: “ And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech” Gen. 11:1. Notice that the writer says “ . the whole earth” He did not leave room for any one to . say that a part of the earth had another language and another speech. What the author literally wrote was this: “ And the whole earth was of one lip, and one stock of words” We know that “ . lip”is the physical organ of utterance, and that “ stock of words”are the vehicles of ideas, thoughts and emo­ tions. We fully understand that since they had only one stock of words, they needed only one lip to ex­ press their stock of words. We know from facts of history, as well as from inference, that God gave His races additional lips and additional stocks of words. We know also from history and experience that different stocks of words require different lips to express them. For example, it takes a different lip to speak the Hebrew language to that that speaks the Greek tongue. But where did these diverse “ lips’and “ stock of words” originate? Destructive and atheistic critics try to explain these linguistic phenomena upon natural grounds, but they can go only so far, and then they are up against an in­ explicable fact. By grouping the many various lan­ guages into likes and dislikes, they are able to trace them back to three parent stocks. They call these three tongues Semitic, Aryan and Turanian. But they are unable to discover further natural paths that run from these three lips and three stocks of words to one lip and one stock of words. Not being able to trace these three tongues back to the “ one lip”and “ stock of words”upon natural grounds, one they cease their efforts, and are dubious as to whether it can ever be done. They scoff at miracles. To them an intervention by God is unthinkable. In fact, they are atheistic in their beliefs and doctrines. Dr. B. H. Carroll rightly remarks “ they ai'e not only dubious, they are dumb.”These words of the Bible . . . “ fool hath said in his heart, There is the no God,”is just as applicable to the able scientist as it is to the ordinary layman. (Ps. 14:1). If they can discover natural lines that lead them back to three parent tongues, it is unthinkable that they cannot uncover natural paths that run back to the one par­ ent tongue, if indeed these three tongues can be ac­ counted for by laws of nature. Noah had three sons, and it is logical to conclude that God gave to each of these a particular lip and [ 22] a definite stock of words. It is encouraging to see that scientists have at least found their way back to three parent tongues, even though they do not know where they are after they have arrived. The unquestionable solution to these linguistic changes, the origin of these three tongues, is to be found in one of the most wonderful and significant miracles of all time. In importance it transcends the plagues of Egypt. We find no like superhuman work until the descent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. He descended upon peoples of many lips and many stocks of words and enabled them to understand, as if in their own language, any speaker, regardless of his tongue. The one aim at Pentecost was the spread of the Gospel, and the salvation of men. At Babel people assembled with one tongue, and God gave them three lips and three stocks of woi'ds, so that one group of people could not undei'stand what the other group said. The object here, however, was to scatter the peoples abroad, and for the population of God’ earth. s God’ first command to Adam and Eve was this— s "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the eai'th.” Gen. 1:28. After the flood, God purposed to in­ habit His earth with the generation of Noah, who was the second head of humanity, Adam being the first and federal head of all mankind. God’ first s command to Noah and his sons was the same as that given to Adam. “ fruitful, and multiply, and Be replenish the earth.”Gen. 9-1. God had one earth to be occupied, and He was determined that it should be occupied by Noah and his offspring. This fact is pointedly stated in these words . . . “ These are the three sons of Noah, and of them was the whole earth overspread.” Gen. 9:19. For emphasis this fact is stated again in Gen. 10:32. God has one Gospel, and only one, and He planned on the day of Pentecost to hasten the spread of His good news over His earth, and that is why He per­ formed that wonderful miracle. God had one people, and only one, and He planned at Babel to populate His earth with that people, and that is why He wrought that mighty miracle that brought about the segregation of races. Neither the miracle on the day of Pentecost, nor the miracle at Babel can be explained by the laws of nature. You can reject one as being unreasonable as easily as you can the other. To one who believes in God, as revealed in the Bible, all miracles are reasonable. God keenly felt the necessity of the rapid spread of His Gospel, and that explains the miracle of Pentecost. God realized the necessity of scattering His people over the earth and that explains the miracle of Babel. It isn’ a light thing for any man t to try to defeat God’ plan to segregate His races, s any more than it is for him to labor to keep God from spreading His Gospel over the earth. If it is a sin to disregard and disobey some of God’ laws, s it is a sin to disregard and disobey any one of God’ s laws. If the reader thinks I am warped in my think­ ing, when I contend that the origin of the different languages and speeches at Babel was brought about [23] �by a wonderful miracle of God, let him ponder the following words of a noted German philosopher: “ Humanity cannot have left that condition in which there was no distinction of peoples, but only of races, without a spiritual crisis, which must have been of the deepest significance, must have taken place in the basis of human consciousness itself . . . For we cannot conceive of different peoples without dif­ ferent languages; and language is something spirit­ ual. If difference of peoples is not something that was not from the first, but is something that has arisen, then must this also hold true of the dif­ ferent languages. Here we fall in with the oldest account of the human race, the Mosaic writings; toward which so many are disinclined, only because they know not what to do with it, can neither un­ derstand nor use it. Genesis puts the rise of peoples in connection with the rise of different languages; but in such a way that the confounding of the language is the cause, the rise of the people, the effect.” Dr. B. H. Carroll’ Com. on Gen. p. 212 (Broads man Press). OPPONENTS OF SEGREGATION Opposition to segregation has been greatly in­ tensified in recent years. In my study of this sub­ ject, I have been impressed with this effort to over­ throw GOD’ purposes and plan for His people, S and would like to know the people and organiza­ tions back of this movement, and what can be said to explain their endeavor. Some ministers of the gospel and some members of every denomination are lending their effort to tear down the bounds which God erected to separate His races. I shall limit my remarks on the subject of the opponents of segregation to the disciples of Christ and negro leaders. According to my esti­ mate followers of Christ are the most influential of any who could be lined up against this law and practice. This plan of God for the separation of His races will remain in force, or it will be abandoned according to what stand Christian people take. God divulged His evaluation of the races in the prophecies of Noah, and His high opinion of the white people, who descended from Japheth, in the blessings He pronounced upon him and his offspring. This is fully demonstrated in the fact that they, the gentiles, were chosen to be the exponents of His religion, and the messengers of His saving truth, af­ ter the sons of Shem, the first white race selected, had rejected God’ son and Savior of men, and had s deserted His work of the evangelization of the world. God’ first choice was Shem and his sons; His sec­ s ond choice was Japheth and his sons. Historical facts, both sacred and profane, prove beyond ques­ tion the wisdom of God’ selections. Christian lead­ s ers should be acquainted with these facts, and ought to be the last to ignore and repudiate them. It is our Christian duty to respect, be courteous and friendly toward, and endeavor to help the black race, but this does not mean that we should become [24] familiar with, or intermarry with them. Christians are genuinely good people, they are the best we have in all walks of life, they are actually the salt of the earth, as the Master of men said, but they are not always wise. Jesus contrasted saints and sinners, and made this unusual comment; “ And his lord commended the unjust steward because he had done wisely; for the sons of this world are in their generation wiser than the sons of the light.” Luke 16:8. On another occasion the Master admonished his disciples say­ ing: “ ye therefore wise as serpents, and harm­ be less as doves.” Mat. 10:16. A Baptist minister and a member of a committee appointed to draft resolu­ tions regarding this question, gave as his argument for Baptists conforming to the ruling of the Supreme Court in this expression—“ That we may more per­ fectly conform to Christian teaching.”That statement is so general that it is meaningless. What act of Christ, or what word of Christ calls for the an­ nulment of these laws, or any of the laws God ever enacted? We should pray earnestly and long before we lend our efforts to break down God’ racial s barriers, for they are definitely and unmistakably the work of God. There is one conclusion that we can draw and that is this: if we ever break down these racial bounds and destroy the white race, which God has wonderfully blessed and enlarged and made the channel of the good news of God, hand in hand with the sons of Shem, we can never build it up again. As a matter of fact, it is a great sin to try to destroy any work of God. Ministers and Christians generally are very sus­ ceptible to all movements that are idealistic in their aims. They are open to the acceptance of com ­ munism, and to efforts to abolish segregation. Com ­ munism is working to make people one in material things. This movement aims at making them one physically. Communism is contrary to the teaching of the Bible. This effort is to destroy the clear teach­ ing of the Bible. In spite of these facts many Chris­ tians have embraced these efforts. We have concrete proof of my contention in the apostolic era of Christianity. The Christians of that era tried communism, but they soon learned that this plan for their material lives would not work, and they abandoned it. They learned to their em­ barrassment and sorrow that members of their so­ ciety were dishonest, untruthful, selfish, and would not perform their whole duty to this program. Nothing is said of this plan in the Bible, either for or against, but students of God’ word know that s communism and the annulment of God’ laws of s segregation are contrary to its teachings. Acts. 4:325:10. Negroes and mulattoes, and especially the latter, are doing all they can to destroy our segregation laws. For centuries negroes have been dissatisfied with their color. In the days of Jeremiah, 600 to 700 years before Christ, people were asking, “ Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accus­ tomed to do evil.”Jer. 13:23. The impossibility of [25] �this undertaking is indicated in the closing words of this verse. If you are in doubt as to the real aim of this movement read what two leaders of this endeavor said in interviews with reporters of the U. S. News and World Report, September 2, 1952 and May 28, 1954. What they actually want is the intermarriage of the white and black races. SEGREGATION OR DEGENERACY One of Humanity’ most prevalent sins is im­ s morality. The Bible paints a very ugly picture of man’ moral life. Defeat and destruction have be­ s fallen the sons of Adam because of their lack of control of their physical passions. Any one who is concerned with the spiritual progress of our race and the salvation of men must be depressed when he looks upon visible evidence of the lasciviousness of men. The numerous mulattoes in our towns and cities is convincing proof of this fact. It is quite ob­ vious that Thomas Jefferson visualized this condi­ tion when he concluded his opinion of segregation with these words, “ on the contrary, it is left to If force itself on human nature must shudder at the prospect.” Mr. Jefferson advocated the deportation of negroes to Africa, the division of the earth as­ signed to them by their Creator. It is very signifi­ cant that the boundary which separated the territory of Ham, the black son of Noah, from the region of Shem, the ancestor of the Jews, was definitely and specifically drawn. There were eight towns named in that line; namely, Sidon, Gerar, Gaza, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Lasha. It ran from the Mediterranean sea, to the southern end of the Dead sea, and to the southern end of the Persian gulf. I think it ran along the side of the Red Sea, and up the coast of the Indian Ocean. God ran this line from one natural barrier to another, so that its location could not be questioned or changed. .Paul must have had this line in mind when he declared that God had determined the “ bounds” (mountainset-ups) of the races He made to dwell on His earth. The sons of Noah knew where these lines were, but in defiance of this fact, the sons of Ham took steps to rob the sons of Shem of the land of prom­ ise, and other lands north of this boundary. The chief sin of the people who were destroyed by the flood was immorality. The race was totally bankrupt morally. They made physical passion the sole basis of matrimony. “ The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all that they chose.” Gen. 6:2. The antediluvians were so steeped in moral de­ pravity that they practiced polygamy without limi­ tation. Why was this group of men so immoral? Were their predecessors slaves to passion to the extent they were? One gets the impression in read­ ing this account, that this corruption is of recent and sudden occurence. It seems to me that to understand the reason for the downfall of men here, we must know what is meant by the expression, “ sons of God.” There are two main explanations of these words. Some understand that the writer here refers to the sons [26] of Seth, one of God’ chosen men, a progenitor of s His selected people. These commentators hold that the daughters of men were the offspring of Cain. Here are some objections to this interpretation: 1 This is the only time this title “ . sons of God”was ever used by Moses. People who are regenerated are so designated by writers of the N. T. but not by this author. 2 Seth lived in several centuries before the deluge. . Why were not his immediate offspring or the sons of some other man of God addressed as the “ sons of God” 3. The conduct of these men was very in­ ? consistent with their calling. They acted and lived like the sons of the devil. You would not expect this lawgiver to call libertines and polygamists “ sons of God.” Other writers say that by “ sons of God,” Moses meant “ fallen angels,” or “ wicked spirits.” One objection raised against this theory is that spirits do not marry, neither are they given in marriage, that they do not possess animal passion. But if these supposed wicked angels did have phy­ sical real fleshy bodies, then they could have phy­ sical passion. This is a very singular happening. It is not the only mysterious thing that has occurred in human experiences, however, or that will take place, if Bible prophecy is fulfilled. The devil was permitted to exercise unusual power during the life of Christ. Consider the story of two men who were possessed of demons who talked to the master, and with his permission, went out of these men and entered into a drove of swine, and caused the swine to rush into the sea, where they were drowned. Matt. 8:28-34. Destructive and atheistic commen­ tators may make light of this story and try to ex­ plain it away, but if you erase this as being irra­ tional and unbelievable, you can by the same method blot out many things that are presented by the Bible as historical facts. We should never forget that with God all things are possible. Believers can easily subscribe to that doctrine. It must be admitted that the contention that these “ sons of God,”were incarnated fallen spirits, cannot be explained along natural lines, but the same can be said of nearly, if not, all miracles. The cast of the demons and the swine mentioned above, is not iden­ tical with that of fallen spirits appearing in human form, but the two are miracles and similar. Both are miraculous and outside the pale of human reason­ ing. Not only is the appearance of wicked spirits in human form peculiar, unusual, and irrational, if this is the correct interpretation of this incident, but the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men are equally peculiar, unusual, and beyond rea­ sonable explanation. The sons of this union were called “ Nephilim.” They are described as being “ giants,”“ old,”and “ of men of renown,” (fame). We know nothing of the etymology of this term, “ Nephilim.” It is found only here, and in Num. 13:33. According to the new standard Bible Diet., it is satisfactory to say that the Nephilim of Num. 13:33 was a race of men of extraordinary size, but [27] �in Gen. 6:4 superhuman or semi-divine beings are meant.” But I know of no reason why this word should be given one meaning in Gen. 6:4 and an­ other in Num. 13:33, but we are interested just now, with Gen. 6:4 and we call attention to the fact that the authors of this dictionary believe that the “ Nephilim”were something above men, half-human and half-divine. (Funk & Wagnalls.) “ The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.” Gen. 6:4. This verse records the first appearance of these super-human beings, but Moses does prophesy their presence after the flood. This forecast is soon to be fulfilled. While Nimrod is not specifically designated as a “ Nephilim,” he is described as being a “ giant,” a mighty one, “ mighty hunter before the Lord.” A The picture drawn of Nimrod in Gen. 10:8-12 defi­ nitely coincides with the big men of Gen. 6:4. This is the first appearance of the Nephilim after the flood. Because the ten spies exaggerated the size, powers, and habits of the Canaanites of the Holy Land, we are not to conclude that some of this people were not “ Nephilim.” Note here also that these physical giants belong to the descendants of Noah’ black son, Ham. s A striking incident of the moral bankruptcy of humanity, and the complete destruction visited upon them by Jehovah, occured in Sodom and Gomorrah. The populace of these corrupt cities very evidently practiced homosexuality, and most of them are sons of Ham. I believe that in our study of this subject we have discovered these historical facts: 1 That “ sons of God”were the definite cause . the of the moral breakdown of the antediluvians. 2 That the offspring of the union of the sons of . God and the daughters of men was the “ Nephilim,” defined by some scholars as semi-human and semi­ divine. 3 That these superhuman beings are found among . the sons of Ham. We see no evidence of their pres­ ence in the families of Shem and Japheth. White people have nothing to gain, but much to lose, by associating with negroes, and intermarrying with them. The best interest of both races, is secured in their separation. That is why the Creator segre­ gated the sons of Noah after the flood. SEGREGATION AND SCIENCE Some writer said recently that segregation did not have a single scientific leg on which to stand. The author furnished no information as a basis for the assertion. Like so many statements you read or hear, this is a broad, sweeping declaration that is given no ground on which to rest. Does science supply us with no fact or facts to justify the segregation of the white and black races? Is there no physical and social difference between these two peoples? Was Thomas Jefferson wrong when he wrote— “ Nature, habit, opinion —, have [28] drawn indelible lines of distinction between them” — in speaking on the segregation of these two races? Was Abraham Lincoln speaking ignorantly when he declared—“ There is a physical difference be­ tween the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social equality” ? Some will try to disregard the opinions of these two great statesmen on the ground that they were only laymen, and have no right to speak on such questions. They cannot likewise dismiss the state­ ment of my prominent doctor and friend, who said —“ there are pigments in the negro’ skin that colors s it black.”The opinions of all the doctors with whom I have talked and of the authors, whose writings I have read, may be expressed as follows: In a section of the negro skin there is found a line of pigments lying in and between the cells of the deepest layer of the outer skin of the black man. If this is not a scientific leg on which segregation can stand, then there is no scientific fact on which to rest any human act or conduct. Some have claimed that the negro is black be­ cause of the extreme heat of Africa. They will cite some cases where people of fair skins have sup­ posedly been made much darker or black, after liv­ ing in tropical climates for a number of years. This is external evidence of a change in the color of the epidermis. How about internal evidence? You will notice that no claim is made that the pigments of the white people have been converted into the pig­ ments of the black man. And besides, nothing is said about developing into these white men other characteristics or physical features, such as flat noses, thick proti-uding lips, etc. Let the advocates of the theory of climatic changes of the color of races (apart from God) transport a company of pure white people into tropical climes and convert them into a tribe of full-blooded black people, including the negro pig­ ment, and then they will have good ground for ar­ guing that the white race and the black race are physically and socially equal. If the devotees of this conjecture can take a genuine white man and make him into a genuine negro or vice versa, then they will have performed a feat of which they may proudly boast. JEFFERSON ON SEGREGATION With the permission of Mr. John Temple Graves, I quote the remarks of Thomas Jefferson on segre­ gation, and Mr. Graves’ comments on the same, from his column in the July 20, 1954 issue of the Birm­ ingham Post-Herald: “ What would Thomas Jefferson, the liberal Dem o­ crat, be thinking of the desegregation decision? He was for a much more extreme segregation than Southerners want today. ‘ Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate’ he is quoted on page 91 of Prof. Bernard , Mayo’ “ s Jefferson Himself” (Houghton Mifflin), “ than that these people are to be free; nor is it [29] �less certain that the two races, equally free, can­ not live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion, have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation, peace­ ably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly and their place be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the con­ trary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect.’ ” This Jefferson quote couldn’ get itself printed in t New York. THE sage was not only a segrega­ tionist but extreme. He thought there would need to be deportation. That is impossible now, but certainly you can say Jefferson would side with the South against the public school desegregation decision.” I wonder if the present members of the Supreme Court ever read these words of Jefferson, or, if, when pondered, they would have any weight with them? Are they so much superior to the sage of Monticello in intelligence, patriotism and humaneness that they could not afford to consider this states­ man’ opinions, even though he did write the D ec­ s laration of Independence, and whose philosophy does find evident expressions in our Constitution? Would they, like New York, disdain to give publicity to the notions of this humble countryman? Mr. Jeffer­ son isn ’ the only one whose ideas on this subject t modernistic reformers try to ignore. Give full thought to this comment: “ Nature, habit, opinion, have drawn indelible lines of distinction be­ tween them.” Compare these words with those of a high government official who is reported to have said recently “ differences between the two races the are inconsequential.” What a contrast! Any lay­ man, who has lived among the two races, knows that nature, habit and opinion have drawn a fundamental line of distinction between them and one that can­ not be erased. If Paul speaks with divine authority, and if the history of Genesis in its records of what happened after the flood are to be depended upon, then the Creator of man made that difference. When those in authority forced desegregation upon the boys in our armed service — and then boasted of its marvelous success, may have been acting on the supposition that these men subscribed to their ideas of the “ inconsequential differences” between the two races, but the decrease in the num­ ber of boys who are volunteering for service is tell­ ing a different story. Christians are being mislead and intimidated into believing that they must practice desegregation or they are violating the Golden Rule. I heard a min­ ister say over the television that all he knew to do about segregation was to follow this admonition of Christ. I believe in and practice separation in all social practices and customs with negroes, and I want them to do likewise so far as I am concerned. That is the logical application to this injunction. I [30] find nothing in the Old or New Testament that en­ joins desegregation. The interpretation of the con­ stitution by Mr. Jefferson, and not that of the judges of the Supreme Court is in accord with the ex­ pressed plan and purpose of God for his races. If I am to put myself in the place of the negro, with his ambition for social equality and intermarriage with white people, then Jehovah committed a known and unjust ethical sin in forcing segregation upon the races at Babel and throughout all ages. God was entirely inconsistent with the socialistic construction of this mandate of Jesus when He issued this edict to His people, “ Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”Deut. 7:3. And remember that the peoples God makes reference to in this law are the descendants of Ham, the one and only black son of Noah. But if you insist on this application of this rule of Christian conduct, be consistent and follow it to its logical and inevitable end. When a black man presents himself and asks for your fair daughter in marriage, give him your hearty consent and unstinted bless­ ing. If you are looking for divine authority for de­ segregation, you will have to write another Bible. I conclude as I began; “ segregation is wrong, God If Almighty stands condemned.” [311 �ACKNOWLEDGMENT In my study of segregation I have received much inspiration and information from the following authors: D r. H a c k e tt— Com. on Acts. Dr. K n o w l in g —Com. on Acts. Dr. C a r r o l l — Com. on Genesis. P reachers H o m . C om . Dr. S p u r r e ll— Notes on Genesis. N ew Stan dard B ib le D ictio n a r y (Funk & Wagnalls) ★ Additional copies may be had, postpaid for: Single Copy .20 cents 100 Copies ....... .....$ 15.00 1 M Copies ... .........................$100.00 MR. HENRY W. FANCHER Minter, Alabama � 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 18: Personal Papers of Barbara Marx 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 Booklet, "Segregation: God's Plan and God's Purpose," 1954 Description An account of the resource Booklet entitled "Segregation: God's Plan and God's Purpose," by Henry W. Fancher. Gives short biography of the author. Fancher attempts to prove that segregation of the races is supported by Bible verses and teachings from both the Old Testament and New Testament. 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 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 18, Personal Papers of Barbara Marx Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Henry W. Fancher 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 18_2_1_17_15 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/38f255f7a6bba80815ea37641bdbf9e3.pdf b78ec28512f8666c0cbc73adca6f9070 PDF Text Text The N ational C o u n cil Of C hurches AN A P P R A IS A L B y Ca rl Mclntire �The National Council of Churches, 1957 An Appraisal BY CARL M clN TIR E CH R ISTIA N BEACON PRESS Collingswood 7, N. J. �THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, 1957 An Appraisal By Carl M clntire HELP CIRCULATE TH IS PAMPHLET Get extra copies for friends, church officers, Sun day school teachers, pastors, civic leaders 25 cents each; 5 for S I ; 55 for $10; 100 for $17.50 This material was first published in the Christian Beacon of December 26, 1957 and January 2, 1958. ORDER ADDITIONAL COPIES FROM C H RISTIAN BEACON PRESS Box 218, Collingswood, N. J. Every Christian in the United States must be concerned about what is happening to present-day Protestantism. That there is an increasing concern regarding the leadership which is being offered the country by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. is evident in many ways at the present moment. The newspaper and radio reports of the Fourth Triennial Assembly of the National Council which have come out of St. Louis, Mo., December 1 to 8, 1957, have brought wide spread reaction. The council movement started in the United States in 1908 when the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America was organized. In 1950 the Federal Council joined with other inter denominational agencies to constitute the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. The Council has aided the Communist cause and sided with Russia on point after point in the cold war. It has been a spokesman for socialism, advocated federal aid to education, opposed states rights, stimulated racial strife in the country, pro moted the welfare state, and maintained a political lobby in Washington. It claims to be the voice of some 37 million Americans. All this has its significance and has gradually been working its way down through the life of the country. It has brought about a reaction both North and South and even produced a militant countermovement which is growing in strength! I t is therefore imperative that a fresh appraisal in the light of recent developments be made. �"DISTRUST BETWEEN MINISTERS A N D LA ITY " The keynote speech at St. Louis was delivered by the NCC’s retiring president, Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, stated clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. To admit that such a situation has developed, as he did, must in itself have been a blow to the prestige which the ecclesiastical leaders have sought to maintain. Dr. Blake declared: “There is distrust between ministers and laity —the distrust goes both ways. There is distrust between ecclesiastical officials and ordinary pastors —the grass roots and the hierarchies. “There is distrust of our conservative constitu ency by the liberals, theological and political, and the opposite. There is distrust between North and South, Eastern Seaboard and Middle W est, . . .” Dr. Blake made it plain that he was not speak ing of mere differences of opinion or of convic tions but of “mistrust of the integrity and Christi anity of those persons who hold to the differences.” But he tried to justify these divergencies, for he said, “ So long as a church is a church and not a sect, there will be room in it for a wide variety of conviction and practice, and its life should be en riched by the dialogue that continually goes on among its members.” It is here that the Christian people must pause and recognize that a great apostasy from the his toric Christian faith is upon us. The difference be tween the conservatives and the liberals has pro duced the “mistrust of the integrity and Chris tianity of those persons who hold to the differ ences.” The conservative, or “fundamentalist,” as he is frequently called, holds that Christ was born of the virgin, that He died on the cross for the sins of men, shedding His blood, and that He arose again from the dead on the third day. The liberals deny this. They do not accept the Bible as the Word of God. The dialogue that has gone on continually between those with various beliefs in side of this new kind of church with its new con cept is not a blessing; it is a tragedy. The wide variety of convictions which Dr. Blake recognizes to exist represents the Babylon of the hour. C Actually, there is no place for a wide variety of convictions concerning Christ within a true Christian church, for the position the church has accepted is stated in its creed. For a church to profess a creed and then to allow within its pulpit men who deny that creed results in the dialogue which conflicting positions produce. In this, Christianity has gone bankrupt. A corrupt, im pure, and inclusivist church stands before the na tion in contrast to the historic testimony of the Protestant churches, that each body must be true, pure, loyal to its creed, and faithful to the Christ of the Scriptures who is the Church’s only Head. A PACIFIST PRESIDENT The National Council elected Dr. Edwin T. Dahlberg as its president for the next three years. The Council could not have found a man who more adequately represents what the Council it self is. On the religious side he is an outstand ing modernist and pacifist. Speaking before the Baptist W orld Alliance in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1950 as reported in the New York Times, July 27, he called for a “new language” in the church. Such phrases as “the precious Name of Jesus,” “coming under the Blood,” and “saved by grace,” “simply do not register in the mind of the average American listener,” he said. But they are a part of the language of faith! Dr. Dahlberg has been a member of the N a tional Committee of the Church Peace Mission, a radical, pacifist group in the U.S.A. This com mittee has been securing signatures to a pacifist pledge which reads, “ I hereby affirm (re-affirm) my refusal to make or to use the weapons of war; and my purpose to do my utmost to win other Christians to join in this stand and to bring the Church of Christ throughout the world to break with war.” This radical pacifist position Dr. Dahlberg gave immediate expression to when he declared in his first presidential address that it was “utter folly and futility” to spend “forty billions of dol lars on a system of defense that never in the world can defend us.” H e made a plea to the churches to embark upon “a plan of massive reconciliation based on the Christian gospel of love.” Mr. 7 �George Dugan, reporting this in the New York Times, December 6, 1957, called Dahlberg “a prominent Christian pacifist.” This is no time for a pacifist leadership, when America is in peril and facing an enemy who is pressing a cold war with every possible weapon! There can be no reconciliation, massive or other wise, with an anti-God, atheistic, materialistic Russia who is determined to destroy the free world and enthrone Communism. There can never be massive reconciliation with an international beast, such as Communist Party Chief Khrushchev, who has announced to the American people, “W e will bury you.” Such a pacifist leadership at this mo ment is fraught with peril to the security of the United States. The church in St. Louis of which Dr. Dahlberg is pastor is a member of both the Northern and Southern Baptist Conventions, and this undoubtedly was the reason he was selected as President of the Council. Repeated references are now being made to the desire on the part of the National Council to include the Southern Baptist as well as the Missouri Synod Lutheran Churches within the Council. A PR O M INEN T C O M M U N IS T FRONTER Dr. J. B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, said : “Mr. Dahlberg’s record of collaboration with the Communist apparatus places him among the leading Commu nist fronters who are clergymen. In choosing Mr. Dahlberg to head the organization for the next three years, the National Council of Churches has followed the precedents of the old Federal Coun cil of Churches which numbered among its presi dents such well known Communist fronters as the late Bishop Francis J. McConnell and Bishop G. Bromley Oxarn.” According to public records, the following in dicates some of Dr. Dahlberg’s Communist-front activities: When H arry Bridges, a self-confessed Com munist, was ordered deported from the United States by the Attorney General, Dr. Dahlberg, on April 22, 1943, joined with a group of Communistfront clergymen in signing an open letter to Presi 8 8 dent Roosevelt calling for the release of H arry Bridges. The letter said: “W e respectfully ask that you set aside the deportation order against H arry Renton Bridges, President of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, Congress of Industrial Organizations, and afford him full opportunity to become a citizen of the United States of America.” The letter maintained that his deportation would be an “injustice to him,” and it expressed “our own belief in his loyalty.” A Citizens Committee to Free Earl Browder has been cited as “ Communist and subversive” by the Attorney General of the United States. Brow der was imprisoned following a conviction for perjury. H e was the general secretary of the Communist Party. One of those affiliated with this committee was Dr. Dahlberg. Another well known Communist-front organiza tion was the National Committee to Combat AntiSemitism. Even Jewish groups in the United States warned that the National Committee was a Com munist front. But, according to the letterhead of the organization, dated March 26, 1946, Edwin T. Dahlberg was one of the sponsors of this National Committee. The Communists set up another front organiza tion, known as the Committee for Peaceful Alterna tives to the Atlantic Pact. This organization was launched by a meeting called “Washington Con ference on Peaceful Alternatives to the Atlantic Pact ” and, according to The Worker, July 24, 1949, Edwin T. Dahlberg was one of the organi zers of this conference. When a group of American clergvmeti visited Communist Yugoslavia, with all their expenses paid by the Communist government, the delegation returned with a glowing report praising the Tito regime. This report was printed and circulated in the United States under the sponsorship of a group of Protestant clergymen, one of whom was Dr. Dahlberg. Such Communist-front activitv has given great aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. • There is a Communist-front organization iust now known as The Committee to Secure Tustice for Morton Sobel. The publication of this organi- �zation dated August, 1957, reports that Dr. Dahlberg was a signer of an appeal on behalf of the Communist espionage agent, Morton Sobel. Sobel is now serving a thirty-year prison term in Alcatraz because of his connections with the Rosenbergs’ espionage activity. Human Events, December 14, 1957, published in Washington, D. C., quotes material from the files of the National Republic, “Washington’s most author itative reference service on (Communism,” concern ing the record of Dr. Dahlberg: “Member, National Committee for Defense of Political Prisoners, 1931 (cited as subversive by the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1942, and by the Attorney General of the United States in 1947 and 1948); sponsor, Political Prisoners’ Bail Fund Committee, 1935; signer, open letter to President Roosevelt asking that the deportation or der against H arry Bridges be set aside; one of several ‘prominent Americans’ who favored ‘Presi dential clemency for the release of Earl Browder,’ under auspices of the ‘Citizens Committee to Free Earl Browder’ (cited as a Communist front by the HUAC Guide to Subversive Organisations) : one of 17 churchmen asking a Senate probe of ‘perjured testimony by informers’ ( Daily Worker, November 3, 1953) ; signer, open letter to the President urging support of the Lehman bill as substitute for the McCarran-W alter Act (Daily Worker, November 3, 1953) ; signer of open letter to Representatives and Senators urging outright repeal of McCarran Act— sponsored by National Committee for Repeal of Mc Carran Act ( Daily Worker, December 28, 1954) : petitioned President Eisenhower to ban H-bomb tests (Sunday Worker, July 14, 1957) ; signer of open letter to platform committees of Republican and Democratic parties urging them to back repeal of McCarran Act (Daily Worker, July 9, 1952); initiator. National Committee to Repeal McCarran Act (Daily Worker, December 27, 1950) ; this group is cited as a Communist front in the Guide to Subversive Organisations." HUGE RELIGIOUS CORPORATION George W . Cornell. A P religion writer, describ ing the St. Louis meeting, December. 1957. said. “This country’s biggest religious corporation of 10 them all is holding a week-long meeting of the stockholders starting today.” “The council,” he said, “has an 18j4 million dollar budget for this year, and proposals are to up it another million next year. “There are about 700 employes on its payroll, and 4,000 other church leaders and specialists serve voluntarily on its many committees, divisions, de partments and commissions. “It is building a new 19 million dollar head quarters in New York. “Altogether, the council has 76 different units, each carrying on a different type of activity.” There is hardly any avenue of religious activity where the Council’s hand is not felt. It is operating in Korea, Alaska, Africa, and Hong Kong. It produces more than one thousand religious radio and TV programs a year, and it claims to have distributed 35 million dollars worth of re lief goods in 1956. The bulk of this, of course, was an outright grant from the United States Gov ernment. But all of its activity supports the ideological position which its general board directs. It considers itself to be the conscience of the na tion. The November issue of its official paper heads the article describing the Council’s ministry, “When the Churches Speak W ith One Voice.” It has ap propriately been called “the Protestant Vatican.” The Christian Century, outstanding modernist, independent weekly, called the NCC “the national voice of the non-Roman churches” in the United States. The non-member or the separated churches do not count. This presumption is the spirit of monopoly! In Dr. Blake’s presidential address he said : “The council conceives one of its functions to be that of serving as the representative conscience of the churches in relation to crucial developments in the political, economic and social order affecting the life of the churches and the well being of hu manity. It has been referred to as the council’s prophetic role.” Thus the Council throws its weight behind the United Nations and puts tremendous pressure upon John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, who has previously served as chairman of the FCC’s Com mission on International Justice and Goodwill. Its il �main impact is that of a well-oiled political pressure group. With the robes of the church about its work, it is shielded from political attack. NCC GOES TO MOSCOW The visit of an official delegation from the N a tional Council of Churches to Moscow, March, 1956, brings to the fore the collaboration with the Com munists which has been going on over the years, and every true Christian in this hour of national peril should renounce it all. The churches in Russia, what is left of them, are under the complete control of Georgi Karpov, a major general of the secret police. Empire of Fear by Vladimir and Evdokia Petrov, pp. 97 and 98, reports Petrov’s identification of K arpov: “A t this conference Stalin suggested that the character and erudition of Karpov made him an ideal man to represent the church on the Soviet Council of Ministers. H is suggestion was applauded, and Karpov was appointed.” Yuri Rastvorov, a lieutenant colonel of the MVD for eleven years who served under Karpov, testified before the Senate Internal Security Sub committee, April 12, 1956, that Georgi Karpov was “head of the so-called religion section in MVD headquarters.” Rastvorov testified, “The state controls all activity of the church in the Soviet Union.” He testified that Karpov sent his secret police agents to the seminaries that he permitted to exist. They graduated and became bishops in the church. Thus the representatives of the National Coun cil of Churches officially went to Moscow and Georgi Karpov entertained them. According to a report in the National Council Outlook, official organ of the NCC, April, 1956, the reception was “in a most lavish Russian manner.” The report says that Karpov “stressed the first visit by rep resentatives of American churches, deplored the short visit, and urged many times that they come again.” Featured on the cover of the NCC Outlook, official organ, was a picture of the delegation march ing across Red Square in Moscow. To be the hon ored guests of a major general of the secret police, 12 who was in charge of the Communist enslavement and infiltration of the churches, created a spectacle which should have shocked the entire Christian world. Emphasizing the accomplishments of his threeyear term as president, Dr. Eugene Carson Blake said in St. Louis: “Let me remind yoif that the National Council during this triennium organized and made possible the deputation of Protestant church leaders in the Soviet Union, and their return visit, a project which worked out more fruitfully and to less crit icism than any of us dared hope before the fact. But we did it as a council because we thought it our .Christian duty whatever the results in council support or council criticism. “Let me inform you that the National Council (here I make a prediction) will similarly arrange for the same reasons and to the same ends further visits, such as with the churches of China, when ever it appears that the Chinese churches them selves wish and are prepared for such a project.” It is anything but a Christian duty for one to permit himself or the churches which he repre sents to be used by the Communists in their cold war. The head of the Russian delegation which re turned the visit to the U.S.A. was Metropolitan Nicolai, the second top ranking churchman of the Russian Orthodox Church, and in charge of for eign relations for the churches. Nicolai, in speech after speech, has been the mouthpiece of the Com munists through the churches, castigating the West. In a speech at the first session of the W orld Coun cil of Peace. Berlin. February 23. 1951. Nicolai said, referring to the Americans in K orea: “From the first day of the lawless aggression the American neofascists began a systematic canni balistic destruction of the ‘lower’ Korean race. . . . “These civilized savages arranged shooting matches with living targets, binding peasants to posts with barbed wire and shooting each of them over the heart of the target. Reviving the cus toms of the young-fascists, young-yankees photo graphed these scenes for their family albums and sent them home to their fiances and wives.” 13 �This material and considerable more was pre sented to the National Council leaders before they went to Moscow. Nicolai, to this day, has never retracted, apologized, or even attempted to explain his charges against the United States’ soldiers in Korea. The April Outlook, with picture after pic ture, shows Metropolitan Nicolai, in a very affec tionate manner, holding Dr. Blake by his left arm as they walk from the air field. Gifts were ex changed. Chalices and crosses given back and forth. But this could not cover up the blood that is on the hands of these church leaders— Commu nists just patiently waiting the day when America will be under their control. Clergymen who serve the cause of Communism and praise the atheistic state of Russia are not entitled to the name “ Chris tian,” and it is certainly not a “ Christian duty” for W estern clergymen to visit them, fellowship with them in the name of Christ, and deceive the Chris tians of the W est as to the true nature of the en slaved churches in Russia. And now the National Council is to attempt the same identical affair with Red China. Shall this powerful church group in America be used now to cross out the lines that have been drawn by our nation against Red China? C O M M U N IS T HUNGARY The National Council Outlook, September, 1956, features on its cover a picture, “W orld Coun cil Leaders Meet in Hungary.” In this picture, left to right, are: Dr. Eugene Carson Blake: Dr. Franklin Clark Fry, president of the United Lu theran C hurch: and then Communist Bishop K. H. Ting of Red China; Bishop D. W ard Nichols of New York. African Methodist Episcopal Church; Communist Bishop Albert Bereczky. head of the Hungarian Reformed Church in Hungary and president of the Hungarian Ecumenical Council; and Dr. Robert S. Bilheimer of Geneva. Switzer land, associate general secretary of the W orld Council. It was October 23 that the freedom fighters led the uprising in Hungary. Bereczky was de posed and repudiated as a Communist. H e was an active leader in the Communist underground bei4 fore the Reds captured H ungary in 1945. These American leaders went to Hungary for the meet ing of the central committee of the W orld Council behind the Iron Curtain in July and August, 1956. I t was a pretty close call all the way around. Janos Horvath, president of the State Office for Church Affairs, representing the government, was also locked in prison by the freedom fighters. He is back now in office. Bereczky is back in his place of power for the Communists. Bereczky’s praise of Communism has been profuse through these years. Celebrating the tenth anniversary of the so-called “liberation” of Budapest, he said, “A rich, abundant, flourishing, powerful new life surrounds us, and we decided, as Church, to regard this new, pulsating, hopeful life as the gift of God’s grace which we modestly and humbly try to promote with our helpful min istrations.” Bereczky came to Evanston, 111., in 1954 for the Assembly of the W orld Council of Churches, and was welcomed by the leaders of the National Council as a fine Christian gentleman. H e was an official delegate with others from the Communistcontrolled churches in Hungary. But this collaboration with the Communists on the top level relates to Red China and it is directly connected with the present announced plan of Dr. Blake to go to Red China with a delegation of churchmen representing the NCC. Ting is the Communist-appointed Bishop of Chekiang, and Dean of Nanking Theological Sem inary. In Red China the Communists have taken complete control of the churches. W hat church there is, is Communist-sponsored. Ting, thus far, is the No. 1 exchange delegate. H is article, “The Church in China Today,” first appeared in The Student World, January, 1957, organ of the W orld’s Student Christian Federa tion. When the delegation of church leaders from India went to Red China, Association Men, official organ of Council of Young Men’s Christian Asso ciations for India and Ceylon, dedicated its July issue to a report of the trip and praise of the Com munists. The delegation was pictured with Chou 15 �En-lai, the prime minister. This July issue fea tured Ting’s “The Church in China Today.” Ting preaches the Communist line that there is freedom of religion and that Communism has been a bless ing to China. The coming of Communism to China, he said, “represents rather an act of God.” “ In that act, we discover once again that God loves China, that China has not been out of H is hands, and that He does care for our people.” He de nounces “a small number of missionaries who left China . . . and giving speeches to spread rumours and slanders about China and the Church there.” W hen the top leaders of the National Council of Churches collaborate, fellowship with, and com mend as fine Christian leaders these appointees and spokesmen for the Communists themselves, disaster has come upon the churches. They give the Communist line great advantage and prestige, and the claims of these Communist-appointed church leaders are given respectability. The most important activity of the National Council at the present time is the aid and comfort that it is giving to Communism and the discour agement and disillusionment it has generated in the hearts of refugees and those in Iron Curtain lands who yearn for the day of liberation from their Communist tyrants. REVISED STANDARD VERSION George W . Cornell, in his report from St. Louis, said that the Council “guides the production of uniform Sunday school outlines used by 20 mil lion Protestant children.” These outlines are based upon the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted and published by the National Council of Churches. An advertisement in the December, 1957, issue of the Outlook calls their Bible “The Perfect Gift for This Moment in This W orld.” Nothing that the Council has ever done has brought greater opposition or stirred more controversy throughout the churches of the country. The “new Bible,” as it is called, and indeed it is new, did considerably more than just correct some archaic expressions. Twelve of the 32 trans lators had Communist-front records. A member of the Jewish faith who does not accept Christ as 1G Messiah helped translate the Old Testament, and passages dealing specifically with the deity of Christ were changed or modified. Isaiah 7 :14, the glorious prediction of the virgin birth of Christ, has the word “virgin” dropped from the text and “a young woman” put in its place. The Old Testament quotation in Mat thew 1 :23 uses the word “virgin” and says that it was “spoken of the Lord by the prophet,” when the prophet says nothing of the kind, according to the “new Bible.” Messianic passages like Micah 5:2 eliminate the deity of Christ. Isaiah 45:6 is changed, and Hebrews 1 :8, supposed to be a quo tation, becomes a contradiction. The translators made no distinction whatever throughout the entire Bible between the actual translation of the words of the original Hebrew and Greek texts and their own words which were added. Arbitrarily they used “thee” and “thou” to refer to deity, and “you” and “yours” to every one else. But they always referred to Christ as “you” and “yours,” never recognizing His deity. Quotation marks were inserted although there are none in the original text and the translators took the famous text, John 3:16, out of the lips of Jesus Christ, after they had eliminated from the verse the reference to Christ being the “only begotten” Son. Bible-preaching radio preachers denounced it and pressed the storv into the homes of thousands of Christians inside the National Council of Churches. The American Council of Christian Churches, which had been organized back in 1941 to offset the Federal Council, led the fight in the United States against the perverted book which was offered as a “new Bible.” The announced purpose of the National Council that the Bible would re place the King James Version continues, after these five years, to be their goal. The difficulty is that the Sundav school mate rial of the denominations in the NCC uses the new Bible, and this literature is handed down to the people from the top ranks. No sensible person can read the new Bible, study it critically or carefully, and possibly believe that it is a book inspired by a holy, righteous God. 17 �The Bible says, “Every word of God is pure.” God does not contradict Himself, and the translators of H is Book should be men who believe in Him and who are enlightened by H is Holy Spirit. The point of all this is that, before the founda tions upon which the individual’s freedom which Americans have enjoyed can be broken, the con fidence of the people in the Bible as the infallible and inerrant W ord of God has to be shaken. U n belief has driven a dagger into the Christ revealed to us in the Holy Bible. The book is no longer trustworthy, and multiplied thousands have been deceived by it, and particularly by those who have promoted it as something “better.” The offer of the new Bible as “better English” does not justify or compensate for the serious errors it contains. It should not be used in private or public worship. The King James Version is still the best and most beloved of all. FESTIVAL OF FAITH From the standpoint of the Christian faith it self, perhaps the worst thing that the National Council of Churches ever did in all the years of its history, even when it was the Federal Coun cil, was its co-operation in the Festival of Faith, June 19, 1955, held in the Cow Palace, San F ran cisco, California, celebrating the tenth anniversary of the formation of the United Nations. Representatives of six different religions parti cipated in a united service “of prayer for peace and divine guidance to the United Nations.” These representatives were from the Moslem, Hindu. Buddhist, Bahai, and Jewish faiths. Quotations from the sacred writings of six faiths were woven into one responsive reading. They came from the Confucian (The Sayings of Confucius), Hindu (The Bhagavad-Gita), Buddhist (Selected Read ings), Christian (New Testament), Moslem (The K oran), and Judaism (Old Testament). The National Council Outlook, September, 1955, featured the occasion with a picture of all the participants standing together on the platform, and Dr. O. Frederick Nolde, chairman of the Commis sion of the Churches on International Affairs, rep resenting the W orld Council of Churches and In ternational Missionary Council, presiding. The 18 NCC report said, “They called God by different names—speaking to him in different tongues, but the dream for peace in their hearts was the same.” Dr. John S. Gardner, who prayed for the “ Protes tants” and who is now the executive secretary of the Greater Chicago Council of Churches, said, “I t is probably true that such an inclusive assembly has never before been achieved in a single service.” In honor of the occasion, and as a manifestation of the co-operation of the National Council of Churches, the General Board, June 19, 1955, adopted a reso lution specifically drawn for the occasion and printed as a part of the Festival of Faith’s order of service! There is only one true and living God, and the first command is, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” This flagrant violation of the First Commandment by the National Council of Churches in its official action stands indeed, as it has been called, a “climax of apostasy.” The chairman of “A Festival of Faith” and pres ident of the San Francisco Council of Churches, affiliated with the NCC, Mrs. William Lister Rog ers, welcomed the delegates of the United Nations. The Hon. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, the United States, delivered the main address, “The Moral Foundations of the United Nations.” The prayers were printed. The Buddhists called upon “the Ultimate Reality” and “ the Su preme Buddha,” and “our Lord The Buddha.” The Moslem prayed in the “Name of Allah.” The Hindu addressed, “ O Brahman—Thou God Trans cendent.” And the man who offered the Protes tant prayer addressed the “Eternal God, Father of all.” And thus modernism, apostasy, restated its departure from the glorious faith of our Lord, for He said, “ I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” This fellowship with idolatry and claiming that they just called God by different names is at the heart of the National Council’s appraisal of the present world crisis. It indicates why the NCC leaders are ready to shake hands in Christian fellowship with the Communist-appointed church leaders in Moscow who eulogized Joe Stalin, and constantly commend the atheistic socialist state! Elijah, where art thou? 19 �F B I UNDERCOVER AGENTS TESTIFY In all the years of the Federal Council of Churches and now the National Council of Churches the strangest phenomena in relationship to Communist activity and the Communist fronts have prevailed. W e have watched the situation very closely and never have we seen any recognition on the part of the National Council of Churches that there even is such a thing as Communist infiltration of their churches. In fact, the leadership of the Coun cil has directed attacks against those who have come forth alleging that there is such a thing. P ar ticularly is this true of attacks on the House Com mittee on Un-American Activities. Two F B I undercover agents have given reports that cannot be ignored. H e r b e r t A. P h i l b r i c k , nine years an under cover F B I agent, operating in the top level of the Communist apparatus in the United States, had this to say: “I t is no accident that your church is the num ber-one target of the Communist conspiracy in America today. . . . Virtually no Communist or Communist-front activity takes place today with out ministerial and church support, sponsorship or participation. “Sometimes this shows up in church literature. The Communist Party leans heavily upon publicly printed and distributed magazines, papers and books which do not bear Communist Party identi fication as such. But one can spot the Communist influence by the terminology often used—the scoff ing at capitalism, the labeling of the United States as ‘imperialist,’ the sneering directed at the profit motive. America is not wholly perfect. But neither is it wholly imperfect, as the Communists would have you believe.” Philbrick writes: “ In 1942 I was ordered by the Party to main tain strong ties with the Baptist church, the de nomination with which I had been affiliated since early youth. I did this, joining the First Baptist Church of Wakefield, Massachusetts. . . . “The most shocking jact was that there was 20 also a special subversive cell of hardened, dis ciplined, trained agents of Stalin, men who were ministers of the Gospel/ . . . “ I am not guessing about this. I saw those ministers in action— ruthless Communist leaders, prostituting the Christian ministry to the evil ends of atheism and oppression. They knew exactly what they were doing” (Article, “The Communists A re After Your Church 1 in Christian Herald, ” April, 1953). B o r i s M o r r o s , another undercover F B I agent who testified before the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, said that among the instruc tions given to him by his Communist superiors was an order to place an agent in the office of Cardinal Spellman of New York City. Morros warned in general: “The American people are not cognizant of the great danger that looks us straight in the eye. It is much more dangerous, and much more serious, than any of us can even imagine. “And we should start paying more attention to every little detail of what the Soviets are trying to do to us—and there is nothing good they ever have in mind for us. There is always great danger in anything they are doing, and it is mostly danger to our American form of life.” Representative Francis E. W alter, chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, commenting upon M orros’s testimony, said: “ Many of our people—and some of our courts —still cling to the idea that Communism is a mere political theory. It is more than that. It is a plot to enslave the United States and the rest of the world.” Judge Robert Morris, Chief Counsel of the U. S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, in an address on November 1, 1957. before the 16th Annual Convention of the American Council of Christian Churches, warned that Communists have infiltrated the churches and he declared, “ Com munists in the United States are the advance guard of the legions that are grinding down Hungarian freedom fighters in the streets of Budapest.” Then he appealed: “I adjure you to take up your own brand of arms in this titanic endeavor. Plunge into 21 �the tasks ahead with all your skill and evangelistic fervor. This is the greatest challenge that man has ever encountered.” Nothing like this has ever been heard on the platform of the National Council of Churches. In stead, Dr. Blake, in St. Louis, said the free world “faces a true crisis in that it will be as dangerous to continue 100 per cent skepticism of totalitarian Communism as it would be to believe all the pro testations of peaceful intentions that come from the Kremlin.” In truth, none of the peaceful protestations can be believed! W orld domination is the goal. In truth, a 100 per cent skepticism of totalitarian Communism should be preached. Atheistic, antiGod, Christ-hating Communism cannot be trusted in any particular by God-fearing lovers of freedom. CONGRESSIONAL IN V E STIG A TIN G COMMITTEES The testimony of former Communists them selves cannot be ignored. Manning Johnson, a former member of the national committee of the Communist Party, testi fied, “Once the tactic of infiltrating religious o r ganizations was set by the Kremlin, the actual mechanics of implementing the ‘new line’ was a question of following the general experiences of the living church movement in Russia where the Com munists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the church by Communist agents operating with in the church itself. . . . “The Communists had some small forces in the seminaries and under the leadership of H arry F. Ward. These were quickly augmented by ad ditional recruits and siphoned into the divinity institutions by manipulations of Communist cells in the seminaries. . . . “The plan was to make the seminaries the neck of a funnel through which thousands of potential clergymen would issue forth, carrying with them, in varying degrees, an ideology and slant which would aid in neutralizing the anti-Communist char acter of the church and also to use the clergy to spearhead important Communist projects. 22 “This policy was successful beyond even Com munist expectations” ( Investigation o f Communist Activities in the United States, P art 8, July 13 and 14, 1953— Committee on Un-American Activities). Louis Budenz, former editor of the Communist Daily Worker, in hearings before the Senate Inter nal Security Subcommittee, testified as to Commu nist infiltration into the churches. Naming H arry F. W ard of Union Theological Seminary, New York City, he said, “I knew Dr. W ard very well over a great number of years. . . . I also know from con versations with Dr. W ard personally, of his Com munist affiliation.” (W ard was a member of the Communist Party.) Benjamin Gitlow, a former general secretary of the Communist Party, testified, July 7, 1953, before the House Committee: “The Comintern leaders were of the opinion that clergymen, with Dr. W ard’s point of view, using the cloak of religion, could render service of ines timable value to the Communist cause in China and to Soviet interests. Besides, the missions and church institutions in China could be used, in the opinion of the Comintern, to cover up Communist espionage activities in China. Clergymen, who served in various capacities in China, and who de liberately followed the Communist Party line or were duped into following it. formed an important branch of the conspiracy to turn China over to the Communists.” Joseph Z. Kornfedder, a former member of the national committee of the Communist Party in the United States, testified, July 7. 1953, before the House Committee. Kornfedder gave lengthy testi mony “ of Communist and fellow travelers working inside the churches, giving themselves the coloring of religious reformers and of getting the church in the social side, away from spiritualism into the class struggle.” But such testimony gathered by our Government to protect the security of the country has been ignored by the NCC. It has not deterred the N a tional Council leaders from their program of collab orating with the Communists. In an hour when the entire nation is concerned, and properly so, over the superiority of the Rus- �sians in missiles and sputniks, Dr. O. Frederick Nolde, director of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, speaking at St. Louis, de clared that the danger of space missiles “lies not in fantastic scientific achievements but in fantastic human reactions.” H e said that Americans “seem to be acting like spiritual adolescents at a time of scientific maturity.” They could, he emphasized, by “extremist countermeasures . . . betray our genius and endanger the world.” The Communists indeed want the American people not to be aroused or too concerned. This is the slant which, in an hour of peril, the National Council leaders seek, to give to the country. Amer ica must arise, gird herself, and carry on a vigorous campaign to win the cold war as well as maintain adequate strength to deter any aggressors’ ambi tions. C O M M U N IS T "D A ILY WORKER" A faithful barometer registering activity of church leaders favorable to Communist causes is, of course, the New York Daily Worker. One of the major issues of the cold war during recent months has been the Russian demands that the W est dis continue H-bomb experimentation. The W est has insisted that before any cessation of testing can take place an agreement on disarmament, which would be fool-proof, had to be forthcoming. In the midst of this struggle, the central com mittee of the W orld Council of Churches, including the top leaders of the National Council of Churches from the United States, met in New Haven, Conn., July 31 to August 7, 1957, and came out flatfootedly on the Communist side of these issues of the cold w a r! The Daily Worker, August 6, 1957, featured a front-page spread with inch-and-a-half headlines, for the story: “The central committee of the W orld Council of Churches today approved a statement calling for the discontinuation of all nuclear tests, ‘at least for a trial period.’ It said the stopping of the tests would be a first step in what the committee hoped would be disarmament ‘by stages.’ ” This hit the Communist bull’s-eye. In the name of high moral principles, these church leaders pulled the foundations out from under the position of the 24 W estern world. No wonder the Communists glee fully promoted the pronouncement! A little later in August, the Lutheran W orld Federation endorsed the same position. Dr. O. Frederick Nolde, chairman of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, was responsible for the drafting of the WlCC and L W F statements. H e is the same Dr. Nolde referred to above who presided at the “Festival of Faith” in San Francisco. The pronouncement in supporting its demand said: “ Moreover, there is a risk for the sake of peace which Christians, especially in countries pro jecting tests of nuclear weapons, are justified in advocating, in the hope of breaking through the bar riers of distrust. They can urge their governments to declare their resolve to forego tests for a trial period, in the hope that others will do the same, a new confidence be born, and foundations laid for reliable agreements.” This assumption that the Russians somehow will be influenced for good or that they can be trusted is what the Communists want the W estern world to believe. And their strongest ally in this cold war on moral issues has turned out to be the W orld Council of Churches and the church leaders from the United States represented in the National Coun cil of Churches. This pronouncement came at a time when the Moscow W orld Youth Festival had been emphasiz ing the same Communist line—abandonment of Hbomb tests. For the NCC leaders in this country to be a party to a program which is exactly what the Communists desire in their cold war battle ought in itself to be sufficient cause for Christian people to forsake the Council. The Communist - appointed delegates in the W orld Council of Churches who were present at New Haven went back to their countries and re ported most favorably upon their accomplishments. This has been seen " in the Communist-controlled Hungarian Church Press and in the Protestant Churches in Czechoslovakia. The fact that these top church leaders from the United States are willing to sit down in “Christian fellowshin” and co-operate with these Communistappointed church leaders and unanimously—the 25 �above statement was adopted unanimously—produce a statement which undermines the welfare of the W est, places these men in the position of giving Communism a recognition, a respectability, and an influence which it should never have at the hands of the Christian religion. Jesus Christ said, “No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong m an; and then he will spoil his house” (M a rk .3:27). H-BOMB TESTS When the Council, however, does this sort of thing, it does not get called to account in press re ports for some reason. For instance, the United, Press, December 27, reporting from Cairo, Egypt, the African-Asian conference, said that the dele gates from 37 nations “started preparing resolu tions based on reports which voiced the Communist line on familiar cold war themes. “The reports, introduced Thursday, demanded an unconditional halt to nuclear weapons tests. . . Even the UP recognized this as “the Communist line.” When the central committee of the W orld Coun cil of Churches calls for unilateral cessation, with no conditions whatsoever, the United Press and the other press agencies in the United States did not identify it as “ familiar cold war themes.” The Outlook, October, 1957, the NCC’s official organ, as we have pointed out, had this to say: “The Central Committee of the W orld Council of Churches after lengthy consideration of widely diver gent views, voted to commend the CCIA statement to the churches. It went further in urging govern ments to cease atomic weapons tests as a first step at least for a trial period, unilaterally if necessary. It also requested the churches in the countries directly concerned to present the statements to their gov ernments. “ On the basis of this request, a delegation of churchmen representing the W orld Council of Churches, the Commission of the Churches on In ternational Affairs and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. conferred with the Secretary of State of the United States on Septem ber 13.” 2G The Outlook concluded, “W hat effect, if any, this statement and its presentation to government may have on the United States policy remains to be seen.” Thus a pronouncement which favored the Com munist cold war line was carried to the Secretary of State in the name of these church bodies and this was done in country after country by the groups re lated to the WCC. Both the President and the Secretary of State are accessible to the top leaders of the National Council of Churches. They have received them. It is significant to note that similar requests by leaders of the American Council of Christian Churches to see the Secretary of State and also to see the Presi dent of the United States have been denied. If the President and the Secretary of State have the time to see NCC delegations, as they have, they should be willing to receive an American Council delegation which desires to present a different viewpoint on these issues from that which they have repeatedly received now from the NCC. There is strong feeling in American Council church circles in this country that there is just plain discrimination being manifested by the President and by the Secretary of State. F or instance, when the W orld Council was desirous of getting its dele gates from the Communist-controlled countries into this country for the Evanston Assembly, its leaders —the NCC leaders—were able to see the Secretary of State. But when the American Council of Chris tian Churches requested an opportunity to see the Secretary of State on the same subject it was denied the privilege. Several requests have gone to the White House. The door of the White House in the United States has been open to Dr. Eugene Carson Blake and Dr. Franklin Clark Fry. the chairman of the central committee of the W orld Council of Churches and president of the Lutheran W orld Fed eration, but it has not been open to any American Council churches’ representatives. This was not the case with the former President, H arry Truman. He opened his door to the Ameri can Council brethren as well as to the National Council leaders. 27 �PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE Another familiar cold war theme pushed by the Russians is “peaceful coexistence.” On this score the WCC, NCC again sided with the Russians, though they do not always use the name “peaceful coexistence.” The title adopted at Evanston in 1954 at the Second Assembly of the WCC, was “Living Together in a Divided W orld.” But it was the Communist line. “ Peaceful coexistence” was only “a transitional stage or a point of departure. I t must move, through untiring endeavor, beyond these minimum requirements into an order of gen uine cooperation. The first move into such an order must surely be in the direction of peaceful competi tion with growing co-operation. This order will be facilitated and reinforced through the free exchange of persons, culture, information and goods; through common undertakings for relief and human welfare; and through the growth of the United Nations as an instrument for peaceful change” (Evanston pronouncement on International A ffairs). RACE RELATIONS The. race relations program of the National Council of Churches is a major cause of strife and bitterness within the countrv. It has turned preach ers against laymen and colored against white and has helped create the embarrassment which has come to the United States. Since there is considerable evidence that the Communists have made racial tensions one of their major fields of concern, it is all the more important that Christian people face the issues in the light of the Bible, with Christian love and grace. But the N a tional Council has based its aggressive program upon the false and unbiblical doctrine of the “uni versal brotherhood of man and the universal father hood of God.” Race relations promoted on such an unchristian foundation will not bring peace. The Bible teaches that all men are born in sin, the children of wrath, and that it is not until thev are born again that they become children of God and one in Christ. This comes onlv when the true Gospel with its regenerating power is preached W ith their false gospel, there fore, the National Council has stimulated the emo tions of unregenerate men. 28 It was reported in St. Louis that not more than ten per cent of the churches in the U.S.A. are what is called integrated or interracial, and this has been attained after 40 years of the Council’s intensive propaganda to make all churches interracial and nonsegregated, as they call it. An all-white or an all-colored church is a “segregated church.” In the Year-End Roundup of the W orld Council of Churches, released December 17, 1957, it is re ported, “Dr. J. Oscar Lee, the National Council of Churches’ race relations expert, spent the first three months of 1957 on a round-the-world tour for the W CC to attempt to discover the world body’s role in the field of race.” The report says, “The new race relations program is designed to implement the affirmations of the 1954 W CC Evanston Assembly that ‘segregation, based on race, color, or ethnic origin is contrary to the Gospel and is incompatible with the Christian doctrine of man and with the nature of the Church of Christ.’ ” This is the shib boleth ! So far as the Bible is concerned, there has never been a more segregated people in the history of the world than the Children of Israel. The Old Testa ment demanded it of them. This segregation was based upon race, religion, and ethnical origin. In the New Testament the Gospel brings men— Jew and Greek, bond and free, white and black— into a blessed, eternal fellowship in Christ, the Church Universal. But this does not mean, and has not meant, historically or otherwise, that God’s people have not and do not worship around the world in their various local “segregated” assemblies according to their race, their color, their linguistic and ethnic origins. There are many factors indeed that have produced this, and yet true Christians fully respect and love one another. In the United States, under the doctrine of States Rights, each state has been free to handle its own social, educational, and racial problems, as circum stance required. But the National Council of Churches, denying the true Christian distinction between the saved and the lost, has used its position to try to force certain political and social patterns upon the southern states of the United States. The entire racial agitation of the National Coun cil of Churches should be stopped. The company of �Christians in the United States who endorse it, moreover, is small indeed. The approach to the problem should be, on the part of all Christian people, regardless of their race, or color, or ethnic origin, the preaching of the true Gospel of Christ which alone generates love in the hearts of men for one another. To try to force ‘'Christian love” as a social pattern in the name of the brotherhood of man, which does not exist, can only produce strife. It has. Christians who believe the Bible and love their Lord will love and respect one another, regardless of their race, color, or ethnic origin. The National Council’s racial program is not based upon the Gospel of Christ at all, but it is de signed to complement and to further the Communist ends of strife, turning man against man, color against color! Social patterns are not forced upon people from above by courts or by councils. They are determined in a democratic country by the people themselves and the true Gospel is the only sure remedy for the hearts and deeds of men. Present providential and historical locations of people of different races, colors, and ethnic origins around this earth are all going to have to be read justed and a thorough mixing brought to pass, if the W orld Council is to carry out its thesis for the Gospel. Radical, leftist, and Communist influences, we believe, are mainly responsible for this agitation. Testimony available today, both North and South in the United States, is to the effect that the racial situation is deteriorating and the cause of the colored man and genuine racial tolerance has been set back at least 50 years. Every true, Bible-believing Christian who loves his country, loves his neighbor, and loves his fel low Christian, whether he is white or black, should repudiate the National Council of Churches for the confusion and harm which it has produced even in its churches, where NCC leaders talk big at the top, but in actual practice their own churches are the biggest hypocrites of all 1 > 0 THEO LOG IC AL LEADERSHIP A t St. Louis, Dr. Blake, in his report, pointed up the new emphasis on theology. H e listed, “The practice of bringing to meetings of the general board some of the great theological voices of our churches: Niebuhr, Tillich, Calhoun,” and said, “This is to the end that the thought and discussions shall be deeply oriented in the best available insights into the nature of the gospel itself.” W ho are these men mentioned, and what are their insights? It is just here that the divergence of the Council from the position of the historic Chris tian faith is so clear. Niebuhr has given to the world a “ Niebuhrian” Christianity. It is of his own thinking. He believes that the Jesus of history was a sinner and was mis taken in some of his ideas. To him there is no es sential difference between the Jesus of history and Socrates or Gandhi. H e uses a dialectical approach. The Banner, organ of the Christian Reformed Church, October 4, 1957, appraises his position in these term s: “ It is not at all surprising, therefore, that according to Niebuhr both the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation are to be understood mythically. Heaven and hell are not to be understood literally. The resurrection of the body is another dialectical symbol; ‘to believe that the graves will be opened and men will literally be raised is to Niebuhr liter alistic nonsense.’ The Second Coming of Christ, too, is a mythical symbol; Niebuhr regards with scorn those who believe that Christ will actually appear upon the clouds of heaven.” Niebuhr is vice-president of Union Theological Seminary, New Y ork; and in a review, May 19, 1957, New York Times Book Review, he criticizes Jim Bishop in his book, The Day Christ Died, as follows: “H e constantly weaves the Johannine narrative of the events with that of the Synoptic Gospels without any seeming recognition that the Johan nine Gospel is something more and something less than history and has about the same relation to the actual record of Jesus’ words as Plato’s account of Socrates’ life has to the character of Socrates. “John sometimes actually corrects the record at 31 �important points, but the words he puts into the mouth of Jesus are certainly a poetic elaboration of the actual ‘sayings.’ No, they are the very words of Jesus and they are, as Jesus said, “ Spirit and life” 1 Reinhold Niebuhr is a socialist. His socialism is expressed in such statements as these: “The social power which inheres in the owner ship of the means of production is so irresponsible and so irrelevant to the necessities of the technical civilization that its destruction has become a primary prerequisite of social health.” Such influence in the name of theology and social consciousness at the head of the National Council of Churches only indicates how far afield present-day Protestantism has gone from its historic moorings. Such guidance will lead to social disaster. Paul Tillich also has a philosophy of his own. His book, Dynamics of Faith, H arper & Brothers, 1957, makes it abundantly clear that the historic literalistic view of Christianity cannot be accepted; that even “symbols and myths” cannot be under stood in their immediate meaning. Such literalism, he emphasizes, “ deprives God of his ultimacy and, religiously speaking, of his majesty.” H e objects to the virgin birth of the Messiah being “understood in biological terms, resurrection and ascension as physical events, the second coming of Christ as a telluric, or cosmic, catastrophe.” In fact, he says, “ If the Christ—a transcendent, divine being—ap pears in the fullness of time, lives, dies and is resur rected, this is an historical myth. Christianity is superior to those religions which are bound to a natural myth. But Christianity speaks the myth ological language like every other religion. It is a broken myth, but it is a m yth; otherwise Christianity would not be an expression of ultimate concern.” B ut the historic Christian faith has never be lieved or taught that the Christian religion is built upon symbols and that it is myth. Instead, we hear, “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you.” As the Apostle Luke said, it was “by many infallible proofs” that men were persuaded that Christ had literally and bodily been raised from the dead. It is fact, not m yth! Here again is a pagan philosophy akin to other 32 pagan myths being offered as Christianity and for the leadership of the church of the twentieth century. W hat valid “insight” can such apostasy offer our nation ? Dr. Calhoun of Yale lines up pretty well with the above two. David expressed what should guide any church council: “Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep they precepts. I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word” (Psa. 119:98-101). THE O NE-W ORLD CHURCH Co-operation through a greatly strengthened council of churches is not the end which the N a tional Council leadership envisions. There is some “double talk” right here, but the Christian unity to ward which they look is “one church.” This is to in clude all the churches of the world, with the Roman Catholic and the Communist-controlled churches in Iron Curtain lands. Quite a goal! A conference on Faith and Order, the first to be held in the United States, was sponsored jointly by the National Council of Churches, the W orld Coun cil of Churches, and the Canadian Council of Churches, in Oberlin, Ohio, September 3 to 10, 1957. The widespread publicity given to the conference in the United States convinced some of the Ameri can people that the end in view was the “one-world church.” Bishop Hanns Lilje of the Lutheran Church in Germany, addressing the meeting, emphasized the need for this unity and said, “This means that we have to rethink our whole Christian status, our Christian message and our Christian way of living in the light of greater Christian unity” (New York Times, September 9, 1957). The conference closed with a message to the churches calling for “a unity in which every min istry is a ministry of and for all the members, bound together in a worshiping and sacramental commu nity.” Every church was called upon “to examine 33 �the way in which it makes visible the nature of the Church of Christ.” The message expressed “a com mon sorrow over the continued fact of our separa tions one from another,” and, “Although some of our divisions arise out of loyalty to truths that we nowsee, we must acknowledge that Christ calls us to a fuller comprehension of truth and more obedient serv ice.” And it said, “We cannot forget that H is prayer for the unity of H is followers remains unfulfilled.” B ut John 17 was not a prayer for organic union of the followers of Christ into one visible church 1 This is the great error here. It was a prayer that His disciples might be one in Him, in their faith in Him and their love for Him and for each other. It was a spiritual oneness, not visible organic union. Thus the NCC is using Christ, H is name, re gardless of how men may consider Him or believe, or what they may believe concerning Him, as the shibboleth under which they are seeking to bring together all into one visible church. Instead, if all the churches of the land were preaching the Bible as God’s W ord, teaching the people the truth and the authority of the Scriptures, and seeking to win lost men to Christ, there would be blessing and peace in the land. If all the time spent on the unity programs was spent in full and free and independent preaching of the true Gospel, there would be spiritual power and discernment in the land. But men want power. Yet, God’s way is “by my Spirit, saith the Lord.” C O U N C IL OF CHURCHES There is a certain organizational structure con cerning the National Council of Churches which should be understood. It is a council of churches. W e do not in any way question this. Its constitution provides that the various denominations, through their own responsible bodies and by their own proc esses, vote to affiliate with the Council. Each de nomination is accorded a representation on the basis of its numerical strength, and each denomina tion determines who will be its delegates to the National Council. In this way, officially elected delegates from denominations which have officially 34 acted to unite with the Council form the Council itself. H ere is where the administrative power of the body lies. There is a national board responsible to the Council which has on it men who have been elected by the denominations to the Council. From an organizational standpoint none can challenge the representative or democratic charac ter of the Council’s setup. The Council, in fact, is a reflection of the condi tion that prevails in its various denominations. Each denomination operates according to its own setup, and, as it works out, usually the leaders of a partic ular denomination are the ones who are elected to serve in the Council. Thus when the Council claims to represent 37 million Americans, it is claiming to speak for the membership of the churches which have officially voted these members into membership in the N a tional Council of Churches. W hen a person joins a local church of a denom ination which is in the National Council, he also joins the National Council and W orld Council of Churches. The way for an individual to get out of the National and W orld Councils is for him to leave the local church of the denomination which put him into the Council. The philosophy and inclusivist concept of the church which is embraced by the National Council reflects the conditions which have come to exist over a long period of time in the Councirs denominations. There is some discrepancy between what some of the people in the National Council of Churches believe and the position represented by the Council itself. B ut the church leaders are sufficiently in control of the situation and have sufficient support from the churches that they have no fear of any difficulty. The hope of the country, so far as this National Council situation is concerned, is for the people in the grass roots of the country to realize that what is being done in their name through the Council and in the terminology of religion is actu ally undermining the very freedom which the farm ers, the businessmen, and the laborers enjoy. The list of denominations, 30 of them, which have constituted the National Council until its St. Louis convention, are as follows: 35 �African Methodist Episcopal Church African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church American Baptist Convention Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church Church of the Brethren Colored Methodist Episcopal Church Danish Evangelical Lutheran Church of America Evangelical and Reformed Church Evangelical United Brethren Church Evangelical Unity of Czech Moravian Brethren in North America Five Years Meeting of Friends in America General Council of Congregational Christian Churches Greek Orthodox Church in America International Convention of Disciples of Christ The Methodist Church Moravian Church in America National Baptist Convention of America National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc. Presbyterian Church in the U. S. Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Protestant Episcopal Church Reformed Church in America Religious Society of Friends of Phialdelphia and Vicinity Roumanian Orthodox Church of America Russian Orthodox Church in North America Seventh Day Baptist General Conference Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Church of North America Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America United Lutheran Church in America United Presbyterian Church of North America ECUMENICAL EVANGELISM There is one aspect of the National Council’s present activity that is confusing to many Chris tians. In fact, the National Council is using it to commend the Council and to offset its other activi ties. The Protestant Council of New York is the No. 1 local council affiliated with the National Council of Churches. The modernists, as we call them, those who deny fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith and have a wide variety of opinions concerning Christ, are in control of this Council. The NCC joined with the Protestant Council of New York in promoting the Billy Graham Crusade in Madison Square Garden in the summer of 1957. Indeed, the Protestant Council of New York was actually the sponsor of the Crusade. At the conclusion it also received from the campaign $67,618 for its follow up work. 36 Billy Graham, who started out in his ministry as a fundamentalist who faced the evidence of mod ernism, has changed. H e has ceased to question the modernists and would not go to New York until he had the sponsorship of their Protestant Council. Along with this he had, to lead in prayer, on his platform outstanding, present-day modernists who reject the Christ of the Bible. And then, the con verts who responded to the invitation to accept Christ Dr. Graham, without giving them any infor mation on the apostasy, turned over to “the church of their choice.” Converts were directed to all man ner of churches, including modernist Protestants, fundamental Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jewish Synagogues, Seventh Day Adventists, and so on. The National Council Outlook, October, 1957. featured Graham’s visit to the central committee of the W orld Council of Churchees in New Haven, Conn., in August of 1957. Graham was pictured with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the “guest” of the Council. This is the meeting that promoted the Communist line on the H-bomb (see preceding story). Back in 1948, however, when the W orld Council was organized, Graham was asked at the annual convention of the Conservative Baptist As sociation, “W hat do you expect the W orld Council of Churches to do this August when you visit Co penhagen?” He replied. “I believe they are going to nominate the Antichrist.” It is now indeed s e r v ing the cause of Antichrist, but Graham is helping to build their churches! Dr. Graham’s next campaign is to be under the direction of the San Francisco Council of Churches, another NCC affiliate. Of this campaign Dr. Graham has said, “Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman—Protestant, Catholic or Jewish.” Carl Howie, pastor of the Calvary Presbyterian Church, San Francisco, and co-chairman for the Crusade, has announced that in San Francisco “the local com mittee will control policy and not the team.” The president of the San Francisco Council of Churches and the chairman of the financial committee for the Graham campaign is none other than Mrs. William Lister Rogers, who conceived and led the iniquitous “Festival of Faith,” where all joined in praying to 37 �pagan deities. (See “Festival of Faith” section above.) A serious and major reaction in evangelical cir cles across the country has set in. The Scriptures are clear. They require obedience to the commands of Christ. The Bible says, “If there come any unto you. and bring not this doctrine [ the doctrine of C hrist], receive him not into your house, neither hid him God speed” (2 John 10). But Dr. Graham places them on his sponsoring committee and he goes under their direction for the conducting of his campaigns, and then he turns his converts, who have had no caution whatsoever, into the hands of many modernists that they might be fed on husks. The National Council of Churches is using Dr. Graham, featuring him in its official organ, and many people are being misled. True Biblical evangelism will preach only the one Gospel, honor the com mands of God in its preaching, and turn the new born babes over to churches which preach the pre cious blood of Christ and are standing without com promise for the Faith in a great day of apostasy! All Christians should demand just that. God tells His people not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. The duty which God requires is “obedience to His revealed will,” not compromise, expedience, or disobedience in order to save souls. The Hon. James E. Bennet, LL.D., well-known New York attorney and Christian leader, has w rit ten at length on the Billy Graham New York Cru sade. All should have the facts he has gathered. (W rite for pamphlet, “Ministry of Disobedience,” 35 cents each, to Christian Beacon Press, Collingswood 7, N. J.) This inclusivist evangelism, ecumenical evangel ism, as it has now come to be called, is being used to build the National Council of Churches and to defend it when men arise with criticisms such as are reported in this appraisal. WORLD GOVERNMENT A lengthy book could be written on the program of the National Council of Churches to develop world government. The United Nations has had the Council’s enthusiastic support, with the em phasis that it is not enough—it is only the beginning. 38 A world government is the answer. The fact that Russia, with her deceit and subversion, is in the U. N., in explicit violation of the provisions of the charter, does not seem to weigh upon the Council’s conscience as it claims to be the conscience for the nation, and the “voice of the Church.” The General Board of the Council on June 9, 1955, in its official declaration presented to the Fes tival of Faith on the occasion of the tenth anniver sary of the signing of the Charter of the United N a tions, appealed for support, and emphasized that the United Nations had more meaning now than ever before “as sheer necessity to avoid international anarchy and war.” It called the U. N. “both a symbol and a method of strengthening the foundations of freedom, peace and security rn the world.” But, indeed, it is a symbol that two cannot “walk together, except they be agreed,” and it is a method whereby the Communists gain tremendous advantage in destroying “freedom, peace and security in the world.” Gradually people are seeing the moral bankruptcy of the U.N. A world church, toward which the NCC is driv ing, needs a world government which can use its political power to protect and promote the interests of the church. In the Book of Revelation, the oneworld church, the scarlet woman, rides on the back of the one-world government, the beast (Rev. 17). REFUSAL TO MEET CRITICS An appraisal such as this is made against the background of the Christian faith, as it has been taught and understood by Protestants in the United States through the years, and our social order based upon individual freedom. The National Council of Churches, and previously the Federal Council of Churches which it absorbed, has had a profound in fluence upon the churches and the national life of the United States. Its influence has had a great deal to do with the present impasse as the Reds have been strengthened in their drive to socialize all humanity. The strategy which the Council leaders have used in dealing with such criticisms as we are here giving has usually been one of silence. They have repeat39 �edly refused challenges to meet in public discussion those who are making responsible objections. Recently Radio Station W P E N , Philadelphia, scheduled a program, “Frank Ford’s Show,” to which it invited representatives of the American Council of Christian Churches and the National Council of Churches to discuss the subject, “ Social ism and Communism in Religion.” The National Council leaders declined to appear. The defense that they have made is to attack those who have raised criticisms as “apostles of discord,” also they have attempted to discredit such Govern ment committees as the Senate Committee on In ternal Security and the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. The truth is that the evidence which is presented by the Council’s critics stands. OTHER MEANS There are other indirect ways in which the Coun cil is working. It has sought to have the radio sta tions of the country voluntarily adopt the policy of not selling time to religion. This is an official policy which the Council is pressing. W hen radio stations give time, the Council goes to them and claims to represent the Protestants, and so has a monopoly. This procedure eliminates the funda mentalists who are the ones who are in their zeal able to procure enough support to buy time. Mod ernists generally cannot get support of this nature. This monopolistic psychology which abounds in the Council leaders’ program is expressed in their comity philosophy and their activity in working with zoning boards. The local councils presume to have the say as to where churches may be established or located. This, of course, involves threats to the liberty which the American people enjoy under the Bill of Rights and the “free exercise of religion.” The Council in its over-all program emphasizes its relief activities, its interchurch aid, and secures the support of groups which are not connected with it. Surely this is a field where the Council’s program is not being promoted but the Council is using its aid to silence criticism among those who receive it and those who co-operate. It is using its aid in every section of the world to promote the ecumeni cal movement—the one-world church with its corol 40 lary, one-world government. It has purchased with this aid whole libraries slanted to the leftist, so cialistic line, and presented them to schools and in stitutions all over the world. It brings foreign stu dents to study in the modernist seminaries. In fact, there is little that the Council does that is not oriented into its over-all picture. The zeal of the Council is eating it up. Its total impact is that of a powerful pressure group, operat ing under a front, to condition the people for certain social changes which they envision will establish the kingdom of God as a social order here on the earth— man-made, man-controlled—an instrument, as they see it, for world peace, but indeed an instrument of world tyranny. TH E VO ICE OF JEREMIAH The lonely prophet, Jeremiah, needs to be heard in this hour of apostasy and confusion. “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord” (Jer. 23:1). His day was like ours. And so the Lord emphasized, “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ra n : I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings” (vv. 21, 22). “The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream ; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faith fully. W hat is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. . . . Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He saith” (vv. 28, 31). “Behold, I am against them that proph esy false dreams, saith the Lord, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them : therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord” (v. 32). The apostasy which has fallen upon the church, the inclusivist concept of the church, the emphasis upon building a one-world church, a man-made powerful system, and a one-world government—all of this is the dream and the fancy of men and is not 41 �in accordance with the W ord of the Lord. In the 15th chapter of Jeremiah, God calls for a taking forth of “the precious from the vile.” The precious and the vile cannot be joined together in fellowship. Jeremiah describes his own estate, “I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy h an d : for thou hast filled me with indignation” (15:17). He was not a member of the NCC or W CC of his day! And his indigna tion was against the prophets who were misleading the people and claiming that they spoke for God when the dreams that they offered them were in conflict with His commands and His W ord. Jeremiah heard the message from the Lord: “Stand in the gate of the Lord’s house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the Lord. . . . Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. T rust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these [the Council of Churches, the Council of Churches, the Council of Churches]” (7:2-4). And then we read how Pashur, “ who was also chief gov ernor in the house of the Lord, heard that Jeremiah prophesied these things. Then Pashur smote Jere miah the prophet, and put him in the stocks that were in the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house of the Lord” (20:1-3). But Jeremiah kept crying out, “The Lord hath not called thy name Pashur, but Magor-missabib. F o r thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will make thee a terror to thyself, and to all thy friends” (20:1-4). W H A T ARE WE TO DO? We—every true servant of Jesus Christ—should stand in the succession of Jeremiah. It was this spirit that in 1941 led churches that had separated from the National Council, then the Federal Council of Churches, and its denomina tions, to establish the American Council of Christian Churches. There are 14 of the smaller church bodies in that Council today. It is challenging the N a tional Council in its departure from the W ord of God. And as the National Council and the ecumen42 ical leaders established their W orld Council of Churches in 1948, another parallel and opposing council, the International Council of Christian Churches, with which the ACCC is affiliated, was also founded, and now has 58 denominations. This council does not stand for the organic union of the churches. It is calling the churches to stand by their confessions, to build their testimonies, and to co operate together in Christian fellowship, mutual love and respect, and to join in battling the apostasy as represented by the NCC. There are some things that must be done now by every Christian: (1 ) Be informed. (2) Be an active missionary in informing others. (3) Separate from the National Council of Churches and from the denominations which comprise it: the whole system is evil. (4) Take part in the maintaining and establishment of true Bible-believing churches where the W ord of God is preached in its purity. (5 ) Cease to give money to the National Council or to any of the denominations associated with it. The National Council counts all the people and it gets its funds directly and indirectly, in various ways, to support its intricate and involved setup. (6) Give more than ever before to help the true missionary testimonies, the Bible-believing churches, and ail who are engaged in the battle for the Faith and for the freedom of our country. (7) Pray without ceasing! Each individual Christian must recognize that he counts, that he has a personal responsibility in this battle, and that what he does is going to determine the way things go in the future, for the church and for the country! The key to all Chris tian activity and testimony is the individual, obedient and faithful, uncompromising and militant, as he stands by the ancient landmarks, keeps them from being removed, and as he resists the enemies of men’s souls today. " Fight the good tight of faith.” S e e a n n o u n c e m e n t 43 o n n e x t p a g e �READ THESE PAMPHLETS BY DR. M clN TIR E T H E N E W B IB LE, Revised Standard Version, W hy Christians Should Not Accept It B IS H O P OXNAM , P R O P H E T O F M ARX The above sell for 10 cents each; $1 for 12; $2 for 25; $7.50 for 100 T H E C LIM A X O F A PO ST A SY (Festival of F a ith ) ; 15 cents, 8 for $1 ST A T E M E N T C O N C E R N IN G H R O M A D K A ; 2 for 5 cents, 100 for $2 R U SSIA N B A PT IST S IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S ; 5 cents, 25 for $1 T H E T E S T IM O N Y O F S E PA R A T IO N (The differences between the American Council of Chris tian Churches and the National Association of Evan gelicals) ; 75 cents, 3 for $2 A PAMPHLET BY VARIOUS AUTHORS A M IN IS T R Y O F D ISO B E D IE N C E (Billy Graham's New York Crusade), 35 cents, 10 for S3; 25 for $7: 100 for $25. BOOKS BY DR. M clN TIR E SE R V A N TS O F A P O S T A S Y ; cloth, $4; paper, $3 “A U T H O R O F LIB E R TY ,” $2.25 F O R SU CH A T IM E AS T H IS , $2 “T H E W A LL O F JER U SA LE M A LSO IS B RO K EN D O W N ,” $2 B E T T E R T H A N SE V EN SO NS, $1.50 Order from CH R ISTIA N BEACON PRESS Box 218-C, Collingswood 7, N. J. 45 �THE AUTHOR KEEP INFORM ED — GET THE NEWS Subscribe for C H R ISTIA N BEACON Christian Beacon is an eight-page, tabloid size, weekly religious newspaper. It carries up-to-date and important information concerning the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., the W orld Council of Churches, the American Coun cil of Christian Churches, the International Coun cil of Christian Churches, and other organizations. It unmasks apostasy in the churches and promotes the Twentieth Century Reformation. $2 a year in the U.S.A. S3 a year in all other countries Send subscriptions to CH RISTIA N BEACON Box 218-N , Collingswood 7, N. J. The Rev. C a r 1 M c l n t i r e , D. D., Litt.D., F.R.G.S., the author of the foregoing document, is pastor of the Bible Presbyterian Church of Collings wood, N. J. H e has been pastor of this 1617-mem ber church since October, 1933. Dr. M clntire served as the first president of the American Council of Christian Churches from 1941 to 1943. H e has been president of the International Council of Christian Churches since its formation in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in 194S. In the last few yeais he has v sited 60 countries and has trav eled around the world four times in the interest of the International Council, which represents 61 Prot estant denominational bodies. Faith Theological Seminary, Elkins Park, Phila delphia, P a .; the Independent Board for Presbyte rian Foreign M issions; the Independent Board for Presbyterian Home M issions; Shelton College, Ringwood, N. J . : Highland College, Pasadena, Calif., are among the separated, Christian institutions on whose boards of directors Dr. M clntire serves. H e is author of a number of books, among which are: Modern Tower o f Babel (now out of print) ; Servants of Apostasy, the story of the meeting of the W orld Council of Churches in 1954: Author of Liberty ” a study in popular style of the Triune God and His principles of liberty: and three volumes on three books of the Bible—For Such a Time as This (E sther), " The Wall of Jerusalem Also Is Broken Down” (Nehemiah), and Better Than Seven Sons (R uth). Dr. M clntire is Editor of the weekly Christian Beacon with subscribers in every state in the Union and 87 foreign countries. He also conducts a 30minute daily broadcast. 20th Century Reformation Hour, on Station W VCH. Chester, Pa., and Station WGCB, Red Lion, Pa. � 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 18: Personal Papers of Barbara Marx 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 Booklet, "The National Council of Churches: An Appraisal," 1957 Description An account of the resource Booklet entitled "The National Council of Churches: An Appraisal," by Carl McIntire, published by the Christian Beacon Press, 1957. Author accuses the National Council of Churches as actively working for Communism and Soviet Russia and discusses his proof of this assertion. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 18, Personal Papers of Barbara Marx Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Carl McIntire Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1957 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 18_2_1_17_14 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/8d87e48e9b73159357ab653e29349bb1.pdf a849484627974abb27d4c8edb1a1ee9e PDF Text Text Plans of the "Synagogue of Satan” “For Esau is the end of the world ( system ); and Jacob is the begin ning of i t that followeth.” ( // Esdras 6:9.) For Free Distribution—obtainable from BRITISH ISRAEL ASSOCIATION OF GREATER VANCOUVER 1238A SEYMOUR STREET VANCOUVER. B.C. �PLANS OF THE 'SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN' “A report from Europe carries the following speech of Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich before a special meeting of the Emergency Council of European Rabbis in Budapest, Hungary, January 12, 1952: “Greetings, my children; You have been called here to recapitulate the principal steps of our new program. As you know, we had hoped to have twenty years between wars to consolidate the great gains which we made from World War II, but our increasing numbers in certain vital areas is arousing opposition to us, and we must now work with every means a t our disposal to precipitate World W ar I II within five years. "The goal for which wo have' striven so concertedly for three thousand years is at last within our reach, and because its fulfilm ent is so ap parent, it behoves us to increase our efforts and our caution tenfold. I can safely promise you th a t before ten years have passed, our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a king and every Gentile a slave. (Applause from the gathering.) You remember the suc cess of our propaganda campaign during the 1930’s, which aroused anti-American passions in Germany a t the same time we were arousing antiGerman passions in America, a campaign which culminated in the Second World War. A similar propaganda campaign is now being waged in tensively throughout the world. A war fever is being worked up in Russia by an incessant antiAmerican barrage while a nation-wide an ti comm unist scare is sweeping America. This cam paign is forcing all the smaller nations to choose between th e partnership of Russia or an alliance with the United States. “Our most pressing problem a t the moment is to inflame the lagging m ilitaristic spirit of the Americans. The failure of the Universal Mili tary Training Act was a great setback to our plans, but we are assured th a t a suitable measure will be rushed through Congress immediately 2 after the 1952 elections. The Russian, as well as the Asiatic peoples, are well under control and offer no objections to war, but we must wait to secure the Americans. This we hope to do with the issue of anti-Semitism, which worked so well in uniting the Americans against Germany. We are counting heavily on reports of anti-Semitic outrages in Russia to whip up indignation in the United States and produce a front of solid arity against the Soviet power. Simultaneously, to demonstrate to Americans the reality of antiSemitism, we will advance through new sources large sums of money to outspokenly anti-Semitic elements in America to increase their effective ness, and we shall stage anti-Semitic outbreaks in several of their largest cities. This will serve the double purpose of exposing reactionary sec tors in America, which then can be silenced, and of welding the United States J n to a devoted antiRussian unit. (Note—Protocol of Zion No. 9, para. 2, states th a t anti-Semitism is controlled by them. They have already commenced their campaign of antiSemitism in Czecho-Slovakia). (Printed in No vember 1952). “W ithin five years, this program will achieve its objective, the Third World War, which will surpass in destruction all previous contests. Israeli, of course, will remain neutral, and when both sides are devastated and exhausted, we will arbitrate, sending our Control Commission into all wrecked countries. This war will end for all time our struggle against the Gentiles. “We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa. I can state with as surance th a t the last generation of white children is now being born. Our Control Commissions will, in the interests of peace and wiping out inter racial tensions, forbid the whites to mate with whites. The white women m ust cohabit with members of the dark races, the white men with black women. Thus the white race will disappear, for mixing the dark with the white means the end of the white man, and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory. We shall embark upon an era of ten thousand years of �peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica, and our race will rule undisputed over the world. Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain mastery over a world of dark peoples. “ ‘(Question from the gathering: Rabbi Rabino vich, w hat about the various religions after the Third World W ar?’) "Rabinovich: “There will be no more re ligions. Not only would the existence of a priest class rem ain a constant danger to our rule, but belief in an after-life would give spiritual strength to irreconcilable elements in many countries, and enable them to resist us. We will, however, retain the rituals and customs of Judaism as the mark of our hereditary ruling caste, strengthening our racial laws so th a t no Jew will be allowed to m arry outside our race, nor will any stranger be accepted by us. (Note: Protocol of Zion No. 17 para 2, states: “Now th a t freedom of conscience has been de clared everywhere (as a result of their efforts they have previously stated) only years divide us from the moment of THE COMPLETE WRECK ING OF THAT CHRISTIAN RELIGION. As io other religions, we shall have still less difficulty with them .”) “We may have to repeat the grim days of World W ar II, when we were forced to let the Hitlerite bandits sacrifice some of our people, in order th a t we may have adequate documenta tion and witnesses to legally justify our trial and execution of the leaders of America and Russia as war criminals, after we have dictated the peace. I am sure you will need little preparation for such a duty, for sacrifice has always been the watchword of our people, and the death of a few' thousand Jews in exchange for world leadership is indeed a small price to pay. “To convince you of the certainty of th at leadership, let me point out to you how we have turned all of the inventions of the white m an into weapons against him. His printing presses and radios are the mouthpieces of our desires, and his heavy industry manufactures the instruments which he sends out to arm Asia and Africa against him. Our interests in W ashington are greatly ex- tending the Point Four Program for developing industry in backward areas of the world, so th at after the industrial plants and cities of Europe and America are destroyed by atomic warfare, the whites can offer no resistance against the large masses of the dark races, who will m ain tain an unchallenged technological superiority. “And so, with the vision of world victory be fore you, go back to your countries and intensify your good work, until th at approaching day when Israeli will reveal herself in all her glorious des tiny as the Light of the World.” (Note: Every statem ent made by Rabinovich is based on agenda contained in the "Protocols of Zion.”) Note—This address by Rabbi Rabinovich was published in the U.S. publication “Common Sense” and republished in the September 1952 issue of The Canadian Intelligence Service. Mr. Eustus Mullins, well informed authority on the Marxist conspiracy whose writings appear in several pattriotic publications, presumably made this m a terial available to “Common Sense,” as a foot note to the speech reads “This transcription of Rabinovich’s speech was given to me by a former Bulgarian diplomat who broke with the Com munist regime and reached Budapest. Hungary, where he hid out with anti-Communist friends until March. While there, he obtained a copy of this speech, and was then smuggled to Ham burg, Germany, finally making his way to this country. A gentleman in Hamburg gave him my name, and he m et me and urged me to dis tribute this speech a t once. I sincerely hope th at it will give the American people a better pic ture of the force arrayed against them.”—Eustus Mullins. 4 6 �"He That Sitteth In the Heavens Shall Laugh: The Lord Shall Have THEM In Derision." (Psalm 2:4) The preceding speech is by a leading Zion ist Rabbi. Of the Zionists, Professor Lothrop Stoddard, the eminent Ethnologist, states th a t FROM THEIR OWN RECORDS, 82 per cent are Ashkenazim, socalled Jews, with round skulls (Brachycephalic) and with “typical Jewish noses” (which they now alter by plastic surgery,) and th a t they are of TURKO-MONGOL blood, and are NOT SEMITIC. On the other hand, he states th a t the true Semitic Sephardim Jews are long skulled (Dolicocephalic) and have fine cut noses, and “are an harmonic type.” He further states th a t the Ashkenazim false Jews are of the Alpine Race whilst the true Semitic Sephardim Jews are of the M editerranean Race, and th at from an Ethnological standpoint, these two types are as far apart as the North and South Poles. (Vide, “The Forum,” March, 1926). Prof. John Beaty, formerly a Colonel in the U.S.A. Intelligence Service, states in his recentbook, “The Iron Curtain Over America,” (Wilkin son Publishing Co., Dallas, Texas) th a t the Zion ists are the Khazars of Russia, who are of Turko-Mongol blood, and who became converts to Judaism only a few hundred years ago, but are NOT Semitic, nor of Jewish or Israel blood. Further he states th at their religion is th a t of the terrible Babylonian Talmud, (Note: based on Baal-(devil) worship) and is not on the Mosaic Talmud of the Bible. He demonstrates by docu mentation th a t it was they who organized the Russian Communist Revolution of 1917, and that, they still control the present Russian Communist government there. This is corroborated by the U.S. Army Intelligence report on the Russian Revolution of 1917, and which gives the names of those financiers (Kuhn. Loeb & Co., of New York) who financed it. and of the 30 Zionists in Russia, who engineered it there. Prof. Beaty also demonstrates th a t these Zionists obtained con trol of the Democratic Party in the United States 6 of America, and have installed policies to break down the power of America, and to supplant it by Internationalism , through the Zionist-con trolled U.N.O. Further, Major Robert Williams, United States Intelligence Officer, in his book, ■Know Your Enemy,” (Box 868, Santa Anna, , Calif.) gives the names of their leaders in the U.S.A., and by documentation shows th a t Judge Felix Frankfurter, Senator Lehman, and Henry Morgenthau, Jr., are those in charge, and under whom are Dean Acheson, and many others in the State Department. Now the Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, Page 41, states: “Edom is in modern Jewry,” which is corroborated by Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. 2, Col. 1187. But we are told: “Esau is Edom” (Genesis 36:1) and Edom means “RED” (Gen. 25:30). Hence we have their Red propaganda and alien poisoned doctrines, which are invented by them, and not by the true Semitic Jews, the leaders of whom will have nothing to do with political Zionism. A study of the m atter shows th a t these Edom ite so-called Jews are descendants of the Herodians of C hrist’s day (Matt. 2:16, etc.) who were Idumeans of Turko-Mongol blood. Th? Lord re fers to the Idumeans as “The People of My Curse,” (Isa. 35:5-8) as they were descendants of Amalek (Exodus 17:16) with whom He had sworn to have war from generation to generation. Yet it is these Ashkenazim Edomites who impress on Christians th a t they are the “Chosen People," and when anyone tries to interfere with their plans, sta rt the cry "Anti-Semitism,” although they are not Semitic, but of Turko-Mongol blood. We see, however, th a t it is not anti-Semitism but anti-Red (Edom means Red) and anti-Communist. “The Protocols of Zion” *(Britons’ Publishing So ciety, 74 Princedale Rd., London, W. 11) appears to be their text-book, in which they have outlined their plans for world-control, the crowning of their "sovereign lord of all the world," (Protocol 2, para. 9, etc.) and the formation of their “super government of the world.” (Protocol 6, para. 3, etc.). It was Alger Hiss, now doing penal servi•W ritten by Ascher Ginzberg (Vide "Waters Flowing Eastward” : Page 38.) �tude as a Communist agent, who was executive Secretary a t Dumbarton Oaks, where he per suaded President Roosevelt to form the United Nations Organization, in the forming of which Hiss was very active. In his recent book "Far and Wide,” Douglas Reed devotes one chapter to "Zionism Para mount,” in which he demonstrates th a t the U.N.O. is completely controlled by a small clique, headed by w hat he terms “The Money Power," and consisting of Zionists and Communists. Thus we have the framework of the Zionists’ "SuperGovernment of the world” in the U.N.O. In his interesting booklet, "Palestine, ESAU Claims Possession," David Davidson, M.C., M.I. Struct. E., demonstrates th a t Amalek, the pre datory and illegitimate (Gen. 36:12) tribe of the Edomites, is now represented by International Finance, the “Money Power,” (page 10) and th at they are “the synagogue of S atan” (pages 7 and 10). He further demonstrates th a t the so-called Israeli are not Jews by blood, but are descendants of Esau (Edom) who are masquerading as Israel to hoodwink the Goyim (Gentiles) into allowing them to hold Palestine. I t must therefore be clear from the above quotations th a t the great majority of the Zionists are not true Jews, but are Edomites of TurkoMongol blood, who have no right whatsoever to Palestine. We must therefore differentiate between Zionists and Jews, as the true Semitic Sephardim Jews accept the nationalities of the countries in which they settle, and become good citizens: whereas the Edomite Zionist, inventor of Com munism and Socialism (Protocol 2, para. 3) plots and plans the destruction of the Anglo-SaxonCeltic race wherever he goes. Protocol of Zion, No. 2. para. 3 states: “Do not think for a minute th a t these statem ents are empty words; think carefully of the SUCCESSES WE ARRANGED FOR DARWINISM (EVOLUTION) MARXISM (COMMUNISM), and NEITZSCHEISM (SOCIALISM). To us Jews a t any rate it should be plain to see what a DISINTEGRATING IMPORTANCE these DIRECTIVES have had upon the minds of the Goyim,” (Gentiles). It is a very interesting point th a t the Zionist 8 banker, Amschel Mayor, assumed the name "Roth schild" about 150 years ago, as in German th at name means “Red Shield,” (Vide: New Teachers’ Cyclopaedia, Vol. 5, page 2454). I t was Amschel Mayer ROTHSCHILD who or ganized the Zionist International Finance, who since then have gradually usurped control of our governments through their financial policies. To Amschel Mayer Rothschild is attributed the statem ent: “Perm it me to issue the currency and credit of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” In view of this remark, it is signifi cant th a t through th e Bank Charter Acts of Britain, the United States, and Canada, it is the banking systems who now issue credits (on which 95 per cent of business is done) and not our gov ernments, who formerly held the prerogative of issuing both currency and credit. I t is a further interesting point th a t about 1805, the Rothschilds usurped the m ain devices of the Royal Arms of Great Britain, viz. the Lion and the Unicorn supporting the Crown of David. Further above the original Crown they have superimposed three crowns, which in heraldry symbolize th at the superimposed crowns have overcome the original Crown of B rit-ain (Hebrew for Covenant Land). Perhaps one of the m ain points of the Rothschild arms is th a t in one of the super imposed crowns they have placed the interlaced Triangles of Zionism INSIDE THE HORNS OF A BULL. Now the horns of a Bull are the ancient crest of the Anglo-Saxon Race (ancient NGLTZKSEN; Hebrew for Bull sons of Isaac, i.e. Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. as in Deuteronomy 33:17, and in Engl-Land, Hebrew for Bull Land, hence our John Bull). Thus these arms denote th a t the Zionists are working IN SIDE THE ANGLO-SAXON Race, i.e. BRIT-ISH (Hebrew, Covenant Man) Commonwealth and the United States of America (Vide: Burke’s Peerage). These facts corroborate the above-quoted speech by Rabbi Rabinovich, who states th a t their plan is to destroy the white race, of which the main p art is the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Race, the des cendants of Jacob. 0 �In further corroboration. Protocol of Zion No. C, para. 7 states: “We appear on the scene as the ALLEGED saviours of the worker from this op pression, (which they have previously stated th at they have caused) when we propose to him to join OUR FIGHTING FORCES—SOCIALISTS, ANARCHISTS, COMMUNISTS—to whom wo al ways give support in accordance with an ALLEGED brotherly rule (of the solidarity of all mankind) of our Social masonry. The aristocracy, who en joyed by law (note: in Continental Europe, under the Civil Code of laws) the labour of the workers, was interested in seeing th a t the workers were well fed, healthy and strong. We are interested in JUST THE OPPOSITE—IN THE DIMINU TION AND KILLING OUT OF THE GOYIM.’’ (Hence Rabbi Rabinovich’s statements). Again Our Lord Jesus Christ prophesied of this, stating: “When ye therefore shall see the Abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet (Dan. 11:31 and 12:11) stand in the Holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand), then let them which be IN JUDEA flee into the mountains,” (Matt. 24:15, 16). In Daniel the literal Hebrew is "The Detestable Thing th at m aketh Desolate.” In his book “Our Money System,” Gardner states (page 24): "Amschel Mayer Rothschild, founder of th a t House, died in 1812, and on his death-bed nominated his five sons to dominate the world. Their problem was to ABOLISH CHRISTIANITY and rob and exploit all world governments.” To corroborate this. Protocol of Zion No. 17, para. 2, states: “Freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere (as a result of their efforts they have previously stated) so th a t now onlyyears divide us from THE COMPLETE WRECK ING OF THAT CHRISTIAN RELIGION.” This they have done in Russia under Communism, and in Socialist Germany under the Nazis, thus con tinuing the war commenced by Herod against Jesus Christ (Matt. 2: 16, etc.) and still further back by Amalek (Exodus 17:8-16). Further, Protocol No. 5, para. 4, states: “The Holy Unction of th e Lord’s Anointed has fallen 10 from the heads of kings in the eyes of the people, and WHEN WE ALSO ROBBED THEM OF THEIR FAITH IN GOD, the might of power was flung upon th e streets, into the place of public ownership (State Control) AND WAS SEIZED BY US.” Again, a m atter which has bothered our economics since 1946, is given in Protocol No. S, para. 7, which states: “We shall RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES, which, however, will not bring any advantage to the workers for, a t the same time, WE SHALL PRODUCE A RISE IN THE PRICES OF THE FIRST NECESSITIES OF LIFE—We shall further undermine artfully and deeply sources of production, by accustoming the workers to ANARCHY (Class warfare) and to drunkenness, and side by side therewith taking ALL MEASURES TO EXTIRPATE FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH ALL THE EDUCATED FORCES OF THE GOYIM” (thus ^corroborating Rabbi Rabinovich’s statem ent re the destruction of the white race). In view of Rabbi Rabinovich’s speech, and the above-quoted statements from the Protocols of Zion, we can see th a t these Edomites (Reds) are those referred to by Our Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:1) when He spoke of “them of the synagogue of Satan, who SAY they are Jews, and are NOT, but do LIE.” (Revelation 3:9, note also John 8:44). St. Paul prophesies, “For when THEY shall say PEACE and safety, THEN sudden destruction cometh upon THEM, as travail upon a woman with child, and THEY shall NOT escape.” (1 Thes. 5:3, Ussher date A.D. 54). But to whom does the “THEY” and “THEM" refer? Protocol of Zion No. 10,p ara 18 states: “T h erec ognition of our despot (king) may also come before the destruction of the Constitution (U.S.A.). The moment for the recognition will come when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence—A MATTER WHICH WE SHALL ARRANGE FOR—of their rulers, will clamour: "Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the 11 �causes of discords—frontiers, nationalities, re ligions, State debts—who will give us PEACE and QUIET, which we cannot find under our rulers and representatives.” We can therefore see th a t the cry of PEACE and Safety (Quiet) which is prophesied through St. PAUL is being arranged by political Zionist propaganda in favour of their so-called "sovereign lord of all the world,” and it is therefore to the Zionists th a t the "THEY" and "THEM” refer. They have already set up the framework cf their “Super-Government of the world,” in the so-called United Nations Organization, through Alger Hiss and other Communist-Zionist agents. This organization is prophesied in both Isa. 28: 15, 18, and Ezekiel 13: 10-16, and is to be des troyed, “Because, even because THEY have se duced MY People (Jacob) saying ‘Peace,’ and there was NO peace,” as the Zionists have no intention of letting us have Peace, but instead, as stated by Rabbi Rabinovich and in the Protocols, (The DIMINUTION and KILLING OUT OP THE GOYIM) are using th a t Organization to promote a Third World War, to destroy the power of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Race, and as a means of destroying the white race. They further state in Protocol No. 13, para. 5: "Who will ever suspect then THAT ALL THESE PEOPLES WERE STAGE-MANAGED BY US ACCORDING TO A POLITICAL PLAN WHICH NO ONE HAS SO MUCH AS GUESSED AT IN THE COURSE OP MANY CENTURIES?” (Note th a t Rabinovich states th a t after THREE THOU SAND YEARS their plans are practically ready to obtain world control). In this, as usual, THEY are deceived by their leader, Satan. The LORD, “declaring the end from the be ginning,” (Isa. 46:10) knew what “THEY” would attempt, and through King David about 1042 B.C. (Ussher date) prophesied of their AT TEMPTED setting-up of a “Super-Government of the world,” and of a so-called “sovereign lord of all the world” in ZION, and referring to it, stated: “He th a t sitteth in the Heavens shall LAUGH: the LORD shall have THEM in derision. THEN SHALL He Speak unto THEM in His wrath, and vex THEM in His sore displeasure," adding: “Yet HAVE I set MY KING (JESUS Christ) upon MY Holy Hill of ZION.” (Psalm 2: 4-6, note also verses 1-3, and I I Thes. 1: 7, 8, and 2: 3-10). THUS we see th a t th e joke is on Esau. Again, prophesying through King David of His Crucifixion, Our Lord JESUS Christ stated: “For dogs have compassed Me: the Assembly of the Wicked (i.e. synagogue of Satan) have inclosed Me: THEY PIERCED My hands and My feet.” (Psalm 22:16, “dogs,” i.e. Canaanites, (Matt. 15; 22-26,) also the descendants of those of Genesis 38: 1-10, note Jer. 24:8-10, John 8:44, i.e. “The Tares are the children of the WICKED ONE, the enemy th at sowed them is the devil.” (Matt. 13:38, 39). In “The Protocols of Zion,” it is stated th at the “Head of the Snake” (apparently the “syna gogue of Satan”) consists of 300 “Hidden Heads.” or elders, known only to each other. (Intro ductory Note to the Protocols) whilst the "Body of the Symbolic Snake,” consists of the rank and file of the Zionists (Protocol 3, para. 1) and it is stated th a t the Body has no idea as to the plans of the Head, bu t simply carries out its orders blindly. Therefore the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross would APPEAR to mean: "Father, forgive them (the unthinking masses) for they (the unthinking masses) know NOT what THEY (the Assembly of the Wicked, i.e., synagogue of Satan) do.” (Luke 23:34. Note also M att. 21: 38, John 8:44, and Exodus 34:7, “By no means clearing the GUILTY”) and which, from Protocol 3, para. 1, quoted above, still appears to be the case. “Declaring th e end from the beginning.” (Isa. 46:10) and knowing w hat the Esau-Edomites. now masquerading as Zionist-Jews, would do, we can understand the Lord’s prophecy: “Yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau,” (Malachi 1:2, 3) as Jn "ob (Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Race) have been breaking the Nazi-Fascist yokes and feeding and clothing the hungry and naked of the depressed races (Matt. 25:31-40), whilst Esau has been 12 13 �planning for three thousand years to destroy the white (Jacob) race, as stated by Rabbi Rabinovich and in the Protocols of Zion (Note Isa. 58:6-14). Because of Esau’s terrible plans for world con trol with its “DIMINUTION a nd KILLING OUT OP THE GENTILES,” the Lord has already stated His Judgment on Esau, saying: “And there shall not be ANY remaining of the House of Esau, for the Lord ha th spoken it:" (Obadiah 1:18, note also Ezek. 35:14, 15 to Idumeans, Mount Seir was the home of Esau). The Lord has prophesied: “Come, MY People, enter thou into thy chambers (countries) and SHUT THY DOORS ABOUT THEE: hide thyself as it were FOR A LITTLE MOMENT, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh cu t of His Place to punish the inhabitants of the ea rth for their iniquity.” (Isa. 26:20, 21). We are told "For a little moment," “Because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth," (Rom. 9:28). Further, in the "Protocols of Zion,” it is stated th a t “THEY” must teach "NO racial discrimina tion," so th a t when they crown their so-called “sovereign lord of all the world,” in Zion, the youth of the Goyim (Gentiles) will have lost their patriotism, and will refuse to fight for their own countries against him. Sir W alter Scott wrote: “Breathes there a man with soul so dead, Who never to himself ha th said: ‘This is mine own, my Native Land’?” I t is this spirit of patriotism in the AngloSaxon-Celtic Race which the Zionist propaganda is endeavouring to kill, so th a t through their controlled U.N.O., they will cause us to .sign over our national sovereignties to th a t organization, and will thus destroy the power of the Anglo-Saxon Race, and then through it, des troy the white race. The Lord purposely put "enmity” between the "seed of the serpent” and the “Seed of the Wo m an,” (Genesis 3:15, For Serpent, see Revelation 12:9. “For their rock (Satan) is not as our Rock.” (Christ) Deut. 32:31, Note I Cor. 10:4.)' "Seed of the Serpent,” “Not as Cain, who was of th a t Wicked One,” I John 3:12, “The Tares are the children of the Wicked One; the enemy th a t sowed them is the devil.” Matt. 13:38, 39, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the Truth, be cause there is no tru th in him .” John 8:44, “One of you is a devil,” i.e. Judas Iscariot, (John 6:70), so th a t the "Seed of the Woman,” (“And she (Eve) bare a son, and called his name SETH: (Hebrew for APPOINTED) "For God,” said she, “h a th APPOINTED me another SEED instead of Abel, whom Cain slew,” (Genesis 4:25) would have nothing to do with the “Seed of the Serpent,” (“and w hat concord h a th Christ with Bel-ial?” (Children of Baal, i.e., Satan. I I Cor. 6:15, or the Christian Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Race with the atheistic Communists or with the “Syna gogue of Satan’’?) nor would they allow the "Seed of the Serpent” to infiltrate into their governments to destroy them from within. I t is this “emnity” against th e “Seed of the Serpent” which the "Synagogue of S atan ” are try ing to kill through their propaganda for “NO racial discrimination,” with th e intention, as stated by Rabbi Rabinovich, of destroying the white race through it. Thus we see th at “THEY” still retain their enmity against the white race, whilst removing through propaganda our Di vinely-given protection against such a result. Let us therefore, accept Our Lord’s Command: “Come, MY People, (Jacob) enter thou into thy chambers, (countries) and shut thy doors about thee.” (Isa. 26:20, 21, note, “Come out of her, MY People, th a t ye be not partakers of her sine, and th a t ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev. 18:4), retiring from the Zionist-controlled U.N.O.. until the Lord destroys the "Seed of th e Serpent," as outlined in M atthew 13:40-43. “For Esau is the end of the world (system); and Jacob is the be ginning of it th a t followeth." (II Esdras 6:9 Apocrypha.) Our Lord Jesus Christ promised: “AT THAT DAY (of Christ) ye SHALL ask in My Name: and I say unto you, th a t I WILL pray the F ath er for you.” (John 16:26, note II Chron. 20: 14 15 �15, 20-25, Jerem iah 31:7). Should we not there fore accept this Promise, and pray th a t the Lord will deliver us from the Zionist-Communist peril, as they have so worked themselves into our gov ernments, State Departments, and into every act ivity of our countries th a t we can of ourselves do nothing against the synagogue of Satan. (Note John 15:5). Let us therefore pray Our Father in the Name of His Son, Jesus Christ (note Acts 4: 12) th a t He will deliver us from Satan and his synagogue. We are promised: “Repent, and be baptized EVERY ONE of you in the NAME of JESUS (Greek for Saviour) C hrist for the remission of sins, and ye SHALL receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Thus those'w ho accept this Great Free Gift will be safe when “sudden destruc tion cometh upon 'THEM’ ” of I Thossalonians 5:3. “The Good News of the Kingdom, however, shall be proclaimed throughout the whole Empire, as a witness to all nations: and THEN the END will come.” (of Satan’s world system) (Matt. 24:14. Fenton Translation.) 16 � 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 18: Personal Papers of Barbara Marx 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 Booklet, Plans of the "Synagogue of Satan", no date. 9 pages. Description An account of the resource Anti-Semitic tract from the British Israel Association of Greater Vancouver. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 18 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Eustace Mullins 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 unknown 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 18_2_1_16_25 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/1139e03e3dfc39e5625d2b7edbddd85b.pdf 3cf2b469b76765a0dd872ff8345379a5 PDF Text Text BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR BOND ISSUE OF $8,280,0 00 FOR DECISION BY THE VOTERS OF ARLINGTON COUNTY O M Y 27, 1952 N A �TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 11 Basic c o n s t r u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bond Referendum amount....................................... Building n e e d s . . . .................................. Building r e q u ir e m e n ts , S t a t e minimum............................. Building r e q u ir e m e n ts , S t a t e recommended................... Building s i z e .............................. Building t y p e . ........................ 10 2 2 6 7 11 11 Capacity needed....... .................. Class s i z e . ........................................... C onstruction economy........... .................................... Construction n e e d s . . ............................................................ Cost of bond i s s u e .................................................................... JB '• A dm inistra tion, b u i l d i n g . ......................... 9 10 11 2 4 Economical c o n s t r u c t i o n ................. 11 E f f ic ie n c y i n b u i l d i n g o p e r a t i o n ......................................10 Elementary f u t u r e sc h o o l s ..................................................... 9 Enrollment i n c r e a s e .................................................................. 1 Enrollment, u l t i m a t e . . . . . ................................ 8 Future school n e e d s ......................................... 8 Growth f a c t o r s .................................................... 1 Location of s c h o o l s .................................... .....1 0 Minimum S t a t e b u ild in g re q u ire m e n ts................. 6 Operating c o s t , sc hool................ 11 Pay-as-you-go Vs. P a y -a s-y o u -b u ild .............................. Planning school needs............................. P r i n c i p l e s , c o n s t r u c t i o n ................................ P r o j e c t s i n bond i s s u e .................................... 3 8 10 2 Remodeling................. School a n a l y s e s , elementary. School a n a l y s e s , j u n i o r high School a n a l y s e s , se nior high * 2 12 28 29 �TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Schools, elem entary Abingdon.. . . . . . .........24 M a r s h a l l . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 B a r c r o f t . . . . . . . .........21 Maury__ _____ __ . . . . . 18 B a r r e t t . „ . . „ . . , , . . . . 17 McKi n l e y ............. . . . . . 16 Brandon............... .........26 Monroe.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Che rrydale..................15 N o ttin g h a m .. , . . . . . . . 1 3 Claremont., . . . . . . . . 2 4 O a k rid g e ............ .........25 C la y ..................... . . . . 20 P a g e . ....... ............. . . . . . 18 P ic k ett.. . . . . . . .....2 6 C u s t i s ............. .... . . . . 2 5 F a i r l i n g t o n . . . . .........24 P o to m ac .............. . . . . . 2 5 Randolph.............. .........23 F i l l m o r e . ........... . . . . 2 0 Glencarlyn .......... . . . . 2 1 R e e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Henry..................... . . . . 22 S h i r l e y ........... .... . . . . . 2 6 S te w a rt.. . . . . . . . .. .. 1 3 Hoffman-Boston..........27 Ilume.___ . . . . . . .........25 T a y l o r . ................ . . . . . 1 4 Jackson............... ____ 17 T u c k a h o e .. . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Kemper___ _____.........27 W i l s o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Langston........... .., . . . . 2 7 Woodlawn.. . . . . . . . . . . 18 Lee....................... . . . . 16 Woodmont.______ . . . . . 1 5 Madison......... ....., . . . . 14 Yorktown.. . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Schools, secondary Gunston j u n i o r h i g h . . . .....2 8 Hoffman-Boston j u n i o r - se n io r h i g h __ . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 J e f f e r s o n j u n i o r high. .....2 8 Kenmore j u n i o r h i g h . .. .....2 8 Madison j u n i o r h i g h . . . S t r a t f o r d j u n i o r high. .........28 Swanson j u n i o r h i g h . . . Wakefield j u n i o r - s e n i o r h i g h __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 Washington-Lee high s c h o o l . ...................... .29 Williamsburg j u n i o r hig h ........... ................ 28 Secondary f u t u r e needs...................................................... S i t e s .................................................................... 2 S t r e e t c r o s s i n g s ........................... 10 Tax cost of bond issue 4 9 �- THESE ARE THE FACTS This bond i s s u e i s c o n s i s t e n t w ith the t o t a l county p la n which was de sig n ed t o meet the growing school needs. There has been no r e v i s i o n i n t h e estim ated number o f c h i l d r e n f o r whom th e schools must provide. There has been a time r e v i s i o n i n t h e sc he dule f o r b u i l d ­ ing p r o j e c t s t o meet the needs, because of the len g th o f time r e q u i r e d t o c o n s t r u c t a school b u ilding. (See "Schools f o r Our C h ild r e n ”) This r e v i s i o n i s in d ic a te d i n t h e p r o j e c t s d e s i g n a t e d f o r th e c u r r e n t bond proposal. The i n c r e a s e i n school p o p u l a t i o n continues, and t h e r e i s no immediate l e t up in s i g h t f o r t h i s s t e a d i l y mounting e n ro llm en t. Estim ated in c r e a s e s in t h e A r lin g to n schools f o r next F a l l , September 1952, based upon the number of c h i l d r e n a lre ady i n t h e county, i n d i c a t e t h a t : E n r o ll ­ ment continues to grow Elementary enrollm ent w i l l be 850 h ig h e r . Junior high enrollm ent w i l l be 400 h ig h e r . Senior high enrollm ent w i l l be 500 h ig h e r . Upon the b a s i s of a c t u a l p u p i ls i n school, the census m a t e r i a l s and t h e c u r re n t stu d ie s i n p o p u la tio n tr e n d s , th e School Board has been able t o make s c i e n t i f i c e stim a te s of f u t u r e enrollm ent. The accuracy of t h e s e e s tim a te s has been i l l u s t r a t e d by: Year 19501951- 51 52 Enrollments Estimate A ctual 16,100 16,081 17,400 17,418 Past e nrollm ent estim a te s j u s t i f y th e e x p ec ta tio n t h a t th e mounting school p o p u la tio n of 24,600 p r e d ic te d i n 1956-57 w i l l be r e a l i z e d i n f u l l measure. F a c to r s used i n determ ining estim a te s of p u p i l p o p u la tio n growth a r e : 1. 2. % PRESENT ENROLLM ENT i n grades 4 through 9 i s the b a s i s f o r e stim a te s f o r secondary enrollment between 1951-52 and 1954-55. These enrollm ent f i g u r e s give an e s t im a te d i n c r e a s e o f 2320 pu p ils i n th e secondary schools. BIRTHRATE i s r e f l e c t e d i n the e le m entary enrollm ent i n c r e a s e . While the n a t i o n a l b i r t h r a t e per 1000 popu latio n i n c r e a s e d 33% between 1940 and 1948, A r l i n g t o n 's b i r t h r a t e i n c r e a s e was 35%. The expected i n c r e a s e i n elementary enrollm ent from 1951-52 to 1954-55 due to in c r e a s e d b i r t h r a t e i s e stim a te d t o be 1132. 3. COM UNITY GROW during the above p e r io d i s r e f l e c t e d a l s o i n M TH in cre as ed elem entary enrollm ent. With an i n c r e a s e o f 3300 new one-family dw e llin g s, an e stim a te d 1320 new elem entary p u p i ls a re i n d i c a t e d . Growth factors �- 2- S ince sc h o o ls cannot be b u i l t quickly when needed because o f th e lap se o f tim e n e c e ssa ry f o r p lan n in g and b u ild in g , th e s e needs must be a n tic ip a te d and p rep ared f o r in advance. (See "S chools f o r Our C h ild re n ") In a d d itio n to th e classroom shortage p re d ic a te d upon in c re a s e d e n ro llm e n t, th e follo w in g e x is ti n g conditions must be a ll e v ia te d as soon as p o s s ib le : a. 1- C o n stru c t io n needs Double s h i f t s f o r 2,253 elem entary c h ild r e n , o r 20% o f th e elem entary e n ro llm en t in 1951-52. T h is number w i l l c o n tin u e to in c re a s e w ith o u t a d d itio n a l s c h o o ls . b. B u ild in g needs 1907 elem entary c h ild re n a re in m ak e sh ift classro o m s, o r 17% o f the e lem entary c h ild re n a re i n 66 tem porary classroom s in basem ents, a p artm e n ts, te a c h e r s ' rooms, m u lti-p u rp o se rooms, war su rp lu s b u ild in g s , l i b r a r i e s , and next y ear churches a g a in must be used. A number o f o ld e r sch o o ls la c k needed f a c i l i t i e s such as a dequate classroom s, h e a tin g p la n ts , l i b r a r i e s , c li n i c s and m u lti-p u rp o se room s. P ro v isio n s f o r rem odeling and re n o v atin g th o se sch o o ls which a re in a d e q u a te w ill h e lp to e q u a liz e e d u c a tio n a l programs th ro u g h o u t a l l A rlin g to n s c h o o ls . 2. Rem odelin g needs One needs only to to u r A rlin g to n County to f in d th a t s u i t a b l e v a c a n t land i s f a s t d isa p p e a rin g . With th is sh o rtag e o f good school s i t e s comes ever h ig h e r land c o s t. 3. S i t e needs The foregoing a re th e f a c t s upon which th e d e te rm in a tio n o f need f o r a $8,280,000 bond is s u e was reached by th e A rlin g to n County School Board. This amount w ill provide a combined two-year program which w i l l d e c re a s e th e u ltim a te c o n stru c tio n c o s ts , sin c e the la r g e r p r o je c ts th en w i l l not need to be b u i l t in two s e p a ra te p a r ts . E x perience shows th a t w henever a t o t a l b u ild in g i s c o n stru c te d as one u n it, i t i s more econom ical th a n when a d d itio n s must be added. Bonds a re not so ld u n t i l th e money i s a c t u a l l y needed to pay fo r c o n s tru c tio n c o n tra c ts . Bond Referendum $ 8 ,2 8 0 ,0 0 0 $8.280.000 1. in bond monies w ill p ro v id e : Elem entary school c o n s tru c tio n : Tuckahoe B a rc ro ft A dd itio n L angston A dd itio n Page (2nd U nit) T aylor Madison A ddition Henry A d dition 14 classroom s in th e G le n c a rly n a re a Bond c o s t .................... $2 .9 3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2. Secondary school c o n s tru c tio n : W akefield (2nd u n it) W ashington-Lee remodeling Thomas J e f f e r s o n remodeling Bond c o st W illiam sburg J u n io r High Hoffraan-Boston rem odeling Swanson rem odeling $4.500.000 ..00 Bond m onies p r o v id e �-3 - 3. Remodeling, based upon a r c h i te c tu r a l, e n g in e e rin g and e d u ca tio n a l a n a ly s e s , to perm it th e b e s t p o s s ib le u se of o ld er sc h o o ls. Bond c o s t ..................... $250.000.00 4. S ite s needed f o r sch o o ls now and f o r f u tu r e e s tim a te d re q u ire m e n ts. Bond c o s t ..................... $600.000.00 This bond is s u e of $8,280,000 i s e q u iv a le n t to $ 4,140,000 each y e ar f o r two y e ars. There a re a number of re a so n s why schools o fte n a re and should be financed by bond is s u e s . Two o f th e s e reasons a re : 1. Since th e se sc h o o ls w ill be used o v e r a long p e rio d of tim e, i t i s o nly f a i r th a t t h e i r c o st be spread and th a t th e g e n e ra tio n s who w i l l sh a re t h e i r use a ls o share t h e i r c o s t. When p u p il in c r e a s e i s such t h a t se v e ra l new sch o o ls are needed each y e a r, th e con­ s tr u c tio n c o s t i s too g re a t to be borne in an annual budget. 2. Financing th e c o n s tru c tio n o f sc h o o ls by is s u in g bonds perm its use o f needed b u ild in g s w h ile t h e i r c o s t i s being p a id . T his i s not u n lik e th e c i t i z e n who buys h is home on an in sta llm e n t payment b a s i s . He, to o , uses th e b u ild in g he is buying, s u b s ti t u ti n g payments toward ow nership fo r re n t r e c e i p t s . Bond fin an c ed schools a re not p ro h ib itiv e ; th ey do not p e n a liz e th e c it i z e n beyond h is a b i l i t y to pay a f a i r share o f th e c o s t. P ay -asyou-use vs. P a y -a sy o u -b u ild �COST OF BO D ISSUE N COST OF THE $ 8 ,2 8 0 ,0 0 0 BOND ISSUE On a 25 y e ar repayment plan a t 2% i n t e r e s t , $331,200 o f th e p r i n c i p a l w i l l be paid each y e a r and th e average i n te r e s t per y e a r w i l l be a p p ro x im ate ly $ 8 6 ,1 0 0 . T his i s a t o t a l o f $417,300 a n n u ally . The p re se n t a ss e s s e d v a lu a tio n o f r e a l and p e rso n al p ro p e rty in the County i s $272,097,571. On th e b a s is o f 95% c o l l e c t i o n of any ta x r a t e a sse ss e d , each one cent per $100 p e r a sse ss e d v a lu a tio n w i l l b r in g in $25,849. To r a i s e $417,300 w i l l re q u ire , th e r e f o r e , an o v e r - a l l in c r e a s e i n th e tax r a te o f 16.14 c en ts per $100 o f assessed v a lu a tio n . EFFECT OF AN INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE OF 10.70 CENTS PER $100 ASSESSED VALUATION O A $15.000 HOM ASSESSED AT 40%,0R $6.000, TO RETIRE THE BOND ISSUE. N E An in c re a s e of 16.14 c en ts in the ta x r a t e per $100 o f a s s e s s e d v a lu a tio n w i l l in c re a s e th e amount of ta x e s to be paid on a home a sse sse d a t $ 6 ,0 0 0 , a t o t a l of $9.68 p e r y ear. W A IT W U COST TO RAISE A $1,000.000 O A "PAY-AS-YOU-GO" PLAN HT O LD N Every in c re a se o f one cen t in the ta x r a t e p e r $100 o f a s s e s s e d v a lu a tio n on th e p re se n t t o t a l a sse ss e d v a lu a tio n based on 95% c o lle c tio n o f th e County w i l l brin g in $25,849. To r a i s e a m illio n d o lla r s , th e r e f o r e , would r e q u ir e an in c re a s e of 38.69 c en ts per $100 of a sse ss e d v a lu a tio n . EFFECT OF THE INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE OF 38.69 CENTS PEP $100 REQUIRED TO RAISE $1.000.000 O A $15.000 HOM ASSESSED AT 40%. OR $ 6 .0 0 0 . N E An in c re a s e of 38.69 c en ts in the t a x r a t e p e r $100 o f a s s e s s e d v a lu a tio n w i l l in c re a s e the amount o f ta x e s to be paid on a home a sse sse d a t $6,0 0 0 a t o t a l of $23.21. COMPARISON OF BO D ISSUE PLAN AND PAY-AS-YOU-GO PLAN N I f you paid an in c re a s e of $9.68 n e x t y e a r on a $15,000 home a s s e s s e d a t $6,000, th e r e would be a v a ila b le $8 280,000 f o r school c o n s tru c tio n on a bond is s u e p lan . I f you paid an in c re a s e o f $23.21 next y e a r on a $15,000 home a s s e s s e d a t $6,000, th e r e would be $ 1,000,000 f o r school c o n s tru c tio n on a "p a y -a s-y o u -g o " p lan . TOTAL COST OF A BO D ISSUE VERSUS A PAY-AS-YOU-GO PLAN N The co st p e r y e a r on a $15,000 home a sse ss e d a t $6,000 to r e t i r e a $8 280,000 Bond Issu e in 25 y e ars i s $9.68. The t o t a l c o st f o r th e 25 y e a rs a t th e same r a t e i s 25 tim es $9.68 o r $242.00. The co st on a "pay-as-you-go" plan on a $15,000 home a s s e s s e d a t $6,000 to r a i s e $1,000,000 i s $23.21. To r a is e $ 8 ,280,000, th e t o t a l c o s t would be 8 .2 8 tim es $23.21 o r $192.18. -4 - �-5 - ■ " On th e bond issu e p lan you pay $9.68 each y e a r f o r 25 y e a r s , o r a t o t a l o f $242.00. On a "pay-as-you-go" p la n , to r a is e th e same amount o f money would re q u ire a t o t a l o f $192.18 to be a l l p a id in one y e a r. The d if f e r e n c e i n t o t a l c o st i s th e re fo re $49.82. I t i s to be p o in te d out th a t bond is s u e s v o te d a r e so ld as needed. I l l u s t r a t i o n : The bond is s u e of $4,750,000 i n 1948 was s o ld i n two p a r ts , $2,500,000 in 1949 and $ 2 ,2 5 0 ,0 0 0 in 1950. I t i s to be p o in te d o u t f u r t h e r th a t in t h i s comparison i t i s assumed t h a t th e t o t a l a sse ss e d v a lu a tio n o f th e County w i l l rem ain the same, which i s d o u b tle ss a f a l s e assum ption. I f th e t o t a l a sse ssed v a lu a tio n of the County in c re a s e s each y e a r, (as i t has i n th e p a s t) then th e amount to be paid on a $15,000 home a sse ssed a t $6,000 to r e t i r e th e bond is s u e w ill d e c re a s e . For exam ple: suppose th e t o t a l a sse ss e d 1952-53 v a lu a tio n i s $300,000,000 in s te a d of th e $272,097,571 i t i s f o r th e y e ar b e g in n in g J u ly 1, 1952. Then each one cent in c re a s e i n th e ta x r a te w i l l b rin g in $28,500 a t 95% c o lle c tio n s in s te a d of $25,849. To r a i s e $417,300 (th e amount needed each y e a r to r e t i r e th e bond issu e ) w i l l th e r e f o r e re q u ire a t a x r a t e o f 14.64 c e n ts p e r $100 of a sse ss e d v a lu a tio n . T h e re fo re , on a $15,000 home a sse sse d a t $6,000 in th e year 1952-53 th e in c re a s e in ta x e s would be $8.7 8 in s te a d o f $9.68 o t 90 c e n ts le s s . �MINIMUM STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOL BUILDINGS Under th e C o n s titu tio n o f the Commonwealth o f V irg in ia , th e G e n e ra l Assembly i s charged w ith th e r e s p o n s ib ility of e s t a b l i s h i n g and m a in ta in in g an e f f i c i e n t system o f p u b lic f r e e schools throughout th e S t a te , and th e g e n e r a l su p e rv isio n o f th e school system i s vested in a S t a te Board o f E d u ca tio n . A S ta te S u p e rin te n d e n t o f P u b lic In s tru c tio n i s a p p o in te d by th e G overnor, whose d u tie s a re p re s c rib e d by th e S t a te Board of E ducation. (A rtic le IX, S ections 129, 130, 131 o f th e C o n s t i tu t i o n .) Under t h is a u th o r ity th e General Assembly has re q u ire d t h a t : "No p u b lic schoolhouse s h a ll be c o n tra c te d fo r, e re c te d , o r added to , u n t i l th e plans and s p e c if ic a tio n s t h e r e f o r s h a ll have been sub m itted to and approved in w ritin g by th e d iv is io n su p e rin te n d e n t of schools and th e p lan s and s p e c i f i c a ­ tio n s f o r such b u ild in g o r any a d d itio n have been approved by th e S u p e rin te n d e n t of P u b lic I n s tr u c tio n ." (S e c tio n 22-152 of th e 1950 Code o f V ir g in ia .) (Note: D iv isio n S up erin ten d en t i s th e c ity or county school s u p e rin te n d e n t; th e S u p erin ten d en t o f Public I n s t r u c ti o n i s the S t a te school s u p e rin te n d e n t.) The S ta te Board o f E ducation has e s ta b lis h e d r u le s and r e g u la ti o n s r e l a t i v e to c o n stru c tio n o f school b u ild in g s. Mandatory Minimum R equirem ents SITES: School b u ild in g s i t e s a re se le c te d in accordance w ith S t a te R e q u ire ­ ments f o r School B u ild in g s. "In no case s h a l l th e s i t e c o n sist o f le s s than f iv e a c re s p lu s one acre fo r each one hundred p u p ils o f a n tic ip a te d u ltim a te enrollm ent fo r elem entary schools, and te n a cres p lu s one a c re f o r each one hundred p u p ils of a n tic ip a te d u ltim a te e n ro llm e n t f o r high sc h o o ls. In lie u of p ro v id in g th e amount o f space s p e c if ic a lly f o r playground a reas as re q u ire d above e q u a lly s a tis f a c to r y p la y a re a s reasonably a c c e s s ib le to th e sch o o l b u ild in g w ill be a c c e p ta b le ." (R e g u la tio n s of S ta te Board o f E ducation, "Minimum R equirem ents and S tan d ard s fo r School B u ild in g s" IV b 5 .) Exceptions to th e above requirem ents may be made only by th e S u p e rin te n d en t of P u b lic I n s t r u c ti o n of the Commonwealth o f V ir g in ia , and th e s e only under c o n d itio n s o f e x ce p tio n a l h a rd sh ip to th e community c o n ce rn ed . - 6- �-7 COMPLETE UNIT; "Eyery school b u ild in g h e r e a f te r designed and c o n s tru c te d s h a l l provide d e f in i t e l y f o r fu tu re e x te n sio n s o r enlargem ents, making th e i n i t i a l u n i t con­ s tr u c te d as n e a rly a complete u n i t as p ra c tic a b le . The p ro v is io n f o r f u t u r e ex­ te n s io n s must be d e f in ite ly co ntem plated and in d ic a te d so th a t such e x te n s io n s w ill not r e q u ire expensive a l t e r a t i o n s . The fo reg o in g s h a l l a ls o a p p ly to an a d d itio n to a b u ild in g u n le ss th e a d d itio n w ill d e f i n i t e l y make th e t o t a l b u ild ­ ing a com plete u n i t." (R e g u la tio n s of S t a te Board o f E d u ca tio n , "Minimum Requirem ents and S tan d ard s f o r School B u ild in g s" - I I ( d ) ) . M ANDATORY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOL CONSTRDCTION: The S ta te of V irg in ia has se t f o r th minimum requirem ents f o r th e con­ s tr u c tio n o f a l l public school b u ild in g s i n V irg in ia which cover th e fo llo w in g d e ta iIs ; f i r e sa fe ty re g u la tio n s e n tra n c e s, e x it s , c o rrid o rs classroom lig h tin g room darkening equipment s a n ita ry f a c i l i t i e s classroom bookcases and te a c h e rs ' c lo s e ts lib ra ry classroom w idth c e i l in g h e ig h t w ardrobes and lo c k e rs v e n ti l a t i n g and h e a tin g doors and locks e l e c t r i c a l work a rt fa c ilitie s Minimum Recommended Requirem ents In a d d itio n to th e mandatory ru le s and r e g u la tio n s re q u irin g adherence to minimum requirem ents f o r school b uildings th e S ta te Board o f E ducation has e s ta b lis h e d 14 recommended minimum requirem ents f o r comprehensive e lem entary and secondary sch o o ls. (Minimum Requirements and S tan d ard s f o r School B u ild in g s o f R e g u la tio n s o f S ta te Board o f Education, 22-152 to 22-160, Code o f V ir g in ia .) New A rlin g to n County schools meet a l l mandatory minimum re q u ire m e n ts, but do not meet a l l of th e recommended minimum re q u ire m e n ts. St', -J �THE END IS IN SIGHT FORECAST OF ULTIMATE ENROLLM ENT A D ULTIMATE SCHOOL BOILDING NEEDS N S c h o o l C a p a c ity in T h o u s a n d s high e s tim a te 4 2 YEARS '49 '53 '5 7 '61 '6 5 ’69 '7 3 '7 5 PLANNING FOR FUTURE SCHOOL NEEDS The p ro je c ts in c lu d e d in th is bond is s u e a re f u r th e r s te p s tow ard com­ p le tin g A rlin g to n 's school f a c i l i t i e s to meet th e s te a d ily in c r e a s in g number o f p u p ils . Elementary E nrollm ent 1947-48 7,226 1951-52 11,438 1955-56 14,000 The elem entary enro llm en t i s expected to le v e l o f f a t a f i g u r e betw een 14,000 and 15,000 p u p ils . J u n io r-S e n io r High E nrollm ent 1947-48 4,191 1951-52 5,980 1955-56 9,400 1960-61 13,200 The Ju n io r-S e n io r High enrollm ent i s expected to re ac h a le v e l of e n ro llm en t a t between 13,000 and 14,000 p u p ils . - 8- �-9 Bond is s u e s p re v io u sly a u th o riz e d have made i t p o s s ib le to i n c r e a s e school c a p a c ity from 9,230 to 16,220, a t o ta l in c re a s e of 7,000 p u p i l s . Year 1947 1948 1951 Bond A u th o riz a tio n $1,776,000 4,750.000 4,875,000 These p re v io u s bond issu e s have fin a n c e d the fo llo w in g school c o n s tr u c tio n in A rlin g to n : E lem entary: Abingdon, G len early n , Yorktown, O akridge, HoffmanB oston, McKinley, Clarem ont, Nottingham ; a d d itio n s to B a r r e t t, Jackson (2 ), Randolph, Woodlawn, Reed, Kemper, and th e C herrydale annex. Secondary: S t r a tf o r d , W akefield ( f i r s t u n i t ) , and a d d itio n s to Hoffman-Boston J u n io r-S e n io r High, and to W ashingtonLee High School. The bond issu e proposed a t t h i s tim e w i l l ' in c re a s e c a p a c ity an a d d itio n a l 4,$2,0 bringing th e t o t a l c a p a c ity to 2D,540 I t w i l l p ro v id e a lso f o r e s s e n t ia l remodeling in o ld e r schools and th e a c q u is itio n o f s i t e s which we s h a l l need. Capaci ty needed The growth in enro llm en t from 1955 to 1960 i s f o r e c a s t to be le s s ra p id th an from 1948 to 1954, The funds needed f o r c o n s tru c tio n w i l l be le s s . A fte r 1960 i t i s a n tic ip a te d th a t e n ro llm en t w i l l be c o n sta n t o r th a t i t w i l l in c re a s e slow ly. A fte r th a t date i t may be p o s s ib le to meet b u ild ­ ing needs from o perating fu n d s. (See c h a rt, page 8) The p ro je c te d elem entary enrollm ent o f 14,000 expected i n 1955-56 w i l l be approaching the maximum. Growth in elem en tary en ro llm en t a f t e r th a t date w i l l be slow, 100 to 200 a y ear, giving an a ll - t im e maximum between 14,500 and 15,000 before 1960. (See "Growth F a c to rs " page 1 .) In a d d itio n to new elem entary schools s p e c if i c a l ly p ro v id ed f o r in t h is bond is s u e , probably only 3 more w ill be needed - Jamestown, Ashlawn and Potomac. These th re e should be b u ilt when th e a rea s th ey a re to se rv e a re more f u l ly developed. When th e value o f W ilson school f o r comm ercial purposes in c re a s e s to a p o in t th a t i t can be s o ld fo r enough to b u ild a new school o f the same s iz e , t h i s w i l l be done. Future elem entary b u ild in g s O therw ise, in c re a s e in cap a city can be accommodated by r e l a t i v e l y in ex p e n siv e a d d itio n s to p re s e n t schools. Such a d d itio n s should be made to re p la c e approxim ately 40 m akeshift classioom s t h a t s t i l l w i l l be i n use in 1954-55, and to provide f o r a k in d erg arten program when A rlin g to n f e e l s able to a f fo r d i t . Ju n io r and s e n io r high school e n ro llm en t w i l l in c re a s e r a p id ly u n t i l 1960 when i t w ill be about 13,200. In c re a se s, i f any, a f t e r th a t y e ar w i l l be sm a ll. P re se n t plans to accommodate the 1960 j u n i o r high enro llm en t o f 6800 a re ; 350 a t Hoffman-Boston; 650 a t Swanson; 1000 a t S tr a tf o r d ; 800 a t J e f f e r ­ son; 1400 a t Kenmore; 1400 a t Gunston; and 1200 a t W illiam sburg. (See map.) P resent p lan s to accommodate the 1960 s e n io r high e n ro llm en t o f 6400 a re : 300 a t Hoffman-Boston; 2100 at W ashington-Lee; 2000 at W akefield and 2000 a t Yorktown, W akefield w i l l be used fo r both j u n i o r and s e n io r high p u p ils u n t i l th e se n io r high e n ro llm en t i s larg e enough to f i l l the b u ild in g . F uture secondary b u ild in g s �MEETING ARLINGTON SCHOOL NEEDS Basic P rin c ip le s The lo c a tio n and th e s iz e of each o f th e 38 elem entary s c h o o ls needed f o r an u ltim a te e n ro llm en t o f 14,000 to 15,000 p u p ils in v o lv e s c a r e f u l c o n s id e r a tio n and the w eighing o f many f a c t o r s . C onsistent w ith th e s tu d ie s made by th e a d v is o ry c o u n cils on c o n s tru c tio n , d i s t r i c t i n g and tra n s p o r a tio n , as w e ll as o th e r groups working i n t h i s a re a , th e School Board has adopted seven g u iding p r i n c i p l e s as th e b a sis f o r d eveloping the A rlin g to n County School c o n s tru c tio n p la n . 1. An av erag e elem entary c la s s s iz e of 30 p u p ils should be our c o n tin u in g g o a l . Since many classroom s in "o ld e r" schools a re s m a lle r th an th o se b e in g b u i l t now, f u t u r e planning i s based upon a d ju s tin g c la s s s iz e to th e room s i z e . The most freq u e n t reason f o r in e q u a litie s betw een th e programs o f v a rio u s schools i s excessive overcrow ding in some s c h o o ls . I t i s th e p o l ic y o f the Board to p revent e x c e ssiv e overcrowding in in d iv id u a l schools by a d ju s tin g d i s t r i c t lin e s in o rd e r t h a t each school may assume i t s p r o p o r tio n a te sh a re o f th e county-w ide o v e rlo a d . These ad ju stm en ts o f d i s t r i c t l i n e s each y e a r w i l l be h e ld to a minimum. The disad v an tag es o f such o c c a sio n a l s h i f t s a re le s s s e rio u s and a f fe c t a sm a lle r number o f p u p ils than does an e x c e s s iv e overlo ad in one school which could be shared by a n o th e r. Such a p la n p e rm its a b e t t e r c o n tro l over average c la s s s iz e . I t a ls o means th a t sc h o o ls which te m p o ra rily are not overcrowded w ill become so i f schools a re not b u i l t to tak e c are o f excess e n ro llm en t in o th er p a r t s o f th e county. 2. Elem entary schools should be lo ca ted whenever p o s s ib le w ith in w alking d is ta n c e (one m ile or le s s) f o r a l l p u p i ls . T his p r in c ip le in v o lv e s choosing proper lo c a tio n s f o r sch o o ls so t h a t th e s iz e o f any one school may be such th a t no p a r t o f th e d i s t r i c t i t s e rv e s i s more th an approxim ately one m ile from the sch o o l. As new schools a re b u i l t and as s t r e e t s and sidew alks a re com pleted, bus tr a n s p o r ta tio n f o r e le m e n ta ry p u p ils should be la rg e ly e lim in a te d . 3. The number of c h ild re n c ro ssin g main th o ro u g h fare s should be kept a t a minimum. In th e i n t e r e s t of s a f e ty and convenience th e School Board w ish es t o av o id as f a r as p o s s ib le hazardous s t r e e t c ro ssin g s. However, i t i s not p o s s ib le to lo c a te schools so as to e lim in a te a l l c ro s s in g o f h e a v ily t r a v e l l e d thorough­ f a r e s . For th ese c h ild re n th e re w ill need to be t r a f f i c l i g h t s o r p o lic e p r o te c tio n . 4. E x is tin g b u ild in g s should be used w ith maximum e f f ic ie n c y . F u tu re planning must s t a r t w ith what we have. In o ld e r b u ild in g s much can be done to provide f a c i l i t i e s f o r a fin e e d u c a tio n a l program. F o r exam ple, a school now may have a " lim ite d " program f o r 325 p u p ils because o f b u ild in g lim i ta t io n s . By red u cin g th e p u p il load to 275 and by doing some re m o d e lin g , th e program r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed by the b u ild in g i t s e l f can be removed. S in c e some of the 66 "tem porary" classroom s now in use a re a d eq u a te , p la n s f o r th e years im m ediately ahead, 1953 to 1956, a re based on c o n tin u e d use o f 15 to 30 of th e more s a t is f a c to r y of th e s e rooms and o f te n to f i f t e e n classroom s th a t a re p a r t o f temporary housing p r o je c ts . - 10- �- 5. 11- Type and s i z e of building should in su re economical c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s . In s i t u a t i o n s where c o n d itio n s w i l l permit a s e l e c t i o n between a l t e r n a t i v e methods o f providing needed f a c i l i t i e s , new schools which might o t h e r w i s e be 14 rooms w i l l be i n c r e a s e d i n s i z e to 20 o r 22 rooms. T h is w i l l be done i n s t e a d o f small a d d it i o n s t o " o l d e r " schools or t h e b u i l d i n g o f f o u r room schools, because recent e x p e r ie n c e has proved t h i s t o be s u b s t a n t i a l l y more economical. This po lic y i s c o n s i s t e n t with t h e c a r e f u l study and recommenda­ t i o n s o f both the school s t a f f and th e school c o n s t r u c t i o n a d v i s o r y c o u n c i l . 6. Elementary schools should be normal u n i ts of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i . e . , k i n d e r g a r te n through s i x t h grade or i n m u l t i p l e s of t h i s s i z e . With s i x grades atte nding elem entary schools t h e r e i s one room f o r each grade i n a s i x room bu ild in g ; two f o r each grade i n a twelv e room b u i l d i n g and t h r e e i n an e ig h t e e n room b u i l d i n g . Since A r lington hopes t o have k i n d e r g a r te n s some time i n the f u t u r e , t h e "normal" u n i t s become 7, 14, and 20 rooms. An exception i s found in a re a s where many of th e r e s i d e n t s l i v e i n a p artm e n ts. In such a r e a s the number o f c h il d r e n i n th e p rim ary y e a r s , 1, 2, and 3, u s u a l ly exceed those i n g ra des 4, 5, and 6. In such area s "normal" u n i t s may be 16 or 22 rooms i n s t e a d o f 14 or 20. 7. Siz e o f b u ild in g s should permit economical o p e r a t in g c o s t . C u s t o d i a l , heating and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s a r e h ig h e r f o r two ten classroom b u ild i n g s than f o r one 20 classroom b u i ld in g . Experience shows th a t a p r i n c i p a l and a l i b r a r i a n , with t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f a c l e r k , can provide e f f e c t i v e leadership and a s s i s t a n c e f o r a school w ith 20 te a c h e r s and 600 p u p i ls . I f th e s a l a r i e s of t h i s s t a f f t o t a l approxim ately $13,000, th e annual c o st p e r p u p il i s $21.67. Since a school with 14 t e a c h e r s and 420 p u p i ls also needs a p r i n c i p a l , a l i b r a r i a n and a c l e r k , t h e c o s t pe r p u p i l becomes $30.95. In a twelve t ea ch e r school w ith 360 p u p i ls i t becomes $36.11. I t i s obvious t h a t th e smaller th e school, t h e more expensiv e i s i t s o p e r a t io n . The a l t e r n a t i v e of having t h i s s t a f f se rv e two schools p r e s e n t s many problems. Assuming a p o lic y of having a p r i n c i p a l , l i b r a r i a n , and c l e r k i n of 300 or more p u p ils , th e saving over a f i f t y y e a r p e rio d i s o f p o r t a n c e . During such a p e r io d , a 20 room school w i l l save more $750,000 when compared with th e o p e r a t io n a l c o s t o f two te n room 8. each school r e a l im­ than b u ild in g s. School d i s t r i c t s should be reviewed a n n u a lly . In r e c o g n i ti o n of A r lin g to n " s mobile p o p u l a t i o n , i t i s c o n s i s t e n t with good planning t h a t t h i s p o l ic y be followed. �EXPECTED ELEM ENTARY AREA MEMBERSHIP ig ^ l-W S Z TO \9 5 5 -l9 5 fc (ACCORDING TO \9St-52. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL D\STR\CT5) I * INCLUDES, POUR SPECIAL CLASSES AT HUME O OftTHOPEEHC CUSSES A T -, EP/SO/V ,* +/3 _____________________________________ 2 0 �I NOTTINGHAM I ST E W A PT -^v I TUCKAHOEJ r pao —— |n '63 0 '7 ^ A fr y e r s L \ /le e S ^ ^ l \ no EXPECTED FI FMFM TARY SC O L MEMBERSHIP HO I 9 5 5 — 1956 (ACCORDING TO 1955-5fe E*RECTCD E.UMEM7AKT SCHO L WSVWCTSjj O © OKWOTOAC CLASSES AT EDISON = 20 �ANALYSIS OF PUPIL DISTRIBUTION IN ELEM ENTARY SCHOOLS Membership i n th e elementary sc hools a t th e p r e s e n t time i s 11,438. In th e proposed Bond I s s u e , plans fo r ele m entary sc hools extend through the year 1954-55 at which time the expected membership w i l l be 13,900. The f o llow ing m a t e ri a l e x p la in s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u r r e n t membership in ele m entary schools and p r o j e c te d plans f o r meeting membership i n c r e a s e s in 1955-56. For planning purposes, the County can be d iv id e d i n to f i f t e e n a r e a s on th e ba sis of the p r e se n t elementary white schools. - 12- �-13- AREA NO. 1 - STEW ART. NOTTINGHAM A D YORKTOW (Tuckahoe) N N The number of school children in t h i s a r e a a t th e p r e s e n t tim e i s 814. By 1955-56, i t i s a n ti c ip a te d t h a t t h e number of school c h i l d r e n in t h i s a r e a w i l l be 1340. Increasing the a r e a t o in c lu d e some c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t l y a tt e n d in g Lee and McKinley Schools w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e t o t a l number of c h i l d r e n to 1540 by 1955-56 There are, a t th e present time, t h r e e sc hools in th e a r e a S te w a rt, Nottingham and Yorktown, All th e c h i l d r e n a tte n d in g t h e Nottingham and Yorktown Schools now are going t o the Yorktown School on a double s h i f t b a s i s . F u tu r e planning r e q u i r e s anoth er e le m en tary sc hool i n the a r e a - the Tuckahoe School. S te w a rt and Tuckahoe Schools The Stewart School has four permanent and two temporary c l a s s ­ rooms which can be continued in use. The membership a t th e p r e s e n t tim e i s 200 with some of t h e c h il d r e n in the a r e a a t t e n d in g Reed S c hool. In f u t u r e planning a small a r e a should be added to in clu d e some c h i l d r e n who a r e p r e s e n t l y a tte n d in g the Lee and McKinley Schools. The a n t i c i p a t e d membership f o r t h e Stew art area w i l l be a p p r o x i­ m ately 630 and a new sc hool - the Tuckahoe, w i l l need t o be c o n s t r u c t e d . Tuckahoe School The proposed Tuckahoe School, f o r 420 elementary c h i l d r e n , sh ould c o n ta i n 14 classrooms, m ulti-purpose room, te a c h e r s'r o o m , c l i n i c , a d m in is­ t r a t i v e o f f i c e s and s e r v i c e f a c i l i t i e s . Nottingham School Under c o n s t r u c t i o n a t the p r e s e n t time i s the Nottingham School a t Nottingham and L i t t l e F a l l s Road, which i s a complete sc hool f o r 640 c h i l d r e n . Nottingham School i s expected t o be open in the F a l l o f 1952. The c h il d r e n i n t h i s a r e a a r e p re sen tly a t t e n d i n g the Yorktown School on a double s h i f t b a sis. Yorktown School Yorktown School conta ins nine classrooms and i s to be a p a r t of a f u t u r e senior high school. I t s continued use u n t i l 1957 o r 1958 as an elementary school w i l l permit some 270 c h i l d r e n to a tt e n d t h e s c h o o l. �-14- AREA NO. 2 - M ARSHALL AND MADISON (Taylor) The number of sc hool c h ild r e n i n t h i s a r e a a t th e p r e s e n t time i s 746 with an a n t i c i p a t e d i n c r e a s e to 1300 by 1955-56. There a r e a t p r e s e n t two schools in th e a r e a - Marshall and Madison. In o r d e r t o house the c h il d r e n i n t h i s a r e a , a new school - T ay lo r, w i l l be r e q u i r e d . This school w i l l also r e l i e v e an i n c r e a s e d enrollment i n th e Cherrydale-Woodmont area. Marshall Marshall School has two b uildings - one c o n ta in in g 10 classrooms and one c onta ining 7 c la ssroom s; one of the seven should not be continued i n use. The normal c a p a c i t y of these two b u i l d i n g s i s 480 and i t i s ex­ pected by 1955-56 t h a t th e enrollm ent w i l l be approxim ately S i0 Madison Madison School c o n ta in s four classrooms and one temporary room which can be continued i n u se . In the proposed Madison a r e a , t h e r e i s a p o t e n t i a l enrollment of approximately 450 by 1955-56. An a d d it i o n t o th e Madison School of 10 classrooms, m ulti-purpose room, t e a ch e rs'ro o m , c l i n i c , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s and se r v ic e f a c i l i t i e s w i l l be r e q u ir e d i n o r d e r to accommodate the enrollm ent i n the area. Taylor A new school w i l l be required i n t h e Marshall-Madison a r e a - th e T aylor School. The a r e a to be served by t h i s school i n c lu d e s c h i l d r e n who a r e p r e s e n t l y a tte n d in g Madison, Marshall, Cherrydale and Woodmont. A s i t e has been purchased near M i l i t a r y Road and North 26th Road i n c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e County. The County w i l l use p a r t o f t h e s i t e f o r a r e c r e a t i o n a l a r e a . The in creased enrollm ent in t h i s a r e a by 1955-56 w i l l r e q u i r e a 14 qlassroom build ing, m u lti-p u rp o se room, teachers''room , c l i n i c , a d m i n i s t r a ­ t i v e o f f i c e s , and s e r v i c e f a c i l i t i e s . Two l a r g e housing p r o j e c t s under c o n s t r u c t i o n in t h i s a r e a make imperative t h e immediate c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h i s school build ing f o r approximately 450 p u p i l s . �-15- AREA NO. 3 - CHERRYDALE AND W O M N OD OT The number of school children i n t h i s a r e a a t the p r e s e n t tim e i s 557 w ith an a n t i c i p a t e d in cre as e to approxim ately 670 by 1955-56. Child ren i n t h i s area a r e p r e s e n t l y a tte n d in g t h e two schools - C h e r r y d a l e and Woodmont. A dd itio n a l f a c i l i t i e s fo r th e i n c r e a s e d en ro llm en t w i l l need t o be provided a t t h e new Taylor School. In a d d it i o n , some o f t h e c h il d r e n p r e s e n t l y in th e Cherrydale-Woodmont a r e a should be t r a n s f e r r e d to the Page School area t o a f f o r d a d d it i o n a l r e l i e f a t th e C h e rry d ale School. Cherrydale Cherrydale has two bu ild in g s on t h e same s i t e , one of which c o n s i s t s o f e ig h t classrooms and the o th e r f o u r . The rooms a t th e Che rrydale School are sm all and the normal c a p a c i t y of t h i s b u i l d i n g i s 320. When the proposed T ay lo r School and t h e Page School, which a r e t o be c o n str u c te d , are completed, the enrollm ent a t Cherrydale can be r e ­ duced to approximately 340 by 1954-55 so t h a t th e pre sen t two b u i l d i n g s can house th es e c h ild r e n on a normal b a s i s . The old Cherrydale School, however, needs c o n s i d e r a b le remodeling t o provide f a c i l i t i e s such as a teachers'r oom , adequate o f f i c e sp ace, l i b r a r y and adequate t o i l e t space. F a c i l i t i e s should a ls o be p r o v id e d in th e f u t u r e f o r a school lunch program. Woodmont The Woodmont School contains f o u r permanent classrooms and two temporary classrooms, one of which should be d i s c o n tin u e d . When t h e T aylor School i s c o n s t r u c t e d i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the e nrollm ent a t th e Woodmont School by 1954-55 w i l l be approxim ately 140. This number can be accommodated i n the p r e s e n t b u ild in g . When th e enrollm ent i s reduced t o 140 i t w i l l permit b e t t e r use of the p r e s e n t b u i ld i n g f a c i l i t i e s . �16- AREA NO. 4 - LEE. REED, AND McKINLEjj The number of sc hool c h ild r e n i n t h i s a r e a a t th e p r e s e n t time i s 1395 with an a n t i c i p a t e d i n c r e a s e to 1600 by 1955-56. Three sc h o o ls serve t h i s a r e a - Lee, Reed, and McKinley. When some c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t l y a tte n d in g Reed and McKinley Schools are t r a n s f e r r e d t o th e Tuckahoe School, and c h il d r e n now a tte n d in g th e Lee School a r e t r a n s f e r r e d to t h e Nottingham School, th e enrollments i n t h e s e t h r e e schools w i l l be reduced. Some of the c h i l d r e n who now a t t e n d t h e McKinley School w i l l need, i n t h e f u t u r e , to be housed i n a new school - Ashlawn. Lee Lee School c o n ta i n s four classrooms and two temporary basement rooms - one of which should not be continued i n use as a classroom. The s i x t h grade c h ild ren i n t h i s a r e a are a t t e n d i n g Walter Reed School. When the c o n s t r u c t i o n of Nottingham School i s completed, i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e to reduce th e number of c h il d r e n a t t e n d i n g Lee School to approxim ately 140, which w i l l be the a n t i c i p a t e d enrollm ent by 1955-56. Reed The Reed School contains e ighte en classrooms and two temporary rooms. Four of the classroom s are being used on a double s h i f t . Some of t h e s e c h il d r e n come from the present Stewart School and Lee School a r e a s . With the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Tuckahoe School i n the S te w a rt School a r e a and the completion of the Nottingham School, the enrollm ent a t Reed can be reduced to approxim ately 620 by 1955-56. This enrollm ent would r e ­ q u i r e 20 classrooms which a re a v a ila b le . McKinley The McKinley School contains 14 c lassroom s. Three classrooms a re being used on a double s h i f t basis in o r d e r t h a t an enrollm ent of 500 c h il d r e n can be accommodated. The b u i l d i n g i s designed f o r a normal c a p a c i t y of 400 By 1955-56 i t i s estim a te d t h a t the enrollm ent at McKinley School w i l l be approximately 460. and t h i s number can be accom­ modated i n the p re sen t 14 classroom b u i l d i n g . F u rth e r pupil i n c r e a s e s can be provided f o r when t h e Tuckahoe School i s c o n str u c te d , and a t a f u t u r e d a t e a new school to th e south, the Ashlawn School, w i l l be needed f o r approxim ately 450 c h i l d r e n . �-17- AREA NO 5 - JACKSON AND BARRETT The number of school children i n t h i s a r e a a t th e p r e s e n t tim e i s 1152 w ith an a n t i c i p a t e d in c re a s e to approxim ately 1380 by 1955-56. There a r e two schools i n th e area - Jackson and B a r r e t t . Jackson Jackson Elementary School has 14 permanent classrooms and two temporary classrooms. F ive of the rooms a r e used on a double s h i f t b a s i s a t t h e p r e se n t time. An a d d i t i o n of four classrooms and m u lt i - p u r p o s e room i s under c o n s t r u c t i o n making a t o t a l o f 20 classrooms. I t i s a n t i c i ­ pate d t h a t the membership of t h i s school w i l l be approximately 610 so t h a t the p r e s e n t f a c i l i t i e s t o g e t h e r with the f a c i l i t i e s being c o n s t r u c t e d w i l l house the expected number of stu d e n ts . B a rrett The B a r r e t t School has 16 permanent classrooms and 4 tem porary classrooms. Two of th e f o u r temporary rooms should not be use d as c l a s s ­ rooms, leaving 18 classrooms a v a ila b le . The p r e s e n t membership i s 684, some of which are from th e Page School a r e a . The a n t i c i p a t e d enrollm ent i n 1955-56 i n the B a r r e t t School area of 540 i s dependent upon th e c o n stru c tio n of a d d i t i o n a l classrooms t o the west a t a fu t u r e Ashlawn School. �— J.U AREA NO. 6 - W O LA N M O D W . AURY AND PAGE The number of sc hool c h ild r e n in t h i s a r e a i s 735 and t h e a n t i c i p a t e d enrollment by 1955-56 w i l l be approxim ately 750. At p r e s e n t t h e r e a re two schools i n t h e a r e a - Woodlawn and Maury. In a d d i t i o n , a temporary b uilding of two classrooms on the o ld Page s i t e i s s t i l l i n u se . Contracts a r e expected t o be l e t i n the near f u t u r e f o r th e f i r s t u n i t of a new Page School, c o n s i s t i n g of eig ht c la ssroom s, m u lt i - p u r p o s e room, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s , c l i n i c , l i b r a r y and s e r v i c e f a c i l i t i e s . Some of the s t u d e n ts i n t h i s a r e a a r e p r e s e n t l y a t t e n d in g Jackson and B a r r e t t S c h o o ls. In order to p rovide s u f f i c i e n t f a c i l i t i e s f o r th e 750 c h i l d r e n i n th e area an a d d itio n o f 12 classrooms w i l l need t o be provided i n th e new Page School immediately. Woodlawn The Woodlawn School conta ins s i x permanent classrooms and two temporary classrooms. One classroom i s bein g used on a double s h i f t . The school has a membership a t p r e s e n t of 264. I t i s expected t h a t , because o f t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of a d d i t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s i n the a d jo in in g a r e a , the Woodlawn a r e a w i l l have an e n r o l l ­ ment of 180 in 1955. This number can be accommodated i n th e p r e se n t b u i l d ­ ing, and i t w i l l permit remodeling of p r e s e n t f a c i l i t i e s to in clu d e such improvements as a l i b r a r y , o f f i c e space and o t h e r space to meet program ne ed s. Maury Maury School has e ig h t classrooms and the p r e se n t membership i s 266. I t i s a n ti c ip a te d t h a t by 1955-56 a membership o f 2J0 can be main­ t a i n e d i n t h i s bu ild in g . I t i s hoped t h a t a d d it i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s such as a te a c h e r s'r o o m , c l i n i c , o f f i c e space and f a c i l i t i e s f o r th e school lunch program can be provided by remodeling e x i s t e n t space w i t h in th e b u ild in g . New Page A s i t e has been purchased and p l a n s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s drawn f o r a new Page School f o r a replacement o f t h e old Page School which was r e c e n t l y sold f o r enough t o b u ild e ig h t cla ss ro o m s , m u lti-p u rp o se room, c l i n i c , teachers'room , and a d m in is tr a tiv e o f f i c e s , as w e ll as s e r v i c e fa c ilitie s. By 1954-55, i t i s expected t h a t t h e r e w i l l be an enrollm ent i n t h e a r e a to be served by th e t o t a l Page School o f approximately 570, which w i l l r e q u ir e 20 classrooms. Plans have been so prepared t h a t th e b u i ld i n g can be b u i l t in two p a r t s . Funds are a v a i l a b l e only f o r t h i s f i r s t p a r t of th e b u ilding, but th e e n t i r e school i s needed immediately. I f t h e t o t a l school i s c o nstructed, i t can serve some o f t h e c h il d r e n p r e s e n t l y a t t e n d ­ in g Woodkiawti, Cherrydale, Monroe, Jackson and Maury Schools. I t w i l l then be p o s s i b l e f o r t h i s b u i ld i n g to provide f a c i l i t i e s which w i l l permit us to l i m i t the number of c h ild r e n atte nding t h e s e o l d e r s c h o o l s , now ove r­ crowded. �-19- AREA NO. 7 - M ONROE AND IVILSON The i s 663 and i t Plans t o ta k e c h il d r e n from number of school c h ild ren in t h i s a r e a a t the p r e s e n t tim e i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the enrollm ent by 1955-56 w i l l be 760. care of t h i s enrollment involve t h e t r a n s f e r of some o f t h e the pre sen t Monroe School to th e new Page. Monroe Monroe School c o n ta in s 12 classrooms and has a t th e p r e s e n t time a membership of 392. The classrooms i n t h i s school a re sm a ll, and the normal c ap a city of t h i s b u ild in g i s approxim ate ly 325-340. When t h e new Page School i s c o n s t r u c t e d , i t i s e stim a te d t h a t the a r e a se r v e d by the Monroe School can be such t h a t a t o t a l e n ro llm e n t of 340 can be ex­ pected in 1954-55. The p r e s e n t building needs remodeling i n o r d e r t o provide a d d i t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s such as l i b r a r y , te a c h e rs'ro o m and c l i n i c . Wilson The Wilson School has e ig h t permanent and one temporary c l a s s ­ rooms f o r a p re sen t membership of 276. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t th e enrollm ent i n t h i s school w i l l be approximately 260 by 1954-55. Although i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e r e w i l l be an i n c r e a s e i n the number o f c h i l d r e n i n the pre sen t Wilson School a rea , t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e new Page School i s expected t o perm it lim i ti n g t h e Wilson enrollm ent t o 260. With th e f a c i l i t i e s a t Page a v a i l a b l e , the Monroe a r e a w i l l be s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced, and, i n turn, b e t t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n of p u p i l loads w i l l a f f e c t Wilson. The Wilson School i s loca ted on Wilson Boulevard and w i l l even­ t u a l l y need to be r e p la c e d because of the encroachment of b u s i n e s s a r e a s . A s i t e should be purchased immediately so t h a t when th e Wilson School i s so ld , a new s i t e w i l l be a v a i l a b l e . �- 20- AREA NO. 8 - CLAY. FILLMORE i s 374. The number of sc hool c h ild r e n in t h i s a r e a a t the p r e s e n t time I t i s a n ti c ip a te d t h a t the number w i l l i n c r e a s e to 420 by 1955-56. There i s at th e p r e s e n t time one sc h o o l i n the a r e a - t h e Clay School, and one school under c o n tr a c t - the F i l lm o r e , Clay The Clay School has classroom which should not be f o r an enlarged bu ild in g , but f a c i l i t i e s , such as, l i b r a r y , 10 permanent classrooms and one temporary continued i n u s e . The s i t e i s inadequate remodeling t h i s b u i l d i n g can provide b e t t e r teachers'r oom , o f f i c e space and c l i n i c . Fillmore Fillm ore i s under c o n tr a c t and i s expecte d to be f i n i s h e d by the F a l l of 1952, I t i s a primary school of f o u r classrooms with a sm all m u lti-p u rp o se room, k i tc h e n and school lunch f a c i l i t i e s . This sc hool and Clay a re expected to take care of the c h i l d r e n i n t h i s a rea . �- 21- AREA NO. 9 - GLENCARLYN. BARCROFT The number of c h il d r e n in t h i s a r e a a t t h e p r e s e n t tim e i s 730 and t h e a n t i c i p a t e d enrollm ent by 1955-56 w i l l be 1060. A d d i t io n a l f a c i l i t i e s w i l l be needed i n the area to p ro v id e f o r t h i s i n c r e a s e d en­ r o llm e n t. Glencarlyn Glencarlyn School contains six cla ssroom s and now has a member­ ship of 258. Four of th e s i x classrooms a r e used on a double s h i f t b a s i s . Eight a d d i t i o n a l classrooms should be c o n s t r u c t e d i n th e G le n c a r ly n a r e a , which, with the six classrooms i n use, w i l l p ro v id e f a c i l i t i e s f o r 450 c h i l d r e n . Some of the c h i l d r e n who l iv e i n t h i s a r e a w i l l a t t e n d t h e new Claremont School when i t i s completed in t h e F a l l of 1952. This w i l l enable an extension of th e B a r c r o f t School a r e a , and thereby r e l i e v e t h e overlo ad i n the Henry School. The t o t a l a n t i c i p a t e d enrollm ent i n t h i s area a f t e r d i s t r i c t a djustm ents are made w i l l be approxim ately 1000. Barcroft B arcroft School has eight permanent and four temporary c la ss ro o m s , two o f which should not be used. An a d d it i o n of s i x classrooms and a m u lti-p u rp o se room are needed a t the B a r c r o f t School f o r an a n t i c i p a t e d enrollm ent of approxim ately 490. �- 22- AREA NO. 10 - HENRY The Henry School a r e a a t the p re sen t time has 693 c h i l d r e n , and i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d th a t t h i s a r e a w i l l have approxim ately 780 by 1955-56. Henry School has 18 permanent and f i v e temporary cla ssroom s. Three of the temporary classrooms should not be used. By adju s tm e n ts i n th e a tt e n d a n c e areas of B arcroft and Henry Schools, the a n t i c i p a t e d enrollm ent a t Henry i n 1955-56 w i l l be approxim ately 660. This membership w i l l r e q u i r e 22 classrooms. There should be c o n stru c te d i n t h e Henry School a m u l t i ­ purpose room, and four a d d i t i o n a l classrooms, and space i n th e p r e se n t b u ild in g should be remodeled t o provide f o r a t e a c h e r s ” room, c l i n i c and more adequate o f f i c e space. �-23- AREA NO. U - RANDOLPH The number of c h il d r e n in t h i s a r e a a t th e p r e s e n t time i s 441 and i t i s a n ti c i p a t e d t h a t the enrollment w i l l be approxim ately 480 by 1955-56. Randolph School has 12 permanent and f i v e temporary c la s s r o o m s , two of which are on double s h i f t . Because o f overcrowding i n nearby schools, th e pre sent membership of Randolph i s 586. With th e c o m ple tion of th e Claremont School i n th e F a l l of 1952, th e enrollm ent a t Randolph can be reduced, and i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e enrollm ent then w i l l be approxim ately 410. Twelve rooms i n the p r e s e n t b u i ld i n g , t o g e t h e r w ith one o f th e temporary rooms, which i s s u i t a b l e f o r continued u se , w i l l accommodate t h i s enrollm ent. �-24- AREA NO. 12 - FAIRLINGTON. ABINGDON. CLAREM ONT The number of c h i l d r e n i n t h i s area a t t h e p r e se n t tim e i s 954 and i t i s a n ti c ip a te d t h a t t h e enrollment by 1955-56 w i l l be 1120. The Claremont School, now being c o n str u c te d in t h i s a r e a f o r occupancy i n t h e F a l l of 1952, w i l l provide needed a d d it i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . F a i r li n q t o n F a i r li n g t o n School has 16 permanent and two temporary c l a s s ­ rooms with a membership of 572. When the Claremont School i s completed, the enrollm ent a t F a i r l i n g t o n School can be reduced to approxim ately 480, and th e pre sen t building w i l l accommodate t h i s number. Some remodeling of t h i s b u ild in g should be done to provide a more adequate c l i n i c , t e a c h e r s ' room and f a c i l i t i e s f o r a school lunch program. Abingdon The Abingdon School has ten c la ssroom s, four of which a re being used on double s h i f t s , f o r an enrollment of 404. With th e completion of the Claremont School, t h e enrollm ent a t Abingdon i s expected to be about 310, and the build ing i s adequate fo r t h i s number. Claremont The Claremont School i s under c o n s t r u c t i o n and w i l l c o n ta in 16 classrooms, a m ulti-purpose room, l i b r a r y , t e a c h e r s ' room, c l i n i c , ad­ m i n i s t r a t i v e and s e r v i c e f a c i l i t i e s . The c a p a c i t y of t h i s school w i l l be 480 and w i l l provide needed f a c i l i t i e s f o r c h i l d r e n now a tt e n d in g th e B a r c r o f t , Randolph, F a i r l i n g t o n and Abingdon Schools. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h i s building w i l l be adequate f o r th e a n t i c i p a t e d enrollm ent of approximately 500 c h il d r e n in 1955-56. �-25- AREA NO. 13 - OAKRIDGE. CUSTIS. H M (Potomac) UE The number of c h il d r e n i n t h i s a r e a , e xcluding th o se i n t h e S h i r l e y Homes, i s 660. I t i s a n ti c ip a te d t h a t t h i s enrollm ent w i l l be approxim ately 800 by 1955-56. There are two sc hools i n the a r e a Oakridge and Custis, with some c h ild ren from t h e S h i r l e y Homes a t t e n d i n g Oakridge. Oakridge The Oakridge School has ten classrooms. The membership a t the p r e s e n t time i s 343. The attendance a r e a o f th e Oakridge School i n c lu d e s c h il d r e n in Arna V a lle y who w i l l a t t e n d th e Brandon School (th e former Dolly Madison J u n i o r High School) when i t becomes a v a i l a b l e in 1953. The present Hume School located i n t h e Oakridge a r e a i s being used f o r e x ce p tio n a l c h i l d r e n who w i l l a tt e n d t h e Page School. When Page i s completed the Hume School building w i l l then be a v a i l a b l e f o r two primary classrooms, or approximately 60 c h i l d r e n . The use o f th e Hume School to g eth e r with th e Oakridge b u i ld i n g w i l l provide f o r an a n t i c i p a t e d enrollment of 370 i n 1955-56. Custis The Custis School has ten classrooms and two temporary rooms. Both temporary rooms should not be used. The p r e s e n t membership i s 362. When t h e Wakefield J u n i o r - S e n i o r High School i s completed and th e p r e s e n t Dolly Madison Junior High can be conve ted i n t o th e Brandon Elementary School, the area served by th e present C u stis enrollm ent can be reduced. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t th e membership in th e C ustis School w i l l a p p r o x i ­ mate 280 i n 1955-56. Potomac Potomac School i s planned i n the f u t u r e to provide f a c i l i t i e s f o r t h e a r e a now known as th e Brick Yard. When t h a t area i s developed i n t o apartment u n i t s , t h e s i z e of the school and enrollm ent w i l l depend on t h e type of apartments c o n stru c te d in t h e a r e a . �-26- AREA NO. 14 - PICKETT AND SHIRLEY (Brandon) The P ic k e tt and S h i r l e y Homes have a t p r e s e n t 600 c h i l d r e n . I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t , i f t h e s e housing developments c o n tin u e , t h e r e w i l l be approxim ately 700 c h i l d r e n i n the area i n 1955-56. P ic kett The P i c k e tt School has f i v e temporary classrooms w ith an en­ rollm e nt of 154. When th e Brandon School i s opened f o r ele m entary school use , i t can be used f o r t h e upper elementary g ra des i n P i c k e t t School, and t h e s e temporary rooms then can be used f o r primary c h il d r e n . The enrollm ent i n 1955-56 i s a n t i c i p a t e d to be 100 i n t h i s primary school. S h irley S h ir le y School, i n c lu d in g the Jeb S t u a r t School, has ten temporary classrooms, one o f which i s on a double s h i f t . The p re sen t membership i s 306, The f i f t h and s ix th grade c h i l d r e n from S h i r l e y now are a t t e n d in g the Oakridge School. When the Brandon School i s a v a i l a b l e f o r elementary school use, th e present S h i r l e y School can be c onverted i n t o a primary school f o r approximately 260 c h i l d r e n , and the upper grades w i l l a tt e n d th e Brandon School. Brandon When the Wakefield Ju n ior-S e nior High School i s completed, t h e p r e s e n t Dolly Madison J u n i o r High School w i l l become the Brandon Elemen­ t a r y School. The completion of the Wakefield School i s a n t i c i p a t e d by the F a l l of 1953. The Brandon School w i l l r e l i e v e t h e P i c k e t t , S h i r l e y and Oak­ r i d g e Schools. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d th a t th e enrollm ent i n the Brandon School w i l l be approximately 630 in 1955-56, and t h i s b u ild in g i s su f ­ f i c i e n t l y large to accommodate t h i s e n ro llm en t. �-27- AREA NO. 15 - LANGSTON. KEMPER, HOFFMAN-BOSTON There a re t h r e e elementary colo red schools l o c a t e d i n t h r e e s e c t i o n s of the county. The pre sent membership i n t h e s e t h r e e sc h o o l s i s 742. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the e nrollm ents w i l l i n c r e a s e t o ap­ p roxim ately 800 by 1955-56. Langston The Langston School now has f o u r permanent classrooms and one temporary room with a membership of 173. This membership i s ex­ pected t o i n c r e a s e to approxim ately 200 by 1955-56. An a d d i t i o n o f two classrooms and a m u lti-p u rp o se room, i n c lu d e d i n th e proposed bond i s s u e , a r e re q u ire d to accommodate the a n t i c i p a t e d enrollm ent and to provide th e needed f a c i l i t i e s of a t e a c h e r s ' room, c l i n i c and a d m inis­ tra tiv e office. Kemper Kemper School has t e n classrooms w ith one classroom being used on a double s h i f t b a s i s . The pre sent membership i s 356. The enrollm ent i n t h i s school i s a n t i c i p a t e d t o be approxim ately 380 by 1955-56. There i s now under c o n str u c tio n a t t h e Kemper School an ad­ d i t i o n c o n ta in in g t h r e e classrooms, a m u lti- p u r p o s e room, and a t e a c h e r s ' room. This ad d itio n , t o g e t h e r with the p r e s e n t rooms, w i l l accommodate the enrollm ent a n t i c i p a t e d by 1955-56. Hoffman-Boston Hoffman-Boston Elementary School has s i x classrooms w ith a p r e s e n t membership of 203. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the membership i n t h i s a r e a w i l l in cre as e t o approximately 220 by 1955-56. The p r e s e n t b u i l d i n g i s adequate to t a k e c a r e of t h i s e n r o ll m e n t . �! I k e y : /9 S //S 2 - M EM BEPSH IP( M A D ISO ^ G09 /95//S2 70/25S/SZ E P C E XE TD CPAE&ii MMEMBERSHIP 19S S /E & E X P E C TS # M EM BER SH IP -,-4-91 TTOO / ' ee y x r i ) /* * E P C D M \O H H S H O MEMBERSHIP X E TE R IG C O L 1951/52-1955/5fc (ACC.ORDMG TO (951-52. JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS)! ���-28- JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the j u n i o r high school e n r o ll m e n t i n A r lington County w i l l be approximately 6800 by 1960. T his w i l l r e q u i r e a t o t a l of six or seven j u n i o r high schools. At the p r e s e n t time th ere a re f o u r j u n i o r high sc h o o l s : S t r a t f o r d , with a normal c ap a city of 1,000; J e f f e r s o n , w ith a normal c a p a c ity of 630; Swanson, with a normal c a p a c i t y of 600; and Dolly Madison, with a normal c a p a c ity of 570. When th e Wakefield J u n i o r S e n io r High School i s completed, the Dolly Madison Ju n io r High School w i l l become the Brandon Elementary. School. Under c o n s t r u c t i o n a t the p r e s e n t time i s the f i r s t u n i t of t h e Wakefield J u n i o r - S e n i o r High School, which w i l l accommodate approxi­ mately 1400 s tu d e n ts . By 1954-55 a t l e a s t one new j u n i o r high sc hool, Williamsburg, w i l l be require d i n th e northern p a r t o f t h e county f o r an estim a te d enrollm ent of approxim ately 1200. After th e second u n i t of the W akefield J u n i o r - S e n i o r High School, included i n t h e Bond I s s u e , i s completed, th e W akefield J u n i o r S e n io r High School then w i l l accommodate approxim ately 1200 j u n i o r high school students and 800 se n io r high school s tu d e n ts . By 1960, two a d d it i o n a l j u n i o r high sc hools w i l l be needed: one i n the western c e n t r a l p a rt of th e county, to be known as the Kenmore Junior High School, and one i n t h e southern p a r t o f th e county, t o be known as the Gunston Junior High School. Each of t h e s e j u n i o r high schools should have an approximate enrollm ent of 1200 to 1400. At t h a t time, the Wakefield Ju n ior-S e nior High School w i l l be used e n t i r e l y f o r se n io r high school students. A r e p o r t on Hoffman-Boston J u n i o r - S e n i o r High School i s i n ­ clu ded under "Senior High Schools" (next p a g e ) . �-29- SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The a n t i c i p a t e d enrollment of s e n i o r high school s t u d e n t s i n 1960 w i l l be approxim ately 6400. At th e p r e s e n t time t h e r e i s one w hite s e n i o r high school - Washington-Lee, w ith an enrollm ent of 2300. This s e n i o r high school enrollm ent w i l l i n c r e a s e g r a d u a l ly between now and 1960, a t which time i t i s expected to l e v e l o f f . Under c o n s t r u c t i o n at the p r e s e n t time i s the W akefie ld J u n i o r Senior High School w ith a capacity of 1400. This school i s scheduled t o be completed by th e F a l l of 1953. T h is school w i l l accommodate a pproxi­ mately 400 senior high school students t h a t y e a r . When an a d d i t i o n i s c o n str u c te d to complete t h i s b u ilding, f o r a t o t a l c a p a c ity o f 2000, th e number of se n io r high school students t h a t can be accommodated w i l l i n ­ c rea se to 300. As th e re q u ire d j u n i o r high schools are c o n s t r u c t e d , th e Wakefield J u n io r - S e n io r High School w i l l be converted t o t h e W akefield S e nior High School t o accommodate the 2000 s e n i o r high s t u d e n t s i n th e southern p a r t of t h e county. By 1960, a t h i r d senior high sc hool f o r 2,000 s t u d e n t s w i l l be needed i n the n o r th e r n p a r t of the county. This w i l l be l o c a t e d on th e Yorktown School s i t e , and the present b u i l d i n g of nine cla ssroom s w i l l be a p a r t of t h a t new s e n i o r high school. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e s e t h r e e high schools w i l l s e rv e th e u ltim ate e nrollm ent of se n io r high school s t u d e n ts in the county. lioffman-Boston Ju n i o r - S e n i o r High School The iloffman-Boston J u n io r-S e n io r High School i s t h e c o lo r e d secondary school i n th e county. At p r e s e n t i t has e ig h t permanent c l a s s ­ rooms plus a shop b u i ld i n g and two classrooms i n a temporary b u i l d i n g . Under c o n s tr u c tio n i s an a d d itio n i n c lu d in g a gymnasium, c a f e t e r i a , o f f i c e space, home economics and shop f a c i l i t i e s . The t o t a l a n t i c i p a t e d e n r o l l ­ ment i n the Hoffman-Boston Ju n io r-S e n io r High School w i l l be approxim ately 650 i n 1960. To accommodate t h i s t o t a l u l t i m a t e enrollment an a d d i t i o n of s i x t o e ig h t classrooms w i l l be needed. �-30- <? $2,500,000 OF THE BONDS VOTED APRIL 17, 1951 REMAIN UNSOLD The $2,500,000 remaining to be s o ld of the $4,875,0 00 bonds, which were a uthorize d by referendum on A p r il 17, 1951, have been com­ m it t e d . The c o n t r a c t s on V/akefield J u n i o r - S e n i o r High School and F illm o r e Elementary School were the f i n a l committments a g a i n s t th e s e bonds i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y . These unsold bonds are completely l e g a l and v a l i d , but they cannot be sold advantageously u n t i l such time as the A r lin g to n County Board i s f r e e from l i t i g a t i o n . The r e ason f o r t h i s i s as f o l l o w s : The bonds concerned are a p a r t of the bond i s s u e f o r schools which was r e ­ q ue sted by o f f i c i a l a c t i o n of the County Board. T h ere fo re, t h e s e bonds must be signed, p r i o r t o s a l e , by the chairman of the County Board. At t h i s time, the o f f i c e of th e present chairman of the County Board i s being contested. Mr. P ershing, o f th e M itche ll and Pershing bond a t t o r n e y s i n New York, has s t a t e d t h a t t h e p resent l i t i g a t i o n i n v o lv in g th e County Board would not a f f e c t t h e s a le of any sc hool bonds approved by th e v o t e r s in accordance with r e s o l u ti o n s adopted by the School Board and approved by the Judge of th e C i r c u it Court as r e q u e ste d by a p e t i t i o n from the v o ters . The p r e s e n t proposed bond i s s u e has been r e q u e s te d by th e School Board follow ing t h e i r r e c e ip t o f a c i t i z e n p e t i t i o n signed by more than 2000 v o t e r s . Under t h i s procedure, n e i t h e r s i g n a t u r e nor o t h e r actio n by th e County Board i s n e c e ssa r y i n orde r t o s e l l t h e bonds so requested. �SCH OOL CO N STRU CTIO N 1948-52 A p r il 5, 195? R evenues Bond I s s u e v o te d May 1947 ................. .$ 1 ,7 7 6 , 0 0 0 Bond I s s u e v o ted 'N o v . 1948 ........................ 4, 7 5 0 , 000 Bond I s s u e v o ted A p r. 1951 ............................. 4, 8 75, 000 ($2, 500, 000 not y e t sold) S ta te fu n d s (B a ttle m o n e y ) ............................. 1, 005, 158 P a g e S c h o o l S a le ........................................... 385, 793 T o ta l $ 12, 7 91, 951 C o n s tru c tio n A c c o u n t and a ll o th e r S c h o o l fu n d s a r e a u d ite d a n n u a lly . C o p ie s of a u d its a r e a v a ila b le fo r in s p e c tio n a t th e S c h o o l A d m in is tr a tio n O ffic e o r a t the C ounty M a n a g e r's O ffice in th e C o u rt H o u s e . 1948 49 a u d it by Roy H, H a lq u is t, A rlin g to n , Va 1949-50 a u d it by Roy H. H a lq u is t, A rlin g to n , V a. 1950 -51 a u d it by T. C o le m a n A n d re w s , R ich m o n d , Va. SCHOOLS C O M P L E T E D D ISB U R SEM EN TS N am e L and Cost, A rc h ite c ts Fees F i n a l C o st(^ ) B ld g C o n tr. E q u ip & \O th e r E xp. T o ta l t A bingdon A dm , B ld g . B a r r e t t A dd. C h e r r y d a le (re m o d e lin g ) G le n c a rly n J a c k s o n Add,#l O a k rid g e R an d o lp h Addl R eed Add. S tra tfo rd W -L C a f e te r ia (A ddition) W oodlaw n A d d . L and & Sew er Y orktow n T o ta ls $ 19, n o $ 19 290 $ C o st of b ld g , r sm odelm g w as p a id fo r out of o p e ra tin g fu n d 40 15,5 6 5 - o 63, 712 2 .7 3 4 12. 953 90, 685 155 31,529 6 389 2 2 ,6 7 2 10 281 2 2 .7 9 6 77 642 316,756 289, 414 $ 1 1 ,3 6 6 $ 3 6 6 ,5 2 2 289, 414 2 5 7 ,4 9 5 5, 258 278, 358 45, 565 215, 044 1 8 2 ,0 6 1 3 4 2 .8 7 1 169, 211 379. 407 1, 5 1 0 ,4 7 6 445 4. 563 48, 744 296, 272 18 2 ,0 6 1 468, 479 183, 924 441, 303 1 ,6 1 5 ,6 1 2 12, 251 4, 277 7, 571 21, 105 * 4 ,4 3 3 4 4 ,0 2 8 7 1 .9 3 9 5, 906 34, 166 17. 400 288, 412 1 6 .4 4 5 7, 363 56, 010 7 1 ,9 3 9 , 2 2 ,3 5 1 347. 341 #■251, 692 ^ 0 5 . 766 *4, 112, 679 £98, 193 *4, 668 330 7 549 (1) In c lu d e s p a y m e n ts w ith h eld p e n d in g c o r u - tio n s in w o rk , a d ju s tm e n ts f o r p e n a ltie s , change o r d e r s and p a y m e n t f o r la te d e liv e ry of e q u ip m e n t. A ll a d ju s tm e n ts h a v e now b e e n m ade. �SCHOOLS O C C U PIE D - FIN A L S E T T L E M E N T NOT M A D E T O D A T E T DISBU RSEM EN TS'A N D OBLIGATIONS TO D A T E A rc h ite c ts Fees L and c o s t N am e F i n a l C o s t , ,, B ld g . C c n tr E q u ip & O th e r E xp. -------- ------------1 r: '0 a : H -B E le m . M cK inley $10, 204 39, 561 $ b, 075 32,124 $166, 180 544,161 $ 1, 890 15, 213 $ 186. 34 9 6 3 1 ,0 5 9 T o ta ls $49,765 $ 40, 199 $71 0 , 341 $ 1 7 , 1 03 $81'<<4(T SCHOOLS UNDER C O N ST R U C T IO N D ISBU RSEM EN TS AND O BLIG A TIO N S TO D A T E H B H igh Add. W -L Add. C la re m o n t J a c k s o n Add. K e m p e r A dd. N o ttin g h a m 1 T o ta ls $ 935 142,984 26, 531 39, 840 12, 191 38, 536 $39, 755 75, 784 36.584 15, 486 16, 200 47, 925 $ 261,017 $231, 734 $ 5 6 4 .9 8 8 1, 2 35, 082 6 09, 741 2 58, 100 270, 000 673, 300 $3, 611, 211 $31, 25, 14, 3, 3, 14 115 000 712 848 000 353 $92, 028 $ 6 3 6 .7 9 3 1 ,4 7 8 , 849 ’ 687, 568 317, 274 301, 391 7 7 4 ,1 1 4 $4, 195, 990 PE N D IN G SCH O O L BU ILD IN G P R O JE C T S D ISBU RSEM EN TS AND O BLIG A TIO N S TO D A T E S te w a rt E d is o n (l) F i l lm o r e ( l) P a g e (1) W ak e fie ld J r . S r. H ig h (l) T o ta ls $ $ 20, 584 56, 468 175 000 $252.052 9 .4 6 5 5, 000(2) 7, 990(2) 18, 000(2) 125, 000(2) $• $ $ 9 465 75, 000 28, 574 385. 793 414,921 $ 9 1 3 ,7 5 3 70, 000(2) 300, 000(2) 111, 870 (G ra d in g O nly' $ 4 8 1 , 870 $ 1 6 5 ,4 5 5 (1) O ut f o r b id s (2) E s tim a te d 2 - 11, 325(2) 3, 051 $ 1 4 ,3 7 6 . �OTHER LAND PURCHASES S ites have been acquired or are in the p rocess of being acquired fo r T aylor, Stewart, Madison, M arshall, Monroe, Barcroft, and Kenmore S ch o o ls. T hese s ite s had to be acquired w hile the land was s till available. The total c o st d is ­ bursed or obligated for th ese s ite s is $182, 506. PRELIMINARY PLANS AUTHORIZED A rch itects have been em ployed to prepare prelim inary plans for B arcroft, Madison, Langston, Stewart, Taylor, W illiam sburg, and Yorktown. The estim ated co st for these s e r v ic e s is $81, 000. RECAPITULATION Schools Com pleted Schools Occupied Schools Under Construction Schools, C onstruction Pending Other Land A cquisition P relim in a ry P lans Authorized $ 4, 668, 330 817,408 4, 195, 990 913,753 182,506 81,000 Total D isb u rsem en ts & Obligations $10, 858, 987 Total R evenues Total D isb u rsem en ts & Obligations 12,79 1 ,9 5 1 10, 858, 987 Balance $ 1 ,9 3 2 ,9 6 4 Balance available for Wakefield Jr. -Sr. High School and F illm o re P rim ary School - $ 1 ,9 3 2 ,9 6 4 � 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 94, Arlingtonians for a Better County (ABC) Organizational Records 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 Booklet: "Background Information For Bond Issue Of $8,280,000 For Decision By The Voters Of Arlington County On May 27, 1952". Description An account of the resource Parts: 1. Table of Contents; 2. These are the Facts; 3. Cost of Bond Issue; 4. Minimum State Requirements for School Buildings; 5. Forecast of Ultimate Enrollment and Ultimate School Buildings Needs; 6. Meeting Arlington School Needs Includes Map of "Expected Elementary Area Membership, 1951-1956"; 7. Analysis of Pupil Distribution in Elementary Schools; 8. Three Maps; "Expected Junior High School Membership 1951/52-1955/56", "Expected Junior High School Membership 1960-61", "Expected Senior High School Membership 1960-61"; 9. Junior High Schools; 10. Senior High Schools; 11. $2,500,000 of the Bonds Voted April 17, 1951 Remain Unsold; 12. School Construction, 1948-52; 13. ther Land Purchases. Multi parts. 41 pages. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1952-05-27 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 94, Arlingtonians for a Better County (ABC) Organizational Records 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. nauthorized 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 94_1_1_2 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/ee22f193d3b60167d3949274aa380069.pdf 3ca90ac3dc88738044f287b42c8f3c37 PDF Text Text p _ W eflN U CCiiffilTEE FOB Plffliffi i - ■ BROAD BRACE ARCADE V ij. .,i; — ORGANIZING TO SAVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS... 19St, - H ow V ir g in ia n s r a llie d to th e d e t e n s e o t th e p u b lic s c h o o l s y s t e m in th e V irg in ia C o m m itte e to r P u b lic S c h o o ls / ?S? �F o rew o rd This story of the Virginia Committee for Public Schools, tells how citizens concerned over the safety of public schools in Virginia organized in a body 25,000 strong, and how this organization has played a significant part in meeting threats to the public school system of this state. The author is William Marion Lightsey, Executive Sec­ retary of the Virginia Committee for Public Schools, who was assisted by Dr. J. L. Blair Buck, President of that organization. M r. Lightsey is a native of South Carolina, now residing in Arlington, Virginia, who was until recently an official of the United States Department of Agriculture. H e has been a leader for many years in Parent-Teacher Association activities. H e was a charter member of the Arlington Committee for Public Schools and its President during the crucial fall of 1958. H e was active in the Virginia Committee from its inception. Dr. Buck was an official of the Virginia Department of Education from 1929 until his retirement in 1956. H e is the author of the historical work, “The Development of Public Schools in Virginia.” \ The Messenger Press Manassas, Va. �THE VIRGINIA COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS The Virginia Committees for Public Schools were not in­ tended to replace the Parent-Teacher Associations, the Virginia Education Associations, or other of those groups which have labored long and effectively on behalf of public education in Virginia. The Committees for Public Schools stepped in to fill a void left by the initial failure of other organizations, for a variety of reasons, to embark on the strong state-wide pro­ gram necessary to convince Virginia law-makers that Virgini­ ans did not want to sacrifice their public schools. Many members and leaders of the Committees for Public Schools are also members of the P-TA, the VEA, or other groups concerned with public schools and with the general welfare. The singleness of purpose of the Committees for Public Schools permits these members of other groups to par­ ticipate in the coordinated, fast-moving action program neces­ sary to meet an emergency. The purpose of the Virginia Committee for Public Schools is simply stated on its membership card: We affirm our determined support of free public education for every child in Virginia. We believe this should continue to be guaranteed by the Constitution of Virginia. ONE YEAR’S PROGRESS The movement began separately in several different com­ munities. It began first in Arlington in April, 1958, with a meeting of community leaders who were afraid their public schools would be closed in September under the state’s “ mas­ sive resistance” laws. It began in Charlottesville, Norfolk and Front Royal (W arren County), when the opening of public schools in those localities was prevented in September 1958. It began in Richmond, and other areas not immediately threatened with school closings, when it became evident in late 1958 that the courts would invalidate the “massive resistance” laws. The prospect that the General Assembly would be called into special session raised the danger of legislation threatening public schools. 1 �At the end of the first year, in July 1959 more than 25,000 white Virginia residents held membership in the Vir­ ginia Committee for Public Schools. Local Committees for Public Schools were organized and operating in fifteen cities and counties: Alexandria, Arlington, Blacksburg, Charlottes­ ville, Christiansburg, Fairfax-Falls Church, Lynchburg, Nor­ folk, Newport News and Peninsula Area, Radford, Richmond Rockingham County, Warren County, Washington County, and Waynesboro. Meanwhile, the Virginia Committee for Public Schools had had a profound and salutary effect upon legislation and state policy in Virginia. Arlington In the spring of 1958 a group of citizens met to assess the possible application of the Virginia “massive resistance” laws in Arlington County and to consider whether there was a need for a citizens’ organization other than groups like the Parent-Teacher Associations and the local Citizens Committee for School Improvement which already concerned themselves with school problems. It was decided that a new organization was needed to draw all segments and philosophies of the community together in support of a single objective: the prevention of the closing of the public schools in Arlington. O f basic importance was an initial decision that the policy of the organization would be to support neither segregation nor integration of the schools — and that this policy must be con­ tinually emphasized. From its inception the group included segregationists and citizens of many shades of opinion on this question. A fter several meetings and much discussion and planning, on May 1, 23 Arlington citizens issued the following statement: The undersigned Arlington citizens and parents, alarmed about the future of our public schools, have been considering ways and means to assure maintenance of public education in Arl­ ington next fall. This is necessitated by the prospective applica­ tion of Virginia State laws closing schools under Federal court action outlawing segregation. For this reason we have formed an interim Organizing Committee to Preserve Public Schools, and we invite all like-minded persons who share our concern to join us. We shall see that the public is kept fully informed on developments in this matter. 2 �The Organizing Committee has concluded so far: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. We are determined to pursue every legal means to keep public schools open. We are here concerned neither with perpetuating segregation in schools noi* hastening integration. We oppose entrusting public education to private hands having no responsibility or accountability to the general public. We have faith in Arlington’s ability to meet its public edu­ cation problems. We recognize the excellence of the teaching and adminis­ trative staff in Arlington schools. We assure them that the community values its educational system and that it is determined to maintain its public schools. We urge Arl­ ington teachers to stand with the community in the days ahead. Response to this announcement clearly indicated that citizens wanted an organization which would work solely for the preservation of public schools and which could unite thousands of Arlingtonians in this one crucial purpose. An en­ larged organizing group held a meeting on June 12, which was attended by nearly 700 people. This meeting established the Arlington Committee to Preserve Public Schools. It adopted by-laws and elected officers and an executive board. The by-laws included the five conclusions listed above. During the summer months the executive board kept abreast of the legal and administrative aspects of this problem; conferred with local officials including the Arlington School Board and kept its membership informed. The latter now numbered over 3,300. Members of the executive board joined with other community leaders in conferring with Governor Almond and assuring him of the desire of the overwhelming majority of Arlington citizens to keep the public schools open. The legal sub-committee studied various steps which indi­ vidual citizens or local officials might take in State or Federal courts to insure continued public education. It came to the con­ clusion that the State school-closing and fund-withholding laws would be declared unconstitutional by the courts. Late in August, after due deliberation, the executive board announced its decision that any suit designed to test the consti­ tutionality of the Virginia school-closing law would be inad­ visable unless, or until, a school was actually closed. Members of the legal sub-committee, however, were prepared to be of assistance to plaintiffs whenever the filing of suits should be­ come appropriate. 3 �The immediate threat of school closings was temporarily relieved when the Federal Court early in September post­ poned until February, 1959, the effective date of admission of four Negro applicants to one of the junior high schools in the county. During the fall of 1958 the interest and activity of the Arlington committee was directed primarily to working with similar groups in other Virginia communities faced with the closing of public schools and to increasing the membership of the Arlington committee, which had reached 4,500 by No­ vember. Charlottesville The opening of the Charlottesville public schools sched­ uled for September, 1958, was postponed by the school board pending the decision of the Federal court on the applications of twelve Negroes to two white schools. Under the “massive resistance” laws of Virginia, the schools were later to be closed by the Governor when the court ordered the admission of Negro applicants. One Charlottesville parent, unable to accept closed public schools as the answer to the desegregation problem, decided to see what he could do about it. A public school teacher gave him the names of several people who might be interested in dis­ cussing the problem. H e found three other parents who felt that something should be done and were tired of waiting for others to do it. Seven parents came together for the first meeting to de­ termine how the community could be aroused to voice opposi­ tion to closed public schools. These seven organizers did not represent any particular civic group nor were they identified with integrationist or liberal organizations. They were just concerned parents. After a telephone call to a leader of the Arlington com­ mittee, the organizers decided to form a similar committee. Be­ cause of the imminence of the court decision, it was decided to call an organizational meeting four days later. They obtained copies of the Arlington committee by-laws, objectives, member­ ship literature, and history, using these as patterns for their plans for organization. 4 �The organizers telephoned friends and neighbors and all who they thought might be interested, inviting them to attend an organizational meeting. They called upon prominent local businessmen and civic leaders, trying to interest them in as­ suming the leadership of the group. There were few volunteers in this quarter, but they found many citizens like themselves who were concerned and had been waiting for someone to start a public movement. Each person who attended the organizational meeting was handed a statement of objectives. Over 200 attended the meeting and 167 of these signed membership cards. The ob­ jectives were discussed, a motion to organize and to approve the objectives was passed, and a resolution was adopted calling on the school board to request the Governor to return the Charlottesville schools to local control. An executive board of seven was elected. This was empowered to complete the or­ ganization of the committee and to act for its membership. During the following weeks, the committee directed its efforts to increasing its membership and awakening the com­ munity to the need for maintaining public education. By the first of November membership in the committee had reached 1, 000. The principal lesson to be learned from the experience of the Charlottesville committee was that organization should take place before the crisis. By waiting until the need for action was acute, the committee found itself overburdened with or­ ganizational problems at a time when the total effect should have been directed to action. Also, by not organizing until school closing was imminent, feeling in the community had been allowed to harden and leaders in vulnerable business and professional positions were reluctant to expose themselves and risk economic reprisals. Nevertheless, a feeling of loyalty to public schools was kept alive during the five-months resort to private schools. Many school patrons insisted that they were patronizing private schools from necessity and only until the public schools should be opened again. 5 �Norfolk A small group of parents met several times during the summer of 1958 to discuss what could be done to keep Norfolk schools open and to prevent violence there if schools should open in September on a desegregated basis. When September came and six schools were closed, shutting out nearly 10,000 pupils, this group called on the Arlington committee for advice and material, and went to work. The Norfolk Committee for Public Schools was formally organized September 16, 1958. A prepared statement of pur­ pose was adopted and officers and executive committee were elected. It was decided to announce the formation of the com­ mittee and solicit public support by means of newspaper ad­ vertising and general publicity as soon as the support of com­ munity leaders could be obtained. Prominent businessmen and civic leaders were personally contacted and asked if they would join with 100 or more like themselves in a public announcement of support for the pur­ poses of the committee and for the reopening of the Norfolk schools. On September 24 and 25 the committee placed a nearlyfull-page ad in the two Norfolk newspapers. The ad stated the purpose of the committee, gave the names of the officers and executive board, listed the names of 150 prominent citizens whose support had been obtained, and invited others of like mind to become members. A downtown office was opened and manned with volunteer workers. On September 30, a further ad in both newspapers asked citizens to clip and return a coupon requesting the city council to join a willing school board in petitioning the Gov­ ernor to return the closed Norfolk schools to local control. The gratifying results of this newspaper poll were used by spokes­ men for the committee in appearances before the city council urging its support in the effort to obtain the return of the schools for operation by the city. On October 9 a rally of women volunteers was held for the purpose of organizing a house-to-house canvass for in­ creased membership in the committee. By this and other means the membership had reached 6,500 by early November. In response to a request from a number of white parents, 6 �the committee agreed to furnish legal assistance in advancing a suit in Federal court designed to force the reopening of the closed schools. This was the famous “James vs. Almond” case, which resulted in the downfall of Virginia’s “massive resist­ ance” laws, the reopening of the Norfolk schools, and the pre­ vention of school-closings in other Virginia communities. The Norfolk Committee for Public Schools assumed the responsibility for raising the $8,000 to $10,000 necessary to finance the suit in the various courts. Warren County The people of this county seemed stunned in September, 1958, when unexpected and swift court action resulted in an order for the immediate admission of 21 Negro applicants to the Warren County High School at Front Royal, and the Governor, under the “massive resistance” laws ordered the school closed immediately. The sense of shock was evidenced by the complete silence and apparent apathy of the leadership of the community. However, there was not a complete lack of action. On the night the school was closed three parents took council to see if anything could be done to gain community support for re-opening the school. One mentioned the Committees for Public Schools that had been formed now in Arlington, Char­ lottesville and Norfolk. Arlington leaders were called on for advice and material. Two nights later a group of twelve citizens met and de­ cided to form a committee. Proposed by-laws and organiza­ tional plans were developed. Four days later four members of this group went to Richmond and met there with leaders of the three committees already operating in Arlington, Charlottes­ ville and Norfolk. A week later an organizational meeting Was held in Front Royal. All persons interested in re-opening the school, even if it must be integrated, were invited to attend. Eighty-seven citizens met and organized a Committee for Public Schools. In the meantime, however, most community leaders re­ mained silent, while extreme segregationists began public ap­ peals to the emotions of the people. In a short time antiNegro, pro-segregation sentiment had spread throughout the county. 7 �Warren County stands out as an example of what can hap­ pen in almost any community in the South if the moderate community leadership fails to consider, in advance of the crisisy the damaging results of closed schools. The Warren County Committee for Public Schools has continued to work more or less quietly and has a membership of above 200. Committees Get Together As the pioneer committees were organizing in the four communities immediately threatened with school-dosing, con­ ferences were held by telephone or by visits among the leaders. As a result, the pattern of organization of the groups de­ veloped along similar lines. In October 1958, at the request of W arren County leaders, representatives of the four groups met for the first time in Richmond. This meeting took the form of a round-table discussion of the problems facing the committees and ways and means of increasing their effectiveness. Those attending this meeting agreed that another should be held early in November and that consideration should be given to forming a state organization. The next meeting was held in Richmond on November 8, 1958. In addition to seventeen representatives from the existing committees, individuals from Alexandria, Fairfax county, Lynchburg and Richmond were now present. At this meeting and at subsequent meetings, by far the most interesting and exciting part of the agenda were the reports of the local committees, particularly those of the pioneer groups. The meeting heard a complete report and forecast on the current legal situation in Virginia, given by Mr. Warren Cox, chairman of the legal sub-committee of the Arlington Committee. The two pending suits testing the validity of the “massive resistance” laws were explained by M r. Cox. One suit, “Almond vs. Day” , was brought by the state it­ self directly before the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. This sought an opinion on the validity of the school-closing law, certain provisions for tuition grants for private school education, and the provision in the 1958 appropriation act for withdrawing state funds from integrated schools. It also sought to test the soundness of the contention of state authori­ ties that the Federal Court prohibition against segregated 8 �schools had made inoperative Section 129 of the State Consti­ tution, which requires the State to maintain public schools, on the theory that Section 129 had reference only to segregated schools. M r. Cox also discussed the “James vs. Almond” case, in which 26 Norfolk residents, including 11 children, were chal­ lenging the school-closing law in the Federal Court on the ground that closing the Norfolk schools, while permitting schools in the rest of the state to operate, was depriving the plaintiffs, and all others in Norfolk, of equal protection of the laws and was in violation ot the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. M r. Cox predicted that the results of these suits would be to establish clearly that Virginia had a choice only between:(l) allowing some integration in the public schools or (2) closing all schools in the state; and further that the latter choice could be effected only by amending the State Constitution. The group unanimously agreed that another meeting should be called in a few weeks and that this meeting should take steps to form a state organization or federation of local committees. Dr. J. L. Blair Buck of Richmond consented to serve as a Temporary Coordinator and to set up a message center for the exchange of information. It was agreed that the committee members and others would contact local leaders in their communities to determine those who would be willing to join with others throughout the state in launching an all-out appeal for support of public edu­ cation. Local representatives were asked to send to Dr. Buck suggestions and plans for statewide publicity and for the dis­ tribution of educational leaflets and other material of an edu* cational nature on the advantages and need of public schools The State Committee Is Formed The next meeting was called by Dr. Buck as Temporary Coordinator and was held in Richmond on December 6. Seventy-five attended, forty from Richmond and the remain­ ing 35 from 14 different cities and counties. In addition to lay­ ing plans for a central state organization, the meeting served as a means of acquainting Richmond leaders with the work of the local committees in other areas and providing a stimulus for the organization of a local committee in the Richmond area. 9 �Many excellent statements concerning the need for alerting the state to the danger of losing its public schools were made by prominent businessmen and civic leaders. The Temporary Coordinator reported that a downtown office in Richmond had been obtained and would be staffed to serve as a “message center” and as headquarters for any work needed to be done in developing a coordinated state effort. Official action taken by the group included: (1) Declaration of intention to form a state organiza­ tion, the name to be decided by a committee to be appointed by the presiding chairman; (2) Authorization for the chairman to appoint a com­ mittee of seven, representing the geographical areas concerned, to formulate principles and plans for organization j (3) Authorization for Dr. Buck to continue as Tem­ porary Coordinator and chairman of the organizing group; and (4) Approval of the following statement of purpose: “ We affirm our determined support of free public education for every child in Virginia. W e believe that this should con­ tinue to be guaranteed by the Constitution of Virginia.” The organizing group, which the Temporary Coordinator appointed to serve as a pro-tem steering committee, consisted of representatives from Arlington, Charlottesville, Norfolk, Richmond, and Waynesboro. A seventh member, from New­ port News, was added later. The formal organization and the election of permanent officers and executive board members was not complete until the fifth meeting of the steering committee which was held on February 14. However, the central Richmond office began operating, almost immediately following the December 6 meeting, under the direction of the Temporary Coordinator. FIRST STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING At this meeting in Richmond on January 7, 1959, the following action was taken: (1) The name “ Virginia Committees for Public Schools” was adopted. (2) It was agreed that the officers would be: President, two or more Vice Presidents, Secretary, and Treasurer. (3) Approval of a motion to provide for a Board of Di­ rectors of not less than 21, with an Executive Committee of nine (geographically selected), and that authority be given for this 10 �Executive Committee to increase its membership. A later mo­ tion named the Steering Committee members, plus the Temporary Coordinator, as the Executive Committee. (4) Provision for appointment of standing committees for Finance, Legislation Membership, and Publicity, and for an Executive Secretary. (5) Adoption of the following Statement of Principles: We believe that a state-wide system of public education is es­ sential to the welfare of Virginia. Our belief rests on the following premises: That representative government depends for its success on an educated electorate; that the economic prosperity of Virginia depends upon a high level of educational preparation of the youth of the Commonwealth. I f the public school system of Virginia is abandoned or allowed to deteriorate, we believe: That the cost to parents of private education would pre­ vent the education of large numbers of children; That the absence of public education through any prolonged period of time would lead inevitably to widespread discouragement and even demoralization among the children and youth of the state with rising welfare and delinquency problems resulting; That drastic dislocations in the economic balance of the state would be caused by movements of population from communi­ ties without public schools; That new industry would not be attracted to Virginia and existing industries would in some cases withdraw their plants from the state with a resultant loss of employment opportunity for all people of the Commonwealth; and That property values would drop, with resulting loss to householders. We therefore affirm our determined support of free public education for every child in Virginia. We believe this should con­ tinue to be guaranteed by the Constitution of Virginia. (6) It was agreed that the membership cards for the Vir­ ginia Committee would carry the above affirmation. ORGANIZATION LIMITED TO WHITE CITIZENS Dr. Buck, who was elected Acting Executive Secretary at this meeting, explained the reasons why it seemed necessary to adopt a policy of limiting membership in the committee to white residents of Virginia: (1) It was hoped that this policy would help counteract the oft-repeated statement that the white voters of Virginia would prefer to abandon public schools entirely rather than ac­ cept any integration. (2) The hope of securing a large number of white 11 �members could not be realized through a bi-racial committee in the present climate of public opinion. Dr. Buck explained that this subject had been discussed with several Negro leaders and they had a thorough under­ standing of the reason for restricting the membership of the committee. A chairman of a special By-laws Committee was appointed and asked to draw up a set of proposed by-laws for presenta­ tion at the next meeting SECOND STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING The second Steering Committee meeting was held in Rich­ mond on January 24, 1959. This meeting came four days after the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and the Federal Dis­ trict Court handed down decisions which shattered the “mas­ sive resistance” laws of Virginia. The by-laws proposed by the special committee appointed at the previous meeting were studied, discussed and adopted. The by-laws were made as simple as possible. They provided for officers and Executive Board as agreed upon at the January 7 meeting. Broad power to act for the membership of the committee was given to the Executive Board. The Executive Secretary was made responsible for carrying out the operations of the committee. The work of the committee would be financed through contributions received from local committees, members and friends. The by-laws provided for two types of membership in the state committee. (1) Individual membership for those in areas where a local committee did not exist, and (2) The automatic membership resulting from being a member of a local committee which is affiliated with the state committee. The question of incorporation of the Virginia Committees for Public Schools was discussed. It was agreed that the legal committee should be asked to study the question and proceed with steps to incorporate if it found this to be desirable. It was agreed that an Advisory Board of prominent leaders from all parts of the state should be set up. The Acting Executive Secretary was made chairman of a 12 �nominating committee and asked to bring in a proposed slate of officers and Advisory Board members for consideration by the Executive Board. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETS (The Steering Committee had now become a part of the Executive Committee.) A third meeting was held in Richmond on January 31, 1959. The committee heard reports of successful efforts to form local committees in Alexandria, Fairfax County-Falls Church, Newport News and the surrounding Peninsula area, Richmond and Waynesboro. The representatives from Waynesboro reported that the General Manager of the General Electric plant there, Dr. Louis Rader, had sent a letter to heads of industries and business in Virginia asking them to join in the support of the Virginia Committees for Public Schools. A statement concerning the political situation in the state was prepared, adopted, and released to the press. This state­ ment commended the Governor for the moderate position he had taken at the opening of the special session of the General Assembly earlier in the month. It also noted that the Governor was appointing a special commission for study and recommenda­ tions for legislative action and urged that this commission in­ clude outstanding leaders in the fields of education, business, and the professions. It called upon the members of the various Committees for Public Schools and the people in general to let the Governor and the General Assembly know that the preservation of the public schools was a primary condition to any solution of the problem. FOURTH MEETING A fourth meeting was held in Richmond on February 7, 1959. The greater part of this meeting was taken up by dis­ cussion of the legal situation concerning public schools and action to provide for individual and group encouragement to the Governor and to members of the General Assembly who were known to be champions of public schools. Letters from the Governor and from two members of the General Assembly were read, urging the Virginia Committee for Public Schools not to relax its efforts. The Acting Executive Secretary read a proposed letter to 13 �be sent to the teachers of the state asking them to join the committee and support its efforts to preserve the public schools. The letter was approved, with the suggestion that a similar letter be sent to leaders in other groups such as the Association of American University Women, the League of Women Voters, the Ministerial Associations, etc. Dr. Buck also ex­ plained steps he had taken to enlist the support of educators in the colleges of the state. The Executive Committee approved the suggestion that a budget for financing state committee activities be prepared and that all local committees be required to subscribe a share of the financial aid required for the budget. ORGANIZATION COMPLETED At the fifth meeting of the Steering Committee (now Executive Committee), on February 14, the election of per­ manent officers completed the organization of the Virginia Committee for Public Schools. The officers elected were: President-------------Dr. J. L. Blair Buck, of Richmond Vice Presidents---- Mr. Edmund Campbell, of Arlington Judge H . G. Cochran, of Norfolk Col. Francis Pickens Miller, of Charlottesvills M r. Knox Turnbull, of Charlottesville T reasurer------------ Dr. James R. Sydnor, of Richmond Secretary------------- Mr. Eugene Pickett, of Richmond M r. William Lightsey of Arlington was appointed full­ time Executive Secretary. The committee was advised that the Fairfax-Falls Church Committee for Public Schools had been formally organized on February 8, at a public meeting attended by over 800. Dr. Buck reported that a letter had been sent to 64 local education associations, requesting teachers to become members of the Committee and to aid in recruiting other members. A similar letter was sent to college faculties. The Membership Committee chairman reported that his committee had met in Front Royal on February 9. The state was divided into four areas and a member of the committee was assigned to carry out extensive work in each area. Twentytwo localities were chosen for immediate attention because in­ dividuals in those localities had already evidenced interest in forming local committees. 14 �Mr. Lightsey, the newly-appointed Executive Secretary, reviewed plans for helping organize committees in Lynchburg and Roanoke, for increasing statewide publicity, and for main­ taining close contact with members of the Governor’s special Commission on Education and with other members of the General Assembly. It was agreed that the Committee needed to study the various legislative proposals that were under consideration by the Governor’s (Perrow) Commission and decide upon the position to be taken by the committee. A set of proposals pre­ pared by the legal sub-committee of the Arlington committee was distributed. It was agreed that these proposals would be studied in the various local committees and the positions of the local committees developed and reported at the next meeting. With the organization of the Virginia Committees for Public Schools completed, subsequent meetings of the Execu­ tive Committee were devoted to plans for spreading the local committee to other areas of the state, and to legislative and political action during the special session of the General As­ sembly. Expanding The Movement One of the most important services of the Virginia Com­ mittee is that of giving advice and assistance in the organization of local committees. Membership in the Virginia Committee for Public Schools is urged for individuals in areas which have no or­ ganized local committee. As membership cards come in to local committees and “at large” membership cards from unorgan­ ized areas come in to the state office, these members are asked to send in the names and addresses of acquaintances living in other parts of. the state who might be interested in membership in the Virginia Committee for Public Schools. Letters with enclosed membership cards sent to leaders of local Parent-Teacher Associations, Virginia Education Associa­ tions, League of Women Voters, AAUW, Ministerial Associa­ tions, and similar organizations are another means of recruit­ ing membership in unorganized areas. The initial action to organize a local committee in a given area has not been dictated necessarily by the number of mem­ bership cards on file for individuals in that area. However, 15 �when over 25 membership cards are on file from a particular unorganized area, efforts are made to organize a local com­ mittee. Experience has shown that there is no set pattern or pro­ cedure that can be followed by the state organization in render­ ing effective assistance to the organization of local committees. The several plans that have worked successfully can best be explained by giving the following examples of local com­ mittees already organized. STATE COMMITTEE INITIATIVE (Examples: Lynchburg and Washington County) The state organization had received a number of membership cards from the area and had also had expressions of interest in organizing a local committee from one or more of those members. Working with one or two members from the area, a list of all persons in the area who might be interested was prepared. A letter was sent from the state office to every per­ son on this list, asking him to attend a discussion meeting at a given time and place. W ith this letter went informational ma­ terial concerning the Committees for Public Schools—the who, what, and why of these organizations, a list of the Advisory Board of the Virginia Committee, and a statement of the need for such organizations. At this first meeting the President or Executive Secretary of the Virginia Committee explained the mechanics of or­ ganization of a local committee. Samples of by-laws and other materials from other local committees were distributed and discussed. A local leader suggested at the meeting that an organizing committee be elected by those present and given authority to draw up proposed by-laws and appoint a nominat­ ing committee for officers for a local committee. From this point the local organizing committee carried through and ar­ ranged for a formal organizational meeting. After that the local committee was in business. LOCAL COMMUNITY INITIATIVE (Examples: Blacksburg, Newport News, Radford, and Rockingham County.) Usually one, sometimes several, inter­ ested individuals recognize the need for organizing people who are concerned about the threat to public schools. They ask for 16 �advice from the state organization and get material and other help from the leaders of nearby local committees already or­ ganized. In these cases an organizing group is formed at a meeting of those who have indicated an interest. At a later meeting, usually open to the public, formal organization is ac­ complished by adoption of by-laws and the election of officers. INITIATION BY NEIGHBORING COMMITTEES (Examples: Alexandria, Blacksburg, and Fairfax-Falls Church.) Leaders in local committees already organized ap­ proach community leaders in a nearby community and offer as­ sistance in organizing a local committee, selling the need for organizing. The same pattern of setting up an organizing group and arranging for formal organization is used as when the state organization provides assistance, except that advice and assistance is given by the leadership of the nearby local com­ mittee. ( If local committees can be persuaded to devote more effort to this activity, the effect of their own work is multiplied and the organization of local committees throughout the state can be accomplished more quickly and at less expense.) Legislative Activity N O T E: Most of the legislative activity described herein centers around the 1958 special session of the General Assembly, par­ ticularly the crucial 28 days in April when that body was consider­ ing the legislation recommended by the so-called “ Pcrrow Com­ mission.” The strong voice of the Committees for Public Schools was heard time and again during the recent special session of the General Assembly. Through letters and statements at public hearings by representatives of the Virginia Committees for Public Schools and local committees from all parts of the state, and through the thousands of telephone calls, telegrams, letters and personal contacts from individual members through­ out the state, the Governor and members of the General As­ sembly were made increasingly aware of the fact that the 25,000 members of the Committees for Public Schools were not willing to sacrifice Virginia’s system of public schools. It was only after the formation of the Committees for Public Schools that for the first time in more than three years the noise of the “massive resisters” was offset by the great 17 �moderate body of citizens who realized the absolute necessity for providing public education for all. Differences among members of the General Assembly divided the House and the Senate almost evenly. Members of both houses have said that the legislative activity of the Com­ mittees for Public Schools and its members played a vital part in securing the passage of the Almond-Perrow legislation. Without the work and interest of the Committees for Public Schools, Virginia might now be facing the prospect of no state system of public education. CHRONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT Following is a chronological account of the legislative ac­ tivities of representatives of the Virginia Committee for Public Schools: February 9 On the basis of action taken at the February 7th meet­ ing of the Executive Board, a letter was sent to Governor Almond, commending him for the position he had taken on behalf of public education. February 16 A letter was sent to each member of the Perrow Commis­ sion offering the support of the Committees for Public Schools for all constructive proposals of the Commission, and express­ ing concern for the preservation of Sections 129 and 133 of the State Constitution. February 27 The Executive Board and the legal committee developed a statement for presentation at the public hearing before the Perrow Commission on March 6. March 6 The President of the Virginia Committee for Public Schools made a statement at the public hearing before the Perrow Commission. H e expressed appreciation for the con­ structive manner in which the Commission was approaching its task. H e asked for maximum local autonomy, enactment of a compulsory attendance law, adequate safeguards in the disposal of surplus school facilities, and preservation of a state system of public education. Similar statements were made by represen­ tatives of local Committees for Public Schools from Alex18 �andria, Arlington, Blacksburg, Charlottesville, Fairfax-Falls Church, Norfolk, Richmond and Warren County. O f 66 per­ sons making statements at the public hearing, 40 spoke in favor of the maintenance of the public school system. April 1 Chairmen of local Committees were advised by telegram or telephone to withhold for three or four days any statements of position on the Perrow Commission report. This was done on advice of friendly legislators and to permit time to study and analyze the report. April 4 The Executive Board and the Legal Committee met in Richmond to develop a statement of position on the Perrow Commission report. April 6 A statement on behalf of the Virginia Committee for Public Schools was delivered to the Governor and laid on the desks of each member of the General Assembly when it re­ convened at noon. This statement expressed the opinion that the Commission recommendations constituted the best plan yet advanced for meeting the problems resulting from the deseg­ regation orders of the Federal Courts. It urged resistance to all efforts to delete or alter the constitutional guarantees of free public education. It asked for a strengthening of proposed legislation relating to disposal of surplus property, compulsory attendance, and transportation of children attending non-sec­ tarian private schools. April 13 The President of the Virginia Committee appeared at a hearing before the House Committee considering the pupil placement bill. On behalf of the committee he urged approval of the total program recommended by the Perrow Commission. April 13 An urgent appeal was sent by telephone and telegram to the local committees, requesting that letters and telegrams be sent to the Governor and legislators in opposition to the Wheatley Resolution. This resolution proposed constitutional amendments which would remove all requirements for the maintenance of public schools. 19 �April 14 The Executive Secretary of the Virginia Committee for Public Schools appeared at a public hearing before the Senate Committee considering the pupil assignment and compulsory attendance bills, and asked for approval of these parts of the Perrow Commission program as the best plan for meeting the widely varied problems of the State. April 15 Two memoranda were delivered to the Governor and each member of the General Assembly transmitting analyses of the effects of the constitutional amendments proposed in the Wheatley Resolution. It was interesting to note that in subse­ quent debates on the floors of the House and Senate, members used many statements from these analyses. April 16 A telephone appeal was made to a number of the local committees asking that their members immediately wire, tele­ phone or write certain legislators in their areas. This was done at the urgent request of friendly legislators. April 17 A prominent member of the Advisory Board of the Vir­ ginia Committee for Public Schools, made a statement at the Public Hearing before the House Committee on Privileges and Elections in opposition to the Wheatley Resolution. Spokes­ men for the following local Committees for Public Schools also made statements at the hearing: Alexandria, Lynchburg, Arlington, Norfolk, Rockingham County, Washington County, Newport News, and Fairfax-Falls Church. Although the Com­ mittee on Privileges and Elections reported the Resolution favorably, four members reserved the right to vote against it on the floor. The Resolution was defeated in the House the fol­ lowing Monday by the close vote of 53 to 45. There seems to be little question but that the strong showing made by the Com­ mittees for Public Schools contributed to the defeat of the Resolution. April 28 An original letter was mailed to the Governor, to each member of the House who voted against the Wheatley Resolu­ tion, and to each of the 20 Senators who stood by the Almond20 �Perrow program, expressing the appreciation of the Virginia Committee for Public Schools. Subsequent Activity Since the close of the special session of the General As­ sembly, which enacted legislation substantially in accord with the recommendations of the Perrow Commission, the legis­ lative activity of the Committee has been devoted primarily to explanation of the new legislation to its membership and to the public. An even more important responsibility which is being met by the Committees for Public Schools is in the field of politics. Local committees were urged to use all possible means to en­ couraging citizens to vote in the July primaries and the general election in November and to participate in the nominating con­ ventions, to endeavor to insure the election to the General As­ sembly, and to local Boards, of those candidates whose posi­ tions are unequivocally in favor of continued state and local responsibility for public education. 21 �Tine Committee For Public Schools Looks Ahead The job ahead for the Committees for Public Schools in Virginia is clearly set forth in a May 13, 1959 report to local committees from the President and Executive Secretary of the Virginia Committee for Public Schools, as follows: N eed fo r C on tin u in g a nd E x p a n d in g S ta te and Local C om m ittees By a margin of one vote in the State Senate the Almond-Perrow pro­ gram was enacted into law. A change of four votes in the House would have gained approval of the Wheatley Resolution with its abortive con­ stitutional amendments. Recent statements by the still strong and vocal “massive resisters” show that they continue to hope and work for a change in this line-up — to make it possible to abandon state responsibility for public schools when the General Assembly meets next January. Our state and local committees must remain active and grow strong­ er. One of our major and immediate responsibilities is to nullify the efforts of the extremists in the coming primary and in the general election — and to insure that those legislators who stood firm on behalf of public education continue to hear from those of us who share the conviction that, above all, the State must discharge its responsibility for the education of its children. T he local committees have another extremely important task. Re­ cently enacted legislation places in the hands of local school boards and lo­ cal governing bodies complete power to determine whether public schools as we know them will be continued, or will be starved to a hollow, worse-than- . useless pretense. Our local committees are vitally needed as a rallying point for those thinking people in the community who recognize the disaster that must inevitably follow abandonment o f the local public schools. As the trag­ edy in Front Royal indicates, disaster can follow in any community which fails, before the crisis, to organize a strong group of citizens who realize the damaging results of closed public schools. SU G G E ST E D LOCAL CO M M T TEE A C T IV IT IE S FO R SU M M ER M O N TH S (a) P olitic a l A ction Immediately urge your membership to actively support those candidates for local and state office whose past records or unequivocal public statements identify them as supporters of open, unimpaired public schools and contin­ ued State responsibility for public education. Urge their active opposition to those candidates who are identified as holding opposite views. (See General Assembly voting record attached.) (b ) In fo rm in g yo u r m em bersh ip Consider ways and means of informing your membership of the impor­ tant 1 e g i s l a t i v e activity of the state and local Committees for Public Schools during the special session of the General Assembly. Thank them for the individual letters and telegrams they sent the Governor and those legisla­ tors who supported their views. Alert them to the probable need for similar ac­ tivity before and during the next session of the Assembly. Information to your membership can be accomplished through a written report mailed to all 22 �members, through news media publicity, through open “letters to the editor” from your chairman sent to local newspapers, through telephone committees, or combinations of these means. (c) In cre a se th e num ber of y o u r m em bers Have the officers of your committee talk in person with the local leaders of civic and school groups. Ask to appear at their meetings to explain the work of our committees and the importance of their growth and expansion. Take membership cards along and pass them out at these meetings. (It is particu­ larly important that an early personal contact be made with the newly-elec­ ted P-TA presidents.) (d) P rovide fo r rep re s e n ta tio n a t S ta te C om m ittee E x ecu tiv e B oard M eetings The success we have in gaining our objectives will be directly related to the growth in our state membership and the expansion of local committees in other communities. This growth and expansion can occur only with careful planning and direction by a strong state central group. It is important that each local committee arrange to name a representative who can at­ tend meetings of the State Executive Board. It is expected that this Board will meet about three times between nowand September 1. Wherever pos­ sible the same representative from each local Committee should attend all meetings. In this connection, please note that the following paragraphs 5 and 6 point up the need for the Executive Board assuming more respon­ sibility for the administration of State Committee activities. (e ) A ssist in o rg an iz in g locals in n earby com m unities With the necessity for reducing the operations of the State office and our inability to continue a full-time Executive Secretary, extension work can be continued only if those local committees already organized will accept the re­ sponsibility of encouraging and assisting with the organization of committees in communities near them. Suggestions as to ways of accomplishing this and a list of names of persons who have already evidenced interest in other com­ munities will be sent to each local committee in the near future. ( f) C ontinue financial su p p o rt o f S ta te C om m ittee The work of the State Committee must be supported almost entirely by funds received from local committees. There is a great need for each local committee to strive to send additional funds to the State Committee as quickly as possible. Even if your accepted assessment has been met, any additional amount that can be spared is needed. 23 �This booklet is available from the address below a t the following rates, postpaid: single copies, 15c each; 10 copies or more, 10c each; 100 copies or more, IVic each. THE MESSENGER PRESS BOX 312 MANASSAS, VA. � 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 19, The Personal Papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell Description An account of the resource This collection consists of the personal papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell, and covers the period from 1945 through 1991, with the bulk of the material falling between 1947 and 1959. The materials in this collection were generated or collected as a result of Mrs. Campbell's involvement in the Arlington County School Board, as well as her interests and activities in education and local politics. 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 Booklet: "Organizing To Save Public Schools 1956-1959. How Virginians rallied to the defense of the public school system in the Virginia Committee for Public Schools", by William Marion Lightsey. 14 pages. Description An account of the resource The purpose of the Virginia Committee for Public Schools "...We affirm our determined support of free public education for every child in Virginia. We believe this should continue to be guarantied by the Constitution of Virginia." Booklet describes and explains the development of the Virginia Committee For Public Schools from three local committees to a Statewide organization of 25,000 members. Describes and explains the purpose of the committee to keep Public Schools open in Virginia in spite of the use of "massive resistance" against Court ordered desegregation of public schools. Recounts the work of the Committee chronologically and legally. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource No Date Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 19, The Personal Papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Virginia Committee for Public Schools and William Marion Lightsey 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. nauthorized 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 19_1_12_1 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/397c59086326d5249281b9ef5221190c.pdf 51b1a74873107e1dc9f0956bc4cef6bb PDF Text Text PUBLIC EDUCATION REPORT OF THE COMMISSION To the GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA SENATE DOCUMENT N o . 1 Reprint Pursua*1 ^ No. 9, 1955 Extra Session C o m m o n w e a lth of V irg in ia Division of P urchase a n d Printing Richmond 1955 �Members of the Commission GARLAND GRAY, Chairman HARRY B. DAVIS, Vice Chairman H. H. ADAMS J. BRADIE ALLMAN ROBERT F. BALDWIN, JR. JOSEPH E. BLACKBURN ROBERT Y. BUTTON ORBY L. CANTRELL RUSSELL M. CARNEAL CURRY CARTER W. C. CAUDILL C. W. CLEATON J. H. DANIEL CHARLES R. FENWICK EARL A. FITZPATRICK MILLS E. GODWIN, JR. J. D. HAGOOD A. S. HARRISON, JR. CHARLES K. HUTCHENS S. FLOYD LANDRETH BALDWIN G. LOCHER J. MAYNARD MAGRUDER G. EDMOND MASSIE W. M. MINTER W. TAYLOE MURPHY SAMUEL E. POPE H. H. PURCELL JAMES W. ROBERTS V. S. SHAFFER W. ROY SMITH J. RANDOLPH TUCKER, JR. C. S. WHEATLEY, JR. Counsel DAVID J. MAYS HENRY T. WICKHAM Staff JOHN B. BOATWRIGHT, JR. G. M. LAPSLEY JAMES C. ROBERSON �REPORT OF COMMISSION ON PUBLIC EDUCATION To: R ic h m o n d , V ir T h e H o n o r a b l e T h o s . B. St a n l g in ia , N o v e m b e r 11, 1955. e y , G o v e r n o r o f V i r g in ia Your Commission was appointed on August 30, 1954, and instructed to examine the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation cases, decided May 17, 1954, and to make such recommendations as may be deemed proper. The real impact of the decision, however, could not be fully considered until the final decree of the Supreme Court was handed down and its mandate was before the Federal District Court for interpretation. This did not take place until July 18, 1955. The Commission and its Executive Committee have held many meet ings, including a lengthy public hearing,- wherein many representatives of both races expressed their views, and the Commission has made two interim reports, one on January 19,1955,1 and the other on June 10, 1955.2 It now submits its further recommendations for consideration by Your Excellency. EFFECT OF THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DAVIS v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Until the decision in the D a v is and companion cases, segregation of the races in the public schools had been recognized as coming within the valid exercise of the police powers of the several states. In the leading case of P le s s y v. F e r g u s o n , 163 U. S. 537 (decided in 1896), the Supreme Court of the United States, in upholding the validity of a Louisiana statute requiring the separation of the races in railway coaches, made this pertin ent observation: “* * The most common instance of this (segregation of the races) is eonpected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, which have been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by the courts of states where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced.” When the question of the constitutionality of a Mississippi statute requiring segregation of the races in the public schools came before the United States Supreme Court in 1927 in the case of G o n g L u m v. R ic e , 275 U. S. 78, Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, upheld its constitutionality, and observed, “ * * * we think that it is the same question which has been many times decided to be within the constitutional power of the State legislature to settle without intervention of the federal courts under the Federal Constitution,” citing many cases. When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted three generations age!, no one dreamed that it had any application to segregation in the public schools. Even the Congress which initiated the Fourteenth Amendment 1 See, Appendix I 2 See, Appendix II 5 �County; Richard Henry Lee, who moved the resolution in Congress, was a magistrate of Westmoreland; Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a magistrate of Albemarle; and Washington, on whose broad shoulders the Revolution rested, was a magistrate of both King George and Fairfax. The Commission is certain that the spirit that actuated our fathers during times of trial still lives in this Commonwealth, and that our best citizens will not fail to meet the challenge of their day. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION PROPOSED The Commission has been confronted with the problem of continuing a public school system and at the same time making provision for localities wherein public schools are abandoned, and providing educational op portunities for children whose parents will not send them to integrated schools. To meet the problem thus created by the Supreme Court, the Com mission proposes a plan of assignment which will permit local school boards to assign their pupils in such manner as will best serve the welfare of their communities and protect and foster the public schools under their jurisdic tion. The Commission further proposes legislation to provide that no child be required to attend a school wherein both white and colored children are taught and that the parents of those children who object to integrated schools, or who live in communities wherein no public schools are operated, be given tuition grants for educational purposes. There has heretofore been pending before The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia the case of A lm o n d v. D a y, in which the court had before it for consideration the question of whether the Legislature could validly appropriate funds for the education of war orphans at public and private schools. On November 7, 1955, the Court rendered its decision and held, among other things, that § 141 of the Constitution of Virginia prohibited the appropriation of public funds for payments of tuition, institutional fees and other expenses of students who may desire to attend private schools. If our children are to be educated and if enforced integration is to be avoided, it is now clear that § 141 must be amended. Moreover, unless this is done, the State’s entire program, insofar as attendance at private schools is concerned, involving the industrial rehabilitation program for the physically and mentally handicapped, grants for the education of deserving war orphans, grants in aid of Negro graduate students, and scholarships for teaching and nursing, to remedy shortages in these fields, is in jeopardy. Accordingly, it is recommended that a special session of the General Assembly be called forthwith for the purpose of initiating a limited con stitutional convention so that § 141 may be amended in ample time to make tuition grants and other educational payments available in the cur rent school year and the school year beginning in the fall of 1956. A suggested bill for consideration of the General Assembly is attached hereto as Appendix III. Contingent upon the favorable action of the people relative to the amendment of the Constitution herein proposed, your Commission recom mends the enactment of legislation in substance as follows: Assignments would be based upon the welfare of the particular child as well as the welfare and best interests of all other pupils attending a particular school. The school board should be authorized to take into con sideration such factors as availability of facilities, health, aptitude of the child and the availability of transportation. Children who have heretofore attended a particular public school would not be reassigned to a different one except for good cause shown. A child who has not previously attended a public school or whose residence has changed, would be assigned as aforesaid. Any parent, guardian or other person having custody of a child, who objects to the assignment of his child to a particular school under the provisions of the act should have the right to make application within fifteen days after the giving of the notice of the particular assignment to the local school board for a review of its action. The application should contain the specific reasons why the child should not attend the school assigned and the specific reasons why the child should be assigned to a different school named in the application. After the application is re ceived by the local school board a hearing would be held within forty-five days and, after hearing evidence, the school board would determine to what school the child should be assigned. An appeal if taken should be permitted from the final order of the school board within fifteen days. The appeal would be to the circuit or corporation court. The local school board would be made a defendant in this action and the case heard and determined de novo by the judge of the court, either in term or in vacation. If either party be aggrieved by the order of the court, an appeal should be permitted to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. 2. T h a t no child he req u ired to a tte n d a n in te g ra te d school. 3. T h a t th e sections o f th e Code re la tin g to th e p o w ers a n d d u tie s o f school boards re la tiv e to tra n s p o rta tio n o f p u p ils he a m ended so a s to prov id e th a t school hoards m a y fu r n is h tra n sp o rta tio n fo r pupils. In the opinion of the Commission, such is merely a restatement of existing law. However, it is felt th at it should be made perfectly clear that no county school board be required to furnish transportation to school children. 4. T h a t changes he m ade in th e law re la tin g to th e a ssig n m e n t o f teachers. Local school boards should be vested with the authority to employ teachers and assign them to a particular school. The division superin tendent should be permitted to assign a particular teacher to a particular position in the school, but not to assign the teacher to a school different from that to which such teacher was assigned by the local school board without the consent of such board. 5. T h a t localities he a u th o rized to raise su m s o f m o n e y b y a ta x on p ro p e rty , su b je c t to local ta x a tio n , to he expended b y local school a u th o ritie s fo r educational p urposes in clu d in g cost o f tr a n s p o rta tio n a n d to receive a nd exp en d S ta te aid fo r th e sam e purposes. Such legislation would be designed to give localities broad discretion in the assignment of pupils in the public schools. Those localities wherein no public schools are operated should be authorized to provide for an educational levy or a cash appropriation in lieu of such levy. The maximum amount of the levy or cash appropriation, as the case may be, should be limited in the same manner as school levies or .school appropriations are limited. 8 9 1 . T h a t school hoards he a u th o rized to a ssig n p u p ils to p a rticu la r schools a n d to p ro v id e f o r appeals in c erta in in sta n ce s. �The procedure to be followed by school officials and local tax levying bodies for obtaining these educational funds would be the same as pre scribed by law for the raising of funds for public school purposes. The educational funds so raised would be expended by the local school board for the payment of tuition grants for elementary or secondary school education and could, in the discretion of the board, be expended for trans portation costs. Local school boards should be vested with the authority to pay out such grants and costs under their own rules and regulations. Localities should be granted and allocated their share of State funds upon certifying that such funds would be expended for tuition grants. Any person who expends a tuition grant for any purpose other than the education of his child should be amenable to prosecution therefor. 6 . T h a t s c h o o l b u d g e ts be r e q u ir e d to in c lu d e a m o u n ts s u ffic ie n t f o r th e p a y m e n t o f t u itio n g r a n t s a n d tr a n s p o r ta tio n c o s ts u n d e r c e r ta in c ir c u m s ta n c e s ; t h a t local g o v e r n in g b o d ie s be a u th o r iz e d to r a is e m o n e y f o r s u c h p u r p o s e s ; th a t p r o v is io n be m a d e f o r th e e x p e n d itu r e o f s u c h fu n d s ; a n d t h a t th e S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a tio n be e m p o w e r e d to w a iv e c e r ta in c o n d itio n s i n th e d is tr i b u tio n o f S t a t e f u n d s . This would be companion legislation to that dealing with the assign ment of pupils and compulsory education, respectively. It would be de signed to further prevent enforced integration by providing for the pay ment of tuition grants for the education of those children whose parents object to their attendance at mixed schools. Without such a measure, enforced integration could not be effectively avoided since many parents would then be required to choose integrated schools as the only alternative to the illiteracy of their children. The division superintendent of the schools of every county, city or town wherein public schools are operated should be required to include in his estimate of the school budget an amount of money to be expended as tuition grants for elementary and secondary school education. The locality would be authorized to include in its school levy or cash appropriation an amount necessary for such tuition grants. The educational funds so raised would be expended in payment of tuition grants for elementary or secondary school education to the parents, guardians or other persons having custody of children who have been assigned to public schools wherein both white and colored children are enrolled, provided such parents, guardians or other persons having custody of such children certify that they object to such assignment. Each grant should be in the amount necessary for the education of the child, provided, however, that in no event would such grant exceed the total cost of operation per pupil in average daily attendance in the public schools for the locality making such grant as determined for the preceding school year by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Provision should be made for the payment of transportation costs in the discretion of the board to those who qualify for tuition grants. No locality that expends funds for tuition grants should be penalized in the distribution of State funds. Any person who expends tuition grants for any purpose other than for the education of his child should be amen able to prosecution. 7. T h a t p r o v is io n be m a d e f o r th e r e im b u r s e m e n t b y th e S t a t e o f o n e - h a lf o f a n y a d d itio n a l c o s ts w h ic h m a y be in c u r r e d b y c e r ta in lo c a litie s i n p a y m e n t o f t u itio n g r a n t s r e q u ir e d b y la w . 10 The Commission realizes that the payment of tuition grants in locali ties wherein public schools are operated may necessitate some expendi tures beyond the adopted school budgets. Since tuition grants are vital to the prevention of enforced integration, it should be provided that the State bear one-half of any excess costs to the locality. 8 . T h a t local s c h o o l b o a r d s be a u th o r iz e d to e x p e n d f u n d s d e s ig n e d f o r p u b lic sch o o l p u r p o s e s f o r s u c h t u itio n g r a n ts a s m a y be p e r m itt e d b y la w w ith o u t f i r s t o b ta in in g a u th o r ity th e r e fo r f r o m th e ta x le v y in g b o d y . Local school boards should be authorized to transfer school funds, excluding those for capital outlay and debt service, within the total amount of their budget and to expend such funds for tuition grants, in order to give the local boards more flexibility to meet the requirements of the tuition grant program. 9. T h a t th e e m p lo y m e n t o f c o u n s e l b y lo ca l s c h o o l b o a r d s be a u th o r iz e d to d e fe n d th e a c tio n s o f th e i r m e m b e r s a n d th a t th e p a y m e n t o f c o s ts , e x p e n s e s a n d lia b ilitie s le v ie d a g a in s t th e m be m a d e b y th e lo ca l g o v e r n in g b o d ie s o u t o f th e c o u n ty o r c ity tr e a s u r y a s th e c a se m a y be. Such a measure is necessary if we are to continue to have representa tive citizens as members of our local school boards. 10. T h a t th e V i r g in ia S u p p le m e n ta l R e t i r e m e n t A c t be b r o a d e n e d to p r o v id e f o r th e r e ti r e m e n t o f c e r ta in p r iv a t e s c h o o l te a c h e r s. The Virginia Supplemental Retirement Act should be broadened to provide for the retirement of school teachers if such teachers be employed by a corporation organized for the purpose of operating a private school after the effective date of the enactment of legislation recommended by this report. The purpose of this is to protect the retirement status of those public school teachers who may hereafter desire to teach in private schools that are established because of the decision in the school segregation cases. Corporate entity is deemed necessary for practical administration by the Retirement Board. 1 1 . T h a t th e o ffic e o f th e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l s h o u ld be a u th o r iz e d to r e n d e r c e r ta in s e r v ic e s to lo ca l sch o o l b o a rd s. The Attorney General should be authorized when requested to do so by a local school board, to give such advice and render such legal assistance as he deems necessary upon questions relating to the commingling of the races in the public schools. The localities will have many problems confronting them in view of the school segregation cases and will also have many new responsibilities, including the promulgation of a vast number of detailed rules and regula tions. Under such circumstances it is felt that the office of the Attorney General should be made available to them. The Commission realizes, of course, that in order for such a measure to operate effectively the office of the Attorney General must be expanded and the necessary funds appro priated by the General Assembly. 12. T h a t th o s e s e c tio n s o f th e C o d e r e la tin g to th e m i n i m u m sch o o l te r m , a p p e a ls f r o m a c tio n s o f sch o o l b o a rd s, S t a t e f u n d s w h ic h a r e p a id f o r p u b lic sch o o ls i n c o u n tie s , sch o o l le v ie s a n d u s e th e r e o f, c a sh a p p r o p r ia tio n s i n lie u o f sch o o l le v ie s , a n d u n e x p e n d e d sch o o l f u n d s , be am .en.ded; a n d t h a t c e r ta in o b s o le te s e c tio n s o f th e C o d e be r e p e a le d . 11 �Local school boards should be authorized, but not required to main tain public schools for a period of a t least nine months. A locality may be confronted with an emergency situation. The present procedure governing appeals from actions of school boards should be clarified so that it will not conflict with appeals in as signment cases. The State Board of Education appears to have the authority to ap prove the operation of schools in a locality for a period of less than nine months with no loss in State funds. This should be made clear. The requirement for minimum school levies or cash appropriations in lieu thereof should be eliminated and levies or cash appropriation for educational purposes authorized. The procedure for the reversion of unexpended school funds should be broadened so as to make it apply to appropriations for educational pur poses. Those sections of the Code relating to distribution of school funds which are obsolete, being covered by the Appropriation Act, should be repealed. The section of the Code requiring segregated schools has been rendered void by the Supreme Court of the United States and should be repealed. The section of the Code requiring cities to maintain a system of public schools should be repealed since it duplicates another provision of the Code. CONCLUSION The Commission has set forth a t length the bill the adoption of which is essential to the enactment of legislation to avoid enforced integration. It has discussed in detail the proposals which it believes the General As sembly should consider and adopt subsequent to the amendment of Section 141 of the Constitution. They are so interrelated that it is impractical to consider them except in their entirety and at the same time. To attempt to pass some of them without at the same time being able to consider and to act upon the others, would not be feasible. Finally, as this report has stressed, if those educational programs which have been endangered by the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia in the case of A l m o n d v. D a y are to be continued, and if our children are to escape enforced integration and yet be educated, it is necessary th at Section 141 of the Constitution be amended through the calling of a limited Constitu tional Convention. The session of the General Assembly which considers that matter should not have before it other measures to becloud the issue and delay action on the most pressing problem confronting the State in this century. We therefore recommend that Your Excellency call a special session of the General Assembly for the sole purpose of considering the bill attached hereto. Subsequent to the Constitutional Convention the Commission will be prepared to submit specific bills carrying out the proposals hereinabove set forth. In conclusion, the Commission wishes to express its gratitude to Your Excellency; to the Honorable J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General; 12 to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dowell J. Howard; to John G. Blount, Jr., Finance Director of the Department of Education; to Charles H. Smith, Director of the Virginia Supplemental Retirement Sys tem; to David J. Mays and Henry T. Wickham, counsel; and to John B. Boatwright, Jr., and G. M. Lapsley, Secretary and Recording Secretary, respectively, to the Commission, and their staff; and to many others who have given their counsel and made specific suggestions, all of which have been carefully considered. Respectfully submitted, GARLAND GRAY, Chairman HARRY B. DAVIS, Vice-Chairman H. H. ADAMS J. BRADIE ALLMAN ROBERT F. BALDWIN, JR. JOSEPH E. BLACKBURN ROBERT Y. BUTTON ORBY L. CANTRELL RUSSELL M. CARNEAL CURRY CARTER W. C. CAUDILL C. W. CLEATON J. H. DANIEL CHARLES R. FENWICK EARL A. FITZPATRICK MILLS E. GODWIN, JR. J. D. HAGOOD A. S. HARRISON, JR. CHARLES K. HUTCHENS S. FLOYD LANDRETH BALDWIN G. LOCHER J. MAYNARD MAGRUDER G. EDMOND MASSIE W. M. MINTER W. TAYLOE MURPHY SAMUEL E. POPE H. H. PURCELL JAMES W. ROBERTS V. S. SHAFFER W. ROY SMITH J. RANDOLPH TUCKER, JR. C. S. WHEATLEY, JR. 13 �APPENDIX I H o n o r a b l e T h o m a s B. St a n l e y , G o v e r n o r o f V i r g in ia On August 30, 1954, Your Excellency appointed the undersigned to a commission charged with the duty of examining the effect on this Com monwealth of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation cases handed down on May 17, 1954, and of making such recommendations, based upon its examination, as they deemed proper. Your Commission met on September 13, 1954, and elected the under signed chairman and Harry B. Davis vice-chairman. An executive com mittee was provided for, consisting of the two named officers and nine other members of the Commission. Immediately following the appointment of the Commission, its mem bers began to receive a large volume of mail from the citizens of Virginia. In addition, a great many citizens talked with members of the Commission and stated their views on the question of integration, requesting that they be transmitted to the proper authorities. The Commission held a public hearing on November 15, 1954, in the City of Richmond. The widest possible publicity was given to this hearing and all citizens and groups were invited to attend or send repre sentatives to express their views on the question of what course Virginia should follow in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation cases. The hearing was held in the Mosque in order to accommodate the more than two thousand persons who at tended. It began at 10:00 A. M. and extended late into the night. Op portunity was given everyone who had indicated a desire to do so, to express his opinion. As the record of the public hearing shows, the great majority of those appearing there expressed opposition to integration and requested those in authority to afford them relief from the effects which they anticipated would result therefrom. Spokesmen for the Negro race and various Negro organizations, and a lesser number of white persons, urged immediate in tegration ; in some instances conflicting viewpoints developed among mem bers of the same organization. The hearing was well attended, orderly, and apparently representative of the views of the people of the entire State, and it is presently the view of the Commission that further public hearings would result only in cumula tive testimony, rather than fresh viewpoints. The testimony at the hearing brought into sharp focus the nature and intensity of the feeling as to the effect that integration would have on the public school system. Not only did the majority of persons speaking a t the hearing feel that integration would lead to the abolition or destruc tion of the public school system, but some groups indicated, through their spokesmen, that they p r e fe r i'e d to see the public school system abandoned if the only alternative was integration. It is noteworthy that fifty-five counties, located in various parts of the State, through resolutions adopted by their representative governing bodies, have expressed opposition to integration in the public schools and that of the fifty-five counties only twenty-one have over fifty percent Negro population. A number of school boards have expressed opposition to integration of the races in the schools, as have many non-governmental 14 organizations and associations of our citizens. Included in the latter group are large and representative Statewide organizations. In addition, the sentiment of a large number of individuals has been expressed through the medium of petitions opposing integration. The public hearing held in Richmond, the content of many communica tions to Your Excellency and to the Commission, conversations with the people of this Commonwealth, and the actions taken by a majority of the boards of supervisors of the counties, and by school boards and other organizations, have convinced the Commission that the overwhelming majority of the people of Virginia are not only opposed to integration of the white and negro children of this State, but are firmly convinced that integration of the public school system without due regard to the convictions of the majority of the people and without regard to local con ditions, would virtually destroy or seriously impair the public system in many sections in Virginia. The welfare of the public school system is based on the support of the people who provide the revenues which maintain it, and unless that system is operated in accordance with the convictions of the people who pay the costs, it cannot survive; and this is particularly true in Virginia where a large percentage of the cost of public education is dependent upon local revenues. In view of the foregoing, I have been directed to report that the Commission, working with its counsel, will explore avenues toward formula tion of a program, within the framework of law, designed to prevent en forced integration of the races in the public schools of Virginia. Respectfully submitted, GARLAND GRAY, Chairman. January 19, 1955. 15 �APPENDIX II R ic h m o n d , V ir g in ia , J u n e 10, 1955. To: H o n o r a b l e T h o s . B. St a n l e y , G overnor o f V irg in ia The Commission in its report to Your Excellency, dated January 19, 1955, stated that it would explore avenues toward formulation of a pro gram, within the framework of law, designed to prevent enforced integra tion of the races in the public schools of Virginia. In furtherance of that aim, counsel, working closely with the undersigned, the full Commission, the executive committee, a committee of attorneys consisting of three members of the Commission and many others, has studied and evaluated various plans and programs of suggested legislation and has now reached some general conclusions. By necessity no plan or program could be evolved until the final de cision of the Supreme Court of the United States was rendered. This was done on May 31, 1955, and, a t the request of Your Excellency, the under signed called a meeting of the Commission on June 8 , 9 and 10 for the specific purpose of considering the effects of the Supreme Court's latest enunciation concerning the public school system in Virginia. Throughout its deliberations the Commission has been fully conscious that one of the most important functions of State and local government is the education of our youth. It has been at all times guided by the realization that education for the children of this State is of paramount consideration. The plans the Commission has under consideration, necessitated by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, require numerous, involved and complex changes in the present laws of Virginia. Such changes relate to the State Board of Education, local school boards, appro priations by local tax levying bodies, the employment of teachers, their tenure in office and retirement, distribution of school funds by the State, and other related matters. No political subdivision of Virginia can initiate a system designed to achieve an orderly and equitable adjustment con sistent with law before the enactment of appropriate legislation by the General Assembly and the formulation and application of local policy thereunder. The Court in its opinion of May 31, 1955, recognized that a variety of obstacles would have to be eliminated before any transition could be had to a school system operated in accordance with its views. The responsibility for assessing and solving these problems was placed on the school authorities. In Virginia the public schools are the creature of law and operate as a joint State and local responsibility. Time and exhaustive study are required for the formulation and enactment of legislation if the interest and welfare of the pupils of both races, the protection of the status of the teachers, and the financial problems involved are to receive con structive attention. Hasty action could well result in the serious impair ment or destruction of the public school system. This should be as obvious to all who have carefully considered the problem confronting the State and the localities, as it is to the Supreme Court of the United States itself. Because of the many complex statutory changes involved and the necessity to consider many of them in the light of the Constitution of Virginia, it has not yet been possible for the Commission to work out 16 appropriate legislation. Meanwhile both local school authorities and the State Board of Education face the necessity of concluding and announcing plans for the 1955-1956 school year. In the circumstances it is the recommendation of this Commission that Your Excellency and the State Board of Education declare that it is the policy of the State to continue schools through the school year 1955-1956 as presently operated. Further, it is the judgment of this Com mission that an adjustment, at this time, to a school system not based on race would not be practicable or feasible from an administrative stand point or otherwise. Your Commission will continue its work and submit a further report at its conclusion. The report will contain specific bills for enactment by the General Assembly. For the foregoing reasons, it is the view of the Commission that an extra session of the General Assembly should not be called at this time. GARLAND GRAY, Chairman. 17 �APPENDIX III CHAPTER 2 A n A c t to prov id e fo r s u b m ittin g to th e qualified electors th e q uestion of w h e th e r th ere sh a ll be a co n ven tio n to re vise a n d am en d S ectio n 1U1 o f th e C o n stitu tio n o f V irg in ia . [H 1] Approved December 3, 1955 Whereas, by Item 210 of the Appropriation Act of 1954 (Acts of Assembly, 1954, Chapt. 708, p. 970), the General Assembly sought to enact measures to aid certain war orphans in obtaining an education at either public or private institutions of learning, which said Item has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, insofar as it purports to authorize payments for tuition, institutional fees and other expenses of students who attend private schools, to be violative of certain provisions of the Constitution respecting education and public instruction; and, Whereas, the State’s entire program, insofar as attendance at private schools is concerned, involving the industrial rehabilitation program, grants for the education of war orphans, grants in aid of Negro graduate students, and scholarships for teaching and nursing, is in jeopardy; and, Whereas, in order to permit the handicapped, war orphans, Negro graduate students and prospective teachers and nurses to receive aid in furtherance of their education at private schools and in order to insure educational opportunities for those children who may not otherwise receive a public school education due to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation cases, it is deemed necessary that said provisions of the Constitution be revised and amended; and, Whereas, it is impossible to procure such amendments and revisions within the time required to permit educational aid forthwith for the current school year and that beginning in the fall of 1956 except by con vening a constitutional convention; and, Whereas, because it is deemed unwise at this time to make any sweeping or drastic changes in the fundamental laws of the State, and also, in order to assure the adoption of the contemplated amendments and revisions within the time necessary to permit educational aid in the school year of 1956-57, it is deemed necessary that the people eliminate all questions from consideration by said convention save and except those essential to the adoption of those revisions and amendments specified in this Act; and, Whereas, in order to avoid heated and untimely controversies through out the State as to what other matters, if any, may or should be acted upon by said convention, it is believed to be in the public interest to submit to the electors the sole question whether a convention shall be called which will be empowered by the people to consider and act upon said limited revisions and amendments only, and not upon any others; now, therefore, Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. § 1. That at an election to be held on such day as may be fixed by proclamation of the Governor (but not later than sixty days after the 18 passage of this Act) there shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly the question “Shall there be a convention to revise the Constitution and amend the same?” Should a majority of the electors voting a t said election vote for a convention, the legal effect of same will be that the people will thereby delegate to it only the following powers of revision and amendment of Section 141 of the Constitution and no others: A. The convention may consider and adopt amendments to Section 141 of the Constitution of Virginia necessary to accomplish the following pur poses, and no others: To permit the General Assembly and the governing bodies of the several counties, cities and towns to appropriate funds for educational purposes which may be expended in furtherance of elementary, secondary, collegiate and graduate education of Virginia students in public and nonsectarian private schools and institutions of learning in addition to those owned or exclusively controlled by the State or any such county, city Or town. B. The convention shall be empowered to proclaim and ordain said revisions and amendments adopted by it within the scope of its powers as above set forth without submitting same to the electors for approval, but the convention will not have the power to either consider, adopt, or propose any other amendments or revisions. § 2. The judges of election and other officers charged with the duty of conducting elections a t each of the several voting places in the State are hereby required to hold an election upon the said question of calling the convention, on the day fixed therefor by proclamation of the Governor, a t all election precincts in the State, but the several electoral boards may, in their discretion, dispense with the services of clerks of election in such precincts as they may deem appropriate. Copies of the Governor’s procla mation shall be promptly sent by the State Board of Elections to the secretary of each electoral board and due publicity thereof given through the press of the State and otherwise if the Governor so directs. § 3. The ballots to be used in said election the State Board of Elec tions shall cause to be printed, and distributed and furnished to the re spective electoral boards of the counties and cities of the State. The num ber furnished each such board shall be determined by the State Board of Elections within the limits prescribed by § 24-213 of the Code of Virginia. The respective electoral boards shall cause the customary identification seal to be stamped on the ballots delivered to them. In order to insure that the electors will clearly understand the limited powers which may be exercised by the convention, if called, said ballots shall be printed in type not less in size than small pica and contain the following words and figures: “Constitutional Convention Ballot: “INFORMATORY STATEMENT “The Act of the General Assembly submitting to the people the ques tion below provides that the elector is voting for or against a convention to which will be delegated by the people only the limited powers of revising and amending Section 141 of the Constitution to the extent th at is neces sary to accomplish the following purposes, and no other powers: “To permit the General Assembly and the governing bodies of the several counties, cities and towns to appropriate funds for educational purposes which may be expended in furtherance of elementary, secondary, collegiate and graduate education of Virginia students in public and nonsectarian private schools and institutions of learning in addition to those owned or exclusively controlled by the State or any such county, city or town. 19 �“The act also provides that the legal effect of a majority vote for a convention will be that the people will delegate to it only the foregoing powers, except that the convention will be empowered to ordain and pro claim said revisions and amendments adopted by it within the scope of said powers without submitting same to the electors for approval, but the convention will not have the power to either consider, adopt or propose any other amendments or revisions. “In the light of the foregoing information the question to be voted on is as follows: “Shall there be a convention to revise the Constitution and amend the same? “ For the convention. “ Against the convention.” § 4. A ballot deposited with a cross mark, a line or check mark placed in the square preceding the words “For the convention” shall be a vote for the convention, and a ballot deposited with a cross mark, line or check mark preceding the words “Against the convention” shall be a vote against the convention. § 5. The ballots shall be distributed and voted, and the results thereof ascertained and certified, in the manner prescribed by section 24-141 of the Code of Virginia. It shall be the duty of the clerks and commissioners of election of each county and city, respectively, to make out, certify and forward an abstract of the votes cast for and against the convention in the manner now prescribed by law in relation to votes cast in general State elections. § 6 . It shall be the duty of the State Board of Elections to open and canvass the said abstracts of returns, and to examine and make statement of the whole number of votes given at said election for and against the convention, respectively, in the manner now prescribed by law in relation to votes cast in general elections; and it shall be the duty of the State Board of Elections to record said certified statement in its office, and without delay to make out and transmit to the Governor of the Common wealth an official copy of said statement, certified by it under its seal of office. § 7. The Governor shall, without delay, make proclamation of the result, stating therein the aggregate vote for and against the convention to be published in such newspapers in the State as may be deemed requisite for general information. The State Board of Elections shall cause to be sent to the clerks of each county and corporation, at least fifteen days before the election, as many copies of this Act as there are places of voting therein; and it shall be the duty of such clerks to forthwith deliver the same to the sheriffs of their respective counties and sergeants of their respective cities for distribution. Each such sheriff or sergeant shall forthwith post a copy of such Act at some public place in each election district at or near the usual voting place in the said district. § 8 . The expenses incurred in conducting this election, except as herein otherwise provided, shall be defrayed as in the case of the election of members of the General Assembly. § 9. The State Board of Elections shall have authority to employ such help and incur such expense as may be necessary to enable it to discharge the duties imposed on it under this Act, the expenses thereof to be paid from funds appropriated by law. 2. An emergency existing, this Act shall be in force from the time of its passage. F o o tn o te : T h is c o p y o f C h a p te r 2 o f th e 1 9 5 5 E x t r a S e s s io n is s u b s titu te d f o r th e p ro p o s e d b ill s e t f o r th i n S e n a te D o c u m e n t N o . 1, p u r s u a n t to H .J .R . N o . 9 o f th e s a m e se ss io n . 20 � 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 19, The Personal Papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell Description An account of the resource This collection consists of the personal papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell, and covers the period from 1945 through 1991, with the bulk of the material falling between 1947 and 1959. The materials in this collection were generated or collected as a result of Mrs. Campbell's involvement in the Arlington County School Board, as well as her interests and activities in education and local politics. 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 Booklet: "Public Education, Report of the Commission to the Governor of Virginia", Senate Document No. 1, Commonwealth of Virginia, 1955. 10 pages. MISSING PAGES 6-7 OF BOOKLET. Description An account of the resource Report of Commission appointed to examine the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation cases decided May 17, 1954. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 19, The Personal Papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Commonwealth of Virginia Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-05-17 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 19_6_1_2_43 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/a544964deae28d71f741952b97bce910.pdf 53a064fa052b7cce35f259262590b9a9 PDF Text Text PUBLIC EDUCATION REPORT OF THE COMMISSION To the GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA SENATE DOCUMENT No. 1 Reprint Pursuant to H.J.R. No. 9, 1955 Extra Session Co m m o n w ea l t h o p V ir g in ia Division of P u rchase a n d Printing Richmond 1955 �Members of the Commission GARLAND GRAY, Chairman HARRY B. DAVIS, Vice Chairman H. H. ADAMS J. BRADIE ALLMAN ROBERT F. BALDWIN, JR. JOSEPH E. BLACKBURN ROBERT Y. BUTTON ORBY L. CANTRELL RUSSELL M. CARNEAL CURRY CARTER W. C. CAUDILL C. W. CLEATON J. H. DANIEL CHARLES R. FENWICK EARL A. FITZPATRICK MILLS E. GODWIN, JR. J. D. HAGOOD A. S. HARRISON, JR. CHARLES K. HUTCHENS S. FLOYD LANDRETH BALDWIN G. LOCHER J. MAYNARD MAGRUDER G. EDMOND MASSIE W. M. MINTER W. TAYLOE MURPHY SAMUEL E. POPE H. H. PURCELL JAMES W. ROBERTS V. S. SHAFFER W. ROY SMITH J. RANDOLPH TUCKER, JR. C. S. WHEATLEY, JR. Counsel DAVID J. MAYS HENRY T. WICKHAM Staff JOHN B. BOATWRIGHT, JR. G. M. LAPSLEY JAMES C. ROBERSON �REPORT OF COMMISSION ON PUBLIC EDUCATION To: R ic h m o n d , V ir T h e H o n o r a b l e T h o s . B. St a n l g in ia , N o v e m b e r 11,1955. e y , G o v e r n o r o f V ir g in ia Your Commission was appointed on August 30, 1954, and instructed to examine the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation cases, decided May 17, 1954, and to make such recommendations as may be deemed proper. The real impact of the decision, however, could not be fully considered until the final decree of the Supreme Court was handed down and its mandate was before the Federal District Court for interpretation. This did not take place until July 18, 1955. The Commission and its Executive Committee have held many meet ings, including a lengthy public hearing, wherein many representatives of both races expressed their views, and the Commission has made two interim reports, one on January 19, 1955,1 and the other on June 10, 1955.2 It now submits its further recommendations for consideration by Your Excellency. EFFECT OF THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DAVIS v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Until the decision in the D a v is and companion cases, segregation of the races in the public schools had been recognized as coming within the valid exercise of the police powers of the several states. In the leading case of P le s s y v. F e r g u s o n , 163 U. S. 537 (decided in 1896), the Supreme Court of the United States, in upholding the validity of a Louisiana statute requiring the separation of the races in railway coaches, made this pertin ent observation: “* * The most common instance of this (segregation of the races) is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, which have been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by the courts of states where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced.” When the question of the constitutionality of a Mississippi statute requiring segregation of the races in the public schools came before the United States Supreme Court in 1927 in the case of G o n g L u m v. R ic e , 275 U. S. 78, Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, upheld its constitutionality, and observed, “* * * we think that it is the same question which has been many times decided to be within the constitutional power of the State legislature to settle without intervention of the federal courts under the Federal Constitution,” citing many cases. When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted three generations ago, no one dreamed that it had any application to segregation in the public schools. Even the Congress which initiated the Fourteenth Amendment 1 See, Appendix I 2 See, Appendix II 5 �provided for segregated schools in the District of Columbia. For nearly a century this interpretation was adopted by many state courts and by the Supreme Court of the United States, and accepted by the people of this country and their legislative representatives. It was the law of the land as firmly as anything can be the law of the land. In the D a v is and companion cases the present Court has uprooted the law long laid down and followed by eminent judges. In doing so, the present Court abandoned all legal precedent and based its conclusions upon the conflicting evidence of psychologists. It relied “generally” upon a lengthy treatise edited by Gunnar Myrdal, a European sociologist of slight experience in the United States, consisting of a number of over lapping contributions made by a number of writers, many of whom were given their golden opportunity to voice their own preconceptions and prejudices. This treatise seems, however, not to have been closely read by the justices of the Supreme Court; otherwise, they would have observed that the author suggests that the adoption of the Constitution was in its inception a fraud upon the common people and that in his opinion it is now an outworn document. With this decision, based upon such authority, we are now faced. It is a m atter of the gravest import, not only to those communities where problems of race are serious, but to every community in the land, because this decision transcends the m atter of segregation in education. It means that irrespective of precedent, long acquiesced in, the Court can and will change its interpretation of the Constitution at its pleasure, disregarding the orderly processes for its amendment set forth in Article V thereof. It means that the most fundamental of the rights of the states and of their citizens exist by the Court’s sufferance and that the law of the land is whatever the Court may determine it to be by the process of judicial legislation. THE PROBLEM BEFORE US The Commission, realizing that the problem before it is the gravest to confront the people of Virginia in this century, has not been willing to take hasty actions which might tend to add to the damage already done to the school system by judicial decree. The public schools are not only educational institutions together with the churches they are the dominant social institutions of the people of Virginia, and of the two, the schools occupy the greater part of the thought and energy of our children. The public schools have been built up slowly and painfully from the ashes of 1865. Within the memory of members of the Commission, public schools, especially in the rural areas, were pathetically inadequate for both races. Until recent years the people of Virginia struggled to establish primary schools in order to meet the minimum needs of our children. At the end of the century only a little more than 1 0 , 0 0 0 white and a little more than 1,000 Negro pupils were taking high school subjects in Virginia, which was only 4% of the white pupils and only .7% of the Negro pupils then in the schools. Since then our public schools have made enormous progress. In the high schools we now have 135,425 white and 38,740 Negro pupils enrolled. The pay of Negro and white teachers has been equalized and many millions of dollars have been expended in school con struction. The number of Negro teachers—more than 6,000—employed in the public schools of Virginia today exceeds those in all of the nonsegregated states combined at the time the Supreme Court had the school 6 segregation cases before it. Progress in recent years has been so rapid in improving the Negro schools that now in many of our counties and cities they are superior to the white schools. Our modern public school system has been developed on a racially segregated basis and advancement of the Negro race has been a direct re sult of such a system. Without segregation, the white children would still be largely taught in private academies as they were in the early days in Virginia. Public schools would have made no progress and Negro children would have received little or no public education. Future judicial pronouncements and the attitudes of the Negroes themselves will largely determine whether in many parts of Virginia the clock will be turned back a century. It is now judicially asserted that Negro children lose something by being compelled to attend separate schools. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, gave no consideration to the adverse effect of integration upon white children, although this was expressly called to the attention of the Court. This Commission believes that separate facilities in our public schools are in the best interest of both races, educationally and otherwise, and that compulsory integration should be resisted by all proper means in our power. The racial problem in Virginia varies radically in different localities; in thirty-one counties in the North, West, and Southwest the Negro school population is less than 10% of the whole; in twenty-four of the South eastern, Piedmont, and Tidewater counties it exceeds 50%, and in one it is nearly 80%. In some localities where there are few Negroes the problem of ad justment is not so serious as it is in localities with large Negro populations. In the latter, it is believed that the people will abandon public schools rather than accept any integration. Our school properties, representing an investment of nearly half a billion dollars, are owned by the localities, and the money for their operation is raised in great part from local taxes. Obviously, the schools cannot continue without the support of the people, and we must leave a large measure of autonomy to the localities even though that may result in the closing of public schools. Thus the local school boards must be given wide discretion to meet their peculiar local problems. The employment of teachers; the assign ment of pupils; the regulation or abandonment of transportation; the opera tion or abandonment of cafeterias; the continuation or abandonment of athletics, societies of various kinds, and other extra-curricular activities; the maintenance of existing social practices or the entire elimination from the schools of every activity but bare instruction; the maintenance of co education or separation by sex;—all of these things must be in the hands of local people who know their own communities and whose children will profit or suffer by their decisions. This will call for unselfish service on the part of the best people of each community. But this is not new in Virginia; in the years that preceded our Revolution, times of stress and danger, our best men con tributed unselfishly and without compensation their thoughts and energies to local government, even while playing their parts on a larger stage. As county magistrates they legislated, adjudicated, and administered the laws of their people. George Mason, who wrote our Bill of Rights, was a magistrate of Fairfax County; Edmund Pendleton, who presided over the Virginia Revolutionary Convention and drafted the resolution calling upon Congress to declare Independence, was a magistrate of Caroline 7 �County; Richard Henry Lee, who moved the resolution in Congress, was a magistrate of Westmoreland; Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a magistrate of Albemarle; and Washington, on whose broad shoulders the Revolution rested, was a magistrate of both King George and Fairfax. The Commission is certain that the spirit that actuated our fathers during times of trial still lives in this Commonwealth, and that our best citizens will not fail to meet the challenge of their day. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION PROPOSED The Commission has been confronted with the problem of continuing a public school system and at the same time making provision for localities wherein public schools are abandoned, and providing educational op portunities for children whose parents will not send them to integrated schools. To meet the problem thus created by the Supreme Court, the Com mission proposes a plan of assignment which will permit local school boards to assign their pupils in such manner as will best serve the welfare of their communities and protect and foster the public schools under their jurisdic tion. The Commission further proposes legislation to provide that no child be required to attend a school wherein both white and colored children are taught and that the parents of those children who object to integrated schools, or who live in communities wherein no public schools are operated, be given tuition grants for educational purposes. There has heretofore been pending before The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia the case of A l m o n d v. D a y , in which the court had before it for consideration the question of whether the Legislature could validly appropriate funds for the education of war orphans at public and private schools. On November 7, 1955, the Court rendered its decision and held, among other things, that § 141 of the Constitution of Virginia prohibited the appropriation of public funds for payments of tuition, institutional fees and other expenses of students who may desire to attend private schools. If our children are to be educated and if enforced integration is to be avoided, it is now clear that § 141 must be amended. Moreover, unless this is done, the State’s entire program, insofar as attendance at private schools is concerned, involving the industrial rehabilitation program for the physically and mentally handicapped, grants for the education of deserving war orphans, grants in aid of Negro graduate students, and scholarships for teaching and nursing, to remedy shortages in these fields, is in jeopardy. Accordingly, it is recommended that a special session of the General Assembly be called forthwith for the purpose of initiating a limited con stitutional convention so that § 141 may be amended in ample time to make tuition grants and other educational payments available in the cur rent school year and the school year beginning in the fall of 1956. A suggested bill for consideration of the General Assembly is attached hereto as Appendix III. Contingent upon the favorable action of the people relative to the amendment of the Constitution herein proposed, your Commission recom mends the enactment of legislation in substance as follows: 1. T h a t s c h o o l b o a r d s be a u th o r iz e d to a s s ig n p u p ils to p a r tic u la r s c h o o ls a n d to p r o v id e f o r a p p e a ls i n c e r ta in in s ta n c e s . Such legislation would be designed to give localities broad discretion in the assignment of pupils in the public schools. 8 Assignments would be based upon the welfare of the particular child as well as the welfare and best interests of all other pupils attending a particular school. The school board should be authorized to take into con sideration such factors as availability of facilities, health, aptitude of the child and the availability of transportation. Children who have heretofore attended a particular public school would not be reassigned to a different one except for good cause shown. A child who has not previously attended a public school or whose residence has changed, would be assigned as aforesaid. Any parent, guardian or other person having custody of a child, who objects to the assignment of his child to a particular school under the provisions of the act should have the right to make application within fifteen days after the giving of the notice of the particular assignment to the local school board for a review of its action. The application should contain the specific reasons why the child should not attend the school assigned and the specific reasons why the child should be assigned to a different school named in the application. After the application is re ceived by the local school board a hearing would be held within forty-five days and, after hearing evidence, the school board would determine to what school the child should be assigned. An appeal if taken should be permitted from the final order of the school board within fifteen days. The appeal would be to the circuit or corporation court. The local school board would be made a defendant in this action and the case heard and determined d e n o v o by the judge of the court, either in term or in vacation. If either party be aggrieved by the order of the court, an appeal should be permitted to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. 2. T h a t n o c h ild be r e q u ir e d to a tte n d a n i n te g r a te d sch o o l. 3. T h a t th e s e c tio n s o f th e C o d e r e la tin g to th e p o w e r s a n d d u tie s o f sch o o l b o a r d s r e la t iv e to tr a n s p o r ta tio n o f p u p ils be a m e n d e d so a s to p r o v id e t h a t s c h o o l b o a r d s m a y f u r n i s h tr a n s p o r ta tio n f o r p u p ils . In the opinion of the Commission, such is merely a restatement of existing law. However, it is felt that it should be made perfectly clear that no county school board be required to furnish transportation to school children. 4. T h a t c h a n g e s be m a d e i n th e la w r e la t in g to th e a s s ig n m e n t o f te a c h e r s . Local school boards should be vested with the authority to employ teachers and assign them to a particular school. The division superin tendent should be permitted to assign a particular teacher to a particular position in the school, but not to assign the teacher to a school different from that to which such teacher was assigned by the local school board without the consent of such board. 5. T h a t lo c a litie s be a u th o r iz e d to r a is e s u m s o f m o n e y b y a t a x o n p r o p e r ty , s u b je c t to lo ca l ta x a tio n , to be e x p e n d e d b y lo ca l sc h o o l a u th o r itie s f o r e d u c a tio n a l p u r p o s e s in c lu d in g c o s t o f t r a n s p o r ta tio n a n d to r e c e iv e a n d e x p e n d S t a t e a id f o r t h e s a m e p u r p o s e s . Those localities wherein no public schools are operated should be authorized to provide for an educational levy or a cash appropriation in lieu of such levy. The maximum amount of the levy or cash appropriation, as the case may he, should be limited in the same manner as school levies or .school appropriations are limited. 9 �r / / The procedure to be followed by school officials and local tax levying bodies for obtaining these educational funds would be the same as pre scribed by law for the raising of funds for public school purposes. The educational funds so raised would be expended by the local school board for the payment of tuition grants for elementary or secondary school education and could, in the discretion of the board, be expended for trans portation costs. Local school boards should be vested with the authority to pay out such grants and costs under their own rules and regulations. Localities should be granted and allocated their share of State funds upon certifying that such funds would be expended for tuition grants. Any person who expends a tuition grant for any purpose other than the education of his child should be amenable to prosecution therefor. 6 . T h a t sc h o o l b u d g e ts be r e q u ir e d to in c lu d e a m o u n ts s u ffic ie n t f o r The Commission realizes that the payment of tuition grants in locali ties wherein public schools are operated may necessitate some expendi tures beyond the adopted school budgets. Since tuition grants are vital to the prevention of enforced integration, it should be provided that the State bear one-half of any excess costs to the locality. 8 . T h a t local s c h o o l b o a r d s be a u th o r iz e d to e x p e n d f u n d s d e s ig n e d f o r p u b lic sch o o l p u i'p o s e s f o r s u c h tu i t i o n g r a n ts a s m a y be p e r m itt e d b y laiv w i t h o u t f i r s t o b ta in in g a u th o r ity t h e r e fo r f r o m th e ta x le v y in g b o d y . Local school boards should be authorized to transfer school funds, excluding those for capital outlay and debt service, within the total amount of their budget and to expend such funds for tuition grants, in order to give the local boards more flexibility to meet the requirements of the tuition grant program. 9. T h a t th e e m p lo y m e n t o f c o u n s e l b y lo ca l s c h o o l b o a r d s be a u th e p a y m e n t o f tu i t i o n g r a n t s a n d tr a n s p o r ta tio n c o s ts u n d e r c e r ta in c irc u m s ta n c e s ; t h a t lo ca l g o v e r n in g b o d ie s be a u th o r iz e d to r a is e m o n e y f o r s u c h p u r p o s e s ; t h a t p r o v is io n b e m a d e f o r th e e x p e n d itu r e o f s u c h fu n d s ; a n d t h a t th e S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a tio n be e m p o w e r e d to w a iv e c e r ta in c o n d itio n s i n th e d is tr i b u tio n o f S t a t e f u n d s . This would be companion legislation to that dealing with the assign ment of pupils and compulsory education, respectively. It would be dei signed to further prevent enforced integration by providing for the pay ment of tuition grants for the education of those children whose parents object to their attendance at mixed schools. Without such a measure, enforced integration could not be effectively avoided since many parents would then be required to choose integrated schools as the only alternative to the illiteracy of their children. The division superintendent of the schools of every county, city or town wherein public schools are operated should be required to include in his estimate of the school budget an amount of money to be expended as tuition grants for elementary and secondary school education. The locality would be authorized to include in its school levy or cash appropriation an amount necessary for such tuition grants. The educational funds so raised would be expended in payment of tuition grants for elementary or secondary school education to the parents, guardians or other persons having custody of children who have been assigned to public schools wherein both white and colored children are enrolled, provided such parents, guardians or other persons having custody of such children certify that they object to such assignment. Each grant should be in the amount necessary for the education of the child, provided, however, that in no event would such grant exceed the total cost of operation per pupil in average daily attendance in the public schools for the locality making such grant as determined for the preceding school year by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Provision should be made for the payment of transportation costs in the discretion of the board to those who qualify for tuition grants. No locality that expends funds for tuition grants should be penalized in the distribution of State funds. Any person who expends tuition grants for any purpose other than for the education of his child should be amen able to prosecution. 7. T h a t p r o v is io n be m a d e f o r th e r e im b u r s e m e n t b y th e S t a t e o n e - h a lf o f a n y a d d itio n a l c o s ts w h ic h m a y b e in c u r r e d b y c e r ta in lo c a litie s i n p a y m e n t o f t u itio n g r a n t s r e q u ir e d b y la w . 10 th o r iz e d to d e fe n d th e a c tio n s o f th e i r m e m b e r s a n d t h a t th e p a y m e n t o f c o sts , e x p e n s e s a n d lia b ilitie s le v ie d a g a in s t th e m be m a d e b y th e lo ca l g o v e r n in g b o d ie s o u t o f th e c o u n ty o r c ity tr e a s u r y a s th e ca se m a y be. Such a measure is necessary if we are to continue to have representa tive citizens as members of our local school boards. 10. T h a t th e V i r g in ia S u p p le m e n t a l R e t i r e m e n t A c t be b r o a d e n e d to p r o v id e f o r th e r e ti r e m e n t o f c e r ta in p r iv a t e sc h o o l te a c h e r s . The Virginia Supplemental Retirement Act should be broadened to provide for the retirement of school teachers if such teachers be employed by a corporation organized for the purpose of operating a private school after the effective date of the enactment of legislation recommended by this report. The purpose of this is to protect the retirement status of those public school teachers who may hereafter desire to teach in private schools that are established because of the decision in the school segregation cases. Corporate entity is deemed necessary for practical administration by the Retirement Board. 11. T h a t th e o ffic e o f th e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l s h o u ld be a u th o r iz e d to r e n d e r c e r ta in s e r v ic e s to lo ca l sc h o o l b o a r d s. The Attorney General should be authorized when requested to do so by a local school board, to give such advice and render such legal assistance as he deems necessary upon questions relating to the commingling of the races in the public schools. The localities will have many problems confronting them in view of the school segregation cases and will also have many new responsibilities, including the promulgation of a vast number of detailed rules and regula tions. Under such circumstances it is felt that the office of the Attorney General should be made available to them. The Commission realizes, of course, that in order for such a measure to operate effectively the office of the Attorney General must be expanded and the necessary funds appro priated by the General Assembly. of 12. T h a t th o s e s e c tio n s o f th e C o d e r e la t in g to th e m i n i m u m sch o o l te r m , a p p e a ls f r o m a c tio n s o f s c h o o l b o a r d s , S t a t e f u n d s iv h ic h a r e p a id f o r p u b lic s c h o o ls i n c o u n tie s , s c h o o l le v ie s a n d u s e th e r e o f, c a s h a p p r o p r ia tio n s i n lie u o f sch o o l le v ie s , a n d u n e x p e n d e d sch o o l f u n d s , be a m e n d e d ; a n d t h a t c e r ta in o b s o le te s e c tio n s o f th e C o d e be re p e a le d . 11 �Local school boards should be authorized, but not required to main tain public schools for a period of a t least nine months. A locality may be confronted with an emergency situation. The present procedure governing appeals from actions of school boards should be clarified so th at it will not conflict with appeals in as signment cases. The State Board of Education appears to have the authority to ap prove the operation of schools in a locality for a period of less than nine months with no loss in State funds. This should be made clear. The requirement for minimum school levies or cash appropriations in lieu thereof should be eliminated and levies or cash appropriation for educational purposes authorized. The procedure for the reversion of unexpended school funds should be broadened so as to make it apply to appropriations for educational pur poses. Those sections of the Code relating to distribution of school funds which are obsolete, being covered by the Appropriation Act, should be repealed. The section of the Code requiring segregated schools has been rendered void by the Supreme Court of the United States and should be repealed. The section of the Code requiring cities to maintain a system of public schools should be repealed since it duplicates another provision of the Code. CONCLUSION The Commission has set forth a t length the bill the adoption of which is essential to the enactment of legislation to avoid enforced integration. It has discussed in detail the proposals which it believes the General As sembly should consider and adopt subsequent to the amendment of Section 141 of the Constitution. They are so interrelated that it is impractical to consider them except in their entirety and at the same time. To attempt to pass some of them without at the same time being able to consider and to act upon the others, would not be feasible. Finally, as this report has stressed, if those educational programs which have been endangered by the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia in the case of A l m o n d v. D a y are to be continued, and if our children are to escape enforced integration and yet be educated, it is necessary that Section 141 of the Constitution be amended through the calling of a limited Constitu tional Convention. The session of the General Assembly which considers that m atter should not have before it other measures to becloud the issue and delay action on the most pressing problem confronting the State in this century. We therefore recommend that Your Excellency call a special session of the General Assembly for the sole purpose of considering the bill attached hereto. Subsequent to the Constitutional Convention the Commission will be prepared to submit specific bills carrying out the proposals hereinabove set forth. In conclusion, the Commission wishes to express its gratitude to Your Excellency; to the Honorable J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General; 12 to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dowell J. Howard; to John G. Blount, Jr., Finance Director of the Department of Education; to Charles H. Smith, Director of the Virginia Supplemental Retirement Sys tem; to David J. Mays and Henry T. Wickham, counsel; and to John B. Boatwright, Jr., and G. M. Lapsley, Secretary and Recording Secretary, respectively, to the Commission, and their staff; and to many others who have given their counsel and made specific suggestions, all of which have been carefully considered. Respectfully submitted, GARLAND GRAY, Chairman HARRY B. DAVIS, Vice-Chairman H. H. ADAMS J. BRADIE ALLMAN ROBERT F. BALDWIN, JR. JOSEPH E. BLACKBURN ROBERT Y. BUTTON ORBY L. CANTRELL RUSSELL M. CARNEAL CURRY CARTER W. C. CAUDILL C. W. CLEATON J. H. DANIEL CHARLES R. FENWICK EARL A. FITZPATRICK MILLS E. GODWIN, JR. J. D. HAGOOD A. S. HARRISON, JR. CHARLES K. HUTCHENS S. FLOYD LANDRETH BALDWIN G. LOCHER J. MAYNARD MAGRUDER G. EDMOND MASSIE W. M. MINTER W. TAYLOE MURPHY SAMUEL E. POPE H. H. PURCELL JAMES W. ROBERTS V. S. SHAFFER W. ROY SMITH J. RANDOLPH TUCKER, JR. C. S. WHEATLEY, JR. 13 �APPENDIX I H o n o r a b l e T h o m a s B. S t a n l e y , G o v e r n o r o f V ir g in ia On August 30, 1954, Your Excellency appointed the undersigned to a commission charged with the duty of examining the effect on this Com monwealth of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation cases handed down on May 17, 1954, and of making such recommendations, based upon its examination, as they deemed proper. Your Commission met on September 13, 1954, and elected the under signed chairman and Harry B. Davis vice-chairman. An executive com mittee was provided for, consisting of the two named officers and nine other members of the Commission. Immediately following the appointment of the Commission, its mem bers began to receive a large volume of mail from the citizens of Virginia. In addition, a great many citizens talked with members of the Commission and stated their views on the question of integration, requesting that they be transmitted to the proper authorities. The Commission held a public hearing on November 15, 1954, in the City of Richmond. The widest possible publicity was given to this hearing and all citizens and groups were invited to attend or send repre sentatives to express their views on the question of what course Virginia should follow in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation cases. The hearing was held in the Mosque in order to accommodate the more than two thousand persons who at tended. It began at 10:00 A. M. and extended late into the night. Op portunity was given everyone who had indicated a desire to do so, to express his opinion. As the record of the public hearing shows, the great majority of those appearing there expressed opposition to integration and requested those in authority to afford them relief from the effects which they anticipated would result therefrom. Spokesmen for the Negro race and various Negro organizations, and a lesser number of white persons, urged immediate in tegration ; in some instances conflicting viewpoints developed among mem bers of the same organization. The hearing was well attended, orderly, and apparently representative of the views of the people of the entire State, and it is presently the view of the Commission that further public hearings would result only in cumula tive testimony, rather than fresh viewpoints. The testimony a t the hearing brought into sharp focus the nature and intensity of the feeling as to the effect that integration would have on the public school system. Not only did the majority of persons speaking at the hearing feel that integration would lead to the abolition or destruc tion of the public school system, but some groups indicated, through their spokesmen, th at they p r e f e r r e d to see the public school system abandoned if the only alternative was integration. It is noteworthy that fifty-five counties, located in various parts of the State, through resolutions adopted by their representative governing bodies, have expressed opposition to integration in the public schools and that of the fifty-five counties only twenty-one have over fifty percent Negro population. A number of school boards have expressed opposition to integration of the races in the schools, as have many non-governmental 14 organizations and associations of our citizens. Included in the latter group are large and representative Statewide organizations. In addition, the sentiment of a large number of individuals has been expressed through the medium of petitions opposing integration. The public hearing held in Richmond, the content of many communica tions to Your Excellency and to the Commission, conversations with the people of this Commonwealth, and the actions taken by a majority of the boards of supervisors of the counties, and by school boards and other organizations, have convinced the Commission that the overwhelming majority of the people of Virginia are not only opposed to integration of the white and negro children of this State, but are firmly convinced that integration of the public school system without due regard to the convictions of the majority of the people and without regard to local con ditions, would virtually destroy or seriously impair the public system in many sections in Virginia. The welfare of the public school system is based on the support of the people who provide the revenues which maintain it, and unless that system is operated in accordance with the convictions of the people who pay the costs, it cannot survive; and this is particularly true in Virginia where a large percentage of the cost of public education is ‘dependent upon local revenues. In view of the foregoing, I have been directed to report that the Commission, working with its counsel, will explore avenues toward formula tion of a program, within the framework of law, designed to prevent en forced integration of the races in the public schools of Virginia. Respectfully submitted, GARLAND GRAY, Chairman. January 19, 1955. 15 �APPENDIX II R ic h m o n d , V ir g in ia , J u n e 10, 1955. To: H onorable Thos. B. S ta n le y , Governor of Virginia The Commission in its report to Your Excellency, dated January 19, 1955, stated that it would explore avenues toward formulation of a pro gram, within the framework of law, designed to prevent enforced integra tion of the races in the public schools of Virginia. In furtherance of that aim, counsel, working closely with the undersigned, the full Commission, the executive committee, a committee of attorneys consisting of three members of the Commission and many others, has studied and evaluated various plans and programs of suggested legislation and has now reached some general conclusions. By necessity no plan or program could be evolved until the final de cision of the Supreme Court of the United States was rendered. This was done on May 31, 1955, and, at the request of Your Excellency, the under signed called a meeting of the Commission on June 8 , 9 and 10 for the specific purpose of considering the effects of the Supreme Court’s latest enunciation concerning the public school system in Virginia. Throughout its deliberations the Commission has been fully conscious that one of the most important functions of State and local government is the education of our youth. It has been a t all times guided by the realization that education for the children of this State is of paramount consideration. The plans the Commission has under consideration, necessitated by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, require numerous, involved and complex changes in the present laws of Virginia. Such changes relate to the State Board of Education, local school boards, appro priations by local tax levying bodies, the employment of teachers, their tenure in office and retirement, distribution of school funds by the State, and other related matters. No political subdivision of Virginia can initiate a system designed to achieve an orderly and equitable adjustment con sistent with law before the enactment of appropriate legislation by the General Assembly and the formulation and application of local policy thereunder. The Court in its opinion of May 31, 1955, recognized that a variety of obstacles would have to be eliminated before any transition could be had to a school system operated in accordance with its views. The responsibility for assessing and solving these problems was placed on the school authorities. In Virginia the public schools are the creature of law and operate as a joint State and local responsibility. Time and exhaustive study are required for the formulation and enactment of legislation if the interest and welfare of the pupils of both races, the protection of the status of the teachers, and the financial problems involved are to receive con structive attention. Hasty action could well result in the serious impair ment or destruction of the public school system. This should be as obvious to all who have carefully considered the problem confronting the State and the localities, as it is to the Supreme Court of the United States itself. appropriate legislation. Meanwhile both local school authorities and the State Board of Education face the necessity of concluding and announcing plans for the 1955-1956 school year. In the circumstances it is the recommendation of this Commission that Your Excellency and the State Board of Education declare that it is the policy of the State to continue schools through the school year 1955-1956 as presently operated. Further, it is the judgment of this Com mission that an adjustment, at this time, to a school system not based on race would not be practicable or feasible from an administrative stand point or otherwise. Your Commission will continue its work and submit a further report at its conclusion. The report will contain specific bills for enactment by the General Assembly. For the foregoing reasons, it is the view of the Commission that an extra session of the General Assembly should not be called at this time. GARLAND GRAY, Chairman. Because of the many complex statutory changes involved and the necessity to consider many of them in the light of the Constitution of Virginia, it has not yet been possible for the Commission to work out 16 17 �Whereas, by Item 210 of the Appropriation Act of 1954 (Acts of Assembly, 1954, Chapt. 708, p. 970), the General Assembly sought to enact measures to aid certain war orphans in obtaining an education at either public or private institutions of learning, which said Item has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, insofar as it purports to authorize payments for tuition, institutional fees and other expenses of students who attend private schools, to be violative of certain provisions of the Constitution respecting education and public instruction; and, Whereas, the State’s entire program, insofar as attendance a t private schools is concerned, involving the industrial rehabilitation program, grants for the education of war orphans, grants in aid of Negro graduate students, and scholarships for teaching and nursing, is in jeopardy; and, Whereas, in order to permit the handicapped, war orphans, Negro graduate students and prospective teachers and nurses to receive aid in furtherance of their education at private schools and in order to insure educational opportunities for those children who may not otherwise receive a public school education due to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation cases, it is deemed necessary that said provisions of the Constitution be revised and amended; and, Whereas, it is impossible to procure such amendments and revisions within the time required to permit educational aid forthwith for the current school year and that beginning in the fall of 1956 except by con vening a constitutional convention; and, Whereas, because it is deemed unwise at this time to make any sweeping or drastic changes in the fundamental laws of the State, and also, in order to assure the adoption of the contemplated amendments and revisions within the time necessary to permit educational aid in the school year of 1956-57, it is deemed necessary that the people eliminate all questions from consideration by said convention save and except those essential to the adoption of those revisions and amendments specified in this Act; and, Whereas, in order to avoid heated and untimely controversies through out the State as to what other matters, if any, may or should be acted upon by said convention, it is believed to be in the public interest to submit to the electors the sole question whether a convention shall be called which will be empowered by the people to consider and act upon said limited revisions and amendments only, and not upon any others; now, therefore, Be it enacted by the General Assembly of V irginia: 1. § 1. That at an election to be held on such day as may be fixed by proclamation of the Governor (but not later than sixty days after the passage of this Act) there shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly the question “Shall there be a convention to revise the Constitution and amend the same?” Should a majority of the electors voting at said election vote for a convention, the legal effect of same will be that the people will thereby delegate to it only the following powers of revision and amendment of Section 141 of the Constitution,and no others: A. The convention may consider and adopt amendments to Section 141 of the Constitution of Virginia necessary to accomplish the following pur poses, and no others: To permit the General Assembly and the governing bodies of the several counties, cities and towns to appropriate funds for educational purposes which may be expended in furtherance of elementary, secondary, collegiate and graduate education of Virginia students in public and nonsectarian private schools and institutions of learning in addition to those owned or exclusively controlled by the State or any such county, city or town. B. The convention shall be empowered to proclaim and ordain said revisions and amendments adopted by it within the scope of its powers as above set forth without submitting same to the electors for approval, but the convention will not have the power to either consider, adopt, or propose any other amendments or revisions. § 2. The judges of election and other officers charged with the duty of conducting elections a t each of the several voting places in the State are hereby required to hold an election upon the said question of calling the convention, on the day fixed therefor by proclamation of the Governor, at all election precincts in the State, but the several electoral boards may, in their discretion, dispense with the services of clerks of election in such precincts as they may deem appropriate. Copies of the Governor’s procla mation shall be promptly sent by the State Board of Elections to the secretary of each electoral board and due publicity thereof given through the press of the State and otherwise if the Governor so directs. § 3. The ballots to be used in said election the State Board of Elec tions' shall cause to be printed, and distributed and furnished to the re spective electoral boards of the counties and cities of the State. The num ber furnished each such board shall be determined by the State Board of Elections within the limits prescribed by § 24-213 of the Code of Virginia. The respective electoral boards shall cause the customary identification seal to be stamped on the ballots delivered to them. In order to insure that the electors will clearly understand the limited powers which may be exercised by the convention, if called, said ballots shall be printed in type not less in size than small pica and contain the following words and figures: “Constitutional Convention Ballot: “INFORMATORY STATEMENT “The Act of the General Assembly submitting to the people the ques tion below provides that the elector is voting for or against a convention to which will be delegated by the people only the limited powers of revising and amending Section 141 of the Constitution to the extent th at is neces sary to accomplish the following purposes, and no other powers: “To permit the General Assembly and the governing bodies of the several counties, cities and towns to appropriate funds for educational purposes which may be expended in furtherance of elementary, secondary, collegiate and graduate education of Virginia students in public and nonsectarian private schools and institutions of learning in addition to those owned or exclusively controlled by the State or any such county, city or town. 18 19 APPENDIX III CHAPTER 2 A n A c t to p r o v id e f o r s u b m i t t i n g to th e q u a lifie d e le c to r s th e q u e s tio n o f w h e t h e r th e r e s h a ll be a c o n v e n tio n to r e v is e a n d a m e n d S e c t io n 11*1 o f th e C o n s ti tu tio n o f V ir g in ia . [H 1] Approved December 3, 1955 �“The act also provides that the legal effect of a majority vote for a convention will be that the people will delegate to it only the foregoing powers, except that the convention will be empowered to ordain and pro claim said revisions and amendments adopted by it within the scope of said powers without submitting same to the electors for approval, but the convention will not have the power to either consider, adopt or propose any other amendments or revisions. “In the light of the foregoing information the question to be voted on is as follows: “Shall there be a convention to revise the Constitution and amend the same? “ For the convention. “ Against the convention.” § 4. A ballot deposited with a cross mark, a line or check mark placed in the square preceding the words “For the convention” shall be a vote for the convention, and a ballot deposited with a cross mark, line or check mark preceding the words “Against the convention” shall be a vote against the convention. § 5. The ballots shall be distributed and voted, and the results thereof ascertained and certified, in the manner prescribed by section 24-141 of the Code of Virginia. It shall be the duty of the clerks and commissioners of election of each county and city, respectively, to make out, certify and forward an abstract of the votes cast for and against the convention in the manner now prescribed by law in relation to votes cast in general State elections. § 6 . It shall be the duty of the State Board of Elections to open and canvass the said abstracts of returns, and to examine and make statement of the whole number of votes given at said election for and against the convention, respectively, in the manner now prescribed by law in relation to votes cast in general elections; and it shall be the duty of the State Board of Elections to record said certified statement in its office, and without delay to make out and transmit to the Governor of the Common wealth an official copy of said statement, certified by it under its seal of office. § 7. The Governor shall, without delay, make proclamation of the result, stating therein the aggregate vote for and against the convention to be published in such newspapers in the State as may be deemed requisite for general information. The State Board of Elections shall cause to be sent to the clerks of each county and corporation, at least fifteen days before the election, as many copies of this Act as there are places of voting therein; and it shall be the duty of such clerks to forthwith deliver the same to the sheriffs of their respective counties and sergeants of their respective cities for distribution. Each such sheriff or sergeant shall forthwith post a copy of such Act at some public place in each election district at or near the usual voting place in the said district. § 8 . The expenses incurred in conducting this election, except as herein otherwise provided, shall be defrayed as in the case of the election of members of the General Assembly. § 9. The State Board of Elections shall have authority to employ such help and incur such expense as may be necessary to enable it to discharge the duties imposed on it under this Act, the expenses thereof to be paid from funds appropriated by law. 2. An emergency existing, this Act shall be in force from the time of its passage. F o o tn o te : T h is c o p y o f C h a p te r 2 o f th e 1 9 5 5 E x t r a S e s s io n i s s u b s titu te d f o r th e p r o p o s e d b i l l s e t f o r t h i n S e n a t e D o c u m e n t N o . 1 , p u r s u a n t to H . J . R . N o . 9 o f t h e s a m e session. 20 � 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 19, The Personal Papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell Description An account of the resource This collection consists of the personal papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell, and covers the period from 1945 through 1991, with the bulk of the material falling between 1947 and 1959. The materials in this collection were generated or collected as a result of Mrs. Campbell's involvement in the Arlington County School Board, as well as her interests and activities in education and local politics. 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 Booklet: "Public Education, Report of the Commission to the Governor of Virginia", Senate Document No. 1, Commonwealth of Virginia, 1955. 11 pages. Description An account of the resource Report of Commission appointed to examine the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation cases decided May 17, 1954. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 19, The Personal Papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Commonwealth of Virginia Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1954-05-17 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 19_6_1_2_42 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/a912cedf9555da3cacb68b4275ed5182.pdf a93acf1a437fdee0ebb1c2a39b318bbc PDF Text Text R E S O L U T IO N S A dopted by th e Sixty-fiftli C ontinental Congress N ational S ociety, Daughters o f t h e A m erican R evolu tion A pril 1 6 - 2 1 , 1 9 5 6 A ppreciation to P resid en t and Mrs. Eisenhow er R e s o lv e d , T a th m m e o th N tio a S c ty D u h rs o th A e h t e e b rs f e a n l o ie , a g te f e m ri c n R v lu n e te d to P sid n a d M . E e h w r their w rm s a e o tio , x n re e t n rs is n o e a et a p c tio fo th h n r a d c u s o their g c u ms a e p re ia n r e o o n o rte y f ra io s e s g . A ppreciation to the Vice P resid en t o f th e U nited States R e s o lv e d , T a th N tio a S c ty D u h rs o th A e a R v lu n h t e a n l o ie , a g te f e m ric n e o tio , e te d to th H n ra le R x n e oo b ichard M N o , V e P s e t o th U ite . ix n ic re id n f e n d S te , its d e a p c tio fo his c u s in a n in his b s s h d ta s e p p re ia n r o rte y rra g g uy ce u to a n th 6 th C n e ta C n re s a d bringing g e g a d le tte d e 5 o tin n l o g s n re tin s n his ms a e to th mmes es g e e br. P ro te c t A m erica’s F u tu re T h ro u g h P atrio tic E ducation We a , A p a o je tiv o o r N tio a S c ty fo 6 y a h s b e h re s rim ry b c e f u a n l o ie r 5 e rs a e n to p m te “a e lig te e public o in n a rd g to y u g a d o ro o n n h nd p io , ffo in on n ld s c a v n g s a shall d v lo in th mth la e t c p c for p rfo u h d a ta e s ee p e e rg s a a ity e rm ing th d tie o A e a c e s ; e u s f m ric n itiz n ” R e s o lv e d , T a th N tio a S c ty D u h rs o th A e a R v lu n h t e a n l o ie , a g te f e m ric n e o tio , c n u e rn s e rts to s re d k o le g o o r C n o tin e a e t ffo p a n w d e f u o stitu n l G v rn tio a o e m n a d a p c tio o th A e a w y o life, s th t w m y in re e t n p re ia n f e m ric n a f o a e a su th fu re d s y o th U ite S te o A e a e tu e tin f e n d ta s f m ric . C onstitutional A m endm ent We a , A h re s rticle 6 p ra ra h 2 o th C n titu n o th U ite S te h s , a g p , f e o s tio f e n d ta s a b e w e in rp te to m a th t tre tie a d o e in rn tio a e n id ly te re d en a a s n th r te a n l a re m n c n o e e th C n titu n a d c t a ro s th Bill o Rights; g e e ts a v rrid e o s tio n u c s e f ad n We a , T e U ite S te is virtually th o ly c u try in th w rld w ic h re s h n d ta s e n on e o h h p rm in rn tio a a re m n o e th n tre tie to b c m in rn l e its te a n l g e e ts th r a a s e o e te a la w o t a p p te le isla n ;a d w ith u p ro ria g tio n 1 �W hereas, T re aties a nd o th er in te rn atio n al agreem ents can he used a s in stru m ents of legislation on m atters o f p u rely dom estic co n cern ; a n d W hereas, Several tre a tie s have become th e suprem e law of th e lan d by vote of only tw o o r three S enators p resen t on th e Senate flo o r; T h a t th e N ational Society, D au g h ters of the A m erican Revolution, again go on record, fo r th e six th tim e a t o u r a n n u a l C ontinental Congress, in strong endorsem ent of the principles of a n am endm ent to ou r Con s titu tio n to provide th a t a provision o f a tre a ty o r o th er in te rn atio n al agreem en t w hich conflicts w ith a n y provision of o u r C onstitution shall not be of any force or effect. R e s o lv e d , U nited N ations T h a t the N ational Society, D au g h ters of the A m erican Revolution, continue to support the U nited N ations O rganization in its ORIG INAL purpose a s a group of SO VEREIG N N A TION S w orking together fo r world peace a n d un derstanding, and to oppose its th reaten ed conversion into a w orld governm ent. R e s o lv e d , Status o f Forces A greem ent W hereas, U nder the provision of th e NATO S ta tu s of Forces T re a ty and a sim ila r agreem ent w ith J a p an , several th ousands of m em bers of o u r Armed Forces sta tio n ed abroad have been su rren d ered to foreign ju risd ictio n s to be tried , a n d in m any cases convicted a n d im prisoned, o r o therw ise p un ished for alleged crim inal violations o f u n fam ilia r a n d /o r unknow n laws, som etim es u n d er procedures conducted in foreign languages before hostile judges, a n d w ith o u t th e benefit o f com petent counsel, if a n y ; and W hereas, Such tre a tm e n t o f our soldiers effectively deprives them o f sub s ta n tia l rig h ts to which they a re entitled u n d e r th e C onstitution o f the U nited S ta te s; T h a t th e N ational Society, D au g h ters o f th e A m erican Revolution, go on record a s u rging strongly th e elim ination o f a n y provision tinder any tre a ty or agreem ent w hereby ou r m ilita ry personnel w ill be s u r rendered to th e crim inal ju risd ictio n of any foreign country. R e s o lv e d , C om m unist Tuctics Specialized Agencies of U nited N ations W hereas, O ur N ational Society h as been consistently on record a s a g a in st the m any specialized agencies, w hich p u rp o rt to be a p a rt of U nited Nations, fo rm u la tin g policies such a s th e Genocide Convention a n d Covenant of H um an R ights, w hich w ould deprive us of th e in dividual lib erties and fre e en te rp rise on w hich our N ation w as founded so firmly a n d which hav e m ade it so stro n g a nd so g r e a t ; T h a t the N ational Society, D au g h ters of th e A m erican Revolution, again sta n d firmly a nd em phatically on its in sistence th a t th e United N ations abide by th e objectives set fo rth in its C h a rte r a n d d esist from particip a tio n in a ny plan, project, agency o r principle w hich w ould in te r vene in our in te rn a l affairs, in te rfe re w ith o u r dom estic legislation, o r sp re a d doctrines c o n tra ry to o u r A m erican philosophies a n d w ay of life. R e s o lv e d , UNESCO W hereas, D au g h ters of the A m erican R evolution have repeatedly objected strenuously to propaganda dissem inated by UNESCO w hich tends to in d o ctrin a te a nd tra in fo r w orld citizenship, a nd conflicts w ith the Am eri can concepts of natio n a l independence a n d so v e re ig n ty ; T h a t the N ational Society, D au g h ters o f th e A m erican Revolution, hig hly commend th e A m erican Legion fo r th e resolution passed a t the a n n u a l convention held in October, 1955. a t M iami. F lo rid a, which reads in p a r t: R e s o lv e d , “W e call upon all A m erican ed u catio n al in stitu tio n s and upon Boards of E ducation th roughout th e U nited S ta te s to cease a n d desist from the use of the edu catio n al m ate ria ls of UNESCO propounding world govern m ent a s a c rite ria of A m erican citizens.” W hereas, F o r m ore th a n thirty-five y e a rs D au g h ters of th e A m erican Revolu tion have been w arn in g ag a in st th e d an g ers o f com m unism ; and W hereas, T h ere is a c u rre n t change in th e tactics a nd techniques of Commu n ists b u t no change in th e ir fu n d am en tal policies a n d long-range goals of w orld d o m in a tio n ; T h a t th e N ational Society, D au g h ters of th e A m erican Revolution, again w arn A m ericans to be a le rt a n d rem ain firm in th e ir opposition to communism in a ll its phases. R e s o lv e d , C ontrol o f C om m unist P ro p ag an d a W hereas, T h e investigations by th e Senate In te rn a l S ecurity Subcom mittee reveal th a t v a st q u a n titie s of Com munist, sed itio u s pro p ag an d a a r e regu larly being shipped into th e U nited S ta te s a n d being d issem inated in this country from abroad, w ith o u t com pliance w ith th e labelling requirem ents o f Foreign A gents R eg istratio n A ct a n d o f th e In te rn a l Security A c t; and W hereas, Such investigations fu rth e r reveal th a t m uch of th is poisonous Com m unist propaganda is being d istrib u te d in violation of th e abovem entioned a c ts by diplom atic personnel in “iro n -cu rtain ” consulates and em bassies in th e U nited S ta te s ; R e s o lv e d , T h a t th e N ational Society, D au g h ters o f th e A m erican Revolu tion, u rg e th a t th e Congress o f th e U nited S ta te s enact legislation pro viding fo r th e confiscation of Com m unist p ro paganda w hich is n o t labelled in accordance w ith th e requirem ents o f th e Foreign Agents R eg istration 3 �A ct a u d the In te rn a l Security A c t; a nd providing fu rth e r th a t diplom atic personnel in th e U nited S ta te s who a r e engaged in the dissem ination of political propaganda be required to reg iste r w ith th e D epartm ent of J u stic e a n d label th e political propaganda which th ey dissem inate. R ed China W hereas, To accept R ed C hina w ould be to condone th e very evils we a b h o r ; T h a t th e N ational Society, D au g h ters o f th e A m erican Revolution, ag ain go on record as ad a m a n tly opposed to adm ission o f R ed C hina to th e United N ations. R e s o lv e d , Civic R esponsibility W hereas, S ta tistics show th a t m ore th an one-half of th e U nited S ta te s c iti zens o f voting age a re women, th u s placing a g re a te r responsibility upon th e women as v o te r s ; and W hereas, T he selection a n d th e election o f good can d id ates to public office is of u tm o st im portance to o u r w e lfa re ; T h a t th e N atio n al Society, D au g h ters of th e A m erican Revolution, encourage a ll of its m em bers to assum e th e ir civic responsibility to register a n d vote in all elections. R e s o lv e d , Socialized Econom y Investigating Com m ittees T h a t the N ational Society, D au g h ters of th e A m erican Revolution, ag ain go on record as comm ending th e inv alu ab le service to th e N ation rendered by C ongressional Com m ittees in v estig atin g m a tte rs p erta in in g to in te rn al secu rity and urge th a t such com m ittees be continued. R e s o lv e d , C om m ending F ed eral B u re a u o f Investigation T h u t the N a tio n a l Society, D au g h ters of the A m erican Revolution, again commend th e F e d e ra l B u reau o f In v estig atio n a n d i ts D irecto r, J. E d g a r Hoover, fo r th e ir unceasing efforts to p rotect our N ation ag a in st crim e, c o rruption a ud subversion. R e s o lv e d , W hereas, F re e en te rp rise is one of th e g re a t principles upon w hich th is N ation w as founded a n d provides fo r p riv a te in itia tiv e a n d th e sp irit o f com peti tion which perm its A m erican citizens to b arg ain freely in th e m arkets of com m erce; and W hereas, The N ational Society, D a u g h te rs of th e A m erican R evolution, has consistently opposed th e socialization of education, medicine, industry, labor and economics in any w ay w h a tso ev e r; T h a t th e N atio n al Society, D au g h ters o f th e A m erican Revolution, urge c ritical exam ination by th e U nited S ta te s Congress o f a ll pending legislation w hich w ould socialize o u r A m erican economy, a n d opposition to a n y move th a t could destroy o u r system of fre e enterprise. R e s o lv e d , A ntarctica Econom y in G overnm ent W hereas, T h e A n ta rc tic C ontinent w as discovered a n d explored in larg e m eas u re by A m erican citizens and h a s untapped reservoirs of n a tu ra l re sources ; W hereas, T he fed e ra l debt h a s been constantly m ounting fo r m ore th a n a decade, w hich, coupled w ith deficit financing, h a s c u t th e p u rch asing pow er o f th e d o llar in h alf, to th e g rea t in ju ry o f th e people o f th e U nited S ta te s ; T h a t th e N ational Society, D au g h ters of th e A m erican Revolution, urg e legislators to tak e such steps as m ay be necessary to v a lid a te claim to a re a s of im p o rta n t v a lu e ; and R e s o lv e d , T h a t we commend the B yrd a nd o th er expeditions, fo r th e ir rem a rk able achievem ents in exploring a n d estab lish in g in fo rm atio n regarding m in eral deposits in the A ntarctic, w hich, if m ade available, w ould supple m ent our own. R e s o lv e d , P a trio tic A dvertising T h a t the N ational Society, D au g h ters o f th e A m erican Revolution, commend a nd applaud th e m any in d u stria l a n d business in stitu tio n s which through th e ir ad v e rtisin g m edia have rendered o u tstanding service in the fight a g a in st com m unism a nd to th e preservation of th e A m erican system of free en te rp rise a nd p riv a te in itiativ e. R e s o lv e d , 4 T h a t th e N atio n al Society, D au g h ters of th e A m erican Revolution, u rg e Congress to su b m it to th e several S ta te s a n am endm ent to the Con s titu tio n of th e U nited S tates to lim it th e e x penditures of the Govern m ent fo r each fiscal y ear, except in th e case of w a r o r o th er grave n ational emergency, to th e estim ated a n n u al receipts of th e Governm ent. R e s o lv e d , Jo in t Session o f Congress T h a t th e N atio n al Society, D au g h ters o f th e A m erican Revolution, ex p ress its approval of th e co n cu rren t legislation pending before the Congress of th e U nited S ta te s w hich provides th a t, unless th e Congress sh a ll h a v e previously ad jo u rn ed , th e m em bers of th e Senate a nd the H ouse o f R ep resen tativ es sh all assem ble jo in tly on th e F o u rth d ay of J u ly of each ye a r fo r the purpose of h e a rin g rea d aloud th e D eclaration o f Independence. R e s o lv e d , 5 �Im m ig ra tio n a n d N ationality Act (M cC arran-W alter B ill) W hereas, T here is pending in th e Sen ate a n d H ouse Ju d ic ia ry Com mittees a series of am endm ents w hich w ould weaken th e p rincipal safeguards of the Im m igration a nd N atio n ality A ct of December 24, 1952, a n d destroy th e natio n a l origins quota sy stem ; T h a t the N ational Society, D au g h ters o f th e A m erican Revolution, reaffirm its confidence in and su p p o rt of th e M cC arran-W alter A ct o f 1952, a n d urge all p a trio tic A m ericans to p ro te st a n d resist a n y crippling am endm ents a n d a n y legislation w hatsoever which w ould tend to destroy the effectiveness of th e Im m igration and N atio n ality Act. T h a t plans be fo rm u lated by th e m em bership to continue an even m ore aggressive cam paign to prom ote th e stu d y of tru e and factual A m erican histo ry in a ll o u r schools from g rad es th ro u g h colleges and universities, to th e end th a t it m ay become a req u ired su b ject for g ra d u a tion in high schools a n d colleges a n d u n iv ersities w h eth er S ta te supported o r p riv ately endowed. R e s o lv e d , Preserv atio n o f N ational W ildlife R efuges R e s o lv e d , T h a t th e N atio n al Society, D au g h ters of th e A m erican Revolution, u rg e th e p assag e of legislation now pending in Congress pro h ib iting the disposal o r relinquishm ent of a n y n a tio n al w ild life refuges, o r p a rts thereof, by a n y executive agency w ith o u t th e p rio r app ro v al of Congress. R e s o lv e d , M ental H e a lth Legislation W hereas, H ouse R esolution 6376—The A laska M ental H ealth Bill—h as passed the H ouse of R epresentatives and th e legislation covered by th is B ill is c u rrently pending in th e S e n a te ; and W hereas, We recognize th e need of adequate care fo r th e m entally ill but deplore legislation which m ay be co n tra ry to th e ir best in te rests a nd the language of this bill is subject to m isin te rp re tatio n which could jeopardize C onstitutional rig h ts of th e in d iv id u a l; T h a t the N ational Society, D a u g h te rs of th e Am erican Revolution, recom mend th a t all bills regarding m ental health, n ational or S tate, be so specific in the declaration o f in ten tio n s th a t th e re could be no possibility of m isin te rp re tatio n of the law, and in no w ay p erm it individual Con stitu tio n al liberties of a ny citizen of th e United S tates, its te rrito rie s or possessions, to be jeo p ard ized ; and R e s o lv e d , T h a t the Congress of th e U nited S ta te s be urged to m ake a com plete investigation into a ll ram ifications and im plications of m ental health legislative program s which a re c u rre n tly being promoted. Ju v en ile D elinquency W hereas, M any a u th o rita tiv e sources rep o rt th a t juvenile delinquency has increased enorm ously due in p a r t to lack o f p a re n ta l vigilance over the id eals a n d a c tiv ities of th e ir children a n d to th e in cessan t flow of program s of crim e, h o rro r a n d violence w hich b e a t upon th e sensitive m inds and em otions o f children a n d adolescents, first dulling th e ir norm al receptivity to goodness and m orality, and, in an ala rm in g n um ber of instances, leading to a sp irit o f vandalism , violence a n d b r u ta lity ; T h a t th e N ational Society, D au g h ters of the A m erican Revolution, determ ine through its m em bers to a tta c k w ith a le rtn e ss and a c tivity th e problem of juvenile delinquency, consulting w ith Ju v en ile C ourts, the F e d e ra l B u reau o f Investigation a n d o th er a u th o rita tiv e sources on th is m ost serious and im m ediate challenge to th e well-being a nd sa fe ty of o u r youth a n d o f our N ation. R e s o lv e d , R e s o lv e d , F ederal Aid to E ducation W hereas, T he N ational Society, D au g h ters o f the Am erican Revolution, has continuously opposed federal a id to education, believing such a id could lead to governm ent control o f all public schools, thereby rem oving S ta te a n d local c o n tro l; T h a t the N ational Society, D au g h ters of th e A m erican Revolution, continue to oppose vigorously all legislation w hich could place control of education in the hands of th e F ed eral Government. C onstitu tio n W eek W hereas, T h ere is w idespread in te rest in the celebration of CO NSTITU TION W EEK , from Septem ber 17th to 23 rd ; T h a t th e N ational Society, D au g h ters o f th e A m erican R evolution, p etitio n th e P re sid e n t of th e U nited S ta te s to proclaim th is week a nnually a n d th a t th e Society ask th e Congress o f th e U nited S ta te s to designate Septem ber 17th a s C onstitution Day. R e s o lv e d , R e s o lv e d , A m erican H istory Study W hereas, One o f th e p rim a ry objectives of o u r N ational Society, D au g h ters of the A m erican R evolution, is “to prom ote th e study o f Am erican h isto ry ” ; and W hereas, T he effort m ade in th e p a s t th re e y ears to stre ss th e teaching of A m erican h isto ry in ou r schools h as m et w ith signal success; 6 T ra d itio n a l Observance of H olidays W hereas, T h ere is a grow ing tendency to d e p a rt fro m th e p roper a n d tra d i tional observance o f o u r religious a n d p a trio tic holidays a n d to su bstitute m ate ria listic observance a n d e x trem e com m ercialism ; T h a t the m em bers o f th e N atio n al Society, D a u g h te rs of th e A m eri can Revolution, shall m ake it th e ir individual responsibility to counteract a n y such m ovem ents in th e ir com m unity a n d to w ork unceasingly to instill in o u r youth a deeper reverence fo r th e e te rn a l values w hich A R E America. R e s o lv e d , �R eligion Versus Atheism W hereas, The principle of religious freedom embodied In o u r C onstitution is one of the foundations of o u r fre e n atio n a n d is now th re a te n e d by ideologies of godless forces a t home a n d a b ro a d ; T h a t we, as D au g h ters of th e A m erican Revolution, dedicate o u r selves in p ray e rfu l service to a renew al of fa ith in God a nd tru s t fo r stre n g th in the continuing struggle fo r religion versus atheism . R e s o lv e d , A ppreciation to th e P re sid e n t G eneral T h a t we, th e D au g h ters of the A m erican R evolution o f th e 65th C ontinental Congress, express to o u r beloved P re sid e n t G eneral, Miss G ertrude S. C arraw ay, our deep ap p reciatio n of h e r ceaseless efforts and high achievem ents fo r ou r Society; ou r a d m iration a nd respect fo r h e r executive ab ility in a ll th in g s ; a n d our affection fo r h e r as an individual of personal in tegrity, kind consideration to mem bers, and devotion to the aim s and objects of ou r Society. R e s o lv e d , T h an k s to th e Staff T h a t we, th e D au g h ters of th e A m erican Revolution express our sincere th an k s a nd appreciation to the Staff fo r the m any services each m em ber h a s rendered w illingly a nd cheerfully, p a rtic u la rly the e x tra efforts req u ired by our special observance of C onstitution W eek and d urin g th e Sixty-fifth C ontinental Congress. R e s o lv e d , Courtesy R esolution T h a t the N ational Society, D au g h ters o f th e A m erican Revolution, express its deep appreciation to th e sp eak ers who gave us th e benefit of th eir v ast sto re of know ledge; to the a rtis ts who so generously shared w ith us th e ir ta le n ts ; to the U nited S ta te s Service B ands a nd to ou r o rg an ists who e n te rta in e d us so d elig h tfu lly ; to the Police a n d Firem en who provided u s w ith such a sense of secu rity a nd safety, a nd to the g rea t num bers o f individual m em bers and th e sta ff who p lanned a n d who executed th e innum erable d e ta ils w hich a successful C ontinental Congress entails, a nd to all o th ers unnam ed, because unknow n, who in a n y w ay contributed to th e pleasures o f th e m em bers and th e ir guests. R e s o lv e d , Press T h a t the N ational Society, D au g h ters o f th e A m erican Revolution, express its deep appreciatio n to th e P re ss fo r th e splendid co-operation a n d fa c tu a l rep o rtin g of th e program of ou r Sixty-fifth C ontinental Congress. R e s o lv e d , R adio a nd Television T h a t the N ational Society, D a u g h te rs of the A m erican R evolution, th an k the va rio u s rad io a nd television netw orks fo r th e ir generous donation of tim e, w hich m ade it possible to b ring to the public inform ation concerning the achievem ents of ou r Society. R e s o lv e d , 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 19, The Personal Papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell Description An account of the resource This collection consists of the personal papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell, and covers the period from 1945 through 1991, with the bulk of the material falling between 1947 and 1959. The materials in this collection were generated or collected as a result of Mrs. Campbell's involvement in the Arlington County School Board, as well as her interests and activities in education and local politics. 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 Booklet: "Resolutions Adopted by the Sixty-fifth Continental Congress, National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution", April 16-21, 1956. 5 pages. Description An account of the resource Resolutions concerning all aspects of American life. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 19, The Personal Papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Daughters of the American Revolution Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1956-04 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 19_6_1_2_16 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/5a3e82e528c5b7b747be877c23765f5f.pdf 812eee68dae371b77f922a0c03e189b8 PDF Text Text m i RI6HT OF EVERY SHSL9” The Story of the W ashington, D. C. Program of Schbol In tegration �THE RI GHT OF EVERY CHILD w I Published April 1955 by the American Friends Service Committee ( Q u a k e rs ) Community Relations Program 104 C Street, N. E. Washington 2, D. C. C o p ie s o f th is p a m p h l e t , a n d a n e a r l i e r o n e , IN T E G R A T IO N O F W A S H IN G T O N S C H O O L S , w h ic h c o n s id e r s 2 4 o f th e q u e s tio n s m o s t o fte n a s k e d a b o u t s c h o o l i n t e g r a t i o n , a r e a v a i l a b l e fro m t h e a d d r e s s a b o v e . Cover photo by Jules Schick STHarns & Ewing f HEN WASHINGTON SCHOOLS OPENED in September of 1954, Negro and white children sat together in the same classrooms and teachers of both races worked together for the first time. This broke a traditional pattern of racial seg regation within the capital’s school system. A complex chain of events brought about this change in pattern: years of work by citizens who sought school integration; the Supreme Court decision which outlawed school segregation; then, action by the District of Columbia Board of Education and detailed planning by the school administration. Washington is known to the world as the capital of a great nation and a center of international diplomacy on matters of in comparable scope and significance. To many it is less a city than an institution, less a fact than a symbol. Yet beneath the vast superstructure of big government and big issues, Washington is a place where people live their lives, much a# they do in other American communities. W e recount here the story of a vital job the city is doing. The District of Columbia Board of Education acted promptly to establish policy for an integrated school system. On May 25, 1954, just eight days after the Court’s decision, the following statement of principles was adopted: In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bolling v. Sharpe, the Board of Education of the District of Colum bia, believing it to be in the best interest of all citizens of the com munity of Washington, and necessary to the effective administration of an integrated system within the public schools, hereby adopts the following declaration of policy: No S 0 2 -1 S M —4-SS—L.-R. 3 �1. Appointments, transfers, preferments, promotions, ratings, or any other matters respecting the officers and employees of the Board shall be predicated solely upon merit and not upon race or color. 2. No pupil of the public schools shall be favored or discriminated against in any matter or in any manner respecting his or her relation ship to the schools of the District of Columbia by reason of race or color. 3. Attendance of pupils residing within school boundaries, hereafter to be established, shall not be permitted at schools located beyond such boundaries, except for the most necessitous reasons or for the public convenience, and in no event for reasons related to the racial character of the school within the boundaries in which the pupil resides. 4 . The Board believes that no record should be kept or maintained in respect to any pupil not enrolled in a public school on or prior to June 17, 1954, or in respect to any officer or employee not employed within the system on or prior to that date in which information is solicited or recorded relating to the color or race of any such person. That the maximum efficient use shall be made of all physical facilities without regard to race or color. 5. In support of the foregoing principles, which are believed to be cardinal, the Board will not hesitate to use its full powers. It is pledged to a complete and wholehearted pursuit of these objectives. We affirm our intention to secure the right of every child, w ’ithin his own capacity, to the full, equal and impartial use of all school facili ties, and the right of all qualified teachers to teach where needed within the school system. And finally, we ask the aid, cooperation and goodwill of all citizens and the help of the Almighty in holding to our stated purposes. The prompt action of the nation’s capital in meeting the Court’s decision has understandably captured the interest of the nation. Here a large city school system is undertaking a program of elim inating segregation and establishing a non-discriminatory policy. The school population includes large numbers of both races, not severely segregated in housing. Problems of school building and facilities have been severe. The job is a sizable one. The results are of consequence to the nation and the world. The story is invaluable for those who wish to learn. School officers and citizens throughout the nation feel a responsibility for implementing the Court’s decision. Certain questions are upper most in their minds. How should the transition be carried out? What are the do’s and what are the don’ts? What has been learned about the desegregation process? The Washington program adds an important chapter to the already extensive record of experience. 4 This report is an attempt to tell the Washington story and to comment on the strengths and the weaknesses of the program as it is being carried out. Some have enthusiastically hailed Washing ton as a model for the rest of the nation. Others have assailed the program as one which fails to do the job. The first view tends to overlook the shortcomings, the second to discount achievement. It seems appropriate to look at the Washington program as a pio neering effort, necessarily involving trial and error. PUPIL ASSIGNMENT The plan for pupil assignment involves specific steps taken during the first year (1954-55) and a long-range program to be put into effect the second year. New boundary lines have been drawn on a geographic basis without regard to race, but the new map is being followed only partially during the first year. Beginning in September of 1955, pupils are to be assigned according to the new map, with the important exception that children already enrolled will be permitted to remain in present assignments until gradua tion from that level, as long as space permits. In the event of over crowding, those who live within the zone are to have priority. Under this plan, desegregated zones will not be fully enforced until present first graders finish sixth grade. The first-year program is more limited. During the year 195455, the following actions have been taken as first steps in the deseg regation program: 1. Severe problems of overcrowding in Negro schools were relieved b\ transferring blocks of children to formerly white schools. About 2900 children were reassigned on this basis. Another 100 were re assigned to reliese excess travel distance. 2. All pupils new to the school system (kindergarteners, many first graders, and new residents in the city) and those who moved from one part of the city to another were assigned on the basis of the new, desegregated school zones. 3. After school began, students wishing to move to the school in their new zone were permitted to make formal request for transfer, with administrative reassurance that such options would be granted as space permitted As a result, nearly 2000 children were transferred in late September and early October, while many others were not granted the requested transfers. 4. Mid-year graduates of junior high schools were assigned to senior high schools on a desegregated basis, adding a small number to the total of integrated classes. 5 �INTERRACIAL ATTENDANCE The measures taken have resulted in a considerable degree of interracial attendance, enough to give a real try to the new pro gram. Many have the opportunity for integrated education. Of the city’s 163 schools, 122 have some degree of mixed attendance, ranging from less than 1% Negro to more than 99%. There are 74,000 students in these integrated schools, about 70% of the total school population. The accompanying table shows the extent of interracial attendance in individual schools. It will be noted that most of the mixed schools have a small minority o f one race. In 93 schools, the minority race is less than 20% o f the student body; in 42, it is less than 1%. Still there are 29 schools which range from 20% to 80% Negro. These schools are in the areas where transfers were arranged to relieve over crowding, and where the desegregation program is therefore most PER CENT NEGRO STUDENTS IN D. C. SCHOOLS NOVEMBER 4 , 1 9 5 4 % N U M B E R NEGRO STUDENTS 0 0 . 1 - 0 .9 1 . 0 - 9 .9 1 0 .0 - 1 9 .9 2 0 .0 ■ 2 9 .9 3 0 .0 • 3 9 .9 4 0 .0 ■ 4 9 .9 5 0 .0 - 5 9 .9 6 0 .0 - 6 9 .9 7 0 .0 - 7 9 .9 8 0 .0 • 8 9 .9 9 0 .0 - 9 8 .9 9 9 .0 - 9 9 .9 100 Total ELEM ENTARY JU N IO R H .S . 10 10 12 7 5 2 7 3 5 0 2 23 24 15 0 4 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 7 125 22 OF 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 TEACHER INTEGRATION S C H O O L S V O C A T IO N A L S E N IO R H .S . TO TAL 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 14 15 14 10 9 2 9 3 5 1 2 25 27 27 11 j 1 63 SO U RC E: R e p o r t, " M e m b e r s h ip a s o f N o v e m b e r 4 , 1 9 5 4 c o m p a r e d w ith N o v e m b e r 5 , 1 9 5 3 , " i s s u e d b y t h e O f f ic e o f t h e S t a t i s t i c i a n , D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a P u b l i c S c h o o l s , N o v em b er 15, 1954. 6 nearly complete. Forty-one schools still enroll pupils of only one race, 14 white and 27 Negro. W hite schools have been more affected by the desegregation process than Negro schools. More than 8000 Negro pupils have entered schools which were formerly white, while about 450 white pupils are enrolled in schools which last year were all-Negro. All the Negro schools remain at least 86% Negro; all the highly mixed schools are formerly-white schools. The extent of mixed classes, and the variety of pattern, is to be expected in Washington. Negroes comprise more than a third of the total population and make up 60% of the school popula tion. Less ghettoized than in most cities, they live in many parts of the city, often side-by-side with white neighbors. Opening school doors necessarily results in mixed classes. Indeed, the incomplete ness of the first year program has acted as a curb on the degree of mixed attendance which might be expected. The population of a school does not yet fully reflect the composition of the neighbor hood it serves. The announced plan of the administration reaffirmed the Board’s policy of non-discrimination by declaring that the tenure, rank, and salary of all personnel would be protected, that appoint ment would be by examination without regard to race, that assign ment would be in accordance with the needs of the total system. There was no deliberate mixing of the existing segregated staffs, but some teachers were reassigned where blocks of students were transferred. New teachers, a group which included both Negro and white, were assigned without regard to the race of the pupils or of other staff members. As a result, 38 schools opened with mixed teaching staffs. Altogether, 86 Negro teachers were assigned to 34 schools which were previously all-white. They teach pupils of both races, and in fact have more white than Negro pupils. In three instances, a Negro teacher is serving in a school where there are no Negro children. There are four white teachers in schools which were formerly Negro, one of which is still all-Negro. About one out of three white teachers has a Negro colleague in his school while about one out of ten Negro teachers has a white colleague. Once assigned, Negro teachers took their places along with others. Some principals were anxious about the first introduction of the new teacher, but no difficulties were encountered. A few white parents called to complain, though some seemed only to be seeking reassurance that everything was all right. Principals usually 7 �give an answer in terms of "Let’s give it a try.” When "the try” is given, the cause is won. In fact, complaints are few and short lived. The children have no difficulty in accepting a teacher of a dif ferent race. Accustomed to the teacher being an important person in their lives, children quickly accept the classroom situation as a normal one. Earlier anxieties about status felt by Negro teachers have gen erally been allayed. The success of the Negro teacher in a nonsegregated assignment has been conspicuous. The shortage of teachers is so severe that Negro teachers will be employed in the future. It now seems clear that Negro teachers have in fact wider opportunities under the integrated system than under the former segregated one. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF selection of such top officers has been impartially made. Some sa\ ings in administrative costs have already been made bv abolishing jobs in which vacancies have occurred. Savings of at least $90,000 are predicted when the plan is completed. Negro personnel still feel less security about promotion than about non-discriminatory hiring and placement as such. W hile it i> clear that present Negro officers will maintain their status, anxieties will probably not be fully allayed until it can be seen how futurevacancies will be filled. VESTIGES OF SEGREGATION The outlines of the dual system in many ways remain as a kind of residue of the past. Since most teachers remained in their old assignments, faculties still tend to be all-white or all-Negro, with the pioneers scattered among the others. All schools still have principals of the same race as before. Until administrative staff reorganization was effected late in the school year, officers still administered the same schools as before, inescapably keeping plan ning and staff work largely segregated. The five vocational high schools, three white and two Negro, were not included in the first year program in any way. The two teachers colleges, while now admitting students on a non-racial basis, are still operating as separate institutions. Although the old "Division 1” for white students and "Divi sion 2” for Negro students have been nominally abolished, they fade away only slowly, with traditional lines o f authority and channels of communication slow to change. Consequently it is difficult to give up segregated thinking, to stop speaking of "white schools” and "colored schools,” and to make a really functional merger. Under the dual system, Washington had two sets of school administrators, with white officers serving white schools and Negro officers serving Negro schools. Such duplicate jobs ranged from Principal up to First Assistant Superintendent. With the desegrega tion program, it was necessary to reorganize this dual staff into a single, centralized administration. School officers were assured that the tenure, rank, and salary of every person would be protected, but the actual reorganization was not effected until late in the school year. Under the new plan of reorganization each of the school officers is given a city-wide responsibility. Jobs have been re assigned on a functional basis, with old jobs combined and new posts created. At the top staff level, there are 12 positions, of which four are held by Negroes, who supervise personnel of both races and have schools of all racial composition under their juris diction. These four are a Deputy Superintendent in charge of Coordinated Educational Services (including personnel, research, and curriculum) and three Assistant Superintendents in charge of Vocational High Schools, Elementary Schools, and Individual Pupil Study (research), respectively. The group of Directors (about 10 in number) also include both white and Negro incumbents serving on a city-wide basis. Reorganization o f academic departments is a more involved process. Most departments will ultimately have only one supervis ing officer while they now have two. During the interim period when present incumbents remain in service, one will have the top post with the other acting as assistant, even though both retain present salary. As this is written, it is too early to judge whether Integration of P-TA activities has a special importance, since Parent-Teacher Associations represent a vital link between school and community. Traditionally, white P-TA’s have been organized into the D. C. Congress of Parents and Teachers, the Negro P-TA’s into the Washington Congress of Parents and Teachers. After the Supreme Court decision, the D. C. Congress took formal action to remove from its constitution all reference to race, thereby leaving the way open for any parent to join the local P-TA group. In mixed schools which were formerly white, P-TA’s are 8 9 PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS �interracial. Most o f the leadership is still white, since officers were elected the previous year. Some Negro parents were elected to vacancies which occurred late, and many program activities operate on a fully interracial basis. In formerly Negro schools, white par ents are so few that P-TA’s remain essentially all-Negro. There remains the job of establishing a single congress for all P-TA’s. Early in the school year, a joint committee of the two con gresses was appointed to work out a merger. The committee for mulated recommendations which have been accepted by both con gresses. Full integration now depends on the purely technical process of insuring that all local P-TA’s can qualify for full na tional membership. EXPERIENCE IN INTEGRATED SCHOOLS Within the schools, children and teachers and parents are hav ing a chance to learn, finding both the novel and the ordinary in education "without regard to race.” A white principal who had worried about working with a Negro teacher now says, with evi dent sincerity, "Why, I find that I like her.” In another situation, a Negro teacher, who had been unsure about her new assignment, reports, "I’ve made some wonderful friends here at this school.” A white high school student, being probed about the Negro stu dents, says, "Some of them are one way and some another.” A Parent-Teacher Association approached a discussion of "how in tegration is working” with some fear of hard feeling and a painful hour, only to find, "It isn’t difficult to talk about at all.” Stories such as these are innumerable. They are the stories of people learning what they live, finding that their own experience is the real teacher. Those who have been separated by a racial barrier can now see one another as people. Many who expected difficulty do not find it. Parents who had expected to use drastic measures to avoid a mixed school find their children content and have no further need to be concerned. Many parents listen anxiously for remarks o f their children which will tell them what it is like, only to hear nothing pertinent from children who do not find that new classmates have made school any different. Children bring to the situation considerable spontaneity in dealing with others and are usually less conscious of race than adults. They also sometimes bring negative attitudes, reflecting the prejudices of the community. Teachers, who are quick to feel a sense of responsibility to all, are learning to regard most problems as the problems of children, not of Negro and white children. The children themselves learn from the teacher, and from their day-by day experiences with each other. 10 In high schools, both white and Negro children have taken leadership, despite the fact that the N egro children began the year as newcomers. Student councils are elected in the spring for the following year, so the new year began with councils all-white. In a few cases, Negro students found places on the council because of a vacancy which occurred after the new year began. For other offices which are filled by election in the fall, such as Home Room Representative and club officers, some Negro children have been elected along with white children. One high school, which had suffered previously from low enrollment, had jobs on publications staffs and service clubs which were going begging, so that Negro students found more than ample opportunities. The sports activities were traditionally segregated under the dual system, with white and Negro teams never meeting in athletic contests. This year it was possible to do some rescheduling in basketball, so that all the teams could meet, but the football sched ule could not be rearranged on such short notice. However, there are now several mixed teams in formerly white schools which have become integrated. Some problems occur simply because the two halves of the segregated system were not alike. Negro schools in Washington have traditionally been more highly disciplined, organized on more authoritarian lines, than white schools. For most children, transfer into the more permissive atmosphere is helpful; for some, it is difficult and some assistance is needed. Some of the teachers who were transferred needed help in making the change to a different atmosphere. Schools meet the needs as they find them. In one school, the Negro children did not take part in ping-pong during the lunch time free period, because the school they had come from had no ping-pong tables and they didn’t know how to play. The physical education department took on the job of correcting the problem. Where there are only a few children of one race in a school, some carry on well by themselves, others need some help in overcoming initial shyness and resistance. W hile most of the newly entering children learn along with the others, some who learn more slowly need special help. The new program has brought with it some problems, but they are manageable. Many are the problems to be expected in a time of change. Many follow because of the earlier fact of segregation. Many are simply the normal problems that occur in a school situa tion. Some occur because of undue awareness of race, with result ant over-compensation or leaning-over-backwards. Race attitudes as such have some part, but far less than most people anticipated before desegregation. N ow fact can be separated from fancy, and real needs can be met by sound educational practice. 11 �MEETING OPPOSITION Every proposed step in the desegregation process encountered some public opposition, with the Board of Education itself divided on the issue, many organized groups working for either a slow process or a faster transition, and a considerable block of the com munity ready to stage a last-ditch struggle against integration. The Federation of Citizens Association attempted unsuccessfully to halt the desegregation program by court action. A number of citizens’ groups organized to block the program by speech-making, protests to the Board of Education, and public statements. The public generally accepts an accomplished fact, finding the reality less fearsome than the anticipation. It is always the step not yet taken, the territory just around the corner, which becomes the issue of controversy. The D. C. school administration has generally acted well, staying with the program despite the efforts of those who would deter action. On the other hand, it may be that fear of the anti-integration forces has been the reason why some steps have been slow, and some have been taken with troublesome anxiety. Such timidity is an error, inviting opposition rather than quelling it. Most citizens in Washington, as elsewhere, wish to obey the law and to assist the schools in making the transition. Throughout the planning stages, substantial elements of the community went on record as welcoming the Court’s decision and favoring constructive action immediately. Many religious and civic groups communicated with the Board of Education to give advice and support in a spirit o f sharing the responsibility. The opposition groups represent a minority opinion, at times becoming conspicuous out of proportion to actual numbers or strength. The most sensational, though probably not the most effective, expression o f opposition was the abortive student demonstration which occurred in October, 1954. Following the example of similar actions in Milford and Baltimore, groups of students stayed out of classes in three senior high schools, and, during part of the period, six junior high schools. The young people themselves were having a good time outdoors in beautiful Indian Summer weather. There was a spirit of adventure rather than of hostility. At Eastern High School, white and Negro students happily paraded together out side the school! N o violence occurred and normal school attendance was restored within the week. Less than 2% of the city’s school children participated, and, within the schools themselves, classes and normal activities continued as usual. Throughout, the police acted impartially and effectively to maintain order. It is notable that there was no correlation between the extent of integration in a school and its involvement in the strike, if any, 12 or the extent of its involvement. Demonstrations occurred both in the most mixed high school and in one with only a few Negro students, with the latter the more seriously affected. A school with 1 9 % Negro took no part in the demonstrations. Apparently the traditional spirit of the neighborhood and the effective leadership at the moment determined the extent of the activity, rather than the desegregation program itself. Authorities acted well in this crisis, yielding nothing to these pressure tactics. The school superintendent issued a statement re affirming the desegregation policy, calling upon parents to send their children to school, and declaring that loss of school privileges would follow continued failure to comply. The responsible ele ments of the community organized quickly to defend the school program. Religious and civic groups issued statements against the strikes, and all the daily papers editorialized against the truant students. The chief of police made it clear that there would be no hesitation to arrest. Those who promoted the strikes were testing the limits of their ability to delay and disturb the desegregation program. A firm and decisive stand by the authorities and the community put an end to the matter. LIMITATIONS OF THE PROGRAM In a number of important respects, the program in the D. C. schools falls short of full and complete desegregation. This is true both because of the partial character of the first-year steps and because of the gradual nature of the long-range plan. There are a number of problems not yet solved, some of them implicit in the nature of the program. THE FIRST-YEAR STEPS produced certain confusions, due principally to a lack of decisive clarity. Since the plan was complicated, many parents did not understand until late just where their children were to be assigned. Because several different rules were in operation, two children in the same family were often assigned to two different schools, which presented a practical prob lem for the parents. Options were not granted until after classes started, so that additional reorganization was required when late transfers were made. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION still exists. Many children are still assigned to schools on a racial basis. New classes in the fall entered the secondary schools on a segregated basis. Many Negro children were refused transfer to the nearest school. Doubtless there are many others who did not understand the plan o f options, and so did not request transfer. 13 �THE OPTION PLAN will act as a brake on integration as long as it is in force. This plan allows many children a choice of remaining where enrolled or of transferring to the proper school under the new zones. W hite parents are particularly subject to social pressure to keep their children where they are, influenced by a need to conform. Negro parents, feeling the humiliation of segregation and more often inconvenienced by the segregated as signments, have more incentive to move. In theory, those who live in the area have priority. In practice, they may attend the school in their zone only by taking initiative in seeking a transfer, at the risk of displacing those already en rolled. Thus the Negro child who exercises his right is cast in the role o f "invader” and placed in a vulnerable position. This often leads to some reluctance to transfer. Further, simply because a choice is possible, all may be subject to the subtle pressures of per suasion and exhortation. The feature of choice has the effect of loading the scales in favor o f the old pattern, unnecessarily prolonging the transition period. A policy which establishes the same rules for everyone would be more fair and easier to enforce. NEGRO SCHOOLS ARE N O T DESEGREGATED as the plan now operates. The movement of both pupils and teachers is one way into formerly-white schools. The option plan encourages white parents to avoid assignment o f their children to a school formerly Negro. The few who are so assigned because they are new to the system become therefore a smaller minority than they would be if zones were enforced for all grades. Parents are then even more apt to seek some means to have the assignment changed. There is con siderable evidence that school authorities have been too liberal in granting transfers, permitting continued avoidance of the Negro school, despite official statements that transfers are not granted for racial reasons. It is notable that despite the trend, there are several hundred white children who are having no severe difficulties in a minority assignment. Some forthright planning and imagination are needed to re move the racial label of "Negro school” in the public mind. Faculties can be integrated in these schools. Consideration should be given to the device used in some New Jersey communities of changing the name of the school when it clearly carries a racial connotation. Publicity might well stress the high quality of some of the N egro schools which logically should be integrated. At present, the tendency is to treat integration of the Negro school with anxious avoidance, making the job more difficult. There is danger that a block of Jim Crow schools will remain after desegre gation is nominally complete. Executive Secretary L e w is M- H o s k in s Chairman H e n r y J . Ca d b u r y Honorary Secretary E. P i c k e t t Cl a r en c e American Friends Service Committee INCORPORATED T w en ty South T w elfth Street Philadelphia 7, Telephone, R I t P ennsylvania t en h o u se 6-9372 "THE RIGHT OF EVERY CHILD" The Story of the Washington, D. C. Program of School Integration A Report by the American Friends Service Committee One year has passed since the Supreme Court decision of May 17th, 1954 which decreed that segregated education was not equal education. School officers, parents, teachers, and others feel a responsibility for implementing the Court's decision. Certain questions are upper most in their minds. The story of the Washington program is invaluable for those who wish to learn. Additional copies of THE RIGHT OF EVERY CHILD, and of an earlier pamphlet, WORKING TOGETHER: INTEGRATION OF WASHINGTON SCHOOLS, may be obtained from the address below. The earlier pamphlet considers the steps involved in school integration. SINGLE COPY FREE ORDERS UP TO 50 - 10<? EACH SPECIAL RATES FOR LARGE ORDERS Order from: Community Relations Program 104 C Street, N. E. Washington, D. C. Lincoln 3-2773 14 15 �These difficulties which arise from faltering are in sharp con trast to the success of the program where it has been forthrightly undertaken. The integrated schools are operating well, faculties have been integrated with ease, Negro administrators serve all without difficulty. A once-fearful public is finding that schools go on much as usual. The general success of the program is convinc ing evidence that hesitations are unnecessary. TOWARD BETTER EDUCATION Washington schools have been materially improved in the process of desegregating. The worst problems of overcrowding have been solved. Class size has been improved. Extremely over sized classes have been reduced. The shortage of teachers, which long plagued the Negro schools, has been corrected by the re assignment of children and teachers. Needs and services are better matched, facilities more fairly and more efficiently distributed. Negro schools which have not been integrated nevertheless benefit from the program because of relief from such problems as over crowding and teacher shortages. This year for the first time, com parisons of "Division 2” (formerly Negro) schools and "Division 1” (formerly white) schools show substantial equality. Solution of these old problems, which were implicit in the dual system, leaves the way clear for other improvements in schools. Funds and services can be put to better use in building a good educational program. Improved teacher education would result if the colleges were merged. School officers, once used for duplicate jobs, can now give additional service sorely needed. Only now is it possible to get on with the real business of education. Education in a democratic society centers on the individual child, respecting him as a person and providing the conditions which will help him to find the creative person which is most uniquely himself. Integration establishes the atmosphere where such an education is possible. The child is no longer blind to others because of an artificial barrier, no longer humiliated by being set aside. There is a new sense of dignity and a new feeling of freedom. The Washington story may well give courage to the faint hearted and conviction to the doubtful. Those who would learn from the Washington experience will find no magic formula to give proof against error. They will find that the job of desegrega tion is feasible and constructive, even with difficulties and mistakes. If the story is not one of perfection, it is one of success. If the full task is not done, there remains a record of substantial achievement. Washington schools have taken the first and biggest step, that of establishing a policy and undertaking a program. 15 �, a Q uaker organization, attem pts to relieve hum an suffering and to ease ten sions between individuals, groups, o r nations. At the base of all Service Com m ittee w ork is the belief th a t G od lives in every person and th a t love in action can overcome h atred, prejudice, and fear. The Service Com m ittee works in Europe, Asia, Mexico, El Salvador, and in the U nited States. T h e A m e r i c a n F r ie n d s S e r v i c e C o m m i t t e e o f the A m erican Friends Serv ice Com m ittee involves w ork in the fields of educa tion, recreation, em ploym ent, housing, and in the general field o f com munity counseling. A bout two dozen projects are located in the U nited States w ith staff and guiding com mittees w orking in such places as Indian Reservations, large industrial cities, or in the grow ing suburban areas. In each case the aim of the w ork is to help elim inate the barriers of prej udice and resulting discrim ination w hich deny the full developm ent o f each hum an being. T h e C o m m u n i t y R e la t io n s P r o g r a m the C om m unity R elations Program has de voted fo u r years of w ork w ith the com m unity to w ard elim inating segregation. Efforts have been centered around integration o f public schools and recreation areas. For two years before the Supreme C ourt’s school decision, the Service Com m ittee of fered seminars for public school teachers and ad m inistrators looking forw ard to the transition to integration. T he staff consults w ith officials and com munity leaders, serves as an inform ation center, and gives aid to local groups in program planning. A special short-term project in 1953 provided as sistance in establishing non-discrim inatory policies in places of public accom m odation. In W a s h in g t o n , D .C . O th er American Friends Service Com m ittee program s in W ashington include In ternational Student House, Davis H ouse (an international guest house), and seminars for young people and fo r governm ent officials. NATIONAL OFFICE: American Friends Service Committee, 20 S. 12tfc St., Phila. 7, Pa. � 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 19, The Personal Papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell Description An account of the resource This collection consists of the personal papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell, and covers the period from 1945 through 1991, with the bulk of the material falling between 1947 and 1959. The materials in this collection were generated or collected as a result of Mrs. Campbell's involvement in the Arlington County School Board, as well as her interests and activities in education and local politics. 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 Booklet: "The Right of Every Child", The Story of the Washington, D.C. Program of School Desegregation, American Friends Service, April, 1955. 10 pages. Description An account of the resource The story of the integration process in Washington, D.C. right after the Supreme Court Decision. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 19, The Personal Papers of Elizabeth Pfohl Campbell Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource American Friends Service Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1955-04 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 19_6_1_2_38 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/63fb6a35cbfa23384d443e2f3f0b9a61.pdf 7d1df1e615426457a36c3ab306bb82d9 PDF Text Text w el come t o i i i jW \< 5 < y S " { i ■ '|' ' ■ \-yy.■ ; S\ 5 5 ■ ■V ■V ■V ■V "V V 'ABINGDON SCHOOL �YOU ARE INVITED TO A RECEPTION AT ABINGDON ON WEDNESDAY. SEPT. 2ND AT 7=30 P.M. IN THE LIBRARY COME MEET THE STAFF. SEE A SLIDE SHOW. AND HAVE A TOUR OF THE SCHOOL! PLEASE CALL 845-7664 FOR DIRECTIONS. � 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Description An account of the resource RG69 contains information related to the integration of Arlington County Public Schools including the history, redistricting, pupil distribution, and boundary maps. The collection was donated by Lisa Farberstein, Director of Community Service and Public Information for the Arlington County Public Schools 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 Booklet: "Welcome to Abingdon School", 1987. Description An account of the resource Includes an invitation to a reception to meet staff and get to know school. 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 69, Arlington County Public Schools: Desegregation Materials Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Arlington Public Schools, Abingdon Elementary School Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1980s 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 69_3_1_11_144 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/ca4d3000e6d4db716e02c5a98692d46c.pdf ac7dfecc9c1983b8b730419db85671ff PDF Text Text �F O R E W O R D Self support is the first step toward securing aid from others. F e w help those who fail to help themselves. Through the years, the National Associa t i o n for the Advancement of Colored People has been able t o continue its program because of the contribu tions of devoted people. I n recent years, as the Negro has gained a greater po r t i o n of the American economy, the NAACP Life M e mbership Program has grown until it is an NAACP mainstay. F o r this we are proud. And, m u c h of our success is directly due to the 2 5 years of dedicated service in the field of human rights, so unselfishly rendered by the Virginia State C o nference of NAACP branches. Jackie Ro b i n s o n Kivie Kaplan Dr. Benjamin Mays Co-Chairmen N a t i o n a l Life Membership Committee Mrs. Dorthula Knox Chairman, Virginia State Conference-NAACP Life Membership Committee 2 �nU ___— M ^ "KS£'r' ^ Vf 0- Q c^y ~aASA • ^ o ‘ j s o JL- -! • \ X & < ? 0 P - ' g .— Va * * \ ^ I ' p *& ~ *» * \ n ^ U * * * * * Vr- L>->-3b— ^ (N-h=i> >t-x>c — Q j L o ^ ^ c B - L ^ \p * ‘ ^ 0 JACKSON MEMORIAL DINNER r< \C J A Jr. Kj/ sLo Armstrong High School V i \ . f't r a 3ei 6:30 P. M. Mistress of Ceremonies..................... Mrs. Bernetta B. West President, Cumberland County Branch -v. * Prayer of Thanksgiving............ The Rev. Mr. Grady W. Powell Membership Chairman, Henrico County Branch * * * "These We Remember" ...................... Dr.L. Francis Griffin Coordinator, NAACP, Prince Edward County * * * * Introduction of Speaker ................ Clarence Newsome. Esouire _ General Convention Secretary * * * * * -( \ \ o t x b Q _ ^ c 5 ) Address * * * . TTT ............................ Spottswood W. Robinson, III Dean, School of Law, Howard University Presentations .............................. Mrs. Dorthula Knox Chairman, Virginia State Conference Life Membership Committee * * * * * * * * * ■ * * * * * * * # ** ‘ .h - c ^ v & b V ■ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ■ * * * ■ * * ■ * * * * * ■ « •* * * * • ^ * \ ^ l r r no i Qla---- VV©X_ 9 - ^ i { t r M vV( r k c n r ^ o o a x ^ U ' Q j z c ^ L ^L c-nt.^\ COT " ^rw v . ' ^ Expressions for the Recipients ........... Mrs. Lula Robinson-Jones President, Orange County Branch SPECIAL MUSIC Armstrong High School String Ensemble Maurice Williams, Director of Instrumental Music Maurice Miriams, Miss Settle Jackson Cecil Cole Miss Mary Johnson Miss Violet Crocker Frederick Boyd Miss Phylis Taylor Melvin Chalmers Miss Rachel Jefferson J L o i 7 |VA V? v ‘ e A V ^ O *! ■ * * * * # * * * * * * oJv O. a * «a * V* * * * * * * * / P < AK v / v * * ** * * * * ^\j ^ — — ^ - < * * *»i rv -' 3 V \S I k o W - c^ ^ �j^ . c\-j-> ~^-> n r o -S -^ M JUNIOR LIFE MEMBERS (V b ^— CV k ^-V_s J O / -Lc j — r m -JIj Lillian Alberta Anderson Jeffrey Bailey *Samuel Barham, IV Nini Alin Black Miss Jean Braxton Milton Earl Brooks Miss Bettie Lucretia Brown Eugene Bryant Prince George Spring Grove Surry Norfolk Williamsburg. Richmond Portsmouth Norfolk * Julia Byrd Francine Chiquita Claytor Samuel F. Coppage, Jr. Michel Elliott Thomas Fenimore Law Rose Marie Fisher Monique Foster Shirley Arlene Gardner Surry Roanoke Norfolk Spring Grove Emporia Spring Grove Salem Hanover ^Gloria Jean Gresham Chauncey D. Harmon Shirley Conrad Harris, II Shirley C. Harris, III Oliver W. Hill, Jr. Reginald Hoffler Wilma Dean Holmes Arlevia Nerissa Johnson New Kent Salem Amelia Emporia Richmond Salem Surry Carrollton Eugene W. Johnson, Jr. James Hubert Johnson, Jr. Jacqueline E. Mann Paula Kay Martin Venida Gwynett Macklin Thelma McCauley Charles Thomas Mitchell Hampton Norfolk Phoebus Danville Qnporla Norfolk Petersburg Linda Murray Paula C. Owens Norman Parker, Jr. Gloria Ransome Denise Slade Glenn R. Slade Miss Patrice Y. Smith Jesse Tams Sydnor Warrenton Port smouth Norfolk York, James Cl Surry Richmond Norfolk Lillian Thompson Franklin Turner Josephine Turner Ann P. Walker Ernestine Ward G. Roland Wooden Ronald 0. Wyatt Reginald Alan Young Norfolk Drewreyville Petersburg Spring Grove Spring Grove Norfolk Norfolk S u rry # T o be submitted at state convention U • j-e t-N gC j �LIFE MEMBERS Those Having P a id th e F u ll Fee o f $500.00 The The The The The The The L in k s L in k s L in k s L i n k s C lu b L in k s L in k s L in k s D r . R . H e n ry B la n d M r. R u b en B o u ie D a n i e l Brown Edw in C . Brown M r. J e w e l S c o t t C a r r i n g t o n M rs . F l o r e n c e G. C a r t e r M a d is o n H . C a r t e r The L i n k s R o an o k e K.W . P r i n c e H a l l G ra n d L odge A . F . & A . M. R ichm ond G ra n d C h a p t e r O r d e r o f E a s t e r n S ta rs o f V irg in ia S u rry P o r ts m o u th M a r th a C h a p t e r //1 0 0 . E . S . A lp h a P h i A lp h a F r a t . R ich m o n d B e ta Gamma Lam bda C h a p t e r A lp h a P h i A lp h a F r a t . E p s i l o n O m ic ro n Lam bda C h a p t, . L a w r e n c e v i l l e K appa A lp h a P s i F r a t . N e w p o rt News H am pton A lu m n i C h a p t e r A lp h a A lp h a C h a p t e r Omega P s i P h i F r a t e r n i t y D e l t a Omega C h a p t e r Omega P s i P h i F r a t e r n i t y Lambda Omega C h a p t e r Omega P s i P h i F r a t e r n i t y Z e ta I o t a C h a p t e r Omega P s i P h i F r a t e r n i t y A lp h a B e t a B o u le Sigm a P i P h i F r a t e r n i t y I o t a Omega C h a p t e r A lp h a K ap p a A lp h a S o r o r i t y E e ta T h e t a S ig m a C h a p t e r D e l t a Sigm a T h e t a S o r o r i t y Hu S ig m a C h a p t e r _ ,'fc IN KEMORIAM: D r. L u t h e r P o r t e r J a c k s o n A e o lia n S o c i e t y & B e n e f i t C lu b R e v . J . C . A llm o n d A m i c i t i a S o c i a l & S a v in g s C lu b V i c t o r J o s e p h A she B a c h e lo r B e n e d i c t S o c . C lu b W. L e s t e r B an k s B is h o p W. Y . B e l l S u f fo lk P o r ts m o u th L a w re n c e v ille A le x a n d ria S o u th B o s to n R ichm ond R ichm ond M r. P u r v i s J . C h e s s o n 0 . P . C h ile s D r . E dna M. C o ls o n R o b e r t H . C o o le y , J r . M rs . E s t h e r I . C o o p er D r. S a m u e l F . C oppage D e L ic a d o C i v i c & S o c i a l C lu b H am pton L y n c h b u rg N e w p o rt News N o rfo lk E ttric k P o r ts m o u t h R ich m o n d N o rfo lk R ichm ond P e te rs b u rg P e te rs b u rg A rlin g to n N o rfo lk N o rfo lk D ucks S o c i a l & C i v i c C lu b N o rfo lk R o la n d D . E a l e y R ichm ond E m e r itu s & A c t i v e M e d ic a l S t a f f B u r e l l M e m o ria l H o s p i t a l R o an o k e M r. R o b e r t L ee G ib s o n R o an o k e Good C h e e r N e ig h b o rh o o d C lu b N o r f o l k G ra n d U n ite d O rd e r o f Odd F e l l o w s , R ichm ond L one S t a r L odge #13h0 M is s R u th B . Hawes ( d e c e a s e d ) R ichm ond N e w p o rt News P e te rs b u rg D r. E dw in B . H e n d e rs o n O l i v e r W h ite H i l l F r a n k H . H o w e ll B lu e R id g e T em p le //6? I . B .P . O E . o f W. ( D a u g h te r s o f ) I n t e r n e t ' 1 L o n g s h o re m e n 's A s s o c . ^12lj8 M rs . L i l l i a n W. J o r d a n R eu b e n E . Law son N o rfo lk P o r ts m o u t h R ichm ond N o rfo lk R ichm ond Jam es H . M a d iso n M an assas I n d u s t r i a l S c h o o l B o a rd M aceo C . M a r t i n M a rtin A . M a rtin D r. N. P . M ille r D r . A lo n z o G. M oron M rs . A lm a B . I f y a t t , Su p rem e N a tio n a l I d e a l B e n e fit S oc. N o rfo lk P e te rs b u rg N o rfo lk I s l e o f W ig h t N o r f o lk N o rfo lk N o rfo lk R ich m o n d S o u th E o s to n N o r f o l k M e d ic a l S o c i e t y O ld D o m in io n D e n t a l S o c i e t y o f V irg in ia O ld D o m in io n M e d ic a l S o c i e t y 5 F a l l s C h u rc h R ichm ond S u rry C h a rlo tte s v ille N o rfo lk R ich m o n d R o an o k e N o rfo lk M an assas D a n v ille R ic h m o n d F a rm v ille H am pton R ic h m o n d N o rfo lk C h a rlo tte s v iv i F ra n k lin e �SUBSCRIBING LIFE MEMBERS T h e Links A c a c i a Lodge #32 A.F.&A.M. A.F. & A.M. Lodge #101 A.F. & A.M. Masons, A r l i n g t o n Lodge #58 C a p i t a l C i t y Lodge #107 A . F. & A.M. E u r e k a Lodge #l5A A.F. & A.M. J e rusalem Lodge #15 A.F. & A .Mo K i n g Solo m an Lodge #27 A.F. & A.M. L i n c o l n Lodge #11 A.F. & A.M. M t . Nebo Lodge #1*3 A.F. & A.M. M o s t W o r s h i p f u l H iram Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. N o r t h u m b e r l a n d Lodge #220 A.F• & A.M. P r i d e of Hanover Lodge A.F. & A.M. #261* S h i n i n g Light Lodge #272 A.F. & A.M. O r der Easter Star Scottish Rite A l p h a K a p p a Lambd a Chapter Alpha Phi Fraternity A l p h a P hi A l p h a Fraternit y A l p h a P hi L a mbda Chapter A l p h a Phi A l p h a Frate r n i t y E p s i l o n I o t a Lambda Chapter Phi Alpha Fraternity E p s i l o n N u L a m b d a A lpha A l p h a P h i A l p h a F r aternit y N u L a m b d a Chapter Z e t a L a mbda Chapter Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity A l p h a I o t a Chapter Omega Psi Fraternity O m e g a Psi Phi Fraternity N u Psi Chapter O m e g a Psi Phi Fraternity Phi P h i Chapter G a m m a A l p h a Ch a p t e r Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Zeta Omicron C h a p te r RHO Chapter Chi Delta M u Fraternity Danville Alexandria Emporia Arlington Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority A lpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Alpha Phi Omega Chapter Delta Omega Chapter Gamma Delta Omega Chapter Gamma Upsilon Omega Chapter Lambda Omega Chapter Zeta Epsilon Omega Chapter Richmond Richmond Danville Petersburg Portsmouth Hampton Newport News Suffolk Petersburg Alpha Theta Sigma Chapter Delta Sigma Theta Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Beta Gamma Sigma Chapter Beta Pi Sigma Chapter Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Gamma Gamma Chapter Alpha Phi Zeta Chapter Beta Theta Zeta Chapter Zeta Phi Beta Sorority A l pha Lambda Chapter Phi Delta Kappa Sor., Nat'l. Petersburg Richmond Alexandria Petersburg Accomae Lynchburg Petersburg Portsmouth Danville Richmond Norfolk Norfolk Lillian Alfred Street Bapt. Church College Women's Club Dr. H. S. Diuguid Divine Bapt. Church First Bapt. Church Dr. William Logan, Jr. Monticello Chapter #1*3 Order of The Eastern Star Powhatan Alexandria Petersburg Lynchburg Portsmouth Roanoke Petersburg Westover School PTA Dr. Robert M. Williams, Jr. Richmond Chapter of Guardsmen, I n c . Northern Va. Bapt. Ass'n. A.E.A.O.N.M.S. Magnus Temple #3 A.E.A.O.N.M.S. Zem Temple #22 Alpha Wives Auxiliary Ashland Petersburg Alexandria r Charlottesville Roanoke Norfolk Suffolk Portsmouth Petersburg Newport News The American Legion William Thomas Post #129 Astoria Beneficial Club Audette Social Club Bachelor B.S.B. Ass'n. Ladies Auxiliary Bachelor Benedict Social & Beneficial Ass'n. Inc. Bakers Dozen, Inc. Bank St. Baptist Church Norfolk Suffolk Petersburg Richmond Roanoke Newport News Richmond • 6 Richmond Catlett Washington,D.C. Newport News Suffolk Alexandria Richmond Norfolk Norfolk Norfolk Norfolk Norfolk �Mrs. Ethel T. Overby Owls Social-Saving Club Peter B. Ramsey Dental Soc.. Prudential Social & Civic Club Richmond Norfolk Richmond Kappa Alpha Psi Frat., Inc. Hampton Alumni Chapter Orange County Branch-NAACP Norfolk Suffolk Dr, L. T. Reid Dr, Margaret W. Reid Suffolk Portsmouth Thomas H. Reid Richmond Beneficial Ins. Cci Richmond . Roanoke, Va. Branch-NAACP Roanoke Norfolk Robert D, Robertson Spottswood W. Robinson Richmond Dr. Christopher C. Scott Robert C. Scott Seaview Beach Dr. Gregory Shaed Dr. Elric G. Stewart Mr. A. J. Strong Sussex County Sunday School Union Mr. & Mrs. Jess E. Taylor William Hale Thompson Dr. J. M. Tinsley Tobacco Workers Int. Union Local #209 AFL-CIO Tobacco Workers Int. Union Local #216 Mrs. Julia E. Tucker Samuel W. Tucker Richmond Richmond Norfolk Richmond Tappahannock Norfolk Jarrett Alexandria Newport News Richmond Richmond Richmond Emporia Emporia Hampton Dr. T. W. Turner Virginia Mutual Benefit Life Richmond Insurance Company Virginia State Beauticians Norfolk Association Virginia Teachers Ass*n Retired Teachers Virginia Teachers A s s fn Lynchburg Sixth District Newport News Phillip S. Walker Jerry Luck Williams Dr. Philip Y. W y a t t P. B. Young, Sr. Danville Fredericksburg Norfolk Richard Reese Moses Knox Disputants Emporia 7 Hampton Orange �Mrs. V e r a B. Banks B a p tist Min i s t e r s Conf. B e n e d i c t C ivic Club M r . Calvin B e n l e y M r s . B uena V. K. Berry B e t h a n y Bapt. Association B i g B e t h e l Baptist Church Richmond Petersburg Petersburg Lynchburg Norfolk Dinwiddie McKenney B o n T on Club Dr. R. H. Boulware Dr. B. H. Bowser Isaac A. Boyd Dr. James H. Boyd M r s . Sarah P a t t o n Boyle B.P.O. Reindeer, Inc. (Benevolent Protective Order of Reindeer Norfolk Lynchburg Richmond Norfolk Norfolk Charlottesville Richmond Th e Bridgettes Social Club Mr . John M. Brooks M r s . M a t t i e Brooks Mr. C harles E. Brown Dr. F e l i x J. B rown Dr. G. W. C. Brown M i s s M a r g a r e t Brown Richmond Richmond Alexandria Yorktown Richmond Norfolk Jarratt Burns, L. B. C i t y Federation of C o l o r e d W o m e n ' s Clubs B u s i n e s s & Professional M e n ' s Club Dr. C. W. Cartwright E l d e r A n n i e Chamblin C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e Beauticians C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e Branch-NAACP C h e s t e r f i e l d Club Halifax Emporia Richmond Charlottesville Charlottesville Norfolk Ebenezer Bapt. Church Ebenezer Bapt. Church Ebenezer Bapt. Church School N. A. Eggleston Esquire Club Esquire Club Eureka Lodge Eureka Auxiliary of Norfolk Alexandria Richmond Richmond Richmond Va. Beach Princess Anne Norfolk Norfolk Suffolk Alexandria Norfolk Lynhhaven Roanoke Petersburg Five O'clock Club Forest View Lounge Dr. William T. Forrester C. F. Foster Mr. James L. Foster Gamma Omega Chapter Gillfield Bapt. Church Danville Disputants Richmond Richmond Richmond Lynchburg Petersburg Gleaner Bible Class Ebenezer Bapt. Church Mr. D. B. Glenn Grace Protest Episcopal Church Grand Court of Calanthe Grand United Order of Odd Fellows of State of Va. Mr. Charles Green Dr. W. A. Green Norfolk Norfolk Petersburg Richmond M a u r i c e Coll ette C o m m o n w e a l t h Citizens Assoc. F l o y d L. C o oper M r . C. W. C u ffee Dr. R o b e r t P. D a n i e l D a n v i l l e Voters' League F a t h e r J o h n C. Davis Ford Richmond Lynchburg The Fahocha Club Mrs. Alma V. Pelton First Bapt. Church First Bapt. Church First Bapt. Church First Bapt. Church Charlottesville C h i B e t a Chi Club C h i c k a h o m i n y Ba p tist Assoc, of Virginia M r . J ames Chinn C h o r d e t t e Social & Savings Club C h u r c h o f G o d In Christ C o l l e g e W o m e n ' s Club The Collegiates Richmond Alexandria Lynchburg Suffolk Delver Women's Club Departmental Progressive Club Diamond Hill Bapt. Church Dr. H. M. Diggs Dinwiddie County Sunday School Union Dr. Nathaniel Duff Mr. Samuel Durwell Norfolk Roanoke Portsmouth Suffolk Petersburg Danville Alexandria Norfolk Ellerson Arlington Dr. W. B. Greene Lt. Col. James C. Griffin, McClellan Air Force Base Mrs. Hazel Hagans Mrs. Estelle Hale Hanover Co. Deacons Confr. J. Howard Hale Hanover County Teachers Asso. 8 Richmond Richmond Norfolk Lynchburg Norfolk Lawrenceville Richmond Petersburg California Norfolk Norfolk Ashland Norfolk Ellerson �Rev. S. F. Harris J. E. Harris Dr. J. B. Henderson Alberta Henley Henry Williams School FTA Hi Neighbor Civic Club Hiawatha Social & Beneficial Association Westpoint Ricnmond Norfolk Richmond Petersburg Norfolk Rev. Walter L. Hildebrand Mrs. Elloise G. Hill Howard University Alumni Daughter Elks, I.B.P.O.E. of W. Virginia State Association I.B.P.O.E. of W. Independent Order of St. Luke Jack and Jill of America Norfolk Smithfield Danville Little Shiloh Church Little Zion Baptist Church Loving Union Baptist Church Lynks Social Club Magic City Medical Society Manhattan Employees Benevo lent Society Mars Hill Baptist Church Mrs. Hortense Martin Dr. C. F. Mathews Dr. Earl H. McClenny Meade Memorial Episcopal Church Medical, Dental & Pharm. Society of Lower Peninsula Ken's Round Table Club Samuel V. Werrick Norfolk Norfolk Richmond Danville Jack and Jill, Inc. Jack & Jill of America Jack & Jill of America, Inc. Jack & Jill of America, Inc. Jackson Clinic James River District Educational Asso. & Womens Missionary Mrs. Mary C. Jefferson Hampton Portsmouth Richmond Roanoke Richmond Jerusalem Holy Church Mr. Albert S. Johnson Frank B. Johnson Mr. W. T. Johnson, Jr. Dr. R. Walter Johnson Jokers Club Mrs. Allonia G. Morris Jones Richmond Newport News Charlottesville Lynchburg Lynchburg Charlottesville King William Mr. M. D. Jones The Junior Civic League King of Klubs King William Bapt. Assoc. Mrs. Ernestine Knox Dr. Henry M. Ladrey Stony Creek Petersburg Charlottesville Westpoint Qnporia Alexandria Dr. D. W. Lamb The Le Grande Social Club Les Companeras Social & Civic Club, Inc. Les Gems Civic Social & Savings Club Les Juliettes Club Les Mondaines Social-Saving Club Suffolk Richmond Powhatan Hampton Ins. Norfolk Danville Martinsville Lawrenceville Ministers Wives Alliance Moore Street Bapt. Church Mrs. Cornelia Mort The Mossi Club Moton High School 1955 Graduating Class Mt. Level Church Mt. Nebo Baptist Church Norfolk Jarratt Dinwiddle Prince George Vienna Roanoke Petersburg Richmond Alexandria Portsmouth Mt. Olive Baptist Church Mt. Salvation Bapt. Church Mt. Sinai Baptist Church The Mum's Civic & Social Club Mr. Andrew C. Muse Nat'l Alliance of Postal Employees Nat'l Alliance of Postal Employees Nat'l Assoc, of Col. Women Arlington Arlington Holland Portsmouth Danville Norfolk 9 Alexandria Hampton Martinsville Alexandria Farmville Dinwiddie Westpoint South Norfol Richmond Richmond Nat'l Association of Negro Business & Professional Women 's Norfolk Clubs, Inc. Newport News National Epicureans, Inc. Norfolk National Epicureans, Inc. National Epicureans, Inc. Portsmouth National Epicureans, Inc. Richmond Dr. Clifton Nelson Lawrenceville New Calvary Baptist Church Norfolk Norfolk Branch-NAACP Norfolk Teachers Association Nat'l Assn, of Negro Bus. & Professional Women's Clubs A. V. Norrell School Norfolk Portsmouth Richmond Emporia Norfolk Norfolk Newport News Richmond �Shaar's Social Club Sharon Baptist Association Shiloh Baptist Church Shiloh Baptist Church Shiloh Baptist Sunday School Shining Light Lodge #272 Silver Queen Lodge #llj95> G. U. D. Of 0. F. A.F.L.-C.I.O. (Local 10-611) Oil Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union Old Dominion .Bar Assoc. Old Dominion Medical Soc. Mr. Samuel L. Owens Pamonkey Baptist Assoc. Parent Teacher Assoc. Princess Anne Training School Dr. Harry Penn South Norfolk Washington Norfolk Richmond Westpoint Princess Anne Roanoke Peoples Political & Civic League Petersburg's Registered Beauticians Local Ass'n. Dr. J. Rupert Pieott. Dr. G. S. Price Dr. Samuel D. Proctor Providence Baptist Church Queen of Clubs (Social Club) Petersburg Richmond Martinsville Virginia U n i ® Prince George Charlottesville The Rappahannock Medical Society Westpoint Dr. Leon A. Reid, Jr. Registered Beauticians Assoc. Richmond Funeral Directors Association, Inc. Richmond Medical Aux. Richmond Medical Society Richmond Emporia Norfolk Arlington Richmond Walkerton Third Union Baptist Church Alexandria Third Baptist Church Miss Janet Thornton The Terraces CharlottesvilLe Tidewater Chapt. A & T. Col. Portsmouth Tobacco Workers Local #202 AFL-CIO Richmond The Toppers Social Club Charlottesville Travelers Social & Saving Club Norfolk Richmond Richmond Norfolk Ashland Norfolk Emporia Richmond Norfolk Norfolk Newport News Annandale Richmond 10 Petersburg Richmond Pungoteague Portsmouth Prince George Amelia Hampton Ushers Union of Richmond Va. State Beauticians Assoc. Virginia State College Virginia Teachers Assoc. 1st Dirstrct Virginia Teachers Assoc. % J. K. Brooks Virginia Teachers Assoc. Third District Virginia Teachers Assoc. Fifth District Virginia Teachers Assoc. Ninth District %-att Tee Walker Wall Street Beneficial Club Rev. H. R. Warren Miss Willie M. Watson Richmond Ri chmond Richmond Royal Knights Social Club St. Phillips School of Nursing, Tidewater Alumni Dr. Waldo Scott David H. Scull Second Baptist Church Emporia Holland Suffolk Suffolk Trojan Civic Club Tuckahoe Bapt. Assoc. Miss Matile L. Tyler Union Baptist Church Union Baptist Church Union Branch Baptist Church Union Light Lodge #268' Richmond Richmond Richmond Teachers Assoc. Riverview Baptist Church Mrs. Roberta E. Robertson Mr. Contee Robinson Mr. Joseph Rose Royal Baptist Church Royal Independent Beneficial and Social Club Norfolk Suffolk Emporia Burgess Quinque Powhatan Southside Funeral Directors Suffolk-Nansemond Branch Suffolk Professional Pharm. Sunday School Union of Greensville County The Swan Club Syphax, W. T. Real Estate Theban Beneficial Club N o r th C a r o l i n a M u tu a l L i f e Norfolk I n s u r a n c e CompanyM i s s i o n a r y & E d u c a t i o n a l Conv, Avalon Northern Neck Oak St. AME Zion Church Petersburg Petersburg District Conf. Richmond Norfolk Petersburg Mathews Richmond Charlotte C.H. Petersburg Richmond Portsmouth Norfolk �West End S o c i a l Club Dr. R. C. W esley Mrs. Nancy T. W heeler Dr. E v e r e tt W hite Dr. George W hite Mrs. A lic e W illia m s Womens Club o f N o r fo lk * C h a r l o t t e s v i ll e Lynchburg Portsm outh Richmond Richmond M anassas N o r fo lk Women o f S h ilo h C on ven tion The Young Women's I n d u s t r ia l Club Zem Temple #122 The Z ion B a p tis t Church Mrs. Mary G. J e f f e r s o n Dr. W illiam Logan, J r . Mr. G. E . W atts. Dr. W alter R id le y Emporia Diamond H i l l B a p t is t Ch. Dapper Dozen S o c ia l Club Swans P o in t B a p t. Church "Union B a p tis t Church "G ravel H i l l B a p tis t Church " S a lisb u r y Hunt Club Morning S ta r B a p t is t Church W estview P. T. A. Rocky Branch B a p t is t Church S ou th sid e High S ch o o l P .T .A . A le x a n d r ite C iv ic & S o c ia l Club M argaret F ran ces Chapter #10 0 . E. S . Old F o lk s Home & Community House Mt. Z ion B a p tis t Church Phi Beta Sigma F r a te r n ity H enrico County T each ers' A s s o c ia tio n Mt. P opular B ap t. Church Sulphur S p rin g Sunday S ch ool Hasadiah B a p t is t A s s o c ia tio n P ete rsb u rg Hampton P ete rsb u rg Hampton P etersb u rg Portsmouth P etersb u rg Lynchburg A ltiv is ta Surry S u riy Surry Surry Sp rin g Grove P etersb u rg D inw iddle D inw iddle N orfolk S u ffo lk C h a r l o t t e s v i ll e Warrenton Henrico Brunswick P r in c e Edward P r in c e Edward *To be su b m itted a t s t a t e c o n v e n tio n IN MEMORIAMs Mrs. I . D. W illia m s Suffolk P h i B eta Sigma F r a te r n ity P e te r s b u r g Homemakers C on ven tion o f King & Queen, G lo u c e s te r , Mathews and M id d lesex C o u n ties �NATIONAL LIFE M BERSHIP COM ITTEE EM M THE NATIONAL LIFE M BERSHIP CAM EM PAIGN i s le d by a n a tio n a l committee of th ir ty -o n e mem bers under the d ir e c tio n of i t s th ree co-chairm en. NAACP s t a f f c oord in ates th e cam paign through branches in v ariou s c i t i e s throughout th e country. At th e p r e se n t tim e approxim ately 200 NAACP branches have a c tiv e l i f e membership com mittees which s o l i c i t l i f e memberships throughout th e yea r. The NAACP numbers among i t s l i f e members, s t a t e s men, a r t i s t s , w r ite r s, clergymen, labor le a d e r s, b u sin ess men and in d iv id u a ls from a l l walks o f l i f e . Among eminent l i f e members are His Highness Aga Khan IV, A v e r e ll W. Harriman, JawajarlalNehru, Mrs. Franklin D. R o o sev e lt, M iss Lena Horne, th e Late W illiam C. Handy, Duke E llin g to n , Richard Rogers, A. P h ilip Randolph and Sammy D a v is, Jr. Var io u s o rgan ization s and i n s t it u t io n s have lik ew ise e n r o lle d as l i f e members. These in clu d e more than 000 churches, s o c ia l c lu b s, labor unions, b u sin e ss e s , c o lle g e f r a t e r n i t ie s and s o r o r it ie s , p r o fe ssio n a l a s s o c ia tio n s , fr a te r n a l orders and lo c a l u n its o f th e NAACP. Each o f th e th ir ty -o n e members o f the n a tio n a l l i f e membership committee l i s t e d below i s a ls o a l i f e member o f th e A sso c ia tio n . CO-CHAIRM AN K ivie Kaplan, Boston i n d u s t r i a li s t , member o f the NAACP N ation al Board o f D ir e c to r s , be came chairman o f th e N ational L ife Membership Campaign in 1953. At th a t tim e th e r e were 300 f u l l y paid l i f e members. Since he assumed t h i s r e s p o n s ib ilit y , more than 1,000 f u l l y paid l i f e members have been r ec ru ite d and over 0 ,0 0 0 l i f e membership su b sc r ib e r s. CO-CHAIRM AN Dr. Kays, p resid en t o f A tlan ta U n iv e r sity , became co-chairman o f th e N ation al L ife M em bership Campaign sh o rtly a fte r Mr. Kaplan. He i s a prominent B a p tist clergyman who i s w e ll known in both r e lig io u s and ed u cation al f i e l d s . Dr. Kays has been r e sp o n sib le for securing th e support o f numerous r e lig io u s lead ers and educators in th e l i f e membership campaign. He i s a ls o a member o f the NAACP Board o f D ir e c to r s. CO-CHAIRM AN Jackie Robinson, th e former Brooklyn Dodger 3 a se b a ll sta r and a V ic e-P re sid e n t o f Chock F u ll O' Nuts became the th ir d co-chairman o f the l i f e membership campaign in 1907 a fte r r e c e iv in g th e Spingarn Award. Mr. Robinson toured th e country in 1907 speaking fo r var io u s NAACP Branches. -More than 300 new l i f e memberships were r e c r u ite d during t h i s to u r . He a lso served as Freedom Fund Chairman in 1907 and i s co-chairman o f th e i 960 Freedom Fund Campaign. He was e le c te d to the NAACP Board o f D ir ec to rs in 1907. MEMBERS K elly M. Alexander George A. B eavers, Jr. Bishop W. Y. B e ll Dr. George D. Cannon Dr. W. Montague Cobb N ath an iel C o lley Dr. Walter T. Darden Hon. Hubert T. Delany E arl B. Dickerson K atherine Watson Frederick S . Ralph Harlow Bishop Eugene C. F. Hatcher Dr. Mordecai Johnson Robert H. Johnson D aisy E. Lampkin Dr. J. Leonidas Leach Hon. Herbert H. Lehman Dr. James E. Levy Bishop Edgar A. Love Dr. James. J . McClendon C ornelius McDougald Ros e Morgan Saunders Dr. Maurice Rabb A. P h ilip Randolph Dr. R ile y A. Ransom, Jr. Dr. Eugene T. Reed Walter Reuther Eleanor R o o sev elt N e l li e G. Roulhac Ike Smalls Dr. A lfred E. Thomas, Jr. F rederick N. Weathers P au lin e F . Weeden VIRGINIA LIFE M BERSHIP COM ITTEE EM M Mrs. Dorthula Knox, Chairman Dr. S . F. Coppage Mr. Frank Howell M iss Paula Kay Martin Dr. J . M. T in sle y Mr. M. C. Martin Mr. 0 . P . C h ile s Mrs. P o lly Weedon � 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 18: Personal Papers of Barbara Marx 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 Booklet: Virginia State Conference, NAACP, Honor Guard, 1960. 12 pages. Description An account of the resource Booklet containing menu for "Jackson Memorial Dinner" and listing of individual and Organization Life Members. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 18, Personal Papers of Barbara Marx Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Virginia State Conference, NAACP Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1960 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1960s 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 18_1_1_9_22 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/ba79d84d1e5c5ff66e06fb656c90abc8.pdf 8041752fde223654ab160ffb1982fb30 PDF Text Text BREAKDOWN OF MEMBERSHIP MONIES The member branches of the Virginia State Conference-NAACP will observe the following distribution of membership monies: Membership Class Retained by Branch > 2.00 3 3.50 .7 0 Send to National Office 3 1 .3 0 .7° 2.80 5.oo (Blue Certificate) 1,20 3.80 1 0 .0 0 (Gold Certificate) 3.70 6 .3 0 200,00 3 0 0 .0 0 5 0 0 .0 0 (life Membership) The above break-down of membership monies was unanimously adopted by the 13th Annual State Convention, held in Staunton, and approved by the National Board of Directors. � 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 18: Personal Papers of Barbara Marx 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 Breakdown of Membership Monies of member branches of the Virginia State Conference-NAACP, no date. Description An account of the resource Breakdown of Membership Monies of member branches of the Virginia State Conference-NAACP. Listing of money retained by the branches for individuals in each membership class. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource No Date Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 18, Personal Papers of Barbara Marx Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Virginia State Conference, NAACP 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 18_1_1_4_37 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/99319c977288a59c02e2cbedc1db11ff.pdf 2f9f6fe0ccb99f8666b30dd95b29336d PDF Text Text BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES IN TH E United States Court oi Appeals F o r t h e F o u r t h C ir c u it No. 7776 E. LE SL IE HAMM, JR., a n I n f a n t , b y E. LESLIE IIAMM, SR,, His F a t h e r a n d N e x t F r i e n d , e t a l ., Appellants, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA a n d RAY E. REID, D i v i s i o n S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of S c h o o l s , A r l in g t o n C o u n t y , V ir g in ia , Appellees. and COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA a n d RAY E. REID, D i v i s i o n S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of S c h o o l s , A r l in g t o n C o u n t y , V ir g in ia , x x Cross-A ppella nts, RONALD DESKINS, MICHAEL GERARD JONES, LANCE DW IGHT NEWMAN a n d GLORIA DELORES THOMPSON, Cross-Appellees. A p p ea l and C ross-A pp ea l fro m th e U n ited S tates D istrict C ou rt F o r the E a stern D istrict o f V irginia, A lex a n d ria D iv isio n O f Counsel: R o b e r t L. C a r t e r New York, N. Y. J a m e s M. N a b r it , J r . Houston, Texas H e r b e r t O. R e id Washington, D. C. J a m e s A. W a s h i n g t o n , J r . Washington, D. C. O l iv e r W. H il l 118 E a st L eigh Street Richm ond 19, V irginia F r a n k D. R e e v e s , and J a m e s M. N a b r it , I I I 473 F lorida Avenue, N. W. W ashington 1, D. C. S. W. Ro b i n s o n , I I I 623 N orth Third Street Richmond 19, V irginia O t t o L. T u c k e r 901 P rin cess Street Alexandria, V irginia Counsel for Appellants and Cross-Appellees. P r e s s o f B v r o w S. A d a m s , W a s h i n g t o n . D . C. �INDEX Statement of the Case Page . 1 Questions Presented .................................. 3 Statement of the Pacts: I. Prior Proceedings................................ II. Statement of Pacts on the Instant A ppeal..... III. Historical Background .......................... 4 7 1 4 Argument: I. The manner in which appellees acted upon ap pellants applications for admission to “ white” schools is racial discrimination in contravention of appellants constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and equal protection of the laws .. II. The court below erroneously considered appellees ’ rejection of appellants applications for admission, enrollment and education in designated “ white” schools as ‘‘administrative determinations ” to be reviewed pursuant to the “ substantial evidence” doctrine and, having thus limited its scope of in quiry, failed to discharge its obligation to make an independent evaluation and determination of the facts decisive of appellants’ constitutional claim that their exclusion from said schools was because of race or co lo r ........................ III. Review and consideration of the Available and pertinent evidence compels the conclusion that the reasons advanced by appellees for their rejection of appellants’ applications for admission, enroll ment and education in “ white” schools were based upon considerations of race or color in con travention of appellants’constitutionally guaran teed rights of due process and equal protection and in violation of the prior orders of the court .. Response to appellee’ cross-appeal............. s 1 8 2 8 33 39 �Index Continued Page IV. The court’ previous judgment, affirmed on ap s peal, that five appellants were qualified for and could not be refused admission to designated “ white” schools, may not he nullified, in subse quent proceedings for its enforcement, on the ground of appellants’ alleged disqualification for reasons available to hut not urged by appellees in the prior proceedings........................ 41 V. The court below erred in postponing until the second semester of the school session of 1 58 9 9 -5 , the effective date of its order restraining and en joining appellees from refusing to admit four of appellants in the “ white” school from which they had been improperly excluded ................. 45 Conclusion ............................................ 5 0 TABLE OP CITATIONS Ca ses : Aaron v. Cooper, F.2d , (8th Cir. No. 1 09 , 6 4 10 November 1958) ............................. 26,35 Adkins v. School Board of the City of Newport News, 1 P. Supp. 430 (E.D.Va. 1957), aff’ 246 F.2d 48 d 325 (4th Cir. 1 957) ............................... 1 5 Baltimore & Ohio RR Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 349 (1936) ........................................ 3 2 Baltimore S.S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316 (1927) 42 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) ............. 24 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); 349 U.S. 294 (1955) .......................24,34,47,49 Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917) .........24,26 Carter v. School Board of Arlington County, 182 P. 2d 531 (4th Cir. 1950) ........................... 3 9 Cassell V. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 (1950)............... 26 Child Labor Tax Case, 2 U.S. 20 (1922) ........ 2 59 1 City and Town of Beloit v. Morgan, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 619 (1869)........................................ ' 42 Clemmons v. Board of Education of Hillsboro, Ohio, 228 P. 2d 853 (6th Cir. 1956), c r de . 350 U.S. et n 1006 (1956) .................................. 35,49,50 Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank 308 U.S. 371 (1940) ............................. 43 C. I. R. v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948) .......... 43 Index Continued Page Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) ... .24, 3 , 45, 4 , 49 4 8 Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U.S. 351 (1877) ...... 42 Davis v. Schnell, 81 P. Supp. 872 (S.D. Ala., S.D. 1949) .............................................. 2 1 Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U.S. 327 (1894) ........... 42 Ex Parte Endo.' 323 U.S. 283 (1944) ............. 24,38 Peiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951) ........... 33 Gould V Evansville & C. R. Co., 91 U.S. 526 (1876) 43 . Grubb v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 281 U.S. 470 (1930) .................................. 43 Hill v. Texas, 316 U.S. 400 (1942) .................. 2 6 Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) 3 2 Hopkins v. Lee. 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 109 (1821) .... 43 Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) .. 23 Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 (1939)................2 , 25 3 Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56 (1948) ............... 43 Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) ........... 32 McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898) ...... 44 McKissick v. Carmichael, 187 F. 2d 948 (4th Cir. 1951), c r . d n 341 U.S. 951 (1951) .......... 38,49 et e . McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950) ........................................ 24,44,47 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) ........... 38 Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1 (1938) ...... 30 NAACP v. Patty, 159 P. Supp. 503 (E.D.Va. 1958) 1 5 National Labor Relations Board v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105 (1956) ......................... 39 Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922) ........ 32 Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951) ...... 33 Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927) .......... 24 Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935) ........... 32 Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Borough, 253 U.S. 287 (1920) .................................. 32 Oriel v. Russell, 278 U.S. 358 (1929)............... 43 Perry v. Cyphers, 186 P. 2d 608 (5th Cir. 1951) .... 26 Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) .... 38 Pierre v. Louisiana, 306U.S. 354 (1939) ........ 33,49 Radio Corp. of America v. United States, 341 U.S. 412 (1951) ........................................ 3 9 Rice v. Elmore, 165 F. 2d 387 (4th Cir. 1947), c r . et de . 333 U.S. 875 (1948) ......................... 26 n Secretary of Agriculture v. Central Roig Refining Co., 338 U.S. 604(1950) .......................... 39 Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)............. 25,45 �Index Continued IV Page Sibbald v. United States, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 488 (1838) 42 Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U.S. 631 (1948) . .24,47 Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) ........ 24 Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) .......... 2 6 Smith v. Cahoon, 28 U.S. 55 (1931) ............. 2 3 3 3 Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 1 (1940) ............... 2 28 6 Southern Garment Mfr’ Ass’ v. Fleming, 122 F. s. n 2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1941) ........................ 3 0 Sparrow v. Strong, 7 U.S. (3 Wall.) 97 (1866) .... 2 0 1 Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192 (1944) ....................................... 2 3 St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38 (1936) ................................... 3 2 Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 62 (1950) ...........24,47 9 Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) ............. 2 6 The Haytian .Republic, 1 U.S. 1 (1894) ........ 4 54 18 2 Thompson v. School Board of Arlington County, 1 4 4 F. Supp. 239 (E.D.Va. 1956), a fd 240 F. 2d 5 f ’, 9 (4th Cir. 1956), c r . d n 353 U.S. 910 (1957); et e . 1 F. Supp. 567 (E.D.Va. 1957), af ’, 252 F. 2d 59 fd 929 (4th Cir. 1958), c r . d n 356 U.S. 958 et e . (1958) ........................................ 2,5,6,25 United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) ............................................ 4 3 United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 11 5 (1809) ............................................ 44 Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 413 (1845) ....................................... 42 Watts v. Indiana, 3 U.S. 49(1949) ............... 21,32 38 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 11 U.S. 356 (1886) . .24, 3 , 36,37 8 4 S o u t h e r n Vol. Vol. Vol. Vol. S c h oo l N e w s ; 2 No. 8, Feb. 1 5 , p. 14.... , 96 .1 5 2 No. 9 March 1 , , 956, p. 14 . ................. 1 6 2 No. 1 , April 1 5 , p. 1 .... , 0 96 3 1 7 2 No. 1 , June1 5 , p. 1 ....... , 2 96 3 1 8 IN TH E United Stales Court ol Appeals F o r t h e F o u r t h C ir c u it No. 7776 E. LESLIE IIAMM, JR., His F a t h e r an I n f a n t , b y E. L E SL IE HAMM, SR., N e x t F r i e n d , e t a l ., and Aplat, pelns COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA a n d RAY E. REID, D i v i s i o n S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of S c h o o l s , A r l in g t o n C o u n t y , V ir g in ia , Aples pele. and COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA a n d RAY E. REID, D i v i s i o n S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of S c h o o l s , A r l in g t o n C o u n t y , V ir g in ia , v. CosAplat, rs-pelns RONALD DESKINS, M ICHAEL GERARD JONES, LANCE DW IGHT NEWMAN a n d GLORIA DELORES THOMPSON, CosAples rs-pele. BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES A p p ea l and C ross-A pp ea l fr o m th e U n ited S ta tes D istrict C o u rt F o r the E a stern D istrict o f V irginia, A lex a n d ria D iv isio n STA TEM EN T O F TH E C A SE On 3 July 1956 the court below entered an Order of 1 Injunction restraining and enjoining appellees from refus ing on account of race or color to admit, enroll and educate in any school under their operation, control, direction or supervision (i.e. the public schools of Arlington County, Virginia) any child otherwise qualified. A Supplemental �2 3 Decree of Injunction entered by the court below on 14 September 1 957, restrained and enjoined appellees from refusing to admit, enroll and educate these seven children in the schools to which they had applied, effective 23 Sep tember 19 . Both of these prior judgments were affirmed 57 on previous appeals to this Court, and petitions for writs of certiorari were denied. Q U E S T IO N S P R E S E N T E D The instant and third appeal in this case is from the Supplementary Order of Injunction entered by the court below on 22 September 19 , upon appellants’ complaint 58 in intervention and motion for further relief under the prior orders, in which the court (i) approved, as being based upon valid evidence of disqualification and untainted by considerations of race or color, appellees’ rejection of the applications by twenty-five appellants, including five of the seven previously ordered admitted, for admission to designated “ white” schools; and (ii) delayed until the commencement of the second semester of the current school term, the effective date of its decree insofar as it restrained and enjoined appellees from refusing to admit, enroll and educate four of the appellants in the “ white” Stratford Junior High School, the rejection of whose applications by appellees the court found unjustified by the evidence. The appellees have filed a cross-appeal from the order of the court below restraining and enjoining them from refusing to admit the four appellants in Stratford Junior High School, and a separate brief in connection with that cross-appeal. In lieu of a separate responsive brief, a designated portion of this brief, i f a is addressed to nr, the issues presented by the cross-appeal. The previous decisions in the instant case have been reported sub nom., Thompson v. School Board of Arlington County as follows: 144 F. Supp. 239 (B.D. Va. 1956), a fd 240 F. 2d 5 (4th Cir. 1956), c r . d n 353 U.S. 910 f ’, 9 et e . (1957); 1 9 F. Supp. 567 (B.D. Va. 1957), a fd 252 F. 2d 5 f ’, 929 (4th Cir. 1958), c r , d n , 356 U.S. 958 (1958). The et e . opinion of the court below is reported at 166 F. Supp. 52 9 and included in the Joint Appendix herein at pp. 1 -2 . 1 4 The questions presented on this appeal are as follows: 1 Whether appellees’ action in refusing to admit, enroll . and educate appellants in the “ white” schools to which they applied, on the basis of appellees ’ ex parte determina tion, that appellants were not qualified for admission, en rollment and education in said schools by the application of standards not similarly applied to white pupils admitted, enrolled and educated in the same schools, contravened appellants’ rights to due process and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. 2 Whether the court below erred in failing and refusing . to exercise its independent judgment on those issues of fact which were decisive of appellants ’claim that appellees refused, on account of race or color and in contravention of appellants’ constitutional rights, to admit, enroll and educate appellants in the “ white” schools for which they applied. 3 Whether the court below erred in failing and refusing . to hold, upon the available and pertinent evidence, that the reasons advanced by appellees for their rejection of appel lants’ applications for admission, enrollment and education in the schools to which they had applied were based upon considerations of race or color in contravention of appel lants’ constitutionally guaranteed rights of due process and equal protection and in violation of the prior orders of the court. 4 Whether five appellants, previously found by the . court to be qualified and ordered admitted and enrolled in designated “ white” schools, can now be refused admis sion and enrollment in said schools, after appeal and affirmance of the court’ order, on the basis of their alleged s disqualification for reasons available to but not urged by appellees until said appellants sought enforcement of the prior order in the proceedings below. 5 Whether the court below erred in postponing, until . the commencement of the second semester of the 1958-1959 �5 4 school term (2 February 1959), the effective date of its order, entered (2 September 1958) two weeks after the 2 beginning of the first semester (8 September 1958), re straining and enjoining appellees from refusing to admit, enroll and educate four appellants in the “ white” schools from which they unlawfully had been excluded. These questions are raised in the record by the court’ s Supplementary Order of Injunction entered 22 September 1958 (JA 224), based upon its Findings of Fact and Con clusions of Law entered 17 September 1958 (JA 11-24), denying the relief sought in the Motion for Further Relief, filed 26 August 1958 (JA 1 ) in behalf of eight of the -5 present appellants then parties to the suit (A, B, C, D, E, 1 1 , and 22),1 and the Complaint in Intervention, filed , 3 26 August 1958 in behalf of twenty-two Negro children not theretofore parties (2 3 4 5 6 , 7 8 , 9 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , , , , , , , 0 2 4 5 1 , 1 ,2 1 , 1 , 2 , and 21). 6 7 8 9 0 STATEM EN T OF TH E FA CTS The consideration and determination of this appeal requires a review of the background and prior proceedings in this case, as follows: I. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS On 3 July 19 , the court below, acting upon the com 1 56 plaint of plaintiff Negro children of school age resident in Arlington County, Virginia, and their parents or guardians, for themselves and others similarly situated, entered the following Order Granting Injunction (R. 179, 181): . . . A d j u d g e d , Or d e r e d , and D e c r e e d that effective at the times and subject to the conditions hereinafter 1 T hroughout tho testimony, the exhibits and the co u r t’ F in din gs o f F act s and Conclusions o f Law, the individual pupil-plaintiffs are referred to by letters, iden tifyin g those who were ordered admitted to designated “ w h ite” schools in Septem ber 1957, and by num bers iden tifying those whose admission to designated “ w h ite” schools was b efore the court fo r the first time. The names o f these individual plain tiffs are related to the letters and numbers in a “ Code f o r S p o t M a p s ” (JA 284-285.) 2 This plaintiff has le ft the jurisdiction and, therefore, is n ot included am ong the present appellants. stated, the defendants, their successors in office, agents, representatives, servants and employees be, and each of them is hereby, restrained, and enjoined from re fusing on account of race or color to admit to, or enroll or educate in, any school under their operation, control, direction, or supervision any child otherwise qualified for admission to, and enrollment and educa tion in, such school. . . . the injunction hereinbefore granted should be, and it is hereby made, effective in respect to elementary schools at the beginning of the second semester of the 1956-1957 session, to wit, January 3 , 19 , and in 1 57 respect to junior and senior high schools at the com mencement of the regular session for 1957-1958 in September 1 5 . 97 This judgment was affirmed by this Court on 3 December 1 1956 (R. 188). Writ of certiorari was denied 25 March 1 5 . See 353 U.S. 9 0 97 1. No Negro pupils having been admitted to or enrolled in the theretofore white schools pursuant to this judgment, on 29 July 1957, the court below entered an order on plaintiffs’ motion to amend the original decree, as follows (R, 206): That the injunction specified in said judgment become in respect to both elementary and secondary schools effective at the commencement of the regular school term for 1957-1958 commencing in September 19 . 57 On 4 September 1957, the court below, in granting plain tiffs’ motion for further relief, found that Seven Negro children of school age were refused admission as pupils in the public schools of Arlington County, Virginia on the opening day of the current session. . . . (R. 239) * * * * Nothing in the evidence indicates that any of the plaintiffs is not qualified in his studies to enter the school which he sought to enter . . . Anyway, no �7 6 intimation of disqualification appeared as to any ap plicant. (R. 243-244) A review of the evidence is convincing that the only ground . . . for the rejection of plaintiffs was that they were of the Negro race. The rejection was simply the adherence to the prior practice of segregation. No other hypothesis can be sustained in any of the seven instances. ... (R. 244) Whereupon, on 14 September 19 , the court below entered 57 a Supplemental Decree of Injunction, as follows (R. 2 8 4249): Or d e r e d that the defendants, their successors in office, agents, representatives, servants, and employees be, and each of them is hereby restrained and enjoined from refusing to admit the said movants to, or enroll and educate them in, the said schools to which they have made application for admission, that is: * * * # 3 Robert A. Eldridge III in the Fillmore School or . the Patrick Henry School; 4 George Tyrone Nelson in the Stratford Junior . High School; or the Swanson Junior High School; 5 E. Leslie Hamm, Jr. in the Stratford Junior . High School or the Swanson Junior High School; 6 . Louis George Turner in the Swanson Junior High School; 7 Melvin H. Turner in the Swanson Junior High . School; upon the presentation by the said movants of themselves for admission, enrollment and education in the said schools commencing at the opening of said schools on the morning of September 23,1957. This injunction was suspended pending appeal (R. 256) and, on 1 February 1 2 958, was affirmed by this Court (R. 399). Writ of certiorari was denied 19 May 1958. See 356 U.S. 9 8. 5 Against this background, we present the factual basis for the instant appeal. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ON THE INSTANT APPEAL Subsequent to the close of the 1957-58 school term, appel lants, Negro pupils attending the Arlington County, Vir ginia, public schools, through their parents and guardians, applied to the appellees, the School Board and the Division Superintendent of Schools of Arlington County, Virginia, for admission and enrollment at the commencement of the next school term on 4 September 1958 in designated schools theretofore maintained exclusively for white students, “ or to such other school his [or her] assignment to which may properly be determined on the basis of objective considera tions without regard to his [or her] race or color.” This group of thirty pupils included five of the seven students who had been ordered admitted to designated schools by the Supplemental Order of Injunction entered by the court below on 14 September 1957, supra. The parents or guardians of each of these infant appel lants received a letter dated 7 August 1958 from the Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia request ing that they appear with their children for personal interviews to be conducted by that agency [PI. Ex. 7 , T. 359]. All declined to attend the interviews, but they again requested the appellees to assign their children in accordance with their previous requests, offering to co operate in furnishing necessary information to appellees [Def. Ex. 1 , T. 356]. Subsequently, the appellees and 3 the Pupil Placement Board jointly summoned the appel lants to personal interviews [PI. Ex. 8 , T. 359]. Each of the pupils, accompanied by one or both parents, attended one of the interviews which were conducted jointly by the state and local authorities on 1 , 1 , and 29 August 19 , 8 9 58 and each applicant was subsequently notified by appellees that their requests (for assignment to “ white” schools) had been denied by the Pupil Placement Board. On 26 August 1958, twenty-two of the applicants who had not previously been parties to this action filed a Com plaint in Intervention (R. 408), which complaint, as did the Motion for Further Relief simultaneously filed in be- �8 9 half of the eight applicants already parties herein (JA 1 -5), prayed for specific injunctive relief in enforcement of the previous orders entered herein. On the same day appellees filed a Report and Request for Guidance, describ ing the course of events subsequent to the filing of the Mandate and Opinion of this Court on the previous appeal, and stating that they intended to make no assignments of the appellants unless directed to do so by the court below (JA 6 ). -9 mentioned problem areas as reasons for rejecting appel lants’ applications is as follows: On the evening of 28 August 1958, having studied and familiarized themselves, upon advice of counsel, with sum maries of data prepared from the cumulative folders of each of the appellants, appellee School Board met in closed session and, after discussion, determined that the appli cations submitted by appellants fell into five different prob lem areas on the basis of which, by vote of appellee School Board, each of the applications would be rejected if the court should determine that appellees had the legal re sponsibility for assigning appellants to Arlington County public schools (JA 43-44). Appellees’ “ proposed” rejec tion of appellants’ applications for admission to “ white” schools and the reasons therefor were first disclosed to appellants and the public on 2 September 1958 at the hearing before the court below. { b d ) Ii. The five problem areas into which appellants’ applica tions fell and on the basis of which all were rejected by appellee School Board were described as follows: I. At tendance Area; II Overcrowding at Washington and Lee High School; III Academic Achievement; IV Psycho logical Problems; and V Adaptability ( b d ) Ii.. The procedure followed by appellees in the consideration and rejection of appellants’ applications, was a procedure developed and used only with respect to those pupils who sought to enter schools attended by pupils of the opposite race (JA 3 , 7 2 4-78). The evidence presented at the hearing with specific reference to appellees’ consideration of each of the afore- A tten d a n ce A rea Rejection of the applications of eleven appellants (2 3 , , 4 9 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 25) was voted by appellee School , , 4 5 7 8 3 4 Board on the basis of problems related to attendance area (JA 44-49). These eleven pupils were residents of the attendance area prescribed for the Hoffman-Boston School, and were reassigned by the Pupil Placement Board and appellees to that school. The Hoffman-Boston School has heretofore enrolled and now enrolls Negro pupils only (JA 9 -91 99-100), and houses both elementary and sec0 , O ' \ ondary grades. The boundaries of this attendance area were established prior to this litigation (JA 90), and for the specific purpose of serving the Negro pupils within its confines (R. 374). The portion of Arlington County embraced by the Hoffman-Boston attendance area bound aries is occupied almost exclusively by Negroes, but the few white pupils residing therein are assigned to schools other than Hoffman-Boston (JA 9 -9 , 142-146). 1 2 Pour of the pupils affected by this reason for rejection are high school students seeking admission to Wakefield School. For high school zoning purposes, the HoffmanBoston area forms an elongated enclave within the Wake field (“ white” ) attendance area (Def. Ex. 7 T. 101). The , seven remaining pupils sought admission to Kenmore, Gunston, and Thomas Jefferson (“ white” ) Junior High Schools. These schools are located closer to their respec tive residences than Hoffman-Boston, the latter school being located at one end of the district and their residences at the other end (Def. Ex. 6, T. 101). Each of the rejections based upon Attendance Area was approved by the court below. O v e r c r o w d in g a i W a sh in g ton and L e e H ig h S ch o ol Five pupils (D, 1 , 1 , 1 , 21) were denied assignment to 2 9 the Washington and Lee (“ white” ) High School on the �10 1 1 ground that Washington and Lee was overcrowded (JA 5 , 53). Those students are residents of an area referred 0 to as the North Hoffraan-Boston area. This area which was entirely surrounded by the Washington and Lee at tendance area, and was widely separated from the HoffmanBoston school and Hoffman-Boston attendance area abovedescribed, was reported to have been abolished for assign ment purposes by the appellee School Board at the same meeting at which the appellee School Board considered and rejected appellants’ applications. The area was made a part of the Washington and Lee attendance area for high school students and a part of the Stratford attendance area for junior high school students (JA 4 , 48). 6 The court below approved this reason as the basis for rejection of these five requests for assignment to Washing ton and Lee, or other appropriate “ white” high school. For the 1958-59 school term Washington and Lee had a planned enrollment of 2600 and a capacity of 20 00 ; Wakefield had a planned enrollment of 2 540, with a capacity of 2000; and Hoffman-Boston had a combined elementary and secondary enrollment of 5 5 with a capacity of 3 5 7, 7, increased by 100 through the use of temporary facilities, and with facilities for 100 more students under construc tion and estimated for completion in January 1959 (PI. Ex. 5 JA 2 , 25). In a prior action unrelated to appellants’ request for admission to Washington and Lee, the appellee School Board had assigned all 10th grade students residing in the northwestern sector of the Washington and Lee attendand area, numbering 2 0, to attend the Wakefield School, 5 in order to equalize the burden of overcrowding between Washington and Lee and Wakefield, pending completion of a proposed new high school (JA 50-51). The area from which these 250 white 10th grade students were siphonedoff from Washington and Lee to Wakefield abuts but does not embrace the “ abolished” North Hoffman-Boston attendance area where the affected appellants reside (JA 53). The five affected appellants, four of whom were 10th grade students, were assigned to the Hoffman-Boston School. A ca d em ic A ch iev em en t Twenty-two appellants (B, C, D, E, 2 3 4 5 6 , 8 , 9 1 , , , , , , 0 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 25) were refused admission 1 2 4 5 7 1 2 3 4 and enrollment in “ white” schools on the basis of academic accomplishment (JA 54-62). These included all of the pupils rejected for reasons of Attendance Area and Over crowding except for Nos. 1 1 , and 1 , in addition to nine , 8 9 others not previously mentioned. The data used by the Board in connection with this reason for rejection consisted of the latest available scores at tained by the appellants on the California Achievement Test. This test is given annually in the county schools to children in grades 3 5 7 and 9 (JA 54). The individual , , , pupil’ test scores were compared with statistical data indi s cating the median achievement levels of typical junior and senior high school classes at Hoffman-Boston (Negro) School, and with similar data for Stratford Junior High and Washington and Lee Senior High (white) Schools. This data indicated that in the two all-white schools seventy percent of the pupils scored above the national norm, while at Hoffman-Boston only twenty percent of the students scored above the national norm (JA 56). In Arlington County the median score at the white schools ranged above and at the Negro school below the national norm (JA 55). The applicants who had scored below the national norm and who, consequently, fell below the median score of the typical class at the white school to which they applied were rejected. The scores of these applicants fell within the lower one-third of the typical white class to which they were seeking admission (JA 116). An expert witness called by appellants testified that the California Achievement tests are extremely limited as a means of determining the proper grade placement of pupils �12 1 3 (JA 148); that the national norm published by the authors of the test does not represent a minimum standard of achievement for pupils in a particular grade because fifty percent of all pupils will score above and fifty percent below this median score or national norm (I i .); and bd that within any typical class of a given grade tested, there would normally be a variation of scores within the middle sixty percent of such class of two to three years in grade equivalent (JA 148-149). This witness concluded that, upon examination of the school records of the appel lants, all but three of them scored within the range of achievement of this middle sixty percent (JA 167), and were qualified for advancement to the next grade in any school (JA 153-166); and that the three students who scored within the bottom twenty percent probably needed remedial work (JA 167-171). The witness stated that in his opinion the gap between the achievement of pupils in segregated Negro and white schools tended to increase with the passage of time, and thus to be greater in the higher than in the lower grades (JA 171). The court below approved the rejections based upon the Academic Achievement reason and the consequent assign ment of these appellants to Hoffman-Boston School. race (JA 6 4-65 and Def. Ex. 1 , JA 286). Accordingly, 0 these appellants would remain at Hoffman-Boston School. An expert witness called by appellants testified that there was insufficient data in the School Board’ cumulative s records on the individual pupils to justify any clinical judgment with respect to their psychological problems (JA 211-213), but that, on the evidence available, conclu sions opposite to those made by appellees were justified (JA 198-199). P sy c h o lo g ic a l P ro b lem s Seven appellants (C, 1 2 6 , 8 , 2 , 24) who were also , , 1 disqualified for admission to the “ white” schools they sought to enter for one or both of the reasons described above, where rejected because of alleged psychological problems (JA 65). The appellee School Board explained that it had relied upon the conclusions of the State Di rector of Psychological Services, which conclusions were based upon his examination of appellants’ school records. He did not testify, but the report he submitted to the appellee School Board stated that the records of the pupils discussed evidenced such things as “ instability”, “ lack of self-control”, “ extreme shyness”, etc., and he con cluded that it would be unwise to subject these pupils to the pressures of attending a school with children of another With respect to Psychological Problems, the court below concluded as follows (JA 21): 3 . The reasons given for disqualifying the seven students upon the test of the Psychological Problems obviously give consideration to race or color. On the other hand, the rejection was not due solely to these features. The court, however, does not rule on the evidence to be accorded this test because the evidence before it upon the point is too scant. . . . Therefore, this test must be disregarded for this case. A d ap tab ility The remaining appellants, who had not been disqualified for any of the foregoing reasons (A, 7 1 , 1 , 20), were , 3 6 rejected by the School Board for lack of adaptability to new situations (JA 66 ). The appellee Division Super intendent of Schools defined this reason as the ability to accept and conform to the new and different educational environment occasioned by entering a school predominantly occupied by pupils and teachers of another race (JA 70-72). The sole evidence upon which the appellee School Board acted in the application of this 1 standard ’’was the Super 1 intendent’ opinion that, if these five students were ad s mitted and enrolled in the “ white” schools they sought to enter, they would lose the position of leadership and scholastic superiority which they enjoyed in the all-Negro schools they attended, as well as their “ sense of belong ing”, that this loss would be discouraging and possibly emotionally disturbing to them ( b d ) and that only Ii., superior gifted Negro children could adapt to desegregated �1 4 1 5 schools (JA 7 , 80-81). An expert witness for the appel 1 lants expressed a contrary view (JA 213-218). The court below concluded that there was no ground in the record to bar four appellants (7 1 , 16 and 20) from , 3 the school to which they had applied for the Adaptability reason. However, as to one appellant (A), the court said (JA 23): appointment of the Gray Commission on Public Education, to study and make recommendations concerning public school desegregation. That Commission’ report was sub s mitted in November 1 955. The nature of that report and the subsequent history of “ massive resistance” is exhaus tively treated in NAACP v. Patty,159 F. Supp, 5 3, 5 1 0 1518 (E. D. Va. 1958). See also Adkins v. School Board o f th City of Newport N i s 148 F. Supp. 430, 434-442 e ev, (E.D. Va. 1957), aff’ 246 F. 2d 3 5 (4th Cir. 1947). d. 2. Pursuant to the “ massive resistance” policy, the legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia, acting upon recommendations by the Governor, has enacted twenty-odd statutes designed and intended to thwart desegregation, including provisions— already invoked— for the closing of schools desegregated by court order, cutting-off funds for such schools, and creating the Pupil Placement Board. See Adkins v. School Board of th City of Neivport Neivs, and e NAACP v. Patty, supra. The “ massive resistance” policy has had a direct bear ing and impact upon Arlington County, Virginia and appellees, as is indicated by the following excerpts from the Southern School News: Item 1 Southern School News, Vol. 2 No. 8, Feb. 1 5 , — , 96 p. 14: ... In certain circumstances, undoubtedly, the line of demarcation between it [adaptability] and racial discrimination can be so clearly drawn, that it can be the foundation for withholding a transfer. Pupil A exemplifies this hypothesis. At the conclusion of the hearing before the court below, the court stated that it had no objection to the operation of the schools on the basis of the assignments proposed by appellees (i.e. to Hoffman-Boston School) pending the court’ decision (JA 222). The 1958-1959 school term com s menced on 8 September 1 5 , the School Board having 98 once postponed the opening scheduled originally for 4 September 1 5 . Although the court below in its Findings 98 of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed on 1 September 7 1 5 , disapproved appellees’ rejection of the applications 98 by four of the appellants for admission and enrollment in the “white” Stratford Junior High School, it postponed until the commencement of the second semester of the current school term in January 1959,3the effective date of its decree, entered 2 September 19 , restraining and en 2 58 joining appellees from refusing to admit, enroll and educate these four appellants in said school (JA 1 -1 , 224-225) 1 2 III. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board o Education the official, declared and operative f policy and practice of the government of the Common wealth of Virginia became and continue to be “ massive resistance” to desegregation. The first official action in furtherance of this policy and practice was the Governor’ s 3The second semester is scheduled to commence on 2 February 1 5 . 99 The Arlington County School Board has adopted a plan to integrate countyschools . . . * # # * The plan presented by Supt. T. Edward Rutter, and unanimously approved by the Board, based on the assumption that the Gray Commission proposals will become law. The Gray plan is designed to prevent enforced integration but not to prevent a locality from integrating if it chooses to do so. * # * # Here is the text of the statement adopted by the Arling ton Board: “ The Arlington School Board interprets the Gray Commission recommendation and the vote Monday, Jan. 9 19 , for the Constitutional Convention in Vir , 56 ginia, to mean that no child in Virginia shall be forced �1 6 to attend a school in which children of both white and Negro races are enrolled. The Arlington public schools as a division of the public school system of Virginia will comply with any action taken by the State Legislature. The Arlington' School Board also believes that legis lation will be enacted to carry out the proposed Gray Plan and that in order to meet the Supreme Court’ s decree for ‘deliberate speed’ desegregation, it will be necessary to provide schools, in which children of both T races may attend classes. “Assuming that the legislature will enact the provi sions recommended by the Gray Commission, the Arlington School Board adopts the following policy: ‘‘Integration will be permitted in certain elementary schools in the Fall of 1 5 . 96 “ The Arlington School Board will continue the policy of determining elementary school attendance areas on a geographical basis. “ Children whose parents object to their attendance at an integrated school will be assigned to a school that is not integrated. “ Parents who ask to have their children assigned to schools outside their own school district will be responsible for their children’ transportation to and s from school. “ Certain Arlington junior high schools will be inte1grated in the fall of 1958; certain senior high schools 1 will be integrated in the fall of 1 5 . For these grade 98 'levels, also, a plan will be put into effect permitting transfer of those students whose parents object to their attending integrated schools. “ Any child in Arlington may attend a non-segregated school if his parents so desire. The Arlington School Board does not anticipate the necessity of pay ing tuition grants for children to attend private schools.” Item 2 Southern School News, Vol. 2 No. 9 Mar. 1 5 , — , , 96 p. 14: Overwhelming approval of an interposition resolu tion and consideration of another resolution to con tinue segregation during the 1956-57 school year high lighted February’ deliberations of the Virginia Gen s eral Assembly. 1 7 The Arlington County School Board’ announced s intention of beginning desegregation next fall . . . also touched off a bitter controversy in the Assembly. The fight revolved around a bill which would take away from Arlington its right to elect its school board members by popular vote. Arlington is the only county in the State in which school board members are elected. * * * # By a vote of 9 -5 in the House of Delegates and 3 -2 0 6 in the State Senate, the General Assembly on Feb. 1 adopt a resolution “ interposing the sovereignty of Virginia against encroachment upon the reserved powers of this state, and appealing to sister states to resolve a question of contested power. # * ** The Arlingtoncounty controversy in the Assembly centered around a bill introduced by delegate Frank Moncure of Stafford County (a county with 14% Negro school enrollment) to take from Arlington its privilege ofelectingits school board members. * * * * Delegate Moncure’ bill, as introduced, would pro s vide for replacing the present board members by the system used in most Virginia counties. Under this system, the Circuit Judge appoints a school trustee electoral board, which in turn appoint the school board. A House committee, however, voted to amend the Bill to permit appointment of the school board by the county’ governing body, the Arlington County Board. s This is the system used in all Virginia cities and in a few counties. Item 3— Southern School Ne v , Vol. 2 No. 1 , April is , 0 19 , p. 13: 56 Meanwhile in addition to approving an interposition resolution— the Assembly’ other action dealing with s the segregation issue included: 1 ) Arranging for a Constitutional Convention, sub sequently held March 5 , to amend the State Constitu -7 tion to permit the payments of public money tuitiongrants to children attending private non-sectarian schools. �1 9 1 8 2) Adoption of a resolution opposing racially-mixed competition involving public school athletes. 3 Adoption of a bill to take away from Arlington ) County residents the power to elect their school board. The Arlington Board is the only one in Virginia to announce definite plans to begin integration next school year. Item 4 Southern School Ne v , Vol. 2 No. 1 , June 1 5 , — is , 2 96 p. 13: Virginia has temporarily shelved— and conceivably may abandon— its much-publicized Gray Plan for solv ing the School Segregation problem. * * * # Suits seeking to force an end to racial segregation in the schools at the start of the fall term have now been filed against five Virginia localities— Prince Ed ward and Arlington Counties and the cities of Nor folk, Newport News, and Charlottesville. All cases are in Federal District Courts. In this context, appellants submit and urge the Court’ s consideration of their contentions in this case. ARGUMENT I . THE MANNER IN WHICH APPELLEES ACTED UPON APPEL LANTS' APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO "WHITE" SCHOOLS IS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN CONTRAVEN TION OF APPELLANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEED RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. A. In the attempted exercise of their right to enjoy educational opportunities provided by appellees, appellants were sub jected to terms and conditions based solely upon race or color. The elimination of race or color as a factor in the assign ment of pupils to the public schools of Arlington County, Virginia was decreed by the court below in July 1 5 . In 96 September 1 957 the court below made a judicial finding that appellees were still adhering to the prior practice of racial segregation. As late as 26 August 19 , appellees 58 made the following admissions: (1 ) that they had solicited and referred to the State Pupil Placement Board all appli cations from pupils seeking to enjoy the constitutional rights decreed by the court; (2 ) that they had cooperated with the Pupil Placement Board in furnishing information and in interviewing these applicants; (3) that the Pupil Placement Board had rejected all of these applications; and (4) that they had made and would make no assign ments of these applicants and would admit them only to the [Negro] schools to which they had been assigned by the Pupil Placement Board, unless directed otherwise by the court. This course of action appellees “ felt” was com pliance with the order of the court. (Report and Request for Guidance, JA 7 ) -9 Meanwhile, on 26 August 1 5 , appellants filed their 98 Complaint in Intervention and Motion for Further Relief, alleging, in effect, that appellees were still adhering to their prior practice of racial segregation. Consequently, on 28 August 1958— five days before said complaint and motion and appellees’ report and request for guidance were scheduled to be heard by the court and seven days before the scheduled commencement of the 1958-1959 school term— appellee School Board met in closed session and, having studied and familiarized themselves, on advice of counsel, with summaries of information pertaining to the 30 applications of Negro pupils seeking admission to “ white” schools, found that these 3 cases fell into certain 0 “ groupings” or “ problem areas”, upon the basis of which the appellee School Board voted to reject each of appel lants’ applications (JA 43-44). It is vital to an understanding of this proceeding to note that these “ problem areas”, “ groupings”, “ criteria”, “ tests”, or‘“ categories”, as they are referred to, were not a “ plan”, “ assignment regulations”, or “ formal cri teria” adopted, promulgated and published by appellees in the regular course and discharge of their lawful duties and responsibilities in the operation and maintenance of the Arlington County public schools. These “ problem areas” were formulated and used by appellees solely as �20 reasons to explain or justify their rejection of the thirty applications which were involved in the pending litigation. They were first disclosed and tendered to the court at the hearing below, not as formally adopted “ criteria for as signment” applicable to all pupils seeking admission to a school other than that in which he had theretofore been en rolled, but as the basis upon which appellees would refuse to assign the thirty appellants to the schools in which they sought admission. Thus, as appellees appeared before the court below on 2 September 19 , racial segregation in the public schools 58 of Arlington County, Virginia, remained an accomplished fact. This result is consistent with the Commonwealth of Virginia’ declared official policy of “ massive re s sistance” to desegregation and appellees’ prior judi cially declared adherence to the maintenance and operation of racially segregated schools. The pattern of “ different” treatment afforded to the Negro appellants is patent. The evidence in the record discloses that, notwithstanding appellees’ alleged adoption of “ an administrative procedure applicable to all . . . ap plicants for transfer to a school other than the one at tended at the end of the 1957-1958 session” (Report and Request for Guidance, JA 7), the only pupils in the Arling ton County public school sj^stem whose requests for trans fer were subjected to (1 ) the preparation and submission of data to the State Pupil Placement Board (JA 2 , 32); 5 (2 ) personal interviews by representatives of appellees and the Pupil Placement Board (Report and Request for Guidance, JA 8 ); and (3) application of the five “ criteria” or “ standards” upon the basis of which their individual re quests were rejected, were the thirty Negroes and two white students seeking transfers to schools theretofore at tended exclusively by pupils of the other race (JA 74-76). The court below specifically rejected appellants’ conten tion that the very formulation and use of these “ criteria”, as well as the other special treatment accorded appellants’ applications, was racial discrimination (JA 20). This con clusion the court justified on the basis that there was no L 21 previous necessity for the use of such tests and their use represented a new method for assignment of pupils which was “ not discriminatory as born of a social change.” This argument disregards the essential realities of the situation as disclosed by the record in this case. The dif ferent treatment accorded to appellants was not part of a “ plan” designed or intended to facilitate and accommodate a “ social change”. On the contrary, it operated, as it was au u. intended, to maintain the st t s q o The failure and re fusal of the court below to discern this obvious fact recalls the expression by Chief Justice Taft in the Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 2 , 37 (1922): 0 . . . All others can see and understand this. How can we properly shut our minds to it? C . Sparrow v. Strong, 70 U. S. (3 Wall.) 97, 104 (1866); f Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 52 (1949); Davis v. S h e l cnl, 81 F. Supp. 872, 881 (S.D. Ala., S. D. 1949). The evidence in this record emphatically and indisput ably demonstrates that the method by which appellants’ transfer requests were handled applies only in those cases that are differentiated from all others by the factor of race alone. The limited operation of what the court below chose to call “ assignment regulations” and an “ assign ment plan” is underscored by the uncontradicted testimony of appellees’ witnesses, supra, that these “ assignment regulations” had no application to any student other than a Negro student seeking enrollment in a previously “ allwhite” school, or a white student seeking enrollment in a previously “ all-Negro” school (JA 74-76). As respects those to whom applied, the “ assignment regulations” in issue establish standards and procedures significantly variant from those normally applicable to other children. Ordinarily, in cases other than those in volving “ racial” transfers, assignments are accomplished routinely, without personal interviews, school board con sideration and action, or special procedures. And, al though it is only in cases where children seek admission and enrollment in a school populated by pupils of the op- �22 2 3 posite race that appellees applied the special standards or criteria here involved (JA 77-78), the court below con cluded this does not prove discrimination. It is beyond question that the “ assignment plan” under consideration subjects all Negro applicants for nonsegregated education to a searching scrutiny and a survival of disqualifying phenomena not present in ordinary cases. This is more than merely the inconveniences, loss of time and trouble incidental to compliance with the special “ as signment” procedures which were applied. It is necessary that the Negro child satisfy requirements additional to and different from those established for and applied in all other cases. For the Negro child, rejections may follow from either a lack of special abilities and qualifications, or the presence of special circumstances. The difference in treat ment of Negro applications under the approved “ assign ment regulations” appears plainly from the fact that no white child is excluded from the schools to which the Negro appellants seek admission because his academic ability is rated below the median of the typical class in that school, or because he has “ psychological problems”, or because he is not “ adaptable.” These “ criteria,” the analyses of individual records, and interviews4 utilized in consideration of “ racial” transfer requests, all accumulate their weight to make exceedingly heavier demands of the Negro applicant to a white school. The validity of this observation is amply demonstrated by the fact that of the thirty Negro applicants submitted to appellees’ “ assignment regulations”, all were denied the requested transfers. This result is not remarkable when it is considered that the “ plan” necessarily operates in such fashion that while the Negro child, if exceptional, may survive application of the other criteria, he is doomed to failure under the Adaptability standard if he is not excep- tionally gifted or superior (JA 80-81). The vice in its operation is accentuated by the consideration that the Negro applicant to a Negro school or the white applicant to a white school need not be special but is admitted as a matter of course. In the context in which these “ problem areas” were conveniently contrived in a hastily called night meeting five days before the trial below, and in light of the fact that only Negro pupils were placed in such “ groupings,” and that the entire state is politically united in “ massive resistance” to desegregation, any consideration of these so called “ groupings” must be with suspicious scrutiny. Cf. Korematsu v. United States,323 U. S. 214 (1944). In the light of these facts and its own previous and present experience with appellees’ efforts to thwart the court’ prior order by disclaiming responsibility for appel s lants’assignments, the court’ legal justification for appel s lees’ continued successful defiance of the constitutional mandate for non-segregated public school education makes the following statement from the concurring opinion by the late Mr. Justice Murphy in Steele v. L u s i l & Nashville oivle R. R. C . 323 U. S. 192, 208 (1944) peculiarly apposite o, here: 4 A transcript of the personal interviews conducted by appellees and the State Pupil Placement Board appears in the record as Plaintiffs Exhibits 1 2 3 4 (T. 3 , , , . 49). The character of these interviews is exemplified by a question asked of each parent in substantially the following words: “ Are you seeking this transfer solely because of your so-called constitutional rights under the May 1 , 1 5 decision.” 7 94 The equal protection clause does not leave the state free to unjustifiably impose upon the exercise of rights by one group requirements not applicable to other groups. Smith v. Cahoon, 28 U. S. 553 (1931). See also Lane v. Wilson, 3 The utter disregard for the dignity and the well being of colored citizens shown by this record is so pronounced as to demand the invocation of constitu tional condemnation. To decide the case and to analyze the statute solely upon the basis of legal niceties, while remaining mute and placid as to the obvious and oppressive deprivation of constitutional guarantees, is to make the judicial function something less than it should be. B. The difference betw een the treatment a c co rd e d appellants and others sim ilarly situated, b a se d u pon ra ce alone, in vokes the con dem n ation of the d u e p ro cess and eq u a l protection g u a r an tees of the Fourteenth Amendment. �2 5 307 U. S. 268 (1939). Classifications violate the Constitu tion when they unjustifiably increase the group burdens, or depreciate the group benefits, of public education. S v a t v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629 (1950); McLaurin v. Okla iet homa State Regents, 339 U. S. 637 (1950); Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631 (1948). And it is hardly neces sary to state that the difference in treatment cannot be justified upon grounds of race, Brown v. Board o Educa f t o , 347 U. S. 483 (1954); Sweatt v. Painter, supra; Ex in parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283 (1944); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535 (1942), at 541; Nixon v. Herndon, 2 U. S. 73 536 (1927), at 5 1 Where, as here, such requirements are 4. enforced at all, they must be enforced without unequal results among groups identically situated despite differ ence as to race. Here the “ special” requirements con tained in the “ plan” under consideration are imposed only upon Negro children seeking to enter white schools, and white children seeking entry to Negro schools. The single factor determinative of its operation in particular cases is the difference in race between the appellants and those already in the school. Subjection to the “ plan” thus de pends solely on race— “ simply that and nothing more.” Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 73 (1917). Neither the making of classifications based upon race, nor different treatment (by imposition of burdens or grant of benefits) to groups defined by racial considerations, have any reasonable relation to any legitimate purpose of the appellee School Board. Such discriminations by the school board constitute deprivations of liberty without the due process of law and denials of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the 14th Amendment. Brown v. Board o Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954); Bolling v. f Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954), Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 (1958). An unjust discrimination not expressly made by the “ standards” adopted by appellees, but made possible by them, is nevertheless a denial of equal protection. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886) is the classic state ment of the rights of persons aggrieved by discriminatory administration of schemes appearing innocent on the sur face, where, at pp. 373-374, the court said: . . . Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar cir cumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Con stitution. The fact that this different treatment may apply to white children who seek enrollment in “ Negro” schools, as well as to Negro applicants to “ white” schools, is en tirely beside the point. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 , 21-22 (1948). In any event, in all of its ramifications the “ plan” here involved applied only to Negroes. The fact that the “ plan” may not absolutely preclude all Negro children, and that exceptionally gifted children may survive its operation, does not save it from constitu tional condemnation. Indisputably, it discriminates against the class that included the Negro appellants here by im posing greater demands upon them than upon others. This vice in its operation alone suffices to render it invalid. As the Court in Lane v. Wilson, supra at 275, stated in treating another constitutional right The [Fifteenth Amendment] nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination. It hits onerous procedural requirements which effectively handicap exercise of the franchise by the colored race although the abstract right to vote may remain unre stricted as to race. Nor is the decision to be affected by the consideration that the discrimination resulting from the operation of the plan may not have been intended by the defendants. “ It is immaterial that the defendants may not have intended to deny admission on account of race or color. The inquiry is purely objective. The result, not the intendment, of their acts is determinative.” Thompson v. County School Board of Arlington County, supra. Non-intentional dis- �2 6 crimination is nonetheless unconstitutional. C assell v. Texas, 339 U. S. 282 (1950); Hi l v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400 l (1942); Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128 (1940). The fact that appellee School Board sought to achieve, by the means employed, compliance with the previous orders of the court below is equally impotent. However, well-intended their efforts may be, this objective cannot be attained by a device that denies rights created or protected by the Federal Constitution. Buchanan v. Warley, supra, at 8 . 1 C. The failure of the court b e lo w to rec o g n ize and con d em n the patent discrim ination in the m ethod b y w h ich a p p ellees acted u pon appellants' ap p lication s is inconsistent with c a s e s in other a reas in w hich State action h as b e e n p ierced and found to represent a stratagem or d ev ice resorted to for p u rp oses of p reserv in g racial discrimination. See Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461 (1953); Smith v. A l lwright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944); Perry v. Cyphers, 186 F. 2d. 608 (5th Cir. 1951); Rice v. Elmore, 165 F. 2d 387 (4th Cir. 1947), c r . den. 333 U. S. 875 (1948). Singularly apposite et is the following excerpt from the recent opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Aaron v. Cooper, F.2d (8 th Cir., No. 1 ,0 4 1 No 6 9, 0 vember 1958): The effect of all these cases [cited above], in their relation to the present situation has been epitomized by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron, 78 S. Ct. 1401, 1 0 , as follows: “ In short, the constitutional 49 rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color declared by this Court in the Brown case can neither be nullified openly or directly by state legislators or state execu tive or judicial officers, nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation whether at tempted ‘ ingeniously or ingenuously’ ”. D. The court's con clu sion that ap p ellees' rejection of appellants' ap p lication s w a s not b a s e d u p on ra ce or color is in con sistent with its fin dings that tw o of the rea son s for rejection in volv ed racial considerations. In its examination of the five reasons or “ criteria” ten dered by appellees in justification of the rejection of ap pellants’ applications, the court below concluded that 27 “ The reasons given for disqualifying the seven stu dents upon the test of Psychological Problems ob viously give consideration t race or co o . . . (JA o lr 21 ) and with reference to the testimony of appellee Division Superintendent in his definition and opinion concerning the Adaptability test, the court said: . . . Eaee or color is not the basis for his opinion, though, he owns, the necessity for his decision is oc casioned by the removal of racial bars (JA 20) These are express findings that race or color was involved in at least two of the reasons given by the appellee School Board. There is an apparent inconsistency between the court’ opinion that “ it would be almost a mental impos s sibility for a witness to say how much weight he gave to any one of the several factors” (JA 113) and the rationale by which the court itself found that two of the factors 1‘ obviously give considerations to race and color ’’ but con , cluded that the other three were “ valid criteria, free of taint of race or color.” (JA 2 ) 2 It is submitted that the foregoing considerations sup port only one credible conclusion, namely, that appellees’ action upon appellants’ applications is designed and ad ministered to accomplish, pursuant to the policy, practice and custom of the Commonwealth of Virginia, perpetua tion of racial segregation in the Arlington County public schools, in contravention of appellants’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. �2 8 29 II. Having thus indicated the limits of the scope of the judi cial inquiry in this matter, the court below, in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of 1 September 1 7 958, stated (JA II) : THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED APPELLEES' REJEC TION OF APPELLANTS' APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION, ENROLLMENT AND EDUCATION IN DESIGNATED "WHITE" SCHOOLS AS "ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS" TO BE REVIEWED PURSUANT TO THE "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" DOCTRINE AND, HAVING THUS LIMITED ITS SCOPE OF INQUIRY, FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS OBLIGATION TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION AND DETERMINA TION OF THE FACTS DECISIVE OF APPELLANTS' CONSTI TUTIONAL CLAIM THAT THEIR EXCLUSION FROM SAID SCHOOLS WAS BECAUSE OF RACE OR COLOR. As this case came on for hearing in the court below, the only issues presented upon the pleadings filed by the par ties were: (i) appellants’ demand for the enforcement and implementation of the previous orders of the court re straining and enjoining appellees from refusing to admit, enroll and educate appellants in any public school in Ar lington County on account of race or color; and (ii) ap pellees ’request for guidance, in the light of their contention that all power and authority to assign pupils to schools in Arlington County was vested in the Pupil Placement Board. However, at the hearing below, appellees were al lowed to present evidence as to the action they would take upon appellants’ applications i the court should reject ap f pellees ’disclaimer of authority to make pupil assignments. Thus appellees’witness testified that appellee School Board met, upon advice of counnsel, five days before the hearing below, considered appellants’applications, and voted to re ject all of them because they fell into five “ problem areas.” It was during cross-examination of appellees’ principal witness that the court below first indicated its concept of the scope of the inquiry in the instant proceedings, as fol lows : T h e C o u r t : A s I understand the case now, it has been channeled and reduced to the point where the Court is actually reviewing administrative action, and th inquiry o th Court i not whether th Court would e f e s e have done t i or t a , hut i h t i r there i evidence hs ht vele s t support i h t has been done; that is, that it is o va neither capricious, arbitrary or unlawful . . . (JA 82) [Emphasis supplied] . . . Decision is restricted to an administrative re view. . . . A. A ppellees' action w a s not such an "adm inistrative determ ina tion" a s w ou ld justify application of the "substantial evi d e n c e " doctrine. In concluding that appellees’ action upon appellants’ applications was an “ administrative determination” en titled to conclusive respect if based upon substantial evi dence, the court below relied upon premises which are not supported by the record in this case. More specifically, the court stated (JA 11): The case signally demonstrates the soundness and workability of these propositions: (1) that the Federal requirement of avoiding racial exclusiveness in the public schools— loosely termed the requirement of inte gration— can be fulfilled reasonably and with justice if the guide adopted is the circumstances of each child, individually and relatively; (2 ) that it may be achieved through the pursuit of any method wherein the regulatory body can, and does, act after a fair hearing and upon evidence; and (3) that when a con clusion is so reached in good faith, without influence of race, though it be erroneous, the assignment is no longer a concern of the United States courts. Tested by the existing record in this case appellants contend, and argue elsewhere in this brief, that the first and third of the above-stated “ propositions” are not sus tained. However, the second “ proposition” is the basis upon which the court limited the scope of its inquiry to an “ administrative review” and commands our immediate attention. To justify the court’ conclusion in this case it must s appear that appellees’action was based upon a “ fair hear ing”. The barest essentials of a “ fair hearing” would be notice, an opportunity to be heard, and findings based �30 3 1 upon the evidence. The fact that appellees acted ex p r e at, in closed session, without notice to appellants, or an oppor tunity for them to be heard in their own behalf is uneontroverted in this record. As stated in one of the leading cases in this area, Morgan v. United Sta e , 304 U. S. 1 ts , 1 -19 (1938): 8 and application of the “ substantial evidence” doctrine accorded it by the court below. . . . The right to a hearing embraces not only the right to present evidence but also a reasonable oppor tunity to know the claims of the opposing party and to meet them . . . Those who are brought into contest with the Government in a quasi-judicial proceeding aimed at the control of their activities are entitled to be fairly advised of what the Government proposes and to be heard upon its proposals before it issues its final command. No such reasonable opportunity was accorded appel l n s [Emphasis supplied] at. The fundamental rationale upon which administrative determinations are accorded respect by the courts is the fairness and adequacy of the procedure before the admin istrative agency. In Southern Garment Mfrs. Ass’. v. n Fleming, 122 F. 2d 622, 632 (D.C. Cir. 1941) the stand ards are set forth which, applied to the record in this case, conclusively demonstrate the court’ error: s The scope of judicial review should depend largely upon the adequacy of the preceding process. Here the process was fair and complete. The Committee and the Administrator did work that was authorized by Congress and they did it the way that body directed. The Committee heard evidence and deliberated. Its report went to the Administrator. There, the proceed ing was upon narrow, well-defined issues; the consid eration was detailed; the affected parties or their representatives were present; specific wage orders re sulted. These elements, inter alia, caused the Supreme Court, in the Opp case to call this proceeding judicial in character. A court, under such circumstances, should hesitate long before nullifying the resultant classification. It is submitted, therefore, that the “ administrative de termination” here was not entitled to the conclusive effect B. M oreover, appellants' claim that a p p ellees h a d ex clu d ed them from the sch oo ls to w hich they applied, on accou n t of their ra ce or color, in violation of constitutionally gu ara n teed rights, ob lig a ted the court b elo w to m ake an in dependent evaluation and determ ination of the factual issu e s d ecisiv e of appellants' claim. Accordingly, the court below was required to make its own independent evaluation and determination, upon all of the available and pertinent evidence, of the decisive factual issue; viz., whether appellees refused on account of race or color to admit, enroll and educate appellants, who were otherwise q a i i d in the “ white” schools for ulfe, which they applied. Thus, the issue of appellants’ qualifi cations, or lack thereof, was decisive of their claimed con stitutional right. The court was obliged to examine the evidence on this issue not merely to determine “ whether there is evidence to support the assignments as made”, or “ whether there is evidence to support what has been done,” or “ whether there is evidence to support the admin istrative finding”, or “ whether or not there was before the administrative agency valid evidence that supports its findings”, or “ whether there was justification in the mind of the others to come to the conclusion that they have reached, ” or “ only to see if the rebuttal evidence destroys any weight that might be given to the defendants’ proof.” Directly contrary to these expressions of the court’ inhi s bition and self-imposed limitations in the proceedings below, appellants contend that the court’ responsibility s was to make an independent review and determination upon the evidence “ whether the court would have done this or that,” and to weigh the evidence “ in the light that the court ordinarily weighs evidence, that is, determining the decision that the court will make,” resolving “ such differences” as may appear in the evidence, and, if so persuaded, making “ a different decision on this evidence” which “ may not agree with the conclusions of the Boards.” Wherever a citizen submits to a Federal court his claim �32 3 3 that an administrative body has acted in derogation of his constitutional rights, the court may and must exercise its independent judgment on those issues of fact that are decisive of the constitutional claim. This conception of the duty and function of the court is supported by the case law. In Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Borough, 253 U. S. 287 (1920) it was held that a court must exercise its independent judgment on the law and the facts in deter mining a claim of confiscation of property without due process of law, which resulted from a regulation of utility rates. The principle was again applied in S . Joseph Stock t Yards Co. v. United S a e , 298 U. S. 38, 49 (1936). Cf. tts Ng Fung Ho. v. White, 259 U. S. 276, 284-285 (1922). In Baltimore & Ohio BR Co. v. United S a e , 298 U. S. 34 , tts 9 372 (1936), the court again applied this doctrine, and re ferred in a footnote to Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 5 7 8, 589-590 (1935), which may be regarded as involving an analogous principle. This principle, frequently stated in cases involving claimed coerced confessions and systematic exclusion of Negroes from juries, is that the power of the federal judiciary, in appellate review of state court pro ceedings, extends in certain circumstances to a considera tion of “ issues of fact.” The proposition is clearly stated in Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 4 5 -51 (1949) : 9, 0 See also: Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 2 8 271 (1951) 6, and Pierre v. Louisiana, 306 U. S. 3 4, 358 (1939); Feiner 5 v. Neiv York, 340 U. S. 3 5, 3 6, 323 footnote 4 (1951). 1 1 . . . “ issue of fact” is a coat of many colors. It does not cover a conclusion drawn from uncontro verted happenings, when that conclusion incorporates standards of conduct or criteria for judgment which in themselves are decisive of constitutional rights. Such standards and criteria, measured against the requirements drawn from constitutional provisions, and their proper applications, are issues for this Court’ adjudication. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, s 324 U. S. 6 2, 659, and cases cited. Especially in cases 5 arising under the Due Process Clause is it important to distinguish between issues of fact that are here foreclosed and issues which, though cast in the form of determinations of fact, are the very issues to review which this Court sits, Sec Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 5 7 89-90; Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 5 1, 5 0 8, 0 1. Logic and reason cannot sustain the contention that appellees’ “ administrative determination,” made ex parte and without notice in closed and secret session and without a record other than the testimonial recital in the instant proceeding below, is entitled to greater respect than the determinations by the quasi-judicial administrative bodies and the courts represented in the cases cited, supra. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the court below erred in failing to make an independent determina tion, on all the evidence properly before it, of the decisive issue of appellants’ qualification, or lack thereof, for admission to the ‘‘white ’’ schools from which they claimed appellees excluded them on account of their race or color. il l. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE AVAILABLE AND PERTINENT EVIDENCE COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE REASONS ADVANCED BY APPELLEES FOR THEIR REJECTION OF APPELLANTS' APPLICATIONS FOR ADMIS SION, ENROLLMENT AND EDUCATION IN "WHITE" SCHOOLS WERE BASED UPON CONSIDERATIONS OF RACE OR COLOR IN CONTRAVENTION OF APPELLANTS' CON STITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRIOR ORDERS OF THE COURT. Appellants contend that an independent review and de termination upon the uncontroverted evidence in the record herein compels a conclusion contrary to that of the court below. A. A tten dan ce Area The Attendance Area reason as applied denies t appel o l n s the equal protection o th laws as guaranteed by at f e t e Fourteenth Amendment. h An attendance area basis for the assignment of school children to particular schools is, of course, not unusual or objectionable where applied without reference to race or color. However, even this seemingly innocuous and �34 rational standard may be applied in such a manner as to violate the mandate of equal protection. The action of appellees exemplifies this proposition. The evidence indicates that Attendance Area as a basis for assignment has been loosely applicable in Arlington County. The attendance area for the principal Negro school in the county, Hoffman-Boston, was established and has remained unchanged as an area for determining the assignment of Negro students only. (R. 374, JA 90-92). The few white children living within its boundaries are not required to attend Hoffman-Boston school (JA 9 0 9 , 143-145). Approximately 100 students are daily trans 1 ported from outside [from former North-Hoffman-Boston area] to Hoffman-Boston school. Those of the appellants, and all other Negroes, living outside the zone were nevertheless assigned by appellees to Hoff man-Boston school. It is submitted that this simple recitation conclusively demonstrates that Attendance Area, as administered by appellees, is but a rationalization for the use of “ naked and arbitrary power” to maintain segregation. Cf. Yich Wo v. Hopkins, supra at 3 6 6. In Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 2 4, 300-301 9 (1955), the Court indicated that among the factors to be considered by the district courts in granting time for compliance, were problems related to “ revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” In Cooper v. Aaron, supra at 7 the , Court said that “ State authorities were thus duty bound to devote every effort toward initiating desegregation and bringing about the elimination of racial discrimination in the public school system.” Certainly the action of ap pellees herein, in continuing to maintain the prior school zones specifically designed to facilitate and accommodate the invalidated system of racial segregation, coupled with their disregard of these zones in cases where rigid enforce ment is incompatible with the maintenance of segregation, cannot be squared with any concept of “ good faith com pliance” with the duty “ to devote every effort toward 3 5 initiating desegregation.” See also Aaron v. Cooper, supra, with respect to the affirmative obligations of state and local authorities. B. O v e rc ro w d in g at W ash ington and L ee T e Overcrowding reason i a mere r t o a i a i n for h. s ainlzto continued r c a seg e a i n ail rgto. Appellees assign overcrowding as their reason for re jecting the applications of five Negro students to Wash ington and Lee High School. Appellants do not contro vert the fact that the enrollment at Washington and Lee exceeds the school’ planned capacity. Similarly there s is no contradiction of appellees’ assertion that a portion of the Washington and Lee attendance area was “ severed” and annexed to the Wakefield High School area for the assignment of 250 10th grade students to the latter school to equalize the burden between the two schools. However, upon these facts, appellees’treatment of the five appellants who did not live within the severed area is the most patent and obvious racial discrimination. These students, one of whom was in the 11th grade and would not have been affected by the severance in any event, were assigned in a manner dissimilar from all other students in the Wash ington and Lee attendance area— except the 100 other Negroes not parties to this suit— to the Hoffman-Boston School. Thus, although appellees claimed abandonment of the “ North” Hoffman-Boston attendance area in defer ence to its clearly racial character, the assignment of these five appellants and all other Negroes in that area to the Hoffman-Boston School is an obvious contradiction and adherence to the prior policy of segregation. The use of Overcrowding as a rationalization for con tinued maintenance of racial segregation has been specifi cally rejected. Clemmons v. Board o Education o H l s f f il bo o Ohio, 228 F. 2d 853, 85 , 860 (6th Cir. 1956), c r , r, 7 et d n 350 U.S. 1006 (1956). Tn a concurring opinion, Circuit e. Judge (Now Mr. Justice) Potter Stewart said (p. 860): It was estimated at the time of the hearing in the district court that the new school buildings in Hillsboro �36 would be completed about January, 19 , although 57 the record is not entirely clear on this point. If that is true, there may be some overcrowding of classrooms for the first half of the next school year, in the event the Board decides to make no use of the present Lincoln School building. Overcrowded classrooms, however, are unfortunately not peculiar to Hillsboro, and th avoidance alone o somewhat overcroivded e f classrooms cannot j s i y segregation of school c i utf hl dren s l l because of th co o of t e r s i s [Em oey e lr hi kn. phasis supplied] C. A ca d em ic A ch ievem en t The uncontroverted evidence with respect t th Aca o e demic Achievement reason c n l o c usively demonstrates t a ht t i i an attempted j s i i a i n for continued r c a hs s utfcto ail segregation. No white children, including those with achievement scores lower than those of the appellants, were excluded from the schools appellants sought to attend. It is said that the Negro students excluded for reason of academic deficiency, were found to have achievement scores that would place them in the lower portions of their classes if admitted to “ white” schools, and that they will have seri ous academic difficulties if transferred. But it is apparent on the face of the record that there were some white stu dents in the schools involved with achievement scores as low as those of the appellants. For, although the Arlington “ white” schools have median achievement levels above the national median, the “ Negro” schools have students scoring above and below these median scores. By definition a “ median” is merely the point dividing the upper and lower halves of the students tested. The pattern of discrimination is clear. Students are di vided into two groups, those with relatively high and those with relatively low achievement attainments. Those with relatively high attainments are deemed qualified. Those with relatively low attainments are then divided into two more classes— those excluded from a given school (all Negroes) and those not excluded (a l white students). Cf. l Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra. It is apparent that the deci- 37 sion on whether or not those students with low attainments are qualified for attendance at the heretofore “ white” schools is exercised on a racial basis. It is submitted that it was erroneous, as a matter of law, for the court below to restrict the right not to be racially segregated in public schools to Negroes who are intellectu ally gifted. The equal protection of the laws is a “ pledge of the protection of equal laws” to a l persons within the l state, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra. The state is not required to treat as alike the genius and the imbecile, for they are different in fact, but the state may make no distinctions in its treatment of either geniuses or imbeciles of different races. I To exclude these Negro children from the benefits of superior schools, for the reason that as the victims of in ferior segregated schools they have not as a group reached the level of achievement of the more privileged race, is to forever consign them to an inferior education in seg regated schools. D. P sy c h o lo g ic a l P ro b lem s The exclusion of some appellants by reason of psycho logical problems was disapproved by the court below for insufficient evidence. It is submitted that the court’ s finding that this reason involved considerations of race and color was sufficient to invalidate it, without regard to the quantum of evidence on this point. E. A d ap tab ility Finally,with respect t l c o adaptability as a reason o ak f for exclusion o a p l a t , i i submitted t a t i a s f pelns t s h t hs l o was a r c a a d discriminatory standard. Its racial char ail n' acter is clearly indicated in the definition of this standard as given by the appellee School Superintendent, and testi mony that, in his opinion, the five appellants who had successfully met every other test mentioned above, should nevertheless be excluded from the schools to which they sought admission on the ground that they might be injured or harmed by the transition to attending school with mem- �38 3 9 bers of the other race, and their consequent loss of school superiority and leadership. One of the presuppositions of this opinion is a theory of the supremacy of the white race. The testimony of the appellees’ witness is that only exceptionally gifted Negro children could “ adapt” to desegregated schools (JA 80-81). Not only are the presuppositions of this rationale alien to American ideals, Ex Parte Endo, supra at 308, but the paternal solicitude for the supposed welfare of the appellants, which is urged to justify continued deprivation of their constitutional rights, touches an area beyond the power of the appellees or the courts, i.e. the rights of par ents and the children to decide whether or when to exercise their constitutional rights and what is in their best interests. McKissick v. Carmichael, 187 F. 2d 948, 954 (4th Cir. 1951) c r . den. 341 U.S. 951 (1951); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. et 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of S s e s 268 U.S. 510 itr, (1925). Carter v. School Board of Arlington Comity, 182 F. 2d 531 (4th Cir. 1950). The conclusion of th court below th t pupil A was e a lacking i a a t b l t , and th t t i was a proper ground n dpaiiy a hs for h s exclusion from the school th t he othenvise was i a q a i i d t a t n , i s milarly erroneous. In its consider ulfe o ted s i ation of this pupil, the court below has assigned reasons for his rejection not suggested by appellees. The court below considered information relative to his academic achievement, although appellees did not raise this objection. As no achievement test score was available for pupil A, the court below concluded that the statement taken from his most recent report card, that he was “ on grade level” , meant that he was on grade level in relation to the inferior standards of the Negro school to which he was assigned by appellees, despite the fact that a witness for appellees testified with respect to this very same pupil that the term “ on grade level” was used in relation to all the schools in the county (JA 37). The balance of the court’ dis s cussion of this pupil amounted to a balancing or weighing of the advantages and disadvantages to him of attending the white and Negro schools. This type of treatment of appellant A ’ constitutional claim is clearly erroneous. s R esp o n se to A p p ellees' C ross-A ppeal The appellees have filed a cross-appeal from the deci sion of the court below restraining and enjoining them from refusing to admit, enroll and educate four appellants in the Stratford Junior High School at the commencement of the second semester of the current school term, which decision was based upon the court’ finding and conclusion s that there was no substantial evidence to support appellees’ disqualification of these pupils by reason of lack of adaptability. As indicated, supra, in this brief appellants (cross appellees) disagree with the premises upon which appellees’ (cross-appellants) argument is based with respect to the proper function and scope of inquiry of the District Court. In this connection, the three cases relied upon by crossappellants in their brief on cross-appeal— National Labor Relations Board v Babcock < Wilcox C . 351 U.S. 105 . & o, (1956); Radio Corp. o America v. United S a e , 341 U.S. f tts 412 (1951); and Secretary o Agriculture v. Central Roig f Refining C . 338 U.S. 604 (1950)— have no relation to the o, problem posed by this appeal. Those cases involved the quasi-judicial determinations of administrative bodies fulfilling specialized technical functions, exercising expert knowledge, and following procedures affording to the inter ested parties full administrative or procedural due process, all as contrasted with the secret ex parte determinations of the appellee School Board (itself an interested party) based upon only the evidence it chose to consider and upon no “ record.” The school board’ suggestion that they s acted “ after a fair hearing and upon evidence” is palpably false. No hearing was accorded to the plaintiffs by the defendants and they were neither requested nor given an opportunity to present “ evidence” to the school board in support of their requests. However, assuming arguendo, t a the court below prop ht e l used and applied th “sub t n i l evidence” d c r n , ry e sata otie �40 41 i i submitted th t therei no evidence i th record t sup ts a s n e o port the School Board’ conclusion th t these four pupils s a were not q a i i d t attend Stratford Junior High S ulfe o chool. IV. The testimony of the school board’ own witnesses estab s lished that these students lived within the Stratford attendance area, were academically qualified by applica tion of the board’ own standards, had no disqualifying s psychological problems and could not be barred for lack of space. The only suggested reason offered by appellees for their exclusion was that these four students could not adapt to the new situation they faced. This was an opinion and a prediction based upon no individual data or information with respect to these students, at least so far as was disclosed to the court. The school board clearly failed to present any adequate evidence in justifica tion of the exclusion of these four students from the schools which they were otherwise admittedly qualified to attend. No basis for the exercise of discretion in their case was proffered except for the opinion of the School Superin tendent, and this is on its face a subjective prediction, admittedly occasioned only by the prospective removal of racial barriers. It is apparent that this reason has no meaning except in terms of racial issues and that the real basis for exclusion is race or color. And, of course, the objections to the entire procedure and pattern of action pursued by the school board, devel oped elsewhere in this brief, apply with equal force in consideration of the rights of these four students. THE COURT'S PREVIOUS JUDGMENT. AFFIRMED ON APPEAL, THAT FIVE APPELLANTS WERE QUALIFIED FOR AND COULD NOT BE REFUSED ADMISSION TO DESIGNATED "WHITE" SCHOOLS, MAY NOT BE NULLIFIED, IN SUBSE QUENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT, ON THE GROUND OF APPELLANTS' ALLEGED DISQUALIFICATION FOR REASONS AVAILABLE TO BUT NOT URGED BY AP PELLEES IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS. A. T h e 14 S ep tem b er 1957 D e c re e H erein F o re c lo se d Fu rth er L itiga tion W ith R esp ect to the Q u alification o f F ive A p p el lan ts fo r A d m ission to D esig n a ted "W h ite" S ch o ols In the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered in this case on 14 September 19 , the court below found 57 that seven Negro children, including five of the present appellants (A, B, C, D, and E), were refused admission to designated “ white” schools because of their race, inas much as “ no intimation of disqualification appeared as to any applicant.” Upon the basis of the foregoing find ings and conclusions, the court below entered its Supple mentary Decree of Injunction, ordering that the defendants [appellees here] be restrained and enjoined from refusing to admit, or enroll, or educate the named plaintiffs in the [white] schools to which they have made application for admission upon the presentation of said plaintiffs for admission, enrollment and education in the said schools commencing at the opening of said schools on the morning of September 2 , 1957 (R. 248). This injunction, on the 3 present appellees’motion (R. 252), was suspended pending appeal (R. 256). On 1 February 1 5 , this judgment was 2 98 affirmed by this Court (R. 399) and writ of certiorari was denied 19 May 1 5 . 98 The court below, with specific reference to appellants’ present contention said (JA 14): . . . Five of the thirty are the children who were ordered admitted by this court in September 1 5 , 97 but the order was stayed pending appeals. Contrary to their argument, however, these pupils have not by virtue of that order a vested position for this session. Admissions must be judged on current conditions, the rule to be applied to all students . . . �42 Appellants contend that the court’ order of 14 Septem s ber 1957 was final and conclusive of the rights of the parties thereby adjudicated. Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 413 (1845); Sibbakl v. United Sta e , 3 ts 7 TJ.S. (12 Peters) 488 (1838). More specifically, the issue of these appellants ’ qualifica tions for admission to the schools to which they applied was tendered, litigated and forever settled as between the parties and their privies. Baltimore S S Co. v. P i l p , . . hlis 274 U.S. 316 (1927); City and Town o Beloit v. Morgan, f 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 619 (1869). This result obtains, notwith standing appellees’ claim that the defenses and evidence presented in the instant proceeding were not presented in the proceedings leading to the 14 September 1957 order. This is not a case where the law has been subsequently changed relative to the authority of the appellees to judge the qualifications of the five appellants. Nor is it one where subsequent to the 1957 decree additional data on the five appellants were obtained and reviewed by the appellees. The objections raised at the 1958 hearing were based upon the same data available to appellees prior to the 1957 hearing. Under our system of jurisprudence, it is wellestablished that a decree of judgment estops not only as to every ground of defense actually presented in an action, but also as to every ground which might have been presented. Otherwise, in many instances, litigation would be interminable. The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118 (1894); Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U.S. 327 (1894). In Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U.S. 351, 352-353 (1877), the Court said: Thus, for example, a judgment rendered upon a promissory note is conclusive as to the validity of the instrument and the amount due upon it, although it be subsequently alleged that perfect defenses actually existed, of which no proof was offered, such as forgery, want of consideration or payment. If such defenses were not presented in the action, and established by competent evidence, the subsequent allegation of their existence is of no legal consequence . . . The language, therefore, which is so often used, that a judgment 4 3 estops not only as to every ground of recovery or defense actually presented in the action, but also as to every ground which might have been presented, is strictly accurate .. . See also Gould v. Evansville& C R. C . 91 U.S. 526 (1876); . o, Grubb v Public U i i i s Commission o Ohio, 281 U.S. . tlte f 470 (1930); C i c t County Drainage D s . v Baxter State lio it . Bank, 308 U.S. 371 (1940); C l R v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 ... (1948); U.S. v Munsingwear, I c , 340 U.S. 3 , 38 (1950). . n. 6 Moreover, if the appellees are allowed to litigate the qualifications of the five appellants and in some subsequent proceedings, as below, to relitigate the same matter by tendering further objections which could have been raised in the prior proceedings, then the constitutional rights of the appellants could easily be “ frittered away” and rendered incapable of effective enforcement. Cf. O i l re v. R s e l 278 U.S. 3 8, 363 (1929);Maggio v. Z i z 333 usl, 5 et, U.S. 5 , 68-69 (1948). 6 B. T h e F in al J u d gm en t S ecu r in g T h ese A ppellants' C o n sti tu tion a l B ig h ts C o u ld N ot b e V acated and S et A sid e b y A p p ellees' S u b seq u en t A ction In 1957 the court below found the five appellants qualified and ordered their admission to certain designated schools. In the instant proceedings below the appellees found appel lants disqualified by the application of “ criteria” which, when recognized by the court below, had the effect of nulli fying the prior injunction. No change in circumstances was shown. Prior to the 1957 hearing the appellees had the power and authority to apply the same “ criteria” subsequently tendered. The 1957 decree was thus “ va cated” without any showing of a change in state law, or administrative regulations, or that it was impossible for the appellees to carry out the terms of the injunctive order. In other words, whatever the distinction between a decree and a judgment at law, the 1957 decree did estab lish in the appellants a constitutional right to attend the schools designated by its terms. The decree fixed the rights of the appellants, Hopkins v. Lee, 1 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 9 �44 45 109 (1821), and by force of the decree the appellants were in legal effect placed in the designated schools. It has been repeatedly held that where a judgment has been rendered the rights flowing from it have passed beyond the legislative (administrative) power, either directly or indirectly, to reach or destroy. In United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 1 5, 136 (1809), Chief Justice Marshall 1 observed: appellees well within the “ controlling legal principles” pronounced in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 1 -17 (1958). , 6 Furthermore, since the District Court failed to enforce the 1957 decree on the basis of “ criteria” which could not be constitutionally applied to these five appellants, its action may be deemed to be unconstitutional within the meaning of the principles declared in Shelley v. Kraemer, If the legislatures of the several states may, at will annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery; and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. See also McCullough v. Vir i i , 172 U.S. 102 (1898). gna The appellants submit, therefore, that the court’ ap s proval of appellees’ subsequent rejection of appellants’ applications on the basis of the alleged “ criteria” is within this principle. The action of appellees, approved by the court, nullified the rights flowing from the 1957 injunctive decree. C. T h e F in a lly A d ju d ica te d C on stitu tion al R igh t o f T h ese A p p ella n ts to A tten d th e S c h o o ls D esig n a ted in the Court's 14 S e p te m b e r 1957 O rd er C o u ld N ot b e S u b je c te d to C o n d ition s N ot S im ila r ly A p p lie d to A ll O th er S tu d en ts A d m itted and E n r o lle d in S a id S c h o o ls The 1957 decree gave the five appellants a legal status comparable to that of those students who were already enrolled. With this status they were entitled to be treated in the same manner as other students already enrolled, rather than as mere applicants for admission. Cf. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra. Appellees, however, applied the “ criteria” only to these five appel lants and the other Negro children seeking admission to “ white” schools. No white students, enrolled in these schools, or seeking admission for the first time, were subjected to these “ criteria”. This is a clear case of arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the supra. Accordingly, it is submitted that the ruling of the Dis trict Court, denying to these five appellants the enforcement and implementation of their constitutional rights as finally and specifically adjudicated under the prior orders of the court, should be reversed. v . THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN POSTPONING. UNTIL THE SECOND SEMESTER OF THE SCHOOL SESSION OF 1 5 9 8-1959. THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ITS ORDER RESTRAINING AND ENJOINING APPELLEES FROM REFUSING TO ADMIT. ENROLL OR EDUCATE FOUR OF APPELLANTS IN THE "WHITE" SCHOOL FROM WHICH THEY HAD BEEN IM PROPERLY EXCLUDED. A. T h e C o u rt B e lo w th e P erson a l and It fou n d to H a v e fo rd J u n ior H ig h E rred in P ostp o n in g the E n joy m en t o f P resen t R igh ts o f the F ou r A p p ella n ts B een E x clu d ed U n la w fu lly F rom S trat S ch o ol The court below, upon review of appellees’ determina tion that each of thirty timely requests by Negro pupils for admission and enrollment in designated white schools for the current (1958-1959) school term should be rejected, found that as to four of these pupils “ . . . refusal of their applications for transfer is not justified in the record (JA 11).” In apparent anticipation of this result, the court, at the conclusion of the proceedings below on 4 September 1 958, made the following remarks: Without intending intrusion for a moment upon the functions of the administrative agency or of the State, the Court simply wants to say that as far as the Court is concerned, the schools may be opened and the pupils assigned to them. That i cludes t e n h ri h o th applicants here t enter th schools under gt f e o e t e assignments as made, hut reserving t themselves h o �47 46 without prejudice i any way, th ri h sil t i s s n e g t tl o n i t upon th change of the assignment after t e r cases e hi have been heard. This would be the course that would effective at the commencement of the next semester, January 1 959. This short deferment will not be hurt ful. Indeed, if the basic problem can be solved by time, the price is not too dear. do not want anyone t be prejudiced by the time t a o ht the Court w l require to reach its decision in this case. il Five days thereafter, on 22 September 1958, the court entered its Supplementary Order of Injunction be followed if, I am sure, there was no Constitutional question involved. I mention that simply because I (JA 222) * * * # ... I mean the children may return to the school as scheduled with reference to the applicants, the 30 here, they would take their places in schools as they are assigned now, but i doing s , they would not i any n o n way waive t e r r g t t continue the prosecution o hi ih o f t e r objections which are now before t e Court (JA hi h 223). * * # * ... In other words, i these 30 enter the s h o s f col, they w l be receiving th same c a s work, I take i, il e ls t but under conditions t a they do not a c p , but ht cet i o l only be for th temporary period u t l the Court vud e ni decides one way or the other (JA 223-224). [Emphasis supplied] However, notwithstanding the foregoing assurances that appellants would not be prejudiced by the delay involved in the court’ consideration and determination of their s motion to be admitted and enrolled at the commencement of the current session, on 4 September 1958, in the schools to which they had made timely application, the court, in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, entered on 17 September 1958, declared (JA 11-12): These four are all applicants for Stratford Junior High School; they have asked to enter the seventh grade, the first year of junior high. Before this deci sion can be effectuated by a final decree, ten days or more would routinely elapse, carrying the effective date into October. In the judgment of the court it would be unwise to make the transfers as late as that in the term.5 The decree, therefore, will be made I t should be noted that appellees postponed until 8 Septem ber 1958 the opening o f the 1958-1959 school term. N ote also that, on 14 Septem ber 1957, the court below ordered the admission o f seven N egro applicants into the white schools to which they had applied, effective 23 Septem ber 1957, not withstanding the 1957-1958 school term, had comm enced on 4 Septem ber 1957 (R. 239, 248). . . . that the defendants, their successors in office, agents, representatives, servants and employees be, and each of them is hereby restrained and enjoined from refusing to admit, enroll or educate plaintiffs Ronald Deskins, Michael Gerard Jones, Lance Dwight Newman and Gloria Delores Thompson to, or in, Stratford Junior High School, Arlington County, Vir ginia at the commencement of the second semester of the school session of 1958-1959, . . . The rights of appellants to the equal protection of the laws and to due process of law as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment are “ personal and present” rights. S v a t iet v. Painter, supra at 635; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra at 642, and the state must provide these rights for appellants “ as soon as it does for applicants of any other group.” Sipuel v. Board of Regents, supra at 63 3. B. A p p e lle e s P resen ted N o E v id en ce in Justification o f th e D ela y G ranted In Brown v. Board o Education, 3 U.S. 294 (1955) f 49 it is suggested that the United States District Courts must apply equitable principles in the timing of desegre gation orders, by consideration of particular local prob lems. However, the Brown decision clearly states the limitation of the area of this discretion and the conditions upon which delay in compliance may be permitted. Thus, at 349 U.S. 294, 300-301, the Supreme Court said: .. At stake i the personal i t r s of t e p a n i f . s neet h litfs i admission t public s n o chools as soon as p a t c b e rcialon a nondiscriminatory b s s To effectuate this inter ai. est may call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated �49 48 in accordance with the constitutional principles set forth in our May 1 , 1954 decision. Courts of equity 7 may properly take into account the public interest in the elimination of such obstacles in a systematic and effective manner . . . While giving weight to these public and private considerations, th courts w l require t a the defend e il ht ants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 1 , 1954 ruling. Once such 7 a s a t has been made, the courts may find that addi tr tional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an et h effective manner. The burden r s s upon t e defend ants t e t b i h t a such time i necessary i t e o sals ht s n h public i t r s and i c n istent with good f i h com neet s os at pliance a the e r i s practicable date . .. [Emphasis t alet supplied] Similarly, in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 3 L. Ed. 2d , (Adv.) 5,10, the Court, after quoting the preceding passage with approval said: Under such circumstances, the District Courts were directed to require “ a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance,” and to take such action as was necessary to bring about the end of racial segre gation in the public schools “ with all deliberate speed.” Ibid. ... I i a made plain t a delay i any guise t vs ht n i order t deny th c n t t t o a r g t of Negro n o e osiuinl ihs children could not be countenanced and t a only a ht prompt s a t d l g n l and earnestly pursued, t tr, i i e t y o eliminate r c a segregation from th public schools ail e could c n t t t good f i h compliance ... [Emphasis osiue at supplied] In the instant case, none of the conditions is present upon which the District Courts are “ directed” to predi cate the exercise of their discretion in granting delay in admission of Negro children to white schools in accordance with the Supreme Court’ desegregation mandate. The s prior proceedings and present record in this case conclu sively demonstrate that no “ prompt and reasonable start” has been made by appellees “ toward full compliance” with the May 1 , 1954 decision or with the prior decisions 7 in this case. In these circumstances, there can be no occa- sion for consideration of the factors which might justify a delay if there had been such a start. Brown, supra, and Cooper v. Aaron, supra. The appellees not only did not carry “ the burden . . . to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date,” they did not, on the existing record, even assume that burden. Thus, there is no occasion for a balancing of interests or equities where previously determined and adjudicated constitutional rights are being thwarted by those local authorities who are duty bound to secure them. There is no conflict of public and private interests to be considered here, for it is always in the public interest to enforce the Constitution’ guarantee to each citizen or group of citi s zens of the equal protection of the laws. “ [E]qual protec tion to all is the basic principle upon which justice under law rests ...” Pierre v. Louisiana, supra at 358 C. T h e A p p ella n ts N eith er R eq u ested N or C o n sen ted to the D e la y for T h eir Benefit. O n th e Contrary, T h ey R eq u ested Im m ed ia te R elief If, as it appears from the opinion of the court be low (JA 11-12), the delay is sought to be justified by a concern for the interest of appellants themselves, the court’ action is erroneous as a matter of law, s since neither these infants nor their parents sought a delay. The court and the school authorities have no power or obligation to decide for appellants when or whether they may demand their right to equal treatment before the law, except under the expressly de fined and limited area of judicial discretion permitted by Brown v. Board of Education, supra. See Clemmons v. Board of Education of H l s o o supra at 857, 859. Indeed ilbr, when the constitutional rights of the individual citizen are at stake “ it is for him to decide in which direction his advantage lies.” McKissick v. Carmichael, supra at 95 4. It is respectfully submitted, that the court below erred as a matter of law, in delaying the enforcement of its injunction as to the four appellants whose constitutional �5 0 rights it found were denied by appellees and that, in this sense, the error constituted an abuse of judicial discretion which must be reversed. Clemmons v. Board o Education f o Hl f i lsboro, supra. C O N C L U S IO N For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully submitted that the judgments appealed from should be reversed as to the appellants herein, except as to Appellants (Cross-Appel lees) Ronald Deskins, Michael Gerard Jones, Lance Dwight Newman and Gloria Delores Thompson, with respect to whom the judgment appealed from should be affirmed and modified to make it effective forthwith. Respectfully submitted, Ol i v e r W. H i l l 118 East Leigh Street Richmond 1 , Virginia 9 F r a n k D. R e e v e s , and J a me s M Na b r it , III . 473 Florida Ave., N. W. Washington 1 D. C. , S. W. R o b i n s o n , III 623 North Third Street Richmond 1 , Virginia 9 Ot t o L. T u c k e r 901 Princess Street Alexandria, Virginia Counsel for Appellants and Cross-Appellees. � 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 18: Personal Papers of Barbara Marx 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 Brief For Appellants And Cross-Appellees For Case No. 7776 From The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia, Alexandria Division Description An account of the resource Brief For Appellants And Cross-Appellees For Case No. 7776 From The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia, Alexandria Division, E. Leslie Hamm Jr, by E. Leslie Hamm, Sr vs. Arlington County School Board and Ray E. Reid, Division Superintendent of Schools, Arlington County, and Arlington County School Board and Ray E. Reid, Division Superintendent of Schools, Arlington County Virginia vs. Ronald Deskins, Michael Gerard Jones, Lance Dwight Newman and Gloria Delores Thompson, for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. Undated. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 18, Personal Papers of Barbara Marx Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia 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 18_2_1_4_38 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/f4d0982f0881ffb6ae640e639535ce63.pdf f005ba3609689ca6a0bbd0856f398dae PDF Text Text United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 71-1791 JOHN K. HART, et al ., Appellants, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, e t a l ., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria BRIEF FOR APPELLEES ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The sole issue presented for review in this case is whether or not the desegregation plan adopted by the Arlington County School Board and put into effect in September, 1971, is constitutionally valid. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 6, 1970, plaintiffs initiated this action to com plete the elimination of racial segregation in the public schools of Arlington County (App. o ) -1 An answer on behalf 1 All references App. are to pages in the printed appendix. �iV.rf 1 Felder v. I la melt Comity lltMid of Kthnalimi, 109 l-*.2tl 1010 (lilt Cir., 1969) .............................................................................12, 19, 22 firAiii.ok r i i Cask...................... si 1 Given v. ( 'utility School Itoaid of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 150 (I960) .......................................................................................... .....0, 27 S . ikm i.i ok niii Iacts. ... iv :'r ’ . 3 Green v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 316 F.Supp. G (W.D. Va. 1970) ..................................... ,...................................................... 21 | i » K PkiISKWiKM I u ivKVIKW ............... ;:U 'K j .. AuCIJMKNT T i . I s v i ^ i i u linn Adopted And Put Into E f c By The lr V i ' v . l o fet Arlington Comity School l o r I C n t l l o n l Valid.... V iad s osiuinly Concmision ..... -........... -................ 26 C i i I I A K .................... llVKCT 20 Al.Is V S h . l n - i iu N l 5 I!!l 2 99 (lih C r , 1971 c r , l. . . . i t n i . l i . , \d i. ) et i nud 1 1 U S 012 (1971 ... -, 8 9 1 , 12 1 , 22 23 2 h 0 . ) I , , 0 , 9 , , G 0 Allen v A h villc City Boai of K l c i h , 431 l, d 902 ( l h C r , . .e d tu.tm ,2 . -i i . 1970) .............................. 17, 1 , 20, 25 9 P a h - v S l c l Hoard of City o Richmond, 325 1.Supp. 028 ud.y . iio f ' (KIT Va., 1971 ............................. 25 ) I i c v I. u i , 314 1.Sup. 971 (N.O. C l , I ) .... n t: . a d t * a . 960 1 , 20, 22 4 11 (|‘ 11 ......... I 13 » ) I u v I .il «f Iinii.l 319 I S 291 (191 ) . S i. . .h.lii, I. .5 8 Cl 0 ,., V I.I I I..|> .. I tf K 11. i . ,.. I \,. y . di.e ii., loi l.. G|3 *?l v Ho o l tf K . t. l o , 317 I . . . i . d i .in IS Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 418 l**.2d 716 (5llt Cir., 1971) ......... :................................ ....... 21 Mims v. Duval County School Board, 329 F. Supp. 123 (M l). Fla., 1971) .;.................................................................................. 23, 21 Swann v. Charlotle-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) ....................... ................ ......... 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 27 i A > i l O k CAtji*) iJl Ahv.aml. * v Holme;. County I o m of Education, 390 U.S. 1 • . '.l 9 . ..... (1969 ............................... * ) Ilnncy v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 420 l;.2d 361 (0th Cir., 1970) ............................................ ............................. 21 Walton v. Nashville, Arkansas, Special School DhtuYi No . 1, -101 F.2d 137 (8th Cir., 1969) ............................................................... 26 Wanner v. Comity School Boaid of Arlington County, 357 F.2d 1:»2 (4th Cir., 19G6) ................................................. 16 �2 3 of the County School i’oard of AIlinglon County and the Divish-u Superintendent of Schools of Arlington Counly was timely lllcil (App. !1 !l), anil discovery procedures in volving interrogatories lo defendants and requests for die production of doeuinenls were thereafter iniliated by die plaintiffs (App. 1). On March 5, 1971, a pre-trial conference was held, at which time a hearing on the merits was scheduled for July 2b, 197-1 (R. 70) A The hearing in this case was deliberately postponed by the District Court to await the decision of the United Slates Supreme Court in Swann v. Charlollc-McckIcnlnirg Board o/ Education, 402 U.S. 1, and its companion cases (App. 1 0 ).On June .20, 1971, the Arlington County School Board adopted and filed in the District Court its plan for the estab lishment of a unitary school system throughout the county, which plan was lo be put into effect in September, 1971 (App. 19-20). On the morning of the hearing, plaintiffs amended their complaint lo stale their objections to the phut (App. G-7, 11), which objections were subsequently overruled and the school board's plan approved by the Dis trict Court in ils memorandum opinion and order of August 10,1971 (App. 10-15). See, 329 F.Supp.953. On August 12, 1971, plaintiffs filed in the District Court their notice of appeal (R. 67) anti on August 20, 1971 also filed an application for injunction pending appeal which was denied by the District Court the same day. Thereafter, plaiulilfs fil<<l a similar application in this Court, which applii od'Hi was denied on September 3, 1971. Sec, Record in No. 71-1792 (-1 flic., 1971). A Outlier such application v. ■■| . eulid to the Chief Justice of the United States, -is ( !in .-it jo lit e fia die 1 'inIII ( tin-nil, and ile.ii. .1 by |ii,n on 5 Sept. I , !, 1971. See, |','||. A 2li2, 1971 ’li mi. .'il'A l'Il.'.lt-'.ii'f ( Ji* TD K i-7 f.Y.3 . ' ' I f i. is > . It. i'll- to | t . * The Arlington Comity School Division unbraces the cm lire county of Arlington and has an area of 25.7 square miles, ft is less than one-half the size of the City of ciiliniond which has an area of G3 square miles, arid less Ilian one-tenth the size of the adjacent county of Fairfax which has an area of 402 square miles (App. 41). For the school year 1971-72, the total elementary school population of the Division was estimated to be 11,233 stu dents, of which number 9,903 were white and 1,250 were Negro. Thus the racial ratio in the elementary schools was 89% white and 11% black (App. 15, 22), which ratio is substantially identical to that for the preceding years. See, Answers to Interrogatories (R. 19). At the beginning of the 19G9-70 school year, the high Schools and junior high schools of the counly had been de segregated, while the elementary schools were being operated on the basis of geographic attendance zones established for each school. Under this arrangement, two of the twentynine elementary schools in the system—Drew and HoffmanBoston-- -were attended solely by Negro students, as the geographical boundaries of those schools encompassed allNegro residential areas, while eleven of the twenty-nine were attended by all, or virtually all, while students (App. 15, 35, 42). The Hodman-Boston sehool also housed seventh grade students, of which some 70% were while students bas ed in from other districts in the county (App. 12). On December Ifl, I9G9, the school board adopted a resolution ilireetiu.; the Division Superintendent and his stall* to prepare a si of study of the various alternatives available for desegre alia ; the Drew l-'.h-nenlary School (App. 29 50). ’I hit i, -. h .'o i suggested ei " Uillaliou with appropriate frderd ....one!. -. a step v.Iii. h ha.! .dread) be. o taken by the D’ Men .* !:• �• 1 3 top.ill'll I wlu> (1) Ikk! 11 issi'i I the matter griu’inlly with isn representatives of the Department of lli-allli, F.ducalinn and Wclfaio (Iir.'.V) earlier in (ho month (2) had caused data re. guested by 11K\V to bo compiled by his stall' and sub mit led and (3) was awaiting return of specific suggestions from 11IIW for consideration by his staff and the school board (App. 13). In the interim, the Division Superintend ent directed his research department to begin its own study of the problem in line with the school board’s resolution (App. 13). No response was ever received from HEW, and shortly after the research department had assembled its own data and begun a consideration of alternatives, the instant suit was filed (App. 44 ). Thereafter, the school board was ad vised of the pendency of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg litiga tion which would in all probability shed light on the prob lem the board was considering, and the board decided to await the outcome of that litigation before determining the method of desegregating Drew Elementary School (App. 41). No attempt was made by the plaintiffs to seek a hear ing of this matter for the 1970-71 school year. On April 20, 1971, the Swann ease was decided. There after the school board anti its staff returned to a consider ation of the Drew school situation, hut this time did so in the huger context of establishing a unitary school system throughout the comity in compliance with Swann (App. 41). On June 10, 1971, while, these deliberations were going on, ltd . ........I di i ided a series of eases under the style of A dam i v. School District j\ro. !>, Orangeburg Co., S.C., 411 filed in tlu: District Canal its plan for the operation of :t unitary .system in Arlington County (App. 19). As stated by the Division .Superintendent, the purposes ol the school board’s plan were “first of all, primarily to elimi nate all vestiges of a dual system, to move to cslabli;,h a true unitary system throughout the county, to provide and li establish racial balanced schools, and I think, (hen, to gr on with the primary purpose of the school system which i the education of young people.” (App. 40). These objee lives would be accomplished by converting both the Drev and IIodman-Boston schools to specialized prc-kindcrgartci and kindergarten facilities. In addition, the Drew sclioo would also house an experimental model elementary schon to be conducted on an integrated basis and utilizing iniagi native new approaches to elementary education, as well a for adult education and other school programs. The IIolT man-boston school would also be utilized, as in previou years, for the integrated seventh grade of the Thomas JefTer son Junior High School (App. 10, 19-20). Former Drev and IIodman-Boston students in grades one through si: would be assigned to other elementary schools in the ronup in accordance with the following criteria (App. 21): l\2il 99, 'perifil ally e, uph.rv.iug for district eon its and A. The acltled students would not cause the re school to have an enrollment exceeding its establish.’. rated capacity by more than 5%, 11. The ratio of black to white pupils in each srho would be ns close to 11 % as practical, u it 1 in a ran;;.1.' 1 7% to 13%, with the exception of four element.ir schools whose current enrollment already esc.vile. 13% (i.e. 111% to 22% ). Mia. .1 li'iud. va> ime: a: p. i (■ of .V.e.ooi and ttarls V I'unu'il ; . of Silo,.,I ( too'.n'whna 11 n] Mobile County, 401 II.Ji. ltd. 1 ol: Iii 11■ after Ailo,m, I i l h i l hoard adopted and 9 i; le e i o C. Family gp'oupings would be taken into aeeoont assignments to a parlieul.tr school, so that family e.iit would not he broken up. ~ 1). Transportation would he provided as ne« d,.l. �6 V IInder. tin* >vlu-ol board's plan, all one-race schools in Arlington County arc eliminated there remain no one rare while schools aiul no ohc-raco black schools. Moreover, .stu dents advancing from an elementary school will attend ilic junior school serving dial elemenlary school and, in lum, will advance to llic high school serving that particu lar junior high school (App. 20, 21). This feeder system insures that for the 1971-72 school year, and for every school year thereafter, every child in Arlington county will receive his elementary and secondary education in an integrated facility (App. 39-10). In addition, nineteen of the tw'cntytlu ee elementary schools afTectcd by the plan will have racial ratios which fall within the 7% to 15% range established by the board as a target deviation from the 11% racial ratio of the system as a whole (App. 15, 22). Indeed, seven teen of these nineteen schools fall within one percent of the 11% racial ratio in the system as a whole (App. 15). Finally, faculty di segregation is achieved by establishing a ratio in each school as close to the ratio of black to white teachers in the school system as a whole, as is practical (App. 25). In no ease is there more than a 4% deviation from the sys tem wide ralio (App. 25). The longest bus ride (in terms of lapsed time) for the former Drew and I lofTman-Boston pupils is 29 minutes, while the average bus ride for such children is 22 minutes (App. 12, 40-41). Similarly, the average bus ride for ele mentary children in the system as a whole is also 22 minutes (App. !1). The additional transportation costs involved in the ;elun! b«»;nd\s plan is appro..‘manly $11,000 per year. Adopt'ihi of an nllei iialc plan to achieve the same degree of iiitrgiMiM.,1 would involve Im dug 90'/• of lie: Drew and I Ill'll. I I it l i t i i'o loo \'ii!i •• i •l .• • .hi -liidi ills i 1111 i . . | i n l to ollc i | i i >. l i t . i i ‘i l i o . i l . of v.liio uid l e p l . i i il l-; ‘ Old. til. lo..n and an additional cost of .'[1130,000 per year iheicafier fo transportation. Thirteen new' buses, plus diivias, would L required for such an alternative “90% out 90% in” pin (App. 12, 45-43). See also, Jhief for the Appellants, j>. 1/ No alternate plan submitted by tin: plainliHs would, «.limi natc all one-race schools in the county, nor achieve as mud actual desegregation as the school board's plan (App. 5( 64). ARGUMENT Tlic Desegregation Plan Adopted Ami Put Into F.fl'ect By The Arlington County School Board Is Constitutionally Valid. Plaintiffs in the ease at bar arc Negro children who ha< been assigned to the Drew Flcmcntary School when thi suit was instituted and the parents or guardians of such chil dren. Asserting that all, or virtually all, of the pupils assigno to the Drew Elementary School were Negroes, plainliil alleged that the Arlington County School Foard had failo to adopt and execute a plan “to completely convert .sail public school system to a unitary non racial system,” (Apj 4 ). (Emphasis supplied.) They sought an order from lh District Court requiring ihc defendant school board “t adopt and forthwith implement" such a plan (App. 5 ). Even before this suit was filed, the school hoard had bee aware of the Drew situation and had, by formal resohilioi directed a stall study to be made of various alternatives fo desegregating the Drew School. This resolution, howvwi did not specifically embrace ihe I Inli’mau-l'oMnn I’lenion tary School, the only other all Negro school in the eoanq. nor did it envision the desegregation of the clown all w!i' < or virtually all while, elementary sellouts in the e.-i.n. school .system. After the slnd) cnnlcntpt tied by the o\ .1 ! . iniii.it d and pi ini' In lie dale sol 1*; Ilie 1' i t ■< . �9 a homing i>f iliis nineti'i* (July 29, 19/1), tin.' Supreme Court ilcciile.l tin- Swann ami Paris cases, supra, (April 20, 19 7 I), ami this Court ilivitlcil tin: Adams eases, supra, (June 10, 19VI). lie cause of lire existence of Adams, no independent analysis need now be made of Swann and Davis, nor of their progenitors, Drown, Green and Alexander.' In Attains, this Court remanded a series of school desegregation cases to their respective district courts with instructions to receive from the various school hoards “new plans” which would give effect to Swann and Davis. Id., at 100. During the course of its opinion, this Court spelled out what is now required of district courts and school authorities in the fol lowing explicit language (-M l 1'. 2d at 100-1.01) : “It is now clear, we think, that in school systems that have previou ly been operated separately as to the races by reason of slate action, “the district judge or school authorities should tnal.c every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the pruclietdilit s of the situation.” Davis, supra at ..... 91 S.Cl. at 1292. We remand these eases because the respective district judges did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court mandate that adequate consideration lie given "to the possible use of bus trans portation anti split zoning.” Davis, supra at ......, 91 S.Ct. at 1292. Wherever schools arc “till or predomi nately of one race in a district of mixed population (tl h iv will he required) close scrutiny lo determine dial jh Iio o I assignments are not part of stale-enforced M"ng aliiill." Swann, Nllpl'it til ......, 01 S.Cl. nl I/Oil. /. |l III IIi*•1 (1 1 1 1* 1 in«* of “.M small IIIII•)l>i,r of Ollt!1 ill|l! i if * , or vii licilly mie-iace, .schools within a district is * i".i in ;i.wl of iijrlf the w;uh of n system which >tiII » / • l\ .. i , • / • • o. .. r .g ... .. /: ,v t~ . ii I ' . I H ' i (i'»,i) ;if) u s . ../ A'...- . i f c„ V Il * iI ;* practices segregation by law,” Sv/au.i, .inpra a t ..... , 9 ‘ S.Cl. al 12151, built IIn: school inilhoiily a ml the ill-hit judge must neverihch'ss he co,teemed with the dint tuition of onc-rucc schools. * e * The school authorities and the district court slioul consider the use of all techniques for desegregation, ii eluding pairing or grouping of schools, nonconligitui attendance zones, restructuring of grade levels, and tl transportation of pupils ” (Italics supplied.) Emphasizing the imperative nature of the commands ital ci/.ed above was (1) the specific authorization conferrr upon district courts to employ independent education; experts at the expense of any local school hoard which sul milted a plan that did not comply “with the directions s forth in this opinion . . ,** and (2) the requirement that at district court which approved a plan achieving lc>s nctu. desegregation than would be achieved under an altcmnth j)lan must find facts that made impracticable (lie nchievii of a greater degree of integration “especially if there reinm any schools all or predominantly of one race ” Id., at 10 (Emphasis supplied.) With the prescriptions of Swann and Davis thus focus* in the commands of Adams, it was obvious that any plan'h the establishment of a unitary school system in Arliugk County which contemplated the desegregation of Ore .School only and which left another elementary selio with an all Negro student body and eleven other element i schools with all-while, or virtually all-white, student l\\li — could not possibly survive judieial appraisal. If a imita system was to be c.slabli.-.hed, all o| tin* <le.ueniar\ seh, . comprising that systeni would have to be eoiidde.. .1 • desegregated if iv.isoii.ihly po.» ihle. Contrary lo ap( .11 . �10 assertion, this was not a “self-imposed objective” of the defendant school hoard; it was a judicially imposed impera tive. See,' Brief for the Appellants, p. 16. The command that the Arlington County School Board must “be concerned with the elimination of one-race schools” could hardly he complied with merely by passing a resolution expressing such concern and taking no other action, especially when the elimination of all one-race schools in the county was not only possible, but feasible. Adams, supra, at 101. In this setting, the school board adopted and submitted to the District Court a plan which (1) achieved the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the situation (2) eliminated all one-race schools, both white and Negro (3) insured that every child in the Arlington school system will receive both his elemen tary and secondary education in an integrated facility (4) established in substantially all of the elementary schools a student racial ratio which reflects the racial ratio of the system as a whole (5) racially balanced the faculties in each elementary school in the county so that the ratio of white to black faculty members in each school is substantially the same as the ratio of white to black faculty members in the system as a whole and (6) established in Arlington County a unitary school system which has neither “white” schools nor “black" schools—just schools. Achievement of the above stated objectives in compliance with the prescriptions of Swann and Davis and the com mands of Adams was possible in only two ways. One method — that adoptetl by the school board entailed the conversion of the Drew and Hodman-Boston .schools from traditional elementary facilities to other educational programs and the tslahlishment within the all-Negro * '.graphic areas of those •« schools of a series of “satellite” ■ i.< by which elementary /< 11 pupils formerly assigned to Drew and Hodman-Boston would be assigned to various all-white, or predominantly white, schools in the county in accordance with criteria which would not only integrate every elementary school in the system, but would indeed racially balance substantially all of such schools. Bus transportation would be provided by the school board for all the pupils thus reassigned, 704 in number, and no such pupil would be required to be bused for as much as one-half hour to reach his newly assigned school. Indeed, since Arlington County is only seven miles long and slightly more than three miles wide, the average bus ride for such children would be the same as that for ele mentary pupils in the county generally. Care was taken to insure that no family groups would be disturbed by the new plan, and a feeder system was adopted to insure that the racial balance achieved in the elementary schools would be preserved, and even heightened, over the years. No overcrowding results under the school board’s plan, and the additional transportation cost incurred would be approximately $11,000 per year. In addition, the plan en ables the school board to utilize the existing Drew and Hoflman-Boston facilities for other innovative and highly desirable educational programs designed to increase the already outstanding excellence of the Arlington school sys tem. In this connection, it should be emphasized that the Drew and Hodman-Boston schools arc not being closed or removed from the public school system or converted to administrative or noil-educational uses. On the contrary, these facilities have been reprogrammed under the school board's plan to serve exclusively educational functions in the emerging fields of pre-kindergarten instruction for chil dren three and four years of age, model elementary school experimentation in ungraded education and for adult edit- �1 2 cation. In this setting, appellants’ assertion that the school board's plan must be examined as if the Drew school was being “used to store furniture” is surely wide of the mark. See, brief for the Appellants, p. 24. Essentially the school board’s plan for establishing a uni tary system of elementary schools in Arlington County tracks that utilized for the junior high schools in the CharlotteMecklenburg school system in Swann, which was subse quently approved by this Court and the Supreme Court. As stated by the Supreme Court (402 U.S., at 9 ): “The Finger plan for the junior high schools employed much of the rezoning plan of the board, combined with the creation of nine “satellite" zones. Under the satel lite plan, inner-city Negro students were assigned by attendance zones to nine outlying predominantly white junior high schools, thereby substantially desegregating every junior high school in the system." (Italics sup plied.) In addition, the feeder system aspect of the school board’s plan (1) counters the specific objection expressed by this Court in Fehler v. Harnett County Board of Education, 409 F. 2d 1070, 1075 (4 Cir., 1969) that the plan there under consideration did “not eliminate the possibility that what ever feeder system is adopted to effect this transition will not recreate a dual system at the high school level” and (2) further evidences the school board’s awareness of, and intent to comply with, the teachings of the decisions of this Court in school desegregation cases. . The only other plan which would achieve the results of die school hoard's plan and honor the prescriptions of Swann and Davis, as well as the command of Adams, would he one which entailed assigning 90% of the black students in Drew and I lolfinandloston to other schools in the county 13 and replacing them with an equal number of while students drawn from the various predominantly white schools in the county. Mathematically, such a plan would require (a) re moving 102 of the 114 Negro elementary pupils at IIollinanBoston, leaving 12 Negro pupils there to be joined by 102 replacement white students from other schools in the county and (b) removing 530 of the 590 Negro elementary pupils at Drew, leaving 60 Negro pupils there to be joined by 530 replacement white students also drawn from other schools throughout the county. Such a plan (1) would sub stantially double the amount of busing necessary to achieve a unitary system (2) would entail an initial expenditure of $206,000 (including thirteen new buses) for the first year and an expenditure of $130,000 per year thereafter and (3) would, by unnecessarily continuing Drew and IloffmanBoston as traditional elementary schools, deprive the school board of facilities for its pre-kindergarten, model elemen tary school and adult education programs. By contrast to the plans described above, it is manifest at a glance that neither of the plans espoused by the appel lants in their brief even remotely approaches compliance with the controlling constitutional requirements. Sec, Brief for the Appellants, Appendix A. The first of these plans en visions the desegregation of Drew School by pairing or clustering it with five other elementary schools in the vi cinity, and is based upon a working paper prepared by the staff of the defendant school board pursuant to the resolu tion previously mentioned. While the plan effectively de segregates the Drew school, it falls far short of establishing a unitary school system in Arlington County. Under this plan, the elementary portion of the Hofiinan-Boston school re mains an all-Negro facility, while four other schools in the county (Custis, Jamestown, Madison and Woodinont) re- �It 15 main all white, five other schools (Barcroft, Jackson, Nott ingham, Page and Tnckahoe) remain 99% white and two schools (Key and Maury) remain 93% white. Thus, twelve of the twenty-nine elementary schools in the county would remain one-race, or virtually one-race, schools under this plan (App. 16,38-39). The appellants’ suggested plan for the desegregation of Hodman-Boston is even more inadequate. It is the result of “hasty preparation” by Mr. Richardson, a witness for the plaintiffs, and manifestly represents an effort to bring this case within the scope of Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Supp. 974 (W.D. Cal. 1969) by attempting to show that a reason able alternative to the school board’s plan exists. It contem plates pairing Hodman-Boston with three other elementary schools in the vicinity. While edcctivcly desegregating the Hodman-Boston Elementary School and the previously allwhite Custis Elementary School, it makes no provision for the Drew school which would remain all-black, nor for ten of the eleven all-white, or virtually all-white, elementary schools mentioned in the preceding paragraph, which schools would retain their 98-100% white status (App. 17, 62-63). Moreover, utilization of both of these plans simultaneously would not discharge the school board’s obligation to establish a unitary system. Combination of the appellants’ suggested plans would indeed eliminate all one-race black schools; however over one-third (ten of twenty-nine) of the county’s elementary schools would still remain 98-100% white. And no racial balancing of the county's elementary schools would even be attempted, much less achieved. Obviously, even if combined, the plans which appellants put forth as alter natives to the school board’s plan ( I) would not achieve a unilaiy system (2) would not eliminate all one-race, or virtually one-race, schools (3) would not achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation taking into account the practicalities of the situation and, accordingly, would not honor the prescriptions of Swann and Davis nor comply with the commands of Adams. It is also inter esting to note that 1,664 pupils would be bused under these alternative plans which do not meet constitutional standards, while only 704 pupils would be bused under the school board’s plan which docs meet these standards. If the defendant school board had adopted both of the appellants’ suggested alternatives, we submit that it would have been required, as were the various school boards in Adams, to prepare a “new” plan which would “give effect to Swann and Davis” by according adequate consideration to the “use of bus transportation and split zoning.” Adams, supra, at 100-101. In light of the legal deficiencies in the appellants’ suggested alternatives and the demonstrated drawbacks of the “90% out 90% in” plan, it is difficult to conceive how the plan adopted by the school board can be said to be invidiously discriminatory. In this connection, certain aspects of the case at bar must be emphasized. First, this case docs not involve the closing of any school, merely the conversion of facilities from one type of educational program to another. Second, this case does not involve even a suggestion of “white flight,” and neither that term nor that concept was ever mentioned by any party at any point in these proceedings. Third, this case docs not involve any reluctance on the part of the school board to assign and bus white children to formerly all-black schools located in all, or predominantly, Negro neighborhoods. On the contrary, the record discloses that a majority (70% ) of white students have for years been transported to the formerly all-black Ilolfman lloston �16 Junior High School (Jefferson Annex) located in that com pletely Negro residential area (App. 12). Sec, U'anner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 357 F. 2d 452, ■156 (1 Cir., 1966). Moreover, the plan adopted by the School Board envisioned the enrollment of a majority of white students in the model elementary school to be housed in the converted Drew facility, which is located in an allNegro residential area, and that feature of the school board’s plan is even now in effect. See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 7. Significant in this context, is the decision of this Court in Chambers v. Iredell County Board of Education, 423 F.2d 613 (4th Cir., 1970). Under consideration in that case was a school desegregation plan in which one school, Unity School, remained all black with 285 students. That facility was to be replaced the following school year by a new school which was then under construction. When completed, the new facility would absorb Unity’s 285 black students and some 475 white students from three other schools, at which time the formerly all-black Unity School would be closed. Plain tiffs there alleged that the decision to close Unity was racially motivated “because it arose out of a disinclination to put white pupils into a previously all-black school.” Id., at 616. Rejecting this contention, this Court stated (423 F.2d at 616): "This contention is not persuasive in light of the fact that the school board has already integrated Amity School, which was previously all-black and is now twothirds white. There appears to be no pattern of simply closing black schools because they have been black.” Similarly, in the case at bar, the Arlington County School Board long ago integrated the Iloffman-liostnn Junior High School “which was previously all-black and is now twothirds while”’ We submit that if the closing of an all-black 17 school is not indicative of racial motivation when a school board has integrated another previously all-black school in the same system, then the mere conversion of a previously all-black school to a different educational program and the enrollment of a majority of white students in that identical facility, coupled with the previous assignment of a majority of white students to another formerly all-black school, can not be said to be racially motivated. Even more nearly in point and controlling is the decision of this Court in Allen v. Asheville C ity Board of Education, 434 F.2d 902 (4th Cir., 1970). In that case, the Asheville School Board decided that it was necessary to close two formerly all-black elementary schools and one formerly allwhite elementary school to achieve racial balance. After plaintiffs objected to the proposed plan on the basis of the closing of the two all-black schools, the school board modi fied the plan to provide for the continued operation of the formerly all-wbite school, with the two formerly all-black schools remaining closed. During the course of its opinion, this Court stated the plaintiffs’ objection to the plan and the reason therefore in the following language (434 F.2d at 905, 906): “Able counsel for plaintiffs arc unable to' fault the Board’s plan other than a complaint with respect to the closing of two previously all-black schools and the im pact of their closing, in the context of the rest of the plan, upon black students. * • * “Plaintiffs insist, however, that the school board’s true reason for selection is undisclosed and is simply its ‘re luctance to send primary grade white children into traditionally all-black schools located in all-black neigh-borhoods.’ ” �18 19 Rejecting pl.iimilTs’ contention tlu t the Asheville School Hoard had unfairly discriminated against black students in the closing of the two schools there in question, this Court enunciated the following principles governing such situ ations (131 F.2d at 905, 906): elementary schools, or if they were reconstituted as such, 90 percent of the black students formerly in each school would have to be moved out into other schools and this 90 percent replaced by white students. Moreover, the purpose of the school board’s plan here is not merely to implement the Brown II principle, but also to implement Swann, Davis and Adams. That the plan “effectively achieves that end” is acknowledged even by the appellants. Sec, Brief for the Appellants, p. 19. In addition, the school board’s plan is the only demonstrably rational and practical plan that will comply with the requirements of Swann, Davis and Adams. In Chambers, this Court expressed doubt that many school systems had achieved a higher degree of integration than then prevailed in Iredell County. Subsequently, in Allen, this Court stated that Asheville was “at or near the pinnacle of arithmetical desegregation in America.” Id., at 903. So far as we arc aware, Asheville is still near the pin nacle of arithmetical desegregation in America; howevrr, we submit that at the pinnacle of arithmetical desegregation in America is Arlington County. Here again, it should be pointed out that this distinction was achieved without closing any school, while in the Chambers and Allen cases, the allblack facilities there under consideration were selected “for extinction” and were removed from the public school system. Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education, supra, at 905. None of the cases relied upon by appellants derogates from the principles enunciated in the Chambers and Allen cases. In Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, supra, the basis of this Court's decision was the complete failure of the school board to disestablish an entrenched dual school system in which only 4.3% of the black children were attending previously all white schools. Moreover, in that case there was not the slightest assurance of achieving In the first place, we think the mechanics of integra tion, where the purpose is obviously to implement the Brown II principle and effectively achieves that end, is ordinarily a matter within the discretion of school ad ministrators. The question is not whether we might have selected different schools for extinction, nor even whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s deci sion, but is instead whether the Board’s decision is so plainly unfair that it clearly amounts to invidious dis crimination in violation of the equal protection clause. « * • . . . Moreover, the situation of which plaintiffs complain cannot possibly be changed except at the cost of in creasing the transportation of pupils approximately “ 10 percent. This is so because if the two black schools that have been closed were reopened, 70 percent of the black students formerly in each school would have to be moved out into other schools and this 70 percent re placed by white students. * * • It is urged upon us that even so, both schools that were closed are newer and physically better than most of the other schools retained. We agree that this is a relevant factor. But neither alone nor in context does it establish invidious discrimination. Such a factor is only one of many that enter into a school closing decision. II'e repeat that we do not sit to review state adminis trative decisions beyond the very limited reach of the Constitution. ( Italics supplied.) Simil.illy, in the ease at bar, as previously pointed out, if Drew and I lolfman Boston had been retained as traditional �20 a unitary school system atul the selection of tire schools for closing was therefore suspect. See, Allen, supra at 906. In Green v. School Board of C ity of Roanoke, 316 F. Supp. 6 (W.D. Va. 1970), the closing of the formerly allblack high school there under consideration would have causcil overcrowding in the three remaining predominantly white high schools in the city. In the face of this circum stance, no adequate reason was advanced by the school board, in terms of its desegregation plan or otherwise, to justify discontinuance of the school in question. Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Supp. 974 (N.D. Cal. 1969) states nothing to the contrary. In that case, the closing of a 99% black school pursuant to the school board’s plan would have resulted in overcrowded classes and distorted pupil-teacher ratios at the three remaining predominantly white schools in the system. Id., at 977. Other “options, alternatives and courses of action” were available to the school board. Id., at 970. Pointing out that a particular desegregation plan “when not reasonably required under the circumstances” could be discriminatory, the District Court observed (314 F. Supp. at 978): "Whether the plan, as here presented, is a good faith, reasonably adequate implementation of constitutional principles involved, must be determined in the light, among other things, oj the alternative options and courses of action available to the District." (Italics supplied.) Commenting upon this decision in Allen, supra, this Court succinctly stated (434 F.2d at 907): “ We are advertent to Ilrire v. Landis (N.D. Cal., Aug. M 1969), 314 F.Nupp, 971, which held on the , peculiar / m is n[ the case that the closing of a Negro school was invidiously disc iicoinatoiy and subjec t to in- 21 junction. We think it means no more than that and agree there may be such a ease, but think it is not ibis one. / / it is read to im ply that it is ordinarily for the district courts to determine which schools shall be closed rather than for the school board, we reject the propo sition." (Italics supplied.) Even less apposite is Lee v. Macon County Board o/ Iedu cation, 448 F. 2d 746 (5 Cir., 1971). In that ease, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a decree of the district court which would have had the effect of leaving over 45% of the school district’s Negro students in all-black, or virtually all-black, schools. Id., at 748, 753. Moreover, the justification advanced by the school board for the pro posed closing of two formerly all-black schools was (1) that whites would resist going to school in facilities formerly used by blacks, and (2) that otherwise white students would llec the school system altogether. Id., at 750, 754. In light of these circumstances, the Court of Appeals directed the dis trict court to require the school board “forthwith to consti tute and implement a student assignment plan that complies with the principles established in Swann v. Charloltc-Mecklenburg Board of Education." Id., at 753. In short, Lee is a school closing, racially motivated, white-flight, non-unitary, non-Swann school desegregation ease. Not one of the abovelisted considerations obtains in the ease at bar. Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F. 2d 364 (8 Cir., 1970) is equally inapplicable. In that ease, the district court decreed the annexation of a small all black school district in the county by a larger all-white school district and, in addition, decreed that the facilities of the larger all-white school district would he utilized and, only if these facilities proved inadequate, would those of die formerly all-Negro district be used. There was nothing in the record to explain the closing of the facilities formerly used �22 23 for the instruction of black students. After referring to this Court’s decision in the Felder ease and Brice v. f.anitis, siiprn, the Court of Appeals observed (129 l\2d at 372): meet the prescribed constitutional standards. Sec Brief for the Appellants, p. 17; Brief for Amici Curiae, p. 16. How ever, both arc careful to avoid stating that there “is” such a plan or informing this Court of the details, or even the outlines, of such other plan. The reason for this equivocation is quite obvious—both appellants and amici know full well that there is no plan other than that adopted by the school board which rationally and practically accomplishes what this Court said in Adams must be done. The assertion that the school board’s plan unfairly bur dens the Negro students of Drew and Hoffman-Boston will not bear scrutiny. For years pupils at these schools have attended a “walk-in” facility and have not been required to be bused (App. 48-49). If attendance at a “walk-in” fa cility can be deemed a convenience, it is one which these students have enjoyed for years while thousands of other children in Arlington County have been bused (App. 13). To require them at this late date to forego this convenience so that a racially balanced, unitary school system can be established can hardly be considered unfair. This, we sub mit, is especially true when one remembers that the bus ride they are asked to take is, on the average, only ten minutes longer than the time it would take them to walk to the Drew and Hoffman-Boston facilities, and the walk to those facilities had to be made in all weather conditions through out the school year (App. 39). Finally, while the Drew and Hoffman-Boston students are now bused to other schools, over 40% of the Negro elementary students in Arlington County still attend their neighborhood schools (App. 15). In Allen, a similar contention was rejected by this Court in language subsequently deemed controlling and quoted at length in Mims v. Duval County School Board, 329 F. Supp. 123 (M.D. Fla., 1971). In Mims, approving a desegregation “The matter of utilization of available facilities is with in the province and discretion of the school board. There is a statement in the record that the class rooms of the former Sevier District are not of suflicicnt size to meet current state standards. These details, of course, are subject to many variations and much can be done within the existing framework of operation to suffi ciently utilize existing facilities. This is not a matter for court consideration but rather should be resolved on some rational noil-discriminatory basis by the local school board." (Italics supplied.) Throughout their briefs, both appellants and amici curiae make only glancing references to Swann, pay no respect to Adams and do not even mention Davis at all. Indeed, refer ence is made to Adams only for its one line affirmance of the district court’s retention of the Addison School in Roan oke; so far as appellants and amici are concerned, the rest of what this Court said in Adams does not even exist. Thus do they seek to avoid any consideration whatever of the school board’s clear obligation to eliminate one-race schools and achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegre gation as required by Swann, Davis and Adams. Thus, too, do they seek to insinuate that the school board in this case can get by with something less than full compliance with the commands of these decisions, even though full compliance enn be had, as demonstrated by the plan which the school board adopted and put into effect last September and which this Court and the Chief Justice of the United States refused to enjoin. In addition, both appellants and amici persist in pressing the illusion that there “may” be other plans which would �24 plan xvlilcli involved the closing of seven black elementary schools, the district court observed (329 I'\ Snpp. at 132133): “ In their second argument plaintilTs seek to have this Court require the School Board to bus white children to the core city for all elementary grades, not just to sixth grade centers, so to achieve equal busing of the races. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit resolved the same argument in Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education [434 F.2d 902, 907 (4 Cir., 1970)] with these words: We are asked to decide whether the district court, in approving the plan, unconstitutionally placed ‘the burden of desegregation’ upon black pupils in the school system. It is urged upon us that the plan ap proved by the district court ‘places an unfair, racially discriminatory burden upon black children’ in that black children in grades 1 through 5 who previously attended all-black Livingston and Herring FJcmcntary Schools will be required to travel as much as five or six miles in order to attend previously all-white schools. This is said to be an unfair allocation of the ‘burden’ of integration, and it is suggested that the Constitution requires that an equivalent number or proportion of white children in the same grades be required to travel an equivalent distance to enter schools outside their previous attendance zones. We hold that such a pattern of assignment imple mented by free school bus transportation does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The rationale in the Second Circuit is essentially the same. In Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Board of Education, [423 I'.2d 121, 124 (2 Cir., 1970)] the Court noted: I’laiutilfs would eliminate what lliry call unequal treatment by having, in elfect, one white child bussed 25 out of his neighborhood for every black child bussed out of his - in oilier words, deprive as many whites of neighborhood advantages as blacks arc deprived by being bussed to schools predominantly white. But the problem is not as simple ns a one black, one white ratio. It is a question of the Board, with the facilities available having ‘acted in the utmost good faith, in a nonarbitrary and deliberate manner, in order both to insure racial balance and to provide high quality education.’ * * *" Nor will it do to assert that the school board’s plan sug gests to black children that it would be dangerous if “blacks make up more than 15% of the enrollment of any school.” See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 15. This assertion is instantly blunted by the fact that four elementary schools in Arling ton County already had black students in excess of 15% when the school board’s plan was adopted. Moreover, the alternative arrangements for the Drew school espoused in plaintiffs’ brief would limit black enrollment to 21% in each of the schools affected. Does this arrangement suggest that any number of black students in excess of 21 % in any school is dangerous? Was any such message explicit or implicit in the racially balanced plans approved by this Court in Chambers and Allen? Neither, we submit, does the plan adopted by the school board in the case at bar carry such an inference. It is, of course, primarily the obligation of the school board to frame and put into effect a plan which establishes a uni tary school system, nnd, as pointed out in Oltvis, utfjrit at 37, the “measure of any desegregation plan is its effectiveness.” F'roin Brown II to Adams, the decisions confirming this principle have been legion and consistent. As stall'll in Bind ley v. School Board of C ity of Richmond, 325 F. Snpp. t!2H, 1132-1)33 (E.D. Va. 1971): �27 26 “A second principle guiding the Court—almost as ob vious as the doctrine of precedent—is that it is primarily the School Board’s duty to run the schools, and not this Court’s nor the plaintiffs’ . . . Because both expertise ami responsibility arc the School Board’s, it is to their proposals that courts look first for a legally sulficicnt plan. . . . When they assume the ‘responsibility which Brown' II placed squarely on the School Board,’ Id., 412, 88 S. Ct. 1696, courts will not presume to dictate a selection between equally effective desegregation plans.’’ Wanner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 357 F. 2d 452, 436 (4th Cir. 1966). (Italics supplied.) Echoing these observations arc those of Judge Bryan in his special concurring opinion in Adams, supra, at 102: “. . . I think the only pattern the school authorities and the Courts must observe is one honoring the prescrip tions of Swann and Davis. So long as it is in keeping with these decisions, my understanding is that formu lation of a plan is entrusted to the discretion o/ the school authorities . . .” (Italics supplied.) We submit that in the ease at bar the obligation resting upon the Arlington County School Board has been fully dis charged by the adoption of a desegregation plan which honors the prescriptions of Swann and Davis, complies with the commands of Adams, and is therefore constitutionally valid. CONCLUSION III Walton V. Nashville, Arkansas, Special School District No. I, 401 F. 2d 137, 144 (8 Cir., 1969), Judge Blackmon, speaking for a court which sustained the non-reeinploynicnt of certain Negro teachers in a school desegregation case, made the following observations: “We arc conscious in this ease, as we have been in earlier ones, that the process of school integration is not easy and that there will be hurts and disappointments as integration is accomplished. Certainly, under the precepts of the Brown decisions, it has been loo long delayed at Nashville. But we are told that it has now been fully accomplished there. That fact should be a source of satisfaction for all citizens, white as well as black.’’ (Italics supplied.) In the case at bar, this Court is also informed that inte gration has now been fully accomplished in Arlington Coun ty. It is so informed by the plan itself, which is currently before this Court and was adopted to carry out the following policy of the school board (App. 40): “The purposes that the board had was, first of all, pri marily to eliminate all vestiges of a dual system, to move to establish a true unitary system throughout the county, to provide and to establish racial balanced schools, and I think, then, to get on with the primary purpose of the school system which is the education of young people.” It is similarly informed by the appellants who admit that the plan is one “which unquestionably docs away with the last vestiges of school segregation remaining from the legis latively imposed dual school system” and who further ac knowledge that it “is undisputed that the Arlington School Board has put into effect a plan that fully complies with the primary mandates laid down in” Brown, Green and Swann. See, Brief for the Appellants, pp. 1, 9. Finally, this Court is so informed by the District Court in the following language of its opinion, 329 F. Supp. at 955956 (App. 14): “The Arlington County School Board has now fully complied with the Supreme Court decision in Broun 1 �21 : • -A unitary school system as required l)y Creel am! Alexander lias been rslablidird Arlington will 11a\ o neither black nor while schools jn.sl schools.’* Til li;;!it of the foregoing, ami for (lie reason heretofore stall'll, we submit lliat (lie decision of (lie Dislirct Court is clearly correct ami should be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, , J a m e s II. Sim m o n o s G r e g o r y U. E v a n s 1500 North Courthouse Road Arlington, Virginia R. D. M c I h v a in k , III P.O .Box 705 Petersburg, Virginia Counsel Ior Appellees (H' K IriCAYK .T I certify that two copies of the within brief for appellees were mailed, with first class postage prepaid, to S. W. Tucker, Esquire, 211 East Clay Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; to Robert M. Alexander, Esquire, 2011 South Glebe Road, Ailinglnn, Viiginia 2220-1; to Allison VV. Brown, Jr., Esquire, Suite 501, 1121 Sixlrenlh St reel, N.W., Washing ton, n.C . 2(10:50; to T.awrencc J. I.allo, Esquire, ‘ .'ll l'if/ ll riltll Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; and to Jack Greenbur;;, I'equire, Suite 20,'50, 10 Columbus Circle, New Vol k, New. York 10010, conn el for plaint iff:;; and In William 11. All* n, Esquire, and John 11. Jones, Jr., Esquire, fit',II Sixteiulh Siiii I, N, \V,, W. 11i11;;I'ni, n.C. 20(jl'b, conn,el lor .....5 I . lie-. Ill'll day of M .a ll, 10/2. I! . I) . ; 11:f ■ i i 'll � 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 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner 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 Brief for Appellees, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 71-1791: John K. Hart, et. Al v. County School Board of Arlington County, et al Description An account of the resource Issue presented for Review: John K. Hart, et al v. County School Board of Arlington County. Issue presented for review is "whether or not the desegregation plan adopted by the Arlington County School Board and put into effect in September 1971 is constitutionally valid. 15 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 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1971 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1970s 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 66_1_1_1_159 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/9ba00d1b26f74716024886cf5b567764.pdf c56d3349d30da4e32444bc91dcd7571a PDF Text Text lmn.r i o r apim'.. Ji hes United States Court of Appeals FOR TH E FOURTH CIRCUIT — No. 71-1791 JO H N K. HART, it a i. . , A ppellants, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARL1NCTON COUNTY, r r a i. . , Appalled. Appeal from the f Initcd States District Court for the Pastern District of Virginia at Alexandria J a mk s H. Si m m o n d k G r e g o r y FI. E v a n s 1500 North Courtlinu.sc Ktl. Arlington, Virginia R. D. Mo Il w a i n u , III P.O. Box 705 Petersburg, Virginia Counsel for Appelln t �TABLE OF CONTENTS Page .. 1 . I s s u e P r e s e n t e d f o r R e v ie w S t a t e m e n t o f t h e C a s e ......................................................... 1 S t a t e m e n t o f t h e F a c t s ................................................................... 3 Ar g u m e n t The Desegregation Plan Adopted And Put Into Effect By The Arlington County School Board Is Constitutionally Valid. ....... C o n c l u s io n ............................ _ ...................... C e r t i f i c a t e ................................... 7 26 28 TABLE O F CASES Adams v. School District No. 5, 444 F.2d 99 (4th Cir., 1971) cert, denied 404 U.S. 912 (1971) ......._.4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 23, 26 Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 8 (1969) ............. Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education, 434 F.2d 902 (4th Cir., 1970) .............................. .................... ........................... 17, 19, 20, 25 Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 325 F. Supp. 828 (E.D. Va., 1971) ....... 25 Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Sup. 974 (N.D. Cal., 1969) ............ 14, 20, 22 ............... 8 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) .................... Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 8 Chambers v. Iredell County Board of Education, 423 F.2d 613 (4th Cir., 1970) ....... 16, 19, 25 Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, et al., 402 U.S. 33 (1971) .......................................4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22 �Page Felder v. H arnett County Board of Education, 409 F.2d 1070 (4th Cir., 1969) ................................................. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) ................................. _........................ 8, 27 Green v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 316 F.Supp. 6 (W.D. Va. 1970) __________ ____________________________ ______ 21 Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F.2d 364 (8th Cir., 1970) ____________ _______________________ 21 Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 746 (5th Cir., 1971) ...............— ......... - ------- ----- ---------- 21 Mims v. Duval County School Board, 329 F. Supp. 123 (M.D. Fla., 1971) ....................... .................... 23, 24 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) ....... 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 27 Walton v. Nashville, Arkansas, Special School District No. 1, 401 F.2d 137 (8th Cir., 1969) ............................................................ 26 Wanner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 357 F.2d 452 (4th Cir., 1966) ................... - .............................. .......... 16 United States Court of Appeals 12,19, 22 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 71-1791 JOHN K. HART, et al ., Appellants, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, e t a l ., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Eastern District of Virginia a t Alexandria BRIEF FO R APPELLEES ISSUE PRESENTED FO R REVIEW The sole issue presented for review in this case is whether or not the desegregation plan adopted by the Arlington County School Board and put into effect in September, 1971, is constitutionally valid. STATEM ENT OF T H E CASE On May 6, 1970, plaintiffs initiated this action to complete the elimination of racial segregation in the public schools of Arlington County (App. 5) .* An answer on behalf 1 All references App. are to pages in the printed appendix. �2 of the County School Board of Arlington County and the Division Superintendent of Schools of Arlington County was timely filed (App. 8-9), and discovery procedures in volving interrogatories to defendants and requests for the production of documents were thereafter initiated by the plaintiffs (App. 1). On March 5, 1971, a pre-trial conference was held, at which time a hearing on the merits was scheduled for July 26, 1971 (R. 70).2 The hearing in this case was deliberately postponed by the District Court to await the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, and its companion cases (App. 10). On June 28, 1971, the Arlington County School Board adopted and filed in the District Court its plan for the estab lishment of a unitary school system throughout the county, which plan was to be put into effect in September, 1971 (App. 19-28). On the morning of the hearing, plaintiffs amended their complaint to state their objections to the plan (App. 6-7, 11), which objections were subsequently overruled and the school board’s plan approved by the Dis trict Court in its memorandum opinion and order of August 10, 1971 (App. 10-15). See, 329 F. Supp. 953. On August 12, 1971, plaintiffs filed in the District Court their notice of appeal (R. 67) and on August 20, 1971 also filed an application for injunction pending appeal which was denied by the District Court the same day. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a similar application in this Court, which application was denied on September 3, 1971. See, Record in No. 71-1792 (4 Cir., 1971). A further such application was presented to the Chief Justice of the United States, as Circuit Justice for the Fourth Circuit, and denied by him on September 4, 1971. See, No.A-262, 1971 Term. 2 All references R. are to pages in the record. 3 STA TEM EN T OF T H E FACTS The Arlington County School Division embraces the en tire county of Arlington and has an area of 25.7 square miles. It is less than one-half the size of the City of Rich mond which has an area of 63 square miles, and less than one-tenth the size of the adjacent county of Fairfax which has an area of 402 square miles (App. 41). For the school year 1971-72, the total elementary school population of the Division was estimated to be 11,233 stu dents, of which number 9,983 were white and 1,250 were Negro. Thus the racial ratio in the elementary schools was 89% white and 11% black (App. 15, 22), which ratio is substantially identical to that for the preceding years. See, Answers to Interrogatories (R. 19). At the beginning of the 1969-70 school year, the high schools and junior high schools of the county had been de segregated, while the elementary schools were being operated on the basis of geographic attendance zones established for each school. Under this arrangement, two of the twentynine elementary schools in the system—Drew and HoffmanBoston—were attended solely by Negro students, as the geographical boundaries of those schools encompassed allNegro residential areas, while eleven of the twenty-nine were attended by all, or virtually all, white students (App. 15, 35, 42). The Hoffman-Boston school also housed seventh grade students, of which some 70% were white students bussed in from other districts in the county (App. 42). On December 18, 1969, the school board adopted a resolution directing the Division Superintendent and his staff to prepare a staff study of the various alternatives available for desegregating the Drew Elementary School (App. 29-30). This resolution suggested consultation with appropriate federal agencies, a step which had already been taken by the Division Superin- �4 5 tendent who (1) had discussed the matter generally with representatives of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) earlier in the month (2) had caused data requested by HEW to be compiled by his staff and sub mitted and (3) was awaiting return of specific suggestions from HEW for consideration by his staff and the school board (App. 43). In the interim, the Division Superintend ent directed his research department to begin its own study of the problem in line with the school board’s resolution (App. 43). No response was ever received from HEW, and shortly after the research department had assembled its own data and begun a consideration of alternatives, the instant suit was filed (App. 44). Thereafter, the school board was ad vised of the pendency of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg litiga tion which would in all probability shed light on the prob lem the board was considering, and the board decided to await the outcome of that litigation before determining the method of desegregating Drew Elementary School (App. 44). No attempt was made by the plaintiffs to seek a hear ing of this matter for the 1970-71 school year. On April 20, 1971, the Swann case was decided. There after the school board and its staff returned to a consider ation of the Drew school situation, but this time did so in the larger context of establishing a unitary school system throughout the county in compliance with Swann (App. 44). On June 10, 1971, while these deliberations were going on, this Court decided a series of cases under the style of Adams v. School District No. 5, Orangeburg Co., S.C., 444 F.2d 99, specifically emphasizing for district courts and school boards various aspects of Swann and Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 401 U.S. 33. Some two weeks after Adams, the school board adopted and filed in the District Court its plan for the operation of a unitary system in Arlington County (App. 19). As stated by the Division Superintendent, the purposes of the school board’s plan were “first of all, primarily to elimi nate all vestiges of a dual system, to move to establish a true unitary system throughout the county, to provide and to establish racial balanced schools, and I think, then, to get on with the primary purpose of the school system which is the education of young people.” (App. 40). These objec tives would be accomplished by converting both the Drew and Hoffman-Boston schools to specialized pre-kindergarten and kindergarten facilities. In addition, the Drew school would also house an experimental model elementary school to be conducted on an integrated basis and utilizing imagi native new approaches to elementary education, as well as for adult education and other school programs. The Hoff man-Boston school would also be utilized, as in previous years, for the integrated seventh grade of the Thomas Jeffer son Junior High School (App. 10, 19-20). Former Drew and Hoffman-Boston students in grades one through six would be assigned to other elementary schools in the county in accordance with the following criteria (App. 21): A. The added students would not cause the receiving school to have an enrollment exceeding its established rated capacity by more than 5%, B. The ratio of black to white pupils in each school would be as close to 11 % as practical, within a range of 7% to 15%, with the exception of four elementary schools whose current enrollment already exceeded 15% (i.e. 18% to 22%). C. Family groupings would be taken into account in assignments to a particular school, so that family units would not be broken up. D. Transportation would be provided as needed. �6 Under the school board’s plan, all one-race schools in Arlington County are eliminated—there remain no one-race white schools and no one-race black schools. Moreover, stu dents advancing from an elementary school will attend the junior high school serving that elementary school and, in turn, will advance to the high school serving that particu lar junior high school (App. 20, 24). This feeder system insures that for the 1971-72 school year, and for every school year thereafter, every child in Arlington county will receive his elementary and secondary education in an integrated facility (App. 39-40). In addition, nineteen of the twentythree elementary schools affected by the plan will have racial ratios which fall within the 7% to 15% range established by the board as a target deviation from the 11% racial ratio of the system as a whole (App. 15, 22). Indeed, seven teen of these nineteen schools fall within one percent of the 11% racial ratio in the system as a whole (App. 15). Finally, faculty desegregation is achieved by establishing a ratio in each school as close to the ratio of black to white teachers in the school system as a whole, as is practical (App. 25). In no case is there more than a 4% deviation from the sys tem wide ratio (App. 25). The longest bus ride (in terms of lapsed time) for the former Drew and HofTman-Boston pupils is 29 minutes, while the average bus ride for such children is 22 minutes (App. 12, 40-41). Similarly, the average bus ride for ele mentary children in the system as a whole is also 22 minutes (App. 41). The additional transportation costs involved in the school board’s plan is approximately $11,000 per year. Adoption of an alternate plan to achieve the same degree of integration would involve busing 90% of the Drew and Hoffman-Boston students to other schools and replacing them with an equivalent number of white students from other schools and would entail an initial cost of $206,000 7 and an additional cost of $130,000 per year thereafter for transportation. Thirteen new buses, plus drivers, would be required for such an alternative “90% out 90% in” plan (App. 12, 45-48). See also, Brief for the Appellants, p. 17. No alternate plan submitted by the plaintiffs would elimi nate all one-race schools in the county, nor achieve as much actual desegregation as the school board’s plan (App. 50, 64). ARGUM ENT The Desegregation Plan Adopted And Put Into Effect By The Arlington County School Board Is Constitutionally Valid. Plaintiffs in the case at bar are Negro children who had been assigned to the Drew Elementary School when this suit was instituted and the parents or guardians of such chil dren. Asserting that all, or virtually all, of the pupils assigned to the Drew Elementary School were Negroes, plaintiffs alleged that the Arlington County School Board had failed to adopt and execute a plan “to completely convert said public school system to a unitary non-racial system.” (App. 4). (Emphasis supplied.) They sought an order from the District Court requiring the defendant school board “to adopt and forthwith implement” such a plan (App. 5). Even before this suit was filed, the school board had been aware of the Drew situation and had, by formal resolution, directed a staff study to be made of various alternatives for desegregating the Drew School. This resolution, however, did not specifically embrace the Hoffman-Boston Elemen tary School, the only other all-Negro school in the county, nor did it envision the desegregation of the eleven all-white, or virtually all-white, elementary schools in the county school system. After the study contemplated by the resolution had been initiated and prior to the date set by the District Court for a �9 8 hearing of this matter (July 26, 1971), the Supreme Court decided the Swann and Davis cases, supra, (April 20, 1971), and this Court decided the Adams cases, supra, (June 10, 1971). Because of the existence of Adams, no independent analysis need now be made of Swann and Davis, nor of their progenitors, Brown, Green and Alexander,3 In Adams, this Court remanded a series of school desegregation cases to their respective district courts with instructions to receive from the various school boards “new plans” which would give effect to Swann and Davis. Id., at 100. During the course of its opinion, this Court spelled out what is now required of district courts and school authorities in the fol lowing explicit language (444 F. 2d at 100-101): “It is now clear, we think, that in school systems that have previously been operated separately as to the races by reason of state action, “the district judge or school authorities should make every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the situation.” Davis, supra at 91 S.Ct. at 1292. We remand these cases because the respective district judges did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court mandate that adequate consideration be given “to the possible me of bus trans portation and split zoning.” Davis, supra at ..... , 91 S.Ct. at 1292. Wherever schools are “all or predomi nately of one race in a district of mixed population (there will be required) close scrutiny to determine that school assignments are not part of state-enforced segregation.” Swann, supra a t ..... , 91 S.Ct. at 1281. Although the existence of “some small number of onerace, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system which still 3 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 349 U.S. 294 (1955); Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968); Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969). L practices segregation by law,” Swann, supra a t ..... , 91 S.Ct. at 1281, both the school authority and the district judge must nevertheless be concerned with the elimi nation of one-race schools. * * * The school authorities and the district court should consider the use of all techniques for desegregation, in cluding pairing or grouping of schools, noncontiguous attendance zones, restructuring of grade levels, and the transportation of pupils.” (Italics supplied.) Emphasizing the imperative nature of the commands itali cized above was (1) the specific authorization conferred upon district courts to employ independent educational experts at the expense of any local school board which sub mitted a plan that did not comply “with the directions set forth in this opinion . . .” and (2) the requirement that any district court which approved a plan achieving less actual desegregation than would be achieved under an alternative plan must find facts that made impracticable the achieving of a greater degree of integration “especially if there remain any schools all or predominantly of one race.” Id., at 101. (Emphasis supplied.) With the prescriptions of Swann and Davis thus focused in the commands of Adams, it was obvious that any plan for the establishment of a unitary school system in Arlington County which contemplated the desegregation of Drew School only—and which left another elementary school with an all-Negro student body and eleven other elementary schools with all-white, or virtually all-white, student bodies —could not possibly survive judicial appraisal. If a unitary system was to be established, all of the elementary schools comprising that system would have to be considered and desegregated if reasonably possible. Contrary to appellants’ �10 11 assertion, this was not a “self-imposed objective” of the defendant school board; it was a judicially imposed impera tive. See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 16. The command that the Arlington County School Board must “be concerned with the elimination of one-race schools” could hardly be complied with merely by passing a resolution expressing such concern and taking no other action, especially when the elimination of all one-race schools in the county was not only possible, but feasible. Adams, supra, at 101. In this setting, the school board adopted and submitted to the District Court a plan which (1) achieved the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the situation (2) eliminated all one-race schools, both white and Negro (3) insured that every child in the Arlington school system will receive both his elemen tary and secondary education in an integrated facility (4) established in substantially all of the elementary schools a student racial ratio which reflects the racial ratio of the system as a whole (5) racially balanced the faculties in each elementary school in the county so that the ratio of white to black faculty members in each school is substantially the same as the ratio of white to black faculty members in the system as a whole and (6) established in Arlington County a unitary school system which has neither “white” schools nor “black” schools—just schools. Achievement of the above stated objectives in compliance with the prescriptions of Swann and Davis and the com mands of Adams was possible in only two ways. One method —that adopted by the school board—entailed the conversion of the Drew and Hoffman-Boston schools from traditional elementary facilities to other educational programs and the establishment within the all-Negro geographic areas of those schools of a series of “satellite” zones by which elementary pupils formerly assigned to Drew and Hoffman-Boston would be assigned to various all-white, or predominantly white, schools in the county in accordance with criteria which would not only integrate every elementary school in the system, but would indeed racially balance substantially all of such schools. Bus transportation would be provided by the school board for all the pupils thus reassigned, 704 in number, and no such pupil would be required to be bused for as much as one-half hour to reach his newly assigned school. Indeed, since Arlington County is only seven miles long and slightly more than three miles wide, the average bus ride for such children would be the same as that for ele mentary pupils in the county generally. Care was taken to insure that no family groups would be disturbed by the new plan, and a feeder system was adopted to insure that the racial balance achieved in the elementary schools would be preserved, and even heightened, over the years. No overcrowding results under the school board’s plan, and the additional transportation cost incurred would be approximately $11,000 per year. In addition, the plan en ables the school board to utilize the existing Drew and Hoffman-Boston facilities for other innovative and highly desirable educational programs designed to increase the already outstanding excellence of the Arlington school sys tem. In this connection, it should be emphasized that the Drew and Hoffman-Boston schools are not being closed or removed from the public school system or converted to administrative or non-educational uses. On the contrary, these facilities have been reprogrammed under the school board’s plan to serve exclusively educational functions in the emerging fields of pre-kindergarten instruction for chil dren three and four years of age, model elementary school experimentation in ungraded education and for adult edu- �12 13 cation. In this setting, appellants’ assertion that the school board’s plan must be examined as if the Drew school was being “used to store furniture” is surely wide of the mark. See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 24. Essentially the school board’s plan for establishing a uni tary system of elementary schools in Arlington County tracks that utilized for the junior high schools in the CharlotteMecklenburg school system in Swann, which was subse quently approved by this Court and the Supreme Court. As stated by the Supreme Court (402 U.S., at 9 ): and replacing them with an equal number of white students drawn from the various predominantly white schools in the county. Mathematically, such a plan would require (a) re moving 102 of the 114 Negro elementary pupils at HoflmanBoston, leaving 12 Negro pupils there to be joined by 102 replacement white students from other schools in the county and (b) removing 530 of the 590 Negro elementary pupils at Drew, leaving 60 Negro pupils there to be joined by 530 replacement white students also drawn from other schools throughout the county. Such a plan (1) would sub stantially double the amount of busing necessary to achieve a unitary system (2) would entail an initial expenditure of $206,000 (including thirteen new buses) for the first year and an expenditure of $130,000 per year thereafter and (3) would, by unnecessarily continuing Drew and HoffmanBoston as traditional elementary schools, deprive the school board of facilities for its pre-kindergarten, model elemen tary school and adult education programs. By contrast to the plans described above, it is manifest at a glance that neither of the plans espoused by the appel lants in their brief even remotely approaches compliance with the controlling constitutional requirements. See, Brief for the Appellants, Appendix A. The first of these plans en visions the desegregation of Drew School by pairing or clustering it with five other elementary schools in the vi cinity, and is based upon a working paper prepared by the staff of the defendant school board pursuant to the resolu tion previously mentioned. While the plan effectively de segregates the Drew school, it falls far short of establishing a unitary school system in Arlington County. Under this plan, the elementary portion of the Hoffman-Boston school re mains an all-Negro facility, while four other schools in the county (Custis, Jamestown, Madison and Woodmont) re- “The Finger plan for the junior high schools employed much of the rezoning plan of the board, combined with the creation of nine “satellite” zones. Under the satel lite plan, inner-city Negro students were assigned by attendance zones to nine outlying predominantly white junior high schools, thereby substantially desegregating every junior high school in the system." (Italics sup plied. ) In addition, the feeder system aspect of the school board’s plan (1) counters the specific objection expressed by this Court in Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, 409 F. 2d 1070, 1075 (4 Cir., 1969) that the plan there under consideration did “not eliminate the possibility that what ever feeder system is adopted to effect this transition will not recreate a dual system at the high school level” and (2) further evidences the school board’s awareness of, and intent to comply with, the teachings of the decisions of this Court in school desegregation cases. The only other plan which would achieve the results of the school board’s plan and honor the prescriptions of Swann and Davis, as well as the command of Adams, would be one which entailed assigning 90% of the black students in Drew and Hoffman-Boston to other schools in the county �14 15 main all white, five other schools (Barcroft, Jackson, Nott ingham, Page and Tuckahoe) remain 99% white and two schools (Key and Maury) remain 98% white. Thus, twelve of the twenty-nine elementary schools in the county would remain one-race, or virtually one-race, schools under this plan (App. 16,38-39). The appellants’ suggested plan for the desegregation of Hoffman-Boston is even more inadequate. It is the result of “hasty preparation” by Mr. Richardson, a witness for the plaintiffs, and manifestly represents an effort to bring this case within the scope of Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Supp. 974 (W.D. Cal. 1969) by attempting to show that a reason able alternative to the school board’s plan exists. It contem plates pairing Hoffman-Boston with three other elementary schools in the vicinity. While effectively desegregating the Hoffman-Boston Elementary School and the previously allwhite Custis Elementary School, it makes no provision for the Drew school which would remain all-black, nor for ten of the eleven all-white, or virtually all-white, elementary schools mentioned in the preceding paragraph, which schools would retain their 98-100% white status (App. 17, 62-63). Moreover, utilization of both of these plans simultaneously would not discharge the school board’s obligation to establish a unitary system. Combination of the appellants’ suggested plans would indeed eliminate all one-race black schools; however over one-third (ten of twenty-nine) of the county’s elementary schools would still remain 98-100% white. And no racial balancing of the county’s elementary schools would even be attempted, much less achieved. Obviously, even if combined, the plans which appellants put forth as alter natives to the school board’s plan (1) would not achieve a unitary system (2) would not eliminate all one-race, or virtually one-race, schools (3) would not achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation taking into account the practicalities of the situation and, accordingly, would not honor the prescriptions of Swann and Davis nor comply with the commands of Adams. It is also inter esting to note that 1,664 pupils would be bused under these alternative plans which do not meet constitutional standards, while only 704 pupils would be bused under the school board’s plan which does meet these standards. If the defendant school board had adopted both of the appellants’ suggested alternatives, we submit that it would have been required, as were the various school boards in Adams, to prepare a “new” plan which would “give effect to Swann and Davis'" by according adequate consideration to the “use of bus transportation and split zoning.” Adams, supra, at 100- 101. In light of the legal deficiencies in the appellants’ suggested alternatives and the demonstrated drawbacks of the “90% out 90% in” plan, it is difficult to conceive how the plan adopted by the school board can be said to be invidiously discriminatory. In this connection, certain aspects of the case at bar must be emphasized. First, this case does not involve the closing of any school, merely the conversion of facilities from one type of educational program to another. Second, this case does not involve even a suggestion of “white flight,” and neither that term nor that concept was ever mentioned by any party at any point in these proceedings. Third, this case does not involve any reluctance on the part of the school board to assign and bus white children to formerly all-black schools located in all, or predominantly, Negro neighborhoods. On the contrary, the record discloses that a majority (70%) of white students have for years been transported to the formerly all-black Hoffman-Boston �16 17 Junior High School (Jefferson Annex) located in that com pletely Negro residential area (App. 42). See, Wanner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 357 F. 2d 452, 456 ( 4 Cir., 1966). Moreover, the plan adopted by the School Board envisioned the enrollment of a majority of white students in the model elementary school to be housed in the converted Drew facility which is located in an allNegro residential area, and that feature of the school board’s plan is even now in effect. See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 7. Significant in this context, is the decision of this Court in Chambers v. Iredell County Board of Education, 423 F.2d 613 (4th Cir., 1970). Under consideration in that case was a school desegregation plan in which one school, Unity School, remained all black with 285 students. That facility was to be replaced the following school year by a new school which was then under construction. When completed, the new facility would absorb Unity’s 285 black students and some 475 white students from three other schools, at which time the formerly all-black Unity School would be closed. Plain tiffs there alleged that the decision to close Unity was racially motivated “because it arose out of a disinclination to put white pupils into a previously all-black school.” Id., at 616. Rejecting this contention, this Court stated (423 F.2d at 616): school is not indicative of racial motivation when a school board has integrated another previously all-black school in the same system, then the mere conversion of a previously all-black school to a different educational program and the enrollment of a majority of white students in that identical facility, coupled with the previous assignment of a majority of white students to another formerly all-black school, can not be said to be racially motivated. Even more nearly in point and controlling is the decision of this Court in Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education, 434 F.2d 902 (4th Cir., 1970). In that case, the Asheville School Board decided that it was necessary to close two formerly all-black elementary schools and one formerly allwhite elementary school to achieve racial balance. After plaintiffs objected to the proposed plan on the basis of the closing of the two all-black schools, the school board modi fied the plan to provide for the continued operation of the formerly all-white school, with the two formerly all-black schools remaining closed. During the course of its opinion, this Court stated the plaintiffs’ objection to the plan and the reason therefore in the following language (434 F.2d at 905, 906): “This contention is not persuasive in light of the fact that the school board has already integrated Amity School, which was previously all-black and is now twothirds white. There appears to be no pattern of simply closing black schools because they have been black.” Similarly, in the case at bar, the Arlington County School Board long ago integrated the Hoffman-Boston Junior High School “which was previously all-black and is now twothirds white.” We submit that if the closing of an all-black “Able counsel for plaintiffs are unable to fault the Board’s plan other than a complaint with respect to the closing of two previously all-black schools and the im pact of their closing, in the context of the rest of the plan, upon black students. * * * “Plaintiffs insist, however, that the school board’s true reason for selection is undisclosed and is simply its ‘re luctance to send primary grade white children into traditionally all-black schools located in all-black neigh borhoods.’ ” �18 19 Rejecting plaintiffs’ contention that the Asheville School Board had unfairly discriminated against black students in the closing of the two schools there in question, this Court enunciated the following principles governing such situ ations (434 F.2d at 905, 906): elementary schools, or if they were reconstituted as such, 90 percent of the black students formerly in each school would have to be moved out into other schools and this 90 percent replaced by white students. Moreover, the purpose of the school board’s plan here is not merely to implement the Brown I I principle, but also to implement Swann, Davis and Adams. That the plan “effectively achieves that end” is acknowledged even by the appellants. See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 19. In addition, the school board’s plan is the only demonstrably rational and practical plan that will comply with the requirements of Swann, Davis and Adams. In Chambers, this Court expressed doubt that many school systems had achieved a higher degree of integration than then prevailed in Iredell County. Subsequently, in Allen, this Court stated that Asheville was “at or near the pinnacle of arithmetical desegregation in America.” Id., at 903. So far as we are aware, Asheville is still near the pin nacle of arithmetical desegregation in America; however, we submit that at the pinnacle of arithmetical desegregation in America is Arlington County. Here again, it should be pointed out that this distinction was achieved without closing any school, while in the Chambers and Allen cases, the all black facilities there under consideration were selected “for extinction” and were removed from the public school system. Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education, supra, at 905. None of the cases relied upon by appellants derogates from the principles enunciated in the Chambers and Allen cases. In Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, supra, the basis of this Court’s decision was the complete failure of the school board to disestablish an entrenched dual school system in which only 4.3% of the black children were attending previously all white schools. Moreover, in that case there was not the slightest assurance of achieving In the first place, we think the mechanics of integra tion, where the purpose is obviously to implement the Brown I I principle and effectively achieves that end, is ordinarily a matter within the discretion of school ad ministrators. The question is not whether we might have selected different schools for extinction, nor even whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s deci sion, but is instead whether the Board’s decision is so plainly unfair thatit clearlyamounts toinvidious dis crimination in violationof the equal protectionclause. * * * .. . Moreover, the situation of which plaintiffs complain cannot possibly be changed except at the cost of in creasing the transportation of pupils approximately 40 percent. This is so because if the two black schools that have been closed were reopened, 70 percent of the black students formerly in each school would have to be moved out into other schools and this 70 percent re placed by white students. * * * It is urged upon us that even so, both schools that were closed are newer and physically better than most of the other schools retained. We agree that this is a relevant factor. But neither alone nor in context does it establish invidious discrimination. Such a factor is only one of many that enter into a school closing decision. We repeat that we do not sit to review state adminis trative decisions beyond the very limited reach of the Constitution. (Italics supplied.) Similarly, in the case at bar, as previously pointed out, if Drew and Hoffman-Boston had been retained as traditional �20 a unitary school system and the selection of the schools for closing was therefore suspect. See, Allen, supra at 906. In Green v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 316 F. Supp. 6 (W.D. Va. 1970), the closing of the formerly all black high school there under consideration would have caused overcrowding in the three remaining predominantly white high schools in the city. In the face of this circum stance, no adequate reason was advanced by the school board, in terms of its desegregation plan or otherwise, to justify discontinuance of the school in question. Brice v. Landis, 314 F. Supp. 974 (N.D. Cal. 1969) states nothing to the contrary. In that case, the closing of a 99% black school pursuant to the school board’s plan would have resulted in overcrowded classes and distorted pupil-teacher ratios at the three remaining predominantly white schools in the system. Id., at 977. Other “options, alternatives and courses of action” were available to the school board. Id., at 978. Pointing out that a particular desegregation plan “when not reasonably required under the circumstances” could be discriminatory, the District Court observed (314 F. Supp. at 978): “Whether the plan, as here presented, is a good faith, reasonably adequate implementation of constitutional principles involved, must be determined in the light, among other things, of the alternative options and courses of action available to the District.” (Italics supplied.) Commenting upon this decision in Allen, supra, this Court succinctly stated (434 F.2d at 907): “We are advertent to Brice v. Landis (N.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 1969), 314 F.Supp. 974, which held on the peculiar facts of the case that the closing of a Negro school was invidiously discriminatory and subject to in- 21 junction. We think it means no more than that and agree there may be such a case, but think it is not this one. If it is read to imply that it is ordinarily for the district courts to determine which schools shall be closed rather than for the school board, we reject the propo sition.” (Italics supplied.) Even less apposite is Lee v. Macon County Board of Edu cation, 448 F. 2d 746 (5 Cir., 1971). In that case, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a decree of the district court which would have had the effect of leaving over 45% of the school district’s Negro students in all-black, or virtually all-black, schools. Id., at 748, 753. Moreover, the justification advanced by the school board for the pro posed closing of two formerly all-black schools was (1) that whites would resist going to school in facilities formerly used by blacks, and (2) that otherwise white students would flee the school system altogether. Id., at 750, 754. In light of these circumstances, the Court of Appeals directed the dis trict court to require the school board “forthwith to consti tute and implement a student assignment plan that complies with the principles established in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.” Id., at 753. In short, Lee is a school closing, racially motivated, white-flight, non-unitary, non-Swann school desegregation case. Not one of the abovelisted considerations obtains in the case at bar. Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County, 429 F. 2d 364 (8 Cir., 1970) is equally inapplicable. In that case, the district court decreed the annexation of a small all black school district in the county by a larger all-white school district and, in addition, decreed that the facilities of the larger all-white school district would be utilized and, only if these facilities proved inadequate, would those of the formerly all-Negro district be used. There was nothing in the record to explain the closing of the facilities formerly used �22 23 for the instruction of black students. After referring to this Court’s decision in the Felder case and Brice v. Landis, supra, the Court of Appeals observed (429 F.2d at 372): meet the prescribed constitutional standards. See Brief for the Appellants, p. 17; Brief for Amici Curiae, p. 16. How ever, both are careful to avoid stating that there “is” such a plan or informing this Court of the details, or even the outlines, of such other plan. The reason for this equivocation is quite obvious—both appellants and amici know full well that there is no plan other than that adopted by the school board which rationally and practically accomplishes what this Court said in Adams must be done. The assertion that the school board’s plan unfairly bur dens the Negro students of Drew and Hoffman-Boston will not bear scrutiny. For years pupils at these schools have attended a “walk-in” facility and have not been required to be bused (App. 48-49). If attendance at a “walk-in” fa cility can be deemed a convenience, it is one which these students have enjoyed for years while thousands of other children in Arlington County have been bused (App. 13). To require them at this late date to forego this convenience so that a racially balanced, unitary school system can be established can hardly be considered unfair. This, we sub mit, is especially true when one remembers that the bus ride they are asked to take is, on the average, only ten minutes longer than the time it would take them to walk to the Drew and Hoffman-Boston facilities, and the walk to those facilities had to be made in all weather conditions through out the school year (App. 39). Finally, while the Drew and Hoffman-Boston students are now bused to other schools, over 40% of the Negro elementary students in Arlington County still attend their neighborhood schools (App. 15). In Allen, a similar contention was rejected by this Court in language subsequently deemed controlling and quoted at length in Mims v. Duval County School Board, 329 F. Supp. 123 (M.D. Fla., 1971). In Mims, approving a desegregation “The matter of utilization of available facilities is with in the province and discretion of the school board. There is a statement in the record that the class rooms of the former Sevier District are not of sufficient size to meet current state standards. These details, of course, are subject to many variations and much can be done within the existing framework of operation to suffi ciently utilize existing facilities. This is not a matter for court consideration but rather should be resolved on some rational non-discriminatory basis by the local school board.” (Italics supplied.) Throughout their briefs, both appellants and amici curiae make only glancing references to Swann, pay no respect to Adams and do not even mention Davis at all. Indeed, refer ence is made to Adams only for its one line affirmance of the district court’s retention of the Addison School in Roan oke; so far as appellants and amici are concerned, the rest of what this Court said in Adams does not even exist. Thus do they seek to avoid any consideration whatever of the school board’s clear obligation to eliminate one-race schools and achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegre gation as required by Swann, Davis and Adams. Thus, too, do they seek to insinuate that the school board in this case can get by with something less than full compliance with the commands of these decisions, even though full compliance can be had, as demonstrated by the plan which the school board adopted and put into effect last September and which this Court and the Chief Justice of the United States refused to enjoin. In addition, both appellants and amici persist in pressing the illusion that there “may” be other plans which would �24 plan which involved the closing of seven black elementary schools, the district court observed (329 F. Supp. at 132133): “In their second argument plaintiffs seek to have this Court require the School Board to bus white children to the core city for all elementary grades, not just to sixth grade centers, so to achieve equal busing of the races. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit resolved the same argument in Allen v. Asheville City Board of Education [434 F.2d 902, 907 (4 Cir., 1970)] with these words: We are asked to decide whether the district court, in approving the plan, unconstitutionally placed ‘the burden of desegregation’ upon black pupils in the school system. It is urged upon us that the plan ap proved by the district court ‘places an unfair, racially discriminatory burden upon black children’ in that black children in grades 1 through 5 who previously attended all-black Livingston and Herring Elemen tary Schools will be required to travel as much as five or six miles in order to attend previously all-white schools. This is said to be an unfair allocation of the ‘burden’ of integration, and it is suggested that the Constitution requires that an equivalent number or proportion of white children in the same grades be required to travel an equivalent distance to enter schools outside their previous attendance zones. We hold that such a pattern of assignment imple mented by free school bus transportation does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The rationale in the Second Circuit is essentially the same. In Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Board of Education, [423 F.2d 121, 124 (2 Cir., 1970)] the Court noted: Plaintiffs would eliminate what they call unequal treatment by having, in effect, one white child bussed 25 out of his neighborhood for every black child bussed out of his—in other words, deprive as many whites of neighborhood advantages as blacks are deprived by being bussed to schools predominantly white. But the problem is not as simple as a one black, one white ratio. It is a question of the Board, with the facilities available having ‘acted in the utmost good faith, in a nonarbitrary and deliberate manner, in order both to insure racial balance and to provide high quality education.’ * * *” Nor will it do to assert that the school board’s plan sug gests to black children that it would be dangerous if “blacks make up more than 15% of the enrollment of any school.” See, Brief for the Appellants, p. 15. This assertion is instantly blunted by the fact that four elementary schools in Arling ton County already had black students in excess of 15% when the school board’s plan was adopted. Moreover, the alternative arrangements for the Drew school espoused in plaintiffs’ brief would limit black enrollment to 21% in each of the schools affected. Does this arrangement suggest that any number of black students in excess of 21 % in any school is dangerous? Was any such message explicit or implicit in the racially balanced plans approved by this Court in Chambers and Allen? Neither, we submit, does the plan adopted by the school board in the case at bar carry such an inference. It is, of course, primarily the obligation of the school board to frame and put into effect a plan which establishes a uni tary school system, and, as pointed out in Davis, supra at 37, the “measure of any desegregation plan is its effectiveness.” From Brown II to Adams, the decisions confirming this principle have been legion and consistent. As stated in Brad ley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 325 F. Supp. 828, 832-833 (E.D.Va. 1971): �26 “A second principle guiding the Court—almost as ob vious as the doctrine of precedent—is that it is primarily the School Board’s duty to run the schools, and not this Court’s nor the plaintiffs’ . . . Because both expertise and responsibility are the School Board’s, it is to their proposals that courts look first for a legally sufficient plan. . . . When they assume the ‘responsibility which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board,’ Id., 442, 88 S. Ct. 1696, courts will not presume to dictate a selection between equally effective desegregation plans.” Wanner v. County School Board of Arlington County, 357 F. 2d 452, 436 (4th Cir. 1966). (Italics supplied.) Echoing these observations are those of Judge Bryan in his special concurring opinion in Adams, supra, at 102: “. . . I think the only pattern the school authorities and the Courts must observe is one honoring the prescrip tions of Swann and Davis. So long as it is in keeping with these decisions, my understanding is that formu lation of a plan is entrusted to the discretion of the school authorities . . . ” (Italics supplied.) We submit that in the case at bar the obligation resting upon the Arlington County School Board has been fully dis charged by the adoption of a desegregation plan which honors the prescriptions of Swann and Davis, complies with the commands of Adams, and is therefore constitutionally valid. CONCLUSION In Walton v. Nashville, Arkansas, Special School District No. 1, 401 F. 2d 137, 144 (8 Cir., 1969), Judge Blackmun, speaking for a court which sustained the non-reemployment of certain Negro teachers in a school desegregation case, made the following observations: 27 “We are conscious in this case, as we have been in earlier ones, that the process of school integration is not easy and that there will be hurts and disappointments as integration is accomplished. Certainly, under the precepts of the Brown decisions, it has been too long delayed at Nashville. But we are told that it has now been fully accomplished there. That fact should be a source of satisfaction for all citizens, white as well as black.” (Italics supplied.) In the case at bar, this Court is also informed that inte gration has now been fully accomplished in Arlington Coun ty. It is so informed by the plan itself, which is currently before this Court and was adopted to carry out the following policy of the school board (App. 40): “The purposes that the board had was, first of all, pri marily to eliminate all vestiges of a dual system, to move to establish a true unitary system throughout the county, to provide and to establish racial balanced schools, and I think, then, to get on with the primary purpose of the school system which is the education of young people.” It is similarly informed by the appellants who admit that the plan is one “which unquestionably does away with the last vestiges of school segregation remaining from the legis latively imposed dual school system” and who further ac knowledge that it “is undisputed that the Arlington School Board has put into effect a plan that fully complies with the primary mandates laid down in” Brown, Green and Swann. See, Brief for the Appellants, pp. 1,9. Finally, this Court is so informed by the District Court in the following language of its opinion, 329 F. Supp. at 955956 (App. 14): “The Arlington County School Board has now fully complied with the Supreme Court decision in Brown I �28 —A unitary school system as required by Green and Alexander has been established—Arlington will have neither black nor white schools—just schools.” In light of the foregoing, and for the reason heretofore stated, we submit that the decision of the Distirct Court is clearly correct and should be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, Jam es H. Simmonds G r e g o r y U. E v a n s 1500 North Courthouse Road Arlington, Virginia R. D. McIlwaine, III P.O. Box 705 Petersburg, Virginia Counsel for Appellees CERTIFICATE I certify that two copies of the within brief for appellees were mailed, with first class postage prepaid, to S. W. Tucker, Esquire, 214 East Clay Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; to Robert M. Alexander, Esquire, 2011 South Glebe Road, Arlington, Virginia 22204; to Allison W. Brown, Jr., Esquire, Suite 501, 1424 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washing ton, D.C. 20036; to Lawrence J. Latto, Esquire, 734 Fif teenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; and to Jack Greenburg, Esquire, Suite 2030, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York 10010, counsel for plaintiffs; and to William H. Allen, Esquire, and John B. Jones, Jr., Esquire, 888 Six teenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, counsel for amici curiae, this 10th day of March, 1972. R. D. M c Ilw a in e , III � 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 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner 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 Brief for Appellees, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 71-1791: John K. Hart, et. Al v. County School Board of Arlington County, et al Description An account of the resource Brief for Appellees, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 71-1791: John K. Hart, et. Al v. County School Board of Arlington County, et al 17 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 66, Personal Papers of Henry Gardner Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 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 1970s 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 66_1_1_1_176 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/ba3ac984f1ff37bba17517c11aadb5c1.jpg 35d4d332821e7364abbd2c5e5df73925 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/e51d4f2431645b368ed245cd07877633.pdf 0e5788a63b1acc39cbd5f1e32596fa32 PDF Text Text BRIEF ON BEHALF OF APPELLEES In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fourth Circuit No. 7310 COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AND T. EDWARD RUTTER, D IVISION SU PER IN TEN D EN T OF SCHOOLS OF T H E COUNTY OF ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, Appellants v. CLARISSA S. THOM PSON, et al., Appellees Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District O f Virginia, Alexandria Division E d w in C. B rown Alexandria, Virginia S pottswood W. R o b in so n , III, Richmond, Virginia O liver W. H il l Richmond, Virginia Counsel for Appellees The Press o f Lawyers Printing Co., Inc., Richmond 7, Va. �SUBJECT INDEX Page Questions Involved............................................................ 1 Argument ................ 2 I. Appellant School Board And Division Superin­ tendent Were Suable In The DistrictCourt 2 A. The Eleventh Amendment Does Not Pre­ clude This Action........................................... II. III. 2 B. The State Has Consented To Suit In A Federal Court .................................................. 4 Appellees Were Entitled To InjunctiveRelief.. 6 There Were No Administrative Remedies That Appellees Failed To E xhaust............................... 7 Conclusion ........................................................................ 10 TABLE OF CITATIONS Cases Bacon v. Rutland Railroad Co., 232 U. S. 134 (1914) 8 Bank of United States v. Planters National Bank, 9 Wheat. 904 (1824)........................................................ 5 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954)... 6 Carson v. Board of Education, 227 F. 2d 789 (C. A. 4th 1955) ..................................................................... 7 Casper v. Regional Agricultural Credit Corp., 202 Minn. 433, 278 N. W. 896 (1938)............................. 4 �Page Dunningtons v. Northwestern Turnpike Road, 6 Gratt. 160 (1849) ................................................................ S Ex Parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908)......................... 2 Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U. S. 229 (1935 ) 5 Ford Motor'Company v. Department of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459 (1945)......................................................... 5 Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Redwine, 342 U. S. 299 (1952) ................................................................... 2 Granville County Board of Education v. State Board of Education, 106 N. C. 81, 10 S. E. 1002 (1890)....... 5 Great Northern Life Insurance Company v. Read, 322 U. S. 47 (1944)........................................................... 5 Gross v. Kentucky Board of Managers, 105 Ky. 840, 49 S. W. 458, 43 L. R. A. 703 (1899)......................... 4 Hood v. Board of Trustees, 232 F. 2d 626 (C. A. 4th 1956) 7 Interstate Construction Co. v. University of Idaho, 199 F 509 (1912)........................................................ 6 Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 306 U. S. 381 (1939)......................................................... 4 Kennecott Copper Corporation v. State Tax Commis­ sioner, 327 U. S. 573 (1946)....................................... 5 Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268 (1939)........................... 8 O’Neill V . Early, 208 F 2d 286 (C. A. 4th 1953)..................... 3 �Page Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824)...2 Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kuykendall, 265 U. S. 196 (1924)........................................................ 9 Packard Co. v. Palisades Interstate Park, 240 F 543 (S. D. N. Y. 1916).............................................................. 5 Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537 (1903)............................. 2 Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Duluth Street Railway Co., 273 U. S. 625 (1927)............................. 9 Reagan v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362 (1894) .......................................................................... 6 Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 25 F 2d 480 (S. D. Ala. 1928) ................................................................... 5 Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378 (1932)............... 3 Stewart v. Thornton, 75 Va. 215 (1881)....................... 3 Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33 (1915) 2 Young, Ex parte, 209 U. S. 123 (1908) ....................... 2 Constitutional and Statutory Authorities Constitution of the United States, Eleventh Amendment 3 Constitution of the United States, Fourteenth Amend­ ment .............................................................................. 3 Code of Virginia, 1950, Sec. 22-57............................... 2, 8 Code of Virginia, 1950, Sec. 22-63 ................................... 5 ��In th e UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for th e Fourth Circuit No. 7310 COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AND T. EDW ARD RUTTER, D IVISION SU PER IN TEN D EN T OF SCHOOLS OF T H E COUNTY OF ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, Appellants CLARISSA S. THOMPSON, et al., Appellees Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District O f Virginia, Alexandria Division BRIEF ON BEHALF OF APPELLEES QUESTIONS INVOLVED Appellees submit that appellants’ contentions present for consideration the following questions: �[ 2] 1. Were the appellant school board and division superin­ tendent suable in the District Court? 2. Were appellees entitled to injunctive relief? 3. Were there administrative remedies provided by Sec­ tion 22-57 of the Code of Virginia that appellees failed to exhaust ? ARGUMENT I A p p e l l a n t S chool B oard A nd D iv is io n S u p e r in t e n d e n t W ere S uable I n T h e D is tr ic t C ourt A . The Eleventh Amendment Does N ot Preclude This Action. In a long line of cases commencing with Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824), the Supreme Court has established the doctrine that actions to enjoin state officers or agencies from activities under color of their official authority that violate the Federal Constitution and the rights of individuals secured thereby are not suits against the state prohibited by either the Eleventh Amend­ ment or the principle that a state cannot be sued without its consent. See also Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Redwine, 342 U. S. 299 (1952) ; Tnrnx v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33 (1915) ; E x parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908); Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537 (1903). �I -5 ] This is not an action seeking to affect property of the state, or to impose or enforce a liability upon the state, or to require affirmative official action in the performance of a state function. Cf. O’Neill v. Early, 208 F. 2d 286 (C. A. 4th 1953). It seeks merely to require the appellants to desist from activities violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. To this the Eleventh Amendment imposes no barrier. “The applicable principle is that where state officials, purporting to act under state authority, invade rights secured by the Federal Constitution, the)' are subject to the process of the Federal courts in order that the persons injured may have appropriate relief.” Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378, 393 (1932). Appellants would confine the operation of these princi­ ples to suits against individual members of a school board, or against a division superintendent as an individual. This suggestion ignores the fact that it is the character of the function sought to be enjoined, rather than the manner in which the defendant is sued, that is the important considera­ tion. And the suggestion is entirely impractical. Appellees could not obtain effective relief without enjoining appellants in the exercise of their official authority. Obviously, an in­ junction against activities unconnected with their school functions would be valueless. Indeed, since by statute the school board is a corporation, it is not apparent how it could be enjoined except when sued as such. See Stewart v. Thornton, 75 Va. 215 (1881). The limitation suggested by appellants does not appear to be made in the cases. In E x parte Young, supra, where a similar argument was made, the Court said (209 U. S. at 159-160): �14] “The answer to all this is the same as made in every case where an official claims to be acting under the authority of the state. The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional; and if it be so, the use of the name of the state to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of complainants is a proceeding with­ out the authority of, and one which does not affect, the state in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state official in attempting, by the use of the name of the state, to en­ force a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state attorney general seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such en­ actment, comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual con­ duct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” B. The State Has Consented To Suit In A Federal Court. If appellees’ position in the preceding section of the argu­ ment is sustained, the presence or absence of state consent to this action is immaterial. There is authority for the conclusion that power to sue the school board may be implied from the grant of corporate existence alone. Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 306 U. S. 381 (1939); Casper v. Regional Agricul­ tural Credit Corp., 202 Minn. 433, 278 N. W. 896 (1938) ; Gross v. Kentucky Board of Managers, 105 Ky. 840, 49 S. �[5 ] W. 458, 43 L. R. A. 703 (1899). But any doubt in this connection is put to rest by the provision of Section 22-63 of the Code of Virginia that the appellant school board “may sue and be sued”. This limitless waiver of immunity seems clearly to em­ brace litigation of the type here involved. See Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 295 U. S. 229 (1935); Packard Co. v. Palisades Interstate Park, 240 F. 543 (S. D. N. Y. 1916) ; Dunningtons v. Northwestern Turnpike Road, 6 Gratt. 160 (1849); Granville County Board of Education v. State Board of Education, 106 N. C. 81, 10 S. E. 1002 (1890). It would appear that Virginia has stripped herself of her sovereign character as respects the activities of school boards. See Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, supra; Bank of United States v. Planters National Bank, 9 Wheat. 904 (1824); Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 25 F. 2d 480 (S. D. Ala. 1928). There are cases holding that an express statutory waiver of immunity to suit does not extend to suits in Federal courts. See Great Northern Life Insurance Company v. Read, 322 US 47 (1944) ; Ford Motor Company v. Depart­ ment of Treasury, 323 US 459 (1945) ; Kennecott Copper Corporation v. State Tax Commissioner, 327 US 573 (1946). Cf. O’Neill v. Early, supra. In each of these cases, however, the courts were dealing “with the sovereign ex­ emption from judicial interference in the vital field of financial administration,” Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Read, supra, 322 U. S. at 54, where a clear declara­ tion of the state’s intention to submit its fiscal problems to other courts than those of its own creation was deemed necessary. It is submitted, however, that where, as here, the Federal court is requested to perform its historic role as �[6 ] protector of individual constitutional rights, there is no reason for a restricted construction of an unrestricted grant of authority. Ci.Rectgan v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362 (1894); Interstate Construction Co. v. University of Idaho, 199 F. 509 (D. Idaho 1912). II A pp e l l e e s W ere E n t it l e d T o I n ju n c t iv e R e l ie f We are met with the contention that the appellees have failed to prove a case appropriate to a grant of injunctive relief. The argument, as we understand it, is that the appellees should have sought to attend particular schools. Appellants have long maintained a practice and policy of racial segregation in the public schools they control. Negro children are thereby prohibited, simply because of their race, from education in certain of the public schools. Insofar as their admission to these schools , is concerned, all other considerations are immaterial. By the same token, white students, solely because of their race, are denied admission to certain other schools, irrespective of other factors ob­ taining in the situation. Whether appellants undertake to continue segregation by or without the support of state law is immaterial for, in either instance, rights secured by the Fourteenth Amend­ ment are violated, and the practice is unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education 347 U. S. 483 (1954). It is equally clear that, just as the parties in Brown and its com­ panion cases were held to be entitled to injunctive relief from the segregation, so also are other individuals who in other places have been subjected to a similar unconstitu­ tional practice. �17 ] The right appellees assert in this case is the right to be educated in some public schools determined by criteria other than race. They assert simply their constitutional privilege to freedom from racial classifications and distinctions in assignments to schools and classes. Once race is eliminated as a factor determinative of the school an appellee is to attend, the constitutional issue is resolved, and determina­ tion of the particular school he might in fact attend would result from the operation of educationally significant fac­ tors within the competency of the school authorities to prescribe and apply. It is not appellees’ prerogative to define or prescribe the criteria to be employed to determine the particular schools that particular pupils are to attend. This is and remains to be the function of school authorities so long as the limits set by the Constitution are observed. But until those criteria are formulated and applied, no student can know what school he is to attend. Here the school authorities ignored the request for reorganization of the schools on a nonsegregated basis, and it would seem clear that the}; cannot now profit by their own failure of duty. I ll T h e r e W ere N o A d m in is t r a t iv e R e m ed ies T h a t A p p e l l e e s F ailed T o E x h a u st It is unnecessary for the appellees to claim immunity from the operation of the rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies before resort to the courts. See Carson v. Board of Education, 227 F. 2d 789 (C. A. 4th 1955); Hood v. Board of Trustees, 232 F. 2d 626 (C. A. 4th 1956). For the only remedy to which appellants refer �[8] is that specified by Section 22-57 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, and it seems clear that the proceedings there provided do not bring this case within the requirement of the ex­ haustion rule. Prior to instituting suit, appellees submitted to appellant school board and division superintendent a written petition setting forth their grievance and requesting corrective action. Certainly this satisfied the first step specified by Section 22-57. The second step—that appellees did not pur­ sue—consists in an appeal to a court. Appellees submit that the latter procedure is judicial in character, and that they were not bound to follow it. It is well settled that a party claiming deprivation of his constitutional rights may resort to a Federal court with­ out first exhausting the judicial remedies provided by the state. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268 (1939); Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Duluth Street Railway Co., 273 U. S. 625 (1927); Bacon v. Rutland Railroad Co., 232 U. S. 134(1914). The appeal provided by Section 22-57 seems to be judicial in character. The tribunal is “the circuit court of the county or corporation court of the city or the judge thereof in vacation.” This tribunal ordinarily exercises only judicial functions. Presumbly, it lacks authority to exercise any other unless that authority is expressly conferred. The fact that the body in which the remedy is afforded is a court is obviously of great significance. The statute simply authorizes the court to “decide finally all questions at issue,” and provides that “the action of the school board on questions of discretion shall be final unless �19 J the board has exceeded its authority or has acted corruptly.” The remedy is judicial where the reviewing agency does not possess the power to substitute such order as in its opinion the administrative agency should have made in the first in­ stance. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kuykendall, 265 U. S. 196 (1924). Here the remedy simply enables the court to exonerate the complaining party from action that exceeds the law. Bacon v. Rutland Railroad Co., supra. Even doubt as to the validity of the conclusions herein asserted would not subject appellees to the necessity of pursuing this remedy. At the very least, the character of the remedy—as administrative or judicial—is highly doubtful. If the remedy is indeed judicial and appellees had pursued it, the conclusions of the state court would be binding upon them, and the possibility of their decision by a Federal Dis­ trict Court eliminated. A party is not required to sacrifice his constitutional privilege of hearing and decision in a Federal court by being subjected to a state remedy the nature of which is debatable. As Mr. Justice Holmes stated in Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Duluth Street Railway Co., supra (273 U. S. at 628): “. . . it must be remembered that the requirement that state remedies be exhausted is not a fundamental prin­ ciple of substantive law but merely a requirement of convenience or comity. Where as here a constitutional right is insisted on, we think it would be unjust to put the plaintiff to the chances of possibly reaching the de­ sired result by an appeal to the state court, when at least it is possible that, as we have said, it would find itself too late if it afterwards went to the district court of the United States.” �I 10 j CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully submitted that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, E d w in C. B rown 1200 Cameron Street Alexandria, Virginia S pottswood W. R o b in so n , III, 623 North Third Street Richmond, Virginia O liv er W . H il l 118 East Leigh Street Richmond, Virginia Counsel for Appellees �. �� 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 18: Personal Papers of Barbara Marx 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 Brief On Behalf Of Appellees For Case No. 7310 In The United States Court Of Appeals For The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia, Alexandria Division Description An account of the resource Brief On Behalf Of Appellees For Case No. 7310 In The United States Court Of Appeals For The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia, Alexandria Division, Arlington County School Board and T. Edward Rutter, Division Superintendent of Schools of the County of Arlington, Virginia (Appellants) Vs. Clarissa S. Thompson, et al., (Appellees). Undated. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource No date Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 18, Personal Papers of Barbara Marx Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource nited States District Court for the Eastern District 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. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 18_2_1_4_39 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/2f4ecf71ad8a1fad6c69c50d69bfeff9.pdf 11402ee3c2db6bffb781a03f43257a7d PDF Text Text THE NEGRO CITIZEN IN ARLINGTON A N e g ro in A rlin g to n , V irg in ia c a n , lik e a n y o f th e w h ite r e s id e n ts o f o u r c o m m u n ity , c a ll a n e f fic ie n t F i r e D e p a rtm e n t if h is h o u s e is b u rn in g . H e ca n s e n d h is c h ild to s c h o o l a n d know th a t a n a l e r t o f f ic e r w ill s to p tr a f f i c i f n e e d be so th a t h is s o n o r d a u g h te r m a y m a k e a s a f e s t r e e t c r o s s in g . H is w ife c a n b u y m e a t a t th e n e a r e s t s u p e r - m a r k e t w ith th e a s s u r a n c e th a t it h a s b ee n in s p e c te d a n d is f a i r ly w eig h e d a n d p r ic e d . In m o s t m a t t e r s th e A rlin g to n N e g ro liv e s o u t h is d a y s w ith th e s a m e e le m e n ts o f r i s k a n d w ith th e s a m e m e a s u r e of c iv ic p ro te c tio n th r e a te n in g h im on th e one h an d an d s u p p o r tin g h im on th e o th e r a s i s th e c o m ­ m o n lo t o f th e r e s t o f u s in m o d e rn s itu a tio n s . B ut th e r e a r e a r e a s o f h is lif e w h e re b e in g a N e g ro m a k e s a d if f e re n c e in h is d a y s . B e lie v in g th a t m a n y p eo p le m a y be u n a w a re o f th i s d if f e r e n c e , th e A rlin g to n C o u n ty C o u n c il on H um an R e la tio n s w ould b r in g th e fo llo w in g f a c ts to th e a tte n tio n o f c o n c e rn e d p e o p le . 1. If an A rlin g to n N e g ro m a n w a n ts to ta k e h is fa m ily out to d in n e r , h e w ill h av e to go to th e D i s tr ic t o f C o lu m b ia to fin d a r e s ta u r a n t o f h ig h q u a lity w h e re th e y m a y b e s e a t e d . T h e y w o u ld be tu r n e d aw ay fro m a l l th e b e t te r e a tin g p la c e s in A rlin g to n . If h is fa m ily is in th e m o o d f o r an in f o r m a l m e a l, h e m a y buy food to c a r r y h o m e a t a n A rlin g to n D r iv e - in R e s ta u r a n t b u t h e c a n n o t e x p e c t th e k in d o f c u r b s e r v ic e w h ich m a n y w h ite f a m ili e s e n jo y a t th e en d o f a b u s y d a y . It i s n o t c l e a r to w h at e x te n t r e s t a u ­ r a n t r e s t r i c t i o n s a r e r e l a te d to th e le g a l b an on m ix e d s e a tin g in p u b lic a n d to w h at e x te n t th e y a r e r e ­ la te d to th e p r e ju d ic e s o f w h ite p a t r o n s . 2. If a n A rlin g to n N e g ro w a n ts to s e e a m o v ie , h e m u s t a l s o go to W a sh in g to n . He ca n n o t w a lk to a n e ig h ­ b o rh o o d m o v ie o r go to an y D r iv e - i n T h e a tr e in th e A rlin g to n a r e a b e c a u s e th e y a r e a l l c lo s e d to N e g r o e s . N o r c a n h e go to a p u b lic bo w lin g a lle y o r s k a tin g r in k . H e ca n n o t s to p f o r h is c h ild r e n to h av e pony r id e s a t a pony lo t. 3. H ig h ly q u a lifie d p e rs o n n e l d ir e c t th e A rlin g to n r e c r e a ti o n p r o g r a m f o r N e g ro e s b ut w h e r e a s th e p la y ­ g ro u n d s an d s u m m e r r e c r e a t i o n p r o g r a m s fo r w h ite c h ild r e n a r e lo c a te d in th e n e ig h b o rh o o d s w h e r e w h ite c h ild r e n li v e , o n ly tw o s m a l l p la y g ro u n d s a r e a v a ila b le f o r N e g r o e s . B oth o f th e m a r e in a d e q u a te an d th e l a r g e s t o n e , w h e re f u l l - s c a l e b a ll g a m e s m ig h t be p la y e d , i s in th e s o u th e r n ti p o f A rlin g to n , in a c c e s s ib le to th e la r g e n u m b e r o f N e g ro youth in N o rth A rlin g to n . N e g ro c h ild r e n liv e v e r y n e a r s o m e o f th e la r g e p la y in g fie ld s d e s ig n a te d fo r w h ite c h ild r e n . T h e y c a n o n ly w a tc h f r o m th e s id e ­ li n e s . If fr ie n d ly y o u n g s te rs c a ll o u t to th e m to jo in th e g a m e s , th e y m u s t ig n o re th e in v ita tio n o r a c ­ c e p t it w ith th e r i s k th a t th e y m ig h t b e s e n t aw a y , o r , fa ilin g to le a v e , m ig h t be ta k e n to th e p o lic e s ta tio n . 4. A N e g ro m a n m a y r u s h h is c h ild to A rlin g to n H o s p ita l f o r e m e r g e n c y tr e a tm e n t o r f o r h o s p ita liz a tio n in th e n o n - s e g r e g a te d p e d i a tr i c s w a rd a n d h e m a y go h im s e lf a s a n o u t- p a tie n t o r a s a b ed p a tie n t in th e N e g ro w a rd . B ut w hen h is w ife is re a d y to g iv e b ir t h to t h e i r b a b y , he c a n n o t ta k e h e r to th e c o m ­ m u n ity h o s p ita l w h e re w h ite b a b ie s a r e b o rn . H e m u s t ta k e h e r m i le s aw ay to a h o s p ita l in th e D is tr ic t o r in A le x a n d ria . P e r c h a n c e h e r b ab y c a n 't w ait f o r th e W a sh in g to n h o s p ita l, th e N e g ro m o th e r w ill b e a tte n d e d a s a n e m e r g e n c y c a s e in th e A rlin g to n H o s p ita l but s h e ca n n o t th e n b e p la c e d in th e m a t e r ­ n ity w a r d . She w ill be put in th e g e n e ra l w a rd f o r N e g ro e s w h e re s h e m ig h t b e e x p o s e d to a n y o n e o f a v a r i e ty o f in fe c tio u s d i s e a s e s . T h e g e n e ra l w a rd f o r N e g ro e s a c tu a lly b e c o m e s a re c e iv in g w a r d f o r a l l o v e rflo w p a tie n ts b e c a u s e th o u g h a N eg ro m a y n o t be p la c e d in s e c tio n s o f th e h o s p ita l d e s ig n a ­ te d f o r w h ite s , i f th e w h ite s e c t io n s a r e fu ll, th e w h ite p a tie n ts n e e d in g s p a c e a r e p la c e d in th e N eg ro w a r d . T h is w a rd is not a s c a r e f u lly c o n tro lle d f o r v i s i t o r s a s th e m a te r n ity w a r d i s , m a k in g it th e m o r e u n s u ita b le f o r p o s t- d e l iv e r y c a s e s . 5. M any N e g ro e s in A rlin g to n ow n t h e i r h o m e s a n d h o m e o w n e rs h ip i s a th in g o f s p e c i a l p r id e to th e m . M any o f A rlin g to n 's N e g ro c i tiz e n s a r e n a tiv e r e s id e n ts o f th e c o u n ty an d liv e o n p r o p e r ty w h ich w as ow ned by t h e i r p a r e n t s o r g r a n d p a r e n ts . B ut w hen young N e g ro e s m a r r y , e v e n th o u g h th e y a r e w e ll e d u c a te d an d h av e good jo b s , th e y c a n n o t fin d , in A rlin g to n , h o m e s w h ich th e y m a y b u y o r la n d w h e re N e g ro e s m a y b u ild . T h e r e is l i ttl e r e n t a l p r o p e r ty a v a ila b le to th e m . So th e y m u s t le a v e n eig h b o rh o o d s w h e re th e y h a v e f r ie n d s , m u s t le a v e c h u rc h e s w h e re th e y h av e r o o ts an d r e s p o n s ib il iti e s , a n d w h e th e r th e y lik e it o r n o t, m u s t liv e in W a sh in g to n . O ld e r N e g ro e s s it p r e c a r io u s ly on t h e i r f r o n t p o r c h e s in A rlin g to n b e c a u s e th e y fe e l th a t e x p a n sio n o f p u b lic b u ild in g in th e p a s t h a s b ee n a t th e e x p e n s e o f N e g ro la n d a n d th e y ■v/onder w hen s o m e new e x p a n s ion w ill ta k e t h e i r p r o p e r ty a n d le a v e th e m h o m e le s s . 6. It is th e u n c e rta in ty ab o u t s o m a n y a s p e c ts o f h is life th a t i s tr y in g f o r a N e g ro in A rlin g to n . Som e y e a r s ag o h e knew e x a c tly w h a t h is lim ita tio n s w e r e . He d id n 't lik e b e in g lim ite d b u t h e knew w hat to e x p e c t. Now h e is t i r e d o f b e in g unknow ing ab o u t h is s t a t u s . T h e N e g ro know s th a t m e r i t h ir in g p e r m its h im to a p p ly f o r a n d , if h e is q u a lif ie d , to r e c e iv e a C iv il S e r v ic e job in th e A rlin g to n c o m m u n ity . He d o e s n o t know to w hat e x te n t r a c i a l p r e ju d ic e m a y in flu e n c e th e d e c is io n s o f th e d e p a rtm e n t h e a d who is re s p o n s ib le f o r h is p ro m o tio n s . T h e N e g ro know s th a t b y F e d e r a l L aw h is c h ild r e n a r e now g u a ra n te e d p u b lic s c h o o l e d u c a tio n on a n o n - s e g r e g a te d b a s i s . H e d o es n o t know how lo n g it w ill b e b e fo re N e g ro e s in A r lin g to n c a n e x p e c t th a t w ithout in d iv id u a l c o u r t a p p e a ls , t h e i r c h ild r e n w ill a l l be a c c e p te d in n e ig h b o rh o o d s c h o o ls ju s t a s o th e r c h ild r e n a r e . T h e s e c e r t a in lim ita tio n s a n d u n c e rta in o p p o rtu n itie s w h ich d a ily c o n fro n t N eg ro c itiz e n s in A rlin g to n a r e fe lt by th o s e w ho p a r tic ip a te d in th e s u r v e y , to b e a b lig h t upon th e c o u n ty an d a b u rd e n upon a l l o f i t s r e s i ­ d e n ts . How ch a n g e an d im p ro v e m e n t m a y b e s t b e b ro u g h t ab o u t w ill be a m a tte r o f co n tin u in g c o n c e r n to th o s e p e r s o n s o f s e v e r a l r a c e s a n d o f v a rio u s fa ith s w ho c o m p o se th e m e m b e r s h ip o f th e A r lin g to n C o u n cil on H um an R e la tio n s . � https://projectdaps.org/files/original/e1bfe59f2f1737242a10a8ef44f71e0b.jpg 4e92a31f7105b63ade483494edb5dd47 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 123, Records of the Rock Spring Congregational United Church of Christ [UCC] 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 Broadside: The Negro Citizen in Arlington published by American Council on Human Relations Description An account of the resource Broadside: The Negro Citizen in Arlington published by American Council on Human Relations. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 123, Records of the Rock Spring Congregational United Church of Christ [UCC] Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource American Council on Human Relations Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant undated 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 123_1_2_1_1 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/d2c8c240bd3129b280176669afa74a18.pdf 7a76d67322792acd2afc4ffcec098110 PDF Text Text ESPECIALLY FOR Y O U REGISTER AND IT IS YOUR AS HO U S E EASY AS C O U N TIN G ON YOUR FINGERS LEARN THESE TEN POINTS BEFORE WHERE TO REGISTER Y O U G O TO REGISTER You must register in person. F ind o u t Be a b le to w r it e a le tte r s ta tin g th e s e te n p o in ts . E x a m p le : 2 1 , a p p ly to r e g is te r. " I , J o h n D oe, a g e I w a s b o r n in M a in - to w n , a n y S ta te , on J a n u a r y 2, 1936. liv e in ( C o u n ty o r C ity ) .................. a t o r n e a r ...................................... th e re fo r th e p a s t y e a r . and y e a r. h a v e w o rk e d I I a m a la b o r e r past th e re . W h e n y o u g o , re m e m b e r to ta k e y o u r Poll Tax receipts. REGISTRATION DEADLINE IS 3 0 d a y s b e fo re e le c tio n s . (J o h n D oe) J u n e 8 th f o r th e P rim a ry e le c tio n a n d O c to b e r 5 th fo r th e g e n e ra l e le c tio n . I h a v e n e v e r v o te d . S ig n e d , o ffic e is a n d w h a t h o u rs y o u r R e g is tra r is , V a ., I h a v e liv e d a s such f o r th e a t y o u r C o u rt H o use w h e re y o u r R e g is tra r's V IR G IN IA CITIZENS CONFERENCE 3 1 6 East C la y S tre e t R ic h m o n d 19, V ir g in ia �BE A CITIZEN, REGISTER, PAY Y@UR POLL TAXES A N D VOTE! IN VIRGINIA... This year we elect in Virginia the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attor­ ney General and 100 members of the House of Delegates. To vote'you must have paid Poll Taxes by M ay 4, 1957 W H O ... WHERE . . . Virginia citizens 21 years of age and over must pay a Poll or Capitation Tax of $1.50 a year due each Decem­ ber 5th. County Treasurer's office. If y o u o w e fo r th re e y e a rs —I n c lu d in g in te re s t, th e a m o u n t is If it is in­ convenient for you to go to the Court House or City Hall, mail your check or money order. a p p r o x im a te ly $ 4 .9 8 If y o u o w e fo r 1 9 5 4 o n ly —in c lu d in g and be registered. Pay your Poll Tax at the City or in te re s t, th e a m o u n t d u e is a p p r o x im a te ly $ 1 .7 5 If y o u o w e f o r 1 9 5 6 o n ly —in c lu d in g in te re s t, th e a m o u n t d u e is a p p r o x im a te ly $ 1 .6 5 I f y o u o w e fo r 1951J o n ly —in c lu d in g in te re s t, th e a m o u n t d u e is a p p r o x im a te ly $ 1 .5 8 Keep your Poll Tax receipts. You will need them to register and you may need to show them at the Voting Place or Polls. � 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 18: Personal Papers of Barbara Marx 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 Brochure "Especially for You and Your House," 1957 Description An account of the resource Brochure by the Virginia Citizens Conference entitled "Especially for You and Your House," 1957. Gives instruction on how African-Americans can register to vote, and what poll taxes they need to pay and information they need to memorize. 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 18, Personal Papers of Barbara Marx Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Virginia Citizens Conference Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1957 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 18_1_1_6_1 https://projectdaps.org/files/original/7b7c9c03c3ac2964ae28cfedbaf7dba2.pdf 35308964adac07112a6f1ddb7c170d1c PDF Text Text fA J b l D. C.-MARYLAND R EG IO N A L O F F IC E 1003 K St., N W .,W (: WILLIAM K O R E 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 18: Personal Papers of Barbara Marx 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 Business card for William Korey Description An account of the resource Business card for William Korey: ADL D.C.-Maryland Regional Office with address. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived RG 18, Personal Papers of Barbara Marx Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource William Korey 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 undated 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 18_2_1_3_24