1961 US Commission on Civil Rights Report Book 2 - University of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NOTES: EDUCATION, Chapter 2 1. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 492 (1954). 2. id. at 495. 3. Id. at 493. 4. 349 U.S. 294,298 (1955). 5. Steiner v. Simmons, 111 A. 201574 (Del. 1955). 6. E.g., Borders v. Rippy, Civ. No. 16483, 5th Cir., July 23, 1957, 2 Race Rel. L. Rep. 805 (1957); Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 138 F. Supp. 335 (E.D. La. 1956); Covington v. Montgomery County School Board, 139 F. Supp. 161 (M.D.N.C. 1956); Davis v. School Board of Prince Edward County, 142 F. Supp. 616 (E.D. Va. 1956). 7. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950); Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U.S. 631, 633 (1948); Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 351 (1938). 8. See 1959 Report 167. 9. Brown v. Board of Education, supra, note 4, at 299. 10. Ibid. 11. Id. at 300. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Id. at 300-01. 16. Id. at 301. 17. Id. at 300. !8. 358 U.S. i; 358 U.S. 28 (1958). 19. 358 U.S. 1,4(1958). 20. Id. at 17. 21. Id. at 7. 22. Ibid. [Emphasis added.] 23. Ibid. 24. See p. 22, infra. 25- 358 U.S. 101 (1958). 26. 162 F. Supp. 372 (N.D. Ala. 1958). 27. Id. at 384. 28. 353 U.S. 230 (1957). 29. Cooper v. Aaron, supra, note 19, at 4. 30. Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts, supra, note 28, at 231. 31. Brown v. Board of Education, supra, note 4, at 300. 32. Brown v. Board of Education, supra, note i, at 493. 33. Brown v. Board of Education, supra, note 4, at 300. 188
NOTES: EDUCATION, Chapter 3 1. See 7950 Report 299-305. 2. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. i, 7 (1958). [Emphasis added.] 3. 347 U.S. 497, 498 (1954)- [Emphasis added.] 4. 238 F. 2d 91, 99 (8th Cir. 1956). 5. Dove v. Parham, 282 F. 2d 256, 259, 261 (8th Cir. 1960). 6. Beckett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, Civ. No. 2214, E.D. Va., Aug. 25, 1958 (statement of Federal district court), 3 Race Rel. L. Rep. 946,949 (1958). 7. Dove\. Parham, 183 F. Supp. 389, 392 (E.D. Ark. 1960). 8. Dove v. Parham, supra, note 5, at 261. 9. Letter from Dr. John Fischer, then Supt. of Schools, Baltimore, Md., to the <strong>Commission</strong>, Feb. 20, 1959, and attachments. 10. Williamsburg Transcript 41. 11. Briggs v. Elliott, 132 F. Supp. 776 (E.D.S.C. 1955); Dove v. Parham, 181 F. Supp. 504, 513 (E.D. Ark. 1960); Kelley v. Board of Education of City of Nashville, 270 F. 2d 209, 228-29 (6th Cir. 1959). See also: Thompson v. County School Board of Arlington, 144 F. Supp. 239 (E.D. Va. 1956); School Board of the City of Newport News v. Atkins, 246 F. 2d 325 (4th Cir. 1957); Covington v. Edwards, 165 F. Supp. 957 (M.D.N.C. 1958), aff'd, 264 F. 2d 780 (4th Cir. 1959); McKissick v. Durham City Board of Education, 176 F. Supp. 3 (M.D.N.C. 1959). 12. 159 F. Supp. 272 (M.D. Tenn. 1958). 13. Id. at 278. 14. Civ. No. 10444, S.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 12, 1960, 5 Race Rel. L. Rep. 709 (1960). 15. Ibid. 16. 184 F. Supp. 402 (N.D. Tex. 1960). 17. Sub nom., Boson v. Rippy, 85 F. 2d 43 (5th Cir. 1960). 18. Id. at 45. 19. Id. at 45-46. 20. Ross v. Peterson, supra, note 14, at 709. 21. Ibid. 22. Id. at 710. 23. Houston School Census, <strong>1961</strong>. 24. (New Orleans) Times-Picayune, Aug. 30, 1960, p. 3. See also N.Y. Times, Sept. 8, 1960, p. 59. 25. Under a plan adopted Apr. 24, <strong>1961</strong>, by the New Orleans school board, no first-grade pupil will be transferred if his brothers or sisters attend another elementary school "and such permits would separate him from them." So. School News, June <strong>1961</strong>, p. 9. It has been announced that the Dallas school board has also enacted the brother-sister provision to be used in September <strong>1961</strong>, when 189
Page 1:
1961 United States
Page 4 and 5:
KF 4755 .A822 1961
Page 6 and 7:
Page CHAPTER 4. DESEGREGATION IN TH
Page 8 and 9:
Page Summary 135 CHAPTER 9. SOUTHER
Page 11 and 12:
General Contents: Books 1-5 Book I:
Page 13 and 14:
Foreword The United States
Page 15 and 16:
Inaction of government officials ha
Page 17 and 18:
pan iv. Education 1. Introduction O
Page 19:
equire or permit segregation by rac
Page 22 and 23:
for the two races. 8 After the clea
Page 24 and 25:
district court might conclude after
Page 26 and 27:
1. State-imposed racial segregation
Page 28 and 29:
grants, for example? If so, what pr
Page 30 and 31:
If initial assignments by race subj
Page 32 and 33:
As the Court put it in Boiling v. S
Page 34 and 35:
seems to arise. The cost of public
Page 36 and 37:
children of the same family to atte
Page 38 and 39:
The Fifth Circuit appears to be on
Page 40 and 41:
to exhaust administrative remedies
Page 42 and 43:
students wishing to do so could reg
Page 44 and 45:
In Northcross v. Board of Education
Page 46 and 47:
standards, was rejected on "attitud
Page 48 and 49:
Curriculum disparities as between w
Page 50 and 51:
to be approved or disapproved by a
Page 52 and 53:
their schools, as required by law."
Page 55 and 56:
4. Desegregation in the South By Ma
Page 57 and 58:
enrollment. In September 1960, Air
Page 59 and 60:
the school year. 88 While the numbe
Page 61 and 62:
hand, they were openly—this time
Page 63 and 64:
Maryland All of the 23 school distr
Page 65 and 66:
tion. 80 One Negro pupil was assign
Page 67 and 68:
The North Carolina Advisory Committ
Page 69 and 70:
eligible Negro students quietly ent
Page 71 and 72:
white counterparts. Their overall a
Page 73 and 74:
Fairfax County, which has a very sm
Page 75 and 76:
Our dual system of schools is the b
Page 77 and 78:
having only a few Negro pupils have
Page 79:
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Page 82 and 83:
to maintain segregated schools for
Page 84 and 85:
and authorized school boards to pro
Page 86 and 87:
desegregated schools. 86 This legis
Page 88 and 89:
and New Orleans—was under court o
Page 90 and 91:
It had become clear that New Orlean
Page 92 and 93:
South Carolina Statutes enacted dur
Page 95 and 96:
6. The Threat to Education ... no i
Page 97 and 98:
act, and a 1959 amendment withholdi
Page 99 and 100:
ther to close other schools in any
Page 101 and 102:
given authority to call an election
Page 103 and 104:
from certain schools was voided by
Page 105 and 106:
funds were available. The school bo
Page 107 and 108:
The financing of these private scho
Page 109 and 110:
and other forms of governmental par
Page 111 and 112:
should be kept in mind when we spea
Page 113 and 114:
public schools because of tuition g
Page 115 and 116:
7. Segregation North and West At le
Page 117 and 118:
y school authorities. All these pow
Page 119 and 120:
easonable, and educationally sound.
Page 121 and 122:
classes and school, attend the scho
Page 123 and 124:
choice is between two schools havin
Page 125 and 126:
thorough elimination of segregation
Page 127 and 128:
INFERIORITY OF THE SCHOOL From 1896
Page 129 and 130:
Having put the power of assignment
Page 131:
suit in serious disparities in staf
Page 134 and 135:
sponsored; others are private, volu
Page 136 and 137:
same students had made the previous
Page 138 and 139:
sional techniques involved in purpo
Page 140 and 141:
Another approach is to improve his
Page 142 and 143:
January January 1958 1961</
Page 144 and 145:
IQ scores of 108, 128, 99, and 125
Page 146 and 147:
1. The gains in reading comprehensi
Page 148 and 149:
Inservice programs to upgrade teach
Page 150 and 151:
serves. Thus, Oak Park and Carver p
Page 152 and 153:
sponsored. An exception is the tuto
Page 155 and 156: 9. Southern Libraries Sixteen years
Page 157 and 158: council adopted an ordinance restri
Page 159 and 160: three Negro students from Virginia
Page 161 and 162: conduct of public library services.
Page 163 and 164: Act program, the Southern States re
Page 165 and 166: 10. Role of the Executive Branch Ea
Page 167 and 168: or to submit plans to accomplish de
Page 169 and 170: gate and report his findings. On th
Page 171 and 172: THE LOUISIANA CASES An Interpositio
Page 173 and 174: circumvented would subvert our cons
Page 175 and 176: As to the contention that the Unite
Page 177 and 178: At the hearing at which the court r
Page 179 and 180: Appropriate action to vindicate the
Page 181 and 182: the formulation of a desegregation
Page 183 and 184: 11. The Colleges In January <strong
Page 185 and 186: applicants seeking admission to sai
Page 187 and 188: In May 1961 a Negr
Page 189 and 190: 12. Conclusions The Nation's progre
Page 191 and 192: schools provide elementary school i
Page 193 and 194: have made some start towards compli
Page 195 and 196: Need for Federal protection 17. The
Page 197 and 198: of equal protection in public schoo
Page 199 and 200: tended, to serve as a clearinghouse
Page 201: the number and ethnic classificatio
Page 206 and 207: Notes: Education, Chapter 3—Conti
Page 212 and 213: NOTES: EDUCATION, Chapter 4 1. Cf.
Page 234 and 235: NOTES: EDUCATION, Chapter 7 1. See
Page 246 and 247: Notes: Education, Chapter 10—Cont
Page 248 and 249: Notes: Education, Chapter 10—Cont
Page 250 and 251: Notes: Education, Chapter u—Conti
Page 252 and 253: 236
Page 254 and 255:
TABLE 2.—Status of segregation-de
Page 256 and 257:
240
Page 258 and 259:
EXHIBIT i Bureau of the Budget No.
Page 260 and 261:
(3) Fill in blanks under columns th
Page 262 and 263:
GARDINER, "National Library Week—
Page 264 and 265:
U.S. Commission on
Page 266 and 267:
LIST OF CASES CITED—Continued Pag
Page 268 and 269:
LIST OF GASES CITED—Continued In
Page 270:
LIST OF GASES CITED—Continued Pag
show all

1961 US Commission on Civil Rights Report Book 2 - University of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?