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

for the two races. 8 After the clear statement in the second Brown
decision, quoted above, many other courts so held. 6
Although constitutional rights of this type have often been declared
to be "personal and present," 7 the Court did not order immediate
admission of the plaintiffs to the schools from which they had been
barred. Since the actions were class suits, all persons in the position of
the plaintiffs in the defendant school districts were, of course, entitled
to intervene and seek the same relief. The plaintiffs' constitutional
rights (if not their immediate legal remedy) were no greater than the
rights of 3 million other Negro, and 7 million white, pupils attending
compulsorily segregated public schools in almost 3,000 biracial school
districts in 17 Southern States. 8
The Supreme Court recognized the magnitude of the problem, saying:
"Full implementation of these constitutional principles may require
the solution of varied local school problems." e It placed "primary responsibility
for elucidating, assessing, and solving these problems" on
local school authorities, and gave the Federal district courts the duty of
deciding "whether the action of the school authorities constitutes good
faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles." 10
The district courts were directed to observe "equitable principles"
in reconciling public and private needs. The public interest was said
to be the elimination in a systematic and effective manner of the obstacles
to operation in accordance with constitutional principles. 11 The
private and personal interest of the plaintiffs was declared to be the
realization of their constitutional right of admission to public schools
on a nondiscriminatory basis as soon as practicable. 12
Although not expressly stated, the rationale of the Supreme Court's
decision to permit a delay in the enforcement of the plaintiffs' rights
appears to be that the public interest in an orderly administration of
public schools in one-third of the Nation could, for a limited period,
outweigh their personal interest—at least in the factual situation
presented.
Hence the Court provided for a period of transition from a segregated
to a nondiscriminatory school system and, after admonishing the
lower courts to require "a prompt and reasonable start toward full
compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling," 1S enumerated the factors
that may be considered in determining what additional time, if any,
might be "necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner." 14
The burden of proof that additional time was required was placed upon
the school authorities.
Problems of adjustment
The factors that the lower courts were authorized to consider in granting
additional time for good faith compliance at the earliest practicable
date were: "
6