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

proceeding it is possible that it may be declared unconstitutional
in its application. . . .
Thus, it is clear that the Supreme Court decision in the Shuttlesworth
case, which merely sustained the lower court upon the limited ground
of its decision, was not an approval of all of the 14 factors enumerated in
the Alabama School Placement Law. It was at most only a declaration
that they are not all invalid, and that assignment of pupils to public
schools on criteria other than race is not intrinsically unconstitutional.
THE GIRARD COLLEGE CASE
The Supreme Court decision in the case of Pennsylvania v. Board of
Directors of City Trusts, 28 or the Girard College case, must be mentioned
in view of the statement in the Little Rock case that the desegregation
rule applies to schools "where there is State participation through any
arrangement, management, funds, or property." 29 The issue in the
Girard College case was whether a college established and financed by
a private trust was subject to the provisions of the I4th amendment
because of its administration by the board of directors of city trusts of
the city of Philadelphia. Rejecting the argument that the city officials
were acting in a fiduciary, not a governmental, capacity and were not,
therefore, subject to the I4th amendment, the Supreme Court said: 30
The Board which operates Girard College is an agency of the State
of Pennsylvania. Therefore, even though the Board was acting as a
trustee, its refusal to admit Foust and Felder to the college because
they were Negroes was discrimination by the State. Such discrimination
is forbidden by the i4th amendment. Brown v. Board of
Education, 347 U.S. 483.
It should be noted that under the terms of the trust the city was named
trustee and given the entire management and control of the college.
Thus, the case presented no question as to the degree of State control
essential to constitute State action within the meaning of the I4th
amendment.
SUMMARY
Supreme Court pronouncements concerning equal protection of the laws
in public schools and the rules governing their implementation in the
cases discussed above can be summarized as follows:
9