decision during the 6 months which followed its announcement on May 17, 1954. This report is an essential part of the statement and resolution acted on by the council and commended to the church for study and action. It is clearly the intent of the council that the report and statement be considered together; for the facts illuminate and lead to both the statement and resoluion.

1. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION: ITS BACKGROUND AND EXCERPTS

Its background.-Four separate cases, instituted by Negro parents on behalf of their children, were originally argued before the Supreme Court in December

1952.

While these cases originated in different places (Clarendon County, S. C.; Prince Edward County, Va.; Topeka, Kans.; Wilmington, Del.; and Washington, D.C.); a common legal question bound them together and the Supreme Court considered them accordingly. A fifth case from the District of Columbia, similar in nature, but having a different legal question as its basis, was argued at the same time and a decision was handed down separately.

In each of the four cases, the parents were seeking the aid of the courts in obtaining admission of their children to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. Their children had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the 14th amendment.

Through their legal representatives the parents argued that segregated public schools are not equal and cannot be made equal, and that hence their children were deprived of equal protection of the laws.

At the conclusion of the original arguments, the Court requested additional time and the lawyers of the plaintiffs, of the defendants' States, and of the U.S. Department of Justice were invited to submit information relating to certain questions advanced by the Court.

Oral arguments on these questions and briefs were submitted in December 1953.

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court handed down its now historic decision. The cardinal sections of this decision are cited herewith.

Excerpts from Supreme Court decision

"Our decision *** cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors (of equality or non-equality of buildings, curiculums, qualifications and salaries of teachers) in the Negro and white schools involved in each of these cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.

***We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the Armed Forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.

"Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to the cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

"We come than to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

"In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, (and) in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court *** resorted to intangible considerations ***. Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race, generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be

undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule againsts the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.'

"We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs *** are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th amendment."

In a separate decision handed down at the same time on the fifth case arising in the District of Columbia, the Court said:

"In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the States from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government. We hold that racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the Constitution."

Because of the far-reaching implications of these rulings, the Court invited the legal representatives of all parties, and the Attorney General of the United States, to submit additional briefs and to make oral arguments at the next session of the Court.

2. REACTION TO THE DECISION

Reaction to the Supreme Court decision was immediate and worldwide. Within the Nation, leaders in all walks of life and in all sections of the country had their say. Public discussion in the District of Columbia and the 21 States most affected by the decision was most vigorous. Opinions expressed ranged all the way from forthright and enthusiastic approval to outright defiance of the law of the land, as affirmed in the decision. Many counseled calmness, caution, and commonsense.

Political leaders and school authorities

The reaction and opinions of political leaders and school authorities in States most affected by the decision are of crucial importance. They primarily are responsible for the maintenance of law and order, and for working out practical ways of compliance with the decision.

Six months after the decision was announced, the picture was somewhat as follows: At the 20th annual meeting of the Conference of Southern Governors, in mid-November, the Governors of seven States-Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma-issued a signed statement in which they declared that integration of public schools would "engender dissensions that do not now exist." They further asserted that they would "exercise every proper prerogative" to keep segregated public schools. The Governor of Mississippi was not present at that time but is known to be in accord with these sentiments.

The Governors of six States-Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, and Alabama-who were also present, but did not sign the statement, may be presumed to be disposed toward a more moderate position, if not that of full compliance.

Four States-Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi-have enacted legislation designed to maintain segregated public schools (New York Times, Sept. 17, 1954). In North Carolina, the Governor appointed a citizens commission to study the implications of the Court's decision and to make recommendations.

In Tennessee State officials proposed gradual desegregation beginning with the first grade. The solicitor general stated: "As we see it now the question of whether there will be segregation was settled by the decision last May. We see no point in further arguing that point. Instead we will present our ideas about how the ending of segregation can be carried out with a minimum

of disturbance to our school system." The attorney general of the State and the commission of education generally agreed with the solicitor general (N.Y. Times, Aug. 19, 1954).

The Governor of Alabama is reported to have resisted increasing political pressure to call a special session of the legislature to enact an amendment to the State constitution to make possible the abolition of public education (Southern School News, vol. I, No. 3, Nov. 4, 1954, p. 1).

In Virginia the Governor appointed the Virginia Commission on Public Education, to study the matter and to make recommendations. This commission is scheduled to hold public hearings.

In contrast to the foregoing, voluntary compliance with the Court's decision was the order of the day in a number of States and cities.

Shortly after the decision the attorney general of Missouri ruled that State segregation laws were nullified by the decision, but held that compliance with the decision was voluntary until the Court announced its implementation decrees. However, school authorities announced their intention to comply with the decision in all of the schools of the 69 counties affected by the decision INS September-October 1954, vol, 25, No. 5, p. 1). The other 35 counties in the State were not affected by the decision. At the end of October the Southern School News reported that 289 of the 466 school districts in Missouri have no Negro pupils. "Of the remaining 177 with Negro pupils, 110 have begun some form of desegregation. In no case has desegregation caused any incident."

In Kansas, where segregation was permitted but not required by law, officials announced voluntary compliance shortly after the decision was announced.

In Kentucky, Republican and Democratic leaders agreed in announcing their intention to support voluntary compliance and thus kept the issue of desegregation out of the election campaign this year.

In West Virginia, where voluntary compliance was undertaken in three counties, there was opposition from some parents and some picketing. State officials, however, continued to make plans for voluntary compliance with the Court's decision. The State board of education opened the nine colleges under its jurisdiction to all qualified students. As a result, West Virginia State College, which until this year, has been open only to Negro students, has admitted more than 180 white students on a coeducational basis. This shows that the desegregation movement is working not only in the previously allwhite schools, but, also, in the previously all-Negro schools.

Several other isolated events indicate that the problem of public school segregation is a national as well as a southern problem. Shortly after the Supreme Court's decision, the school board of Hobbs, N. Mex., voted to comply with the decision. Despite agitation by a Baptist minister against desegregation, the schools opened in the fall fully desegregated and without inciden. (New York Times, Aug. 31. 1954.)

In New York State segregation of Indian children was ended for the first time in 100 years. One thousand five hundred and thirty-five Indian schoolchildren were transferred from out-of-date schools on reservations, some of which had been used since 1846, to neighboring public schools. (New York Times, Sept. 24, 1954.)

In Pasadena, Calif., the school authorities abolished a system of neutral zones, which had been in effect since 1927, and which represented an indirect method of racial segregation. (New York Times, June 27, 1954.)

In New York City and Englewood, N.J., Negro leaders charged that indirect racial segregation in the public schools had been discovered in certain districts. Political leaders have advanced several proposals to meet the popular demand, in certain parts of States such as South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, for measures to circumvent the decision. These proposals range from withdrawal of State support of gerrymandering of school districts. They may be classified under five broad headings: (1) transfer of existing schools to a system of private schools; (2) assignment of all students on an individual basis to particular schools; (3) right to transfer without cause from school to school; (4) gerrymandering of school districts; (5) to create a third school system of integrated schools, in addition to existing dual ones.

Interracial News Service.

The Federal Government

The present administration has given active and constructive leadership to the broad and increasing process of desegregation of public life and affairs. With its consistent support and under directives of the President, (1) the process of desegregation of the armed services has been pushed close to completion; (2) schools on Army installations which receive Federal funds have been integrated; and (3) the U.S. Department of Justice filed supporting briefs against segregation at the invitation of the Court, when the cases were argued before the Court.

On November 24, 1954, the Justice Department filed and made public its brief, submitted at the invitation of the Court on the question of implementing decrees That brief advanced five "ground rules" for a gradual ending of public school segregation:

(1) The lower courts shall direct school authorities to submit a desegregation plan within 90 days.

(2) In the absence of satisfactory plans, the lower courts shall direct the school authorities to end segregation at the beginning of the next school year. (3) Where plans are submitted, the lower courts shall hold hearings to determine acceptability and to fix the earliest practicable date for completing the desegregation.

(4) The lower courts should require progress reports, to guard against unnecessary delays.

(5) The Supreme Court should retain jurisdiction, in order to make further orders necessary to effect its ruling.

Some communities undertake integration voluntarily

School authorities in several cities have already successfully undertaken voluntary compliance with the Supreme Court's decision. The most notable and celebrated examples are Washington, D.C., Wilmington and Milford, Del., and Baltimore, Md. Shortly after the decision was announced, the school board of Greensboro, N.C., voted 6 to 1 to direct the superintendent of schools "to work out a system for an orderly changeover" from segregated to integrated schools. This was perhaps the first school board in the South to take steps to comply voluntarily with the Court's decision.

Protests against programs of integration in Washington, Baltimore, Wilmington and Milford, Del., captured the headlines and tended to obscure the more important fact that such protests involved only a small percentage of the affected schools and persons.

Desegregation of the schools in the District of Columbia was undertaken with the open support of the President of the United States, who expressed a hope that it would set an example and be a model for other affected areas. The program proceeded smoothly and without overt incidents for 3 full weeks, until, on October 4, students at one high school in Anacostia began demonstrations against desegregation. Students from two other formerly all-white high schools and six junior high schools joined in these demonstrations which followed. These actions clearly were suggested by similar protests which had been made by parents and students in Milford, Del., and in Baltimore, Md.

As a result of the combined efforts of Washington school and police authori ties, religious and civic leaders and other private citizens, order was restored by the fourth day and since that time enrollment and school attendance has been normal and without overt incidents. At the height of the demonstrations, which were classified by the school authorities as truancy, only 2,500 students, or 2 percent of the city's 104,000 school population, were involved in the organized class cutting.

The experience of Baltimore was somewhat comparable to that of Washington. Fifty-two out of Baltimore's 186 public schools were involved in the integration program. From the beginning of the school year on September 7, through September 29, the program was put into effect peacefully and smoothly. On the last day of September picketing began in one of the integrated schools in which were only 12 Negro pupils and 575 white students. The development of the protests and the public demonstrations have been fully reported in the press. Reports of these incidents tended to overshadow the much more significant and truly headline news. that not more than 6 of the 52 integrated schools were involved in the demonstrations, and that all of these 6 were schools in which there were only a few Negro students and an overwhelming majority of white students. In Baltimore, as in Washington, the coordinated efforts of school authorities, political leaders, law-enforcement officials, civic and religious organizations and private

itizens, peace, law, and order were restored within a short time. The Southern chool News reports: "The student march was a noisy one, but the hard facts were that 97 percent of Baltimore's public school boys and girls were not drawn ut and continued classes without interruption." (Southern School News, vol. I, o. 3, Nov. 4, 1954, p. 7.)

Two different communities in Delaware undertook desegregation with conasting experience. The city of Wilmington undertook desegregation on a oluntary basis and without incident involving several thousand pupils. Milford, el., at the opposite end of the State undertook integration of its high school volving only 12 Negro students and the opposition and protests made headline ews throughout the world. The bitter controversy, which developed in Milford and the surrounding Sussex County, appears to have been touched off and ganized by leaders of the recently formed National Association for the dvancement of White People. The Milford incident, as it is now called, started chain reaction of protests which quickly spread to Baltimore and to Washingn. To counteract the activities of the National Association for the Advanceent of White People, leaders of religious and civic organizations throughout elaware, and particularly in the affected areas, supported the efforts of school thorities to comply voluntarily with the Supreme Court decision. The bishops the Episcopal Church and the clergy were among leaders in the effort to win e support of the people to the integration program.

esegregation programs prior to the decision

These efforts of local and county school authorities to integrate public schools llowing the Supreme Court decision, are neither new nor isolated. A volume cently published by the University of North Carolina Press (Nov. 10, 1954), titled "Schools in Transition," reports the experiences of 24 communities, 6 States bordering the South, as they have sought to move from racially gregated public schools toward integrated systems prior to the decision. The 6 States, involved in a study conducted by 45 scholars under the auspices the Fund for the Advancement of Education, ranged from New Jersey to the st through Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois to New Mexico and Arizona in the West. 1 these may be considered border Southern States.

The 24 communities included in this study varied from large industrial cities, ch as Cincinnati, to small towns, such as Nogales, Ariz. Their population nge was from 8,500 to 3,600,000. They included such industrial cities as mden, N.J., and nonindustrial areas, such as Cairo, Ill. The size of the Negro pulation varied from large to small. The pattern of housing varied from highly gregated districts to a rather random and scattered arrangement. The terial in the study was gathered during the period of August and September 53. In addition to these communities, Paden City, W. Va., voluntarily integrated schools in 1953. The Negro school was closed and its pupils transferred to e previously all-white elementary and high schools. The high cost of dual hools is indicated by the fact that the closed Negro school served only four mentary and four high school pupils.

As may be expected, the experiences of these communities varied greatly. general, it may be said that they offer convincing evidence of the successful ssibilities of voluntary integration. They point, also, to certain common falls.

The most outstanding example of voluntary school desegregation prior to the preme Court decision is that of the State of New Jersey. In the period 7-52 New Jersey successfully completed integration of thousands of school ldren and their teachers "with a minimum of resistance. It took 5 years, spite some hostility and threats of resistance." (George Cable Wright, New k Times, May 23, 1954.)

Also prior to the Supreme Court decision, the Federal Government undertook end segregation in schools operated by the Army, with Federal funds, for ldren of Army personnel in all Army installations throughout the country. ew York Times, March 25, 1954.)

ucational, social welfare, civic, and labor groups

The National Education Association, perhaps the most influential professional canization in that field, meeting in July, adopted a resolution in support of Supreme Court decision. The conference was made up of 48 State delegations aprising 20,000 teachers, college officials, superintendents, and prominent