home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=94HT0021>
- <title>
- Mar. 9, 1970: Where the Law Stands Today
- </title>
- <history>Time-The Weekly Magazine-1970s Highlights</history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- Where the Law Stands Today
- March 9, 1970
- </hdr>
- <body>
- <p> Amid the furor over the Stennis and Whitten amendments,
- the forced resignation of HEW Civil Rights Chief Leon Panetta
- and Senator Abraham Ribicoff's blistering attack on Northern
- hypocrisy, the nature and precise scope of existing U.S. law
- on race and the schools have largely been obscured. At issue
- are two sets of vital distinctions; the difference between
- integration and desegregation, and that between de jure, or
- governmentally imposed, and de facto, or accidental
- residential segregation.
- </p>
- <p> The foundation of the law was laid in 1954 when the U.S.
- Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Brown v.
- Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. In it, the court held
- that officially segregated schools were inherently unequal and
- therefore unconstitutional. It is often overlooked that the
- court did not order integration, the conscious mixing of races
- in schools. Its ruling was negative; that legally sanctioned,
- or de jure segregation, which then prevailed throughout the
- South, is unlawful. All the court's subsequent rulings in the
- 16 years since have consistently followed this precept of
- "againstness" rather than "forness." Thus is 1955 the Supreme
- Court ordered the Southern and Border states to proceed "with
- all deliberate speed" to eliminate dual school systems. In
- 1966, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed "freedom of
- choice" plans, but only as a means toward ending segregated
- school systems. Two years later, the Supreme Court realized
- that such plans were delaying rather than hastening
- desegregation, and ordered Southern school districts to come
- up with more effective methods. And in 1969 it ran out of
- patience entirely. In its October decision in Alexander v.
- Holmes, it held that 15 years was long enough for school
- systems to accept the law of the land , and ordered the
- immediate desegregation of schools throughout the region.
- </p>
- <p> While making clear what it did not want,the court has
- been far less enlightening on what it does want. Though it has
- indicated its dissatisfaction with the "tokenism" that places
- a few blacks in a previously white school, it has not
- attempted to lay down a formula for acceptable desegregation.
- Lower courts have also been vague, and seemingly contradictory
- rulings have been issued by the Fifth Circuit Court. One holds
- that where segregation is the result of past patterns of
- residential discrimination, the schools must go beyond mere
- rezoning if that alone fails to achieve a better balancing of
- the races; the other holds that redistricting, if fairly done
- and enforced, is sufficient. Nor has the Supreme Court ruled
- on the legality of busing, which some argue is forbidden under
- the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
- </p>
- <p> The court's negative mandate to the South has been clear,
- and de jure segregation is now theoretically all but dead.
- Though unhappy about the court's demand for immediate action
- in the few remaining pockets of Southern resistance, President
- Nixon announced that he will respect and enforce the law.
- Responsibility for enforcement rests with the Justice
- Department, which may bring suit to force compliance from
- recalcitrant school districts. Local authorities have taken
- their cue from the Chief Executive. Realizing that further
- resistance is fruitless, they have struck their Confederate
- colors and opened once all-white schools to black children.
- Schools in about 30 Mississippi districts desegregated without
- serious incident last January. Greenville, S.C., where whites
- are in the majority, went even further, and actively
- integrated their 104 schools, reassigning and busing pupils.
- </p>
- <p> To those in the North, however, the court's message is
- far less certain. Northern educational apartheid is the result
- of ghetto housing patterns, not legislative intent, and is
- thus harder to combat. Some twelve Northern states have
- adopted legislation dealing with de facto segregation, but
- judicial opinion remains divided. U.S. Appeals Court Judge J.
- Skelly Wright ruled in a 1967 case involving Washington, D.C.,
- that de facto segregation is just as illegal as that imposed
- by local law. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alfred
- Gitelson, noting that the result of segregation was the same
- regardless of the cause, partly brushed aside the distinction
- between the two types in a decision last month. He gave the
- Los Angeles Board of Education until June 1 to come up with
- a master plan for the racial integration of the city's huge
- public school system. But many legal experts believe that
- Gitelson's ruling will be upheld. Lower courts, however, have
- tended to disagree with Wright and Gitelson; their decisions
- have held that de facto segregation, though obviously
- undesirable, is nonetheless constitutional.
- </p>
- <p> The Supreme Court has thus far done nothing to resolve
- the issue. Persistently refusing to rule, it has turned down
- a chance to decide--and make new law--on a dozen cases
- involving de facto segregation. Its action therefore leaves
- judges and politicians alike with the impression that it
- believes such segregation to be constitutional. And so it will
- be, until and unless the court rules otherwise.
- </p>
- </body>
- </article>
- </text>
-
-