Viewing page 1 of 2

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Reprinted from THE NEW YORK TIMES, Monday, July 18, 1955

Who Is Blocking Federal Aid To School Construction?

A debate, incredible even for the world of politics, is proceeding on the Federal school construction bill because of a proposal that it contain anti-segregation language. 

There is involved only the simple question of upholding or not upholding what the Supreme Court has declared to be the Constitution of the United States. The very simple proposal is that Federal aid to build schools be made available only to those school districts or states which already conform or which indicate that they intend to comply with the Supreme Court Ruling. 

Not a single law-abiding school district in the United States will suffer if this requirement is included in the legislation. Not a single school child, or teacher, or parent in states subscribing to the United States Constitution will be deprived of needed aid for new schools. 

Only those states and school districts which seek to maintain Jim Crow school systems "come hell or high water" (to use the language of Gov. Marvin Griffin of Georgia) would be unable to get assistance from the Federal government. 

Some representatives of these states in Congress have threatened to "doom" the school construction bill unless its language leaves their states free to pursue their outlawed methods as to public schools.

These few men would deny new school benefits to children in more than three-fourths of the states by requiring the rest of the nation to give up its principles in order that their areas may indulge their prejudices. 

The fate of the school construction bill is in the hands of this little band of wilful men, not in the hands of those who ask merely adherence to the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, the climate of obedience to law is at stake, for if the Congress winks at a Supreme Court ruling, making believe in some fashion that it is self-operative, why shall not a thousand school boards likewise wink? The boards will have to answer later in court, of course, but why should Congress lead them astray?

UNLESS an anti-segregation amendment is included in the Federal aid to education bill for school construction the Congress of the United States, in passing such legislation, will knowingly subsidize open defiance of a ruling of the United States Supreme Court. 

The Court has ruled that racially segregated school systems are unconstitutional and that local school boards must make a "prompt and reasonable" start toward desegregation in "good faith" compliance with the new ruling.

There is no uncertainty or cloudiness about the defiance thus far voiced by some newspapers and some elected spokesmen for certain areas, school districts and states. These are samples:

Senator James O. Eastland, (D. Miss): "The South is not going to accept integrated schools . . . regardless of the decree of the United States Supreme Court and regardless of whatever decree the United States Supreme Court might issue in the foreseeable future, it will be a nullity in every single school district in the state of Mississippi." 
             - In a radio broadcast over CBS, June 4, 1955.

Governor Marvin Griffin of Georgia: ". . . the Supreme Court of the United States issued an unthinkable decision, outlawing school segregation. . . We Georgia people. . . are firm in our conviction that tyranny must be resisted with every resource at our command."
         - Inaugural address, January 11, 1955.

Similar declarations have come from spokesmen in South Carolina, North Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Virginia.

In an editorial June 1, 1955, the Richmond, Va., News Leader says: "... it (the South) is to enter upon a long course of lawful resistance... it is to seek at the polls and in the halls of legislative bodies every possible lawful means to overcome or circumvent the court's requirements. Litigate? Let us pledge ourselves to litigate this thing for 50 years."

In an editorial June 20, 1955, the Jackson, Miss., Daily News declares: "If the Supreme Court decision is the law of the land then we intend to violate the law of the land."

WITH this sentiment on record, the Congress would be wittingly paying certain states Federal tax money collected from the other law-abiding states to make it easier for the recalcitrants to carry on their campaigns of defiance of the judicial branch of the United States Government. 

The Congress can do this if it chooses, but it cannot pretend that there is no evidence that an anti-segregation amendment is necessary. 

The expense and responsibility of conducting the required litigation in the areas of stubborn resistance have already been thrust upon private citizens and organizations. 

These citizens have a right, however, to request that their Federal government not make scores of millions of dollars available to such areas to enable them to strengthen a system of public school cheating, admittedly the shame of the nation for many years, and now declared unconstitutional. 

The Federal school construction bill can be passed with anti-segregation language if its supporters will throw their moral certitude into the arena and follow it into combat with some backbone and some intestinal reinforcement. The law of the land is now public schools and integration, not public schools or integration. Get this thing out of the cloakrooms and corridors, off the White House wires, away from the mumbo-jumbo of the country's best bluffers. 

Let's see who is throwing the rock and hiding his hand. 

Is it your Congressman? Your Senator? 

Let's see on a stand-up-and-be-counted basis who is trying to kill Cock Robin. 

This battle can be won, but not at the wailing wall. 



National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
Roy Wilkins, Executive Secretary

20 West 40th Street                   New York 18, N. Y.