Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1955-06-10

series OF steps toward full int
can life. When the NAACP b,
with state statutes requiring OF
lie education. These statutor,
block all voluntary efforts to end
segregation.
The first cases destroyed the
validity of out-of-state scholar
ships as an excuse for the exclu-
sion Of Negroes from professional
schools. This was followed by the
cases which declared unconstitu-
tional provisions for Jim Crow
graduate and professional schools.
And then the May II. 1854, deci-
sion declared that segregation in
public education was unconstitu-
tional. This was followed by last
Tuesdays decision that "all pro-
visions OF federal. state or local
law requiring or permitting" seq
regation in public education must
yield TO" the principle announced
in the 1854 decision.
This determination by the SUI
preme Court clears the way for
school boards to desegregate their
systems Voluntarily. This Is being
done in many parts Of the South.
The opinion also gives US the
necessary legal weapons to bring
about compliance in areas of the
South which openly flout the man.
date OF the Supreme Court,
The question now before us Is:
under what conditions and with
what directives were the school
cases remanded TO lower courts
We know that the highest court
did not Ia set a deadline date for
either the beginning or the COM
pletion of degeneration in the
public schools: and (b) outline n
definite plans by which desegre-
cation must proceed and by which
lower courts might Judge the eff
forts Of local school boards to-
ward compliance with the May
II and May 81 rulings. Not having
done this. what did the Court do?
What language did II use?
Re.Affirmation Of Principle
May II. 1854 decision rc-affirm-
cd: These cases were decided on
May II, 1854. The opinions OF that
date, declaring the fundamental
principle that racial discrimina-
ton in public education Is I'M
constitutional, are Incorporated
herein by reference"
Last years opinion. as we all
know. declared: We conclude
that In the field OF public educa-
ton the doctrine Of separate but
equal has no place. Separate edu-
cational facilities are inherently
unequal" On May 81. the Court
said simply. as an introduction 10
it's opinion, that this principle
stands and that everything in the
May 81 opinion hangs upon IT,;
that the items in the May 81 opln-
ion must be considered at all
times and under all circumstances
in the light Of the clear principle
In the 1854 opinion. The Court
refers to the 1854 constitutional
principles a total Of six times
in It's May 81 opinion, once as
governing constitutional prin-
ciples"
All school segregation laws are
Invalid: AN provisions OF Fed
eral. state or local law requiring
Or permitting such discrimination
must yield 10 this principle"
This means that all laws, local.
state and federal, requiring or
permitting racial segregation in
the pubic schools are now null
and void and that no school or
other public official or body r.
bound by ruch laws.
Good Faith Required
Local school authorities respon-
sibie: School authorities have the
primary responsibility for eIuci-
dating. assessing. and solving
thee problems" Cof full inpls-
nsntation OF these constitutional
prtncipies-l.
This means Just what II says.
II means further that Il In right
and proper for citizens and COM
muni;y g-oupa 10 begin the cam
paiKn for dssegregation with the
local school authorities.
Good Faith Required: .
courts win have TO consider
whether the action OF school
authorities constitutes good-faith
implenentation OF the governing
constitutional prinn4ples"
The Court Is saying here that
alleged good faith IN carrying out
the governing" constitutional
principle % n0n-s~gregation can
be brought hefors . cOurt for de-
.ar--F-..{o- ard nA~d m. rs4s