Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1955-05-06

Il States Supreme Courts his
torio anti-scgregation decision,
the first anniversary Of which
will he celebrated Tuesday, May
n
In the twelve months since that
day. information complied by the
National Association for the Ad.
vancemcnt Of Colored People In
dicatea that school degeneration
has been initiated In the District
OF Columbia and the city of Baiu-
more. In two towns In ArkanAas.
~ counties In West Virginia, 30
communities In Missouri five
towns Ia Delaware, SIX cities In
Kansas and scattered oommuni-
ties IN Arizona and New Mexico,
For full year now, public
school segregation has been for
mally recognized by the nations
highest tribunal as contrary TO
our basic law and n denial OF "ths
equal protection OF the laws
guaranteed by tho Fourteenth
Amendment" In handing down
this decision, the nine justices OF
the Court unanimously concluded
that In tho field OF public eduoa-
ton the doctrine of separate but
equal has no place" Further.
they asserted: Separate educa-
tlonal facilities are inherently un-
equal"
Separate Hut Equal" banned
THIS decision laid bare tho obso-
lete doctrine Of separate but
equal which has shaped racial
patterns In tho South since 1890
when the Supreme Court. over tho
prophetic dissent OF Justice John
Marshall Harlan, created this
legal fiction, ''rho Constitution In
color blind" Justice Harlan then
maintained Forty eight years
later. on May ~. last. tho Court
unanimously affirmed this minor
ity dissent.
The Court, however, RETAINED
from handing down DEGREES or
drring state and local authorities
10 proceed forthwith 10 dasegre.
gate tho schools, because these
are class actions, because of wide
applicability Of this decision. and
because ~ the great variety Of
local conditions. the formulation
~ DEGREES In these cases presents
problems Of considerable com
plcxity." the Court asserted Ac-
cordingly, the Justices asked for
further argument To determine
how and within what time limits
public school segregation was 10
be ended.
Argument was heard In
Washington. April lila. with
ThurKood Marshall and his as
sociatea contendinK for . dead
line Of September. 1865. 10 Inn.
pIemcni the Courts May ~
ruling. Tn. NAACP lawyers
urged III. Court 20 set septcm-
b.r 1853. "as the outside date
by which degeneration must bo
accomplished"
Attorneys for the segregation
states urged that no deadlins be
determined and that the Federal
District courts be authorized TO
settle the Issue In the light OF
local conditions. The United
states government. through Soil
citor General Simon n, sobelof,
agreed with the southsrnrrs that
the cases should be sent back 10
the lower courts without n specif-
fed dcadline. The Solicitor Cen
erals plan would require local
authorities IN submit 10 the dis
trict court within 90 days a plan
10 end segregation las soon M
possible" II no plan were sub
mltted the district court then
would be empowered 10 issue "ap-
propriate orders" STIMULATING de-
segregation by the beginning Of
the next school term.
Voluntary DessgrrKation
Meanwhile. In the IL months
since the original Supreme Court
decision and in the absence OF for
NAL DEGREES ending segregation.
what has hhppened' Although
the Court branded public school
aggregation unconstitutional. u
dld not ut that time direct any
school system 10 deaegregate.
John NJ. Dalton, attorney general
Of the state ~ Missouri, Indicated
local school boards were free 10
drscgregats Immediately. but
were not required TO do 10 until
the Supreme Court formulated its
DEGREES. Thus any immediate steps
TO desegregate were voluntary.
EAACP lawyers maintain that
any school board may proceed 20
irt.yr.ta ia achoola state con-