Jackson advocate. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1939-current, 1955-07-30
Freedom To Choose

In our approach to the problem of segregation by
law which hold being unnecessary despite the tenor
of the times have number of occasions IN the
not to distant pass pointed the fact that inherent in
the idea ideal and tradition of this country was the
right to freedom of CHOICE right which Negroes along
with the other groups that make up the population OF
the United States still have unbemished by the de-
cisons of the United States Supreme Court declaring
segregation by law unconstitutional
In further illumination of the subject feel it
both responsibility and duty to here present an ed
toral the subject from the internationally read and
influential Christian Science Monitor.
Freedom To Choose
Whether by accident or design, South Carolina and
its capital Columbia seem destined to the site
for at least highly significant tests on the segrega-
ton issue.
South Carolina, it will be recalled is one of the
core group of deep South states which have gone on
record as determined to find ways around the famous
Supreme Court decision of May H. 1854 declaring segre
CATION in the public schools unconstitutional 1t is
state also which has launched its opposition on ngn
ground - that of states rights in the tradition OF Cal
houn.
Last week federal district court of appeals at
Richmond Va reversed the old separate but equal
doctrine Originally handed down in transportation
case) in declaring that the Columbia S. c. city bus line
may no longer compel separation OF white and Negro
passengers
day later federal court sitting en- blanc at Column
ba and another South Carolina ordered nearby
school district to establish system not based on racial
segregation
There are three enormously significant aspects TO
this decision.
First it marks the first action on the part of any
the federal district courts which the Supreme Court on
May 81 last ordered to take jurisdiction and to take &C
count of local conditions. Second the decree set no
specific time limit when the change must be COM
peted nor did it outline how it should be done THIRD
and perhaps most important this court attempted the
first judicial definition of what the Supreme Courts
basic decision does and does not mean in practice
Said the three Justices The courts are not direct
ed to take over regulate state schools States not
required to mix persons of different in the class
rooms But if the schools which the states maintain are
open to children of all races.
No violation of the Constitution is involved even
though the children of different voluntarily attend
different schools they attend different churches
Nothing the Constitution in the decision OF the Su-
preme Court takes away from the people freedom to
choose the schools they attend. The Constitution
does not require Indignation. 1t merely forblds seq
regation.
That exactly what this newspaper has been saying
for months. And might hardly do better in COM
mentng than to quote what he have already said:
"Once this is seen large areas for voluntary &C
commodation between the races opened up and
we do not mean Voluntary by intimidation Surely
within this freedom men OF good Will can work OUT
decent solutions and these in not too long time.