Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-09-15

Seven Negro children of
school age were refused adj
mission as pupils in the public
schools of Arlington County,
Virginia on the opening day Of
the current session. The ground
Of the refusal was that the
applicants had not complied
with, or obeyed. the provisions
Of the Pupil Placement Act Of
Virginia, 1856. Acts. Extra
Session, c. 10. That statute
requires every child before
entering a public school for
the first time, or on graduation
from one school to another, to
apply to the Pupil Placement
Board for enrolment. In refus-
ing the admission, the school
principals were following the
directions of the defendant
County School Board and SUI
perintendent who. in turn. were
following the act. These chill
dren. now called the plaintiffs.
assert that the refusal violates
the Injunction previously en-
tered by this court restraining
the defendants from denying
enrolment IN any public school
of the County. on account Of
race or color, to any otherwise
qualified child. The plaintiffs
move for q supplemental decree
directing the admission of
these children to the schools,
The court viii grant the
motion.
Calls Position Untenable
/. In its injunctive decree
the court took notice of exist
ing and future State and local
rules and administrative reme-
dies for the assignment Of chill
dren to public schools. It
directed conformance with
them before the complainant
should turn to the court. OF
course. the decree only contem-
plated reasonable regulations
and remedies. Defendants posi-
ton that the Pupil Placement
Act is such a regulation or
remedy Is untenable. The pro-
cedure there prescribed is too
sluggish and prolix to consti-
tute a reasonable remedial
process. On this point we also
rely upon the reasoning OF the
Court of Appeals for this Cir
cult in School Board Of the
City Of Newport News ct al. v.
Atkins ct al. July Is. 1857.
1t must be remembered that
we are viewing the act in a diff
ferent frame from the setting
in which it was tested by the
Court Of Appeals. The act was
then appraised as an adminis-
trative remedy which had to
be observed before the persons
aggrieved could seek a decree
of judicial relief. Now the act
Is measured against the enforce
ment Of a decree already grant,
ed. 1t is. too, a decree which
was passed before the adoption
Of the Placement Act and bears
the approval Of the final courts
Of appeal. For these reasons
decision here need not await
the outcome of the pending
effort to obtain a review Of
the Court Of Appeals judement.
This court had hoped that
the initial step provided in the
Placement Act might be isolated
and utilized as a fair and prac-
ticable administrative remedy.
1t thought that a requirement
that q pupil first entering a
school. or transferring from one
school to another, should seek
placement from some official
or board. would not only be a
reasonable. but a necessary reg
ulation as well. in the admin
istration Of the school This
agency. it seemed. might valid
ly be a State agency exclusively
such as the Placement Board.
Sees Assent 10 Segregation
However, the court finds that
it cannot fairly require the
plaintiffs even to submit their
applications to the board for
school assignment. The reason
is that the form prescribed
therefor commits the applicant
to accept o school (which the
board deems most appropriate
in accordance with the pro-
visions" Of the Pupil Placement
Act. Submission to that act
amounts almost TO assent to a
racially segregated school. But
even II the form be signed "un-
der protest." the petitioner
would not have an unfettered
and free tribunal to act on his
request. The Board still deli
berates, on a racial question.
under threat Of loss Of State
money to the applicants school
II children Of different races
are taught there.
II. The court must override
the claim Of the County School
Board and superintendent that
they should not be held to an
swer for the denial Of admit
lance to the plaintiffs. In this
they urge that the Placement
Board had sole control Of adj
missions = that the School
Board and superintendent had
been Invested by the act Of
every power in this respect. AS
just explained, the Placement
Act and the assignment powers
of the Placement Board are not
acceptable as regulations or
remedies suspending direct
obedience Of the injunction. In
-