Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-07-13
PLACEMENT

| IuACQ.
For like reason" the judges
ruled. there is no action to
stay proceedings pending action
by the Supreme Court Of APP
peals of Virginia on a case
involving the validity of the
act" The opinion continued:
1T should be noted that the
DEGREES appealed from do not
require the assignment of chill
dren to particular schools nor
do they require mixing of
races in any school. They
merely forbid defendants from
refusing to admit plaintiffs to
any school solely on account of
race or color"
Suits Brought Last Year
The aNorfolk and Newport
News desegregation suits were
brought a year ago by Negro
students and their parents,
seeking an Injunction to pre-
vent school officials in both To-
calities from denying them ad-
mission to schools because of
race. No specific application of
a Negro student to attend a
particular school was involved.
While the suits were pending,
the Virginia General Assembly
in September. 1856, adopted a
series Of new laws calculated to.
preserve segregated schools.
One Of these was the place.
ment law. which in itself makes
no mention Of race. other laws
provide for the closing of any
school or classroom where int.
grafton occurs, and the with
holding Of State funds from any
school systems that might be
operated by localities on an in
tegrated basis.
Placement Board Created
Under the placement law, a
three-member State board was
created to handle all student
assignments. The law specifies
a half-dozen standards for
making Observation-Disclosures
the welfare Of the child and
other children in the school.
availability of facilities, avail
ability Of transportation, apti-
tude and Intangible social SCI
entif1c factors"
AS soon as the placement law
was adopted, the State went
before Judge Hoffman and
asked for dismissal of the Nor
folk and Newport News de-
segregation suits on grounds
theNegroes had not exhausted
their administrative remedies
that is, they had not tried
to use the new placement law.
Becomes Major Issue
The placement law immedi-
ately became the major issue
in the case. 1t was the only
new defense available to the
State since. desegregation or
ders had been issued in earlier
suits against Arlington and
Charlottesville.
Attorneys for the Negroes
argued that the placement law
was part of a legislative scheme
to f1out the Supreme Court de-
segregation decision of May II.
1854 They took the position
that the placement law was not
a bona -f1de administrative rem
edy and should be held uncon-
stitutional.
Attorney General ]. Lindsay
Almond, jr.. argued that the
placement law should be re-
garded as a separate piece of
legislation. not connected with
the fund-w h h gliding and
schoolclosing laws. He pleaded
that the placement law should
not be passed on until an effort
was made to use it.
Ruled Unconstitutional
Last January IL, Judge Hoff-
man gave his answer: He held
the placement law "unconsti-
tutional on its face" and after
subsequent hearings directed
Norfolk and Newport News to
begin desegregation this fall.
In ruling the placement law
unconstitutional, Judge Hoff-
man took into account the
other new State school laws.
the interposition resolution
adopted by the General Assem-
bly,. and statements by Gov.
Stanley that there would be no
mixing of the races in Virginia
schools.
He said that even though the
placement law made no men,
ton Of race. courts cannot be
blind to the obvious" A key
word in his ruling was the
word efficient" In one bill
adopted at the 1856 special SEES
sion. the General Assembly de-
fined an efficient" school sys-
tenn as a segregated school sys-
tenn. Since the placement law
also uses the word efficient.
Judge Hoffman said "the pupil
placement board would indeed
be derelict in its duty If it ever
permitted admission OF a Me-
gro child in a school hereto
fore reserved for white chill
dren, and vice versa"
Even IL the other bills are
IIJ3'TE