Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-08-28

I -
lent in large areas Of the
country.
They commended, therefore.
that the court should not 60
beyond its declaration Of the
constitutional principle, and
that it should leave implement
tation Of the principle to the
voluntary conduct Of the COM
munities and individuals con-
cerned, without imposing any
limitation as to time.
The United States, however,
proposed q middle course. 1t
suggested that the cases be
remanded to the lower courts
with directions to require the
defendant school boards either
to admit the plaintiffs forth
with to nonsegregated public
schools or to propose promptly
for the lower courts consider
alton and approval an effective
plan for accomplishing deSeg-
regation as soon as practicable.
It proposed that the defend
ants should bear the burden
of proof on the question Of
whether. and how long, an in
lterval Of time in carrying out
full desegregation is required,
and that no program should
receive judicial approval UNI
less it called for an immediate
and substantial start toward
deSegregation, in a good-faith
effort to end segregation as
soon as feasible.
This court unanimously re-
jected the two extreme views
and accepted, in essence, the
proposed middle course. 1t
stated explicitly that 'the
courts will require that the de-
PENDANTS make q prompt and
reasonable start toward full
compliance with our May II,
1854, ruling"
II additional time for carry
ing out the ruling is requested,
it added, the burden rests up
on the defendants to establish
that such time is necessary in
the public interest and is con-
sistent with good faith compile
ance at the earliest practicable
date"
The court specifically EMU
merated factors which the
lower courts might consider as
justifying the allowance of adj
ditional time: problems related
to administration, arising from
the physical condition of the
school plant, the school trans
portation system, personnel, re-
vision OF school districts and
attendance areas into compact
units to achieve a system of
determining admission to the
public schools on a nonracial
basis, and revision of local laws
ana regulations which may be
necessary in solving the fore
going PROBLEMS"
The factor of community hos
tility or opposition to deSegre-
cation was not included in the
list. The court dismissed in a
single sentence the suggestion
that the plaintiffs should forego
their personal and present"
right not to be segregated while
attending public schools until
such time as others in the COM
munity might be agreeable:-I
." . /" it should go without say
ing that the vitality of these
constitutional principles cannot
be allowed to yield simply be-
cause Of disagreement with
them"
In short, the court made it'll
clear that mere popular hos
tility, where it exists, can afford
no legal justification for de-
priving Negro children of their
constitutional right.
The court was explicit in it's
insiStence that there be good
faith compliance at the earliest
practicable date" Where ad-
ditional time was sought, it |
could be allowed only where
necessary in order ito effect
uate a transition to q racially
on-discriminatory school sys-
tenn" Additional time, where
permitted, must be for the
purpose of enabling the au-
thorities to take necessary con-
structive measures - measures
looking toward full compliance.
The court thus indicated that
it will not countenance delay
as a mere interlude during
which little or nothing would
be done to effectuate transition
to nonsegregated system.
(b) On the face of it, the
district courts decision in the
present case rests on the con-
Sideration Of factors which this
court ruled out as inadmissible.
The Little Rock plan Of school