Milford chronicle., 1959-05-01

The chronological legal back
ground of these cases is fully sci
out in Evans v. Buchanan, ct al.
152 F. Supp. 886 Cd. c. Del, July
Is, 1850 and Evans v. Buchanan
ct al. 256 F. I'd 6S8 &C. A. Srd
July 23, 1859.
1t is sufficient here to say that
on May IL, 1854, the Supreme
Court of the United States declar-
ed that racial discrimination in
the public school systems was un-
constitutional, Brown v. Board OF
Education of Topeka, 347 U. S. 483
and on May 81, 1855, by supple
mental opinion, 349 u. S. 294, an
nounced that the primary respon-
sibility for solving the many local
problems which would inevitably
arise from integration must rest
upon the local school boards so
long as they acted in good faith.
In the cases before me, a group
of Negro children, through their
guardians, brought class actions
for injunctions in this court to re-
quire their admission to the pub
lie schools of Delaware on a ra-
cially non-discriminatory basis.
The State School Board defended
upon the ground that many local
boards had refused to follow its
directives as to integration and
that it was powerless to enforce
them upon what it conceived to be
autonomous bodies. Judge Leahy
granted summary judgment against
the defendants holding that the
defendant, State Board, had COM
plete authority over the actions
of the local boards and directing
the former to file a plan OF desc
gregatiOn on a statewide basis
within a stated time. The Third
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
The time for the filing of the plan
having expired pending the appeal,
a supplemental order was entered
on November 19, 1858, which to-
gether with minor amendments
thereto, directed that the State
Board of Education Submit a plan
of desegration with this court
within 112 days, and setting a hear
ing thereon on Tuesday, March II,
1859.
Plan Needs Order
A plan has now been prepared
and submitted in accordance with
the requirements of the order. In
simple terms, it provides for desc
grafton of the Delaware Public
School System on grade by grade
basis over a period of twelve years
beginning with all first grades at
the Fall term, 1859. a three day
hearing was held upon the plan
followed by the filing of briefs and
oral argument.
In its first opinion in Brown ".
Topeka, briefly mentioned above,
the Supreme Court stated that:
81 = = the plaintiffs are, by
reason of the segregation com.
planned of, deprived of the equal
protection Of the laws guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment"
And in it's second opinion it was
held that:
@* School authorities have
the primary responsibility for elu-
cidatlng. assessing, and solving
these problems; courts will have
TO consider whether the action OF
school authorities constitutes good
faith impIementatiOn of the gov
erning constitutional principles
=
"* TraditiOnally, equity has
been characterized by a practical
flexibility In shaping its remedies
and by a facility for adjusting and
recOnciling public and private
needs. These cases call for the
exercise Of these traditional attri-
butes of equity power. At stake
Is the personal interest Of the
plaintiffs in admission to public
schools as soon as practicable ON
a nOndiscrlminatOry basis. To ef-
fectuate this iBterest may call Tor
elimination of q variety of Obsta-
cIes in making the transition to
school systems operated In accord
ance with the constitutional prin-
cipIes set forth i'm our May IL,
1854, decision. Courts of equity
may properly take into account the
public interest in the elimination
of such obstacles in a systematic
and effective manner
"* Once such start has
been made, the courts may find
that additional time is necessary
TO carry out the ruling in an ef-
fectiVe manner. The burden rests
upOn the defendants to establish
that such time is necessary in the
public interest and is consistent
with good faith compliance at the
earliest practicable date. To that
end. the courts may consider prob
lens related to administration,
arising from the physical condition
of the school plant, the school
transportation system, personnel.
revision of school districts and at
tendance areas into compact units
TO achieve n system Of determining
admission to the public schools on
n nOn-racial basis, and revision OF
local laws and regulations which
may be necessary in solving the
foregoing problems -
Only Plan Before Court
The plan of the State Board is
the only one before me for consid-
Grafton. Neither the plaintiffs nor
any other interested party have
offered an alternative. The plain
tiffs apparently take the position
that they are under no duty to
offer a plan-rather, that it is the
burden of the State Board to pre-
mare a plan which, in all respects
must meet the requirements of the
Brown cases. With this l agree.
But to the extent that the plain
tiffs at times seem to contend that
no plan other than one calling for
a faH