Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-10-14
BY DANA BULLEN
Star Staff Writer

- Star Staff Writer
OF many school degeneration
cases that have arisen since its
historic 1854 decision, the Su-
preme Court has agreed to review
only two.
The first was when the court
stepped into the Little Rock sit
uation. The second came last
Monday when it agreed to ex-
anime a Knoxville (Tenn.) mi
nority transfer rule.
Just two days later, the court
was asked to take a Charlottes-
vile (Va) case involving sim
liar question. Behind this one are
other Virginia cases.
> What is this issue that has
prompted the court to depart from
: its former practice of leaving local
I school desegregation matters to
lower Federal courts?
It is the rule which permits
students to transfer out of schools
where their race is in the mi
nority. The rule has been the sub
ject of opposite rulings by two
United States Circuit Courts Of
Appeal.
Lower Court Ruling
In Knoxville's case, the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals has said
the minority transfer rule is not
unconstitutional. But the court
told school officials to guard
against improper use of it.
The Fourth Circuit Court Of
Appeals, in the Charlottesville
case, struck down that city's
transfer rule, saying it can
hardly be denied" it retains seq
regation. The vote was 3 to 2.
The two plans work much the
same, although they are worded
quite differently. Knoxville lays
it on the line in strictly racial
terms. Charlottesville talks about
pupils best academic interest"
The Knoxville rule states valid
reasons for transfers include:
/. When a white student would
otherwise be required to attend a
school previously serving colored
students only;
2. When a colored student would
otherwise be required to attend
q school previously serving white
students only;
8. When a student would other
wise be required to attend school
where a majority Of students of
that school or in his grade are OF
a different race.
Challenged by Negroes
The transfer rule, also used in
the county around Knoxville, was
challenged by a group of Negro
students and their parents. They
maintained it's use preserved pre-
existing segregation patterns.
For example. if two schools each
had minorities of different races
and they cross-transferred under
the minority transfer rule, the re-
suit would be two schools, one all
white and one all-colored.
!, 1t is argued the transfer rules
in Knoxville and some Virginia
communities were designed as ex-
cape clauses for white students
when desegregation plans in
cluded geographical school dis
trict lines.
In upholding the Knoxville
transfer rule, the Sixth Circuit
said it did not think the provision
was "in and of itself unconstitu-
tional." However, the court said
that its use could be.
The court said transfers were
made only on request and depend
upon students and their parents
rather than upon school officials.
The Negroes said this meant par
ents can maintain segregation.
In asking the Supreme Court to
review the Sixth Circuit ruling,
lawyers with the National Asso-
citation for the Advancement Of
Colored People said the transfers
were a device" to limit desegre-
cation.
leornino Conditions
Briefs filed by Tennessee school
officials said minority transfers
were not meant to be discrimina-
tory. but were aimed only at the
improvement of learning condi-
tons for the students involved.
when a pupil makes a volun-
tary application for transfer in
the interest of better schooling
atmosphere for himself, the board
is obligated to help him out" a
school board frief said.
In taking the Knoxville case,
the Supreme Court said it would
consider the claim Negroes were
restricted to colored school zones
while white students were allowed
transfers because of race.
The Charlottesville case in
wolves a minority transfer plan
under which 149 white students
were transferred out of the city's