Greenberg Statement on Slowdown of School Desegregation by the Departments of Justice and Health

    President 
Hon. Francis E. Rivers 

PRESS RELEASE Director-Counsel 
egal atense ad Jack Greenberg 

Director, Public Relations 
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. Tease DeVore, Je. 
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 6-8397 NIGHT NUMBER 212-749-8487 

Statement by Jack Greenberg, Director-Counsel, 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), 
10 Columbus Circle, New York City, Sept. 9, 1969, 
11:00 a.m. 

Recent actions of the Department of Justice and the Department 

of Health, Education and Welfare with respect to school segregation 

amount to what only can be called a policy of deliberate confusion 

which has caused a slowdown from anticipated levels of desegregation 

this year and promises serious retreat in the future. These zigzags 

reflect the intense southern political pressure which stimulated 

protests in the Department of Justice's own Civil Rights Division. 

EXAMPLES OF FAILURE TO MEET STANDARDS 

Here are some concrete examples of what has resulted: 

In the month prior to the opening of school at least ten dis- 

tricts notified HEW that they were not implementing their previously 

approved plans. We have preliminary information that many more are 

fulfilling their commitments only partially. 

The Administration is accepting weaker desegregation plans. 

HEW has approved plans: 

Where no substantial steps are required this year beyond free 
choice 

Orangeburg #4 (Edisto) S.C.'s plan, accepted in August, 
has free choice for all grades in 1969 and calls only for 
the desegregation of faculty meetings. 

Where all-black segregated schools remain which could have been 
phased out this year to achieve a totally integrated system 

Chester, Tenn. has been given an extra year to close an 
all-black school for no justifiable reason. 

Where black schools which could have been integrated were either 
closed or remain segregated 

| Florence, §.C. rejected HEW's proposal to zone elementary 
schools and to assign white children to formerly black 

| schools. In August HEW accepted the district's plan under 
which 2 black schools were closed and others remain segre- 

| gated. Black parents are boycotting because they want the 
| two-way integration plan which HEW had earlier sought. 

ans where _s _schools remain even though other 
ible 

In Salisbury, N.C. the HEW accepted plan leaves two all- 
black schools. Black parents report that gerrymandered 
zone lines are responsible for keeping one of these schools 
segregated and that white students are being allowed to 
transfer out of schools with large black enrollments. 

(more) 



Statement by Jack Greenberg -2- Sept. 9, 1969 

Where delays are permitted on the basis of vague future 
construction plans 

Bleckley, Ga. HEW has accepted a delay pending a bond issue 
for new construction even though HEW officials admit that 
there is no need for new buildings and that the district 
should have been required to pair schools. 

York #2 (Clover) S.C. HEW has accepted a 1970 terminal plan 
on the justification that a new high school will be built. 
When the plan was accepted, the district had neither funds 
nor plans for construction. HEW officials admit the district 
could have integrated using existing facilities. 

The Administration is not taking steps to accelerate staff 

integration. 

HEW has accepted plans with very weak commitments for staff inte- 

gration and without clear guarantees for job security for black 

teachers. No sanctions have been exercised against a district either 

because staff desegregation has been minimal or because black prin- 

cipals and staff have been fired or demoted. Example: 

Johnston County, N.C. demoted its black high school principal and 
hired a white principal from outside the district. Although 
HEW's regional officials recommended sanctions because they 
believe this is a clear case of discrimination, HEW's General 
Counsel has refused to take action. 

Forthcoming plans will be less effective as instruments to abolish 

dual school systems. We predict decreased use of plans which could 

end the dual school system in cities and towns, e.g., school pairing 

and affirmative zoning, and an increase in plans with assignment pro- 

cedures based on intelligence tests and track systems--a process 

clearly intended to segregate black children. 

One Administration policy has indeed been implemented. Decreased 

use is being made of sanctions available to HEW under the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964. A substantial number of districts have not been cited 

even though desegregation has been minimal. HEW has not moved against 

majority black districts which have not submitted terminal plans. 

These districts have been permitted to remain in a state of non- 

compliance; no enforcement proceedings have been initiated against 

them. There are at least 80 such districts; Arkansas alone has 25. 

HEW occasionally announces that it has cited additional school dis- 

tricts or has terminated funds. The question is: how many fully 

documented cases have accumulated without action on the desks of the 

Secretary or of HEW's General Counsel? 

(more) 



Statement by Jack Greenberg -3- Sept. 9, 1969 

The decreased reliance on sanctions as a device to compel com- 

pliance is evident in the appointment to HEW's Reviewing Authority of 

two conservatives, one of whom is William R. Able, the chairman of the 

Republican Party in Columbia, South Carolina. 

The Administration has announced that it will put more emphasis 

on the use of professional educators as provided for under Title Iv of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Technical assistance is no substitute 

for enforcement. Furthermore, the events of this summer have unfor- 

tunately revealed that the role of the Title IV program, which is 

supposed to provide the expert, impartial, professional service of 

educators in the development of effective desegregation plans, has 

been compromised by political pressure. Black parents now realize 

that they cannot trust a program which clearly does not regard their 

children as its clients whose constitutional rights are paramount. 

Title IV staff submitted to Federal judges desegregation plans 
for South Carolina school districts where the target deadlines 
"1969-1970" had been crossed out and "1970-71" substituted and 
where only minimal steps were required for this term. In many 
of the 21 district plans, no requirements for additional pupil 
desegregation in 1969 were made. Emphasis was on exchange visits, 
bi-racial advisory and human relations committees, workshops, etc. 
Instead of steps to ensure the end of the dual school systems, 
these experts seemed able to produce only educational jargon. 
"All students will experience a series of interaction experiences 
with students of the opposite race." 

We know that many Title IV staff members are deeply unhappy about 

the position into which they have been forced. We have been advised 

that when the Administration requested the delay in implementing 

desegregation plans in Mississippi, the Title IV staff members who had 

worked on them were called into Secretary Finch's office and asked to 

testify that the plans had been too hastily drawn. Many of them 

refused to do so. 

THE USE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INSTEAD OF HEW 

The Administration has said it is shifting to litigation instead 

of administrative action which cuts off federal funds from districts 

which do not integrate. 

We have urged Justice to file suit where districts have refused 

federal money and insisted upon segregating. But a general shift from 

enforcement by federal fund cut-off under Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 to judicial enforcement would be disastrous. 

(more) 



Statement by Jack Greenberg -4- Sept. 9, 1969 

First, experience shows that districts under court order have 

integrated substantially less than those under HEW supervision. 

(2) Districts under court order can continue to receive federal 

funds even though they have not complied or the order may fall far 

short of constitutional requirements and HEW standards. 

(3) For Justice to take on new cases means it will give less 

attention to cases it now has. Overall progress will be less. The 

Civil Rights Division has not increased in size. Lawyers there must 

work also on employment discrimination and campus unrest. Fewer 

lawyers will have more work. 

(4) The position Justice took in Mississippi, urging delay in 

desegregating 33 districts, raises questions about its position in 

new cases it seeks to file. 

The Legal Defense Fund has more than 200 school cases in the 

courts. In these cases and with regard to schools generally, we are 

concerned that the position of Justice and HEW will undermine judi- 

cially declared standards for effective and speedy desegregation. In 

the past HEW has looked to the courts for guidance. And the courts 

in turn have looked to HEW. Where courts grant delays, as at the 

request of the Federal Government in Mississippi, there is every 

prospect that HEW will follow that example. Where HEW dilutes its 

requirements, as in the many examples that appear in this statement, 

the courts may be expected to take a cue from government policy. 

Therefore, instead of mutual reenforcing higher standards, we are 

entering a period of mutually reenforced downgrading of standards. 

THE LDF IS NOT PARTISAN--WE CRITICIZED JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION 

Our analysis and description is not partisan. We were highly 

critical of the Johnson Administration when it did not measure up on 

its constitutional obligation to integrate schools. But there was an 

important difference. There was dialogue between civil rights groups 

and administration officials. Here, except rarely, and in the most 

general terms and almost never with regard to specifics, there has 

been a failure of dialogue. The highest administration officials 

promised that before there would be changes in HEW policies those 

changes would be discussed with civil rights groups. That has not 

happened. The low point of non-cooperation occurred when the 

(more) 



Statement by Jack Greenberg -5- Sept. 9, 1969 

Department of Justice for the first time took an initiative to delay 

desegregation in 33 Mississippi school districts which had been 

scheduled in accordance with plans developed by HEW and then dis- 

avowed by it. 

EXAMPLES OF SHIFTS IN POLICY 

One thing is known about desegregation. To be effective, vs 

must be firm, consistent, and clear. But apart from softness in 

enforcement, the Administration has been highly confusing. Some of 

the contradictory positions are set forth here: 

January 29 - Five Southern Districts about to be terminated are 
given a 60-day period of delay by Secretary Finch. If 
the districts come up with acceptable plans, they will 
receive lost funds retroactively. 

March 10 ~ Secretary Finch's interview in U.S. News & World Report 
alluded to some impending change in the guidelines. 
In addition the Secretary was quoted as saying that 
HEW must retain its enforcement powers: "We cannot 
turn (the whole enforcement-compliance field) over to 
the Justice Department now because we have built up a 
certain momentum in education, in terms of getting 
school districts to recognize that a....national goal 
has been set. If you were to chop off everything now 
in my department, just let Justice handle compliance... 
I think a lot of this momentum that has been built up 
would be lost." 

March 14 - General Counsel designate Robert Mardian sends 
Secretary Finch a memorandum advocating, among other 
things, that HEW might permit an extension beyond the 
previously established 1969 target date and that this 
policy could be implemented without any particular 
public announcement. 

March 18 - Civil Rights Leadership Conference received assurance 
from Finch that there will be no change in the guide- 
lines. 

March 24 - Secretary Finch disavows Mardian memorandum. 

April 15 - The Washington Post reports that Administration 
sources Claim that the guidelines are being "revamped" 
because they are "vague and ambiguous." Secretary 
Finch and Attorney General Mitchell reportedly 
attending meetings at the White House on the guidelines. 

April 22 - Leon Panetta's letter in response to Jack Greenberg's 
letter to Secretary Finch: "The Department is not 
contemplating any changes in the guidelines at this 
time." 

May 16 - Leon Panetta, in a speech in Atlanta, said: “Why can't 
we continue to use free choice? ....The answer is that 
the Supreme Court ruled against it....HEW policies are 
controlled by that decision." 

May 31 ~- HEW submits two year plans to South Carolina Federal 
Court giving 21 districts another year of freedom of 
choice. 



Statement by 

June 20 = 

June 28 - 

July 1 - 

July 3 - 

July 3 - 

July 5 - 

July 7 - 

August 1 = 

August 3 - 

August 13 - 

August 25 - 

Jack Greenberg ~6=- Sept. 9, 1969 

Jerris Leonard commented that the Administration's 
position is going to be that districts would be re- 
quired to desegregate by the target deadline "where 
that was possible." He was also quoted as saying "It's 
wrong to set arbitrary deadlines." (Washington Post, 
June 20.) 

Secretary Finch quoted as saying there would be no 
relaxation of the guidelines. (New York Times, July 1) 

Secretary Finch proposed to the White House that a new 
policy statement on the school desegregation guidelines 
contain no provisions for more time to comply with the 
law. (New_York Times, July 1.) 

Finch-Mitchell statement. 
Districts that have "bona fide educational and adminis- 
trative problems" will be given extra time to desegre- 
gate. 
"It is not our purpose here to lay down a single arbit- 
rary date by which the desegregation process should be 
completed in all districts or to lay down a single 
arbitrary system by which it should be achieved." 
"On the federal level the law enforcement aspects will 
be handled by the Department of Justice in judicial 
proceedings....and the educational aspects will be 
administered by HEW." 

Leon Panetta announces that he plans to send all 
southern school superintendents a letter explaining 
the new policy. (Washington Post, July 4.) A few 
days later Secretary Finch was quoted as saying that no 
letter of explanation would be sent. He said it was 
“unnecessary." 

White House Press Secretary says that the Administra- 
tion is "unequivocably committed to the goal of finally 
ending racial discrimination in schools." 

The Department of Justice files five school desegre- 
gation suits. 

The Department of Justice files a state-wide suit 
against Georgia. 

The Whitten Amendment to the HEW Appropriations Bill is 
passed by the House. This Amendment would, in effect, 
prohibit HEW from requiring anything other than 
freedom of choice plans. The Administration takes no 
position on the Amendment. 

In Attorney General Mitchell's speech to the American 
Bar Association, he said: "The extravagant rhetoric 
of the last few years have offered promises which 
cannot be delivered, and have set as immediate goals 
programs which will take a decade to complete." 

The Administration asks the Federal Courts to delay 
desegregation in 33 Mississippi districts from this 
September until September 197. 

(more) 



~ . + 

Statement by Jack Greenberg ay September 9, 1969 

CONCLUSIONS OF OTHERS RE POLITICAL INFLUENCE 

We are not alone in ascribing the Administration shifts - 

which are undermining desegregation - to political influence. 

Following are the views of other observers: 

6/13/69 James Batten, Charlotte Observer 

Tough recommendations of a 19-member team from the 

Office of Education for plans requiring desegrega- 

tion in South Carolina school districts “were over- 
ruled" by Secretary Finch and Attorney General 

Mitchell. "Soutces at HEW insisted that Finch and 
Mitchell made their move after Sen. Strom Thurmond, 
the conservative Republican from South Carolina, 

complained about the original plans." 

6/27/69 Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, Washington Post 

“A dramatic case is a telephone call to the HEW's 

civil rights division on June 24 from the School 
Board in Austin, Texas. Austin has dragged its heels 

on desegregation for years. But last month, under 

pressure from HEW, the entire school board sat in 

all-day session with HEW officials here to devise 
a desegregation plan. Also present were staff aides 

of Republican Sen. John Tower of Texas and Rep. Jake 

Pickle, Austin's Democratic Congressman. 

“On returning to Austin, the School Board wrestled 

for three weeks with a new plan and finally adopted 

one that even included some pupil bussing to assure 
racial balance in primary and secondary schools. 

“That June 24 call, however, notified HEW that the 

School Board had heard from Tower that a “major 

change" in the guidelines was impending. There- 
fore the Board would stand pat until the change 

was announced and then “reappraise" its plans. 

That shattered the Austin model which HEW officials 

had hoped would pave the way for a desegregation 

break-through in Texas starting with San Antonio 
and Lubbock. 4 

"At this writing, however, there is little chance 
of stopping the new guidelines. The pressures 

are too strong from Southern Republicans, from 
Attorney General John Mitchell's Justice Department 

(which strongly favors the relaxation), and from 
the Republican National Committee (where they have 

the blessing of the chairman, Rep. Rogers Morton 

of Maryland). 

“The pressures have been intense. One Republican, 

Rep. Fletcher Thompson of Atlanta, Ga., flatly 

warned the White House that some Southern Republicans 

could not support President Nixon's tax bill unless 

HEW slowed down desegregation. In Thompson's own 

district, a new school was recently ordered closed 
on grounds that it was specifically located in a 

Negro neighborhood to avoid sending Negro students 

to white schools. 



_* ee 

Statement by Jack Greenberg 

8/28/69 

8/25/69 

8/28/69 

7/27/69 

7/2/69 

8 September % 1969 

"Perhaps more important, the Finch retreat fits 
the basic Southern political strategy that elected 
Mr. Nixon. Ever since he took office, the South 
has been demanding fulfillment of campaign pledges 

‘to ease desegregation. Only Finch and HEW a civil 
rights division stood in the way. Now Finch, too, 
has yielded." 

Editorial, Washington Post 

“...The precariously balanced official statements 

put out by the administration...with all their 

mutually cancelling clauses and paragraphs, have 

taken form in real life as a series of zigs and 

zags, swerves and screeches, threats and retreats - 

a kind of stock car race to nowhere that"is far 
too arbitrary and ad hoc and politically accident- 

prone to be characterized as policy at all." 

Editorial, New York Times 

".»+-In disavowing its own desegregation plans at 
least for the coming school year, Washington has 

clearly put Southern political pressures ahead of 

forward movement on the integration front." 

Fred P. Graham, New York Times 

"Civil Rights lawyers in the Justice Department 
decided to protest the Nixon Administration's 

desegregation policies after they were told 

by their superiors that political pressures had 

prompted the Government to call for a delay in 

Mississippi school integration." 

Peter Milius, Washington Post 

Judge Ben C. Dawkins in commenting on the role 

played by Rep. John D. Waggoner, Jr., (D.La), 
stated that "At Waggoner's request I tried to 

get him (Harry S. Dent) at his office. He wasn't 

there so I left my home phone. He called me that 

night at home. He indicated there would be a 

general relaxation of the school desegregation 

guidelines, that they would not put so much 

emphasis on completing it this fall." Five days 

later Dawkins ordered HEW to renegotiate the 
cases with later timetables, after expressing 

"great gratitude" to the President, Mitchell and 

Finch, Louisiana's Senators and Congressmen, and 

especially Waggoner with whom, "we have talked 

and conferred many many times since May 28." 

Another U.S. District Judge in the state re- 

portedly got three telephone calls in one day : 

from Capitol Hill. All three were about de- 

segregation cases and he had to interrupt hearings 
on the case to accept them. 

Jimmie Allen, research and information director of 

Republican Party of South Carolina in an interview 
with Gary Orfield. Acknowledging pressure on the 

party from all over the state to fulfill the promises 

made in the fall campaign to weaken civil rights 
enforcement, he stated that the state organization 

had repeatedly obtained concessions for school 

districts from HEW but couldn't claim public credit 
because “all the damn liberals say Strom Thurmond 



Statement by Jack Greenberg -9- September 9, 1969 

is the President of the United States." One school 

district received a year's extension "inside of 

ten minutes" after the party's executive director 

called Washington. "If the guidelines are relaxed," 

Allen said, "the Republican Party owns South Carolina." 

-30- 

NOTE: The LDF is a completely separate and distinct organization 
even though we were established by the NAACP and those initials are 
retained in our name. Our correct designation is NAACP Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., frequently shortened to LDF.