Greenberg Statement on Slowdown of School Desegregation by the Departments of Justice and Health
Press Release
September 9, 1969

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Volume 6. Greenberg Statement on Slowdown of School Desegregation by the Departments of Justice and Health, 1969. edd26fba-b992-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/30f962af-beba-4524-9935-75992d4ac3ff/greenberg-statement-on-slowdown-of-school-desegregation-by-the-departments-of-justice-and-health. Accessed April 29, 2025.
Copied!
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.