Portland Observer Thursday, August 9,1979 Page 3
4B
** A
»v'W-"
John J. S co tt
Assistant Regional Solicitor
U.S. Department of the Interioi
Atlanta, Georgia
Charles S. Scott
Scott, Scott, Scott & Scott
Topeka, Kansas
Hon. Harold R. Boulware
Judge, Family Court of the
Fifth Judicial Circuit
Columbia, South Carolina
Oliver W. Hill
Hill, Tucker b Marsh
Richmond, Virginia
A
Louis L. Redding
Professor Charles W. Quick
University of Illinois
College of Law
Champaign, Illinois
Private Pratico
Wilmington, Delaware
Hon. Constance Baker Motley
Judge, U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York
New York, N.Y.
Black Bar honors civil rights attorneys
I H
^J A S •
L) A M
A
A
The
N a tio n M a l I Bar
Association
honored the NAACP and ten o f the
attorneys who took part in the
Brown v Board o f Education case
twenty-five years ago at its national
convention in Los Angeles last week.
Unable to attend was U.S. Thurgood
Marshall who was chief counsel for
the NAACP for the Brown cases.
The convention - the first time the
attorneys had been together fo r
many years — provided an oppor
tunity to remeber the past, analize
the impact o f Brown and assess the
future o f school desegregation.
m m a a a a
a a m
Kansas
The Brown decision involved five
cases, but received its name from the
Brown case because it reached the
U.S. Supreme Court first. John and
Charles Scott o f Scott, Scott, Scott,
and Scott, one o f the few Black
fa m ily law firm s, represented 23
children and parents in Topeka,
Kansas.
Kansas had a unique law that did
not require segregation but allowed
larger districts to segregate. The
o riginal plan fo r the suit was to
prove that the schools provided for
Blacks were in fe rio r to those for
w hites, but Jack Greenberg and
Robert C arter o f the N A A C P
National O ffice, which sponsored
the case, told them to challenge the
separate but equal law and attempt
to show that separate schools are
inherently unequal.
In 1951, the federal court upheld
the constitutionality o f segregation
but ruled that “ segregation o f white
and colored children in the public
schools has detrim ental effect on
colored c h ild re n .” The N A A C P
asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
review the case and it was argued be
fore the high court by Robert Carter.
Prior to 1950, all school cases were
efforts to force conpliance with the
Plessy v Ferguson (separate but
equal) ruling. A t its 1950 National
Convention the NAACP determined
to push a case to the U.S. Supreme
Court to persue that end. However,
T hurgood M arshall and C arter
decided the effort should be an all
o ut attack on segregation — to
determine that wherever segregation
is found it is unequal. They believed
that Plessy could be reversed and
segregation laws fo un d uncon
stitutional.
Delaware
Louis L. Redding filed two cases
in the state court o f Delaware. A
Black parent came to him to ask his
help to arrange for her child to ride
the white school bus to her school.
She attended a Black school 1V4
miles away and the bus passed her
home and the school. When the
superintendent and the state superin
tendent refused to allow her to ride.
Redding decided “ the best way to get
the kid on the bus was to get the kid
in the school where the bus was
going.“
The second case dealt with Black
students in Claymont who had no
school so had to go to school in
Wilmington. He argued that this was
a violation o f the 14th Amendment.
Judge C olling L. Seitz said he
could not override the Supreme
Court separate but equal decision,
but ordered that the Black students
be admitted to white schools because
their own schools were inferior. This
was the first order to admit Black
students to a white school that was
put into effect. The State Board o f
Education appealed to the State
Supreme Court and lost and Black
children entered the previously all-
white schools without incident. The
State appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Virginia
In 1950, Barbara Johns, a senior
at Prince Edward School in Virginia
led her class to boycott for improved
conditions in their school - a tar
paper shack. The class asked Oliver
W. H ill to represent them in a suit
against the school district. “ I went to
.• V .'.n
■ •
■ >.•
*« 1 1 .
, 1
■
talk with them and found they were
so sincere and so well organized that
1 couldn’t turn them down.”
This case, for the first time, in
cluded expert witnesses in the fields
o f psychology, psychiatry, sociol
ogy, anthropology and education to
testify as to the harmful effects o f
segregation.
Blacks lived segregated lives, had
no rights and were in constant fear,
but "N e groe s always resented
segregation and did what they could
to elevate their situation.”
The court determined that the Black
schools were vastly in fe rio r, but
upheld the c o n s titu tio n a lity o f
segregation and ordered that white
and Black schools be equalized. In
the appeal lawyers argued that equal
educational opportunités involved
more than equal physical facilities
and curricula.
South Carolina
Harold R. Bouleware was attorney
for the first o f the Brown cases tried.
The law o f South Caroline said “ no
child o f either race shall ever be per
mitted to attend a school provided
fo r children o f the other race.”
Black parents o f Clarendon County,
after making several appeals to the
school board, file d suit in 1950
asking for equal facilities. The com
plaint was later changed to ask for
abolishment o f segregation, but the
court ordered the state to provide
equal facilities. An appeal was filed
with the U.S. Supreme Court asking
it to hand down a ru lin g as to
whether racial separation in elemen
ta ry and highschools is a con
stitutionally possible pattern.
W ashington. D.C.
Charles Houston, special counsel
to the N AACP and former Dean o f
the H ow ard Law S chool, filed
B olling v Sharpe in W ashington,
D.C. asking enforcement o f Plessy.
When he became ill, Dr. James M.
Nabrit was called to take over the
case and he amended it to challenge
segregation. The case alleged that the
refusal o f the W ashington, D.C.
school board to allow Black children
to attend a white school on the basis
o f race violated the 5th Amendment.
The case was dismissed by the
District Court (which also appointed
the school board) and while it was
pending appeal the U.S. Supreme
Court indicated that it would hear
the casewith the other four.
Dr. Herbert Reid, Sr.
"W ha t we were trying to do was to
attack a very, very vicious system o f
segregated education. Busing is an
effective tool to bring about the im
plementation o f integration. It is im
portant to remember that busing was
not discovered fo r integration. We
got on the bus a long time ago.”
Charles Scott
" T h e courts have consistently
upheld desegregation and busing in
most cases. When it comes to en
forcement by government agencies,
that is a problem.”
Oliver W. H ill:
“ This arguement that it is an in
sult to say Negro children have to be
closely identified with white children
to receive an education is bunk. We
know you don’t have to go to school
w ith w hite c h ild re n to get an
education. But, the only way poor
whites, Chicanos, Negroes and any
other m in ority w ill ever have the
same facilities as they provide for the
more affluent children is to be in
school with them. They are going to
provide fo r their children and the
only way you are going to get equal
facilities on a consistent basis is to be
there so when they p ro vid e an
education for their children you are
close enough to get it to. Otherwise
you are going to get an in fe rio r
education for the poorer elements o f
society.”
" A sign in a busing parade in
.í, • ,
\
Dr. Jamas M . Nabrit, Jr.
President Emeritus
Howard University
Washington, D.C.
Richmond said, ‘ I t ’ s not the bus, it’s
the niggers’ . Still the primary objec
tion is inherent racism in this country
that manifests itself in anti-busing.
IF they would decide they are going
to provide a good education fo r
children and put their minds and
hearts to it, we wouldn’ t have the
public objection to busing.”
Jack Greenberg
Director - Counsel
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
New York, NY
Regarding the resistance o f school
d is tric ts to the B row n decision:
"There are some damn racist people
in this country that don’ t give a
damn about the C onstitution.”
I
» »
A
Arthur D. Shores
Shores Et Larkin
Birmingham, Alabama
Dr. Herbert O. Reid. Sr.
Professor,
Howard University Law Srhnn)
The Moms Marks House
1501 SW Horrison Sheer
Portland 97201
Telephone 227-2688
John Scott:
“ I f we could have, and we w ill, in
tegrated schools and raised chilren in
a climate where all people are equal,
then in time we would do away with
segregation in this country and in the
world.
“ It is a continuing problem. At
every turn o f the road there may be a
block and we have to put that block
aside. That is what we intend to do,
not only legally, but with every asset
and with every ability that we have.”
Dr. James M. Nabrit, Jr.
“ To understand the current con
troversy over busing, we have to un
derstand how this developed. We
had a situation that consisted o f
segregation in every aspect o f life.
That segregation was legal - based on
Plessy v Ferguson - which said that
as long as whatever was done was
done separately but equally, it was
constitutional. Under this law our
whole lives were separate. It didn't
make any difference how many faci
lities we got. I f they were unequal,
we went into court; we proved that
they were unequal. They made them
equal and as soon as that was over
they made them unequal again. It
was a continuous process over which
we had no control.
“ The only way we got control o f it
was to take another theory, and that
was that segregation per se was un
constitutional. No matter whether
the facilities were equal, and no mat
ter if facilities for Blacks were better.
I f it was segregation o f people
because o f race, then it was uncon
stitutional.
"T h a t was the premis upon which
we argued the Brown cases, because
in those cases they had separate but
equal. They really preferred to argue
the separate but equal doctrine.
“ Now these things have come up ■
Bakke and Weber - but none o f the
cases say that the d o ctrin e that
segregation per se is unconstitutional
is wrong. What they say is that the
remedies are u n c o n s titu tio n a l
because now you're discriminating
against whites and you’ ve already
said d is c rim in a tio n is uncon
stitutional. They didn’ t understand
that when you find a wrong has been
done you also have a right to rectify
and that affirm ative action programs
are rectification.
“ 1 am very much upset by the way
this has developed, but so far we
havn’ t had a single case that says
segregation is constitutional. When
the Cleveland case was won in the
Supreme C ourt, M ottle rushed to
Congress to try to get a C on
stitutional Amendent to stop busing.
This shows you that there are people
who w ill use the C onstitution for
everything that suits them, but the
C onstitution becomes a malleable
object when there is something they
don’t w ant.”
'
DES C O N N A L L
Professional Corporation
LEGAL CLINIC
CONCENTRATING IN THE FIELDS OF:
CRIMINAL LAW
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
OF INTOXICANTS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
BANKRUPTCY
PERSONAL INJURY
WILLS - PROBATE
AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS
CONSUMER PROTECTION
If you have a problem that is not covered in this list, please call and ask
whether we can help Chances are, we can. If not, we can recommend
someone else for you to call. One way or the other, we want to see you get
the kind of professional legal counsel you're entitled to.
The best time to call us, or any attorney, is before you are embroiled in a legal
problem. This is called preventative law and it makes a lot of sense.
Regardless, when you call us we will arrange for an initial consultation at
your convenience. Cost: $20 We probably can't solve anything in this meeting,
but it is a chance for you to explain your particular problem and for us to give
you some idea of what it'll take to reach a solution. If you want us to proceed,
we'll give you an estimate of the fees you should plan on. In writing.
ft