Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

viously, a great deal of talent and hard work have gone into this piece of legislation, and I look forward to a report on it from my Department of Education. I appreciate the opportunity to study your proposal and respond with suggestions. Kindest regards.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SENATOR HELMS: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your proposed Public School Jurisdiction Act of 1973 (S. 2336).

As you know, I strongly advocate the principle of local autonomy, which I believe your proposal emphasizes. I look forward to studying it carefully to consider its effect on the people of the State of California.

Best regards.

Sincerely,

RONALD REAGAN, Governor.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
Bismarck, N. Dak., August 24, 1973.

Hon. JESSE HELMS,

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HELMS: We have considered the material describing the Public School Jurisdiction Act of 1973 (S. 2336) which you introduced on August 3 and arrived at the conclusion that it appears to offer a solution to the turmoil brought about by the court-ordered desegregation.

At the present time there seems to be no legislation to guide the courts in this respect other than the varying interpretations given to the fourteenth amendment.

Also, as indicated in the summary, the decisions by the courts in our opinion seem to be quite narrow while press interpretations seem broad. Now this is only our humble evaluation of the situation.

We believe your legislation is good in its proposing four definitions of a unitary school system. This should eliminate the need for court-ordered processes.

From our point of view, the research is good, the justification well stated, and the legislation clear. I think the bill is worthy of support.

Yours sincerely,

M. F. PETERSON, Superintendent.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Columbia, S.C., September 19, 1973.

Hon. JESSE HELMS,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HELMS: I am pleased to respond to your request that I review and comment on the Public School Jurisdiction Act of 1973 (S. 2336) which you introduced on August 3. Members of my legal research staff have studied the Act and report that it is legally sound and will withstand any legal challenge. They also note its merit in providing relief of the tremendous burden upon the federal courts.

From an administrator's standpoint, the proposed act addresses a fundamental question that has developed in the wake of Civil Rights litigation in the Southeast: At what point and by what measure will a political subdivision be judged to have erased all vestiges of de jure segregation? I recognize that the proposed act has universal application to cases arising out of both de jure and de facto segregation but it is the former that presents unique problems to us. I appreciate your efforts to legally define a “unitary school system" with all its implications for resolving administrative and program problems within the system of public education.

Sincerely yours,

CYRIL B. BUSBEE, State Superintendent of Education.

Hon. JESSE HELMS,

U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

OFFICE OF THE CITY COMMISSION, Pompano Beach, Fla., August 24, 1973.

DEAR SENATOR HELMS: We have received the packet of material describing the Public School Jurisdiction Act of 1973 (S 2336) and I have reviewed this bill. You have my whole-hearted support, as well as that of the majority of the citizens in our City, in our County and in our State. They would like to see a bill of this kind passed by Congress, so that we can emerge from the muck and mire and the cost of trying to live up to what is known as the unitary school system.

Best of luck in your fight-wish I could aid you personally.

Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM J. ALSDORF, Mayor.

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Phoenix, Ariz., August 29, 1973.

Hon. JESSE HELMS,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HELMS: Thank you so much for sending me the packet of materials describing the Public School Jurisdiction Act of 1973. A member of my staff has reviewed the proposed legislation and I am advised that it has much merit.

I share your deep concern over the recent trend of court decisions which seem to directly encroach upon the traditional notion of local control over education. The damage which these decisions may have caused to our young people is as yet still undetermined but I am persuaded that when the final statistics are in, they will horrify even the most committed social planner. We simply cannot afford to sacrifice the health of our young people and our communities at large for the sake of some sterile, artificial concept of racial balance.

It is for these reasons that I wish to express my support for S 2336 and am today urging that Arizona's Congressional Delegation join me in that support. I believe that your legislation represents an effective response to our current dilemma.

Again, thank you for sending the information to me and please accept my best wishes and continued support in this endeavor.

Yours sincerely,

JACK WILLIAMS, Governor.

FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Fresno, Calif., September 11, 1973.

Hon. JESSE HELMS,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HELMS: On August 14, 1973, you addressed a communication to the Honorable Ted Wills, Mayor of the City of Fresno, including information relating to the Public Schools Jurisdiction Act of 1973 sponsored by you. Mayor Wills forwarded that communication and the material to me for my review and response.

I am very grateful to Mayor Wills for forwarding this material to me, because I am pleased and excited about the proposed legislation. I have studied the material carefully and discussed it with my associates. We are of the opinion that this is the best effort yet to bring order to the unfortunate chaos of segregation, desegregation, and integration efforts. I urge you to move with dispatch in securing passage of this very important appropriate and necessary legislation. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a letter which I have directed to Senators Tunnel and Cranston, and to my own Congressman, Bernie Sisk, and a personal friend, Del Clawson. Again, best wishes.

Sincerely,

ARNOLD FINCH, Superintendent.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
Dover, Del., August 20, 1973.

Hon. JESSE HELMS,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HELMS: I am writing this letter in response to yours of August 8, 1973 in which you presented a packet of materials describing the Public School Jurisdiction Act of 1973 (S. 2336) and invited my comment or support as the case may be. Several members of our staff have reviewed your proposal and have pointed out to me instances in which such a law would have been of service to the Delaware school system.

In your own research you may have come across the classic case from our own State. In a Civil Action No. 1816-1822 under the heading of "Evans vs Buchanan" in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, we had a ruling on June 26, 1961 relating to the desegregation of our schools. (Until that time Delaware was not only segregated but was unique among the officially segregated states in that we had two series of school boards and school districts throughout the State.) In your discussion of S. 2336 you point out that courts have permitted cases to stand open or to be reopened. In the case of "Evans vs Buchanan” the court reserved the right to reopen and thus on about July 27, 1971 attorneys did file to reopen for the purpose of adding parties plaintiff and parties defendant. We are now in preparation in behalf of the State of Delaware to defend ourselves in this newly opened case.

Our case is similar to those referred to in your speech before the Congress in that housing characteristics in the Wilmington School District have changed since 1961. In fact, they have changed even more, recently. In 1965 to '67 following the enactment of the Civil Rights Act all Delaware school districts were found in compliance with the new federal Act and thus moved forward thinking that the situation was settled for all of our State.

It would appear that had the Public School Jurisdiction Act been a fact during the past several years in Delaware we would not now again be in a disruption, the cause of which we do not fully comprehend. It can be a bit embarrassing to think as a school official you have done everything the law or the court is requiring and are in compliance and then be served with a reopened suit. I take this opportunity to give my endorsement to the proposals you are making and in turn invite you or members of your staff to inquire further through my office into our own situation if that will be of benefit to you. You may, of course, wish to make further inquiry through our own Senior Senator William Roth or our Junior Senator Joseph Biden.

Sincerely yours,

KENNETH C. MADDEN, State Superintendent.

SHEBOYGAN, Wis., August 22, 1973.

Hon. JESSE HELMS,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR HELMS: Roger Schneider is no longer the Mayor of Sheboygan as of April, 1973, but I would be more than happy to answer your letter, being the newly elected Mayor of Sheboygan.

I agree with the legislation you have introduced. We do not have a racial problem of any sort in Sheboygan but the day may come when we will, but either way, I feel to bus for the sake of racial equality is wrong. We as cities are losing local control and I am totally against that. Busing disrupts families, no matter what color, and also disrupts the students.

Let us return to grass roots control of local government. I am sure we are all responsible community leaders who will do what is best for all people.

Respectfully,

RICHARD W. SUSCHA, Mayor.

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, Texas City, Tex., August 24, 1973.

Hon. JESSE HELMS,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: I want to thank you for your letter of August 14, 1973, and enclosures concerning the Public School Jurisdiction Act of 1973 (S. 2336) and I have read it with great interest.

I am entirely in accord with this legislation and sincerely hope that Congress will speedily enact it.

Thank you very much for allowing me the privilege of reviewing this material and expressing my views.

Sincerely,

EMMETT F. LOWRY, Mayor.

Senator HELMs. Mr. Chairman, I also have a question and answer sheet which covers the issues more often raised in connection with S. 2336, and I would like to submit that for the printed record also. Senator ERVIN. That will be received and printed in the record as part of the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON

THE PROPOSED PUBLIC SCHOOL JURISDICTION
ACT OF 1973

Question 1. What does the Public School Jurisdiction Act do?

Answer. The Public School Jurisdiction Act provides a statutory basis for a public school system to meet its Constitutional obligations to establish or maintain a unitary school system under currently acceptable definitions within a reasonable period of time. Once these obligations have been met, no Federal court will henceforth have jurisdiction over that system for the purpose of desegregation.

Question 2. Who decides that the obligation has been met?

Answer. The same court issuing an order submits it to a jury for determination as a question of fact, or the appropriate Appeals Court thereof. Question 3. What definitions are used?

Answer. The definitions are essentially those in current use:

A unitary school system is:

(1) Any system that is under a court-ordered plan-i.e., all current court determinations qualify. Similarly, any system complying with an HEW-approved plan is a unitary system for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Any system that has been found by a Federal court to be in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and laws-i.e., any system that has successfully defended itself against charges of discrimination.

(3) Any system that has been found by a Federal court to have set up its geographic attendance zones without the intent to discriminate, and not to have altered them except to meet increases or decreases in population.

(4) In addition, a formula is proposed as a benchmark for integration plans. A unitary system would be one in which not less than two-thirds of the schools each have a percentage of each race which is not less than one-third of their percentage, respectively, in the school population taken as a whole.

Question 4. How can we be sure that a school system won't go back to discrimination once it is released from Federal jurisdiction?

Answer. Because the Supreme Court has held that discrimination violates the U.S. Constitution and laws. Furthermore, the Public School Jurisdiction Act forbids any changes in pupil assignment for the purpose of discrimination.

Question 5. What redress is there if a school system lapses into discrimination? Answer. Plaintiffs have the full apparatus of the State courts, with final appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Question 6. Doesn't the termination of Federal jurisdiction unconstitutionally restrict the right of due process?

Answer. No. Every student or parent in every public school system has had or will have the right to bring his system into the Federal courts at least once if it is not a unitary system under the definitions of the Public School Jurisdiction Act. The Public School Jurisdiction Act simply imposes a reasonable limitation upon the jurisdiction of the lower Federal Courts. A plaintiff will always have the full range of State Courts open to him, including appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Question 7. Will the Public School Jurisdiction Act be upheld by the Supreme Court?

Answer. Yes. The Public School Jurisdiction Act takes as its starting point HEW and court orders currently in effect. It is wholly within the power of Congress to provide a reasonable statutory basis for enforcement under the enforcement section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Due process is not denied because the avenue of the State court is left open, with appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as original jurisdiction in the first instance with the Federal courts. Furthermore, the Public School Jurisdiction Act does not allow reversion for the purpose of discrimination. If racial imbalance occurs as a result of shifting population patterns, or as a result of the free choice of parents, the School Board is not responsible under the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the Green Case refused to rule against freedom of choice plans as such. The Public School Jurisdiction Act purges the State of the taint of past actions in operating a dual system, eliminating the need for indefinite "compensatory action" for past actions under the dual system.

Question 8. Why does the bill require that a unitary plan be in effect "for one full school year"?

Answer. Because some systems operate on a nine-month basis, and others operate on a twelve-month basis. Specification of a calendar year would cut across equitable planning for each.

Question 9. Is "one full school year" sufficient to create a presumption that the vestiges of a dual system have been eliminated?

Answer. Yes. Yes, Congress can create whatever legal presumption it feels is administratively convenient and reasonable. Congress created such a presumption in the Voting Rights Act of 1964 when it set up Federal jurisdiction over voter registration and elections for one year longer than the quadriennial Presidential elections. School administration, however, changes with the annual influx of new students, and one year is an appropriate administrative unit. Question 10. Does the Public School Jurisdiction Act outlaw busing? Answer. No. The Public School Jurisdiction Act approves whatever integration plans are currently imposed by court order, including those which require busing. Once a school system has met the definition of a unitary system, it can employ any pupil assignment method it chooses, so long as it does not do so for the purpose of discriminating. The issue of busing will then revert to a local issue, a matter to be decided between the school board members and their constituency.

Question 11. Does the Public School Jurisdiction Act permit "freedom of choice" assignment plans?

Answer. The Public School Jurisdiction Act permits any assignment plan which is not adopted for the purpose of discrimination. In the Green case, the Supreme Court specifically refused to rule against freedom of choice plans as such. Presumably, some would be permitted, others would not.

Question 12. Will the Public School Jurisdiction Act "roll back" the gains of the civil rights movement?

Answer. No. Insofar as the civil rights movement has made real progress in the hearts of the people, to the same extent will progress be retained under the Public School Jurisdiction Act. In the long run, the Public School Jurisdiction Act represents real progress because it places the states in a neutral position as regards school assignment. Reforms which are freely accepted by the people represent a more solid accomplishment. Discrimination remains outlawed by the Fourteenth Amendment; the Public School Jurisdiction Act merely regulates the widely varying interpretations of what discrimination consists.

Question 13. Will the Public School Jurisdiction Act permit children now attending superior schools under busing to be sent back to the inferior schools they formerly attended?

Answer. No. A special clause safeguards the right of any child to receive transportation and assignment to the school he now attends despite any assignment

« AnteriorContinuar »