BUSING OF SCHOOLCHILDREN THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1974 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:20 a.m., in room 1318, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Ervin. Also present: Senator Cook. Staff present: William E. Pursley, Jr., chief counsel, Senate Subcommittee on Revision and Codification of Laws. Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. The first witness this morning is my distinguished colleague who shares with me the honor of representing an area of the country which would be the Garden of Eden if it were not for the forced busing of schoolchildren. I am delighted to welcome my colleague, Senator Helms, to the committee. TESTIMONY OF HON. JESSE A. HELMS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Senator HELMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to appear before this distinguished subcommittee, chaired by my distinguished colleague from the State of North Carolina who has labored so long in the vineyard of wisdom on this subject now before the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I will make it clear at the outset that I support any legislation pathway which will erase or even reduce the burdens of forced busing and other forced integration plans. I also support a constitutional amendment, although that, as the good chairman well knows, may take a lengthy period of time before it can possibly become effective. Many millions of children will be subjected to forced integration plans before this can be done. That is why I have drawn up S. 2336. This is legislation which, in my judgment, will meet the constitutional and legal objections which some have raised to some of the measures before this subcommittee. I believe this can be passed rapidly and I believe it will be effective. It is important, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, that action be taken now. Congress has become aroused by this issue. As the distinguished chairman is aware, I have brought the busing matter before the Senate three times in recent months. Although my antibusing amendments to the energy bills were not accepted, the gap between the yeas and nays narrowed each time. On the last occasion, the vote was actually 46 to 45 against my amendment. One more vote, only one more vote, Mr. Chairman, would have prevented my amendment from being tabled, and enabled the Senate to act. This shows that sentiment is growing in the Senate, Mr. Chairman, for the kind of measures which this subcommittee is considering. In my judgment, the Senate is ready to accept an antibusing bill. As we know, the House has already passed the Dingell amendment, which was patterned on my amendments, by a substantial margin. Congress, and the country, is ready for relief from forced busing, and we must give it if our children are to receive a good education. I am very pleased to be here today to talk about one of the important social issues of the day. It is not fashionable to talk about forced busing as a social issue. There are those who focus narrowly upon what happens in a classroom as a result of forced integration schemes, or what does not happen. But anybody who has children caught up in forced busing knows that a lot more than their education is involved. Education is important, of course. There is plenty of sociological evidence, which I will refer to later in my remarks, that the atmosphere created by forced busing is detrimental to learning in the classroom, that it creates hostility and withdrawal into racial groups and lowers the self-esteem and goals of minority groups. This, of course, is completely counter to the assumptions of the Brown decision, which is the root of the forced integration concept. The Brown decision was based on the idea that if the races were brought together, they would learn more about each other, and accept each other as equals. But the theory breaks down when compulsion is introduced. Instead of good will, hostility is often generated, or at best it becomes a standoff. Now we are not just talking about good faith on the part of students and school authorities, or the so-called "will to make forced busing work." Handicaps often can be overcome. The human spirit is indomitable, and can often win against the greatest odds. But on the other hand, it is silly and nonproductive to set up unnecessary hurdles. Forced integration schemes are an unnecessary hurdle disrupting our communities. The logistics of getting to far-flung schools are a burden on the children. The costs of buying unnecessary vehicles are a burden on the taxpayers. The waste of gasoline is ridiculous in the midst of the energy crisis. As I have pointed out on the floor on numerous occasions, at least 1.1 million gallons of gasoline is wasted on forced busing every year in North Carolina alone, over and above the ordinary busing requirements. At a time when we are talking about longer school days, colder classrooms, and oil shortage holidays, it is nonsense to throw away our energy supplies on unnecessary busing. What good does it do to bus a child across town so he can sit in a cold classroom? With the same energy usage, he could walk to school and sit in a warm classroom, and be warm twice. An approved desegregation plan is of no value when the schools are closed because of the energy shortage. But these burdens are only what may be called the practical burdens, the burdens of day-to-day living with the system. More insidious are the psychological burdens which are imposed upon a community. The educational system is an integral part of community living. People choose their neighborhoods based upon their own sense of community, the kind of people they want to associate with, the income level they can afford, the friendships and relationships they have had with many other citizens over the years. A society based upon voluntary choice within the means and desires of individual citizens creates an organic, living society with the vitality that comes from the proud spirit of free men. No human system is perfect, and inequities may be present in such a system, or imagined to be present. Nevertheless, the spirit of freedom develops only when a person thinks that he is doing the best he can within his opportunities. But the spirit of rancor develops when he thinks his situation is thrust upon him arbitrarily and despotically without regard to his desires and abilities. By using the school system as a tool to attack the organic development of community life, the judicial system, and bureaucrats within the executive branch, are going beyond even what the Supreme Court requires. As I will point out in more detail below, the Supreme Court has said that the school system cannot provide an integrated society when the individual choices of citizens have not produced such a society. The only requirement put forward by the Supreme Court is that school officials do not discriminate in pupil assignment or in manipulation of pupil assignment policies. This is complicated by the doctrine that school authorities must affirmatively make up for past discrimination, that is, assignment by race according to quotas and other methods so that the result is a relatively even mix of the races throughout the school system. In my bill, as I explain in detail below, limitations would be put upon the length of time in which this so-called remedy for past discrimination can be applied. It does not restrict the judiciary's powers, except in the length of time the remedy can be applied. It sets a reasonable period of one school year. Thereafter, public school jurisdiction would be returned to the locality. My bill set up four criteria, any one of which would define a unitary school system. They are criteria which most of the southern school districts under desegregation plans could meet almost immediately. Many northern school districts would also get instant relief. Some systems, which are just now undergoing desegregation orders, or are about to, would have to wait at least a year for relief, but they would have the satisfaction of knowing that the end is in sight, and not arbitrary. Mr. Chairman, my bill has been endorsed by school systems and educators from every section of the country, North, South, East, and West. I would like to submit for the printed record a number of letters from such authorities endorsing my bill after careful study. These come from all over the country, including our own State, Mr. Chairman: The superintendent of school instruction in Johnston County, Hanover County, the mayor of Durham, and the Governor of Virginia, the mayor of Hampton, Va., the mayor of Vallejo, Calif., the Governor of Arkansas. In any case, these letters come from all over the country. Senator ERVIN. The letters will be received and printed in the record as part of the record unless you wish to read them. Senator HELMS. No, sir. I think that would unduly consume the subcommittee's time. [The information referred to follows:] OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JOHNSTON COUNTY, Hon. JESSE HELMS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HELMS: I wish to thank you for your letter dated August 8 and the copy of the bill you introduced in the Senate on August 3. This bill appears to have great merit, especially for the states outside the south. An area in which you can be of valuable assistance to our school system and many others in North Carolina is in reference to the problem which I wrote your office several weeks ago. In brief the problem is this. Congress appropriates funds for schools such as ESAP and then HEW sets up their own rules and regulations in such a manner that it is extremely tedious and difficult to obtain the money appropriated. The officials in the Atlanta Office and apparently in the Washington Office resort to extreme methods designed to turn down applications to the extent of going back from six to eight years and charging that someone was treated unfairly when they have no evidence to support their charge and also enter into the employment of peronnel quotas that are difficult to meet. Also, they wish to determine the membership of various classes on strict racial ratio without reference to sound educational planning. Local control and local planning along the line of sound educational planning is extremely difficult when one makes an effort to comply with their guidelines. Sincerely yours, Hon. JESSE HELMS, E. S. SIMPSON, Superintendent. OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, Wilmington, N.C., September 12, 1973. U.S. Senator, Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, DEAR SENATOR HELMS: Your letter describing the Public School Jurisdiction Act of 1973 (S. 2336) appears to be a vast improvement and I am very happy that you introduced this on August 23rd. It should prove most helpful to children, teachers, and parents and if you will advise us of any particular way we may support this, we will be happy to do so. Your effort in this vital area is most appreciated by most people and we look forward to better days as a result. With best wishes, I am, JOHN C. SYMMES, Councilman. OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, Durham, N.C., September 4, 1973. Hon. JESSE HELMS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HELMS: I have your letter of August 14, 1973, requesting that I review the proposed Public School Jurisdiction Act of 1973 (S. 2336). I have read the materials and believe that the proposed legislation has a great deal of merit, As the father of five children, I am more concerned about them being uprooted from a school situation movement than I am about integration. If your legislation can once and for all stabilize the movement of children, then I would be enthusiastic for it. Sincerely, JAMES R. HAWKINS, Mayor. |