Hon. JESSE HELMS, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, DEAR SENATOR HELMS: Your letter describing the Public School Jurisdiction Act of 1973 arrived in my absence from Richmond. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in bringing this proposed legislation to my attention. Certainly, legislation which would alleviate the frustrations and time-consuming problems of parents and school administrators alike would be of great benefit to everyone. The resolution of such problems would also help us, in Virginia, to realize our Constitutional mandate for quality education for our total school population. Of course, a desegregated school system must not be allowed to return to a segregated status. Best wishes. Cordially, LINWOOD HOLTON, Governor. OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, Hampton, Va., August 28, 1973. Hon. JESSE HELMS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HELMS: Thank you for your letter of August 15, 1973, with enclosed copies of your proposed bill dealing with the subject of busing of the public school children. The issue of busing has occupied our attention here at Hampton as well as in practically every other community in Virginia, and it is certainly one of the great challenges of our day which will be solved only through the application of the best thinking of many to the problem. I commend you on your efforts, together with my good friend Bill Scott of Virginia, in this regard. Yours very truly, DAVID N. MONTAGUE, Mayor. VALLEJO, CALIF., August 29, 1973. Hon. JESSE HELMS, Senator, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HELMS: I have read the material you sent on the Public School Jurisdiction act of 1973 (S. 2336). I favor local jurisdiction in school operation. Neither ethnic people nor Caucasians are happy with enforced busing. People purchase homes near schools so their children will be within walking distance of a school for safety reasons. A Mother does not feel comfortable with her children bussed across town. I believe that if neighborhoods are integrated as they are today, the schools will be integrated in the same proportion as the neighborhood. Good teachers teach the same curriculum no matter what the class composition is. Mandatory regulations are breaking down the public school system by arbitrary demands not desired by the citizenry and we are breaking down the foundation of America, happy families, by required bussing causing anxiety in the homes and frustration. I certainly believe your Bill S-2336 is a good bill and a step forward in the highly controversial matter of busing. Sincerely, FLORENCE E. DOUGLAS, Mayor. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Little Rock, Ark., August 15, 1973. Hon. JESSE HELMS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HELMS: Thank you for your letter of August 8 with the enclosed packet describing the Public School Jurisdiction Act of 1973 (S. 2336). Ob 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. Sincerely, DALE BUMPERS, Governor. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Sacramento, Calif., September 11, 1973. Hon. JESSE HELMS, Washington, D.C. 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. 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, Hon. JESSE HELMS, 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, 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, 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. |