Mr. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Tallahassee, May 27, 1966. Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Your letter of May 9 enclosing a copy of Senate Bill 3296, the Civil Rights Act of 1966, and your proposed amendment thereto has been carefully considered here in the Florida State Department of Education. Your courtesy in bringing this bill to our attention and inviting testimony regarding it either in person or by a written statement is deeply appreciated. It does not appear to be practicable for me to appear in person, and, accordingly, you may consider this letter as a written statement for the consideration of your committee. Let me make clear that any comment herein relates only to public schools, and not to hospitals or other institutions about whose problems I am not competent to speak. Furthermore, you will understand that any point of view I express will be based on our situation here in Florida and might not be valid for any other state. I think that your proposed amendment would be valuable in assuring school boards of procedures which would give them a fair hearing before having any federal funds to which they might be entitled terminated by a federal agency. I might say that so far as Florida is concerned this has not been a problem as yet in any of our dealings with the U.S. Office of Education, though problems might develop in the future. There have been problems with other Federal agencies; for example, some "Head Start" programs under the Office of Economic Opportunity were threatened last summer with termination without due notice or proper hearing. In my opinion Florida has made excellent progress in implementing the Civil Rights Act without disruption of the school program. Our local school superintendents and school boards have acted with responsibility and fairness in attempting to carry out the requirements of the Civil Rights Act. To do this they need to know clearly and unequivocably what is expected of them, and what procedures they must follow. If your proposed amendment should have the effect of clarifying procedures for school boards to follow, it would be a good thing. If, on the other hand, it should have the effect of raising questions and doubts about the intent, purpose, and effect of the Civil Rights Act, it would be of questionable value and might contribute to confusion and obstructionism in the administration of the Civil Rights Act. I would strongly urge that this point be carefully considered by the committee when this amendment is before it. I hope that these comments will be of some value to you and your committee when this matter is considered. Sincerely, FLOYD T. CHRISTIAN. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Jackson, June 14, 1966. Honorable SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: In response to your request I am glad to submit the enclosed statement concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On July 16, 1945, I took the oath of office as State Superintendent of Education. Since that time we have tried to administer a program of education that would give to every child, regardless of race, creed, or color, the opportunity to go as far in the field of education as his capacity would permit. In the work during the years the State Department of Education has had the confidence and cooperation of the Negro leaders in the field of education. Since passage of the Civil Rights Act, July 2, 1964, my staff and I have spent more time on the implementation of this Act than any other matter. We realized it was the greatest problem that had confronted our state in perhaps a century, and it was our desire to work it out with our local school officials under the law, and the rules and regulations of the U.S. Office of Education pertaining thereto. We deeply apprecitae the many commendatory remarks through letters and conversation, from high officials of the U.S. Office of Education concerning Mississippi's efforts and the progress and achievements made. Our progress has slowed down during the last few months because of the 1966-67 guidelines. Some of our most able attorneys serving school boards believe that these guidelines go far beyond the Act. Our Attorney General of Mississippi shares this belief. Let me thank you for your interest in trying to find a solution to the Civil Rights Act, Title VI, as evidenced by your Amendment to S-3296. We sincerely hope that the efforts of you and your colleagues will result in a plan that will enable the state and local school districts to work cooperatively with the Office of Education in a way that will give to the children of all the people the finest educational opportunities possible. This cannot be done successfully unless we can charter an administrative course that can be easily understood by all the agencies responsible. If we can furnish other information concerning our program of desegregation in the State of Mississippi, please feel free to call upon me for it. Sincerely yours, J. M. TUBB, State Superintendent of Education. STATEMENT FOR SENATOR ERVIN'S SUBCOMMITTEE J. M. Tubb, State Superintendent of Public Education for the State of Mississippi since July 16, 1945, appreciates the opportunity and privilege of submitting this statement on invitation of Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. He regrets that previous commitments prevents his personal appearance before Senator Ervin's Subcommittee but is glad to file this written testimonial. Voluntary desegregation of the races was first practiced in Mississippi in the public school session 1965–66. Desegregation to a slight degree under court order had its beginning in the public school session in 1964-65. Previous to these instances there had never been a mixed attendance of White and Negro students in the public schools of Mississippi. In other words, no experience prepared men and women of either race in Mississippi for desegregation on the elementary and secondary school levels prior to the 1964-65 school session. A special session of the Legislature of Mississippi in 1953 laid the groundwork for a broad-scaled reorganization of school districts climaxed by a gigantic building program. This Extraordinary Session followed a two-year study of the public school system by a recess legislative committee. Official Mississippi, therefore, was preparing for as nearly an equalization of facilities between the races as could be achieved and as quickly as possible. Then came the Supreme Court decision of 1954 overruling the equal but separate facilities principle of school district organization. This decision was interpreted in Mississippi to mean that discrimination was forbidden but integration of the races was not required. Ten years later the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with Title VI and Section 601 was enacted by the Congress. The State Board of Education construed the obligations resting upon it under the Civil Rights Act to adopt a plan of compliance for the purpose of administering the steps leading to desegregation in the public school systems within the 149 districts of the State of Mississippi. In order to familiarize school leaders over the state with the Civil Rights Act and guidelines drawn up by the U.S. Office of Education, a series of meetings were held in for geographical centers of the state. These meetings were widely advertised and well attended. The State Superintendent of Education opened each meeting with a general discussion of the implications of the Civil Rights Act and the guidelines that had been furnished in effectuating desegregation of a voluntary basis. Members of the staff of the State Department of Education then discussed other aspects of the propsals followed by a great many questions from school board members, their attorneys, and school superintendents. All school officials were aware of the responsibility that they had to try and work out with their people within the provisions of the guidelines and in compliance with the intent of the Congressional Act. The question propounded to the school superintendents and ther board members actually embraced two alternatives, first, to try and work out a plan of voluntary desegregation on a grade basis involving two or more grades for the year 1965-66, looking toward the consummation of desegregation in all twelve grades by a given target date, or to refrain from taking any voluntary action at all, leaving the district open for litigation and perhaps subsequent desegregation under court order, which will come under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These meetings aroused a great amount of interest as well as discussion filled with questions on the best way to proceed in drawing up compliance plans. The State Superintendent of Education invited members of the staff of the U.S. Office of Education to come to Jackson to meet with our school superintendents, board members, and attorneys and help them with their plans. The summer of 1965 was devoted in large part to a series of conferences between U.S. Office of Education representatives and school officials. Approximately four weeks were consumed in what was considered profitable conferences resulting in the adoption of approved compliance plans by 107 districts. Twenty-one districts were under court order, giving a total of 128 districts out of Mississippi's 149 districts that were in compliance for the 1965-66 school session. The compliance plans adopted under court order or on a voluntary basis were plans or agreements between the school districts of Mississippi and the U.S. Office of Education, a representative agency of the Federal government. The general understanding of these agreements was that on account of the continuing proposals looking toward complete desegregation of all twelve grades that they were not necessarily confined therefore to the 1965-66 school session. School boards and superintendents acted in good faith in making these agreements; and, of course, the implied understanding was that the Federal government through the U.S. Office of Education would also act in good faith in honoring the 1965 guidelines which looked toward the complete desegregation of the public schools and not abrogate them in anywise by the adoption of subsequent guidelines which vitiated and perhaps in some respects invalidated some of the provisions of the 1965-66 guidelines. In other words, reference is made in this comment to a modification of the 'freedom of choice' proposal in the 1965-66 guidelines. It appears that under the guidelines applicable for this school year that an effort is being made to place responsibility upon the school and take it off the pupil or pupil's parents which does damage and great damage to this overall agreement. It is understood that there will be some staff desegregation, and school superintendents are preparing as best they can and in a careful manner to meet this requirement. On account of the complete absence of any experience of this nature, caution and good judgment have to be exercised in carrying out these guidelines. The State Superintendent of Education of Mississippi has the feeling that the U.S. Commissioner of Education and his staff will look with favor upon a reasonable and common-sense application of the guidelines in this particular area. We are aware that there have been definite comparisons made between the guidelines of 1965-66 and those for 1966-67 with the avowed purpose of pointing out the stringency of the 1966-67 guidelines. We are also aware of comparisons that have been made between the guidelines and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as basic principles in the Constitution of the United States. We do not propose in this statement to go into a consideration of these comparisons and conclusions. This has been done effectively by other people, and we are sure that this Subcommittee has available these comparisons and conclusions. There is a vital concern over press and TV comments from people in very responsible governmental positions who have pointed out the variations between the Congressional Act and the guidelines. These comments relate not only to education but to other Federal programs such as Medicare. A tremendous change has come over school administration following the enactment of the Civil Rights Act and the inauguration of many Federal programs that give financial aid to the schools. This change, as is well-known and recognized, necessitates a new type of communication between the local school district, the state departments of education, and the U.S. Office of Education. In spite of this change the question may arise as to the need for too much tele |