Legal Inventions and the Desegregation Process
| Author | James M. Nabrit |
| Published date | 01 March 1956 |
| Date | 01 March 1956 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271625630400107 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
35
Legal
Inventions
and
the
Desegregation
Process
THE
disintegration
of
the
Solid
South
as
a
political,
social, .and
economic
entity
is
strikingly
illustrated
in
the
di-
versified
reactions
in
that
area
to
the
May
17,
1954,
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
declaring
seg-
regation
in
public
school
education
un-
constitutional.
Those
reactions
ranged
all
the
way
from
open
defiance
of
the
Court
and
a
call
for
its
impeachment
to
complete
acceptance
and
implementation
of
the
opinion.
Proposals
extended
from
those
calling
for
abolition
of
public
schools
and
evasive
tactics
on
the
one
hand
to
those
embracing
immediate
in-
tegration
and
progressive
or
gradual
in-
tegration
on
the
other,
and
within
the
entire
range
responsible
executive
and
legislative
leaders
submitted
numerous
propositions.
Many
became
a
part
of
state
constitutions
by
amendment;
others
became
law
by
legislative
enact-
ment ;
others
became
operative
through
executive
and
administrative
regula-
tions ;
others
passed
only
one
branch
of
the
legislature;
others
languish
in
com-
mittees ;
while
still
others
served
merely
as
material
for
political
speeches.
A
look
at
these
proposals
may
reflect
to
some
extent
the
degree
to
which
this
region
is
no
longer
solid,
even
if
it
re-
mains
south.
The
thrust
of
the
Supreme
Court
de-
cision
primarily
reached
segregated
pub-
lic
schools
in
Alabama,
Arkansas,
Dela-
ware,
the
District
of
Columbia,
Florida,
Georgia,
Kansas,
Kentucky,
Louisiana,
Maryland,
Mississippi,
Missouri,
North
Carolina,
Oklahoma,
South
Carolina,
Tennessee,
Texas,
Virginia,
and
West
Virginia.
Except
for
a
law
suit
by
a
cit-
izen’s
group
to
delay
integration
in
the
District of
Columbia
until
the
Supreme
Court
had
rendered
a
final
judgment,
no
legal
proposals
were
seriously
made
to
circumvent
the
May
17
decision
in
the
District
of
Columbia,
Delaware,
Kansas,
Kentucky,
Maryland,
Missouri,
Okla-
homa,
Texas,
or
West
Virginia.
In
all
of
these
areas,
except
Texas,
integration
is
progressing
steadily
and
swiftly.
Some
integration
has
taken
place
in
Texas.
Although
similar
delaying
or
circumventing
proposals
were
made
in
Tennessee,
Florida,
Arkansas,
and
Vir-
ginia,
they
apparently
have
not
been
accorded
state-wide
support-yet
in
Vim’-
ginia
a
suit
was
instituted
to
prevent
the
use
of
a
bond
issue
authorized
before
the
May
17
decision
for
construction
of
a
segregated
school
for
Negroes.
Integra-
tion
has
begun
in
Arkansas.
In
Florida,
Tennessee,
and
Virginia
opinion
has
not
yet
crystallized,
although
Florida
and
Tennessee
seem
inclined
toward
compli-
ance
while
Virginia
appears
leaning
to-
ward
defiance.
The
states
in
which
most
strenuous
efforts
have
been
ex-
pended
in
devising
legal
methods
of
evading
the
May
17
decision
and
in
which
such
proposals
appear
to
have
strong
executive,
legislative,
or
commu-
nity
support
have
thus
far
been
Ala-
bama,
Georgia,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
North
Carolina,
and
South
Carolina.
In
these
states,
no
integration
at
all
has
taken
place.
The
various
proposals
for
evasion
may
be
roughly
divided
into
two
main
categories:
(1)
proposals
designed
to
permit
the
continued
operation
of
pub-
lic
schools
on
a
segregated
basis;
(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial