reprisal and establish a truly national policy of basic civil rights for all-unfettered and free.

TITLE III

Turning now to title III of the legislation before this subcommittee, I would like to state that we supported titles III, IV, and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-but have found in the intervening time that resistance is stronger than right.

Federal court decisions have established that :

(1) Under the Constitution, school officials have a duty to establish a single, desegregated system of schools for all children;

(2) Desegregation delay in the school systems of our land is not acceptable;

(3) The legal responsibility for desegregation of schools rests upon the local school authorities, even in the face of community opposition; and

(4) Teacher desegregation is part and parcel of this responsibility.

But where does the Nation stand today in student and faculty desegregation?

We need only look to President Johnson's message to Congress on this legislation for the answer-only 1 in 13 colored children in the South attends school with white children.

We need only look to the more than 100 communities that have failed to file plans under the Office of Education guidelines.

We need only to look at the violence and threats of violence—and even more important-the threats to threaten and the threats to intimidate that have become a part of every Negro student and teacher's life in attempting to achieve the education and job guaranteed by the Constitution.

We need only to look at these factors and we then know where we stand today in student and faculty desegregation.

Senator ERVIN. I am intrigued by the phrase in your statement. and in the bill: "the threat to threaten." How does a man go about "threatening to threaten?"

Mr. HAYNES. The very fact that we are forced to live under these circumstances, we exercise this choice, or this freedom of choice, under the threat of the threats of the mobs and the others who would espouse hate and bigotry in our system.

Senator ERVIN. What I would like to know is, if I wanted to "threaten to threaten," how would I go about it?

Mr. HAYNES. I think the messages we get from those who might represent you, the intimidations, the offhanded type of intimidation, would be what we would regard as a threat to threaten.

Senator ERVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Haynes.

Mr. HAYNES. A most important goal of education is the elimination of prejudice and bigotry from the public mind.

Our American public educational system is founded on the conviction that the public school is indispensable to national unity, common purpose, and equality of opportunity.

A fundamental dream and guarantee of our American democracy is equal educational opportunity for every child-without regard to race, color, religion, or other external factors.

www.

On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed itself to this concern for every American child in the now famous decision, Brown v. Board of Education. In the words of the court:

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. This decision was vital, because, throughout the history of our land, the public school has been both the source and the means of achieving the aspirations of parents that their children might have a better way of life than they. The public schools have always been viewed by the downtrodden, disadvantaged Americans as their opportunity for a share in the great American dream.

The Negro American has viewed the schools as the best guarantee that the poverty and disadvantages of the father might not be visited on the children. However, for him, alone, the promise of equality and of entrance into the mainstream of American life has been largely unrealized.

In the 12 years that have passed since the Supreme Court's decision, progress toward the desegregation of public schools has been painfully slow. Ten years after the Court's action, when only a handful of Negro and white children were attending school together in the South, the Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. During 1965, implementation of that act accelerated somewhat the pace of desegregation—and, with the continued pressure of Federal laws, progress can be made.

However, the free-choice plan places the burden of desegregation on Negro and other minority students and their parents. The longstanding mores and community attitudes preclude the exercise of any freedom of choice on the part of these students and parents.

Title III will place the responsibility on the Attorney General for the implementation of the desegregation of public education.

Today, we are in a face-to-face confrontation with another important challenge in the desegregation process-that of desegregation of faculties. This will require a posture of leadership that this Nation cannot abdicate. A segregated faculty is discriminatory to all schoolchildren-thus, faculty desegregation becomes a vital component of desegregation of our public schools.

Effective desegregation of public education depends upon the recruitment, certification, supervision, and retention of outstanding classroom teachers of both the majority and minority groups. The involvement of all racial groups in the educational process has a positive influence on the motivation and the aspiration level of the youngsters and the total teaching-learning process.

The hope of the life of our community lies in our ability to maintain and strengthen our minority educators.

Nevertheless, a study of the factors bearing upon this problem reveals that in several States legislation and other measures have been enacted which deprive teachers of their rights. Several examples are illustrative.

In Alabama, tenure laws in seven counties have been so changed that teachers who advocate desegregation can be dismissed. In Arkansas, although three laws designed to impinge on the freedom of teachers were declared unconstitutional, other possibly unfair laws

remain on the books.

65-506-66-pt. 2- -28

Legislation in Florida has resulted in potentially discriminatory use of the National Teacher Examination. Georgia and several other States have passed acts directed toward inhibiting teachers from seeking due process.

Louisiana passed a series of acts providing for the dismissal of teachers and other school personnel who aided or abetted integration. Additionally, at its recent national convention in Miami, Fla., the National Education Association found it necessary to unanimously suspend the Louisiana Teachers Association for its continued refusal to integrate its membership.

North Carolina and South Carolina have repealed their teachers continuing contract laws. Tennessee has redefined barratry and required registration of "racial organizations." Virginia has authorized teachers to terminate contracts whenever the schools in which they teach become desegregated.

Our concern with faculty integration is becoming acute because of certain current thinking and practices. Typically, whenever 20 or 25 Negro pupils are transferred to a formerly all-white school, the Negro teacher left without a class is in many cases dismissed rather than transferred with the students or assigned to another vacancy.

When all of the pupils attending small Negro schools are reassigned to previously white schools, Negro principals, as well as an increased number of teachers, are often faced with the problem of relocation. This is particularly operative in a sort of devious manner when Negro students are transferred to the formerly white school without the corresponding transfer of Negro teachers.

The spreading myth of the inferiority of the Negro teacher does violence to the community, mitigates against the teacher himself, and commits a serious injustice to the teaching-learning process.

The complete implementation of the desegregation process is the only logical solution to dispel such diabolical and unfounded notions. Title III will provide the vehicle to achieve the realization of this goal.

Our Nation's strength lies in equal educational opportunity and the hand of our chief law officer, the Attorney General, must be strengthened to guarantee that this Nation shall not falter or fail because of educational deficiencies.

We urge that title III be enacted to bring equality to our schools, whether or not Federal funds are involved-a future to our children and an end to the intimidations and pressures that have been placed on students and teachers and parents alike.

I will be glad to answer any questions that you have.
Thank you.

Senator ERVIN. I believe you and I interpret title III the same. Did I analyze your testimony correctly? You interpret title III to vest in the Attorney General the power to bring about compulsory integration of all schools, regardless of the wishes of the people, both white and Negro, in the community, do you not?

Mr. HAYNES. As I interpret it, sir, title III takes the burden of responsibility off parents and their children and places it on the Attorney General. As I understand the present law, the Attorney General can bring action provided that there is a complaint.

Senator ERVIN. Excuse me.

That is a vote call. I will have to run over and vote. I shall be back as soon as I can so that you may complete your testimony.

(Short recess.)

Senator ERVIN. If I construe your remarks correctly, you interpret title III as a statutory provision by which the Attorney General can bring suits to compel compulsory integration of all schools, both as to students and as to faculties, notwithstanding the rulings of many Federal courts to the effect that the 14th amendment is not violated where the school board of the district permits freedom of choice?

Mr. HAYNES. My understanding, sir, is that, as of now, the responsibility is on the parent and the child to implement the desegregation process. It seems to me that the spirit of the law is that the school authorities as I interpret the law-would be charged with this responsibility. Now, title III, as I understand it, provides the Attorney General with the authority to take action whether or not there is a complaint if the school authorities persist in maintaining segregated schools.

Senator ERVIN. Well, I construe your statement to interpret title III as a statutory provision to compel the total compulsory integration of schools in all areas of the United States, particularly in the South.

Mr. HAYNES. I think, sir, that all of the laws that I have read would bear this out, that the courts, the Constitution, and the courts' rulings have interpreted that the schools must be desegregated. As it is now, it is required that there must be a complaint from parents or from somebody in the community for the Attorney General to take action, as I understand it, sir. Title III provides the Attorney General with the authority to take action whether there is a complaint or not.

Senator ERVIN. Yes, that is what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides. This one provides that if the Attorney General has any information, real or imagined, he can bring suit in his absolute discretion. Mr. HAYNES. That is correct; that is my interpretation.

Senator ERVIN. You and I place a different interpretation upon the court decisions. The court decisions, as I construe them, hold that the 14th amendment does not require desegregation. It merely prohibits discrimination. And when a school district opens its schools to children of all races, then the fact that children select different schools does not constitute discrimination. That is a voluntary act. Now, under your interpretation of title III, the Attorney General will have power to bring suits to compel the total desegregation of schools and the total desegregation of faculties, would it not? Mr. HAYNES. That is correct, sir.

Senator ERVIN. And would not this entail the Federal courts' passing upon the qualifications of teachers, if title III is to be effective to desegregate faculties?

Mr. HAYNES. I think not, sir. Each State has its own requirements for faculties. Some States may be overlapping other States, but each State has its requirements for the certification of teachers.

Senator ERVIN. Do you not believe a school board has and should have the right to pass upon qualifications of teachers? Mr. HAYNES. Certainly I think so, sir.

Senator ERVIN. And apart from artificial standards, two teachers can have exactly the same experience as far as the length of time of

teaching is concerned and exactly the same degrees from exactly the same colleges and one of them can be a superior teacher and one can be an inferior teacher because of their personalities, can they not?

Mr. HAYNES. I do not believe, sir, there is any valid research in this area to say what is a good teacher. I would not be able to agree on that particular point.

Senator ERVIN. You mean that when you went to school you could not tell that some of your teachers were superior to others in imparting knowledge to you?

Mr. HAYNES. This is the factor, Senator, that we are tremendously afraid of now: that we will go off into a subjective analysis of what is good and what is bad or what is less good when it comes to something so vital as teaching.

Senator ERVIN. I went to school for about 17 years and I did not have any difficulty in telling that some of the teachers who undertook to teach me were superior teachers to others.

Mr. HAYNES. The point I tried to make a minute ago was that, in all of the research that I have read, none of it has been found to be valid to determine what really is good teaching or who is a good teacher. However, I know that there are criteria that we employ in the evaluation of teachers.

Senator ERVIN. That is a very surprising opinion to come from an educator. I am not an educator, but I have served on school boards in my hometown and I have served as a trustee of two institutions of higher learning. I may be suffering under a delusion, but I did not have any great difficulty telling, either in the public schools or in the institutions of higher learning, who were more able teachers. I found, in many instances, some of the most able teachers were ones who had fewer degrees than others.

A set of artificial standards deprives the school board of passing on those intangible things that make one teacher inferior and another superior.

Mr. HAYNES. We think, sir, that preparation and experience must be the factors used in rating teachers, determining salary

Senator ERVIN. I think we agree on the question of salaries, but I would not agree on the employment of teachers. I have seen a lot of lawyers go through Harvard Law School and some of them are fine lawyers, but others I would not give 15 cents to represent me in any

case.

I think if you are going to desegregate faculties by compulsion of law you are going to have to give the Federal judge, who is not an educator, the power to determine which teacher is superior and which teacher is inferior. That is a pretty big burden to put on a judge when even educators cannot make such a judgment.

Mr. HAYNES. I do not think the courts would want to place that responsibility on the judge. Neither would I think the Congress would want to assume that responsibility.

Senator ERVIN. If there are going to be desegregated faculties, and if the local school boards are going to be deprived of the power to judge the qualifications of its teachers, then the Federal courts are going to have to assume that power.

Mr. HAYNES. Our only concern, sir, is that teachers in all of our schools would be employed purely on the basis of their qualifications