-
Title
-
EWP Grey Commission 003
-
Place
-
Virginia
-
Identifier
-
1000574
-
Is Version Of
-
1000574_EWP_Grey_Commission_003.jpg
-
Is Part Of
-
Uncategorized
-
Date Created
-
2024-01-07
-
Format
-
Jpeg Image
-
Number
-
9d1136f588abac97c47aacaed385b087757726c3244432204caeb96097f01b14
-
Source
-
/Volumes/T7 Shield/EWP/Elements/EWP_Files/Access Files/Upload temp/1000574_EWP_Grey_Commission_003.jpg
-
Publisher
-
Digitized by Edwin Washingon Project
-
Rights
-
Loudoun County Public Schools
-
Language
-
English
-
Replaces
-
/Volumes/T7 Shield/EWP/Elements/EWP_Files/source/Ingest One/1 Civil Rights/integration_folder/Grey_Commission/EWP_Grey_Commission_003.jpg
-
extracted text
-
REPORT OF COMMISSION ON PUBLIC EDUCATION
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, NOVEMBER 11, 1955.
To:
THE HONORABLE THOS. B. STANLEY, Governor of Virginia
Your Commission was appointed on August 80, 1954, and instructed
to examine the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States in the school segregation cases, decided May 17, 1954, and to make
such recommendations as may be deemed proper. The real impact of the
decision, however, could not be fully considered until the final decree of
the Supreme Court was handed down and its mandate was before the
Federal District Court for interpretation. This did not take place until
July 18, 1955.
The Commission and its Executive Committee have held many meet-
ings, including a lengthy public hearing, wherein many representatives
of both races expressed their views, and the Commission has made two
interim reports, one on January 19, 1955, and the other on June 10, 1955.2
It now submits its further recommendations for consideration by Your
Excellency. ;
EFFECT OF THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT IN THE CASE OF DAVIS v. COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD,OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Until the decision in the Davis and companion cases, segregation of
the races in the public schools had been recognized as coming within the
valid exercise of the police powers of the several states. In the leading
case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (decided in 1896), the Supreme
Court of the United States, in upholding the validity of a Louisiana statute
requiring the separation of the races in railway coaches, made this pertin-
ent observation:
“x * The most common instance of this (segregation of the races)
is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and
colored children, which have been held to be a valid exercise of the
legislative power even by the courts of states where the political rights
of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced.”
When the question of the constitutionality of a Mississippi statute
requiring segregation of the races in the public schools came before the
United States Supreme Court in 1927 in the case of Gong Lum v. Rice,
275 U. S. 78, Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, upheld
its constitutionality, and observed, “* * * we think that it is the same
question which has been many times decided to be within the constitutional
power of the State legislature to settle without intervention of the federal
courts under the Federal Constitution,” citing many cases.
When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted three generations ago,
no one dreamed that it had any application to segregation in the public
schools. Even the Congress which initiated the Fourteenth Amendment
1 See, Appendix I
2 See, Appendix II
-
REPORT OF COMMISSION ON PUBLIC EDUCATION
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, NOVEMBER 11, 1955.
To:
THE HONORABLE THOS. B. STANLEY, Governor of Virginia
Your Commission was appointed on August 80, 1954, and instructed
to examine the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States in the school segregation cases, decided May 17, 1954, and to make
such recommendations as may be deemed proper. The real impact of the
decision, however, could not be fully considered until the final decree of
the Supreme Court was handed down and its mandate was before the
Federal District Court for interpretation. This did not take place until
July 18, 1955.
The Commission and its Executive Committee have held many meet-
ings, including a lengthy public hearing, wherein many representatives
of both races expressed their views, and the Commission has made two
interim reports, one on January 19, 1955, and the other on June 10, 1955.2
It now submits its further recommendations for consideration by Your
Excellency. ;
EFFECT OF THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT IN THE CASE OF DAVIS v. COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD,OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Until the decision in the Davis and companion cases, segregation of
the races in the public schools had been recognized as coming within the
valid exercise of the police powers of the several states. In the leading
case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (decided in 1896), the Supreme
Court of the United States, in upholding the validity of a Louisiana statute
requiring the separation of the races in railway coaches, made this pertin-
ent observation:
“x * The most common instance of this (segregation of the races)
is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and
colored children, which have been held to be a valid exercise of the
legislative power even by the courts of states where the political rights
of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced.”
When the question of the constitutionality of a Mississippi statute
requiring segregation of the races in the public schools came before the
United States Supreme Court in 1927 in the case of Gong Lum v. Rice,
275 U. S. 78, Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, upheld
its constitutionality, and observed, “* * * we think that it is the same
question which has been many times decided to be within the constitutional
power of the State legislature to settle without intervention of the federal
courts under the Federal Constitution,” citing many cases.
When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted three generations ago,
no one dreamed that it had any application to segregation in the public
schools. Even the Congress which initiated the Fourteenth Amendment
1 See, Appendix I
2 See, Appendix II
