The Richmond School Board and the Desegregation of Richmond Public Schools, 1954 to 1971

W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1988 The Richmond School Board and the desegregation of Richmond public schools, 1954 to 1971 Mildred Davis Bruce College of William & Mary - School of Education Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Other Education Commons Recommended Citation Bruce, Mildred Davis, "The Richmond School Board and the desegregation of Richmond public schools, 1954 to 1971" (1988). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539618866. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.25774/w4-fp0k-p519 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been uBed to photo graph and reproduce thiB manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while othera may be from a computer printer. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or 6" x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Accessing the Worlds Informalion since 1930 300 Norlh Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor Ml 134G USA- Order Number 8B1340T The Richmond school board and the desegregation of Richmond public schools, 1054 to 1071 Bruce, Mildred Davis, Ed.D. The College of William and Mary,1988 Cojiyrlglit ©10B8 by Drucc, Mildred Davis. All rights reserved. 300 N. ZccbRd, Ann Arbor, Ml481 Oft THE RICHMOND SCHOOL BOARD AND THE DESEGREGATION OF RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1954 TO 1971 A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the School of Education The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by Mildred Davis Bruce May 1968 THE RICHMOND SCHOOL BOARD AND THE DESEGREGATION OF RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1954 TO 1971 by Mildred Davis Bruce Approved May 19 8 B by William E. Garland, D.A. V^Li Janes M. Yankovich, Ed.D. I*- l». nH./S*j E h William F. Losito, Ph.D, Chairman of Doctoral Committee ©igea MILDRED DAVIS BRUCE All Rights Reserved Dedication To Jim without whose help and support this would not have been possible. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of the requirements for the Doctor of Education signals the achievement of a goal I have long sought. To those persons who have helped through their cooperation, support and encouragement, I wish to express tny gratitude. A special word of appreciation goes to the members of the committee, Dr. Garland and Dr, Yankovich, for taking time out of their busy schedules to provide me with guidance in the completion of this project. To Dr. Losito goes my appreciation, not only for his guidance, but for his patience and understanding also. To the members of the staff of Stuart Elementary School goes my heartfelt thanks for their confidence, their support, and their willingness to share with me their thoughts and feelings about this period of history. To Dr. Delores Greene goes ray gratitude for her understanding and indulgence and to Dr. Dale Kalkofen, my thanks for keeping me going. Finally, to all of the friends and colleagues who offered encouragement goes my deepest gratitude. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION.................................... 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................. 4 Chapter I- INTRODUCTION Nature and Significance of theStudy . 7 The Purpose of the study .......... 7 Theoretical Framework.............. 11 Method of Inquiry. ................. 21 Limitations of the study .......... 22 2. PRELUDE TO THE BROWN DECISION..... 27 The South in 1954.................. 27 Virginia at Mid-Century........ 38 The Development of Public Schools in Richmond 4 5 Responding to the Brown Decision .. 53 3. THE RICHMOND SCHOOL BOARD AND MASSIVE RESISTANCE........................... 72 The Richmond School Board in 1954 . 72 Massive Resistance Begins ........... B1 Preparing for Change................ 96 4. DESEGREGATION BEGINS................. 103 Community Conflict................... 104 The Perrow Plan in A c t i o n .......... 108 The Bradley Case is Filed .......... 118 5 5. FROM DESEGREGATION TO RESEGREGATION . 131 The Civil Rights Act Of 1964............ 132 The Bradley Case Re-opened.............. 141 Bradley and G r e e n ...................... 153 6- SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . 163 Summary................................. 163 Analysis and Interpretation ........... 169 Comparison of San Francisco and Richmond. ........................ 179 Federal Policy at the Local Level . * . 186 Implications for Further Research . , 190 EPILOGUE......................................... 194 APPENDICES....................................... 199 REFERENCES....................................... 211 VITA.............................................. 216 ABSTRACT.......................................... 217 6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Nature and Significance of the study During the first half of the twentieth century, many public school systems in the United States operated separate schools for black and white students based on the "separate but equal" doctrine sanctioned by the Supreme Court in 1896 in the case of Plessy vs Ferguson, 16 S. Ct. 113B (1B96). The Plessy decision did not create segregated schools, for in most instances they were already in existence, but it did declare segregation legal and supported future actions which resulted in segregation. Some states had laws which required separate schools for the races, a situation known as de jure segregation. In other states, by virtue of housing patterns, tradition or unwritten policy, separate schools were provided but not required by law, creating segregated schools de facto. From time to time there were challenges to the existence of de lure segregation in public education 7 e but. no decision was reached in the courts that had far-reaching consequences until 1954, It was in that year that the Supreme Court rcled on four cases which had been brought before it in 1)52 and then re-argued at the request of the Court earlier in 1954, charging that segregation in the public schools deprived black children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, The four cases were listed by the name Brown vs .the School Board of Topeka, Kansas. 74 S. ct. 686 (1954) and the court ruled that laws which required the separation of students in public schools on the basis of race were unconstitutional. The Court wrote: We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal11 has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Recognizing the complexities involved in implementing the decision, the court asked for further argument on parts of the decision and indicated that it would rule on the implementation after hearing those arguments. One year later, in a second ruling, known as Brown II, 75 S. Ct. 753 (1955), the Court declared that all school systems should move to desegregate 9 schools "with all deliberate speed.1' With these two decisions the Court had brought into question not only the legality but also the justice of some cherished traditions and practices in the schools of many states and had set in motion a chain of events of great significance to the educational institutions of the United States. The Court's ruling was not met with immediate or easy compliance, particularly in the South where the states Instituted a number of measures to circumvent the law. These measures, known collectively as Massive Resistance, served only to delay desegregation, not to prevent it (Wilhoit, 1973). When localities in states that required segregation did not move to desegregate their schools, many groups and individuals brought lawsuits against their local school boards, using the Brown decision as a basis. The decisions reached in these lawsuits frequently extended and clarified the intent of the Brown decision, creating a vast body of legal precedents dealing with the desegregation of schools (Hate 1}. Virginia, with its conservative tradition, was at the forefront of the Massive Resistance movement (Wilhoit, 197 3). As the state legislature created a variety of legal barriers to the implementation of the 10 Brown decision, local school boards found themselves caught between these mandates of the state and the pressure

Load more