Address of Governor James F. Byrnes to The South Carolina Education Association: Columbia, SC; 25 March 1954.
Shortly after I was inaugurated as Governor in January, 1951, you did me the honor to invite me to address your association. I discussed the educational program then pending in the Legislature which subsequently was enacted into law.
The years that have passed have been crowded years. So many exciting things have happened in our lives that it may not be inappropriate for me to recall some of the significant developments of that program.
You and I have been partners in what has been called an education revolution. I am proud to have been associated with you in that revolution. Instead of 1,200 school districts, we now have only 102. The one-teacher schools of the rural areas have almost all been abandoned. Since 1951 the consolidated program has eliminated 824 of our inferior schools in rural areas. Of these, 287 were white schools and 537 were Negro schools.
The former students of those schools are now in consolidated schools and possess educational opportunities equal to the opportunities afforded boys and girls of the cities.
The consolidation of schools has brought about a great increase in the number of students transported in buses to schools. In 1950-51 under the district transportation systems 142,000 pupils rode school buses daily at an average cost of $24.77 per year. Under the State system last year 203,000 children rode the buses daily at an annual per capita cost of only $16.55.
The number of Negro students being transported has increased from 29,166 in 1951 to 78,567 in 1954. Substantial equality with the transportation of white students has been attained.
The operation of this transportation system is big business. It has presented to the State Commission as well as local officials many difficult problems. The Commission has received wonderful cooperation from most school officials. However, there are still some who think the law was made for "the other fellow."
It is obvious to all thinking people that the State cannot operate a taxi service and have a bus stop at the door for every child. To do this, the bus would have to start much earlier in the morning would reach the end of the route much later in the afternoon. Certainly we would have to purchase several hundred more buses.
The teachers have done a magnificant job in encouraging the parents of children to be patient about transportation problems, and I feel confident that before long the relatively minor complaints that remain will be satisfactorily adjusted.
Teachers should realize that the greatly increased cost of transportation would have to come out of the funds available for public schools. The more money that is paid out for one purpose, the less money will be available for other purposes, incuding teachers' compensation.
Most of us are opposed to any change in our habits. Many of us prefer to remain in a rut rather than risk a change. Therefore, it is really remarkable that our people so quickly have accustomed themselves to so many changes in the school system vitally affecting the lives of children and parents.
Our people have great pride in a school house. It is the community meeting place. Around it hovers much sentiment. But disregarding community pride and sentiment, the people of many communities have consented to abandon the local school building in order that their children might attend a consolidated school with greater opportunities for educational advancement.
Of course, this revolutionary program has cost a lot of money. We are forced to do in a few years what our fathers and grandfathers should have done during the past seventy-five years.
To pay for it a sales tax was levied. That tax will produce $47,000,000 revenue this year. But it takes an additional $20,000,000 from other sources to meet our public school budget of $67,000,000. This budget must be compared with $36,000,000 a year spent by the State for the public schools when I became Governor.
The school building program enacted by the Legislature provided for completion of construction in 20 years. During that period $176,000,000 will be spent by the State for school buildings. It will be paid for out of sales tax revenue.
We have moved at a much faster rate by the issuance of bonds. At first the limitation on the issuance of bonds was $75,000,000 at any one time. It has been increased to $100,000,000. Bonds were issued to enable some school districts to borrow immediately part of the sum to which they would be entitled during the 20 years, and promptly equalize school facilities as between the races.
The State Educational Finance Commission of which I am Chairman has allocated $94,000,000 out of the proceeds of bonds issued and the sales tax revenue.
Negro schools have received two-thirds of the total allocation. When these buildings have been constructed, there will be substantially equal building facilities in those particular counties.
When we consider that Negro pupils comprise only 229,000 of the public schools enrollment of 525,000, the figures as to funds allocated mean that an average of $106 has been allocated for each white pupil and $271 for each Negro pupil.
In the future more consideration will be given applications for white schools and more consideration will be given to the districts which have borrowed less than others.
I would not give you the impression I think an educational program consists only of buildings and buses. More important is the character and capabilities of the teachers in the schools.
If ever a group of persons deserved the plaudits of the people for outstanding and sacrificial service, it is the teachers of South Carolina.
When I became Governor, I was surprised to learn of the inadequate compensation received by our teachers. I realized they would not continue in their profession unless they felt they were called to give their time and talents to the children of the State.
But we have made some progress. In the past three years the State contribution to teachers' salaries has increased 43 per cent.
The State aid increases should have been added to the supplements paid by the various districts. However, I have learned recently, to my regret, that when State contribution was increased, the supplement paid in some districts was reduced so that some teachers actually received little increase.
Even where the district supplement was not reduced, the total compensation of South Carolina teachers is less than that of the teachers in adjoining States. This should not be allowed to continue.
It is folly to continue spending public funds in State colleges to train teachers if we are not going to offer those teachers substantially the same compensation they can receive in adjoining States.
Because there is always a dispute as to the comparative salary schedules, I intend to confer with the Governors and have some of our school officials confer with the school officials of our adjoining States and see if we can agree on the facts as to salary schedules.
The Governors and school officials cannot bind a Legislature to equalize compensation, but we could place at the disposal of the Legislatures of the several States an agreed statement of facts.
South Carolina is no longer the poorest member of the family of States. We are able to provide compensation equal to that of neighboring States. And we should do it.
An increase in the compensation of our teachers should not be delayed pending such an investigation. It is true the Legislature provided no increase in the contribution of the State toward teachers' salaries. But the Legislature did appropriate $4,500,000 of surplus funds to the counties, to be used for public school purposes.
The legislative delegation of a county can use some of the county's portion of the four and one-half million dollars to pay the teachers a bonus or increase of salary. I do not care what they call it. I hope it will be done in every county.
There are some other problems. I want to see a reduction in the maximum number of pupils admitted in any class. While the State average per class is not unreasonable, many classes have double the number of pupils that one teacher should be expected to instruct.
This is a two-fold evil. The child does not receive the proper instruction and the teacher carries to great a load.
I want to see all double shifts eliminated from our schools. Double shifts require packing into a few hours instruction and acivities that should be spread over a normal school day. Pupils should not be required to reach school too early in the morning nor to stay too late in the afternoon.
When I spoke to you in March, 1951, I referred to the school segregation case in Clarendon County, which at that time had not been argued in Court. I tried to impress you and the people of our State with the seriousness of the problem.
At that time there was in our State Constitution a provision that the General Assembly should provide a free public school for all children between 6 and 21 years of age. That provision has now been repealed. And despite the opposition arguments you heard when the constitutional amendment was pending in 1952, not one school door has been closed.
There is another provision in our Constitution that "separate schools shall be provided for children of the white and colored races, and no child of either race shall ever be permitted to attend a school provided for children of the other race."
I am sworn to uphold that Constitution. I have tried to discharge my duty under that oath.
I am not willing to concede that the United States Supreme Court will render an adverse decision in the Clarendon case. But no man can tell what the Court will do.
Should the Court reverse the law of the land and decide against the Clarendon School District, what course I would advocate would depend upon the language of the decision. I would first confer with the committee appointed to consider the problem in the event of such a decision. What course would be followed would be determined by the Legislature.
In 1951, before this case was argued, I said to you that "If the Court changes what is now the law of the land, we will if it is possible live within the law, preserve the public school system and at the same time maintain segregation. If that is not possible, reluctantly we will abandon the public school system."
The leaders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People deliberately misrepresented my statement. Their misrepresentations were accepted as true by many enemies of the South who apparently want to create hatred and discord between the races.
These critics quoted me as saying I personally would close the public schools. That is false. It is also silly. School children know that only the Legislature could close the public schools. My statement of what "we" would do was an expression of opinion as to what the Legislature would do.
Our enemies have ignored the word "reluctantly" which I used in referring to the last resort of abandoning public schools. I emphasized "reluctantly" because in view of all the sacrifices we are making to preserve the public school system, certainly that would be the last resort of the Legislature.
I was confident the Legislature would explore every possible plan to stay within the decision of the United States Supreme Court and still comply with the Constitution of South Carolina to keep the races separate in our schools.
In that speech to you I stated: "Every child in the State, white or colored, should have the opportunity for a full public school education. It must be our goal to see that each of them accepts that opportunity."
Further I said: "* * * It must be the duty of the humane white people of the State as individuals to see that innocent Negro children are not deprived of an education because of false leaders. Certainly that would be my goal."
I have never seen those statements quoted. Our enemies have taken a part of one sentence out of a speech to justify the criticism that the people of South Carolina and the Governor of the State are prejudiced against the Negro.
I am not conscious of such prejudice. I want to see our colored citizens progress and prosper. I have tried to help them.
I have not confined my efforts to providing Negroes equal facilities in our public schools and in transportation to the schools.
I secured from the General Education Board a grant of $500,000 for the State College at Orangeburg. I urged upon the Legislature a program under which that college now has under way a building program of two and one-half million dollars. I secured additional appropriations for increased compensation for the faculty, which is more important than buildings.
I led a successful fight to improve the facilities for Negroes at the mental hospital and to establish a training school for mentally defective Negro children similar to the white school at Clinton.
In my message to the Legislature and in personal conversations I urged priority for my request for $500,000 to provide a building and equipment for Negro women at the State Tubercular Hospital. Soon it will be under construction.
I was not forced by court action to do these things. I have done them because I believed they were right.
No misrepresentation or abuse by politicians will deter me from continuing to help the Negroes of South Carolina to progress and prosper.
I firmly believe that were it not for the interference by politicians from Northern States, the vast majority of Negroes in South Carolina would be satisfied with facilities in colored schools equal to those of white schools.
They are entitled to that equality.
What some of our people, white and colored, do not understand is that the sponsors of this lawsuit are interested primarily in a social program. They are not so concerned with the education of Negro children.
In the Clarendon County School District where this litigation arose, there are 2,657 Negro students and only 294 white students. That is nine to one.
We know that if in that District 3 white children are forced into a class with 27 Negroes it would not improve the education of either the Negro or white children.
And that would be true where the school population is more equally divided. Instead of thinking about mathematics, the children would be thinking of race relations.
Racial conflicts between children would result in conflicts between parents. I fear that hatred and discord would supplant the peaceful relations now existing.
What many people throughout the country do not realize is that mixed schools where the population is equally divided presents a different problem from mixed schools where the Negro population is only a small percentage of the total.
By our sacrifices we have proved our devotion to the public schools. Our present system of public schools is dear to us, but the preservation of racial integrity is even dearer. An adverse decision by the Supreme Court would present the most serious problem that has confronted this generation.
Unless we find a legal way of preventing the mixing of races in the schools, it will mark the beginning of the end of civilization in the South as we have known it. To protect that civilization we must depend upon ourselves.
In our midst there may be some candidates for office who will act like the scalawags of old and secretly make pledges to the N.A.A.C.P. in order to secure political support in the approaching election. They should be discovered and defeated.
We must remember that the trustees of only one school district are parties to the Clarendon school case. Regardless of which way the Court decides that case, it is entirely possible there will be litigation for some time. Many of the problems may have to be solved by the next Governor and the next Legislature.
Upon us there rests a great responsibility. We should elect as Governor and as members of the Legislature men whose character, training and experience best qualify them for leadership.
I said we must depend upon ourselves. That is not right. We must not do that. We must ask for divine guidance. We must earnestly pray that Almighty God will give to those who lead us the wisdom to know what is right and the courage to do the right.
Byrnes addresses The SCEA, March 1951
Address of James F. Byrnes, Governor of South Carolina, to The South Carolina Education Association: Township Auditorium, Columbia, SC; 16 March 1951.
It has been three-fourths of century since South Carolina faced a problem more serious than the one we face today. After the War for Southern Independence, reconstruction was a tremendous task. Second only to that is the task now confronting us to provide adequate educational facilities for the children of our State.
For those children we must provide new school buildings, more teachers, and better transportation. And we must try to preserve the Public School System.
Every child in the State, white or colored, should have the opportunity for a full public school education. It must be our goal to see that each of them accepts that opportunity.
South Carolina must go forward. It cannot go forward without a new educational program. You cannot lift the State economically without raising the educational level of the people. Statistics will show that in the states where there is the greatest illiteracy there is the smallest per capita income.
I am sure you and all other South Carolinians were humiliated recently to read that during a three-months period last fall the rejection rate of draftees for military service, due to mental causes, was higher in South Carolina than in any other State in the Union. More than 60 percent of the men in this State were rejected. The rejection rate was 35 percent for the rest of the South.
I am convinced this humiliating rejection rate was due not so much to lack of intelligence as to lack of education.
If there were no other reasons, we need additional school buildings and equipment to care of children of school age who are not now enrolled in school. According to the last survey, an estimated 16,000 white and 17,500 Negro children were out of school. In 1950 there were enrolled in this State 494,000 children, but the average daily attendance was only 413,551.
That means 113,000 were not enrolled or were remaining away from school. If next Monday these children should all attempt to go to school, they could not get inside the buildings, which already are overcrowded. Certainly I would pray for the teachers.
I know of at least one school in the State forced to run two shifts daily to permit all the children to get into the classrooms. I am told there are others. That is not fair to the children. It is not fair to the parents, who must get children to school at 7 o'clock in the morning or wait for their return in the very late afternoon.
Without drastic action the situation will get worse instead of better. South Carolina is one of the oldest States historically, the State is young in that is has more children in proportion to the total population than do other States.
The average enrollment in classrooms throughout South Carolina is 29 pupils. Regardless, however, of the average, there are many classrooms with more than 40 pupils.
The shortage of teachers will become aggravated as men in the profession enter the military service.
That is our problem.
Because I regarded it as serious, last summer during the primary campaign, I advocated that the salary of teachers be increased, that the transportation system be improved, and that a school building program be started. I stated that an investigation should be made of our tax system to determine the best means of financing the school building program.
Later, I found that a special committee had been authorized by the House of Representatives to study such a program and recommend the best way to finance it. Senators conferred with the committee. So did I.
The Committee, known as the Hollings Committee, recommended the issuance of $75 million in bonds to finance the construction of new buildings. It recommended a 20 percent increase in teachers' salaries, a State operated transportation program, and State assistance for providing school administration funds.
The Committee advised that only by a sales tax could sufficient revenue be raised for this program. It recommended that persons with small incomes should be granted relief from State income taxes.
I spent many weeks investigating the subject. I reached the same conclusion, and, therefore, in my message to the Legislature, I urged the passage of the Bill introduced by the Ways and Means Committee which incorporated substantially the recommendations of the Hollings Committee.
I am delighted to say that Bill after being considered for many days passed the House by a 40-vote majority. It is pending in the Senate. Thoughtful people, of course, will differ about important legislation. Even where, as in this case, a Bill has been drafted only after months of study, there will be differences of opinion. But I sincerely trust the Bill will pass without any crippling amendments.
No Bill of such comprehensive character will be perfect when passed. After it has been tested, it can be improved.
Changes may be made in the Senate. My earnest hope is they will be of such character that differences can be reconciled.
For years the educators have differed as to details of a program and as to financing. Because of pride of opinion, there was no program. I do not want that to happen in the Legislature.
Naturally there is opposition to the Sales Tax. There is opposition to every tax, but I have failed to find any man who is really in favor of improving our educational facilities who will suggest a substitute tax plan.
I can understand the position of the man who thinks it is a waste of money to educate the children of people he calls "common people." He is willing that we should continue to have more illiteracy than any state in the Union. I disagree with him but I understand him.
I cannot understand the position of the man who says he is in favor of increasing teachers' salaries, improving the transportation system, constructing new school buildings, and yet opposes the sales tax and offers no substitute. He wants to help the children -- provided it does not cost him anything.
That cannot be done. It will cost money. But the education of our children is the primary duty of our State just as National Defense is the primary duty of the Federal Government.
When we properly discharge our duty, we make more difficult the task of those who would have the Federal Government control our schools.
Other Southern states have had to meet this problem. Practically every state in the South now has a sales tax. It is argued by some that it will be a greater burden to the poor. The benefits will be greater to the poor. It is among them that we find large families and their children cannot be sent to private schools.
Schools in our cities, as a rule, are well equipped. The schools in our small towns and rural areas are not. The one teacher schools in rural areas, having not more than 15 or 20 pupils cannot secure good teachers. Our people must realize that these schools should be consolidated. I want the boys and girls of small towns and rural areas to have opportunities in life equal to the boys and girls of cities.
Men and women who receive little or no education participate in the election of those who govern this State. Government will only be as intelligent as the electorate. Moreover, the cities of South Carolina cannot prosper economically unless the peoples of the rural areas are educated and can increase their incomes. The improvement of conditions in rural sections is of vital concern to every city.
It was with surprise that I read a few days ago that in the State we had 125 school districts without any schools. To me a school district without a school is like a kitchen without a stove. Those districts were established by the Legislature. Now that they have no schools, I hope the Legislature will abolish them.
It is argued that the sales tax will fall particularly heavy upon the Negroes because they have lower incomes. It is true that relatively few have sufficient incomes to cause them to pay income taxes. But the majority of Negroes will not complain about paying the sales tax to help educate their children. They are asking for better schools and better transportation facilities and I am confident they will be willing to help pay for those benefits.
That brings me to a discussion of the race problem as it affects the public school system.
I repeat what I said in my inaugural address, that we should provide schools substantially equal for both white and Negro pupils. We should do so because it is right. Let me tell you why it is wise.
Last spring there were pending in the United States Supreme Court two cases brought by Negroes, one against the University of Texas and one against the University of Oklahoma. These cases were based on the charge that facilities furnished Negroes of the Negro colleges of the two states were not equal to the facilities furnished in colleges for whites. The United States Government was not involved in the suit. However, the attorney general filed an argument. He did not ask for equal facilities. On behalf of the United States Government he asked that the Court abolish segregation in State supported colleges. The Court did not decide this issue. It held it was no necessary to the disposition of the cases in which the petitioners asked only for equal facilities.
Last fall, after the election of this Legislature, some Negroes who had brought a suit against Clarendon County, asking for equal facilities, abandoned that suit. But they instituted a new suit, asking that the provisions of our constitution and statutes requiring separate schools for the races, be held unconstitutional.
I assume these people were inspired by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Because the President had asked the Court to abolish segregation, they adopted that course, instead of asking for equal facilities.
That case will be tried before a three-Judge Court in Charleston the last week of May. I do not see how a Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals and two District Judges can reverse a decision of the Supreme Court which has been the law of the land for more than a half century. They may express their desire to do so but only the Supreme Court can reverse a decision of the Supreme Court.
No matter what may be the decision of the Court in Charleston, the case will go to the Supreme Court of the United States. My hope is that the record to be considered by that Court will show that regardless of how we may have failed in the past to provide substantially equal facilities, that a courageous and forward looking Legislature has enacted a law providing an educational program that will improve facilities for Negro children as well as for white children. I hope, too, it can show that the Governor of this State has said he will use what influence he has to accomplish that end.
The races are separated in the schools of seventeen states as well as the District of Columbia, which is under the jurisdiction of the Congress. I shall ask those seventeen states to file briefs supporting our position that the Court should uphold the doctrine of separate but equal facilities, instead of ordering that segregation be abolished.
It is my hope that the action of the Legislature may influence the Court to uphold what has been the law of the land for more than half a century.
Should the Supreme Court decide this case against our position, we will face a serious problem. Of only one thing can we be certain. South Carolina will not now nor for some years to come, mix white and colored children in our schools.
In the Reconstruction Days, a carpetbag government tried to do it and failed. A Democratic administration cannot now do what a Republican administration could not then do.
If the Court changes what is now the law of the land, we will, if it is possible, live within the law, preserve the public school system, and at the same time maintain segregation. If that is not possible, reluctantly we will abandon the public school system.
To do that would be choosing the lesser of two great evils. Men without responsibility can talk freely about having the churches operate our schools. Those with responsibility realize the magnitude of the problem. The school buildings could be sold or leased, but who would operate the schools?
The Catholic Church now conducts its parochial schools. Will other denominations undertake that task?
The State spends for school purposes approximately $40,000,000 a year. This amount left in the pockets of the people would permit them to pay for the education of their children. The difficulty, of course, is that many of those who most need education would not be sent to school. Now we find it difficult to get many children to attend free schools.
How about the Negroes of the State? The white people of South Carolina would become adjusted to the situation and could pay for the education of their children. But how many Negro churches in the State could buy or lease buildings and operate schools? The Congress cannot appropriate money to one denomination in one state for schools. It would have to do the same for all denominations in all states.
Our Negro citizens would suffer because of the irresponsible action of representatives of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. When the Negro children are out of school and colored teachers are out of their jobs, these misguided and irresponsible leaders are certain to desert them.
But it must be the duty of the humane white people of the State, as individuals, to see that innocent Negro children are not deprived of an education because of false leaders.
Certainly that would be my goal.
No matter how serious may be the problems ahead of us, I know that the State can rely upon the loyal and intelligent assistance of the teachers of our schools.
I have an exalted idea of the importance of your profession. I resent the charge that this Association has no purpose other than to make efforts to increase your salaries. You fashion the thinking of the children of our State. You influence their lives. I believe you have at heart the future of your pupils, as well as your own future. I believe from your group meetings here you have benefitted and will be better able to help your schools.
The life of a teacher must be a life of sacrifice. To teach you must spend four years at college, and, in addition, you must continue to study as long as you teach. The college graduate who enters your profession cannot hope to receive the compensation of the doctor, the lawyer, the bricklayer, and the plumber. You may receive compensation equal to that of a preacher. You are entitled to compensation that will enable you to maintain a standard of living demanded by your profession. But, you do have a compensation greater than your financial reward. You see your pupils go out into the world. When one makes good in life, it must bring to you a satisfaction second only to the satsifaction of the parents of that pupil.
I ask God to bless you. I ask it with earnestness because upon you depends in great measure the character of the men and women who will guide this State in the days ahead of us.
It has been three-fourths of century since South Carolina faced a problem more serious than the one we face today. After the War for Southern Independence, reconstruction was a tremendous task. Second only to that is the task now confronting us to provide adequate educational facilities for the children of our State.
For those children we must provide new school buildings, more teachers, and better transportation. And we must try to preserve the Public School System.
Every child in the State, white or colored, should have the opportunity for a full public school education. It must be our goal to see that each of them accepts that opportunity.
South Carolina must go forward. It cannot go forward without a new educational program. You cannot lift the State economically without raising the educational level of the people. Statistics will show that in the states where there is the greatest illiteracy there is the smallest per capita income.
I am sure you and all other South Carolinians were humiliated recently to read that during a three-months period last fall the rejection rate of draftees for military service, due to mental causes, was higher in South Carolina than in any other State in the Union. More than 60 percent of the men in this State were rejected. The rejection rate was 35 percent for the rest of the South.
I am convinced this humiliating rejection rate was due not so much to lack of intelligence as to lack of education.
If there were no other reasons, we need additional school buildings and equipment to care of children of school age who are not now enrolled in school. According to the last survey, an estimated 16,000 white and 17,500 Negro children were out of school. In 1950 there were enrolled in this State 494,000 children, but the average daily attendance was only 413,551.
That means 113,000 were not enrolled or were remaining away from school. If next Monday these children should all attempt to go to school, they could not get inside the buildings, which already are overcrowded. Certainly I would pray for the teachers.
I know of at least one school in the State forced to run two shifts daily to permit all the children to get into the classrooms. I am told there are others. That is not fair to the children. It is not fair to the parents, who must get children to school at 7 o'clock in the morning or wait for their return in the very late afternoon.
Without drastic action the situation will get worse instead of better. South Carolina is one of the oldest States historically, the State is young in that is has more children in proportion to the total population than do other States.
The average enrollment in classrooms throughout South Carolina is 29 pupils. Regardless, however, of the average, there are many classrooms with more than 40 pupils.
The shortage of teachers will become aggravated as men in the profession enter the military service.
That is our problem.
Because I regarded it as serious, last summer during the primary campaign, I advocated that the salary of teachers be increased, that the transportation system be improved, and that a school building program be started. I stated that an investigation should be made of our tax system to determine the best means of financing the school building program.
Later, I found that a special committee had been authorized by the House of Representatives to study such a program and recommend the best way to finance it. Senators conferred with the committee. So did I.
The Committee, known as the Hollings Committee, recommended the issuance of $75 million in bonds to finance the construction of new buildings. It recommended a 20 percent increase in teachers' salaries, a State operated transportation program, and State assistance for providing school administration funds.
The Committee advised that only by a sales tax could sufficient revenue be raised for this program. It recommended that persons with small incomes should be granted relief from State income taxes.
I spent many weeks investigating the subject. I reached the same conclusion, and, therefore, in my message to the Legislature, I urged the passage of the Bill introduced by the Ways and Means Committee which incorporated substantially the recommendations of the Hollings Committee.
I am delighted to say that Bill after being considered for many days passed the House by a 40-vote majority. It is pending in the Senate. Thoughtful people, of course, will differ about important legislation. Even where, as in this case, a Bill has been drafted only after months of study, there will be differences of opinion. But I sincerely trust the Bill will pass without any crippling amendments.
No Bill of such comprehensive character will be perfect when passed. After it has been tested, it can be improved.
Changes may be made in the Senate. My earnest hope is they will be of such character that differences can be reconciled.
For years the educators have differed as to details of a program and as to financing. Because of pride of opinion, there was no program. I do not want that to happen in the Legislature.
Naturally there is opposition to the Sales Tax. There is opposition to every tax, but I have failed to find any man who is really in favor of improving our educational facilities who will suggest a substitute tax plan.
I can understand the position of the man who thinks it is a waste of money to educate the children of people he calls "common people." He is willing that we should continue to have more illiteracy than any state in the Union. I disagree with him but I understand him.
I cannot understand the position of the man who says he is in favor of increasing teachers' salaries, improving the transportation system, constructing new school buildings, and yet opposes the sales tax and offers no substitute. He wants to help the children -- provided it does not cost him anything.
That cannot be done. It will cost money. But the education of our children is the primary duty of our State just as National Defense is the primary duty of the Federal Government.
When we properly discharge our duty, we make more difficult the task of those who would have the Federal Government control our schools.
Other Southern states have had to meet this problem. Practically every state in the South now has a sales tax. It is argued by some that it will be a greater burden to the poor. The benefits will be greater to the poor. It is among them that we find large families and their children cannot be sent to private schools.
Schools in our cities, as a rule, are well equipped. The schools in our small towns and rural areas are not. The one teacher schools in rural areas, having not more than 15 or 20 pupils cannot secure good teachers. Our people must realize that these schools should be consolidated. I want the boys and girls of small towns and rural areas to have opportunities in life equal to the boys and girls of cities.
Men and women who receive little or no education participate in the election of those who govern this State. Government will only be as intelligent as the electorate. Moreover, the cities of South Carolina cannot prosper economically unless the peoples of the rural areas are educated and can increase their incomes. The improvement of conditions in rural sections is of vital concern to every city.
It was with surprise that I read a few days ago that in the State we had 125 school districts without any schools. To me a school district without a school is like a kitchen without a stove. Those districts were established by the Legislature. Now that they have no schools, I hope the Legislature will abolish them.
It is argued that the sales tax will fall particularly heavy upon the Negroes because they have lower incomes. It is true that relatively few have sufficient incomes to cause them to pay income taxes. But the majority of Negroes will not complain about paying the sales tax to help educate their children. They are asking for better schools and better transportation facilities and I am confident they will be willing to help pay for those benefits.
That brings me to a discussion of the race problem as it affects the public school system.
I repeat what I said in my inaugural address, that we should provide schools substantially equal for both white and Negro pupils. We should do so because it is right. Let me tell you why it is wise.
Last spring there were pending in the United States Supreme Court two cases brought by Negroes, one against the University of Texas and one against the University of Oklahoma. These cases were based on the charge that facilities furnished Negroes of the Negro colleges of the two states were not equal to the facilities furnished in colleges for whites. The United States Government was not involved in the suit. However, the attorney general filed an argument. He did not ask for equal facilities. On behalf of the United States Government he asked that the Court abolish segregation in State supported colleges. The Court did not decide this issue. It held it was no necessary to the disposition of the cases in which the petitioners asked only for equal facilities.
Last fall, after the election of this Legislature, some Negroes who had brought a suit against Clarendon County, asking for equal facilities, abandoned that suit. But they instituted a new suit, asking that the provisions of our constitution and statutes requiring separate schools for the races, be held unconstitutional.
I assume these people were inspired by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Because the President had asked the Court to abolish segregation, they adopted that course, instead of asking for equal facilities.
That case will be tried before a three-Judge Court in Charleston the last week of May. I do not see how a Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals and two District Judges can reverse a decision of the Supreme Court which has been the law of the land for more than a half century. They may express their desire to do so but only the Supreme Court can reverse a decision of the Supreme Court.
No matter what may be the decision of the Court in Charleston, the case will go to the Supreme Court of the United States. My hope is that the record to be considered by that Court will show that regardless of how we may have failed in the past to provide substantially equal facilities, that a courageous and forward looking Legislature has enacted a law providing an educational program that will improve facilities for Negro children as well as for white children. I hope, too, it can show that the Governor of this State has said he will use what influence he has to accomplish that end.
The races are separated in the schools of seventeen states as well as the District of Columbia, which is under the jurisdiction of the Congress. I shall ask those seventeen states to file briefs supporting our position that the Court should uphold the doctrine of separate but equal facilities, instead of ordering that segregation be abolished.
It is my hope that the action of the Legislature may influence the Court to uphold what has been the law of the land for more than half a century.
Should the Supreme Court decide this case against our position, we will face a serious problem. Of only one thing can we be certain. South Carolina will not now nor for some years to come, mix white and colored children in our schools.
In the Reconstruction Days, a carpetbag government tried to do it and failed. A Democratic administration cannot now do what a Republican administration could not then do.
If the Court changes what is now the law of the land, we will, if it is possible, live within the law, preserve the public school system, and at the same time maintain segregation. If that is not possible, reluctantly we will abandon the public school system.
To do that would be choosing the lesser of two great evils. Men without responsibility can talk freely about having the churches operate our schools. Those with responsibility realize the magnitude of the problem. The school buildings could be sold or leased, but who would operate the schools?
The Catholic Church now conducts its parochial schools. Will other denominations undertake that task?
The State spends for school purposes approximately $40,000,000 a year. This amount left in the pockets of the people would permit them to pay for the education of their children. The difficulty, of course, is that many of those who most need education would not be sent to school. Now we find it difficult to get many children to attend free schools.
How about the Negroes of the State? The white people of South Carolina would become adjusted to the situation and could pay for the education of their children. But how many Negro churches in the State could buy or lease buildings and operate schools? The Congress cannot appropriate money to one denomination in one state for schools. It would have to do the same for all denominations in all states.
Our Negro citizens would suffer because of the irresponsible action of representatives of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. When the Negro children are out of school and colored teachers are out of their jobs, these misguided and irresponsible leaders are certain to desert them.
But it must be the duty of the humane white people of the State, as individuals, to see that innocent Negro children are not deprived of an education because of false leaders.
Certainly that would be my goal.
No matter how serious may be the problems ahead of us, I know that the State can rely upon the loyal and intelligent assistance of the teachers of our schools.
I have an exalted idea of the importance of your profession. I resent the charge that this Association has no purpose other than to make efforts to increase your salaries. You fashion the thinking of the children of our State. You influence their lives. I believe you have at heart the future of your pupils, as well as your own future. I believe from your group meetings here you have benefitted and will be better able to help your schools.
The life of a teacher must be a life of sacrifice. To teach you must spend four years at college, and, in addition, you must continue to study as long as you teach. The college graduate who enters your profession cannot hope to receive the compensation of the doctor, the lawyer, the bricklayer, and the plumber. You may receive compensation equal to that of a preacher. You are entitled to compensation that will enable you to maintain a standard of living demanded by your profession. But, you do have a compensation greater than your financial reward. You see your pupils go out into the world. When one makes good in life, it must bring to you a satisfaction second only to the satsifaction of the parents of that pupil.
I ask God to bless you. I ask it with earnestness because upon you depends in great measure the character of the men and women who will guide this State in the days ahead of us.
May 2005
DATELINE MAY 4, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit http://www.thescea.org/.
VOUCHER BILL DEFEATED IN BIPARTISAN VOTE
At about 2:30 p.m. today, without any debate, the voucher-and-tuition-tax-credit plan that has been the cornerstone of Sanford’s education agenda was defeated by a broad bipartisan vote of 60 to 53. A subsequent motion to reconsider the vote was tabled by a vote of 60 to 55, which means this particular bill cannot be considered again.
The entire exchange lasted less than 10 minutes, with public school advocates on the chamber floor and in the gallery breaking into spontaneous, sustained applause at the two votes.
The issue of vouchers has galvanized groups in the education and business communities, which organized various coalitions to support public education and to oppose Sanford’s proposal. The SCEA began a three-year multi-media campaign against vouchers in 2002 that included issue advertising on radio and television, and a series of billboards in Columbia and elsewhere, and it has sponsored and co-sponsored rallies at the State House and "virtual" electronic rallies to communicate opposition to Sanford's plan.
In October 2004, The Right Choice campaign was begun by a coalition of the S.C. School Boards Association, the S.C. Association of School Administrators and others, and in March 2005, business leaders organized Choose Children First to give voice to opponents in their community.
In addition, more than 125 active and retired members of The SCEA attended a series of four lobby days at the Capitol, addressing their representatives directly and soliciting support against the bill. At the same time, The SCEA members and others statewide delivered thousands of emails and telephone calls to House members, and they gathered more than 3,000 signatures on anti-voucher petitions in February and March. The petitions were delivered to members of the House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Capital Investment and Other Taxes, chaired by Rep. Shirley Hinson of Goose Creek, in April.
Untold funding — estimated in the millions — from out-of-state sources allowed voucher proponents to flood airwaves with their own television and radio advertising, and for grassroots organizing for State House rallies and press conferences.
The national groups All Children Matter, based in Michigan, and the Legislative Education Action Drive (LEAD) based in Chicago, Illinois, fueled the new South Carolinians for Responsible Government and the S.C. Policy Council, which commissioned a study from Clemson University economics professor Cotton Lindsay to claim savings. Clemson University President James Barker later disavowed the study and an independent fiscal impact statement by the S.C. Board of Economic Advisors revealed a cost of more than $230 million to the state’s General Fund rather than any savings.
DATELINE MAY 6, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit http://www.thescea.org/.
VIERS OPENS ROUND TWO FOR SANFORD VOUCHERS
Ignoring the bipartisan vote that killed Governor Mark Sanford's voucher-and-tuition-tax-credit bill on Wednesday, Rep. Thad Viers of Myrtle Beach has re-introduced the proposal with a new number, H 4054. The new bill joins the first two versions of Sanford's plan, H 3012 and H 3204, in legislative limbo: they're alive but haven't been considered by any subcommittee or committee, and since they missed the crucial May 1 crossover deadline, it's virtually assured they can't be made law this year. Their only real value is political, as proponents who plan to use the Sanford vouchers as a campaign issue against public education supporters can use the bills as flashcards during stump speeches in 2005.
Viers's bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Tracy Edge of North Myrtle Beach and Rep. Jim Merrill of Daniel Island.
Upon introduction of H 4054, Rep. Dan Tripp of Mauldin attempted the legislative equivalent of a Hail Mary pass, asking for unanimous consent that the bill be placed on the calendar without reference to any committee. The play would have prevented tedious subcommittee and committee debates and could ensure floor debate within days. But Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter of Orangeburg objected, and the bill was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. The next meeting of the full Ways and Means committee hasn't yet been scheduled.
For a complete list of lawmakers who voted for and against the motions to kill H 3652 on Wednesday, refer to May 4 edition of The SCEA Dateline, available at http://www.thescea.org/.
EDITORIALS PRAISE, DECRY DEFEAT OF SANFORD VOUCHERS
Editorial writers across South Carolina have weighed in on its death, some coming to bury, others to praise.
The Myrtle Beach Sun-News credits "the lobbying muscle" of "public school boards, school administrators, teachers and parent organizations" for killing a "useful schooling alternative". It acknowledges the "considerable out-of-state money and lobbying support behind" voucher proponents, which voucher proponents themselves have avoided acknowledging.
"Indeed, proponents' only chance of overcoming the education lobby lay in mustering public support with its media campaign, conducted primarily via mass mailings and TV ads. For the most part, the campaign flopped - suggesting most South Carolinians are content to stake the future of the state's children on the public school system," the Sun-News laments.
The Charleston Post and Courier concurred: "In the hasty end, the proposal's entrenched opposition was consistent in its knee-jerk rejection of any legislative effort to give even the children in failing schools a private-school option. The predictable core of this opposition remains the state's education establishment..."
"Still," it writes, the bill "has gained ground. Last year, it didn't make it to the House floor. This year, it did."
But the Island Packet of Beaufort declared the vote "an important victory," saying "the bill never did add up."
"It was never shown how boosting private schools at the expense of public schools would improve the public schools," the Packet explains. "This issue never was about improving public schools. It was a tax scheme to reward a small segment of the population."
"Unfortunately," it states, "the tone of [the bill's] supporters, including Gov. Mark Sanford, was marked by appalling negativity toward public schools that are improving, but have a long way to go."
"When all is said and done, this state has but one obligation in education, and that is to the public schools. Those are the only schools that are accountable to the public for specific classroom results on specific, rigorous standards. They are the only schools that will take all comers, including those below grade level in achievement, the handicapped and behavioral risks. Private schools are accountable to individual customers, while public schools are accountable to all of society. It is the public schools that need the full devotion from public policy-makers and public dollars."
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit http://www.thescea.org/.
VOUCHER BILL DEFEATED IN BIPARTISAN VOTE
At about 2:30 p.m. today, without any debate, the voucher-and-tuition-tax-credit plan that has been the cornerstone of Sanford’s education agenda was defeated by a broad bipartisan vote of 60 to 53. A subsequent motion to reconsider the vote was tabled by a vote of 60 to 55, which means this particular bill cannot be considered again.
The entire exchange lasted less than 10 minutes, with public school advocates on the chamber floor and in the gallery breaking into spontaneous, sustained applause at the two votes.
The issue of vouchers has galvanized groups in the education and business communities, which organized various coalitions to support public education and to oppose Sanford’s proposal. The SCEA began a three-year multi-media campaign against vouchers in 2002 that included issue advertising on radio and television, and a series of billboards in Columbia and elsewhere, and it has sponsored and co-sponsored rallies at the State House and "virtual" electronic rallies to communicate opposition to Sanford's plan.
In October 2004, The Right Choice campaign was begun by a coalition of the S.C. School Boards Association, the S.C. Association of School Administrators and others, and in March 2005, business leaders organized Choose Children First to give voice to opponents in their community.
In addition, more than 125 active and retired members of The SCEA attended a series of four lobby days at the Capitol, addressing their representatives directly and soliciting support against the bill. At the same time, The SCEA members and others statewide delivered thousands of emails and telephone calls to House members, and they gathered more than 3,000 signatures on anti-voucher petitions in February and March. The petitions were delivered to members of the House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Capital Investment and Other Taxes, chaired by Rep. Shirley Hinson of Goose Creek, in April.
Untold funding — estimated in the millions — from out-of-state sources allowed voucher proponents to flood airwaves with their own television and radio advertising, and for grassroots organizing for State House rallies and press conferences.
The national groups All Children Matter, based in Michigan, and the Legislative Education Action Drive (LEAD) based in Chicago, Illinois, fueled the new South Carolinians for Responsible Government and the S.C. Policy Council, which commissioned a study from Clemson University economics professor Cotton Lindsay to claim savings. Clemson University President James Barker later disavowed the study and an independent fiscal impact statement by the S.C. Board of Economic Advisors revealed a cost of more than $230 million to the state’s General Fund rather than any savings.
DATELINE MAY 6, 2005
For other education-related legislative news from The SCEA, visit http://www.thescea.org/.
VIERS OPENS ROUND TWO FOR SANFORD VOUCHERS
Ignoring the bipartisan vote that killed Governor Mark Sanford's voucher-and-tuition-tax-credit bill on Wednesday, Rep. Thad Viers of Myrtle Beach has re-introduced the proposal with a new number, H 4054. The new bill joins the first two versions of Sanford's plan, H 3012 and H 3204, in legislative limbo: they're alive but haven't been considered by any subcommittee or committee, and since they missed the crucial May 1 crossover deadline, it's virtually assured they can't be made law this year. Their only real value is political, as proponents who plan to use the Sanford vouchers as a campaign issue against public education supporters can use the bills as flashcards during stump speeches in 2005.
Viers's bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Tracy Edge of North Myrtle Beach and Rep. Jim Merrill of Daniel Island.
Upon introduction of H 4054, Rep. Dan Tripp of Mauldin attempted the legislative equivalent of a Hail Mary pass, asking for unanimous consent that the bill be placed on the calendar without reference to any committee. The play would have prevented tedious subcommittee and committee debates and could ensure floor debate within days. But Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter of Orangeburg objected, and the bill was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. The next meeting of the full Ways and Means committee hasn't yet been scheduled.
For a complete list of lawmakers who voted for and against the motions to kill H 3652 on Wednesday, refer to May 4 edition of The SCEA Dateline, available at http://www.thescea.org/.
EDITORIALS PRAISE, DECRY DEFEAT OF SANFORD VOUCHERS
Editorial writers across South Carolina have weighed in on its death, some coming to bury, others to praise.
The Myrtle Beach Sun-News credits "the lobbying muscle" of "public school boards, school administrators, teachers and parent organizations" for killing a "useful schooling alternative". It acknowledges the "considerable out-of-state money and lobbying support behind" voucher proponents, which voucher proponents themselves have avoided acknowledging.
"Indeed, proponents' only chance of overcoming the education lobby lay in mustering public support with its media campaign, conducted primarily via mass mailings and TV ads. For the most part, the campaign flopped - suggesting most South Carolinians are content to stake the future of the state's children on the public school system," the Sun-News laments.
The Charleston Post and Courier concurred: "In the hasty end, the proposal's entrenched opposition was consistent in its knee-jerk rejection of any legislative effort to give even the children in failing schools a private-school option. The predictable core of this opposition remains the state's education establishment..."
"Still," it writes, the bill "has gained ground. Last year, it didn't make it to the House floor. This year, it did."
But the Island Packet of Beaufort declared the vote "an important victory," saying "the bill never did add up."
"It was never shown how boosting private schools at the expense of public schools would improve the public schools," the Packet explains. "This issue never was about improving public schools. It was a tax scheme to reward a small segment of the population."
"Unfortunately," it states, "the tone of [the bill's] supporters, including Gov. Mark Sanford, was marked by appalling negativity toward public schools that are improving, but have a long way to go."
"When all is said and done, this state has but one obligation in education, and that is to the public schools. Those are the only schools that are accountable to the public for specific classroom results on specific, rigorous standards. They are the only schools that will take all comers, including those below grade level in achievement, the handicapped and behavioral risks. Private schools are accountable to individual customers, while public schools are accountable to all of society. It is the public schools that need the full devotion from public policy-makers and public dollars."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)