quickly. It has been suggested a number of times in a number of different ways that a lot of the so-called dropouts, both from high school, junior high school, and further down, as well as in college, are indeed of among the brightest, most able kids in those schools. Do you agree with that?

Dr. SMITH. I would not say the most, but I would say they certainly are, that many of them are very bright and they have given up on the school system that demands a stultifying kind of conformity, that demands a total submission of personality and creativity-a lot of them have given up. I would not say that all the dropouts are the brightest, but I would say that a number of them are. I would say that the young student I cited in here, who I think is very bright, there are a growing number of students who say: "No, I don't want any more than that because you are just going to try to brainwash me," and in a sense it is certainly right.

Dr. THOMAS. I agree with that.

Dr. SMITH. It is hard to counteract that kind of response by a youngster. What can you tell him? Come to my college? Or go to college X and see that it is not so?

Dr. THOMAS. We have got some research statistics for the record in the progress report for the Student Rights Center, which pointed out that 53 percent of the students that drop out of school do have above average intelligence, whatever that means, but I would also like to emphasize the whole business of dehumanization.

One of the functions of the school is to take away black men's manhood. The function of the school is to destroy the black man in terms of his psychological and physical being. It stands to reason that students who stand up, students that are men, students who do not listen to this jive about George Washington and Christopher Columbus, will eventually drop out of school because somebody is challenging their manhood.

One of the school's basic functions has been the destruction of black manhood. You do have many students of above average intelligence, who refuse to sacrifice their manhood by staying in school and eating cheese, and being good "boys."

HUMANISTIC EDUCATION

Mr. HARRIS. All three of you this morning seem to have been talking about something relating to what has been called humanistic education; perhaps black children and parents particularly may be concerned about this particular affective portion of education. Briefly, would you give us a definition of humanistic education?

Dr. THOMAS. Let me say this, and perhaps this will be an explanation and a definition. Nathan Wright, Jr., in his book "Black Power and Urban Unrest," states it has been the duty of the oppressed to save themselves and their oppressor. Black people, despite the fact we have been victimized and spat upon both physically and psychologically, and in many other ways that folks have attempted to destroy us, we do not want to transpose the same thing on other folks. Therefore, we believe that if, for example, black people were, by some miracle, allowed to become free in the next 20 years, and Puerto Ricans were still being oppressed, and Mexican Americans were still being oppressed,

and poor white people were still being oppressed, this would simply mean that somebody else would be coming up the ladder trying to destroy black people. We want all people to have the right to live and be human.

We are saying that somewhere there has to be a regeneration of love, trust, and respect and understanding for mankind. What I am talking about is appreciation for others and appreciation for oneself, and an atmosphere whereby one can function using one's total potential. Mr. HARRIS. Would you say these humanistic attitudes are unique to oppressed groups?

Dr. THOMAS. Frantz Fanon says that men, women, and children will rise against their oppressor. I concur with this. I also think that oppressed groups can in some way influence the oppressor and humanize the oppressor. What we have to keep doing, especially because of the 80 million, or 22 million--I think there are 80 million of us, but the man says 22 million to make us feel less adequate-in terms of all oppressed groups we have got to start assuming that the oppressor is not only an oppressor but is also sick. We have got to start assuming that we are the doctor, and we have to start prescribing medicine for the oppressor. Do you understand what I am saying? Dr. SMITH. I think oppressed groups can be oppressive to each other

too.

Dr. THOMAS. That is true.

Dr. SMITH. I think that a humanistic kind of education or humanistic kind of value system is one where children would be taught to be tolerant and to have respect and concern for other people, those like themselves and those unlike themselves. When I talk about like and unlike, that covers the spectrum, racially, like and unlike, religious, politically, physically, respect and concern for the maimed, the physically unattractive, the deviant, just respect and tolerance for other people; and a feeling that man is an image of divinity and should be revered, and that people are more important than property, so you do not go around killing children because they happen to throw a brick at a store. That is what I would have in mind, the teaching of this kind of thing, and I do not think much of that is going on anywhere under the old system, under the new systems, under the systems that are contemplated. There is not much happening.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much.

Senator MONDALE. The committee is in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the Select Committee was recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)

APPENDIXES

Appendix 1

ITEMS SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESSES

FROM DR. ARTHUR E. THOMAS

STATEMENT BY ARTHUR E. THOMAS, CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF STUDENT CITIZENSHIP, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, DAYTON, OHIO

Literature dealing with the specific problem of this study is not extensive, though a considerable amount of related writing has been done in the general area of the legal rights of students in the public schools. This area is new enough that most research is still in stages of development. A comprehensive examination of the research of related literature necessitates the use of data much of which is yet in the preliminary analysis stage. The literature and research reviewed in this chapter are summarized in four sections:

1. Literature related to the social upheaval in this society in the past two decades;

2. Literature related to the organizational health of the public schools of America;

3. Literature related to educational reform in America;

4. Literature related to students rights activities in America.

The first section contains a documentation of the basic changes in this society since the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case (Brown I) in 1954.1 The second section contains an examination and a critical analysis of the material written by both the educational professional and the laymen thereby establishing the "organization health." The third section reviews the literature on the attempts, successes, and failures of a social institution, such as the public school, to make changes in its operation. The fourth section will deal with the literature in the area of students rights and will examine the movement presently underway to interpret and insure the rights of all students as they proceed through the public schools of this country.

SOCIAL UPHEAVAL IN AMERICA

What has caused this society to become aware of its massive social problems and to struggle with new ways to solve them? Did the Supreme Court, when it interpreted the "separate and equal" issue in 1954-55, unleash the minds of many minority groups in this country? Did the Court's decision release the bonds established earlier and documented in the Plessy v. Ferguson case in

1 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686 (1954).

2 Matthew B. Miles, "Planned Change and Organizational Health: Figure and Ground," Change Process in the Public Schools, ed. Richard D. Carlson, (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1965), pp. 11-34.

(5977)

1896? The basic boundaries of freedom were re-defined and the exposure to the potential of this new found freedom caused America to stand and watch as all who had been deprived, rejected, or chained established new boundaries. Truman Nelson stated after the 1954 decision that ". . . it was our last chance because here was a moment when the decision was unanimous and the country was in a mood to accept it."

The Warren Court, titled after Earl Warren, Chief Justice from 1954 to 1970, was a liberal activist court. It took jurisdiction and rendered decisions in areas on which previous courts had declined to act. This action no doubt had a great effect upon the attitude of people in the country. For instance, in civil rights it declared school segregation unconstitutional. It also upheld constitutionality of Civil Rights Act of 1964, and applied the law and expanded the "state action" concept of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate discriminatory practices.

7

In "political" areas it required states to reapportion Congressional and State9 legislature districts so that one citizen's vote counted as much as another's.

11

In criminal law, it extended many of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights to defendants accused of crime by a state. Among these were: (1) evidence illegally seized by a state (contrary to the Fourth Amendment) or the product of an illegal search, could not be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, in a state or federal court; 10 (2) a state may not compel a defendant to give witness against himself; (3) indigent defendants have a right to counsel to secure a fair trial; (4) a defendant has a right to be confronted by witness against him ; (5) the state may not administer cruel and unusual punishment for crimes; (6) a person, when arrested, must be advised that he has a right to remain silent, that anything he says may be used against him as evidence in a court of law; that he has a right to counsel and that if he has no money to hire counsel, the court will provide counsel for him.15

13

14

12

In the freedom of religion area, it is decided that the state may not prescribe prayer or Bible-reading " in public schools.

16

17

In the freedom of the individual area, it struck down statutes forbidding the teaching of contraceptive methods as unconstitutional.

The lawyers at the bar found that arguments based upon precedent, accepted legal doctrine, and long-range institutional concepts concerning the proper role of the judiciary and the distribution of power in the federal system founded upon Chief Justice Warren's persistent questions, "Is that fair?" or "Is that what America stands for?" Such questions were profoundly disturbing to those engrossed by the intellectual and institutional side of the law, its history, and sheer professional expertise. No one could successfully argue that a poor man charged with a crime should not have as much chance to have a lawyer

3 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537, 16 Ct. 1138 (1896); upheld the constitutionality of a Louisiana statute which required railroads to provide separate compartments for white and black passengers, and make it a crime for a person to sit in the "wrong" compartment. The law, said the court, did not abadge the privileges or immunities of United States citizens, nor deprive persons of property or liberty without due process of law, nor deny them equal protection of the laws! In doing so, the Court, through Mr. Justice Brown, gave its view of the object of the 14th Amendment: "The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact, do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the compentency of the state legislature in the exercise of their police power. The most common instance of this is connected with children, which have been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of states where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced." (Id at 1140)

4 Truman Nelson, The Right of Revolution, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), p. 8.

5 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 US 483, 74 S. Ct. 686 (1954).

6 Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U.S., 379 US 24, 85 S. Ct. 348 (1964).

U.S. by Katzenback v. McClung, 379 US 294, 85 S. Ct. 377 (1964).

Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 US 306, 85 S. Ct. 384 (rehearing denied), 379 US

995, 85 S. Ct. 698 (1964).

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533, 84 S. Ct. 1362 (1964).

10 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961).

11 Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964).

12 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963).

13 Pointer v. Texas, 380 US 400 (1965); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 US 415 (1965).

14 Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1965).

15 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1965).

16 Engle v. Vitale, 370 US 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962).

17 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965).

at the preliminary hearing as one who was rich or that cows and trees should have as much voting power as people.

18

Probably the most earth-shaking decisions of all of these by the Warren Court were the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka cases 19 which over

1s Cox, Archibald, "Chief Justice Earl Warren," Harvard Law Review, Vol. 83 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1970), p. 2.

19 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Cases 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686 (1954), and 349 U.S. 294, 755 Ct. 753 (1955) overruled Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). This was a collection of four class actions which originated in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware and had a great amount of effect on the social crises. In the cases, the plaintiffs were minor Negro children seeking admission to public schools on a non-segregated basis. Kansas' statutes permited separate schools for blacks and whites; in South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware, the state constitution and statutes required segregated schools. In Kansas, the U.S. District Court found segregation a detriment to education but denied relief because the facilities were equal. In South Carolina, and Virginia, the U.S. District Court hearing the cases found that the facilities for white and black children were unequal and ordered the defendants to make school facilities equal. Further relief was denied.

The Delaware case was heard in the state courts. The Chancellor found that Negro schools were inferior and ordered immediate admission of Negroes into previously allwhite schools. The Chancellor also found that segregation by itself rendered a black child's education inferior. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Chancellor's decree. (347 U.S. at 488). Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the court took jurisdiction. The Supreme Court was very deliberate in hearing the cases. The Court shaped its docket to assure that it would decide on the basis of records and arguments, not just of one state but of a fair cross-section. Also, in one of the four cases, Gebhart v. Belton (345 U.S. 972, 73 S. Ct. 1198 [1953]), the court proposed the following questions to be argued in the briefs of counsel when the cases were heard.

"1. What evidence is there that the Congress which submitted and the State legislatures and conventions which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment contemplated or did not contemplate, understood or did not understand, that it would abolish segregation in public schools?

"2. If neither the Congress in submitting nor the State in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment understood the compliance with it would require the immediate abolition of segregation in public schools, was it nevertheless the understanding of the framers of the amendment (a) that future Congresses might, in the exercise of their power under Section 5 of the Amendment, abolish such segregation or (b) that it would be within the judicial power, in light of future conditions, to construe the Amendment as abolishing such segregation of its own force?

"3. On the assumption that the answers to questhions 2(a) and (b) do not dispose of the issue, is it within the judicial power in construing the amendment, to abolish seggregation in public schools?

"4. Assuming it is decided that segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment (a) would a decree necessarily follow providing that, within the limits set by normal geographic school districting, Negro children should be admitted to schools of their choice or (b) may this Court, in the exercise of its equity power, permit an effective gradual adjustment to be brought about from existing segregated systems to a system not based on color distinctions?

"5. On the assumption on which questions 4 (a) and (b) are based, and assuming further that this Court will exercise its equity powers to the end described in question 4(b) (a) should this Court formulate detailed decrees in this case; (b) if so, what specific isues should the decrees reach; (c) should this Court appoint a special master to hear evidence with a view to recommending specific terms for such decrees; (d) should this Court remand to the courts of first instance with directions to frame decrees in this case, and if so, what general directions should the decrees of this Court include and what procedures should the courts of first instance follow in arriving at the specific terms of more detailed decrees? The Attorney General of the United States is invited to take part in the oral argument and to file an additional brief if he so desires."

After hearing arguments and studying the briefs, the Supreme Court spoke through Mr. Chief Justice Warren on May 17, 1954. "Separate but equal," its geneses and its history were examined.

The Chief Justice expressed this point: "Does segregation of children in public schools solely, on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other 'tangible' factors may be equal, deprive the children of a minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. After explicitly overruling Plessy v. Ferguson, the Chief Justice concluded: "We conclude that in the field of public education 'separate but equal' has no place. Seperate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiff's and other 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.

Now the Court was faced with a dilemma. Having made the decision, how to enforce it? The Court set further argument for a later date. Thus, the Court neatly separated the principle from its enforcement. All could agree on the principle that schools should not be segregated; agreement among the members of the Court as to how desegregation should take place was not likely to be unanimous (Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 US 20, 90 S. Ct. 29 [1969]). The question as to how enforcement would take place was answered in the second Brown case (1955).

First, school authorities would have the primary responsibility for solving the problems of desegregation; the Court's role would be to consider whether actions taken constituted "good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles." Second, courts would be guided by equitable principles, i.e., flexibility and a balancing of public and private need. The time problem then arose. When would the desegregation of the schools begin? "The Courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reason

(Footnote continued on following page)