The Gazette 1971

U.S. Supreme Court ruling- blow to segregation

The Supreme Court, on the contrary, says that it is constitutional, and even necessary at times, for local authorities to "bus" children to schools many miles away from their homes if classrooms are to be rid of racial segregation. The angry South, where segregation had been en- shrined in local law until 1954 and its patterns still exist, is bracing for a flood of court cases from civil rights lawyers, elated by the Supreme Court's unex- pected move. Predictably the South is saying it is once more being "victimised". Thus the latest ruling does nothing to dislodge segregation in the North, where there are literally hundreds of all-white or all-black schools. But this separation in the North is the result of resi- dential patterns rather than the law and the Supreme Court evidently feels itself powerless to act against it for the present. The Daily Telegraph (22nd April 1971)

In a ruling that has dismayed the South and the Nixon Administration, the United States Supreme Court has decreed that schoolchildren can be compelled to attend classes outside their own neighbourhoods if that is neces- sary to preserve racial balance. The unanimous verdict was a shock to the White House, since at least two of the nine Supreme Court members were personally chosen by President Nixon as "strict constructionists". This is another way of describing conservatives on civil rights issues. The ruling flatly rejects President Nixon's own f orinally stated belief last year that the "neighbourhood concept" should apply in the American school system. This meant that while the mixing of black and white children in classrooms can be encouraged, it should not prevail over the right of a child to go to school in his own neighbourhood.

Charities face squeeze Charities threatened with the loss of thousands of pounds revenue because of the new Finance Bill are having to consider major cutbacks in their aid pro- grammes. Schools for orphan children and hospitals for the underprivileged in foreign countries may have to be cancelled when the full implications of the Bill have been examined by the leading charities. Charity officials said yesterday that under the present standard rate of income tax they were able to recover 63p from the Inland Revenue for every pound coven- anted to them under seven-year agreements. But they expect they will be able to recover only 40p in the £ when the Bill is introduced in 1973. The Government has provisionally fixed the "basic rate" of tax at 30 per cent and the Inland Revenue confirmed vesterdav this would apply to charities as much as nvone else. Churches, which are now receiving a larger share of their income under covenant deeds, will be particularly bard hit by the Bill. Mr. Nicholas Lowe, deputy general secretary of the Dr. Barnado's scheme, estimated yesterday the switch to a basic rate of 30 per cent would cost the charity £10,000 a year. It maintains 100 homes for children

and receives an annual income of £4 million. He said : "We are very concerned and are hoping there will be other allowances or benefits to compensate for this loss of income, which would be the equivalent of running a home for nine or ten children in a year. "The Government has said the community must help itself, which is by implication a vote of confidence in organisations like ours. I would have expected them to do something to help us." Oxfam, which has already lost £15,000 of its £15,000 covenanted income this year because of the cut in income tax of 6d, predicts the new measure would cost them another £42,000 a year. "It would be a shocking blow," said Mr. Gordon Rudlin, the charity's financial officer. "We receive £18,000 a week and this would be just like losing three weeks from the year. Charity collection is so competitive the initiative to get more donations is increasing every day." Mr. Rudlin pointed out that a children's ward for a "bush hospital" in Africa cost the movement £20,000. "We will have to look at our future programme very seriously. It may mean, in fact, making cuts in our plans." The Daily Telegraph (22nd April 1971) 53