53 / 196
U.S. Supreme Court ruling-
blow to segregation
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.
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)
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