This Issue:
 Massive Resistance : Prince Edward County, Virginia, 1954-1979 by John R. Barden, Head, Reference & Research Services
Law School Staff Participate in  Law School for a Day  by Gail Zwirner
Notary Anyone?
Spring Carrell Swap
Carrell Information for Graduates, Transfers, Visitors and Swapshttps://scholarship.richmond.edu/museletter/1075/thumbnail.jp

Osborne, Caroline L.

English

University of Richmond

University of RichmondUR Scholarship RepositoryMuseletter Muse Law Library3-2004Museletter: March 2004Caroline L. OsborneUniversity of RichmondFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/museletterPart of the Other Law CommonsThis Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Muse Law Library at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion inMuseletter by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact scholarshiprepository@richmond.edu.Recommended CitationOsborne, Caroline L., "Museletter: March 2004" (2004). Museletter. Book 79.http://scholarship.richmond.edu/museletter/79. ( ( ( THIS ISSUE: _Massive Resistance Law School in a Dqy Notary Carrel Swap Carrel Information Spring 2004 Regular Library Hours Sunday 10:00 a.m. - Midnight Mon.-Thurs. 7:30 a.m. - Midnight Friday 7:30 a.m.- 9:00 p.m. Saturday 9:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. 1 3 3 4 4 Volume 18, Issue 6 March, 2004 "MASSIVE RESIST~CE": PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 1954-1979 by John R. Barden, Head, Reference & Research Services . For the parents and students of Prince Edward County, Virginia, the road from the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Brown .decision w_as filled with twists and turns. Although t;he fight between segregationists and integrationists spread throughout Virginia and the South, almost nowhere were the developments any stranger than in this rural county. The U.S. Supreme Court, having held the Brown case over for arguments on proposed remedies, issued a second opinion on May 31, 1955. The Court placed the responsibility for finding the way out of the segregated school system_ on the local school authorities, with the Federal district courts assuring that the actions taken "constitute[d] ·good faith implementation of the governing constitu-tional principles." Brown v. Board of Education oJTopeka, 349 U. S. 294, 299 (1955). The courts were to be "guided by equitable principles, ... characterized by a prac-tical flexibility in shaping its remedies anci by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs." Id at 300. While- avoiding a fixed deadline for ending segregated schools, the Court directed the district courts to move with "all deliber-ate speed." Id at 301. The wording of the second Brown decision left the parties and the district courts with few benchmarks for progress. The three-judge panel that heard the Davis case ruled in July 19 55 that it would not be practicable to integrate the Prince Edward County schools by September 1955. See Davis v. Counry Sch. Bd. of Pn"nce Edward Counry, 149 F. Supp. 431, 432 (E.D. Va. 1957). The following April the plaintiffs filed a motion asking, in effect, "If not now, when?" Id Then .things be-. gan to get really hot. · On February 24, 1956, Senator Harry F. Byrd, Virginia's most prominent politician, called for "massive resistance" against the ~ffects of the Brown decisions. Efforts to integrate Charlottesville schools were moving into the courts, and the unrest showed signs of spreading. The Virginia General Assembly, meeting in spe-cial session, passed a series of acts designed to shield local school authorities from Federal district court enforcement and ensuring that no child would have to attend an integrated school. On May 3, 1956, the.Prince Edward E:ounty Board of Super-visors passed a resolution ''that no tax levy shall be made .. . nor public revenue (Continued on page 2) Page 2 Volume 18, Issue 6 (Continued from page 1) derived from local taxes . .. be appropriated for the operation and maintenance of public schools in said county wherein white and colored children are taught together." See Grijfin v. Bd. of Supervisors of Prince Ed-ward Counry, 322 F.2d 332, 347 (4th Cir. 1963). The reaction of the local Federal district court to these developments was cautious. When asked by the Davis plaintiffs to set a date for integration in Prince Edward County, Judge G. Sterling Hutcheson, declined, citing the need for "patience, time and a sympathetic understanding" and concluding, in effect, that segregated schools were better than none. Davis v. Counry Sch. Bd of Prince Edward Counry, 149 F. Supp. 431, 438-40 (E.D. Va. 1957). (Note: the three-judge panel that originally heard the Davis case had been disbanded, now that the. constitutional questions had been settled. See Davis v. Counry Sch. Bd of Pn'nce Ed-ward Counry, Virginia, 142 F. Supp. 616 (1956).) The Fourth Circuit disagreed with Hutcheson's accommodating approach to the defendants, in-terpreting the Board of Education's failure to act as a "clear manifestation of an attitude of intransigence." The Court ordered the defendants to remove the requirement of discrimination and at least allow volun-tary integration. "The fact that the schools might be closed if the order were enforced is no reason for not enforcing it. A person µiay not be denied enforcement of rights to which he is entitled under the Consti-tution of the United States because of action taken or threatened in defiance of such rights." Allen v. Counry Sch. Bd of Pn'nce Edward Counry, Virginia, 249 F.2d 462, 464-65 (4th Cir. 1957). ) On remand, Judge Hutcheson, clearly piqued at the lack of detailed guidance from the Fourth 1 ). Circuit, again adopted the slow approach. The judge feared that hasty moves would provoke a reaction. Solon, he noted, left Athens for ten years aftet the adoption of his laws to give them a chance to be ac-cepted, and much remained to be done on his return. Allen v. Counry Sch. Bd of Prince Edward Counry, Vir-ginia, 164 F. Supp. 786, 792. Following Solon's example, Judge Hutcheson set September 1965, ten years after the second Brown opinion, as the date for Prince Edward County to come into compliance. Id at 794. The Fourth Circuit came down sharply on Judge Hutcheson's failure to act n;i.ore expeditiously and stepped in to provide the specifics that the district court had refused to include: "[T]he District Judge [shall] issue an order enjoining the defendants from any action that regulates or affects on the basis of color the admission, enrollment or education of the infant plaintiffs, or any other Negro children similarly situated, to the high schools operated by the defendants in the County[.)" Allen v. Counry Sch. Bd of Prince Edward Counry, Virginia, 266 F.2d 507, 511 (1959). Furthermore, the Court specifically ordered admissions to the white high school "without regard to race or color" and to permit entrance of qualified persons by September 1959, less than four months away. Id. After the U.S. Supreme Court refused to issue a stay of proceedings in the case, a showdown appeared likely. Counry Sch. Bd of Pn.nce Edward Counry, Va. v. Allen, 360 U.S. 923 (1959) . On September 1, 1959, two significant things happened. Judge Hutcheson took senior status, and the case was transferred to Judge Oren Ritter Lewis. An~ the Prince Edward County public schools did not open. NEXT: The Closed Schools Era ) ( .( Muse letter Law School Staff Participate in "Law School for a Day" By Gail Zwirner Recently, law school staff from the library, admissions, career services, devel-opment, the Dean's office, and faculty administrative assistants participated in a pro-gram called "Law School for a Day." The mission was to connect those participating with the educational and instructional mission of the Law School through exposure to selected substantive legal topics covered in some first-year courses. The program was modeled after the one the American Association of Law Libraries offers to law librarians without a J.D. The faculty intended for the staff to experience a typical first year class. The teaching .methods employed were a combination of lecture, So-cratic dialogue, and role playing. Gail Zwirner presented an abbreviated version of the first Legal Research class the librarians present during orientation week. She discussed the basics of re-searching the law by defining the issues, determining the jurisdiction, and identifying the components of the law. She introduced the group to research "buzzwords" such as "mandatory and persuasive authority," "annotated versus Un-annotated sources," and the impact of online sources in legal research. Emmy Reeves and Clark Williams teamed up to present an introduction to Civil Procedure by discussing the effects test for purposeful availment in Pavlovich v. Santa Clara County. Professor Reeves used Pavlovich to instruct the group on brief-mg a case. . Peter Swisher, complete with props, introduced the grpup to Torts law through the "stick" cases, Anonymous and Brown v . Kendall. He helped the group distinguish reasonable care through Cohen v. Petty and Spano v. Perini Corp. Of course, a torts discussion would not have been complete without mentioning the McDonald's coffee case. · David Frisch used the Restatement to discuss requirement for consideration and inducement in Contracts law. He referred to Dougherty v. Salt and Kirksey v. Kirksey to illustrate some discussion problems. Wade , Berryhill lived up to expectations and used the Socratic teaching method to distinguish the points of bailments in Nolde v. WDAS Broadcasting and Shamrock Hilton Hotel v. Caranas. Stolen fur coats and purses naturally lt:d to a spir-ited discussion. Dean Smolla used his personal experiences before the U.S. Supreme Court in the cross burning case, Virginia v. Black, to illustrate a First Amendment issue in the Constihitional Law section of the day. The day ended with a role playing experience led by Corinna Lain. She intro-duced the art of witness examination by discussing the essential elements to effective cross-examination, then used the attendees to create questions for a student witness, "Ella Grimm," who was "tricked" on Halloween with an exploding jack-o-lantem, allegedly by a neighborhood boy. NOTARY ANYONE ? Page 3 Reprinted with Permission of the Author: Dear Richmond Law Campus Community, . Unfortunately, two students have had their possess10ns stolen from the library over the past week . While campus police investigates these incidents, you are all urged to secured your . personal belongings, laptop, printers, and other items of value in our locked carrels or on your person. In Service, Aman deep Lois Brown, the library's evening Circulation Assistant, has received~ Notary Public commission. She is-avail-able Sunday through Thursdays from 3:30 p.m. to Midnight for the Law School's notary needs at no charge. SPRING CARRELL SWAP April 6 - 8 is the Spring Carrel Swap .. Students have the option of remaining in their carrel for all three years of law school, with the exception of students enrolled in a clinic. Students registered for a clinic are assigned a carrel in the clinic for that semester and must give up their carrel until the following semester. Vacant carrels and carrels of December and May graduates are included in the swap. On Monday April 5 the list of available carrels will be posted on the glass front doors of the Llbrary. The list will be updated daily during the swap process. If you would like to switch carrels, the following are the dates and times when you may request a new carrel: Tuesday, April 6 - Current clinic students only Wednesday, April 7 - Rising third years only Thursday., April 8 - Rising second years only. In order to sign up for a new carrel you must go to the Ad-ministrative Office in the Llbrary (Ll 7). The times of the swaps are 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Caroline L. Osborne Editor Museletter Law Library, School of Law University of Richmond Richmond, VA 231 73 The Museletter is the official newsletter of the William Taylor Muse Law Library at the School of Law of the University of Richmond, Richmond, VA23173. Editor. Caroline Osborne Contributors: John Barden CARRELL INFORMATION FOR GRADUATES, TRANSFERS, VISITORS AND SWAPS Graduating students not studying for the Virginia Bar, students registered for Fall clinics, and students swapping carrels, transferrillg or visiting away next year must empty our their carrel and turn in the key to Mrs. Barlett in the Llbrary Administrative Office (Ll 7) prior to leaving town. All students should clean their carrels before leav-ing for the summer. Personal belongings may be left only m in the locked portion of your carrel.. Nothing should be left on the carrel surface, the side walls , the top of the carrel or the floor underneath the carrel. Housekeeping will clean the carrels during the summer. The Llbrary is not responsible for damage to personal items left in the carrel. We especially request that students check the locker portion of the carrel and remove any leftover food or food wrappers. Your co-operation is greatly appreciated. If you are not planning to use your carrel next year, please consider t:urrllng your carrel key into to Mrs. Barlett. There are other law students who may be able to use the carrel. Even if you do this, you will be able to ob-tain a carrel for exams during the year ( ( ( 

Museletter: March 2004

https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=museletter

Museletter: March 2004

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Richmond