To the Editor:

I am greatly concerned with the gross errors of tact in Bayard Rustin’s article in the March issue of COMMENTARY [“The ‘Watts Manifesto’ & the McCone Report”]. I have examined carefully his three paragraphs describing the Education Section of the McCone Commission Report; he has been guilty of seven important errors of fact and distortions of the Report.

(1) Mr. Rustin states: “The commission’s analysis begins with a comparison of class size in white and Negro areas (the latter are referred to throughout as ‘disadvantaged areas’ and Negro schools, as ‘disadvantaged schools’).”

But in turning to the Report, I find that on the first page of the Education Section the Commission stated: “Five study areas were selected within the Los Angeles City Unified School District. Four of these are disadvantaged areas: Watts and Avalon (predominantly Negro and within the riot area), and Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles (predominantly Mexican-American and outside the riot area). The other study area included Pacific Palisades, Westwood, and Brentwood, which are, by comparison, advantaged areas. Citywide data were also compiled.” The study areas were “designated by the Welfare Planning Council, Los Angeles Region, and rank least favorably in the county with respect to the following criteria; family income, male unemployment, education, family status, housing,” etc.

In other words, the McCone Commission studied and reported on schools in disadvantaged areas, not just Negro ghetto areas. Clearly, “disadvantaged area” and “disadvantaged school” are not synonymous with “Negro area” and “Negro school’ throughout the Education Section. This fundamental error on Rustin’s part distorts his argument thereafter.

(2) In the same paragraph Rustin stated: “There are cafeterias in the advantaged schools but not in the disadvantaged schools.” What the Report actually said, however, was that too many schools in disadvantaged areas lacked cafeterias. But a majority of the schools in the disadvantaged areas do have cafeterias. Nevertheless, the commission recommended that, “Action should be taken to provide cafeteria facilities and free or reduced-priced meals for needy students in disadvantaged areas” (page 55).

(3) Rustin added: “. . . disadvantaged schools, which also have no libraries.” The commission reported: “Some schools in the disadvantaged study areas do not have libraries while all schools in the advantaged study areas have libraries. In part, lack of libraries is due to the utilization of rooms to meet rapid enrollment growth and to house special classes. Libraries should be provided in all schools.” In fact, in the Watts District, all of the secondary schools and sixteen out of the seventeen elementary schools have libraries.

(4) Rustin stated: “The McCone Report . . . . places its emphasis on the Negro child’s deficiency in environmental experiences.”

But in fact, the commission wrote: “There is increasing evidence to indicate that children who live in disadvantaged areas begin school with a deficiency in environmental experiences which are essential for learning” (page 56). Note that Rustin’s first error is now compounded; note also that the commission considered these deficiencies to be “environmental,” not “some inherent Negro trait” (Rustin, page 33).

(5) Immediately following these misstatements of the commission’s findings, Rustin wrote: “The two major recommendations of the commission in this area will hardly serve to correct the imbalances revealed.”

But the commission did not consider, nor label, its recommendations on these findings as “major,” though the McCone Report did, in fact, unequivocally call for their “correction” as follows: “In summary, it appears that inequalities exist with respect to incidence of double sessions, cafeterias, libraries, and course offerings for academically talented students. These differences can and should be eliminated” (page 56).

(6) Rustin paraphrased the two major recommendations of the McCone Commission to include the pre-school program and the reduction of class size to a minimum of 22 with “an enlarged and supportive corps of teachers.” The commission carefully explained that along with the teachers needed to reduce class size, “additional supportive personnel to provide special services,” would be needed (page 61). Then the commission went on to explain: “To be effective, the teacher in disadvantaged areas needs much more immediately available help with guidance, welfare, health, and social and emotional problems than do teachers in advantaged areas” (page 59). The commission explained further the intent of this recommendation as follows: “A sharp reduction in class size, together with provision for special supporting services and materials, would offer teachers a more professionally rewarding assignment and would be likely to attract dedicated teachers to seek positions in schools in disadvantaged areas. The commission’s study as well as experience elsewhere support this conclusion” (page 59).

The tragedy of this error on Rustin’s part is that it obscures the fact that the first education recommendations of the McCone Commission are precisely the specific, massive, expensive, and basic changes that the “More Effective Schools” program in New York has engendered. If Rustin were really interested in accurately assessing the effectiveness of these recommendations, surely he could have observed for himself the “More Effective Schools” program in New York.

(7) Rustin implies that the commission supports “separate but equal schools that do not disturb the existing social patterns which isolate the Negro child in his “disadvantaged areas.” In fact, the commission wrote: “It is our belief that raising the level of scholastic achievement will lessen the trend towards de facto segregation in the schools in the areas into which the Negroes are expanding and, indeed, will tend to reduce all de facto segregation. It is our conclusion that the very low level of scholastic achievement we observe in the predominantly Negro schools contributes to de facto segregation in the schools. In turn school segregation apparently contributes importantly to all de facto segregation. We reason, therefore, that raising the scholastic achievement might reverse the entire trend of de facto segregation” (page 60).

_____________

Finally, Rustin’s implication that the commission supports separate and equal schools is contrary not only to the statements of the commission, but is diametrically opposed to the whole tenor of the commission report and recommendations in the field of education. The commission clearly accepts the position of Kenneth Clark and others that the goals of integration and quality of education must be sought together. They are interdependent; one is not possible without the other. The whole Education Section of the McCone Commission Report is based on the judgment of the commission that neither separate nor simply “equal” educational programs provide an equal opportunity for children from disadvantaged areas to learn.

The commission concluded: “We propose that the programs for the schools in disadvantaged areas be vastly reorganized and strengthened so as to strike at the heart of low achievement and break the cycle of failure. We advocate a new, massive, expensive, and frankly experimental onslaught . . .” (page 58). “If we can provide the most effective possible learning situation for the student and attract able teachers to teach in these areas, we will have made the most important step toward solving the problems of low educational achievement. It is clear that the proposed programs will be costly, but not as costly, however, as failure, delinquency, loss of productive manpower, and social dependency” (page 60).

The errors in Rustin’s article regarding the Education Section of the McCone Commission Report are so gross, fundamental, and injurious that to publish the article without concurrent review and rebuttal certainly requires some editorial explanation. Surely errors of this nature on so vital an issue cannot be excused on grounds of style or exaggeration for effect. As a very minimum gesture, you could have published conspicuously the concluding three pages (58-61) of the Commission Report on Education. . . .

Kenneth A. Martyn
Education Consultant to the McCone Commission
California State College at Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California

_____________

Mr. Rustin writes:

My major criticism of the section in the McCone Report dealing with education was, first of all, that the authors had no plan for integrating the schools, but instead accepted and even propounded the notion that de facto segregation would disappear when the scholastic achievement of the Negro was improved. And, secondly, that the major cause for concern, as outlined by the commission, was not inadequate schools but the environmental deficiencies of the Negro. Mr. Martyn’s letter does nothing to answer those criticisms and, in fact, reinforces them.

But let me answer him point by point:

1. Mr. Martyn is verbose, but essentially correct when he says “disadvantaged area” and “disadvantaged school” are not synonymous with “Negro area” and “Negro school.” They are synonymous with nonwhite area and non-white school. The Report lumps all disadvantaged schools together, and does not give breakdowns by each neighborhood except in three tables devoted to reading performance. If Mr. Martyn wants me to say the Mexican-Americans suffer as much as Negroes do in Los Angeles, I concede his point.
2. Just a point of fact: the McCone Report says that two-thirds of the schools which do not have cafeterias are located in districts with predominantly Negro and Mexican enrollment. It goes on to say, “Even in those schools where there are cafeterias, the Los Angeles schools do not provide free or reduced price lunches to needy students.” One can assume from reading the Report that cafeteria service is not available to the vast majority of nonwhite students.
3. I am happy to learn that in the Watts district there are libraries in most of the schools. That fact was not mentioned in the Report. The library deficiency does exist in other disadvantaged areas, however.
4. I never said the commission ascribed the low reading levels to “some inherent Negro trait,” search page 33 of the March COMMENTARY as you will. I did say that the Report places major emphasis on environmental deficiencies rather than on inadequate schools and de facto segregation. I quote from page 56 of the Report: “However, the Commission does not feel that these inequalities or differences in teacher experience or status fully explain the lower achievements of students in disadvantaged areas.” The section immediately following is headed “Environmental Factors.” I quote: “There is increasing evidence to indicate that children who live in disadvantaged areas begin school with deficiency in environmental experiences which are essential for learning.” That section concludes: “His course toward academic failure is already set before he enters school and is rooted in his early childhood experiences.” Most tragically, neither the authors of the Report nor Professor Martyn suggest a plan for eliminating the environmental deficiencies, i.e., eliminating the slums.
5. Professor Martyn must agree, since he points it out, that some recommendations were labeled “major,” and printed in boldface type, etc. Others were not—such as the one he cites. But even if this “non-major” recommendation is adopted, the basic imbalance and inequalities of the school system will remain. Or does Professor Martyn believe there can be separate but equal schools?
6. I know precisely what an “enlarged and supportive corps of teachers” entails. I don’t believe COMMENTARY readers needed Professor Martyn to spell it out. I have examined the “More Effective Schools” program. It is limited, not massive, but expensive. As conceived in New York, it is an educational technique, not a plan for integration. New York City is developing other plans for integration: educational parks, Princeton plan, 4-4 schools etc. If the McCone Report had even hinted at some of these, Mr. Martyn’s criticisms of my article might have had some relevance.
7. I do not understand how raising the scholastic achievement in the predominantly Negro schools will reverse de facto segregation. Mr. Martyn’s final bow to quality-integrated education would have been more effective if he had said one concrete word about integration. Instead, he repeats the gobbledygook of the McCone Report. It is neither moral nor educationally sound, on the one hand, to keep Negro children segregated for years and, on the other, to announce that there will be integration when their reading level reaches that of white students. I support a “More Effective Schools” program for all students; I want to see the whole educational system improved. It would be tragic if hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent for a few showplace schools, while the mass of Negro students attend inferior, dilapidated schools, and millions of white students leave the cities to attend insulated, educationally distorting, segregated schools.

Finally, one gets the impression from the length of Professor Martyn’s letter and from his language—“gross errors of fact,” “distortions,” “the tragedy of his error,” “if Rustin were really interested,” etc., that he is mounting a devastating onslaught. All he has done is to pile up picayune criticisms which take up more space than my original paragraphs. Even if these criticisms were accurate, and they are not, my fundamental critique of the McCone Report would remain intact.