The Haynsworth Record

Many informed critics of Clement Haynsworth's nomination to the Supreme Court argue that he is perhaps being opposed for the wrong reasons. Despite the Senate flap over his financial dealings, some of Haynsworth's detractors are more upset about his judicial decisions than his judicial ethics. They charge that he has too often been a standpat, antiliberal jurist during his twelve years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. While his record in criminal cases has gone virtually unchallenged, on two other fronts --civil rights and labor cases--critics are concerned about a number of Haynsworth opinions. A chronological look at some that they find troubling:

Civil Rights

1962. Like many Southern cities in the early '60s, Charlottesville, Va., devised a school-zoning plan that produced de facto segregation. Elementary school pupils were assigned to neighborhood schools, but if members of their race were in the minority, they could transfer to schools where their own race was predominant. In effect, white students were invited to stay in white schools. When his court outlawed the practice as an evasion, Haynsworth joined in a dissent, arguing that the Constitution does not bar "the exercise of the personal tastes of the races in their associations." Later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected such transfer plans on the ground that they obviously perpetuate segregated schools.

1963. For four years, Virginia's Prince Edward County had closed its public schools to avoid integration. Instead, white private schools were set up and carried on with the help of public funds. Negroes sued to reopen the public schools. When the case reached Haynsworth's court, he waited eight months before writing a majority opinion that told the Negroes to wait for state court decisions before asking for federal court action. In dissent, one of Haynsworth's fellow judges called the situation "a truly shocking example of the law's delays." The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed Haynsworth's decision, saying: "We hold that the issues here imperatively call for decision now."

1963. Haynsworth's court decided that Negro doctors and patients were the victims of discrimination at two private hospitals in Greensboro, N.C. Because the Constitution does not cover purely private discrimination, Haynsworth argued, the court could do nothing for the plaintiffs. But a majority of his colleagues held that it could, emphasizing that the Government had partly financed the hospitals, which thus subjected them to constitutional safeguards against discrimination. 1965. When Negro pupils sued the Richmond school board to desegregate teachers--in addition to students--a 3-to-2 majority of Haynsworth's court held upon appeal that a lower court did not have to consider the claim. Writing for the majority, Haynsworth said that the pupils had failed to show that teacher assignments based on race "effect a denial of their constitutional rights." Again, a unanimous Supreme Court reversed.

1967. All over the South in the late '60s, school boards set up "freedom of choice" plans that ostensibly freed Negroes to switch to white schools. In fact, many Negro children either were afraid to make the change or were pressured to stay in black schools, thus creating de facto segregation under the guise of law. In a key decision that dealt with Virginia's New Kent County, Haynsworth upheld a form of the practice. In a unanimous reversal, the U.S. Supreme Court called the plan "intolerable" and ruled that the burden to desegregate was not on the students, but on the board itself.

Labor

Organized labor's opposition to Haynsworth has been led by A.F.L.-C.I.O. President George Meany, who cites seven labor cases, all reversed by the Supreme Court, as evidence of Haynsworth's antilabor position. His record, says Meany, "is one of insensitivity to the needs and aspirations of workers." Among Haynsworth's labor rulings:

1961. After walking off their jobs to protest the extreme cold where they worked, seven Baltimore machinists were fired by their employer, the Washington Aluminum Co. Haynsworth concurred in a majority opinion that the men had been discharged "for cause." The decision was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court.

1963. In South Carolina, the Textile Workers Union of America had won an election at a previously nonunion mill operated by the Darlington Manufacturing Co. In response, Darlington closed the mill, laying off 500 employees. Haynsworth concurred in a majority opinion that the company had a right to close out "a part or all" of its business, whether or not its motive was antiunion. In overturning the decision, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a partial closing of a business is unfair if the purpose and probable effect are to "chill unionism" in the employer's remaining plants.

1967. Haynsworth wrote the majority opinion in a case concerning whether the signing of union-authorization cards by a majority of workers in a company was sufficient to entitle the union to bargain for the employees, or if representation could only be established through an election. Haynsworth declared that authorization cards were "not a reliable indication of the employees' wishes" and concluded that in all but exceptional cases, a secret election must be held. In three succeeding cases, Haynsworth joined his court in finding no such "exceptional" circumstances, even though it agreed with the National Labor Relations Board that there was evidence of intimidation by the employers. The court refused to enforce the N.L.R.B.'s orders to the employers to recognize and bargain with the unions. The Supreme Court reversed all three cases.

Although nothing is more unreliable than predictions of how a Supreme Court appointee will perform in the future, Haynsworth's judicial record, taken together with his ethical record, strikes many observers as inadequate for an era of both social protest and progress. Last week that view seemed partly to motivate a growing number of Haynsworth opponents in the Senate, especially those whose constituents include thousands of Negroes and union members.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.