Amicus Curiae Brief — Brown v. Board of Education

Supreme Court brief1954

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

THE

Supreme Court of the Anited States

Octoser Term, 1952

No.413-—-8

Spotrswoop Tuomas Bo.iine, et av., Petitioners

Vv.

C. Metvin SHARPE, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO 4 HE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON HUMAN

RIGHTS

AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

WASHINGTON CHAPTER

AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE

WASHINGTON CHAPTER

AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS COM-

MISSION ON LAW & SOCIAL ACTION

WASHINGTON CHAPTER

CATHOLIC INTERRACIAL COUNCIL

OF WASHINGTON

OMMISSION ON COMMUNITY LIFE OF

THE WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF

CHURCHES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INDUSTRIAL

UNION COUNCIL, C.LO.

D. C. FEDERATION OF CIVIC

ASSOCIATIONS, ING.

FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL

LEGISLATION .

JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS

LEAGUE

WasHINGTON CHAPTER

JEWISH ‘COMMUNITY COUNCIL OF

GREATER WASHINGTON

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

D. C. Brancn

UNITARIAN FELLOWSHIP FOR

SOCIAL JUSTICE

WASHINGTON CHAPTER

WASHINGTON BAR ASSOCIATION

WASHINGTON ETHICAL SOCIETY

WASHINGTON FELLOWSHIP

WASHINGTON INTERRACIAL

WORKSHOP

WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE

Y §. Water Sxrveg,

«° TxEopore C. Sorensen,

_¥ Sanrorp H. Bouz,

\ Samvet B. Groner,

Counsel.

INDEX.

i a rr Ce ve ceendeeeneoseneaes

i ee. i. oe cewndeeeee sash wees

The Questions to Which This Brief Is Addressed ....

Summary of Argument ...........-..2sseccececcecs

RIE oo ac ce ncenvscscevesveovesveseveveverses

I. Separation of School Children by Skin Color or

Ancestry Has No Warrant in Twentieth Century

Community Experience, Proper Legislative Pur-

pose, or Scientific Understanding and Is Therefore

a Meaningless Classification Violative of the Fifth

BS oii bc Seed deniind ered ced¥ setkes ee des

A. Community experience demonstrates the in-

validity of racial segregation in the District of

Columbia or anywhere in the United States ...

1. Deterioration of patterns of segregation ....

2. The prophesied community resistance to

BE ah csvenccewabessirbdaevrsns coves

. Declared legislative prohibitions against segre-

gation in other areas of activity in the District

of Columbia demonstrate the further irration-

ality of school segregation ...................

Present scientific understanding discredits tra-

ditional concepts of ‘‘race”’ ..................

II. The Fact That Congress Made Provision for the

Establishment of Schools for Negro Children in the

District of Columbia Before the Adoption of the

Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Justify the

Conclusion That the Fourteenth Amendment Was

Intended to Permit Racial Segregation .........

te a ke a auen sewaeen

Z aes

Sy ee aaa

Sriee

: Gay ene .

ERS is hee a ae a

ii Index Continued.

Table I

List of Cities in Southern and Border States in

Which Some Schools, Colleges and Universities

Have Been Recently Integrated ................

Table II

Schools, Colleges and Universities in the District

of Columbia and Environs Which Will Accept

Both White and Negro Students ...............

A. Nursery, Elementary and High Schools ......

B. Colleges and Universities ...................

Table III ‘‘The School Doors Open Wide”’

Examples of Recent Admission of Negroes to Edu-

| cational Institutions in the South and Border

| RO 6 iss -Siracss toed cro lc ae eR aee eee tans

fe SE, onde a nese eka eke hoeeens

B. In Southwestern, Border and Other Areas ...

Sources for information in Table III ............

Table IV ‘‘The Old Order Changeth’’

(Representative Departures From Segregation

PUOUS TO THUD ho. ki chases edecececascs

A. In Public Accommodations .................

. In the Field of Edueation ..................

In Voluntary Associations ..................

IN a cos dea ys waned be ce

on...

ee SE 655 o nti a. kkk ewes Rab awes wes een

. In Entertainment and Athletics .............

I I i

ae ek!

Bia: ‘ panera , — 4a

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

APPENDIX Page

«l

Index Continued. iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.

CasES: Page

Adams v. Terry, 193 F. (2d) G00 .........---- sees 14

Baskin v. Brown, 174 F. (2d) 391 ...........--+0-- 14

Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 81 (1917) ...... ve;

Butts v. Merchants and Miners Trans. Co., 230 U. s.

Se Ca so aece rec lanielaenecussergunrssess 16

Carr v. Corning, 182 F. (2d) 14, 33 ...... 4, 15, 19, 20, 2:

Chance v. Lambeth, 186 F. (2d) 879, 881, 882-883 .... 13

Chapman v. King, 154 F. (2d) 460, cert. denied, 327

Se Oc ska deed dw ndekkacatss cuvdawerés 14

Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3 (1883) ............. 16

Davis v. Schnell, 81 F. Supp. 872, affirmed, 336 U. S.

Fa Rs gc Re Msg A = Boa ore oes eee 14

Dean v. Thomas, 93 F. Supp. 129 ..........es.000- 14

District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 81

i Cs et eG ek on ey ies aa eesies <9 16

Draper v. St. Louis, 92 F. Supp. 546, 549 .......... 12

Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283 (1944) .............. 5

Grovy v. Townsend, 295 U. S. 45 (1935) .......... 14

Henderson vy. United States, 339 U. S. 816 (1950)

12, 13, 14

Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 92, 100

Re sc iGkrt nce cub hed chan aceae sewseket s 5,18

Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24 (1948) .............. 24

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 220

Ss Sr. SCR a cuv Gh sehen hebu wedesen aan 5, 10

McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents, 339 U. S.

I a Res Oe POL ise daw 6 ui 8, 9,13

Mitchell v. Wright, 154 F. (2d) 924, cert. denied, 329

ee ke ence uikaweka cous 14

Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U. S. 373 (1946) .......... 12

Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73 (1932) .............. 14

Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536 (1927)............ 14

Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 470 (1849) ......... 6

Perry v. Cyphers, 186 F’. (2d) 608................. 14

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896) .......... 6, 24

Rice v. Elmore, 165 F. (2d) 387, cert. denied, 333

Bee NN 16 oa each din hud Sine aaa a's ka 64% ax-0-0's 14

Schnell v. Davis, 336 U. S. 933 (1949) ............ 14

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944) .......... 14

Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629 (1950) .......... 8,9, 11,

13, 14, 20

DER SOR, SR wt ee Fg ai

Index Continued.

Page

Terry v. Adams, 193 F. (2d) 600, cert. granted, No-

OE tk, SO: visio code e wa 4 cakes bagieaensaes 14

Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 373-374, 378

Cs he la Racucneurewh ans die kal clk one t0s be 6, 19

White v. Clements, 39 Ga. 232, 269 ................ 13

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27 (1949) .......... 6

STaTutes:

Act of April 16, 1862 (12 Stat. 376) ............... 22

Act of May 20, 1862 (12 Stat. 394) ................ 22

Act of May 21, 1862 (12 Stat. 407) ................ 22

Act of June 25, 1864 (13 Stat. 187,191) .......... 20, 22

Act of March 3, 1865 (13 Stat. 536) .............. 16

Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27) ................ 24

Act of July 23, 1866 (14 Stat. 216) ................ 23

Act of July 28, 1866 (14 Stat. 343) ................ 23

Act of May 31, 1870 (16 Stat. 140) ................ 24

Act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat. part 2) ............ 20

Act of March 1, 1875, ‘‘Civil Rights Act of 1875’’

ee rp ite mae pore 16, 21

Art. 1661.1, Sec. 2, Vernon’s Statutes of Texas, An-

OE CEE os ececcavcetrseaedsesseeun 5

MISCELLANEOUS:

Benedict & Weltfish, Races of Mankind ............ 18

Boyd, Genetics and the Races of Man ............. 17

Bryan, History of the National Capital, Vol. II

(1916), pp. 137-138, 389, 524-528 ................ 22

Civil Rights in the United States in 1951, pp. 18, 90

2,15

Comas, Racial Myths (UNESCO, 1951) .......... _18

Comment, 18 Univ. Chi. L. Rev. 769, 771-775, 781

CRD 6 ka os each Rhee eds Laer eaearea oes 11, 138

Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess. 1326-1327 (1863).. 22

Cong. Globe, 43rd Cong., Ist Sess., 4153 (1874),

Oh. TNE 9.0034 cGcherckendh neaud sexeadnorws

fe Se gt eee 14

3 Cong. Record 981-982, 997, 1002 (1875) .......... 14

Flack, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment

te ee: See pny Samer e Pye Tome aa 20, 23, 24

Frank and Munro, The Original Understanding of

‘Equal. Protection of the Laws,’’ 50 Col. L. Rev.

Oe. Me TRE .3 ook decscee eee 20,24

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

Index Continued. Vv

Page

Glass and Li, ‘‘Report on the Dynamics of Racial

Intermixture,’?’ Annual M ting of the American

Institute of Biological Scicices at Cornell Univer-

sity, New York Times (September &, 1952) 33:8..

Jackson, Luther P., ‘‘Race and Suffrage in the

South Since 1940,’? New South, Vol. 3, pp. 1-26

eC ena eee ees Uae nb Wan web ane 15

Klineberg, Characteristics of the American Negro.. 18

Krogman, An Anthropologist Looks at Race, 7 In-

tercultural Edueation News 1 (Nov. 1945)....... 17

LaFarge, The Race Question and the Negro ...... 17

Lewis, The Crisis That Never Came Off, The Re-

Sa i eee 13

Note, 61 Yale L. J. 730, 738-743 (1952) ............ 13

‘“‘Opportunities in Interracial Colleges’’, National

Scholarship Service and Fund for Negro Students

gece NE IE SS ae ea ee 35

Redfield, What We Do Know about Race, 57 Scien-

tifle Monthly 193 (Sept. 1943) .................. 7

Roche, Catholic Colleges and the Negro Student

re RR od oul owas 4 vn ons 35

Sorensen, ‘‘The School Doors Swing Open’’, New

Republic, 127 :13 (Dec. 15, 1952) ..............6. 36

Special Report of the Commissioner of Education on

the Condition and Improvement of Public Schools

in the District of Columbia, p. 253, H. Rep., Ex.

Doe. No. 315, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. (1871) ........ 22

‘‘Staff Monograph on Higher Education for Negroes

in Texas’’, Texas Legislature Council (1951).... 35

‘“‘Stakes Are Costly in Play for Texas,’? New York

ce rere eee 15

Statement by Experts on Race Problems, UNESCO

oR Ma. eee Ter eee 17

‘‘The American Negro in College’’, 1949-1950, Crisis,

ay oe es duce aw eww ey ase o* 36

“The American Negro in College, 1950-1951, Crisis,

RS Ne os ow wek Ween vas simunes 36

‘Toward Equality in Edueation’’, N.A.T.R.O. (1952) 35

Washington Post, Nov. 29, 1952 .................. 15

Wilkins, Roy, ‘‘A Decade in Race Relations,’’ A mer-

ica (June 16, 1951), pp. 287-289 ................ 15

BCE OR EO rR oo

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Ocroser TERM, 1952

No. 413

Sportrswoop Tuomas Bo.iineG, ET AL., Petitioners

Vv.

C. Metvin SHARPE, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

This case deals with the question whether children

in the public school system of the Nation’s Capital may,

consistently with the Constitution and laws of the United

States, be separated by groups solely on the basis of skin

color or the origin of their ancestors.

The undersigned submit this brief because our organiza-

tions represent groups of Americans in the Washington

Dat er ee ke ey a a tn ta

me Bs SEES: IRE ELE ER BR

ae Be

community and throughout the nation of many creeds and

many races who are deeply committed to the preservation

and extension of the democratic way of life and who reject

as inimical to the welfare and progress of our country |

artificial barriers to the free and natural association of }

peoples, based on racial or creedal differences. We believe

this to be of especial importance in the Nation’s Capital.

We are united in the belief that every step taken to make

such differences irrelevant in law, as they are in fact, will

tend to cure one of our democracy’s conspicuous failures to |

practice the ideals we proclaim to the world, and to bring —

us closer to that peace and harmony with other peoples

throughout the world for which we all strive.

We submit this brief out of a sense of urgency which

compels us to speak out for great segments of the com-

munity on behalf of a good and just cause. We are con-

vineed that the great democratic principles of our Consti-

tution are denied when racism permeates and shapes the

institutions in which the children of the Capital of the

Nation receive their schooling.

We submit this brief, finally, in the knowledge that the

progress and welfare of a democratic community and the

best contributions of all its people toward enriching the

life, the intellect, and the spirit of the community can be

achieved only from the untrammeled association of fellow-

citizens without the interposition, especially by government,

of barriers based on race.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case is here on writ of certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-

cuit, granted while the case was pending in that court on

appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court +

for the District of Columbia granting a motion to dismiss

the complaint. The petitioners are minors and their par-

ents, citizens of the United States and residents of the Dis-

trict of Columbia, are suing on behalf of themselves and

MELO LIE RGEC LGES BILE LEE DIET LEYS EEC RIEL PRE EEE LIE IPE ELAS AE LE

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

others similarly situated. The respondents here are mem-

bers of the school board and officials of the public school

system of the District of Columbia.

The complaint alleged that the minor petitioners applied

for enrollment in the Sousa Junior High School of the Dis-

trict of Columbia and were denied enrollment solely be-

cause of their race or color and that they appropriately

exhausted all administrative remedies for correction of that

denial. It alleged inter alia that their exclusion from the

school denied them due process of law, in violation of the

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and

Title 8, Sections 41 and 43 of the United States Code; and

constituted a bill of attainder prohibited by Article 1, Sec-

tion 9, clause 3 of the Constitution. The complaint sought

a declaratory judgment that the respondents had no right

to exclude the minor petitioners from the Sousa School

because of their race or color and an injunction restraining

the respondents from such exclusion.

Respondents, without denying any of the allegations of

the complaint, filed a motion to dismiss which was granted

by the District Court without an opinion.

THE QUESTICNS TO WHICH THIS BRIEF IS ADDRESSED

The undersigned amici curiae believe that racial segrega-

tion in the District of Columbia public schools is unconsti-

tutional. We refrain here from presenting such of our

reasons as would parallel those presented in the brief of

the petitioners already filed herein. We confine ourselves

to the following two questions which we feel merit fuller

discussion and on which we possess some special com-

petence:

1. Does separation of school children by skin color

or ancestry have any warrant in twentieth century

community experience, proper legislative purpose, or

scientific understanding?

2. Does the fact that Congress made provision for

the establishment of schools for Negro children in the

eee Mere ee aimee

District of Columbia before the adoption of the Four. |

teenth Amendment justify the conclusion that the

Fourteenth Amendment was intended to permit racial]

segregation?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. Racial classifications are not permissible in our de-

mocracy except only under the most dire of emergencies

such as the ‘‘crisis of war’’. The conventional standards

of ‘‘reasonableness”’ to test legislative action do not come

into play when racial criteria are involved. Nor, evenifit —

were relevant, is there any reasonable basis for separating

school children by skin color. Examination of community

experience in the District of Columbia and throughout the

country discloses vast areas of activity in which the mem-

bers of the public both voluntarily and by government ac-

tion have departed from patterns of segregation and asso-

ciate free of color restrictions. No rational basis exists to

single out school children for racial separation.

The predictions of defiance of a decision invalidating }

racial segregation in schools or of difficulties resulting

therefrom are neither novel nor warranted. They are not

justified by community experience, history, morality, or

law. To assert such factors implies that Constitutional

rights must await the consent of those who withhold them.

Present day scientific knowledge discredits traditional

concepts of ‘‘race.’’ Continued enforcement of legislative

action based on assumed distinctions formerly attributed

to such concepts is not rational.

2. In Carr v. Corning, 182 F. 2d 14, it was held that Con-

gress’ establishment of public schools for Negroes before

the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment ‘‘conclu-

sively supports’’ the determination that the Amendment _,

permitted segregation in schools. This misconceives the

chronology of the events of that day and gives a completely

distorted significance to the school statutes,

EERE SIRE ILENE MST SRN IE SIS GRRE PE TERENCE HARI LRG TSH

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

ARGUMENT

SEPARATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN BY SKIN COLOR OR

ANCESTRY HAS NO WARRANT IN TWENTIETH CENTURY

COMMUNITY EXPERIENCE, PROPER LEGISLATIVE PUR-

POSE, OR SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING AND IS THERE-

FORE A MEANINGLESS CLASSIFICATION VIOLATIVE OF

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

This brief documents what twentieth-century America

knows: racial segregation is not—and never was—in-

tended to achieve any legitimate legislative goal but is a

continuing attempt to maintain some vestiges of the slave

system of the nineteenth century.

Classification by ‘‘race’’? has been permitted by this

Court to sustain governmental action only during the major

crisis of the twentieth century and then only after ‘‘the

most rigid scrutiny’’ had disclosed ‘‘cireumstances of dire

emergency and peril’’ stemming from ‘‘the crisis of war

and threatened invasion.’’*

Though we do not suggest the propriety of even this lim-

ited impairment of the constitutional safeguards for the

individual, we point out that these instances were occa-

sioned only by extreme cases of national peril. It is only

at such times that racial designations may become the basis

for governmental action. No conventional problems and

no ordinary standard of ‘‘reasonableness’’ may justify a

transgression of the overriding principle that racial dis-

tinctions are odious.

1 We use the term ‘‘race’’ only for simplicity of expression. We

submit it has no meaning relevant to legal problems. See Section

C, infra, p. 19. For purposes of brevity we have also referred

generally to ‘‘skin color’’ as the basis adopted for segregation.

Analyzed carefully, the real basis for segregation of Negroes stem-

ming from the institution of slavery, lies in the birthland of the in-

dividual’s forebears (i.e., Africa) rather than in skin color alone.

For these reasons many statutes refer generally to ‘‘persons of

African descent.’’ Cf. Art. 1661.1, See. 2, Vernon’s Statutes of

Texas, Annotated (1947).

? Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 92 (1943), and

_ Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 220 (1944). Cf. Ex

f U. S. 283 (1944).

a, ee ee

Moreover, governmental classification at any time must

comport with what is fundamentally just. This is the es-

sence of due process, a term of no fixed content. The ‘‘es-

sentials of fundamental rights’’ are not ‘‘confined within

a permanent catalogue,’’ for it ‘‘is of the very nature of

a free society to advance in its standards of what is deemed

reasonable and right.’’ Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27

(1949). And the question whether a classification separat-

ing school children solely by race is constitutionally per-

missible today cannot be answered by looking backward to

yesterday. Constitutional principles ‘‘may acquire mean-

ing as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane

justice.’’* For this reason, the ‘‘boot-strap’’ arguments

of the School Board in this case, as in all others which rely

upon the authority of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537,

without reexamining its premises, cannot justify this

Court’s failing to do so. Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 470

(1849). We submit that the validity of continuing today

to separate school children solely according to a skin-color

3 Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349 (1910):

pp. 373-374: ‘‘Time works changes, brings into existence new

conditions and purposes. Therefore a principle to be vital must

be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it

birth. This is peculiarly true of constitutions. They are not

ephemeral enactments, designed to meet passing occasions. * * *

The future is their care and provision for events of good and bad |

tendencies of which no prophecy can be made. In the application

of a constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of |

what has been but of what may be. Under any other rule a con-

stitution would indeed be as easy of application as it would be

deficient in efficacy and power. Its general principles would have

little value and be converted by precedent into impotent and life-

less formulas. Rights declared in words might be lost in reality.

And this has been recognized. The meaning and vitality of the

Constitution have developed against narrow and restrictive con-

struction. * * * The construction of the Fourteenth Amendment is

* * * an example for it is one of the limitations of the Constitu-

tion.”’

p. 378: ‘‘The clause of the Constitution in the opinion of the

learned commentators may be therefore progressive, and is not

fastened to the obsolete but may acquire meaning as publie opinion

becomes enlightened by a humane justice.’’

. @ UT HOLEP

ee ee ——

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

\ ae

classification must be tested in the light of today’s known

community and social experience, declared legislative pur-

poses and present scientific understanding. Tested ac-

cordingly, separation of children in public schools on the

basis of skin-color alone is completely without rational

basis in the United States in the twentieth century.

A. Community experience demonstrates the invalidity of racial

segregation in the District of Columbia or anywhere in

the United States.

1. DETERIORATION OF PATTERNS OF SEGREGATION.

As this community’s experience is examined, the lack of

consistency and indeed of plain common sense involved in

the erection of racial barriers between groups of school

children is dramatically exposed. <A brief glance at Table

IV (Appendix, infra) shows the vast range of public ac-

tivity in which this city engages free of color restrictions.

Washingtonians mingle today without regard to skin color

in many restaurants, movies, hotels, libraries, swimming

pools, golf courses, tennis courts, and playgrounds, in all

legitimate theatres, streetcars and busses, art galleries, and

music halls, and in every public building, and every audi-

torium in the city. They attend inter-racial nursery

schools, parochial schools, colleges, law schools and medical

schools. (Table II, Appendix, infra.)

On what basis, then, may they rationally be precluded

from doing so in public schools? If people, young and old,

can live next door to each other in apartment houses, can

walk or ride together as far as school doors, and can enter

together in private schools, what proper reason may be

adduced to prevent them from entering those doors to

study together in public schools established in the interests

of all the people, by a government dedicated to democracy ?*

*The President-elect has pledged himself to remove ‘‘every

vestige of segregation’’ in the Nation’s Capital to the extent of the

means at his command. But this is a goal wh ch. as this case

proves, cannot be achieved by executive action alone.

Moreover, segregation in schools has been abandoned in

practice in so great a portion of this country, including the

South, as to make its continuation anywhere impossible to

justify in principle. Compiled in the Appendix, infra, is a

list of those communities, in the South and border areas,

where Negro students have been recently admitted to

formerly all-white schools. (Table 1). This list, which is

representative but by no means exhaustive, marks the

unanimously successful integration, in varying degrees, of

colored and white students in educational institutions in

over 85 communities in such areas. (There is of course no

need to detail the vast areas of the North where legal seg-

regation has never been practiced.)

These are developments of only the past several years,

chiefly following this Court’s action in Sweatt v. Painter,

339 U. S. 629 and McLaurin v. Oklahoma, 339 U. S. 637, in

1950. In that short time, one or more educational institu-

tions in practically every Southern, Southwestern and Bor-

der state have opened their doors to Negroes, who had pre-

viously been excluded altogether. For example, tax-sup-

ported colleges and universities have opened their doors

to Negro students in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas,

Missouri, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, North

Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. (Table

TIT(A) (1) (b), Appendix, infra).

Despite the continued insistence of those who urge

the continuance of segregation on the ground that the

country is ‘‘not ready,’’ these changes have not been lim-

ited to public colleges which alone would be compelled by

the enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment to open

their doors. Non-public institutions have been far in the

lead in the process of integration. Schools and colleges,

both private and parochial, have removed racial barriers

to admission in Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Missouri, Louisi-

ana, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, West

Virginia, and as mentioned, the District of Columbia.

(Table III (A) (2), Appendix, infra). This merits special

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

cae

attention, for if segregation were as embedded in the

‘‘usages, customs and traditions’’ of the South as it is

alleged to be, none of these institutions would have de-

| parted therefrom without compulsion. But freed of gov-

| ernmental compulsion to segregate (or exclude) by the

| aftermath of this Court’s decisions in the Sweatt and Mc-

Laurin cases which substantially destroyed segregation in

public colleges, these non-public schools have dropped the

color bars in numbers and with a speed and fervor’ which

make it plain that it was only the barrier of the South’s

government-required segregation which had earlier stood in

their way—and not the South’s ‘‘usages, customs and

traditions.’’

In addition to the colleges and universities in which seg-

regation has been abandoned, public elementary and high

schools have successfully ended segregation in recent years

in one or more communities in California, Arizona, New

Mexico, Kansas, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, Dela-

ware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Public schools sup-

ported entirely by Federal funds have been integrated at

Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, Quantico,

Virginia, Fort Knox, Kentucky and other southern military

( reservations.

The District of Columbia has been no laggard in this

pattern of change. Only where law is interpreted to forbid

departure from segregation (as the D. C. Board of Eduea-

tion maintains is true here) has there been no correspond-

j ing progress. Private schools, at all levels of study, have

dropped the color bar. This is true of pre-nursery, nursery,

elementary and high schools, as well as colleges and grad-

uate schools. (Table IT, Appendix, infra).

5 The reactions of white students have been extremely favorable.

' They have welcomed the newly arrived Negroes with group demon-

strations of approval, have called for change at colleges refusing

admission to Negroes, have written articles for the press, and have

called on the President of the United States for assistance to end

racial restrictions. Table TV (B) Appendix, infra.

Bison cor nn ae SPAETH

—

Moreover, neither in the District nor in other places

which have known segregation are these changes occurring

only in schools. We have compiled in Table IV a wide

variety of instances (which is only a sampling of thousands

of similar cases) in which places of public accommodation,

voluntary associations, religious bodies, employers, and the

athletic and entertainment world have followed where en-

lightened public thinking has beckoned.

These developments have significance for our problem

because everywhere one looks—in colleges and universities,

in factories, in state legislatures and city councils, in

theaters, in stadia, in restaurants, in swimming pools, and

throughout our Armed Forces—there has developed an in-

creasing and cumulative mingling of people of different

racial origins on a scale which makes ludicrous the con-

tinued separation of children in their formative years at

school. Those who ride, play, and work, who fight and die

together without strife may—nay, do—study together with-

out strife.

This wide-ranging experience with integration, it should

be added, is a judicial, not a legislative, consideration for

it provides conclusive practical confirmation of the propo-

sitions that (1) separation based on race has no rational

basis in our society and (2) integration presents nothing

remotely like war-time ‘‘dire emergeney and peril’’ which

alone might justify separation (Korematsu v. United

States, supra, p. 220), but in fact proceeds peacefully.

2. THE PROPHESIED COMMUNITY RESISTANCE TO CHANGE.

Departures from segregation have been successful to a

degree that surpasses even the most optimistic expectations

of the proponents of such change. They continually refute

the forecasts of those who on each and every such occasion

predict violence, resistance, difficulties and, at very least,

common dissatisfaction with the change.

If these predictions were made by those who previously

had urged the removal of barriers toward equality they

OAPAMA ROA EET RA NOME Te SR NS REA ONM ALS OPE EMT E PLE BIE NEE oT NT Os

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

. ce

might be listened to with good grace. But though the words

are different the voice is the same. These are the last-

ditch arguments of those who would still preserve some-

thing of their ancestors’ 19th Century class superiority,

with its intolerable burdens on other human beings, while

they also enjoy all the benefits of 20th Century society.

Furthermore, the mere assertion of such factors as

worthy of consideration by this Court necessarily implies

a belief that even if the Constitutional rights of an indi-

vidual—or thousands of individuals—are being violated

justice shall be rendered them only if those who withhold

those rights will consent. Such a belief our democracy

rejects.

And this aside, these assertions are unsound judged even

by empirical standards rather than moral principle.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra (Octeber Term, 1949, No.

44), the appellees warned that ‘‘forced mixed schools’’

would ‘‘cause large withdrawals from the public schools’’

(Appellees’ Brief, p. 175). The brief amicus filed by the

Attorneys General of eleven states was even more direful

(at p. 9), citing reports of impending disturbance at Easi

St. Louis and Alton, Illinois, two southern Illinois cities

where the schools were being desegregated under force by

law, and of apparent trouble at desegregated swimming

pools in Washington, D. C., and St. Louis, Missouri®:

®The swimming pool incidents referred to by the Attorneys

General refute rather than support their argument. In Washing-

ton, the disturbance was an isolated incident which has been fol-

lowed since 1950 by operation of pools under jurisdiction of the

Interior Department without segregation and without the slightest

difficulty. Comment, 18 Univ. Chi. L. Rev. 769, 773-775 (1951).

And the attendance has shown a continuing increase. (Table IV,

item (8) Appendix, infra.) The St. Louis experience was even more

revealing. There the city officials reacted to an outbreak of violence

by reversing their previously adopted decision to end segregation. A

law suit was commenced to prevent segregation. Id. at 771-772.

United States District Judge Hulen firmly rejected the argument

that segregation should be retained to prevent disorder. Calling

this ‘‘a new and novel theory’’, he ruled that ‘‘The law permits of

no such delay in the protection of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights’’.

LEHR

The Southern States trust that this Court will not

strike down their power to keep peace, order, and snp-

port of the public schools by maintaining equal sepa-

rate facilities. If the States are shorn of this police

power and physical conflict takes place, as in the St.

Louis and Washington swimming pools, the States are

left with no alternative but to close their schools fcr

that reason.

Of course, no ‘‘physical conflict’? took place because of the

decision which the Attorneys General feared. Instead, in

less than two years the number of Negroes who have been

peacefully integrated into Southern graduate and profes-

sional schools exceeds well over a thousand, and the tabu-

lation is no longer a matter of much interest since the point

is proved beyond debate.

In the Henderson case, infra (October Term, 1949, No.

25), the brief amicus filed by Rep. Sam Hobbs warned flatly

that ‘‘that to adopt the contention of Appellant would be

the kiss of death to render operation of the railroad impos-

sible’’ (p.5). In Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (1946)

(October Term, 1945, No. 704), the Commonwealth of Vir-

ginia, Appellee, warned that the statute which the Court

subsequently invalidated was necessary to prevent violent

altereations which would cause drivers to lose control of

their busses (Appellee’s brief, p. 14). The effects of a re-

versal of the decision below were painted in lurid terms

(Id. at pp. 18-20).

Again, no such evils resulted. In fact, the Court of Ap-

peals for the Fourth Circuit has had occasion to point out

that no disorders oceurred on the ears of a Virginia rail-

road which recently abandoned segregation to the extent it

Draper v. St. Louis. 92 F. Supp. 546, 549 (E.D. Mo., 1950). The

following year, 1951, the pools were opened on a fully integrated

basis. ‘‘Civil Rights in the United States in 1951’’, page 90. As

indicated in the Appendix, both East St. Louis and Alton are

examples of successful integration, rather than disturbance of any

sort.

IPRS a areata nd RAN TBA UE RI RE A BREA ELEN PRT OST AIT RD

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

found convenient. Chance v. Lambeth, 186 F. 2d 879, 881,

882-883 (C.A. 4th, 1951).

We are not so naive as to discount the possibility of some

forms of resistance to a decision that racial segregation in

public grade schools is unconstitutional. But the prophecy

of violence has so often been shown to be without sub-

stance’? that it is now made with little conviction. Of

course, this Court conclusively answered what has been

called the ‘‘rhetoric of violence’’** when it squarely held

that the preservation of the public peace cannot be ac-

complished by laws which violate the Constitution. Bu-

chanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, 81 (1917).

It goes without saying that to deny a constitutional right

because the lawless element of a community dislikes its

enforcement is to suggest that the Federal compact is no

match for the lynech-law mob.

Recognition of these facts by those who still seek to up-

hold segregation leads to their more sophisticated sugges-

tion that the abolition of segregation at this time will (a)

destroy public education in the South or (b) destroy the

liberal or progressive movement in the South. The fact is

that public education will no more be threatened by the

Court’s action against segregation in these cases than it

was by its action in the cases of Sweatt v. Painter, supra;

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, and Hender-

son v. United States, 339 U.S. 816. At best such argu-

ments in effect only urge delay in the disposition of the

constitutional question. But delay is more likely to aggra-

vate than to solve these alleged problems.® Moreover,

7 Note, 61 Yale L. J. 730, 738-743 (1952); Lewis, The Crisis

That Never Came Off, The Reporter, 1:12 (Dee. 6, 1949).

* Comment, 18 Univ. Chi. L. Rev. 769, 781 (1951).

®In the meantime the denial of constitutional rights is itself

productive of disorder. As a Georgia court noted long ago, ‘‘in

the end, if those laws are unfair, unjust, unequal, they will

breed discontent and disorder, and it is better for the peace and

good order of society that all shall have equal rights.’’ White

v. Clements, 39 Ga. 232, 269 (1869).

these arguments were not first urged upon this Court when

the Sweatt and Henderson cases were argued; they were

put forth over 75 years ago (Cf. 2 Cong. Record 4153

(1874) ; 3 Cong. Record 981-982, 997, 1002 (1875)).

Nor are these alleged problems peculiar to the South.

The quality of individual prejudice is not governed solely

by the residence of the individual. Integration proposals

have brought prophecies of violent resistance in northern

waterfront towns like Camden, N.J., no less than in Clar-

endon County, S. C., and of destruction of public education

in Alton, Illinois no less than in Atlanta, Georgia. But

Camden saw no violence and is fully integrated, and Alton,

rather than give up the State’s monetary contribution to

its public schools, gave up segregation. This. was done

grudgingly, but it was done—peacefully and completely.

We submit that if there is to be resistance, it

will take the form not of destruction but of evasion. And

the patterns of evasion are by this time familiar. Although

the practice of excluding Negroes from the Democratic

Party primary in the South was first condemned in 1927

(Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536) this Court was called on

several times thereafter to consider the validity of at-

tempted evasions of that decision.’? Even after the last de-

cision there were further attempts—continuing to the pres-

ent day''—which were dealt with by the lower courts."

10 Nizon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73 (1932); Grovy v. Townsend,

295 U. S. 45 (1935); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944);

Schnell v. Davis, 336 U. S. 933 (1949).

1 Terry v. Adams, 193 F. 2d 600 (C.A. 5th, 1952), cert. granted

Nov. 12, 1952. ,

12 Chapman v. King, 154 F. 2d 460 (C.A. 5th, 1946), cert. de-

nied, 327 U. S. 800; Mitchell v. Wright, 154 F. 2d 924 (C.A. 5th,

1946), cert. denied, 329 U. S. 733; Rice v. Elmore, 165 F. 2d 387

(C.A. 4th, 1947), cert. denied, 333 U. S. 975; Baskin v. Brown,

174 F. 2d 391 (C.A. 4th, 1949) ; Perry v. Cyphers, 186 F. 2d 608

(C.A. 5th, 1951) ; Adams v. Terry, 193 F. 2d 600 (C.A. 5th, 1952) ;

Davis v. Schnell, 81 F. Supp. 872 (D.C. 8.D. Ala., 1949), aff’d

without opinion, 336 U.S. 933 (1949); Dean v. Thomas, 93 F.

Supp. 129 (D.C. E.D., L., 1950).

LEP LE ILLIA O LIS AME ALLA EEO ES Hn TN EAE ESTATES OURO OT SINE DOP O ME AS

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

Ultimately the fight will be completely abandoned. Negroes

are now voting in constantly increasing numbers in the

Democratic primary and general elections in the Sovth, and

candidates make special efforts to win their support.”®

And so, while we may expect gerrymandering and possi-

bly so-called ‘‘private’’ corporations operating the schools

for one or a few of the States, we freely predict that in this

day and age there will be neither real abandonment nor ed-

| ucational deterioration of the public school system in the

areas involved. Furthermore, in the District of Columbia

community acceptance and respect for legal authority is

obviously such that there can be no fear whatever that this

Court’s order will be resisted here. As Judge Edgerton

said in his dissent in Carr v. Corning, 182 F. 2d 14, 33:

‘‘When United States courts order integration of District

) of Columbia schools they will be integrated’’. (Emphasis

supplied).*

We know, too, that despite the urging of the prophets of

doom this Court will not permit basie Constitutional rights

to be reduced by the lowest pessimistic denominator.

13 Race and Suffrage in the South since 1940, Jackson, Luther P.,

New South, Vol. 3, pp. 1-26 (1948); Civil Rights in the United

/ States in 1951, op. cit. supra, p. 18; A Decade in Race Relations,

Wilkins, Roy, America, June 16, 1951, pp. 287-289; Stakes Are

Costly in Play for Texas, N. Y. Times, Sept. 23, 1952.

* Only last week the Superintendent of Schools said the school

system would not be unprepared for a decision ending segreca-

tion, Washington Post, Nov. 29, 1952. By contrast, we regard as

particularly unfortunate the Court’s statement in the Carr ease.

supra, p. 16, that the problems with which it was dealing were

‘‘insoluble by force of any sort.’’ The same amount of ‘‘force’’ is

exercised by segregated as by unsegregated schools. The present

practices in the District of Columbia school system are just as

‘*foreeful’’ to those who desire to associate with their fellows with-

out artificial racial barriers as an unsegregated system would be

to those who wish to keep aloof.

B. Declared legislative prohibitions against segregation in

other areas of activity in the District of Columbia demon-

strate the further irrationality of school segregation.

The classification of groups of children in the public

schools by skin color alone must also be tested in the light

of legislative action affecting other group relationships in

the community.

As early as 1865,"* the Congress expressly forbade any

street railway company in the District of Columbia to ex-

clude any person from any ear, and since then there

has been no ‘‘Jim-Crow’’ transportation in the District. In

1872 and 1873, the Legislative Assembly for the District

enacted laws (referred to as the ‘‘Equal Service Laws’’)

forbidding the refusal to serve any well-behaved person in

any eating place, barber shop or hotel.’ Thereafter, in

1875, the Congress enacted the famed Civil Rights Act,"

forbidding racial discrimination or exclusion in places of

public accommodation throughout the country, including

the District of Columbia.

This series of legislative measures, then, carved out vast

areas for the free association of peoples in the District.

As opposed to the direct prohibitions against segregation

in these instances where Congress has clearly expressed its

intention on the subject, no instance has been found where

the Congress requires segregation. (It should be noted

that the statutes relied upon here as establishing a segre-

gated school system are not mandatory in form—unlike

school and other statutes in the South which explicitly re-

14 Section 5 of the Act of March 3, 1865, 13 Stat. 536.

15 The law of 1873 was recently held valid, and in force, in Dis-

trict of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 81 A. (2d) 249 (D.C.

Mun. App.). An appeal is now pending in the United States Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

16 Act of March 1, 1875, 18 Stat. 335. This Act was declared

invalid as applied to the States (Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3

(1883)) and, only because the previsions were considered nonsep-

arable, to steamships in coastwise trade (Butts v. Merchants and

Miners Trans. Co., 230 U. S. 126 (1913).

EN RYN EA.

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

—_—

quire segregation. See compilation in the Appendix to the

Petitioners’ brief, herein.)

In this context, particularly in view of the other broad

areas of present free co nmunity association mentioned in

) Section A, supra, it beco. nes impossible to accept as having

rational foundation a leg slative classification singling pub-

lie school children alone out of the entire community for

governmental separation based solely on race.

C. Present scientific understanding discredits traditional

concepts of “race”.

Governmental classifications must also be tested in the

light of present-day scientific understanding.

It seems hardly necessary at this late date to offer proof

that conduct governed by assumed distinctions attributed

} to race is wholly arbitrary. Moreover, the concept of

| ‘*race’’, which has been thought to have a scientific expla-

| nation based on esoteric classifications used by physical

anthropologists, have been demonstrated by mature stu-

dents of anthropology to be largely lacking even such a

foundation, and they have shown that no significance what-

ever can be attached to skin color alone. Boyd, Genetics

and the Races of Man (Little, Brown & Co., 1950), pp. 10-

27, 184-207."

Certainly in the Western World no nation is anything

but a mixture of many kinds of racial groups. The term

17“<The biological fact of race and the myth of ‘race’ should be

distinguished. For all practical social purposes ‘race’ is not so

much a biological phenomenon as a social myth. The myth of

‘race’ has created an enormous amount of human and social dam-

age. * * * It still prevents the normal development of millions of

human beings and deprives civilization of the effective co-opera-

tion of productive minds. The biological differences between ethnic

groups should be disregarded from the standpoint of social ac-

ceptanece and social action.’’ Statement by Experts on Race

Problems, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization, July 18, 1950. See also LaFarge, The Race Question

and the Negro; Redfield, What We Do Know About Race, 57

Scientific Monthly 193 (Sept., 1943) ; Krogman, An Anthropologist

Looks at Race, 7 Intercultural Education News 1 (Nov., 1945).

‘‘white’’ is racially meaningless as applied to almost all

American or European whites. There are fair-haired, tall,

long-headed North Europeans and dark-haired, less tall,

round-headed South Europeans. And there are all those

who run the gamut. They are all race mixtures. Benedict

& Weltfish, Races of Mankind (Public Affairs Committee,

1944). Even more certain is it that the American Negro

is not a ‘‘race’’. Not only were the original African slaves

members of different ‘‘racial’’ groups (from different

parts of Africa) but their cross-fertilization with ‘‘white’’

Americans has been extensive. As early as 1920 at least

15.9 per cent of the ‘‘Negro’’ population was visibly mu-

latto. Klineberg, Characteristics of the American Negro

(Harper, 1944), p. 268. Anda recent study by John Hop-

kins and Pittsburgh University professors discloses that

the Negro population in the United States is 30 per cent

white in its ancestry. Glass and Li, Report on the Dynamics

of Racial Intermixture, Annual Meeting of American In-

stitute of Biological Sciences at Cornell University (N. Y.

Times, Sept. 8, 1952, 33:8); Comas, Racial Myths

(UNESCO, 1951) pp. 1-26.

THE FACT THAT CONGRESS MADE PROVISION FOR THE

ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOLS FOR NEGRO CHILDREN IN

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE

CONCLUSION THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS

INTENDED TO PERMIT RACIAL SEGREGATION.

Petitioners urge in this case that racial segregation in

the schools operated by the District of Columbia govern-

ment is discriminatory per se and consequently prohibited

by the Fifth Amendment. The argument rests on the firmly

based principle that ‘‘distinctions between citizens solely

because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to

a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doc-

trine of equality’’. Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S.

81, 100 (1943).

RGR ARSENE FS CMLL PLE: PLIES LE LOLEIETE LA ETI Ee NM mS

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

It is urged, however, by those seeking to uphold school

separation based on race alone that neither the Fifth nor

the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, prohibits

segregation.’ In this connection, reliance is placed on cer-

tain statutes enacted by the United States Congress for the

education of Negro children in the District of Columbia

at about the same time the Congress submitted the

Fourteenth Amendment to the states for ratification. The

theory suggested is that these statutes expressly provided

for the establishment of segregated schools for Negro and

white children and that, hence, the Congress of that period

could not have viewed the constitutional principles em-

bodied in the Fourteenth Amendment as prohibiting racial

segregation.

This argument was given much weight by the majority

opinion (Edgerton, J., dissenting) of the Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Cireuit in Carr v. Corning, 182

F. 2d 14 (1950).2* Judge Prettyman’s opinion there re-

viewed the statutes in question and concluded that they

‘‘conclusively support’’ the view that the Fourteenth

Amendment does not prohibit segregation. Ibid, pp. 17-19.

We have already indicated our contention that the rea-

son or unreason of a classification such as separate racial

schools must be judged on the basis of contemporary con-

ditions and current knowledge, and not governed by the

dead hand of the past. Weems v. United States, 217 U 5S.

349, 373-374, 378 (1910). But because we wish to meet

squarely the argument from history, just outlined, we turn

now to an analysis of the past as it is involved therein.

179 Brief for Respondents herein, pp. 36-37; Brief for Appellees

in Briggs v. Elliott, No. 101 this term, p. 15; Brief for Appellees

in Davis v. County School Board, No. 191 this term, pp. 12-13.

18 The complaint in the Carr case, as in this one, challenged the

constitutionality of segregation in the District of Columbia public

schools. The Court of Appeals upheld segregation and no review

of its decision was sought in this Court. In the instant case, the

District Court in granting the motion to dismiss, stated in an oral

opinion that it was bound by the Carr decision.

Such analysis shows that the conclusion on the part of the

Court of Appeals in the Carr case was neither required

nor justified in the light of the genesis of the local laws

and of the Fourteenth Amendment. On the contrary, the

conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended

to prohibit segregation is fully documented in the pene-

trating study by Flack in his The Adoption of the Four-

teenth Amendment (1908), by the petitioner’s brief in

Sweatt v. Painter, supra (pp. 54-62), by the amicus brief

of the Committe of Law Teachers in that case (pp.

5-19), and by the latest and perhaps most exhaustive study

of all, Frank and Munro, The Original Understanding of

“Equal Protection of the Laws,’’ 50 Col. L. Rev. 131, 153-62

(1940). We shall not repeat that presentation here.

This conclusion cannot be cavalierly swept aside simply

by finding in isolated statutes, narrow and localized in scope

and enacted years before the ratification of a constitutional

amendment over which the entire nation seethed, a purpose

completely at variance with the whole thrust of that amend-

ment as it was generally understood.

In the Carr case, Judge Prettyman cited six statutes.

Only five of these are actually relevant.” These five

statutes were enacted between 1862 and 1866—and the

dates are crucial, since the Court of Appeals inferred, from

the fact that they were (1) contemporaneous with the pas-

sage by Congress of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment

and (2) seemingly inconsistent with an anti-segregation in-

19 The reference in the Carr decision (pp. 17-18) to Sections 281,

282, 294 and 304 of the revision of the D. C. Statutes (Act of June

22, 1874, 18 Stat. part 2) appears erroneously to assume that these

provisions were first enacted in that year. In fact, these are sec-

tions taken from the Act of June 25, 1864, 13 Stat. 187, 191, from

which Judge Prettyman had already drawn significance, and no

additional significance can be found in their inclusion in the 1874

Revision, since that was merely part of a Congressional attempt

to provide up-to-date compilations of existing law—one such com-

pilation for the District of Columbia, and another (U. S. Revised

Statutes, 1872 and 1878) of the general laws of the United States.

Certainly there is no suggestion that any consideration was given

by Congress in 1874 to the determination of racial policy which is

inherent in the inference drawn by Judge Prettyman.

Ww FUPRE LEP LLL. AGE LOBLLSIE LSE GN LE IE EOI IDE OEM REE, | PS AL

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

terpretation of that Amendment, that the Amendment itself

could not have been intended to abolish segregation.

But the inference is by no means either necessary or cor-

rect. It is based on a misconception of both the pertinency

of the chronology and the purposes of the school statutes.

When the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed in June

1866, its framers obviously had no means of knowing how

many years would elapse before its ratification by the

states; in fact, it was not until July 1868, more than two

years later, that it was declared ratified. The mere fact

that the Amendment was proposed in 1866, at approxi-

mately the same time as the 1866 statutes, does not, as Judge

Prettyman implies, necessarily impute to the Congress a

purpose in that Amendment to perpetuate segregated

schools.” It may equally suggest a desire to deal with the

problem on a national basis rather than a local one, just as

the Congress later did, in the Civil Rights Act of 1875, when

it prohibited discrimination of any kind in places of public

accommodation anywhere in the United States, including

the District of Columbia.*! We recognize that Congress,

prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, was making provi-

sion for schools which, when they were finally established,

were separate. But to conclude from this that Congress in-

tended to perpetuate this situation, come what may, is to

fail to distinguish between mere recognition of the his-

torical fact of segregation and a mandate for segregation.

In fact, what the historical development of public educa-

tion for colored children does amply demonstrate is that

the Congress was concerned in the 1860’s with obtaining

education for those children, and further that Congress was

never faced with the issue of granting or denying a request

2° Moreover, it should be recognized that there is significance in

the fact that the path travelled through the Houses of Congress

by the Bill dealing with District schools was obviously different

from that taken by the Bill proposing the Fourteenth Amendment.

The origin, committee consideration, and debates were totally dif-

ferent from the two matters.

*1 Act of March 1, 1875, 18 Stat. 335.

that there should be ‘‘integrated’’ education. At that time

public education of any kind was still regarded in many

quarters as invidious, and education for the Negro (who in

many states was still forbidden to learn to read or write)

had only a short while prior thereto been deemed wholly

objectionable by some legislators.”

In 1862, or!y a few weeks after slaves were freed in the

District of Columbia** (and almost a year before the

Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863) the Con-

gressional action was an attempt for the first time to pro-

vide ‘‘free’’* public education for colored children. The

Congress was concerned with that problem alone.

Similarly, in 1864,” when Congress provided that the

amount used to support schools for colored children should

be appropriated from the general revenues of the cities of

Washington and Georgetown in accordance with the ratio

of colored children to the total number of children, Con-

gress was faced only with the problem whether (in view

of the exceedingly small sums allotted by the authorities

to the colored schools)* they should continue to tax colored

persons separately to support schools for colored chil-

dren.”

22 (f. 62 Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 3d Sess. 1326-1327 (1863).

*3 Act of April 16, 1862, 12 Stat. 376.

*4 Act of May 20, 1862, 12 Stat. 394; Act of May 21, 1862, 12

Stat. 407. In part, the purpose was to remedy the unjust dis-

crimination of the existing D. C. school system which, as a result

of slavery days, denied admittance *o colored children while col-

lecting taxes from their parents, fercing the latter to maintain

their own schools. Bryan, History of the National Capital, Vol.

IT. (1916), pp. 137-38, 389, 524-528.

* Act of June 25, 1864, 13 Stat. 187, 191.

76 In 1862 nothing was paid over by Georgetown and only

48,256.25 by Washington. In 1863, Georgetown paid $69.72 and

Washington $410.89. The need for additional funds was obvious.

Special Report of the Commissioner of Education on the Condi-

tion and Improvement of Public Schools in the District of Colum-

hia, p. 253, H. Rep. Ex. Doc. No. 315, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. (1871).

27 The earlier Act of May 21, 1862, supra, n. 24, required the use

of 10 percent of the taxes levied upon property of colored persons

for the support of such schools.

AT RESIN EN BBR PENS EE PS hort gE te Ne hie 4g

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

—

So, too, when in 1866 * Congress expressly ordered that

the Act of 1864 be construed so as to require the cities of

Washington and Georgetown to pay over the appropriated

sums to the trustees of colored schools, Congress had not

been requested to ‘‘integrate’’ but was acting only to over-

come the continued reluctance of the municipal authorities

to make any but the most completely inadequate provision

for the education of colored children. And further, when

the following week* the Congress authorized the convey-

ance of certain lands of the United States to the trustees of

colored schools it was again seeking to provide education

for colored children; it was not determining a question of

racial policy. Since at that very time Congress was debating

the question whether segregation would be outlawed by the

proposed Amendment,” it may be supposed that Congress

would have been astonished to be told that it was else-

where determining that very question—and by means of a

localized statute, not a Constitutional Amendment of na-

tion-wide scope and interest.

In sum, the whole poir* is that the major portion of the

period under analysis was prior to and not contemporane-

ous with the Fourteenth Amendment and (as the Cor-

poration Counsel has argued in another context)*’ ‘‘the

laws setting up schools for colored were enacted at a time

when members of that race were afforded no schooling

whatsoever. The purpose of the laws was to give rather

than to take away, was to afford opportunity rather than

deny opportunity * * *.”’

Additional evidence of historical misconstruction in the

Carr opinion is found in the fact that, contemporaneously

with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment by the

Congress, there was also enacted the bitterly fought over

8 Act of July 23, 1866, 14 Stat. 216.

°° Act of July 28, 1866, 14 Stat. 343.

“mn Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (1908). pp.

(1-62.

31 Brief for Appellees in Cogdell v. Sharpe, No. 11,019, in U.S.

Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit, October Term,

1951, p. 58.

Civil Rights Bill of 1866.** So significant was that Bill that

the Amendment was ‘‘sidetracked to give full sway to that

important measure.’’ ** This bill was generally understood

to have the effect of opening white schools to Negroes.**

But this very fact was believed to raise substantial doubts

as to its validity on the ground that it was an exercise of the

powers of the States. Accordingly, the first section of the

Fourteenth Amendment was designed to meet this alleged

Constitutional infirmity and to make secure the provisions

of the Civil Rights Bill.*

Following the ratification of the Amendment, the Bill

was re-enacted * and has been enforced by this Court as

recently as 1948, in Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U. S. 24.%7

Thus it is plain that the conclusion reached in the Carr

case not only ignores the time sequence of the statutes and

the ratification of the Amendment, but also gives a com-

pletely distorted significance to the school legislation.

CONCLUSION

The advances commenced by the Civil War were

slowed and almost halted by judicial gloss on the Four-

teenth Amendment. We trust that it is worth reminding

the Court that segregation is not a Constitutional com-

mand. It was nothing more than a de facto social phenom-

enon until this Court itself gave it legal and Constitutional

dignity by its majority decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. By

%2 Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (passed over veto). This is

not the Act invalidated in the Civil Rights Cases.

33 Flack, op. cit., supra, p. 20.

34 Ibid, pp. 40-54; Frank and Munro, op. cit., supra, p. 160.

35 Thid, p. 55.

36 Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140.

37 The respondents argue that the failure to include schools

within the coverage of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 indicates Con-

gressional intent to permit segregation. (Br. p. 37) The

answer to this is two-fold: (1) It was not that Congress which pro-

prosed the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) the omission of schools

was a purely political and practical matter, not negating the un-

derstanding that the Amendment (though obviously not self-exe-

euting) did prohibit separate schools. Brief of the Committee of

Law Teachers, op. cit., supra, pp. 14-16; Frank and Munro, op.

cit., supra, pp. 156-162.

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

————— aa

now it has become clear that ‘‘separate’’ in practice is

never ‘‘equal’’, and it now needs only this Court’s deter-

mination to strip from segregation its spurious dignity, by

holding with Mr. Justice Harlan that ‘‘Our Constitution

is color-blind.”’

Respectfully submitted,

AMERICAN CouNncIL on HuMAN RiGutTs

By: Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr.

AMERICANS FoR Democratic Action (Washington Chapter)

By: Theodore C. Sorensen

American JEWISH ComMITTEE (Washington Chapter)

By: William C. Koplovitz

AMERICAN JEWISH ConGress, COMMISSION oN Law & SoctaL

Action (Washington Chapter)

By: S. Walter Shine

Catuotic INTERRACIAL CoUNCIL OF WASHINGTON

By: John J. O’Connor

ComMMIsSsION ON CommuNItTy Lire oF THE WASHINGTON F Ep-

ERATION OF CHURCHES

By: L. Maynard Catchings

District oF CoLumMBiIA INpUsTRIAL Unton Counc, C.1.0.

By: Ben Segal

D. C. Fepreration or Civic Associations, Inc.

By: John B. Duncan

FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION

By: E. Raymond Wilson

JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE

(Washington Chapter)

By: Rikio Kumagai

JeEwiIsH ComMuNItTY CouNcIL or GREATER WASHINGTON

By: Isaac Franck

NatTionaL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED

Prope (D. C. Branch)

By: Constance E. H. Daniel

_DSITARIAN FELLOWSHIP FOR SociaL JUSTICE

(Washington Chapter)

By: Margery T. Ware

Re ee PME tener BS oad an ene

WasuHincton Bar AssoctaTIon

By: Joel D. Blackwell

WasHincTon Ernicau Society

By: Milton Chase

WASHINGTON FELLOWSHIP

By: Edwin B. Henderson

WASHINGTON INTERRACIAL WORKSHOP

By: Lillian Palenius

WasHINGTON UrsBan LEAGUE

By: L. K. Shwery

S. Water SHINE

THEODORE C. SorENSON

Sanrorp H. Bouz

SaMvuEL B. GRONER

Counsel

;

‘a

December, 1952.

si FiO SH rene SB A Bre? NG

ee eee

re 3

. . ee MO pet ERS TORS TO Leh

Re ae. Bes EI, SRS ee ee ee ee en CS OR FN ee sas — —_

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

APPENDIX

The information in the following tables is culled from the files

and resources of the organizations sponsoring this brief, It is

intended to be only representative, not exhaustive, and it is believed

to be accurate.

———

TABLE I

List of Cities in Southern and Border States in Which Some

Schools, Colleges and Universities Have Been Recently Inte-

grated.

ALABAMA

Talladega

ARIZONA

Douglas

Duncan

Globe

Miami

Prescott

Tolleson

Tucson

ARKANSAS

Fayetteville

Little Rock

Pine Bluff ‘

Cauirornia Ww”

Contra Costa

County

Imperial Valley

Santa Ana County

Mendota

DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

DELAWARE

Claymont

Hockessin

Newark

GEORGIA

Decatur

ILLINOIS

Alton

Argo

Cairo

East St. Louis

Edwardsville

Harrisburg

Madison

Metropolis

ILurnois (continued) NortH CARoLina

Spartac fi. Lu.

Tamms

Ullin

Waukegan

INDIANA

Elkhart

Gary

Indianapolis

New Albany

South Bend

KANSAS

Topeka

Lawrence

KENTUCKY

Berea

Fort Knox

Lexington

Louisville

Nazareth

Paducah

LOUISIANA

Baton Rouge

New Orleans

MARYLAND

Annapolis

Saltimore

College Park

Westminster

Missouri

Columbia

Kansas City

St. Louis

New Mexico

Alamogordo

Albuquerque

Carlsbad

Santa Fe

Asheville

Camp Lejeune

Chapel Hill

Fort Bragg

OHIO

Allendale

Cincinnati

Glendale

Wilmington

OKLAHOMA

Norman

Stillwater

SoutH CAROLINA

Greenville

TENNESSEE

Knoxville

Mont Eagle

TEXAS

Amarillo

Austin

Big Spring

Corpus Christi

Dallas

Fort Worth

Houston

Plainview

Wichita Falls

VIRGINIA

Alexandria

Charlottesville

Fort Quantico

Richmond

Williamsburg

West VIRGINIA

Buckhannon

Morgantown

TPP SE Tra 6

TABLE I '

Schools, Colleges and Universities in the District of Colum-

bia and Environs Which Will Accept Both White and Negro

Students.

A. Nursery, ELEMENTARY AND HicH ScHOOLs:

All Catholic parochial schools

Arlington Unitarian Church Summer School

Baker’s Dozen Youth Center

Beauvoir Elementary School (1953)

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Nursery School

Burgundy Farms Country Day School

Community Nursery School

Georgetown Day School )

Green Acres Day School

Hisacres New Thought Center Nursery School

Kenilworth School (Mother’s Club, Nursery)

Lincoln Congregational Church Nursery School

Raymond School (Mother’s Club, Nursery)

Rosedale School (Mother’s Clu), Nursery)

Silver Spring Nursery School )

B. CoLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES : |

American University

Catholic University

Dunbarton College of Holy Cross

Georgetown University (all but Foreign Service School)

Howard University

National Law School

Trinity College

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

' TABLE III

“The School Doors Open Wide”

Examples of Recent Admission of Negroes to Educational

Institutions in the South and Border Areas

A. In the South

1. PUBLIC EDUCATION

a. ELEMENTARY AND HiaH ScHOOL LEVEL

Delaware

) Claymont—Negroes attend Claymont public school previously

restricted to whites, for first time, under court order.!

Hockessin—Negroes admitted to Hockessin white public school,

as ordered by state court.”

Kentucky

Fort Knox—Base public school, supported entirely by Federal

funds, admits both Negro and white students on equal

, basis.

Maryland

Baltimore—Negro boys admitted to Baltimore’s Polytechnic

Institute (High School) although municipal ordi-

nance bars admission.®

North Carolina

Camp Lejeune—Publiec school at Camp Lejeune, supported en-

tirely by Federal funds, has successfully integrated

its white and Negro students.

Fort Bragg—lIntegrated public school at Fort Bragg, operated

entirely with Federal funds, operated without fan-

fare or incident since September, 1951. Only one pa-

rental complaint, about Negro students and teacher,

soon ended.*

| Virginia

Fort Quantico—Public school at Fort Quantico operates with-

out segregation.

b. CoLLEGE AND GRADUATE LEVEL

Arkansas

Fayetteville—Several hundred Negro students have received a

friendly acceptance for nearly 4 years in graduate

and professional schools of University of Arkansas.®

Little Rock—Negroes accepted without incident in law, educa-

tion, and medical graduate schools of University of

Arkansas, despite one local objection.®

PRES BE OT RRS ae a OTE SS HERMES ERAT 19 manent ereNeT et ge ateesaewatunN,

. we “ . ~ wie

Delaware

Newark—University of Delaware at Newark admits qualified |

Negroes to any course which is not provided at Dela-

ware State College for Negroes.’

Kentucky

Louisville—Louisville Municipal University and Negro College

completely and successfully integrated at graduate |

and undergraduate levels, in classes, dormitories,

cafeteria, and all student activities. ‘‘A magnificent

success,’’ says Pres. Davidson.®

Lexington—University of Kentucky has successfully opened

up graduate and professional schools to several hun-

dred Negro students, who face no segregation in such

places as the cafeteria.®

Paducah—Under court order, a Negro applicant has been ac-

cepted at Paducah Junior College.’°

Louisiana

Baton Rouge—Negro student accepted without incident at

Louisiana State University.™ |

New Orleans—Louisiana State University graduate college is

open to Negro students.

Maryland

Annapolis—Negro graduates from U. 8. Naval Academy at |

Annapolis.”

College Park—University of Maryland admits qualified

Negroes to graduate and undergraduate schools.

(Negroes have been admitted to the law school since

1935.) Integration (ineluding admission to dormi-

tory life) has been wholly successful.'%

Missouri

Columbia—Negroes are being admitted to the University of

Missouri after favorable action hy students, adminis-

trators, and others, and without incident."

St. Louis—Harris Teachers College, a municipal institution, |

admitted its first Negro under court order.’® |

North Carolina

Chapel Hill—Several Negroes attend University of North Car-

olina law school, as 2 graduates pass state bar exam-

ination. Other graduate schools also opened without

incident.'®

Oklahoma

Norman—Negro students have attended, and graduated from, f

various divisions of the University of Oklahoma since

1948, with no trouble of any kind.17

Stillwater—Negroes admitted to Oklahoma A. & M., join white

students in athletic and other similar activities, with-

out difficulty.*®

SET SES ARREST Ee PE ASS VSN MERION Re emma MEL

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

\ Tennessee

Knoxville—Negroes have been admitted to some of the grad-

uate and professional schools of the University of

Kentucky, without difficulty.?®

Texas

Amarillo—Amarillo Junior College now admits Negro

| students.

Austin—Negroes enrolled successfully, despite widespread pro-

| test, in September 1950, at University of Texas.*!

Texas University admits first two Negroes to Dental

School.*!*

Corpus Christi—Del Mar Municipal Junior College has opened

its doors to qualified Negro residents of Corpus

Christi.””

Big Spring—Howard Junior College, previously all white, has

opened its doors to Negro students.**

Wichita Falls—Midwestern University ordered by Federal

Court to admit colored students.**

| Virginia

Charlottesville—Negroes admitted without incident to Univer-

| sity of Virginia for first time in 1950.*5

West Virginia

| Morgantown—Negro students have been accepted into the Uni-

versity of West Virginia graduate, and more recently

undergraduate, colleges successfully .*°

2. PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Alabama

Talladega—Talladega College becomes Alabama’s first mixed

educational institution by enrollment of a white stu-

dent (other than a child of a white faculty member) .**

District of Columbia

Washington—All catholic and most of the other parochial

schools, and most private schools, have begun to op-

erate in past several years on an interracial basis; so

has the pre-nursery school program operated in coop-

eration with the District Recreation Department,

youth centers, day-care centers, and other private in-

stitutions of an educational nature (See: Table IT)

Negroes have been accepted in Georgetown Univer-

( sity, Catholic University, National Law School, Wash-

ington College of Law, Dumbarton College of Holy

Cross, Trinity College, and American University.

Georgia

Decatur—Columbia Theoiogical School now admits Negroes.**

Kentucky

Berea—Berea College, subject of a 1908 court case upholding

segregation, has successfully integrated Negroes at

all levels since 1950.*°

Louisville—Negroes successfully admitted to undergraduate

schools of Ursiline College, Louisville Theological ?

Seminary, Nazareth College, the Nursing School of

St. Joseph’s Infirmary, and Bellarmine College.*®

Louisiana

New Orleans—Loyola University of this city and Southern

Baptist Theological Seminary now admit Negro stu-

dents.*! )

Maryland

Annapolis—Negro graduates, as another enrolls, at St. John’s

College in Annapolis.** |

Baltimore—Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore has ad-

mitted Negroes each year since World War II.** |

Westminster—Westminster Theological Seminary has opened

its doors to Negroes.**

Missouri

St. Louis—Large numbers of Negro students have attended

St. Louis University, where Negroes also serve on the

faculty, since 1944. Washington University of St.

Louis has admitted Negro students and has had Negro

visiting professor, for some time. The St. Louis Col-

lege of Pharmacy and Allied Sciences began admit-

ting Negroes this year.

St. Louis Catholic parochial schools have been in-

tegrated by order of the Catholic hierarchy, and have

operated wholly without incident despite some paren-

tal protests.**

North Carolina

Asheville—Black Mountain College announces that its doors

are opened to all persons regardless of color.**

Texas

Austin—The Austin Theological Seminary now admits Negro

students.**

Dallas—Southern Methodist University has admitted 3 Negro

students to its graduate school of theology.*®

Forth Worth—Southwestern Baptist Seminary now accepts

Negro students.*®

Plainview—The local theological school, Wayland College,

accepts Negroes."

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

——

Virginia

Alexandria—Burgundy Farm Country Day School is a most

successful example of interracial operation on both

the student and faculty level.**

Richmond—The Union Theological Seminary, and the Rich-

mond Professional Institute, both admit Negroes now,

though formerly open only to white students.*®

Williamsburg—First Negro student is admitted to William

and Mary College.**

West Virginia

Buckhannon—West Virginia Wesleyan has abolished segrega-

tion in its school entirely, after admitting Negroes to

specific courses for some time.*

B. In Southwestern, Porder and Other Areas.

1. PUBLIC EDUCATION

a. ELEMENTARY AND HicgH Scuoou LEVEL

Arizona

Douglas—Public schools have been integrated.

Duncan—Publie School segregation of white and Negro stu-

dents ends as litigation is settled out of court.*®

Globe—Globe public schools are integrated without incident.

Miami—Segrevation in the public schools ends here without

difficulty of any sort.*®

Prescott—Segregated schools end successfully in Prescott.*®

Talleson—Segregation of pupils of latin descent is ended by

Federal Court order.®®

Tuscon—Segregated public schools ended in Tuscon with full

integration of students, teachers and administrators

in 1951. In spite of many advance protests, Superin-

tendent Morrow says system works well.*!

(All the foregoing occurred following 1950 state referendum

authorizing integration by School Boards)**

California

Imperial Valley—Kindergarten and elementary pupils and

teachers have been integrated.

Contra Costa County—Segregation is ended in county schools

by Federal Court order.**

Mendota—Integration of separate schools for Mexican and

white children is highly successful.™

Santa Ana—Segregation of Mexican school children in the

Westminster School District is ended by court order.™

i oa

BP aisetisisttsccicasan Seeley a

Illinois

Alton—Long-standing segregation in public schools of Alton

successfully ended, despite rumors of trouble and

initial protests.

Argo—Segregation in public schools successfully ended.

Cairo—Despite violent objections, schools successfully main-

tain new policy of opening schools to all, and strife

ceases,°®

Edwardsville—Segregation in public schools successfully

ended.

East St. Louis—-85 year policy of segregation ended without

difficulty in 1950, despite rumors of trouble and stu-

dent strikes which did not oceur.*?

Harrisburg—Segregation in public schools ended without

incident.

Tamms—Public schools successfully end segregation in 1951.°* ,

Ullin—Schools here were integrated in 1951 without any dif-

ficulty.*®

Waukegan—Publie schools successfully integrated in 1951.°°

Indiana

Gary—Protests and disorder successfully overcome as large

Negro and white student bodies became completely

integrated.

Indianapolis—Despite agitation by the K.K.K., separate Negro

and white schools at Indianapolis are integrated

without seriou: disruption.®”

New Albany—Segregated school systems completely and suc-

cessfully integrated with respect to both teachers and

students.

New Jersey

General—Nearly four dozen communities in New Jersey have ,

seen their Negro and white schools integrated suc-

cessfully in the past several years. The few protests

and withdrawals which arose were quietly ended by

the finality of the decision. Segregation in a peace-

ful and successful manner was particularly sig-

nificant in towns which evidenced strong prejudice, |

including populations of lower than average educa-

tional background, as well as those of intellectual and

cultural pride, where both teachers and students were

successfully integrated.

Communities in New Jersey where public schools

have been integrated include: Freehold, Camden,

Haddonfield, Burlington, Bordentown, Cape May, |

Egg Harbor, Fair Haven, Florence, Greenwich, Long }

Branch, Lower Penns Neck, Palmgra, Penns Grove,

Pleasantville, Princeton, Princeton Township, Quin-

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

ton, Riverside, Salem, Shrewsbury, Woodstown, Tren-

ton, Asbury Park, Mount Holly and Atlantic City.®*

Princeton—lIn intellectually elite Princeton, installation of a

Negro teacher in the newly-integrated school attended

by children of both races caused a withdrawal of

seven children to the exclusive private schools nearby ;

yet all but one returned before semester’s end."*

Salem—lIn Southern-like Salem, N. J., where over one-third

of the students were colored, the white and Negro

schools were completely integrated with a Negro

principal remaining in charge of white teachers.

There was no difficulty.

New Mexico

Alamogordo—Segregation in public schools is abolished and

Negro faculty member appointed.”*

Albuquerque—Segregation of public school systems is ended

in this large city of Southern traditions.

Carlsbad—Schools integrated for first time in 1951, after wel-

coming vote by studenis and faculty.

Santa Fe—Racial segregation in public school system is

ended.

Ohio

Glendale—Segregation in Glendale public schools ends on ad-

vice of County Attorney.

Wilmington—Further desegregation of grade levels in ele-

mentary schools undertaken, high schools already

being non-segregated.™

Pennsylvania

Carlisle—Segregation of Negro children eliminated from

school system.*®

b. COLLEGE AND GRADUATE LEVEL

Note: Suecessful integration in these institutions outside of

the South has been too widespread and universally

accepted for recent developments to be regarded as

significant.

For some examples and surveys see: National

Scholarship Service and Fund for Negro Students,

‘‘Opportunities in Interracial Colleges,’’ 1951 (over

200 interracial colleges listed); Roche, ‘* Catholic

Colleges and the Negro Student,’’ 1948 (overwhelm-

ing majority of Catholie colleges admit Negroes) ;

| Texas Legislature Council, ‘‘Staff Monograph on

Higher Education for Negroes in Texas,’’ 1951 (Ne-

groes at University of Texas and other Southern in-

stitutions, following Sweatt and other cases); Na-

tional Assn. of Intergroup Relations Officials, )

‘‘Toward Equality in Education,’’ 1952 (white stu-

dents enrolled at Southern Negro colleges, and more |

4 white colleges than listed here would welcome Negro

students if enabled to do so) ; ‘*The American Negro

p in College, 1949-1950,"’ Crisis, Vol. 57, No. 8, p. 488;

; ‘‘The American Negro in College, 1950-1951,’’ Crisis,

Vol. 58, No. 7, p. 445. Sorensen, ‘‘The School Doors }

Swing Open,’’ New Republic, 127:13, Dee. 15, 1952. |

2. PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Oy TPT he Slee

3 Note: Suecessful integration in these institutions outside of

2 the South has been too widespread and universally

accepted for recent developments to be regarded as ’

significant.

RGAE AE oe ew

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

Sources for information in Table III are listed below.

The

abbreviations refer to the following publications:

BS.— ‘Civil Rights in the United States—A Balance Sheet

of Group Relations,’’ published jointly each year by

the American Jewish Congress and the National As-

seciation for the Advancement of Colored People.

N.E.—Journal of Negro Education.

N.Y.T.—New York Times.

W.A.A.—Washington Afro-American.

W.D.N.—Washington Daily News.

W.E.S.—Washington Evening Star.

W.P.—Washington Post.

1W.A.A., 4-5-52.

2W.A.A., 4-5-52; N.Y.T., 8-29-52.

3 W.D.N., 9-4-52.

4W.P., 10-14-51.

5 N.Y.T., 10-23-50.

6 N.Y.T., 10-23-50; W.A.A.,

11-27-51.

71948 B.S., p. 24.

8 New Republic, 7-21-52.

9N.Y.T., 10-23-50.

101950 B.S., p. 44.

111950 B.S., p. 44; W.ES.,

3-28-52.

12 W.ESS., 6-7-52.

13 1948 B.S., p. 24.

141950 BS., p. 44.

15 1949 BS., p. 32.

16The Voice (A.N.P.),

W.A.A., 5-1-51.

171950 B.S., p. 44.

18 1950 BS., p. 45.

19 W.E.S., 1-12-52; N.Y.T., 10-23-52.

20 Amsterdam News, 8-9-52.

21 N.Y.T., 10-23-50.

21a N.Y.T., 9-11-52, 38:8.

22 Amsterdam News, 8-9-52.

23 Amsterdam News, 8-9-52.

24 W.A.A., 1-52.

25 N.Y.T., 10-23-50.

26 N.Y.T., 10-23-52.

27 W.A.A., 1-52; N.Y.T., 2-4-52.

281951 B.S., p. 66.

29 NLY.T., 10-23-50.

30 N.Y.T., 10-23-50; W.A.A., 1952:

Colored Harvest, 11-52; Crisis,

No. 5, 1952, p. 594.

31 W.A.A., —, 1952.

32 W.E.S., 7-10-52; N.Y.T., 1-2-49.

321951 B.S., p. 66.

34 W.ALA., —, 1952.

9-18-52;

on 59.

6-20-52 ;

1951, B.S.,

85S8t. Louis Argus,

N.Y.T., 10-23-50;

p. 66.

36 Rose (ed.), Race Prejudice and

Discrimination (1951), p. 548.

37 W.A.A., 1952.

381951 B.S., p. 66.

391951 B.S., p. 66.

1951 BS., p. 66.

411951 B.S., p. 66.

42 W.P., 7-19-52.

43.1951 B.S., pp. 66-67.

44. W.A.A., 5-18-51.

451949 B.S., p. 32.

461949 B.S., p. 33.

47 Nation, 4-28-51.

48 Nation, 4-28-51.

49 Nation, 4-28-51.

501951 B.S., p. 65.

“1 Time, 10-8-51.

521951 B.S., p. 58.

53 W.A.A., 11-20-51.

*4 Survey, 1951.

*> Westminster.

“6 Time, 2-18-52; Nation,

W.Y.T., 9-7-52, 14:1.

57 N.Y.T., 12-22-49, 1-30-50.

oS W.A.A., 9-31-52.

59 W.A.A., 9-30-52.

60 W.A.A., 9-30-52,

61 N.Y.T., 6-7-47, 9-13-47.

62 The Reporter, 12-6-49.

63 N.Y.T., 6-5-48; J.N.E., Summer,

1952.

64 J.N.E., Summer 1952.

65 J.N.E.. Summer 1952.

66 The Voiee (A.N.P.), 9-4-52.

67 Nation, 9-22-51.

68 W.A.A., 10-21-52.

69 1950 B.S., p. 49.

70 1948 B.S., p. 24.

2-9-52;

TABLE IV

“The Old Order Changeth”

(Representative Departures From Segregation Throughout

the Nation)

A. In Public Accommodations

Alabama

1. United Nations Week observed by inter-racial, inter-faith

celebration in Birmingham (1951).

Arkansas

2. Little Rock Publie Library ends entry ban against Ne-

groes (1951).

3. McRae Memorial Sanatorium opens near Little Rock with

inter-racial surgical staff (1951).

Delaware

4. Six movie houses in Wilmington admit Negroes for the

first time (1952).

District of Columbia

5. Refusal to earry Negroes on Potomac River’s Wilson Line

excursion boat is ended by Interstate Commerce Commis-

sion order (1951).

6. Eating places in District of Columbia serving without dis-

crimination following efforts of ** Coordinating Commit-

tee for the Enforcement of D. C. Anti-Discrimination

Laws of 1872-1873" are listed as follows:

1950

April—Greyhound Post House.

July—Kann’'s Department Store.

July—Trailways Depot.

Sept—G. C. Murphy & Co. (Park Road),

Woolworth & Co. (all stores),

F & W Grand (all stores),

MeCrory (all stores),

toldenberg Department Store.

1951

Jan.—S. S. Kresge Co. (all stores).

April—McBride’s.

July—Neisner’s.

1952

Jan.—Heeht Co.

Mareh—Lansburgh & Bro. Dept. Store.

Sept.—G. C. Murphy & Co. (F St. store).

Also listed by the Committee are 27 other eating places

as well as many hotel dining rooms (1952).

Tye s

a ls ing cee <

—_ - a 7 é ~ oe: - .

eed ir Se -

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

Recreation Board's annual report reveals increase in at-

tendance at playgrounds, including integrated areas.

Recreation Dept. head reports integrated units operated

much more fully than those on segregated basis (1951).

Attendance at inter-racial pools increased in 1951 by

24% over 1950; no disturbances of any kind since 1949

(1951). D.C. Recreation Board continues policy of grad-

uai abandonment of segregation. Four more playgrounds

declared ‘‘open’’ after widespread community discussion

and much opposition. No ‘‘incidents’’ reported following

change of designation of the playgrounds (1952).

9. Summer theatre for mixed audience opens at Meridian

Hill Park; hailed as complete success (1949).

10. U. S. O. canteen in District's Lafayette Square opens as

integrated center (1951).

11. Negro Wave is crowned carnival queen of U.S. O.’'s inte-

grated Lafayette Square canteen, winning over eight

white contestants (1952).

12. Eleven Howard University and two Meharry interns

(Negro) join staff of District's Gallinger Hospital, con-

tinuing a process commenced in May 1949 with ‘*no in-

cidents’’ (1951).

4 13. Inaugural Committee chairman announces policy of non-

segregation at Inaugural ceremonies, including ball, dur-

ing January, 1953; asks for relaxation of segregation by

restaurants and hotels (1952).

Florida

14. Unsegregated audienve ef 7,000 sees **Jazz at the Phil-

harmonic’’ concert in Miami (1951).

15. Miami opens new library te all persons, regardless of

i eolor (1952).

16. Negro Doctor is appointed to staff of white hospital in

Miami Beach; first such appointment in the South (1952).

Kentucky

17. Louisville’s five public golf courses opened to Negroes by

Mayor following Federal Court action (1952).

} 18. Negroes admitted for first time to all departments of

main branch of Louisville Public Library (1948).

19. State Legislature passes hospital bill containing anti-dis-

crimination clause (1952).

Louisiana

20. New Orleans ends some segregation at Union Station

4 SER

(1951).

edi Dea OAR Rs

“an Ere ada RS Ts eate

onl

wh ass.

RENEE TON a AD Scola Cn ee

«ee!

RTOS CL bh Be!

Pie tana Re te A Ea a aaa

i .

Maryland

21.

22.

Baltimore Marine Hospital now completely without seg-

regation in any of its facilities (1951).

State Legislature repeals law segregating Negroes on

intrastate steamboats and railways (1951).

Baltimore Park Board ends segregation at 4 city golf

courses, 20 tennis courts, baseball fields, playgrounds, and

other facilities (1951).

Campers and counsellors are integrated at Senior High

Conference and Junior High Camps at Colona, Md., op-

erated by the Board of Christian Education of the Pres-

byteries of Baltimore, Washington and New York (1952).

Baltimore’s Friendship International Airport agrees to

serve all persons regardless of color in dining room and

cocktail lounge (1952).

Gov. McKeldin calls racial bias in theatres ‘‘ offensive and

illogieal’’ (1952).

Ford Theatre in Baltimore drops segregation policy in ef-

fect since 1871 (1952).

Christ Child iHome for Convalescent Children opens in

Rockville for children of all races (1952).

Missouri

29.

30.

31.

St. Louis municipal pools continue to operate on non-

segregated basis in 1951; attendance closer to average of

past years than in 1950, first year of non-segregation.

Kansas City Council ends segregation at public events in

Municipal Auditorium, Municipal Air Terminal, and Mu-

nicipal Starlight Theatre (1951).

St. Louis County recreation park concessionaires comply

with order to serve Negroes (1951).

Publishers attending St. Louis convention astonished

when, for first time all downtown hotels accept colored

guests, thus expanding breaches in segregation pattern

previously made in parks, swimming pools, municipal

opera, airport facilities, and colleges (1952).

U. S. District Court bans segregation in publicly-owned

swimming pools in Kansas City (1951).

New Jersey

34. Atlantie City Hospital accepts Negro doctors and nurses

on staff for the first time (1950).

New Mexico _

35. Albuquerque City Commission enacts strong anti-diserim-

36.

ination ordinance for all places of publie accommodation

(1952).

La Fonda Hotel in Santa Fe accepts Negro guest for first

time in its history (1952).

Sea Tene? oe ee ee eS

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

» ae

North Carolina

37. First unsegregated radio audience in history of Charlotte

meets for Town Meeting of Air program (1948).

Ohio

38. East Liverpool ends segregation in public swimming pools

without difficulty (1951).

39. Eleven of fifteen public swimming pools in Cincinnati are

operated on non-segregated basis (1951).

40. Airport restaurant agrees to ban discrimination against

| Negroes at Cincinnati airport (1951).

Oklahoma

41. Segregation in all forms for both interstate and intrastate

riders is eliminated from Rock Island Railway by com-

pany order (1951).

Pennsylvania

42. Pennsylvania Railroad ends discrimination in reserving

coach seats on travel destined for the South (1949).

Texas

43. Austin’s city council opens main branch of its public li-

‘ brary to all citizens (1952).

44. Unsegregated audiences attend concert of ‘‘Jazz at the

Philharmonie’’ troupe at El Paso and San Antonio

(1952).

45. Winnie Street YWCA opens all-white dining room to col-

ored persons (1951).

46. Dallas’ Baker Hotel serves Negro luncheon guest for first

time as one of winners of contest sponsored by Serra

Club (1952).

} Virginia

47. First non-segregated audience in history of Norfolk Mu-

seum of Arts and Sciences attends exhibition and lec-

ture (1949).

48. White and Negro seamen mingle unrestrictedly in Nor-

folk’s new National Maritime Union Building (1949).

| 49. Manager of Charles Department Store in Richmond af-

firms non-segregation policy in lunch room and continued

| lack of friction (1951).

50. Restaurant ordered by court to end racial segregation at

Washington National Airport (1948).

51. Gov. Battle and Gov. Scott of North Carolina speak to

unsegregated audience at the Mosque in Richmond (1951).

| 52. Historie Williamsburg Inn entertains first Negro guests

' (1952).

West Virginia

53.

Airport restaurant in Charleston halts discrimination

against Negroes after court order (1951).

Re Ph Ba le

Date

= "

Dele:

SSR ater OD FEA layin OL ate ong

;

B. In the Field of Education

South

54. Roper survey shows that 42 percent of persons in the

South think that ‘eventually children of all races and

colors will go to the same public schools together every-

where, including the South’” (1950).

55. 200 teachers from 116 Southern and border state colleges

and universities, meeting at Atlanta University, on a

non-segregated basis, call for removal of all laws requiring

segregation in education (1950).

56. About 100 college presidents, deans, and other educators

unanimously adopt recommendation to all institutions of

higher learning to eliminate all forms of racial segregation

and discrimination in admission (1949).

Southern Conference Educational Fund announces poll

of 15,000 Southern college teachers shows 70% of those

replying (3,375) favor admission of Negroes to profes-

sional and graduate schools (1949).

Alabama

58. Auburn Institute student newspaper calls for admission

of Negroes to white colleges (1950). See items 67, 79

below.

Talladega College (Birmingham) names first Negro presi-

dent (1952).

Arkansas

60. Negro law student at University of Arkansas is elected

president of dormitory, most of whose residents are white

(1952).

California

61. Woman teacher is first Negro appointed to Los Angeles

Board of Education (1952).

District of Columbia

62. Student newspaper at George Washington University

urges university officials to permit admission of Negro

students (1949).

63. Howard and Fisk Universities are first two Negro insti-

tutions admitted to Phi Beta Kappa (1952).

64. Superintendent of Schools announces abandonment of

rule that Negroes and whites cannot appear together dur-

ing school hours at any school building (1952).

Florida

65. The state-wide Florida Student Government Association

adopts resolution opposing segregation (1951).

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

ete

Georgia

66. Georgia University Regents reject $10,000 gift from J. W.

Pew to distribute book favoring segregation and white

supremacy (1951).

67. Three Negroes win high awards at Atlanta University's

annual art exhibition (1951).

68. Negro elected to Augusta's Board of Education. first time

since Reconstruction days any Negro has held public of-

fice in Richmond County (1952).

67. Emory University student publication calls for admission

of Negroes to white graduate schools and colleges (1950).

70. Students at Candler School of Theology in Atlanta vote,

234 to 13, in favor of admitting Negroes (1950).

71. Students and faculty at Piedmont College attack the in-

stitution’s acceptance of gift from anti-Negro propa-

gandist (1951).

Indiana

72. All opposition to Negroes has broken down in clubs. dor-

mitory life and classes at Notre Dame and St. Mary's

College for Women (1949).

Kentucky

73. Catholie Committee of the South recommends all institn-

tions of higher learning admit Negroes without diserimi-

nation (1949).

Louisiana

74. Non-segregated andience of elementary and high school

teachers meets in New Orleans school building for first

time to discuss joint educational problems (1952).

Maryland

75. Baltimore witnesses first inter-racial summer vacation

school for children, sponsored by Baltimore’s Catholic

Inter-racial Couneil (1952).

76. Governor MeKeldin appoints Negroes to state and county

boards of education (1951).

77. Co-ordinating Council of School P. T. A.’s of Raltimore,

having small number of Negroes, chooses Negro man for

vice-president over white woman opponent (1952).

Mississippi

78. Jefferson Military College (Natchez) refuses 50 million

dollar endowment from Armstrong Texas Edueation As-

sociation conditioned on school limiting enrollment. te

“‘white Christians’’ and proselytizing for ‘‘white su-

premacy’’ (1949).

79. Student publication of Wniversity of Mississippi ealls for

“admission of Negroes to white graduate schools.”” eon-

eluding that ‘‘the pigment of a man’s skin should not

make any difference.’’ Student senate refuses to order

editor’s discharge. Millsaps College publication echoes

same view (1950).

Sede

RN eT ne ee sie wiitid. ease ARB enti

Se ee ee ee ee ae ee

We WRT DS Teeth

Missouri

380.

Students at Missouri University vote, 4,156 to 1,847, in

favor of admitting Negroes. Curators of the university

recommended legislation to admit Negroes to facilities not

found at Lincoln University (1949).

New Jersey

81. First Negro is appointed to Jersey City Board of Edu-

eation (1950).

North Carolina

82. Negro doctor is first of his race to become member of

83.

84.

85.

North Carolina Board of Education (1949).

University of North Carolina's ‘‘tacit understanding’’ to

enforce segregation at all public meetings is denounced

by the president of the student body and other campus

leaders and in lead editorial of student newspaper (1950).

Order of University of North Carolina officials banning

newly-admitted Negro students from cheering section at

football games reversed after sharp criticism of, and pro-

test against, order by 14 student organizations (1951).

First Negro is appointed to Durham’s Board of Eduea-

tion (1951).

Oklahoma

86. One thousand white students at Oklahoma State Univer-

sity burn copy of Fourteenth Amendment and mail ashes

to President Truman to protest school’s segregation policy

(1948).

South Carolina

87. Student at College of Charleston polls 152 fellow-students,

126 of whom stated it would make no difference to them

if Negroes were admitted to their classes and 91 said Ne-

groes had a ‘‘moral and ethical’’ right to attend (1951).

Tennessee

88. Eight of nine faculty members resign in protest over de-

89.

91.

cision of trustees of University of the South (Sewanee)

not to admit Negroes to the theological school (1952).

Members of the faculty of the third annual Cumberland

Forest Musie Festival cancel teaching and concert as

protest against refusal of Sewanee to admit Negroes

(1952).

First Negro educator named as supervisor of instruction

for Nashville elementary and secondary schools (1952).

Dr. H. D. West is first Negro to head Meharry Medical

College (1952).

be. ee ee ee - 7

a aa eal tai a ci a SE TI APE Ln gh

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

Texas ;

92. University of Texas school newspaper commends Supreme

‘ Court’s Sweatt decision and declares: ** All over the South

the new change is being accepted with good grace. No-

where has there been a suggestion that race relations have

been injured, rather to the contrary’’ (1950).

Virginia

93. Ralph Bunche addresses mixed audience, largest in his-

tory of University of Virginia, despite segregation law

’ (1951).

C. In Voluntary Associations

1. DOCTORS

Alabama

94. 500 Negro and white doctors attend annual meeting at

John A. Andrew Clinical Society (1951).

District of Columbia

95. D. C. Optometric Association, by unanimous vote, admits

first Negro (1952).

96. D. C. Medical Society admits five Negro physicians for

first time after overwhelming approval by membership

(1952).

, Florida

97. Florida Medical Association admits Negroes for the first

4 time (1950).

Georgia

98. Georgia Medical Association admits Negroes to scientific

sessions (1952).

99. Fulton County Medical Association in Atlanta, by vote

of 176 to 33, removes bar to membership of qualified

’ Negro physicians (1952).

Kentucky

100. Kentueky Medical Association abandons race as a quali-

fication to membership (1951).

Missouri

? 101. Missouri Medical Association votes, 60 to 16. to change

’ constitution and admit Negro doctors (1949).

102. St. Louis Dental Society votes almost 2 to 1 to unite Ne-

groes to membership (1951).

Oklahoma

103. Oklahoma Medical Association votes to invite Negro phy-

> sicians to attend scientific sessions (1950).

a Foe

TS eae =

ORO i A, oa

Shatiche cast

Bitten eciocs: TE iat abate:

Tennessee

104. Newly-elected president of Tennessee State Medical As-

sociation calls for removal of race bar.

Virginia

105. Delegates from Northern Virginia branch of Medical So-

ciety of Virginia to vote to change society’s color bar

(1951).

2. NURSES

106. National Association of Colored Graduate Nurses dis-

bands, having achieved its purpose of integrating Negro

nurses into nursing profession.

107. American Nurses Association approves full Negro role

in all activities (1950).

Alabama

108. Alabama Nurses Association votes to admit Negroes to

membership (1949).

Arkansas

109. Arkansas State Nurses Association votes unanimously to

admit Negroes to full membership (1949).

District of Columbia

110. D. C. Graduate Nurses Association removes bar to Negro

membership; 25 admitted by end of first year.

North Carolina

111. North Carolina Association of Registered Nurses votes

unanimously to dissolve. following by nine months the

vote of North Carolina State Nurses Association to give

full membership to Negro nurses.

Ohio

112. Admit first Negro nurse to Ohio State Nurses Associa-

tion (1952).

3. LAWYERS

113. Twenty-five State Bar Associations are fully integrated

(1950).

Alabama

114. Alabama Bar Association, which admitted first Negro

years ago, now has 7 Negro members (1950).

District of Columbia

115. Inter-racial Lawyers Committee starts Community Chest

drive among lawyers.

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

Ohio

116. Cincinnati admits two Negro lawyers to Bar Association

' for the first time (1951).

Texas

117. Galveston County Bar Association amends constitution

to remove barrier to Negro sembership (1951).

1. EDUCATORS AND SCIENTISTS

Arkansas

1 118. Arkansas Education Association admits Negroes (1950).

District of Columbia

119. Prof. E. Franklin Frazier, elected President of American

Sociological Society, is first Negro to be President of an

American professional society not composed only of Ne-

j groes (1948).

120. Washington Metropolitan Chapter of American Institute

of Architects votes unanimously to admit members with-

out regard io color (1946).

Georgia

121. Georgia Teachers and Education Association becomes first

Negro state group to affiliate with National Education As-

sociation after N. E. A. announces eligibility of Negro

delegations (1951).

Louisiana

122. Segregation abandoned at New Orleans convention of Na-

tional Education Association.

Maryland

123. Maryland State Teachers Association votes 5 to 1 to elim-

inate ‘‘white only’’ membership requirement and invites

all teachers to participate in activities (1951).

North Carolina

124. North Carolina Science Academy votes with only one dis-

senter to admit Negroes to full membership (1951).

Ohio

125. Negro admitted to National Engineering Society (Tau

Beta Pi) 22 years after election when admission barriers

? are removed.

Texas

126. Texas Social Welfare Association, in which Negroes are

fully integrated, adopts resolv’..1: to meet only where Ne-

groes will not be ‘‘Jim-Crowed’’ (Circa, 1947).

—

Washington

127. Convention of American Association of University Women

at Seattle votes, 2,168 to 68, to admit Negroes to mem- '

bership (1949).

South

128. State Library Associations in Oklahoma, Virginia, Ar-

kansas, Texas, and Kentucky are open to full Negro par-

ticipation, and have been for many years (1950).

5. SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

129. Report on inter-racial advance shows all branches of

YMCA are open to colored and white members alike in

Detroit, New York, Cleveland, Chicago, Philadelphia, San

Franciseo, Emporia, Kansas; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Kan-

sas City, Missouri (cafeteria only); Providence, Rhode

Island; Paterson, New Jersey, Joliet, [llinois; Altoona, ’

Pennsylvania; Canton, Ohio, and Colorado Springs, Colo- '

rado (1951).

District of Columbia

130. National Symphony Orchestra Association removes racial

barriers to membership (1952).

Illinois

131. Illinois State American Legion convention unanimously

approves resolution to admit Negro, Filipino, and Jap-

anese veterans to all divisions (1952). ,

Kentucky

132. First Negro appointed director of Louisville Community

Chest.

North Carolina

133. Colored Girl Scout represents entire State at National

encampment (1949). ’

Tennessee

134. American Red Cross removes racial designations in blood

collecting program. Memphis Chapter balks. Citizens of

Memphis in turn rebel at refusal to accept the National

ruling (1952). >

Virginia : ’

135. Thirty young white persons holding N.C.C.J. seminar in

Norfolk decide to invite colored representatives to meet-

ing next year (1952).

New York

136. International Geneva Association, a society of chefs, head- ;

waiters, and hotel and restaurant managers, revokes 75-

year-old ban on Negro membership (1952).

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

ne seca eeeenenaceaenememe

D. In Religious Bodies

South

137. Southern branch of Presbyterian Church in the United

States after 91 years votes to dissolve its one Negro synod

and to absorb it into the general organization (1951).

General

138. National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S. A. re-

nounces all patterns of segregation based on color (1952).

California

139. Methodists at quadrennial general conference vote to per-

mit changes in segregation practices by member churches

(1952).

140. Two San Francisco Presbyterian congregations, one en-

tirely Negro, the other entirely white, merge as a single

ehurch under a Negro pastor (1951).

: District of Columbia

141. Secretary for Social Action of Board of Social Missions

of United Lutheran Church urges end of color bar to mem-

bership.

142. First Washington Negro pastor appointed to head mixed

parish in Northwest section.

Louisiana

‘ 143. Archbishop Rummel issues pastoral letter in New Orleans

calling on all Catholics to break down segregation in

‘‘education, industry, and opportunity’’ as well as in

‘*social and civie relationships’’ and ‘‘in the seating ac-

commodations, at the confessional, at the communion rail,

and in the general reception of sacraments and sacra-

mentals of the Church’’ (1951).

’ Missourt

’ 144. Lutheran Church, Western District of Missouri Synod, to

admit Negro congregations for first time (1949).

145. Report discloses 30 Catholic parishes in St. Louis have

integrated congregations (1951).

New York

146. St. Paul Evangelical Lutheran Church in Brooklyn be-

comes first integrated Lutheran church in America

(1951).

147. First Negro is elected chairman of Executive Committee

of Congregational Christian Churches (1950).

North Carolina

148. Presbyterians end segregation at church resort at Mon-

, treat, North Carolina (1951).

POOR NAS LIE pea ROP ER RE OE ARON. segs cna

Ohio

149. World Baptist Congress in resolution adopted at conven-

tion calls on all associated organizations to abandon seg-

regation and discrimination (1950).

South Carolina

150. Negro Baptist churches in Columbia agree te drop color

bar and admit whites (1951).

Virginia

151. Norfolk Ministers’ Association abolishes segregation at

United Preaching Mission.

152. White Norfolk pastor challenges his congregation to

admit Negroes to membership.

153. Augusta County Ministerial Associatien in Staunton, Va.,

and Ministerial Association of Clifton Forge, Va., both

inter-racial, are now headed by Negro presidents. The

pattern had long ago been developed by the Ministers’

Inter-racial Group of Lynchburg, Va. (1952).

E. In Employment

South

154. Southern Regional Council reports 16 major Southern

cities employ about 6,500 Negro municipal workers in

more than 110 different kinds of jobs, including profes-

sional and managerial. Report asserts Negro city work-

ers accepted by the entire community ‘‘as a matter-of-

course,’’ and that only reason hiring of Negroes is not

stepped up seems to be ‘‘fear of criticism for going too

fast.’’ Sixteen cities surveyed were: Atlanta, Birming-

ham, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Jacksonville, Knox-

ville, Little Rock, Louisville, Miami, Nashville, New Or-

leans, Norfolk, Oklahoma City, Richmond, and San An-

tonio (1951).

District of Columbia

155. Peoples Drug Stores, largest chain pharmacy in District,

hires three Negro pharmacists.

Florida

156. H. H. Arrington is first Negro member of the Florida

bar.

Illinois

157. Chicago Association of Commerce reports development of

wide utilization of Negroes among its members, some of

whom had formerly resisted even legal action to compel

employment (1952).

FE RIAN ETI ag oe ih | ase ee eR He ee

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

Maryland

158. Baltimore taxi company hires 14 Negro drivers as experi-

ment at beginning of 1951; ends up year with 161 drivers,

and no ‘‘incidents.”’

159. Baltimore Transit Company employs 5 Negro bus drivers,

first in company’s history.

Missourt

160. St. Louis Post-Dispatch announces hiring of Negro re-

porter, first in 40 years (1949).

New York

161. National Urban League reports 550 ‘‘first’’ jobs were

found for colored workers in 1951 and that significant

improvements in racial situations were found in eleven

cities, including Memphis, Tennessee, Phoenix, Arizona,

and Baltimore, Maryland.

North Carolina

162. The Rocky Mount Sanitarium admits two Negro doctors

to its staff with full privileges. They are the first to be

thus accepted in a Southern hospital (1949).

Pennsylvania

163. Negroes promoted for first time to skilled jobs at Philco

Philadelphia plant, thus ending a long-established depart-

mental segregation (1951).

Tennessee

164. Gov. Browning breaks precedent and appoints two Negro

women to work in state employment service office (1952).

Virginia

165. First Negro fireman in history is employed by city of

Richmond.

s F. In Entertainment and Athletics

Arizona

166. Long Island University assured by University of Arizona

of non-discrimination against Negro basketball players

(1951).

> 167. University of Arizona will no longer play with teams

. which bar Negroes on opponents’ teams. Its teams are

open to all, along with the following Border Conference

teams: Texas Western (El Paso), West Texas (Canyon,

Texas), Hardin-Simmons (Abilene), Arizona State (Tem-

ple), Arizona State (Flagstaff), New Mexico A. & M. (Las

Cruces) (1951).

: *

—

California

168. Preeedent set when Professional Golfers’ Association

changes rules and permits Negroes to compete in tourna-

ment at San Diego (1952).

District of Columbia

169. Washington Caps introduce mixed team in National Bas-

ketball Association without incident.

Washington Lions purchase first Negro hockey player

from Canadian team.

D. C. Golden Gloves tournament drops bar to Negro en-

trants.

170. Negro teams participate for first time in softball league

sponsored by District Recreation Board (1952).

171. Dorothy Maynor is first Negro to perform commercially

in D. A. R.’s Constitution Hall (1952).

172. Hamilton Bank sponsors high school musical talent con-

test open to all Washington pupils. Finals held at Con-

stitution Hall (1951).

173. Colored students accepted as matter of course on Ameri-

can and Catholic University teams (1951).

Florida

174. Miami holds mized boxing matches with no difficulties,

though the sports editor of Miami Daily News had warned

‘It’s a backward step, loaded with dynamite’’ (1952).

175. Tampa Smokers baseball team breaks precedent in Florida

league with first Negro player (1952).

176. (1951 colored jockey in Florida rides at Hialeah Park

1952).

177. University of Miami breaks tradition; plays football

against University of Pittsburgh and University of Iowa,

both having Negroes on team (1952).

178. Marian Anderson sings before unsegregated audience in

Miami (1952).

Georgia

179. Despite warning by Pr. Green, K. K. K. head, that 10,000

will boycott Atlanta baseball games if Negroes play, ex-

hibition game is held between Brooklyn Dodgers and At-

lanta baseball club (1949).

180. Southern Association Baseball League officials state their

view that colored players are acceptable to them and to

the public; only remaining obstacle is Birmingham, Ala-

bama, ordinance barring mixed play (1952).

Louisiana

181. State Legislature defeats bill designed to prevent white

and Negro athletes from playing opposite each other

(1952).

Cpa —

BLEED THROUGH

BLURRED COPY

EE Pn Sil STIS

New Jersey

182. Precedent set when swank Maplewood Country Club ac-

cepts two colored entrants to play in Eastern Veterans

Championship tennis matches (1952).

New York

183. First Negro woman is accepted as entrant in National

Amateur Tennis Championship (1950).

184. Negro team breaks precedent when allowed to compete in

American Bridge Association national tournament (1951).

185. Amateur Fencers League of America votes to accept all

members, regardless of color (1949).

186. Metropolitan Opera breaks precedent by having Negro

ballet — Janet Collins and Negro singers in chorus

(1951).

North Carolina

187. First Negro plays football in North Carolina against a

Southern Conference team (1950).

Oklahoma

188. Negroes play for first time on Oklahoma College foot-

ball field in game against University of Tulsa (1948).

Tennessee

189. Negro singer Mary Robbs is first Negro ever to appear as

soloist with Chattanooga Orchestra; mixed audience

mingles freely (1951).

Texas

190. Dallas baseball team to use Negro players, first in Texas

League. Ty Cobb, native Georgian, voices strong ap-

proval (1952).

Virginia

191. Ralph Thomas, Negro baritone, sings with all-white group

in play at Salem, Va. (1952).

hs At tre e 4e et eee.

rps ene

Sources for Table IV

» P-

1950),

1. W.A.A., arty 56. 1949 B.S., p. 34.

2. N.Y.T., 1-14-51, 73:4. 57. 1949 B.S., p. 34

3. W.A.A., 11 27 1, 58. 1950 B.S., p. 51

4. N.Y.T., 3-10-52. 59. W.A.A., 8-12-52.

5. W.E.S., 11-13-51. 60, W.E.S., 10-10-52.

6. Report of Committee Secretary, 61, W.A.A., 8-12-52.

11-52. 62. 1949 B.S., a 34.

7. W.A.A., 9-22-51; W.A.A., 63. N.Y.T., 9-6 , 19:8.

7-3-51, 64. W.P., 11-2 26-53.

8. W.ES., 9-6-51 65. 1951 BS, p- 67

9. N.Y.T., 6-18-49, II, 1:4; 66, N.Y.T., 9-13-51

N.Y.T., 9-11-49, II, 3:8 67. N.Y.T., 4-1-51, 34:1

10. W.A.A., 12-1-51. 68. W.E.S., 1-5-52.

11. W.A.A., 7-1-52. 69. 1950 B.S., p. 51.

12. W.A.A., 7-5-51 70. 1951 B.S., p. 68.

13. W.P., 11-52. 71. 1951 BS., p. 68.

14. 1951 B.S., p. 96. 72. N.Y.T., 2-7-49, 17:1

15. N.Y.T., 5-25-52, VII, 9, 30. 73. 1949 B.S., p. 34

16. N.Y.T., 3-30-52, 60: * 74. W.A.A., 2-19-52.

3. Bees 1-19-52, 19:1 75. Colored Harvest. 52

18. 1948 B.S., p. 17. 76. 1951 B.S., p. 21.

19. W.A.A., 2-26-52. 77. W.A.A., 3-4-52.

20. W.A.A., 10-30-51. 78. 1949 BS., p. 36.

21. 1951 BS., p. 91. 79. 1950 B.S., p. 51.

22. 1951 BS., p. 85. 80. 1949 B.S., p. 31.

23. 1951 B.S., p. 89. 81. N.Y.T., 8-25-50.

24. W.A.A., 7-5-52. 82. N.Y.T., 4-23-49, 9:8

25. W.A.A., 4-5-52. 83. 1950 B.S., p. 51.

26. W.ES., 1-4-52. 84. 1951 B.S., p. 68.

27. N.Y.T., 2-5-52, 23:8. 85. 1951 BS., p. 21.

28, W.P., 5-11-52 86. 1948 B.S., p. 23.

29. 1951 B.S., p. 90. 87. 1951 B.S., p. 68.

30. 1951 B.S., p. 88. 88. W.E.S., 11-6-52.

31. 1951 B.S., p. 89. 89. N.Y.T., 6-18-52, 31:4

32. W.A.A., 6- a4. 52. 90. W.A.A., 9-52.

33. N.Y.T., 7-18-51. 91. N.Y.T., 6-7-52, 15:3

34. N.Y.T., 5-25-50. 92, 1950 B.S., p. 51.

35. W.A.A,, 2-26-52. 93. W.P., 3-2- ‘51.

36. Crisis. 94. 1951 B.S., p. 108.

37. N.Y.T., 4-24-48, 7:3. 95. W.P., 10-16-52.

38. 1951 B.S., p. 89. 96. W.P., 9-24-52.

39. 1951 B.S., p. 89. 97. 5 New South (July, 1950)

40. 1951 B.S., p. 92. p. 2.

41. W.A.A., 4-10-51. 98. N.Y.T., 5-15-52, 31:1.

42. N.Y.T., 10-20-49, 31:5. 99. W.A.A., 8-12-52.

43. W.A.A., 1-52. 100. W.A.A., 11-20-51

44. 1951 B.S., p. 96. 101. N.Y.T., 3-29-49, 17:2

45. W.A.A., 10-30-51. 102. 1951 B.S., p. 108.

46. Colored Harvest, 9-52, p. 15. 103. 5 New South (July

47. N.Y.T., 5-49, 56:5. p. §

48. N.Y.T., 5-15-49, 56:5. 104,

49. Crisis, 8-9-51, p. 473. 105. = E.S., 12-26-51.

59. 1948 B.S., p. 17. 196. N.Y.T., 1-27-51.

51. W.A.A., 12-8-51. 107. N.Y.T., 5-9-50.

52. W.A.A., 9-52. 108 5 New South (July,

53. 1951 B.S., p. 92 4.

54. Life, 10-16-50. 109 NY. T., 12-6-49, 33:7.

55. 1950 B.S., p. 51. 110. 1951 BS. +» p. 105.

2 UP a ES IBAEE RI PGR Te

BLEED THROUGH

Seg eee

TANS PAL NPS oN

BLURRED COPY

950),

aAARZaAS

7 SOS.

. =

> wPw:

° 8

11-20-51.

” ”5-5-51, 19:7.

., 11-17-49, 2:8.

ow South (July,

ee 43

6-24-49, 1:6.

South (July,

. ¢

atladade

SELLER

“

—

Oo;

&§

ee)

m 1951 BS., p- 110.

. Official Statement and Resolu-

General

Cc ¢c. &

tion adopted by

Board of N. C.

1950),

U. 8. A. a 11, 1952.

. a

. 19

nay

MS igh is

med}

A ug. Sept.,

1950), p.

150. W.P., 11-27-51

151. W.A.A., 2-19-52.

153. W.A.A., 6-10-52.

154. 1951 BS., p. 52.

155. W.A.A., §-30-51.

156. N.Y.T., 4-29-49, 14:6.

157. W.A.A., 2-19-52.

158. N.Y.T., 5-25-52, VI, 9, 26.

159. W.A.A., 5-24-52.

160, 1949 BS., p. 27.

161.

162. 1949 B.S., p. 27.

163. W.A.A., 6-3-51.

164. W.A.A., 7-29-52.

165. 1950 B.S., p. 39.

166. N.Y.T., 1-20-5%:, 11:2

167. W.A.A.

168. W.A.A., 1-19-52.

169.

170. W.A.A., 8-9-52.

171. N.Y.T., 2-18-52, 15:4

172. W.P., 5-18-51.

173. W.A.A., 11-10-51.

174. People Today, 2-4-52; E.v..

2-§-52, 32:1.

175. W.A.A., 4-8-52.

176. N.Y.T., 11-28-51; W.A.A.,

2-26-52.

177. N.Y.T., 5-25-52, VII, 9, 30.

178. WES. 1-25-52.

179. N.Y.T., 4-9-49, 13:5

180, W.ALA., 2-12-52

181. W.A.A., 6-25-52

182, W.A.A., 8-9-52.

183. N.Y.T., 8-16-50.

184. W.A.A., 3-1-51.

185. N.Y.T., 12-9-49, 40:3; 12-1-49,

47:4.

186. 1951 B.S., p. 54; Pittsburgh

Courier, 12-1-51.

187. N.¥.T., 10-1-50.

188. N.Y.T., 10-24-48, V, 6:7.

189, N.Y.T., 3-29-51, 23:7.

. W.ES., 1-29-52.

. W.A.A., 8-5-52.

+ OR

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.