Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 8
March 7, 1957
NUMBER 43, PAGE 8-9a

Segregation Reviewed By Leading Magazine

James R. Wilburn, Appleton, Wisconsin

In November of 1956, there were two articles dealing with segregation which were rated among the top ten articles of the month from national magazines and periodicals. Both of these appeared in that month's issue of the Atlantic Monthly. Because some may not have had the opportunity to read them, we desire to give here a brief synopsis of the arguments of each. It would be far better still, if you are interested, to secure the magazine and read the articles for yourself. We will make no efforts to justify or destroy the findings of either author, in this article.

"Mixed Schools And Mixed Blood"

The first article, "Mixed Schools and Mixed Blood," by Herbert Ravenel Sass, upholds segregation. Mr. Sass is an author, an independent, and is a native of Charleston, South Carolina. An Episcopalian, he gives his answer to the question, "Would integration lead to mixed blood?"

He upholds segregation because, he says, it will preserve our great American heritage — purity of the races — which has, according to him, made our nation great and kept other races (mixed) from becoming great. He also indicates that we should not integrate schools since the negro in America enjoys a better position than any others of his color on earth. We should rather use this relatively elevated condition to fight communism.

He makes a distinction between segregation and separation, saying that "segregation" implies isolation, as the North has done to the American Indian. He says further that there is a difference between prejudice and preference, and that the South exercises the latter, rather than the former. He says that since segregation has been practiced in the past, it should be practiced in the future, since a change would be against past American habit, thus "un-American." He further points out that simply because the white Southerner prefers his own race above another, does not imply that he hates the negro as some in the North who are not acquainted with the true situation sometimes imply.

Mr. Sass maintains that the mixing of the races would be harmful biologically, and that any continued effort to integrate schools in the South would, while not bringing secession, split our nation as disastrously as it was split in the sixties, with possibly a more terrible aftermath.

He admits that race preference is not present in the young, but must be given time to develop as they grow older. Thus, to him, there is a special need to keep elementary schools segregated. If children grow up going to school together, he points out that racial preference will not develop in most of them. This would be especially bad, since, as he feels, negro leaders WANT racial intermarriage and eventual amalgamation.

While he says that one reason for resisting integration is a desire to restore the Constitution and our federal form of government after its power was usurped by the Supreme Court, he admits that the primary reason for the failure to abide by the Court's decision is a fear of racial amalgamation. He justifies the South's resistance by comparing it to the North making a mockery of the Prohibition Amendment and ignoring the federalfugitive slave act, both of which were the law of the land at the time. Mr. Sass sees the South as the champion of a great cause; that of racial purity. He says that without pride in race, no people is great nor worth its salt.

"Where Equality Leads"

"Where Equality Leads" was written by Oscar Handlin to show the other side of the situation now existing. Mr. Handlin is a professor of History at Harvard, and won the Pulitzer Prize for History for 1952. His book just coming from the press, "Race and Nationality in American Life," deals with the complete scope of this question.

He takes the stand that the men frightened by the threat of racial amalgamation mistake the meaning of the Supreme Court's decision of 1954, misjudge the probable consequences of desegregation, and make statements concerning the results which actually run counter to the testimony of history and available evidence in areas where desegregation is already a reality.

After pointing out the progress made among negroes for two decades after the Civil War, he points out that it was not until the 1880's that segregation emerged as a definite pattern. In 1896, in the case of Plessy versus Ferguson, the Supreme Court accepted the South's desire to try to provide "equal but separate" facilities for the negro. After almost 60 years, the Supreme Court saw that the system of equal but separate facilities, had, in fact, not brought equality at all. This he points out, is a question of fact and not of law, thus no serious observer of the conditions in the South denies that, on the whole, the Southern negro has suffered inferior rather than equal educational facilities. The writer points out that in reviewing their own decision for "separate" but "equal" status, the Court found that separation did not bring the equality guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, thus the doctrine and practice was unconstitutional. He says that the Court simply revoked its previous decision, because 60 years' experience showed its first decision was not best. No positive injunctions upon the states involved were made. No blanket solution was given. Each community will have to work out a way to best overcome the inferior schooling suffered by some.

Mr. Handlin then states that the situation is merely one of free choice, and that where negroes are receiving separate AND EQUAL opportunities, they have chosen to remain as they are. Parents, no matter what their color, want their children to have the best available to equip them to meet the challenge of life.

This writer gives concrete examples, such as the instance of Evansville, Indiana, where, when integration was made legal by the state, there was not the rush of negro students to white schools which was anticipated. Ninety percent remained as they were. However, in other cases, such as in Clinton, Tennessee, Mr. Handlin maintains that parents evidently did not feel that local separate facilities were equal, as the constitution demanded they be. He also cites examples of the Universities of Texas and North Carolina, where few negroes chose to take advantage of integration, thus showing their own colleges to be excellent, The important thing, the author feels, is that they have the right to choose. This, he says, destroys consciousness of inferiority.

He goes ahead to give a number of examples to illustrate his contention that an enforced desegregation would not be followed by mass amalgamation of the races. He maintains, instead, that it might even retard such a trend. There is, he says, no such thing as a pure strain of race in America. Three million Americans are mulattoes, and many, many more have ancestries of black and white mixtures in varying degrees. Some estimates say that as many as 30,000 negroes per year cross the color line. Seventy to ninety percent of American negroes have white blood. He further states that even where intermarrying is at present legal, it has made no difference in blood strains, so small has been the number of marriages. (Three percent to five percent of those where negroes are involved — and the definition of a negro here includes any where there is any known negro ancestor.) Mr. Handlin gives several concrete examples of communities in various localities in the U. S. where whites and blacks have been integrated for over 100 years, and yet the two have maintained their identity and separateness. In Boston, as in other places where statistics are available, the percentage of intermarriage has fallen since 1900 as the negro's position has improved.

Contrary to Mr. Sass' contention that negro leaders want intermarriage, Mr. Handlin indicates that the upper social groups of negroes have always frowned on such. He also shows that intermarriages have taken place mainly among lower social classes and where family ties are weak (usually a colored man marrying a white woman whose social status is below his own, thus improving herself in the marriage). A large percentage of these marriages take place among divorced or widowed people.

From these facts, the author contends that when the scope of equality between Negro and White is widened, the stability of negro family life will increase, self-respect will be heightened, and thus the needs and incentives toward intermarriage will diminish. He also further denies that the negroes desire to intermarry by pointing out their growing pride in their color as they rise in equality and status. They have their own magazines and models, and hair-straightener is on the way out.

Mr. Handlin is not dogmatic, but says that there are many ways that the problem can be worked out according to local conditions. He believes that a system which does not segregate any child against his will but offers equal treatment; will eventually bring the kind of a world that all Americans should desire.

Conclusion The reader will have to draw his own conclusions. More space has been taken to review Mr. Handlin's article because of its wider scope. Again, the reader is urged to secure if possible, these two articles and read them for himself.