34

pupils. To have housed the potential Negro enrollment of school age but not in school would have cost many millions more.

Schools and colleges combined.-Annual revenues of more than $85,000,000 over and above what are now available would be needed to finance Negro education on approximately the same basis as education for white pupils in the Southern States. A preliminary expenditure of more than a quarter of a billion dollars for These figures assume the present basis of capital outlay would be needed also. enrollment in relation to the Negro population; much greater amounts would be needed if Negro youth entered high school and college in the same proportion as in the white population.

It is in the remainNegro teachers in Delaware, the District of Columbia, and West Virginia are protected by statute against salary differential based on race. ing 15 Southern States where the real financial problem would arise if an effort were made to raise Negro school costs to the same level as in schools for white pupils. When their limited economic resources are recognized, these States are at least on a par with the rest of the country in the generosity of their support of public education. Eleven of the 15 States are above the national average in the proportion of total State and local tax revenues devoted to public elementary And yet, when the 48 States are ranked in order as to and secondary schools. school costs per purpil enrolled, the 11 places at the bottom of the list are taken by 11 of these 15 States. These average cost include both white and Negro pupils. If by some leveling process the present school funds could be equally distributed between white and Negro schools, the per capita cost for all pupils would remain as it is now-far below the average for the Nation. To raise the level for Negro schools to that for white schools, without lowering support for white schools, would require an increase in school funds of more than 15 percent In 2 States a 50-percent increase in school funds would be in 9 of the 15 States. needed.

3. Efforts by States and Localities to Meet These Problems

In January 1941 the Research Division collected information from State departments of education and large city school systems in the South, on steps being taken toward adjustment of salaries of Negro teachers following the recent judicial decisions. Among the replies from places where the problem had come up for consideration, the following are illustrative:

Alabama.-A. H. Collins, State superintendent: "The State Board of Education of Alabama on December 10, 1940, considered this matter at length and instructed the State superintendent of education and his staff to make a study of this whole problem in order that the State board of education might have available adequate information upon which to take proper action.

"On January 27, 1941, I called the Alabama Association of School Administrators together for the purpose of discussing the problems arising from the deciThe association of administrators sion of the United States Supreme Court. appointed a committee for the purpose of advising with the staff of the State department of education in preparing recommendations for possible policy changes. "The amount of funds available for the support of public education in Alabama is so limited that it does not appear at this time to be possible for us to arrive at I believe that the Southern States cannot a satisfactory solution of this matter. hope to equalize educational opportunities between the two races until substantial amounts of Federal aid are available to supplement present State and local funds." North Carolina-Clyde A. Erwin, State superintendent: "In this State we have been working several years toward the gradual equalization of white and Negor salaries. We have an agreement now with the Negro leaders of this State to the effect that we will make every attempt possible to complete this equalization within the next 4 or 5 years."

Louisville, Ky.-Zenos E. Scott, superintendent: "On April 20, 1939, the board of education of Louisville adopted a resolution in which the inequality between salaries of white and colored teachers was recognized, as was the fact that this inequality should be eliminated. A plan was adopted under which the differential was to be eliminated over a period of 5 years, one-fifth of the

Estimates of the research division of the National Education Association, based on figures in (1) U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of Education. Biennial Survey of Education in the United States: 1934-36. Bulletin, 1937, No. 2, Washington, D. C., Government Printing Office, 1938. Vol. IV. ch. 2, Statistics of Higher Education, 1935-36. Separately printed, 351 pp. (2) Blose, David T., and Caliver, Ambrose. Statistics of the Education of Negroes. 1933-34 and 1935-36. U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of Education, Bulletin, 1938, No. 13. Washington, D. C., Government Printing Office, 1939, 67 pp. National Education Association, Research Division. State Comparisons on School Support. Washington, D. C.: The Association, 1941. Pp. 14. (Memo.)

Ibid., p. 9.

differential to be paid each year. The 1940-41 contracts of the colored teachers made provision for this.

"On December 3, 1940, representatives of the colored teachers waited on our board of education and requested it to agree that in the 1941-43 budget request it would ask for sufficient funds to remove all of the existing differential between salaries of white and colored teachers.

"Under date of December 21, 1940, in a letter to the mayor and the board of aldermen, our board of education stated that as a policy full equalization would be made for the school year beginning September 1941.'

Norfolk, Va.-Agreement reached in the case of Melvin O. Alston v. School Board of the City of Norfolk;

"(a) That the defendants in the above-entitled case pay all court costs up to the termination of the action.

"(b) That the defendants remove all differentials in salaries because of race or color between white and Negro teachers and principals on the basis of not less than one-third each calendar year starting January 1941 provided, however, That if the city of Norfolk is financially unable to pay one-third this year that the teachers will accept the $30,000 on the differential for the calendar year 1941 and an additional sum of not less than one-half of the balance for the calendar year 1942; for example, assuming that the differential is $130,000, $30,000 will be applied during 1941 toward removing the differential and an additional sum of not less than $50,000 will be applied for the calendar year beginning January 1942. That starting January 1943 salaries will be completely equalized and thereafter no distinction in the fixing of salaries will be made on the basis of race or color. "(c) That starting January 1941 all increases and increments to teachers and principals over and above the increases mentioned in paragraph (b) be on equal basis without regard to race or color upon the condition that the differentials in increments between the white and Negro teachers in the year 1941; be paid to each Negro teacher and principal in a lump sum in January 1942; for example, each Negro teacher and principal shall receive an amount which when added to the regular increment received in 1941 will equal the maximum increment received by any white teacher on the same teaching level in 1941.

(d) That during the years 1941 and 1942 temporary salary schedules and working memoranda for each year be established and submitted to the plaintiffs which will clearly set forth the amounts of salaries to be paid all Negro teachers and principals, and that the Negro teachers and principals be furnished immediately copies of the permanent salary scale for teachers and principals of the city of Norfolk."

It is clear that educational leaders in the South are aware of this problem and are trying to find a way to meet the need. Many of these replies, however, reflect the feeling that, in spite of the best efforts of the Southern States, the problem cannot be met adequately without help. If the programs for white and for Negro education are equalized from State and local funds only, it will mean in some places a retrenchment rather than an advance for the white schools and it will mean that any new developments or enrichment of the total program will be out of the question for some time to come. For example, the maximum teaching salary provided in the North Carolina State schedule in 1940-41 was $1,024 for white teachers. In Georgia it was $560. Substantial upward revision of these salaries would be very difficult to achieve at the same time that Negro salaries were being equalized. The reply from one State department of education illustrates the feeling that Federal aid is the only practical solution possible:

"This decision has not affected the conditions in our State. We have not as yet made any changes and do not see how it will be possible to make any such changes until additional revenues from the Federal Government or from some other source can be secured.

"It seems to me that this court decision makes it absolutely mandatory that Congress immediately appropriate large sums for general educational purposes to be distributed on an equalization basis. The South cannot pay Negro teachers the same salaries as those received by white teachers without greatly crippling our educational system. * * * I should think that Congress would be willing to appropriate large sums of money to enable the South to bring about a more equitable plan of operation. Not only do we need additional money for Negro teachers' salaries but we need additional funds for our white teachers."

4. Responsibility of the Federal Government

The problem of financing Negro education is localized in the South, but its causes and its effects concern the Nation as a whole. A change in national policy policy in the 1860's first presented the problem of Negro education to the South

ern States; it is the Federal courts that now are maintaining the principle of equal educational opportunity. And in all the past 75 years, the migration of poorly educated Negroes from the South, and the economic handicaps suffered by the South, have been influencing the social and economic status of the Nation as a whole.

A statement of the Federal Government's responsibility in the education of the Negro, made in 1927, by Ellwood P. Cubberley, summarizes the issue as follows:

66* * * Up to the time of our Civil War slavery was a national institution, and the Negro was with few exceptions held under slavery, segregated in location, and regarded almost wholly as a chattel without personal rights. The Emancipation Proclamation, which announced his freedom, was an act of war by the Nation in an effort to win the struggle for the northern side and thus preserve the Union. After the close of the war the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution confirmed what the Emancipation Proclamation had attempted in freeing the Negro from the bondage of slavery. The fourteenth amendment admitted him to citizenship, and the fifteenth amendment made him a voter. "All these national acts made the Negro a political as well as an economic factor in our national life. Freedom of movement has since made him an important health and public-welfare factor as well. Considering him as a voter and a citizen, literacy and citizenship training have become important, and his peculiar mental make-up and character have made his vocational and industrial education almost a necessity.

"Education for the Negro is not a question of equality for the races, or one of sentiment for the advancement of a former subject race, but rather one of protection and progress for the State. The Negro is now a part of our national citizenship, and we cannot send him away or undo what has been done in making him a free man and a voter. Our problem is to prepare him for as intelligent use of his rights as can be done, and to make his presence among us as useful as possible.

"Although it was the Federal Government that freed the Negro and made him a citizen and a voter, the amendments to the Federal Constitution by which this was done were not concurred in by the States where the Negro largely lived. They were part of a coercive policy of the North against the States which had been in rebellion. These States had been impoverished and devasted as a result of the fortunes of war, and the close of the strife found them neither able nor willing to educate the Negro, nor have they since been able to handle properly the problem thus thrust upon them.

* *

* 10

When we summarize the situation as it exists today, we find the following significant points leading conclusively to the need for Federal aid:

1. National policy rather than State policy has created the necessity (a) for educating the Negro and (b) for equalizing the educational opportunities of whites and of Negroes.

2. An initial capital outlay program of not less than a quarter of a billion dollars, and an additional annual expenditure thereafter of more than $85,000,000 would be needed to raise the support of Negro schools to the same level as white schools in the South. The annual expenditure alone would represent an increase of nearly one-fifth in total public school revenues.

3. Although schools for white pupils in the South are being supported somewhat more liberally than schools for Negro children, the total expenditures are relatively very low. The total school cost per pupil enrolled in the Southern States averaged less than $50 in 1937-38; for the country as a whole including the South, the cost per pupil was $86.

4. The limited economic resources of the South and the relatively large numbers of children make the total problem of education especially difficult in that area. Income payments to individuals in Southern States are comparatively very low. National income per pupil enrolled for the country as a whole was $2,550 in 1938; it was $1,470 for the 15 Southern States.

5. The Southern States already are above the national average in the proportion of public funds devoted to public education.

6. The Southern States have made greater progress than is found in the majority of other States (a) in organizing large school units that are economical to administer and (b) in financing education with a large proportion of State support.

7. The Southern States already are making a maximum effort, as compared with other parts of the country, to finance education. If it is to meet the added financial burden of complete equalization of education for Negro pupils without a major retardation of the total progress of public education, Federal aid for general education must be available.

10 Cubberley, Ellwood P., State School Administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1927. 774 pp. 57.

APPENDIX TO MEMORANDUM ON NEW PROBLEMS IN FINANCING NEGRO EDUCATION-TEXT OF FOUR RECENT COURT DECISIONS AFFECTING NEGRO EDUCATION

U. S. Supreme Court, Argued November 9, 1938; Decided December 12, 1938 (59 S. Ct. 232)

On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

Mandamus proceeding by the State of Missouri, at the relation of Lloyd Gaines, against S. W. Canada, Registrar of the University of Missouri, and the curators of the University of Missouri, to compel the curators of the university to admit the relator to the School of Law of the State University of Missouri. To review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri (113 Š. W. 2d 783), affirming a judgment quashing an alternative writ and denying a peremptory writ, the relator brings certiorari.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed and cause remanded with directions.

Messrs. Charles H. Houston, of Washington, D. C., and S. R. Redmond, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.

Messrs. Wm. S. Hogsett, of Kansas City, Mo., and Fred L. Williams, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondents.

Mr. Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court.

Petitioner Lloyd Gaines, a Negro, was refused admission to the School of Law of the State University of Missouri. Asserting that this refusal constituted a denial by the State of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution (U. S. C. A. Constitutional Amendment 14), petitioner brought this action for mandamus to compel the curators of the university to admit him. On final hearing, an alternative writ was quashed and a peremptory writ was denied by the circuit court. Supreme Court of the State affirmed the judgment (113 S. W. 2d 783). We granted certiorari (305 U. S. 59 S. Ct. 65, 83 L. Ed. -).

The

Petitioner is a citizen of Missouri. In August, 1935, he was graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Arts at the Lincoln University, an institution maintained by the State of Missouri for the higher education of Negroes. That university has no law school. Upon the filing of his application for admission to the law school of the University of Missouri, the registrar advised him to communicate with the president of Lincoln University and the latter directed petitioner's attention to section 9622 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1929 (Mo. St. Ann. sec. 9622, p. 7328), providing as follows:

"SEC. 9622. May arrange for attendance at university of any adjacent Statetuition fees. Pending the full development of the Lincoln University, the board of curators shall have the authority to arrange for the attendance of Negro residents of the State of Missouri at the university of any adjacent State to take any course or to study any subjects provided for at the State University of Missouri, and which are not taught at the Lincoln University and to pay the reasonable tuition fees for such attendance: Provided, That whenever the board of curators deem it advisable they shall have the power to open any necessary school or department. (Laws 1921, p. 86, sec. 7.)

He

Petitioner was advised to apply to the State superintendant of schools for aid under that statute. It was admitted on the trial that petitioner's "work and credits at the Lincoln University would qualify him for admission to the school of law of the University of Missouri if he were found otherwise eligible." was refused admission upon the ground that it was "contrary to the constitution, laws, and public policy of the State to admit a Negro as a student in the University of Missouri." It appears that there are schools of law in connection with the State universities of four adjacent States, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois, where nonresident Negroes are admitted.

(1) The clear and definite conclusions of the State court in construing the pertinent State legislation narrow the issue. The action of the curators, who are

317387-41-4

representatives of the State in the management of the State University (R. S. Mo. sec. 9625, Mo. St. Ann. sec. 9625, p. 7330), must be regarded as State action.1 The State constitution provides that separate free public schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent (art. 11, sec. 3), (Mo. St. Ann. Const. art. 11, sec. 3), and by statute separate high-school facilities are supplied for colored students equal to those provided for white students (R. S. Mo. secs. 9346-9349, Mo. St. Ann. secs. 9346-9349, pp. 7183-7187). While there is no express constitutional provision requiring that the white and Negro races be separated for the purpose of higher education, the State court on a comprehensive review of the State statutes held that it was intended to separate the white and Negro races for that purpose also. Referring in particular to Lincoln University, the court deemed it to be clear "that the legislature intended to bring the Lincoln University up to the standard of the University of Missouri, and give to the whites and Negroes an equal opportunity for higher education-the whites at the University of Missouri, and the Negroes at Lincoln University.' (113 S. W. 2d 787.) Further, the court concluded that the provisions of section 9622 (above quoted) to the effect that Negro residents "may attend the university of any adjacent State with their tuition paid, pending the full development of Lincoln University," made it evident "that the legislature did not intend that Negroes and whites should attend the same university in this State." In that view it necessarily followed that the curators of the University of Missouri acted in accordance with the policy of the State in denying petitioner admission to its School of Law upon the sole ground of his race.

(2) In answering petitioner's contention that this discrimination constituted a denial of his constitutional right, the State court has fully recognized the obligation of the State to provide Negroes with advantages for higher education substantially equal to the advantages afforded to white students. The State has sought to fulfill that obligation by furnishing equal facilities in separate schools, a method the validity of which has been sustained by our decisions. Plessy v. Ferguson (163 U. S. 537, 544, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 1140, 41 L. Ed. 256); McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rwy. Co. (235 U. S. 151, 160, 35 S. Ct. 69, 70, 59 L. Ed. 169); Gong Lum v. Rice (275 U. S. 78, 85, 86, 48 S. Ct. 91, 93, 72 L. Ed. 172). Compare Cumming v. Board of Education (175 U. S. 528, 544, 545, 20 S. Ct. 197, 200, 44 L. Ed. 262). Respondents' counsel have appropriately emphasized the special solicitude of the State for the higher education of Negroes as shown in the establishment of Lincoln University, a State institution well conducted on a plane with the University of Missouri so far as the offered courses are concerned. It is said that Missouri is a pioneer in that field and is the only State in the Union which has established a separate university for Negroes on the same basis as the State university for white students. But, commendable as is that action, the fact remains that instruction in law for Negroes is not now afforded by the State, either at Lincoln University or elsewhere within the State, and that the State excludes Negroes from the advantages of the law school it has established at the University of Missouri.

It is manifest that this discrimination, if not relieved by the provisions we shall presently discuss, would constitute a denial of equal protection. That was the conclusion of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in circumstances substantially. similar in that aspect. University of Maryland v. Murray (169 Md. 478, 182 A. 590, 103 A. L. R. 706). It there appeared that the State of Maryland had "undertaken the function of education in the law" but had "omitted students of one race from the only adequate provision made for it, and omitted them solely because of their color"; that if those students were to be offered "equal treatment in the performance of the function, they must, at present, be admitted to the one school provided." (Id., p. 489, 182 A. p. 594.) A provision for scholarships to enable Negroes to attend colleges outside the State, mainly for the purpose of professional studies, was found to be inadequate (Id., p. 485, 486, 182 A. p. 593) and the question, "whether with aid in any amount it is sufficient to send the Negroes outside the State for legal education," the Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to discuss. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus to admit the applicant was issued to the officers and regents of the University of Maryland as the agents of the State entrusted with the conduct of that institution.

The Supreme Court of Missouri in the instant case has distinguished the decision in Maryland upon the grounds (1) that in Missouri, but not in Maryland, there is “a legislative declaration of a purpose to establish a law school for Negroes at Lincoln University whenever necessary or practical"; and (2) that, "pending

Er parte Virginia (100 U. S. 313, 346, 347, 25 L. Ed. 667); Neal v. Delaware (103 U. S. 370, 397, 26 L. Ed. 567); Carter v. Teras (177 U. S. 442, 447, 20 S. Ct. 687, 689, 44 L. Ed. 839); Norris v. Alabama (294 U. S. 587, 589, 55 S. Ct. 579, 580, 79 L. Ed. 1074).