The 1940s

 As World War II came so did an increasingly diverse approach for  racial uplift on Alpha Phi Alpha’s and its members’ parts. At the Twenty‐Eighth General Convention in December of 1940, following an incident of discrimination in a Kansas City restaurant, the Fraternity’s Committee on Discrimination was appointed by General President Charles H. Wesley. Brother Raymond Pace Alexander was appointed Chairman, and after his efforts, restaurant authorities assured that no more incidents would occur.1 The Fraternity had also established the Committee on Public Opinion, chaired by Brother Howard H. Long. Other members of this committee had been among the leadership in the Coordinating Committee’s program for the equalization of educational opportunities for Negroes through the amendment of the Harrison‐Black‐Fletcher Bill.2

Alpha Phi Alpha brothers also aided in developing the Southern Negro Youth Congress, a program geared towards encouraging youth  to take interest and participate in the political process, mainly how to navigate and dismantle the disenfranchising voting barriers that African Americans faced, primarily in the South.3 Brother Lieutenant William J. Powell focused his attention on heightening awareness and interest in aviation among blacks. The Fraternity believed that breaking into aviation offered African Americans an opportunity to increase the overall economic power of blacks, which would decrease racial discrimination in society.4 Brother Thurgood Marshall represented an African American school teacher and the Norfolk Teachers’ Association who appealed a decision from the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The District Court had denied the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment and injunction against defendants for racially discriminatory salary schedules.5 The plaintiff school teacher was fully qualified with equal education, experience, duties, and services to the state. He was receiving a salary of $921 per month while white high school teachers were receiving a minimum annual salary of $1200 per month.6 The court determined that this was a clear and obvious case of racial discrimination, and that the practical application of the presented salary schedule was always to pay African American teachers and principals of equal qualifications, certification, and experience with white teachers and principals less compensation from public funds solely on account of their race or color. The court held that the plaintiff did indeed have the right to complain of such injustices even though he had entered into a contract determining his salary.7 The plaintiff was not asking for additional compensation for the current year; they prayed for injunctive relief for the future. The decision of the district court was reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.8

In The Sphinx, Alpha Phi Alpha brothers were calling for race consciousness and racial uplift. In a piece titled “Alpha Phi Alpha and National Defense,” the author urged Alpha Phi Alpha’s participation in the quest to see “colored citizens receive proportionate representation in all phases of the national defense program” in an effort to support the “abolishment of discriminatory practices and to the furtherance of democratic procedures.”9 In another piece, an author discussed the economic/industrial relegation of African Americans to the labor side of the equation. He went on to underscore that it was up to African Americans to support their own businesses by harnessing their power as consumers and spending their money in those businesses. In closing, he noted that Alpha Phi Alpha had gone on record “as favoring, wherever possible, industry and business owned and controlled by patrons of color.”10 In yet a third piece, an author noted that Alpha Phi Alpha had switched its outreach emphasis from academic to civic education. The author wished that the emphasis would again be changed to worker education—vocational instruction in terms of successful living—because the race was subject to confinement in unskilled laboring jobs that brought with them “low wages, long hours, recurrent unemployment, and lack of organizational and legislative protection.”11

In 1941, Alpha Phi Alpha brothers were on the move. Brother Lester Blackwell Granger assumed the helm of the National Urban League (“NUL”) from Jewel Eugene Kinckle Jones.12 Brother Randall Tyus was appointed as assistant field secretary of the N.A.A.C.P.13 Brother Charles H. Wesley addressed the Oklahoma Association of Negro Teachers, urging that they give Negro youth the dynamic leadership that they need—teaching them how to think, encouraging them to believe in themselves, and preparing them for the future.14

Brothers Sidney Redmond, Charles Hamilton Houston, and Henry D. Espy, along with John A. Davis, litigated State ex rel. Bluford v. Canada.15 The Supreme Court of Missouri heard the case on appeal from the Circuit Court of Boone County. The appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the registrar of the University of Missouri to admit her as a student in the School of Journalism of the State University. She was denied admission based solely upon her race.16 The circuit court denied the writ. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, stating that it had a duty to maintain segregation as long as it did not come in conflict with the United States Constitution even though Lincoln University, designated for African American students, did not have a journalism program. The court did say that equal facilities had to be offered, but that the Lincoln Board had the discretion to determine whether there was proper demand in order to furnish new facilities.17

That same year, Brother Marshall represented an African American public school principal in Florida in McDaniel v. Board of Public Instruction for Escambia County.18 McDaniel brought suit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against the school board and sought a declaratory judgment that the policy of the defendants to fix salaries for African American teachers and principals of equivalent status to white teachers and principals at a lower compensation was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants contended that the plaintiff should not be able to represent any other class than the principal and regular teachers should not be included in the suit. They also contended that the alleged acts could not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as they were acts of the county school system and not of the state.19 Plaintiff was equally qualified as any white principal, held the same teaching certificate, and performed the same duties. He was receiving a salary of $165 per month while the minimum salary of a white high school principal was $200 per month. The court determined that this constituted discrimination. They also held that the plaintiff could represent teachers as they were all members of the same profession. Finally, they held that the county school system was acting as an agency of the state and could therefore be subject to Fourteenth Amendment restrictions. The motion of the defendants to dismiss the case was denied.20

Chapters, too, were still on the front lines, doing the work of Alpha Phi Alpha. Psi Chapter (University of Pennsylvania) urged her fellow brothers to participate wholeheartedly in national defense preparation because the then current situations had created many novel opportunities that would allow the race to make strides forward.21 Beta Omicron Lambda Chapter (Mobile, Alabama) aligned itself with the local N.A.A.C.P. branch to fight for free use of the ballot by African Americans in the South, against police brutality, and inequality in teaching salaries.22 Beta Xi Lambda Chapter (Omaha, Nebraska) raised funds to send a student to university and also held a youth meeting giving instruction to attendees concerning how to properly apply for work. They also had a committee that investigated the possibility of placing a member of the race in the personnel department of the Federal Housing Office.23 Theta Lambda Chapter (Dayton, Ohio), through the Committee on Negro Employment, investigated  “industries doing national defense work in Dayton.”24

As a whole, the Fraternity continued its direct action on the racial justice front and helped provide structure for chapters and brothers to do similar work. A new general sub‐committee was established to address questions raised about the race and labor relations during this unique period. Indeed, Alpha Phi Alpha wished to play a leading role in “preparations for the consideration of the Negro BEFORE this war shall have ended.”25 In partnership with other African American fraternities and sororities, the Fraternity promoted African American participation in the war to save democracy even if our country did not always practice democratic principles domestically. They also called upon the institutions and elected officials involved in national defense to end practices of discrimination and segregation.26 Alpha Phi Alpha’s Southern Region also established a committee focused on the integration of African Americans in the national defense program. They worked to “bring[] pressure to bear necessary groups in Washington to alleviate” the unequal conditions.27 It was clear that Alpha Phi Alpha had shifted its priorities when it changed the focus of its national education program from the Go‐To‐High‐School, Go‐To‐ College program to actively emphasizing citizenship and the use of the ballot.28

The Sphinx continued to play a crucial role in casting the Fraternity’s overarching vision across the entire brotherhood. Toward the close of 1941, two articles appeared in the journal that underscored this. In one piece, “The Negro in the New World Order,” the author indicated that during the upcoming General Convention, the Fraternity would take considerable action “upon practical plans of procedure for participation in this new order of things, and out of these discussions should evolve a program for concerted action.”29 In reflection on World War II, another author described the areas where democracy was lacking for African Americans—e.g., men could only serve in the Navy as servants; companies contracted by the government had discriminatory hiring procedures; soldiers were brutalized in the South. He also highlighted the areas in which the United States government sought to combat discrimination and open more opportunities—e.g., the actions by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The author believed that African Americans stood to benefit from the discussions of freedom and liberty that had been started as a result of the war.30

By 1942, the Fraternity’s Committee on Public Opinion, under the leadership of Chairman Howard H. Long, urged brothers to support “the movement afoot in Congress to enact a bill for the prevention of the use of the poll tax as a qualification for voting for Federal officers” by contacting their senators and representatives.31 Brother Oliver Hart, Jr. called for individual chapters to organize days to make clean‐up efforts in African American neighborhoods that needed some repair as a program for the general welfare of the race.32 Alpha Upsilon Lambda Chapter (Montgomery, Alabama) started Sunday forums at Alabama State Teachers’ College to invite speakers from the community to discuss relevant social issues.33 Beta Eta Chapter (Southern Illinois Normal University) held a round table with multiple other Greek‐letter organizations to discuss the topic “Post War Effects Upon the Negro.”34 Beta Gamma Lambda Chapter (Richmond, Virginia) planned to concentrate their citizenship program on one area of the city in an effort to reach all citizens located there through a coordinated effort between social groups, churches, and schools. They disseminated information pamphlets as well as drove people to registration centers and helped them play their poll taxes.35

Many brothers were also engaged in the fight for racial uplift. Members of more than ten Alpha Phi Alpha chapters volunteered as instructors at the Florida Normal and Industrial Institute’s war training program in St. Augustine, Florida. The goal of the program was to train civilians for jobs in industry, such as boat building, electricity, welding, sheet‐metal, forging foundry, and the training of enlisted reserve men for the United States Signal Corps. Among the students were many members of Alpha Phi Alpha.36 On the litigation‐front, Brothers Houston and Marshall were fighting the good fight. In one case, Dallas F. Nicholas (Omega Psi Phi), Robert P. McGuinn (Omega Psi Phi), and Brother Houston represented the appellee in Durkee v. Murphy.37 The appeal  was  heard  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  Maryland  from  the Superior Court of Baltimore City. It was an action by D. Arnett Murphy against Frank H. Durkee and others, constituting the Board of Park Commissioners of Baltimore City, for a writ of mandamus to remove a restriction that segregated African American and white golf players, and to admit the plaintiff, an African American golf player, to the white courses.38 Defendants appealed on the grounds of issuance of writ of mandamus by the jury and an order refusing to fix penalty on the appeal bond offered in stay of execution and from the writ issued in accordance with the court’s order. The Court found that segregation was in the power and discretion of the Board and was consistent with the Constitution.39 It stated that the admission of African American golf players to the white course was the wrong remedy for the alleged unequal treatment, where the park board had discretionary power to remove the alleged inequality in one of several possible ways. The order was reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.40

That same year, courts rendered decisions on two cases litigated by Brother Marshall. In Thomas v. Hibbitts, Harold Thomas, an African American teacher, sued the Board of Education of the City of Nashville, Tennessee.41 He claimed that the Board fixed salary schedules in such a way to pay African American teachers and principals a lower salary than white teachers and principals. Though they held the same qualifications and performed the same duties, white teachers were compensated anywhere from $25 to $55 per month more than their African American counterparts, and white principals were paid $150 more per month than African American principals.42 The defendants claimed that the reason for this discrepancy was due to an economic condition. African American teachers were more numerous than white teachers, their living conditions were less expensive, and they could be employed to work at a lower salary than white teachers. Though he applied for and accepted his job under the conditions of the present salary, it did not prevent him from calling into question the constitutionality of the discriminated salaries. He was not entitled to recover the difference from previous years’ salaries. Declaratory judgment and an injunction were issued to prevent the Board from fixing salaries in a discriminatory way during the next fiscal year.43

In Smith v. Allwright, Lonnie Smith, an African American, was denied permission to vote in the Democratic Primary in the State of Texas due to his race or color. He was otherwise fully qualified to vote.44 He asked for a declaration of his right and $5,000 damages. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed. The question for the court was whether the primary, held under provisions of the State statutes, was an election in which the provisions of the Federal Constitution applied, or whether it was merely a party procedure.45 Grovey v. Townsend was controlling in this case, which did not render the primary an election in the constitutional sense. As there was no substantial difference between that case and this one, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed.46 When Brother Marshall and William Hastie (Omega Psi Phi) brought the case before the United States Supreme Court, the Court determined that the act was under the color of authority of the State of Texas and was therefore unconstitutional, reversing the lower court’s decision.47

In the midst of World War II, issues of race, inclusion, and democracy continued to be part of the Fraternity’s ongoing dialogue. In one article in The Sphinx, “For ‘What’ Are We Fighting?,” the author  reported some of the grievous wrongs that African American soldiers had to endure from Southern white citizens and soldiers. There was a common practice not to hire African Americans in war effort factories and other such jobs. Accordingly, Axis agents attempted to sow discord and revolt in African Americans.48 The author ultimately called for the race to continue to become more economically independent and stable, as well as to use the ballot wherever possible, and to seek to develop educational opportunities in order to further the fight for “true democracy” in America while it also fought abroad.49 He believed that all of these efforts should have been led by the intellectually elite (like the men of Alpha Phi Alpha) of both races as to avoid any violent conflict.50 In another article, titled “The Negro in Post War Reconstruction,” the author addressed the likely outcomes of society after World War II. The author predicted that the fight for equal rights would move toward more federal, especially executive, action and legal methods, as was suggested by recent United States Supreme Court cases. Not resting on the actions of government, the author also called for responsible mass action to bring about racial equality.51 Looking to the work and obligations of Alpha Phi Alpha members, a third article— “Nobility Imposes Obligation”—the author underscored that Alpha Phi Alpha men must fight for victory abroad and domestically by fighting for democracy for the African American race. This fight had to be done through legitimate avenues of social pressure, and fraternity men should give the economic guidance and leadership that the race needs, as well as help maintain morale during the war period.52

As 1942 came to a close, the Fraternity held its General Convention in Washington, D.C. They outlined the educational campaign for the upcoming year—specifically, the Fraternity’s scholarship program, which awarded financial assistance to eleven out of the nineteen applicants.53 The Public Opinion Committee pledged to keep chapters informed on national interest topics such as “new bills proposed in Congress, racial discrimination in employment” as well as urge chapters to act quickly wherever racial welfare was at stake.54 For example, chapters were urged to contact government representatives and officials to make their displeasure over the postponing of a hearing “on discrimination in employment in the railroads” made by the head of the War Man Power.55 Additionally the Public Opinion committee continued to keep close contact with “proponents of the Anti‐Poll Tax Bill.”56 General President Rayford Logan reported his activities for the past year—including a memorandum submitted to the State department concerning the establishment of a mandate system, attendance at speaking engagements on “The Negro and Post‐War Problems,” and speaking with the National Director of Educational Activities about expanding Alpha Phi Alpha’s program.57

In 1943, the Fraternity took a moment to pause and reflect on its work in the community and society more generally. The work included the Go‐To‐High‐School, Go‐To‐College campaign, “Education for Citizenship,” A‐Voteless‐People‐is‐a‐Hopeless‐People (which was successfully extended by the Southern Tennant Farmers Union), the entrance of Negroes into borderline and Southern college and universities inaugurated by Alpha Phi Alpha in 1933 and 1934 and turned over to the N.A.A.C.P., and “The Negro in the Post‐War Society.”58 Adding to this work, Alpha Phi Alpha filed a complaint (“conceived, planned, and is prosecuting this case in its own right”) against the Interstate Commerce Commission on behalf of Elmer W. Henderson (Kappa Alpha Psi).59 Henderson was travelling first‐class on the Southern Railway in the course of his employment for the government when he was denied service in the train’s dining car. The protocol in the dining car was to seat African Americans in one of two reserved corner tables and draw curtains to separate them from white diners. If all of the other tables were full, the curtains were opened and white passengers were seated at those two corner tables. When Henderson sought to eat in the dining car, there was an available seat at one of these designated tables, but a white passenger was seated in that section. Therefore, if the waitress sat Henderson at that table, she could not draw the curtains to isolate him. Instead, she told him that she would notify him when a table was opened. Henderson was never notified, even after returning to the dining car twice. The dining car was removed on one of the next train stops without Henderson being served a meal.60 The complaint alleged that there were two violations of the Interstate Commerce Act. First, Henderson was denied the same dining service offered to white passengers. Second, isolating African Americans with a drawn curtain in the corner of the dining car caused humiliation and embarrassment, depriving these passengers of their rights, privileges, and immunities as citizens of the United States. Furthermore, the complainant argued that customary practices within the dining car are not sufficient to justify segregation, and neither is  the low volume of colored traffic on the train, as this is a personal constitutional rights issue.61

Chapters like Beta Mu Lambda Chapter (Salisbury‐Statesville, North Carolina) reported focusing its efforts on an extensive program to improve local conditions for Negroes.62 Kappa Lambda Chapter (Greensboro, North Carolina) reported a successful citizenship program that year that “was made through active and aggressive participation in the Greensboro councilman election, which saw an African American getting further in the election than ever before in the history of the council (through primaries). Although he was ultimately unsuccessful in winning the election, it was seen as a success for African Americans in the city and the chapter voted to continue their program year‐round instead of limiting it to one week.”63

Alpha Phi Alpha members had also advanced the proverbial ball. Brother Joseph H.B. Evans, Alpha Phi Alpha’s General Secretary, was appointed to the staff of the President’s Committee on Fair Employment Practice.64 Brother Channing H. Tobias was named a member of the Board of Directors of the National War Fund, which has undertaken “to raise and distribute adequate funds to meet the reasonable requirements of all approval war related appeals.”65 On other fronts, Brother Marshall had been litigating an equal pay case, Turner v. Keefe, in Florida.66 Hilda Turner, an African American school teacher, sought to obtain declaratory judgment to the effect that the policy, usage, and custom of the defendants in maintaining a salary schedule that fixed the salaries of the plaintiff and others at a rate lower than those of white teachers with equal qualifications was a denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants specifically denied discriminatory salary practices based on race or color.67 They alleged that the salaries paid to all teachers had been controlled by supply and demand laws under which the defendants were required to pay white teachers a higher salary than African American teachers. Further, they claimed that white teachers and principals as a group possessed greater qualifications than African American teachers and principals. However, following the institution of this action, the Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, Florida adopted a new salary schedule which rated teachers in three classifications based on character, scholarship, and performance. Brother Tobias conceded that the new schedule appeared fair upon its face but was applied in a discriminatory manner.68 The court reviewed the classifications and, allowing room for slight error considering the newness of the scale, found that it was applied in a non‐discriminatory manner. Further, thirty‐five African American teachers were interviewed, all claimed to be satisfied with their salaries, though unsatisfied with their new ratings. The court found as fact that the new rating was uniformly applied and that no discrimination based on race or color was evident.69

As the Fraternity closed in on forty years of existence, in 1944 General President Rayford Logan urged every chapter to appoint a committee to become thoroughly versed in the GI Bill so that they could aid returning brothers and other eligible people in receiving and taking advantage of the benefits thereby offered to them.70 At the Thirtieth General Convention in 1944, the Committee on Public Opinion discussed efforts in securing the passing of the Fair Employment Practices Act. In achieving this, letters and telegrams were continuously sent to Senate members and prominent leaders in Congress.71 Similarly, discussions were dedicated to Alpha Phi Alpha’s role in improving racial conditions more broadly.72

On the chapter front, the Kappa Chapter (Ohio State University) had been distributing materials to local organizations and churches that urged people to write to their Washington representatives concerning the Fair Employment Practice Committee and Poll Tax issues.73 Alpha Beta Chapter (Talledega College) conducted an “Anti‐Poll Tax” program in which 137 letters were written to senators of forty‐eight states and money was raised for the “National Committee for the Abolishment of the Poll Tax.”74 Alpha Lambda Chapter (Louisville, Kentucky) appointed a committee “to work on Juvenile Delinquency problems.”75 Alpha Psi Lambda Chapter (Columbia, South Carolina) “contributed a substantial sum” to the charity drive that aimed to build a new hospital for African Americans in the area.76

Race consciousness was palpable in the actions of Fraternity members, as it was in the calls coming from articles in The Sphinx. For instance, Brother Reid E. Jackson emphasized the importance of the then‐upcoming Presidential election to the African American community, particularly in the face of rising reactionary measures in Southern states that sought to limit the rights of people of color. He urged a deliberate consideration of the best candidates for their minority voice/issue, as well as soliciting liberal white voters, particularly where they were deprived of the vote.77 In another piece, he discussed the trend to dehumanize African Americans by referring to them as Negroes using a lowercase “n.” He contended that they must actively “resist positively and intelligently” this whenever they encountered it because it has deleterious effects that undermined the social status of African Americans.78

Brother Herbert T. Miller became the first African American foreman of a county grand jury when he was appointed to the Kings County Grand Jury in New York.79 He acknowledged this in his final address of Judge Leibowitz to the Grand Jury by stating that “[f]or the first time in the history of America, in any County, in any State, a member of the Negro race was signally honored by being appointed foreman of such an important and dignified and honorable body.”80 Brother Charles W. Anderson, a Kentucky State Legislator, introduced a bill to “break down segregated school laws to the extent of permitting Negroes to attend the Graduate and Professional Schools of the U. of Kentucky and the U. of Louisville.” The bill was passed by the House, but stopped in Senate committees.81 Brother Hugh M. Gloster was appointed United Service Organization Associate Regional Executive. He was charged with investigating USO services to African Americans, initiating action for the improvement of USO work among colored troops and industrial plant employees, coordinating the activities of USO agencies serving African Americans, representing the Regional Executive in certain negotiations, and working in close cooperation with Mr. Henry W. Pope, National Director of USO Services to African Americans.82

In the courts, Alpha Phi Alpha brothers continued their work. Brother Raymond Pace Alexander represented Thomas Mattox. Mattox was driving home from a movie with friends and siblings when he passed a white, 19 year‐old boy, Cornell, driving his car. Mattox and some of the passengers were attacked by Cornell with an auto jack; reacting in self‐defense, Mattox cut Cornell with a penknife. There was concern as to whether there would be a fair trial. Brother Alexander prevailed in his defense of Mattox.83

In James v. Marinship Corporation, Brother Thurgood Marshall represented Joseph James, an African American skilled craftsman, who brought suit against his employer and local union chapter on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated.84 The union prohibited African American workers from membership and, instead, required that they join an auxiliary group. The auxiliary group did not provide the same benefits and privileges as the main union. A closed shop was maintained, requiring all potential employees of Marinship Corporation join the union or auxiliary. However, this was incompatible with its arbitrarily closed membership. The union barred African American workers from joining, yet mandated their membership in its auxiliary if they wished to work. Marinship was required to terminate the employment of any African American employee who was not a member of the auxiliary, and they were notified that not doing so was a breach of contract with the union.85 The trial court issued a preliminary injunction restraining Marinship from this action. The defendants appealed, claiming that business agents of the union chapter acted impartially and without discrimination. The court disagreed. They held that maintaining a closed shop as well as closed membership was equivalent to barring certain persons from their right to work. Though the defendants  argued that these actions were allowed separately, the court maintained that together they constituted discrimination. On these grounds, the Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment of the lower court.86

Brother Marshall also litigated many other cases that were decided in 1944. In Morris v. Williams, Susie Morris, an African American school teacher in Little Rock, Arkansas, brought suit against the Board of Directors and Superintendent of Schools on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.87 She contended the existence of:

(1)   a schedule of salaries which the plaintiff and other African American teachers and principals were discriminated against on account of race or color; (2) a policy, custom, or usage to pay African American teachers and principals less salary and compensation than their white counterparts; and (3) a constitutional violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.88 Marshall introduced the minutes from a Board meeting in which a salary schedule was approved and adopted. However, this schedule made no indication of race or color. It simply stated the starting salaries for any teacher in the elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. Marshall claimed that a fixed salary based on education and years of experience would be ideal to prevent discrimination. The superintendent testified that during his first year, beginning in 1941, he maintained the previous year’s salaries because he lacked sufficient information with which to base any changes.89 The year after was when the suit was filed, and he decided to make very few changes, knowing that any he made would have been interpreted in the light of the case. He further testified that upon hiring and salary, he based his decisions on education and experience plus certain other intangible qualities which determine what value a teacher has or will have to the school system.90 The court determined that Marshall had failed to provide sufficient evidence for the case. As such, there was no constitutional violation because there was no proven salary schedule or custom of salary discrimination. Costs of this action were taxed against the plaintiff.91 When Brother Marshall brought the case up on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded the decision with instructions to enter the declaratory judgment originally sought after.92 Along with attorney A.T. Walden, Brother Thurgood Marshall represented Samuel Davis in Davis v. Cook.93 Therein, the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta, moved to dismiss the case brought against them by an African American school teacher on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Defendants claimed that the complaint should rightfully be made against the State of Georgia, an indispensable party, and that the court is without jurisdiction. Brother Marshall alleged that the Board had a policy, custom, and usage to pay African American teachers and principals less than their white counterparts.94 Though they all possessed the same teaching certificate required by the public school system, and perhaps had the same qualifications, experience, and duties, African American teachers were consistently paid a lower salary on the basis of their race or color. This denied them their equal protection of laws. A salary schedule was fixed to pay African American teachers less than white teachers and used state funds to do so.95 The court held that a true controversy between parties did in fact exist, and that the school officials acted under the color of authority of the State of Georgia. Acting with the authority of the State, though their actions may not be authorized by the State, constituted an unconstitutional act under the Fourteenth Amendment. On these grounds, the court overruled the motion to dismiss.96

Brother Houston litigated Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, wherein William Steele, against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, and others to enjoin enforcement of agreements between the defendants that discriminated against African American firemen in favor of white firemen and for other relief. A decree that dismissed the bill was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Alabama, it stated that while they had jurisdiction, on merits the petitioner’s complaint stated no cause of action. It pointed out that the Railway Labor Act placed a mandatory duty on the Railroad to treat the Brotherhood as the exclusive representative of the employees in its craft and that the Brotherhood was entitled to enter into agreements. The Supreme  Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. It stated that the Brotherhood, under the Railway Labor Act, had to represent all members of its craft, the majority and the minority, and had to act for and not against those members.97

In 1945, the Fraternity had been looking for ways in which it could reach across the divide and work with other African American fraternities and sororities on racial uplift issues. At the close of the year, in the December issue of The Sphinx, it even let a member of Omega Psi Phi fraternity, J.H. Calhoun, Jr., pen an article. In his piece, “How Can Negro Greek‐Letter Societies Cooperate?”, Calhoun argued for capitalizing on the already existing similarity in the structures of each individual organization and that a new Pan‐Hellenic council should be formed to be a clearing‐house for more mass action across the organizations.98 Such work was seen on the local level. For example, the Alpha Nu Lambda Chapter (Tuskegee, Alabama), in conjunction with other Greek‐letter organizations, the N.A.A.C.P., and another local social uplift organization, distributed hand bills throughout their area that encouraged African Americans to register to vote at the local court house.99 Though 200 attempted to register as a result of the drive, only twelve succeeded. A lawsuit concerning the refusal to allow such a large number of people to vote was filed by the N.A.A.C.P. (with support from Brother Marshall).100

Alpha Phi Alpha members brought these first forty years of Alpha Phi Alpha’s existence into clarity—and gave structure to the vision of seven men. Brother and attorney Sidney A. Jones wrote in the June 1945 National Bar Journal about the Supreme Court’s role in Jim Crow segregated transportation. He discussed the inequality brought about under the guise of ‘separate but equal’ accommodations and the Supreme Court’s ability, but refusal to put an end to the injustice.101 Brothers Houston and Thurgood Marshall continued their assault on racial discrimination in the courtroom. In Thompson v. Gibbes, Brother Marshall represented Albert Thompson in his action against the School Board and Superintendent of Schools of District No. 1 in Richland County, South Carolina on behalf of himself and of all others similarly situated.102 He alleged that the Fourteenth Amendment was being violated by a discriminatory pay schedule which favored white teachers over African American teachers. The defendants claimed to have a system set up to deal with allegations of discriminatory pay, but the court held that this case remained in its jurisdiction. Teacher salaries in Richland County are withdrawn from both state and county funds. The county funds are distributed within the discretion of the County Board. A temporary state act had recently been announced that drew a salary table which allotted pay to teachers based on their classification of experience and performance on an examination. Prior to this act, salary schedules in South Carolina had been blatantly discriminatory. Realizing this, the defendants sought to revamp and make changes to the salaries so that they were fair for all.103 The court felt that enough of the pay disparity had been reconciled to allow the defendants more time before a final judgment. The evidence showed that the county funds were being assigned in such a way to prove that the Board took the action of erasing discriminatory pay seriously. Therefore, the court allowed the School Board until April 1, 1946 to show that the pay schedules had been completely rid of discriminatory action.104

A federal trial court in Alabama decided yet another case tried by Brother Marshall. In Mitchell v. Wright, William Mitchell brought suit on behalf of himself and similarly situated others.105 He was an African American man who sought to register to vote in Macon County in the state of Alabama. He alleged that he met all of the qualifications required of a registered voter, including the ability to read and write, and the ownership of land. He presented himself at the Macon County Court House, filled out his application, produced two persons to vouch for him, and answered such questions as were asked in proof of his qualifications. Unlike the white persons presenting themselves for registration, he was required to provide two references and wait long hours before being permitted to file his application. He was then denied registration on sole account of his race or color. As the officials were acting under the authority of Macon County and Alabama state law, Brother Marshall claimed that this action was in violation of Mitchell’s rights under Article I and the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Brother Marshall sought declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction, and $5,000 in damages.106 The defendants, administrative officials of the state of Alabama, filed a motion to dismiss this case as a class action.107 The court held that a class action must include others similarly situated in an actual, real situation, not merely a possibility. The purpose of such a suit is to determine the rights of a distinct class of individuals by one common final judgment. Brother Marshall failed to identify such a class. The court determined that others similarly situated was too broad a definition and must be determined on an individual basis. It was not up to the court to define such a class. Further, the court determined that Brother Marshall had not exhausted all administrative remedies before bringing the matter to court.108 The Alabama law allows for any person denied registration to appeal his case. After being denied entrance to the initial parts of the election machinery, Brother Marshall sought judicial action and forsook the remaining parts of the machinery that may have granted Mitchell relief. The complaint was dismissed on these grounds.109 When Brother Marshall brought the matter up on appeal, the Fifth Circuit determined that though this law appeared fair upon its face, it was in fact administered in a discriminatory manner as to deny African American people the right to vote. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court was reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.110

On remand, with an amended complaint, Brother Marshall again sought injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and nominal damages. Marshall claimed that denial of the right to vote solely on the basis of race was contrary to the anti‐discrimination provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Mitchell still possessed all of the qualifications necessary to become a qualified voter of the state. He properly filled out his application and listed the names of two references to vouch for him as a bona fide resident of the address stated on his application. The Board of Registrars required that two names be listed and that at least one of them appear before the board to vouch for the applicant. However, neither of the two names listed on the plaintiff’s application ever appeared before the board. One claimed that the plaintiff never informed him that he was listed as a reference. He had before given seven other African American citizens reference before the board. The other reference appeared at the Court House one day, saw a crowd, and left without ever returning. The court found no instance of a person who was registered by the Board as a qualified voter without first having a reference appear on his or her behalf. No white or African American voter was ever given this privilege. The Board did not require that African American voters give white references. The court held that the rules and regulations of the Board were non‐discriminatory. Brother Marshall failed to present evidence of discrimination by the Board of Registrars.111

Brother Houston, along with W.A.C. Hughes, litigated Kerr v. Enoch Free Library of Baltimore City.112 In the appeal heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Louise Kerr complained that she was refused admission to a library training class conducted by The Enoch Pratt Free Library of Baltimore City because she was African American. Action was filed on grounds of violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants claimed that Kerr was not excluded because of her race or color, and that the Library was  a private corporation therefore it did not perform any public function as a representative of the state.113 The District Judge sustained all of the defenses and dismissed the suit. The Court of Appeals found that she was excluded from the school because of her race. It also found that the authority of the state was invoked to create the library, so it was not a private corporation. The judgment of the District Judge was reversed and remanded.114

In Railway Mail Association v. Corsi, Brothers Edward R. Dudley and Thurgood Marshall, along with Milton R. Konvitz, William H. Hastie (Omega Psi Phi), and Leon A. Ransom (Kappa Alpha Psi), served as amicus curiae for N.A.A.C.P.‐LDF. The defendant, the Industrial Commissioner of the State of New York, attempted to enforce a statute against the Railway Mail Association which would prevent it from discriminating its membership on the basis of race or color.115 The plaintiff, denying its classification as a labor organization, sought to enjoin the defendant from enforcing such an order. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed. Plaintiff argued that it was permitted to do an insurance business within New York and was therefore not a labor organization. The court reviewed the facts in order to answer the question of whether Railway Mail Association fell within the definition of a labor organization.116 In the official bulletin of the United States Department of Labor, Railway Mail Association was indeed classified as a labor union. The organization assumed credit for securing beneficial legislation for its members and, by its own acts, had interpreted its charter to include phases of collective bargaining and dealing with the Federal government concerning grievances, terms, and conditions of employment and rendering its members mutual aid and protection. It came well within the definition of a labor union.117 The next question presented to the Court was whether the plaintiff violated section 43 of the Civil Rights Law. Its constitution restricts membership only to members of the white or Caucasian race and Native American Indians. Applicants for membership were required to state their race or color in writing. The court determined that the insurance features of the plaintiff’s power were in addition to and did not alter its status as a labor union. The order and judgment of the lower court was reversed and granted in favor of the defendant.118

At the Fraternity’s Thirty‐First General Convention, the Commission on Scholarships and Educational Activities presented a proposal to award scholarships to plaintiffs of Equal Educational Opportunity lawsuits, and the activities of the Education for Citizenship campaign were put under a magnifying glass.119 During discussions, brothers were presented three choices for the designated slogan for that year’s convention: (1) “Education for Participation in World Citizenship, (2) Education for Participation in America Citizenship, or (3) Go‐to‐High‐School, Go‐to‐College.” As suggested, the slogan for the 1946‐year was “Education and Citizenship” because that correlated well with multiple themes of Alpha from the prior year.120 Further, scholarships and fellowships were awarded to numerous brothers and individuals.121 Between 1927 and 1945, the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity awarded $10,100 in scholarships while also awarding $6,225 in fellowships and grants‐in‐aid to scholarly applicants between 1934 and 1945.122

The long history of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers battling to attain Civil Rights, coupled with liberal changes within schools and universities, gave rise to a new spirit within and outside the Fraternity’s walls. Brothers at the 1946 General Convention voiced this new spirit,123 which was a reverberation of what was seen fraternity‐wide throughout the year. For example, at the General Convention, Alpha Phi Alpha men were challenged to put into action their ideals locally, nationally, and internationally. The extension of the right to suffrage was one area of this newfound liberalism within the Fraternity.124 Alpha Phi Alpha brothers worked together in voting campaigns and citizenship programs, using the slogan A‐Voteless‐People‐is‐a‐Hopeless‐People throughout parts of the Northern and Southern regions of the country. Brothers pledged support to the Fraternity’s National Committee to Abolish the Poll Tax program, which gained active interest throughout the Fraternity.125 Over the years, including the year 1946, the Fraternity remained loyal to the N.A.A.C.P., providing contribution to their activities in national and local areas.126

In The Sphinx, Alpha Phi Alpha continued to shape the dialogue around race and justice vis‐à‐vis its members. In “Alpha’s Program of Action,” Brother J. Rupert Picott, Chairman of the National Committee on Publicity,127 noted that one of the new planks of the organization’s program of action was to “pool resources with other fraternities and sororities for establishment of a powerful research and lobby program in Washington.”128 Further, the Fraternity’s goal was to make a “constant attack upon the breastwork of the citadel of privilege and Jim Crowism which are the worst enemies of the common man.”129 Brothers challenged chapters to alter strategies for fighting against inequality. For example, in his announcement of the next General Convention, General President Belford V. Lawson urged Alpha Phi Alpha men “to translate mere debate and protest, vague skepticism, tired cynicism, and national self‐praise into angry dissatisfaction, courageous determination and a liberal, fighting program of action which are necessary to preserve the battlement of human integrity, equality, and dignity.” 130 He went on, “we cannot wait in philosophical serenity or deadly inaction for a generation of unprejudiced men to be born . . . liberty and equality are not boons granted to dilettantes. They are the hard‐earned possessions of fighting men.”131 Other African American Greek‐lettered organizations worked together in the fight for civil rights in 1946. The National Pan‐Hellenic Council announced their program for the year, which included efforts to secure better housing, equalize teaching salaries, and abolish the poll tax.132

College chapters continued to fight for education and civil rights. Gamma Chapter (Virginia Union University) created a unique “Miss Gamma” competition in conjunction with their “Education for Citizenship” program. 133 The race was conducted in a manner that mimics the general election process of the American democratic system: “Four contestants are chosen by the Chapter and with their respective campaign manager seek votes in an honest and democratic manner. [O]n the appointed day[,] students of the school flock to cast their ballot. There are no strings attached to their voting procedure; no poll tax; no registration.”134 Furthermore, many of the chapters reported holding their “Citizenship Week” or Go‐to‐High‐School, Go‐to‐College activities, most of which included visiting schools, handing out information, and holding lecture series. Alumni chapters also kept education and civil rights high on their agendas. Omicron Lambda Chapter (Birmingham, Alabama) hosted its first “Education for Citizens” program.135 General President Lawson, a prominent constitutional law attorney in Washington, D.C., spoke at the program and highlighted the importance of securing “all necessary assets of citizenship,” for every citizen, this included proper educational, health, recreational, and cultural provisions. 136 The Fraternity decided to adopt this as a national program, requiring all chapters to host a similar program on citizenship.137

On an individual basis, Fraternity members remained committed to Alpha Phi Alpha’s mission. General President Lawson, acting as the representative for the Fraternity, attended a conference held by the N.A.A.C.P. that aimed at the creation of a program to combat mob violence as part of the organization’s larger anti‐lynching campaign.138 Additionally, Brother C.E. Thompson gave a small speech entitled “Leadership and Servants of All,” which detailed the service activities of several different brothers, including several who had leadership positions in the Urban League and the N.A.A.C.P.139 On other fronts, brothers like Thurgood Marshall and Alexander Pierre Tureaud were waging legal battles in the federal courts of appeals.

In Chapman v. King, among several attorneys, Brothers Marshall and Tureaud represented Primus King—a qualified and registered African American voter in the state of Georgia in Muscogee County.140 On the day of the Democratic Primary, King was denied the right to vote by executives of the Democratic Party solely based on his race/color. The District Judge concluded that this was a violation of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments of the United States Constitution because the State of Georgia acts through political parties. Therefore, the state was enforcing a discriminatory act, which was unconstitutional.141 On appeal, the Fifth Circuit found that because the primary election was an integral part of the election machinery, denying one’s right to vote in the primary was tantamount to denying one’s right to vote in any election.142 When racial exclusions of a party are enforced by the State, the action is in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court in King’s favor.143

Brother Marshall also represented an African American appellant before the United States Supreme Court in Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia.144 Appellant was an African American passenger on a bus traveling from Virginia to Maryland. When the driver requested that she move seats, she refused and was subsequently arrested.145 A Virginia statute required the separation of white and African American passengers on both interstate and intrastate motor carriers.146 The question for the Supreme Court was whether this statute unlawfully burdened interstate commerce. Given that uniformity was necessary in rules that govern interstate commerce, the Court declared that seating arrangements for different races must follow a single, uniform rule in order to not burden interstate commerce. The Court reversed the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court on the basis that the provision of the Virginia Code which segregated passengers on interstate buses created an undue burden on interstate commerce.147 It also attempted to reach beyond the borders of its own state by governing interstate travel. Because the Code could not be enforced by a single, uniform rule, it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.148

Demonstrating its commitment to collective action, in 1947, Alpha Phi Alpha helped an effort to integrate the Y.M.C.A. cafeteria in Washington, D.C. when it worked in conjunction with the Congress on Racial Equality in a sit‐in.149 The General President of the Fraternity was quoted as saying: “I think the direct, non‐violent approach is historically significant in racial relation in this country. I think the Fraternity ought to be in all worthwhile inter‐racial movements.”150 The Fraternity was thought to have a duty “to stay in the vanguard of those organizations which are fighting to lead public opinion toward a sound and just appraisal of the importance of our struggle for economic and political liberty.”151 Not surprisingly, that year at its Thirty‐Third General Convention, the Director of Educational activities, Brother H. Council Trenholm, reported considerable activity in the Education for Citizenship Program. Moreover, Brother Howard Long, Chair of the Committee on the Program, reported the following recommendations for the Fraternity:

(1)                   Creating a social climate which membership could enrich themselves for effective living and leadership in a democratic society stemming from the nobler religious impulses;

(2)                  Stimulating an understanding of and an appreciation for our place in domestic affairs, as a fraternity, and as people;

(3)                  Contributing in whatever way that subjects the members individually and collectively to a more effective democracy;

(4)                 Promoting brotherhood among members, one, which is posed and balanced in the great interplay of social, economic, and cultural interests of our members.152

Some forty years after it was founded, the Fraternity was in a position to take stock of how far it had come and how far it needed to go. Some of the Fraternity’s notable efforts over the years were summarized in The Sphinx by Brother Milton Wright, detailing some of the history of service within Alpha Phi Alpha, beginning with the Go‐to‐High‐ School, Go‐to‐College campaign, sparked by the alarming illiteracy rates of the population.153 This program urged students to stay in school as long as possible and provided thousands of dollars’ worth of scholarships and aid.154 It was a successful venture and even received praise from the United States’ President.155 Wright mentioned that in 1933, the Fraternity established the Educational Foundation.156 Then it launched its “Education for Citizenship” program that waged a war against the poll tax, which denied fundamental rights to African Americans.157 This program extended to efforts to secure equal educational facilities and equal civic justice for all.158 For example, Alpha Phi Alpha men were crucial in several judicial cases, some of which even made it to the Supreme Court of the United States.159 During the Great Depression, the Fraternity appointed committees to monitor unemployment rates and discriminatory employment practices, and these men even made personal contacts with government officials and industry leaders in hopes of securing more employment opportunities for minority members.160 Alpha Phi Alpha men were also among the founders and leaders of organizations like the National Urban League, the N.A.A.C.P., the YMCA, and Boy Scouts.161 After detailing the Fraternity’s history, Wright urged continued dedication to service as the needs of the population remained high.162

Perhaps following this call, Beta Phi Lambda Chapter (Savannah, Georgia) invited several community leaders to speak during their Education and Citizenship program.163 The first speaker, Wilson P. Hubert, addressed juvenile delinquency and the duties of a community when it comes to raising children.164 The second speaker, Dr. H.M. Collier Jr., addressed disparities in health care and how it negatively impacted Negro society.165 Professor C.V. Clay addressed voter registration and voting.166 At the end of the program, the chapter presented two awards commemorating individual contributions in the field of citizenship for the past year.167 These efforts carried over to the Southern Regional Convention, where it was recommended that “the Fraternity go on record as actively participating in worthy civic efforts and racial improvement organizations of its community and that each chapter sponsor at least one civic project.”168 And brothers who fought to uplift the race in courts of law were battling all over the country.

In New York, Brothers Thurgood Marshall and Robert Carter litigated the case Dorsey v. Stuyvesant Town Corp. In this case, Joseph Dorsey and others brought a suit against Stuyvesant Town Corporation for racial discrimination. Stuyvesant was building a new housing development in New York City. They did not want to admit African American tenants into their Stuyvesant Town. The question was whether the operators of Stuyvesant Town may select tenants of their own choice and whether they may refuse tenants based on race, color, creed, or religion. Previous decisions settled the matter that a private landlord may exclude tenants of a particular race, color, creed, or religion. Unsuccessful attempts had been made to assert housing as a fundamental civil right. Review of the laws regarding this showed that housing was not a recognized civil right. Marshall and Carter also confused Stuyvesant Town as a public project. Stuyvesant Town was not a low rent housing project for persons of low income. Though they were serving a public purpose by redeveloping and rehabilitating a substandard and insanitary area, the public purpose was terminated by the end results, which was not for public use. Stuyvesant Town was never a public project, and Stuyvesant was not a public corporation. The court ruled that they could not interfere in the matter of private companies, holding for the defendant.169 Brother Marshall appealed this matter. The court determined that the appellees, though receiving some State funding, could not be held to answer for their policy under the Constitution of the United States or of the State of New York. The aid was determined to not be sufficiently substantial enough to require action by the court. Thus, the judgment was affirmed.170

In Michigan, Brothers Carter and Marshall represented Otis Sheldon—an African American man—his white wife, and her white parents—in Northwest Civic Association v. Sheldon.171 Prior to the suit, defendants sought to purchase a piece of property in Security Land Company’s Subdivision. The subdivision consisted of 338 lots restricted to the use of white or Caucasian people. Of these 338 lots, 310 stated that restriction in the chain of title. Inadvertently, the remaining twenty‐eight did not contain this statement.172 Mrs. Sheldon and her parents met with the real estate agent who had the sale of the property in charge. Mr. Sheldon was not present at these meetings. The real estate agent testified that he informed Mrs. Sheldon and her parents of the restriction placed on African American residents. However, the deed to their property did not explicitly contain this statement. No African American person or family had ever before resided in the subdivision until Mr. Sheldon moved in with his wife, leading to the present case.173 Defendants claimed that Mr. Sheldon’s Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. However, the court held that it was neither contrary to public policy of the state nor the Constitution for a private landlord to permit and enforce certain restrictions upon the use and occupation of real property. Defendants relied on the fact that this restriction was not stated in the chain of title for their property.174 The court held that the purchasers were informed of the restriction and had no right to believe otherwise.175

In Tennessee, Brothers Carter and Marshall lost their case— Kennedy v. State—before the Supreme Court of Tennessee. In that case, the defendant, Loyd Kennedy, was an African American man convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree. Though no witnesses saw him firing the shots, he was found in possession of a gun and near a discharged gun after the shooting. He sought review of his case and claimed that the trial court erred in not holding that he was discriminated against by excluding African American voters from the jury. However, the Supreme Court of Tennessee found that the jury pool consisted of four African American voters and thus, there was no discrimination. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.176

In Louisiana, Brother Tureaud—attorney for the New Orleans chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. during the Civil Rights Movement—and colleagues prevailed in State v. Perkins before the Supreme Court of Louisiana on behalf of Jessie Perkins. The case involved the claim that the Equal Protection Clause required that an African American be afforded the opportunity to have members of his race serve on grand and petit juries in a case involving his life or liberty, and the denial of such a guarantee cannot be countenanced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence given the following statements: “We find no substance in this proposition. In the first place, the evidence shows that the general venire lists complained of were supplemented so that there were five Negros thereon. Moreover, we do not understand that a person charged with crime is entitled to have an exact percentage of persons of his race, in comparison to other races, placed on the general venire. The Constitution forbids discrimination, it does not deal with percentages.”177

In Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the case involved racial segregation toward African Americans by the University of Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Ada Sipuel, applied to the University of Oklahoma, the only taxpayer funded law school in the State of Oklahoma at the time, and was denied because of her race. She then petitioned the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma and the case worked its way to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which  upheld the decision of the lower district court. Brothers Carter and Marshall represented the plaintiff in state court. Marshall and Carter sought a writ of mandamus to compel the University of Oklahoma to admit her to its law school on the grounds that her denial violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights. She was an African American student fully qualified in pre‐law academics and moral character. She was denied admission solely based on her race. Separate education had always been the policy of the state of Oklahoma and had been upheld by voters, taxpayers, educators, and patrons of both races. If the University of Oklahoma had admitted the petitioner, they would have been subject to criminal penalty, as it was a crime in Oklahoma for a school to admit, or an instructor to teach, a student of a different race. This was thought to be for the greater good of both races. The court noted that Carter and Marshall did not seek to enjoin the state of Oklahoma to establish a law school for African American students, rather to admit her to a law school for white students. They also noted that this did not take into fair account the separate school policy of the state. The court concluded that the petitioner’s rights were not being violated. She had the right to either attend a law school for African American students in the state or attend such a school in another state. The laws of Oklahoma stood and the judgment of the trial court to deny writ of mandamus was affirmed.178 On appeal, Brother Marshall along with Amos Hall (Omega Psi Phi Fraternity) and Frank D. Reeves litigated the case before the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding for the petitioner.179

In South Carolina, Brothers Carter and Marshall prevailed in two cases—Elmore v. Rice and Wrighten v. Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina, both before the South Carolina federal trial court. In Elmore v. Rice, George Elmore, a fully qualified African American voter, brought suit against the Democratic Party on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He and certain other qualified African American voters entered the polling place on the appropriate date at the appropriate time. After requesting ballots and permission to vote in the Democratic Primary, they were denied on the grounds that they were not white Democrats. The question here was whether racial distinctions can exist in the primary election process, considering the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments. In the case Newberry v. United States, Justice Pitney declared that the primary election should not be treated as a separate thing from the general election but should be considered something so closely related that proper regulation is required. The present court held this view and stated that racial distinctions could not exist in the machinery that elects the officers and lawmakers of the United States. All citizens are equally entitled to vote, so the court granted judgment in favor of the plaintiff and enjoined the Democratic Party from excluding qualified voters based on race or color.180

In Wrighten v. Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina, John Wrighten was an African American student who applied to the University of South Carolina Law School. He was fully qualified in academic achievement and character and was denied solely on the grounds of race. South Carolina state laws forbid any school to admit both white and African American students. However, the University of South Carolina was the only institution by and in the state that operated a law school. There was no law school operated by an institution that admitted solely African American students. Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States, Carter and Marshall claimed that Wrighten had a right to equal opportunities in education. Brothers Carter and Marshall asked the court to declare injunctive relief, whereby Wrighten would be entitled to receive a legal education at the University of South Carolina Law School. Additionally, Carter and Marshall asked that money damages be paid by reason of deprivation of Wrighten’s rights. The court decided that the question  of damages would be heard at another time. The question of this case was whether the plaintiff was entitled to admission at the University of South Carolina Law School and whether the state should be given ample time to provide equal law school facilities at a separate institution in the state. The state claimed that the State College for African American students had received no applications for legal education at that institution and only recently had inquiries been made. The court responded that this was an excuse for delay but not denial of a legal education for African American students. They ordered that the state of South Carolina provide law school facilities for African American students equal to those at the University of South Carolina, either at the University itself, another institution of the state, or provide none to anyone. The state was granted until the next law school semester, September 1947, to comply with these orders.181

In Westminster School District of Orange County v. Mendez, Brothers Carter and Marshall, along with Loren Miller, submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the N.A.A.C.P. in a case before the United States federal court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Westminster School District appealed the judgment of the district court, which had ruled that the segregation of Mexican schoolchildren was unconstitutional. They appealed on the grounds that there was no federal question put at issue, as the school officers were not acting under a state law or statute and thus, could not be violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The questions here were whether the acts of segregation were done under color of state law and if that violated constitutional rights. Marshall and Carter had originally contested that the children, as well as 5,000 other similarly situated children, were victims of unconstitutional discrimination by being forced to attend a separate school for Mexicans. The court decided that the school officials, though they acted beyond the scope of their power, performed under the color or pretense of California state law. Appellants argued that other court cases had upheld school segregation, but the court decided that those cases were not controlling in this one. No California state law existed permitting the act of school segregation. It followed that the actions of the school officers were without merit to California state law. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision and declared the segregation unconstitutional.182

In the case Brotherhood Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Tunstall, Brothers Charles Houston and Joseph Cornelius Waddy, along with Oliver W. Hill (Omega Psi Phi Fraternity) won their case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Action was filed by Brothers Houston and Waddy against the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen for a declaratory judgment, injunction, and other relief. Tunstall was determined ineligible for membership to the Brotherhood solely because of his race. Brotherhood engaged in collective bargaining with Tunstall’s railroad employer as a representative of the entire craft. Negotiations were made without notifying Tunstall or other members of his class. As a result of the negotiations, Tunstall was removed from his job post and assigned to a more difficult, lower wage job. The federal trial court dismissed the case, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed on the ground that the federal courts lacked the jurisdiction over the case. Houston and Waddy, therefore, appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, in turn, reversed the dismissal of the Circuit Court. On remand, the federal trial court declared that the Brotherhood was the exclusive representative of the firemen employed by the railway company for the purposes of collective bargaining under the Railway Labor Act, that it was the duty of the Brotherhood to represent impartially and without hostile discrimination the plaintiff and the other African American firemen, that the Brotherhood had violated this duty by negotiating with the railway company, that the agreements were null and void since they deprived the plaintiff and other African American firemen of seniority and employment rights, and that the plaintiff had been illegally removed from his run and was entitled to be restored thereto. The defendants were enjoined from giving force or effect to the agreements insofar as they interfered with the occupation of plaintiff or of the class represented by him, and the railway company was ordered to restore his position. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision on appeal, finding discrimination in the actions of Brotherhood.183

In Patton v. Mississippi, Brother Marshall lost his case before the United States Supreme Court. Edgar Patton, an African American man, appealed after being indicted by an all‐white jury for the murder of a white man and sentenced to death by electrocution. Citing the Fourteenth Amendment, he noted that no African American person had served on a jury in thirty years. Though at least twenty‐five African American male electors were qualified for jury service, not a single one was selected. The question was whether there was systematic racial discrimination in the juror selection process. In order to quell the presumption that African American voters were deliberately excluded from the jury pool, the state would be required to justify such exclusion for reasons other than racial discrimination. If jury selection proceeded in such a way to systematically exclude representation of any group of eligible voters, the verdicts of such juries could stand. The state  claimed that the reason no African American voters were included was due to the extremely low number of eligible African American voters compared to white voters. However, the court reasoned that this low number was due to the discrimination against African American voters in the making of registration lists. If the few eligible African American voters had been disqualified for proper reasons, such as commission of crime or habitual drunkenness, there was no doubt that the state could have proved it. Because they did not provide evidence against purposeful discrimination, the court concluded that it was indeed discrimination that kept African American voters out of jury service for more than thirty years. The decision of the lower courts was reversed.184

Continuing its collaborative efforts, in March of 1948, Alpha Phi Alpha became part of the American Council on Human Rights (“ACHR”)—a joint effort with Alpha Kappa Alpha, Delta Sigma Theta, Sigma Gamma Rho, Zeta Phi Beta, and Kappa Alpha Psi—that sought to lobby the United States Congress to pass civil rights legislation.185 In August of 1948, Elmer Henderson (Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity) was appointed the director of the organization with the assistance of Patricia Roberts (Delta Sigma Theta Sorority). The ACHR was dedicated to placing the efforts of college students into an organization that focused on extending human rights for every American.186

In 1948, Alpha Phi Alpha membership was at an all‐time high with a recorded 5,956 active members. 187 At that year’s General Convention, the General Treasurer’s report indicated that Alpha Phi Alpha owned government bonds in its reserve fund worth a total of $18,545.00.188 Over the next year, the Fraternity continued to focus on building social programs and achieving equal citizenship. All members were urged to cooperate and aid N.A.A.C.P. efforts and social campaigns. Chapters committed themselves to increasing the registration of African American voters, which caused Alpha Phi Alpha to team‐up with the N.A.A.C.P. and its political action program in the fight for voting rights and the abolition of the poll taxes.189

Individually, brothers were on the front‐line of social change. Illustrating racial tensions in 1948, past General President Raymond W. Cannon turned down a position on the Twin City Draft Board because of the continued racial discrimination in the United States Army.190 In Maryland, Brother Charles Hamilton Houston and his team of lawyers litigated several cases. In Goetz v. Smith, he and Donald Gaines Murray (Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity) represented Hiram and Lulu Smith and others, winning the case before the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The action involved two cases that were argued together in the Court, involving the attempted enforcement of a restrictive covenant against the sale, lease, transfer, or permitted occupation of certain properties  to or by “any negro, Chinaman, Japanese, or person of negro, Chinese or Japanese descent.”191 In the Circuit Court, the plaintiffs in the first case were unsuccessful in their attempt to enforce the restrictive covenant, however the plaintiffs in the second case were successful. The losers of each case appealed. The losers of the second case appealed under the allegation of a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decree in the first case was affirmed, the decree in the second case was reversed, and the bill of complaint dismissed, under protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.192

However, before the Maryland federal trial court, Brother Houston lost two cases. In Law v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Brothers Houston and Waddy, along with W.A.C. Hughes, Jr., represented Charles Law who sued for the enforcement of civil rights arising under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff alleged that he and other African American golfers were not provided equal golf facilities as those given to white individuals. Defendants argued that they provided a golf facility specifically for African American golfers that, considering there were far less African American golfers than white golfers, was an equal facility. The court found the African American golf facility to be far inferior to the white golf facility. Accordingly, the court suggested that the Board of Recreation and Parks devise a solution that would remedy the lack of equality exhibited in African American and white golf facilities.193

In Norris v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Brother Houston, Fred E. Wiesgal, Harry O. Levin, and W.A.C. Hughes, Jr. represented Leon A. Norris. Norris applied to the Maryland Institute  for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts and was denied admission due to his race. Norris filed suit on the grounds of the Fourteenth Amendment. His complaint asked for (1) a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff is entitled to be received as a student in the Maryland Institute on the same terms as other citizens and residents of Baltimore City without regard to race or color, (2) that the Institute be enjoined from excluding him from such instruction solely because of race or color, (3) in the alternative, if the plaintiff is not entitled to the above relief, then the other defendant, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, a municipal corporation, be enjoined from appropriating any public money or allocating any public property or resources to the Art Institute if it is a private corporation not under the restraints of the Federal Constitution, (4) for damages of $20,000. The complaint was dismissed, with the court stating that the act of discrimination did not constitute state action because the Institute was a private corporation in view of the fact that its officers were not appointed by and it was not subject to the control of public authority. It was also dismissed because the alternative relief in the complaint lacked jurisdiction because an injunction against appropriations of public money to an educational institution was essentially a taxpayer’s suit.194

In Louisiana, Brother Marshall won his case—Whitmyer v. Lincoln Parish School Board—before the federal trial court. Carl Whitmyer, an African American school teacher, brought a class action suit against the Lincoln Parish school board and its superintendent. On the grounds that Whitmyer received a lower salary than white teachers of equal experience and qualification, Brother Marshall sought a declaration by the court that the rights of African American teachers be equal to those of white teachers and an injunction against further discrimination. The defendants moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that Brother Marshall brought a class action suit when in reality, Whitmyer was not a representative of all African American school teachers, and the suit was truly on Whitmyer’s own behalf as an individual. The court ruled that the motions be denied, and proper decree in favor of Brother Marshall should be issued.195

In Oklahoma, Brothers Carter and Marshall lost their case— McLaurin v. Oklahoma Regents for Higher Education—before the federal district court. G.W. McLaurin sought to earn a postgraduate degree in education from the University of Oklahoma. He was fully qualified but rejected on the grounds that the school did not admit African American students. Oklahoma laws made it a criminal offense for any school or educational institution to allow both white and African American students to attend. The court found that no other institution in the state of Oklahoma would afford the plaintiff the same opportunity for education in the same amount of time. This, they said, denied him his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth  Amendment. Further, they claimed that the Oklahoma laws requiring segregation in this case were unconstitutional and unenforceable. However, this did not mean that these laws were incapable of constitutional enforcement. In this particular case, they were inoperative. As the Governor of Oklahoma committed to a course of action which would provide equal facilities and opportunities for African American students in this matter, the court decided to hold off judgment. They held it was not the place of the court to determine the manner in which                  the  State complied with its constitutional responsibilities to its citizens and therefore suspended judgment.196

In a subsequent case also litigated by Brothers Carter and Marshall, McLaurin was finally accepted into and attended the University of Oklahoma. However, the segregated conditions under which he attended violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Though he attended the same classes as white students, he was required to sit at a designated desk or area separate from the majority of the class. He was allowed to use the library books and facilities; however, he was required to bring his books to a designated desk on the mezzanine floor, while other students were permitted to use any floor or area of the library. Finally, though he was served in the same cafeteria and ate the same food, he was required to eat at different times and at a designated table. He claimed that this isolation from all the other students created a mental discomfiture which made concentration and study difficult, if not impossible. Additionally, he claimed that the badge of inferiority affixed to him by the University affected his relationships to other students and his professors. However, the court found no legal basis for his mental discomfiture and found that all educational facilities were equal for white and African American students. They denied the relief McLaurin sought against the University.197

In Georgia, Brothers Carter and Marshall prevailed in Davis v. Cook before the federal trial court. Samuel Davis, an African American school teacher in Atlanta, brought this class action suit on behalf of himself and other African American teachers similarly situated. He claimed that the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta was practicing unfair and discriminatory salary schedules. Before this case, the School Board had switched from a separate pay schedule for African American and white school teachers to a single pay schedule that was intended to ensure fair pay among teachers of all races. The court determined the evidence showed that, though the original intention of the single schedule was to provide equal pay, it was implemented in such a way to discriminate pay based on race or color. Statistical evidence was provided by statistics experts on the side of the plaintiffs and the defense, and the numbers showed that the mean salaries of African American teachers were lower than the mean salaries of white teachers, even after controlled for experience and qualification. Only 1.5% of African American teachers were earning over $189 per month, while 78.1% of white teachers were earning over $189 per month. Because there was no administrative remedy for removing the salary inequalities, it could not have been exhausted prior to the filing of the suit. While the power to assign salaries would remain in the hands of the defendants, the court decreed that such assignments could not be discriminatory because of race or color. Injunctive relief was granted, and the defendants were given a reasonable time to comply.198

In South Carolina, Brothers Carter and Marshall prevailed in Brown v. Baskin before the federal trial court where David Brown had been a fully qualified voter in the state of South Carolina. He registered to the Democratic Party in order to vote in the primary election. His name, as well as other African American voters, was stricken from the enrollment books. He was told he must present a general election certificate and take an oath which, among other things, included the assertion that he would vote in favor of segregation. This case was an issue under the Fourteen and Seventeenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The court believed the actions of the defendant to be a clear and flagrant evasion of the law. A temporary injunction was issued to allow all qualified people in the state to register for enrollment in the Democratic Party.199 On appeal, handled by Brothers Carter and Marshall, the federal appeals court for the Fourth Circuit found no reason to overturn or modify their decision or to defend the voting limitations imposed by the Democratic Party of South Carolina. They held that the right to vote is an essential feature of our form of government and could not be denied to any citizen as ensured by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. These Amendments had been added to the Constitution in order to ensure to all African American citizens the equal protection of the laws and the right to full participation in government.200

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brother Houston, along with Francis S.K. Whittaker and Oliver W. Johnson, appealed the matter of Hampton v. Thompson. Allen Hampton and others were brakemen on the Kingsville Division of the St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railroad Company and members of the Colored Trainmen of America. They sued for themselves and all other brakemen members of their union to enjoin the enforcement of an award of the First Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board against San Antonio, Uvalde, Gulf Railroad Company, and subordinate lodges of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. The District Court was of the opinion that it did not have jurisdiction but stayed the proceedings so that Brother Houston would have the opportunity to present their grievances to the National Railroad Adjustment Board for its decision. Brother Houston declined. The Fifth Circuit was to determine whether the fact that the appellants were African American members of an all‐black railway labor union entitled them to by‐pass the National Railroad Adjustment Board and sue directly in the federal courts. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that they were not entitled, stating that, “Constitutional amendments and federal statutes, dealing with race or color, were written, they have been interpreted and applied, not to discriminate in favor of Negroes, but to prevent discrimination against them, not to make, but to prevent, a different rule for Negroes than for whites. . . . The dispute here involves no racial element whatever. The fact that the brakemen in one group are Negroes, in the other whites, has no bearing on the demands on the B.R.T.   lodges.”201

In Hurd v. Hodge, a case Brother Charles Houston, along with Phineas Indritz, brought before the United States Supreme Court, Frederic Hodge and others sought injunctive relief to enforce the terms on restrictive covenants. The federal trial court declared the deeds held by the African American petitioners to be null and void, thereby enforcing the terms of the restrictive covenants. White property owners who sold the houses to the African American petitioners were enjoined from selling, leasing, or conveying the properties to any African American or colored person. African American petitioners were ordered to remove themselves and their belongings from the property. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, as it felt that the decision was consistent with earlier decisions of the Court of Appeals. The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision, finding it in violation of the Civil Rights Act.202

In Shelley v. Kraemer, a case Brother Marshall brought before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Louis Kraemer and his wife, the matter dealt with the ability of state courts to uphold a private agreement denying African Americans their equal rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thirty out of thirty‐nine total owners of property in a certain neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri signed an agreement which stated that the property in the area would be restricted to use by only white citizens. Several parcels of land affected by this restrictive covenant were already owned by African Americans.

The owners of the affected properties petitioned to have the agreement declared unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.  However, the lower court ruled in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court decided that, although private agreements of this sort are not subject to the equal protection clause, the fact that the lower court enforced such discrimination was, in fact, unconstitutional. They ruled in favor of the petitioners.203

In Texas, Brother Heman Marion Sweatt brought a case— Sweatt v. Painter—to challenge the “separate but equal doctrine” of racial segregation established by Plessy v. Ferguson. Brother Sweatt was refused admission to the School of Law of the University of Texas on the grounds that the Texas State Constitution prohibited integrated education. At the time, no law school in Texas would admit African American students.204 In an appeal brought by Brothers Thurgood Marshall and Robert Carter, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, saying that the separate school failed to qualify, both because of quantitative differences in facilities and intangible factors, such as its isolation from most of the future lawyers with whom its graduates would interact. The Court held that when considering graduate education, intangibles must be considered as part of substantive equality.205

As the first half of the Twentieth Century came to a close, the racial climate facing African Americans continued to be deeply problematic. In 1949, General President Lawson declared that Alpha Phi Alpha translated its program and spirit to Negro progress all over America as part of a racial crusade.206 Furthermore, the Fraternity’s General Secretary urged every chapter to encourage their fellow students to exercise the franchise (voting).207 By October of 1949, members attended the board meeting of the ACHR in Washington, D.C.208 Alpha Phi Alpha brothers and the rest of the ACHR made efforts to push several civil rights bills but to no avail.209 That year’s ACHR Report demonstrated Alpha Phi Alpha’s commitment to racial equality and included the following:

a.       Alpha Phi Alpha, as part of the ACHR, encouraged a new housing bill that supported FHA financing for middle‐income groups—specifically, African Americans, who were discriminated against by the FHA.

b.       Alpha Phi Alpha joined the N.A.A.C.P. to encourage improvement in the Fair Employment Board’s approach to discrimination.

c.       Alpha Phi Alpha worked with the President’s Committee on Equality of Training and Opportunity in the Armed Services to address discrimination in the military. After the Fraternity testified before the committee, several changes had been made to the Navy and Air Force, but not in the Army, although the group has pledged to continue its efforts as far as the Army is concerned.

d.      The ACHR investigated the lack of African American participation in the federal “Vocational Education and Apprenticeship Training” program, which they believe to be a product of discriminatory hiring practices of the participating bureaus.210

e.       Alpha Phi Alpha asked to help a group of African American members of the U.S. Park Police combat discrimination in employment and promotions within the police unit. After the Fraternity took the matter up with the Secretary of the Interior, the issue was addressed and rectified.211

On other fronts, Fraternity leadership urged members to cooperate and aid N.A.A.C.P. efforts and social campaigns. One example of such aid involved Brother Billy Jones who successfully fought for integration in the East St. Louis school system alongside the N.A.A.C.P.; he also took an active role in the local school discrimination cases.212

In Kentucky, Brothers Marshall and Carter, along with James Crumlin, Sr. (Omega Psi Phi Fraternity) and John Rose, litigated the case of Brother Lyman T. Johnson in Johnson v. Board of Trustees. The case, brought before the federal trial court, involved a student who applied to the University of Kentucky’s graduate program and who was denied admission on the basis of his race. The court found that “[t]he refusal to admit plaintiff to the graduate school . . . solely because of his race and color constitutes a denial of rights secured under the Fourteenth Amendment.”213 Therefore, Kentucky’s Day Law, banning whites and African Americans from attending the same school, was held unconstitutional because the basement set up by the university was not “substantially” equal.214

In a Kentucky federal court, Brothers Houston and Waddy, along with Charles W. Anderson, prevailed in their case—Salvant v. Louisville & Nashville Rail Road Company. Cyrille Salvant sought an injunction against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen to enjoin them from further bargaining as his statutory representative. Salvant was an African American resident of Mobile, Alabama who was employed by Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company as a locomotive fireman. He brought this action as a class action on behalf of other African American employees on the claim of jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment, the Railway Labor Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Judiciary Act. He worked under contract with his employer that was negotiated by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, as a representative of all members of the craft. Slavant filed a complaint with the Brotherhood that the Brotherhood was committed to eliminating African American locomotive firemen from the railroad service. Salvant also sought an injunction pendent lite prohibiting negotiations proposed by a certain notice. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The motion for injunction pendent lite was sustained, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss was overruled. The requested injunctive relief as to the railroad was denied, as the railroad was a public service corporation under obligation to run trains and serve the public. The railroad had no option other than to recognize the right of the union to bargain collectively or else it would have had to shut down the railroad, which was not an option. However, injunctive relief against the Brotherhood was granted in order to determine if the evidence sustained the allegations.215

Brother Marshall, in Monk v. City of Birmingham, prevailed before the federal trial court in Alabama. Mary Means Monk, the plaintiff in this class action suit, argued on her behalf and on the behalf of any other African American citizens of Birmingham similarly situated, that certain zoning ordinances of the city were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants were the City of Birmingham, James W. Morgan, a city commissioner, and H.E. Hagood, its building inspector. The sections of the zoning ordinance in question racially segregated certain residence districts.

The ordinance made it a misdemeanor offense for a member of the prohibited race to move into the districts from which they were banned. Brother Marshall claimed that the zoning ordinances violated plaintiffs’ rights to use and occupy property solely on the basis of race or color, as they already owned and paid for property in the prohibited district. Further, they claimed that the zoning and classification of the property was tantamount to its confiscation, and this threatened them with irreparable injury. Each of the plaintiffs owned a piece of real estate, each of the plaintiffs purchased their property prior to the filing of the zoning ordinances, each of the plaintiffs was subject to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, and no African American citizen including the plaintiffs would be permitted to occupy their property as a home or dwelling due to their race. The court found that the mere existence of the zoning ordinances deprived the plaintiffs of the free use of their property. As property consists of more than the thing the person owns, it also consists of the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of a person’s acquisitions without control or diminution save by the law of the land, the ordinance could not stand. Judge Mullins declared the ordinances unconstitutional.216

In Kansas, Brother Marshall represented Alfonso Webb and Mary Webb, and others in Webb v. School District No. 90, Johnson County, who were the parents of African American school children who had be reassigned to attend a new school in their district. This school was found to be unlawfully established, inadequate, insufficient, out of date, dilapidated, and not fit for a school. The district refused to allow the African American students in question to attend the other school in the district, South Park Grade School, by claiming that they did not live in the district. However, it was found that the attendance areas were not divided by any reasonable means, but meandered in such a way to force all African American students to attend the dilapidated Walker School and all white students to attend the South Park Grade School. The differences in each facility were as follows: South Park Grade School had undergone a $90,000 reconstruction in 1947 while Walker School had no plans for renovation; Walker School was constructed in such a way to provide sanitation and fire hazards, while South Park Grade School was of the latest design and materials; neither school contained a gym, but South Park Grade School contained a large auditorium while Walker School had none; Walker School’s playground equipment would be adequate if several missing parts were installed; no kindergarten existed at Walker School; South Park Grade School had both a lunch service and a kindergarten; Walker School had only two teachers while South Park had nine; the eighth grades at Walker School were taught in two rooms, while South Park had a different room for each grade as well as a part‐time music teacher, which Walker School lacked. Textbooks, teaching materials, and scholastic attainment were all judged to be the same. The bathrooms at Walker School were outside while those at South Park were inside. The court ruled that the establishment of Walker School and its attendance areas were unreasonable and unlawful. The writ of mandamus to compel district officials to admit African American students was allowed.217

In the Midwest, the federal court of appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down its decision in Whiteside v. Southern Bus Lines, Inc., a case litigated by Brothers Carter and Marshall. Elizabeth Whiteside, an African American bus passenger, challenged the district court decision, which ruled that the appellee bus company not liable. The appellant had been forcibly ejected from the bus she was riding from St. Louis, Missouri to Paducah, Kentucky. She refused to move from her front seat to the rear of the bus and was then removed from the bus by the bus operator and a nearby police officer, who the operator had enlisted for help. During this ordeal, the appellant claimed that she was severely injured and lost several articles of personal property. The question for this court was whether the seating of passengers upon buses due to race and color imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce. The appellee bus company claimed that they reserved themselves to full control and discretion of the seating of passengers and reserved the right to change such seating at any time during the trip. The appellant challenged that rule as neither reasonable nor necessary for the safety, comfort, and convenience of its passengers and that the appellee had no legal or constitutional right to adopt or enforce it. Two previous decisions, controlling in this case, were Hall v. DeCuir and Morgan v. Virginia. The Morgan case reasoned that uniformity was necessary for the functioning of commerce and that regulations designating seat assignments may be disturbing, particularly when they are through territory where local regulations differ.218 Thus, this court reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded to the district court for trial.219

As 1949 came to a close, General President Lawson reached out to Alpha Phi Alpha brothers, requesting that they provide statements about their experiences of segregation on the United States railways as part of Elmer Henderson’s (Kappa Alpha Psi) ongoing Henderson v. U.S. case.220 General President General President Lawson thought such statements would be effective in conveying the “brutalizing and humiliating effects of this type of public humiliation” to the court.221 Specifically, General President Lawson solicited the aid of Brothers Howard Hale Long, Rayford Wittingham Logan, and Antonio Maceo Smith—Alpha Phi Alpha’s seventh, fifteenth, and seventeenth General Presidents, respectively. In a letter to General President Lawson, dated May 25, 1949, Logan—who was, at that point, a History Professor at Howard University—stated:

Dear Brother Lawson:

I am delighted to know that definite progress is being made with respect to the validity and reasonableness of the dining car regulations of the Southern railway. In response to your request I am submitting the following statement which you may use in any way you deem best:

Dr. Rayford W. Logan, officer of the United States Army in France in World War I, head of the Department of History at Howard University, world traveler, author of several books and member of the United States, National Commission for UNESCO, states that the regulation which compels me to eat behind a curtain or partition in a dining car is the most humiliating and degrading experience in his entire life in the United States. He further states that by training and temperament it is impossible for him to be a communist but if there were any one thing in American society that would lead him to communism, it is the impact of the insult to his dignity as an individual arising from the dining car regulations.222

A letter dated June 1, 1949 to General President Lawson, Smith—then a Racial Relations Advisor for the Federal Housing Administration— stated:

Dear Sir:

I understand that Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity is prosecuting the case of Elmer Henderson v. United States, et al, in an effort to eliminate the vicious practices of Southern Railroads which require Negro passengers, who seek dining car accommodations, to be served at a table set off by curtain or partition. As one who travels extensively in the interest of the Government I wish to make some comments.

I have been exposed to these conditions many, many times and have never enjoyed equality in service at any time, while seated behind this curtain. Usually these four seats behind the curtain are occupied by whites because of overflow and congestion while there may be a single seat available elsewhere in the dining car. In the next place, the humiliating inconvenience and discomfort of such separate seats are not in use by whites during the early period of the meal, the dining car employees occupy them and leave them, usually, in complete disorder.

Because of the discomfiture of such separate eating facilities on most Southern Railroads, many  times I deny myself the privilege of a meal, rather than to engage in controversy with the Railroad employees in search of an available seat elsewhere in the dining car.223

And in a letter to General President Lawson dated June 11, 1949, Long— then an administrator at Central State University—wrote:

My dear Brother Lawson:

….I wish to advise that I have never eaten behind the curtain provided in dining cars which separate the tables where Negroes may eat from tables where all other human beings may eat. Several times I have had meals served in the Pullman car to avoid humiliation. At other times I have been fortunate enough not to eat at all rather than sit behind the curtain. I have talked to a goodly number of my friends and acquaintances who travel a good deal and I am advised in varying details

that to them the separation by the curtain does something somewhat different from the other Jim‐crow experiences they have had. In the first place, it seems so senseless that white persons should be satisfied to be served, by Negro waiters, food that has been cooked and prepared by Negro cooks, but refuse to eat in the same car with other Negroes unless there is some symbol of the inferior status imposed by circumstances over which Negroes themselves do not have control.224

These letters and others would ultimately be included in the petitioner’s brief to the United States Supreme Court in Henderson.225

1 CHARLES H. WESLEY, THE HISTORY OF ALPHA PHI ALPHA: A DEVELOPMENT IN COLLEGE LIFE

242 (16th ed. 1996).

2 Id at 236.

3 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1940, at 19‐20.

4 THE SPHINX, May 1940, at 9.

5 Alston v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk, 112 F.2d 992 (4th Cir. 1940).

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Alpha Phi Alpha and National Defense, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1940, at 5, 12.

10 Kenneth L. Bright, Fraternity Buy Power ‘A Social Mechanism’, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1940, at 10.

11 Furman L. Templeton, Worker Education A Needed Program, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1940, at 11.

12 See generally, GUICHARD PARRIS & LESTER BROOKS, BLACKS IN THE CITY: A HISTORY OF THE

NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE (1971).

13 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1941, at 18.

14 THE SPHINX, Mar. 1941, at 12, 14.

15 State ex rel. Bluford v. Can., 153 S.W.2d 12 (Mo. 1941).

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 McDaniel v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction for Escambia Cty., 39 F.Supp. 638 (N.D. Fla. 1941).

19 Id.

20Id.

21 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1941, at 22.

22 THE SPHINX, March 1941, at 14.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 THE SPHINX, Nov. 1941, at 5.

26 Pan‐Hellenic Council Takes Stand for Negros in National Defense, THE SPHINX, Mar. 1941, at 13.

27 THE SPHINX, supra note 25, at 16.

28 Id. at 6.

29 THE SPHINX, supra note 21, at 5.

30 Sidney A. Jones, Democracy and World War II, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1941, at 6.

31 THE SPHINX, May 1942, at 11‐12.

32 Id. at 12.

33 Id. at 16.

34 Id. at 12.

35 Id. at 33.

36 THE SPHINX, OCT. 1942, at 22; THE SPHINX, Feb. 1943, at 10.

37 Durkee v. Murphy, 29 A.2d 253 (Md. 1942).

38 Id.

39 Id.

40 Id.

41 Thomas v. Hibbitts, 46 F. Supp. 368 (M.D. Tenn. 1942).

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 Smith v. Allwright, 131 F.2d. 593 (5th Cir. 1942).

45 Id.

46 Id.

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

48 Dr. Reid E. Jackson, For ‘What’ Are We Fighting, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1942, at 11‐12, 24.

49 Id.

50 Id.

51 Thomas Posey, The Negro in Post War Reconstruction, THE SPHINX, May 1942 at 14, 42.

52 George W. Gore, Jr., Nobility Imposes Obligation, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1942 at 40, 42.

53 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 268‐69.

54 THE SPHINX, Feb. 1943, at 7‐8.

55 Id.

56 Id.

57 Id. at 6, 30.

58 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1943, at 6.

59 Id.

60 Id.

61 Id.

62 THE SPHINX, Feb. 1943, at 25.

63 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1943, at 29.

64 Id. at 10.

65 Id. at 14.

66 Turner v. Keefe, 50 F. Supp. 647 (S.D. Fla. 1943).

67 Id.

68 Id.

69 Id.

70 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1944, at 5.

71 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 280.

72 Id.

73 THE SPHINX, May 1944, at 27.

74 Id. at 30.

75 Id at 19.

76 Id. at 27.

77 Reid E. Jackson, A Forge for Freedom, THE SPHINX, May 1944, at 6, 9.

78 Reid E. Jackson, Are We Lower Than Skunks?, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1944, at 6, 9.

79 THE SPHINX, May 1944, at 11.

80 Id. at 12.

81 Id. at 16.

82 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1944, at 9.

83 DAVID A. CANTON, RAYMOND PACE ALEXANDER: A NEW NEGRO LAWYER FIGHTS FOR CIVIL

RIGHTS IN PHILADELPHIA 77‐79 (2013); Commonwealth ex rel. Mattox v. Superintendent of County Prisons, 152 Pa. Super. 167, 31 A.2d 576 (1943)

84 James v. Marinship Corp., 155 P.2d 329 (Cal. 1944).

85 Id.

86 Id.

87 Morris v. Williams, 59 F. Supp. 508 (E.D. Ark. 1944).

88 Id.

89 Id.

90 Id.

91 Id.

92 Morris v. Williams, 149 F.2d 703 (8th Cir. 1945).

93 Davis v. Cook, 55 F. Supp. 1004 (N.D. Ga. 1944).

94 Id.

95 Id.

96 Id.

97 Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192 (1944).

98 J.H. Calhoun, Jr., How Can Negro Greek‐Letter Societies Cooperate?, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1945, at 8‐9.

99 THE SPHINX, Dec. 1945, at 28‐29.

100 Id.

101 Id. at 17.

102 Thompson v. Gibbes, 60 F. Supp. 872 (E.D.S.C. 1945).

103 Id.

104 Id.

105 Mitchell v. Wright, 62 F. Supp. 580 (M.D. Ala. 1945).

106 Id.

107 Id.

108Id.

109 Id.

110 Mitchell v. Wright, 154 F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1946).

111 Mitchell v. Wright, 69 F. Supp. 698 (M.D. Ala. 1947).

112 Kerr v. Enoch Free Libr. of Balt. City, 149 F.2d 212 (4th Cir. 1945).

113 Id.

114 Id.

115 Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 (1945).

116 Id.

117 Id.

118 Id.

119 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 285.

120 Id.

121 Id. at 287‐88.

122 Id. at 289.

123 Id. at 300.

124 Id. at 301.

125 Id.

126 Id. at 296.

127 J. Rupert Picott, Alpha’s Program of Action, THE SPHINX, May 1946, at 5‐6.

128 Id.

129 Id.

130 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1946, at 5.

131 Id.

132 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1946, at 20.

133 THE SPHINX, May 1946, at 24.

134 Id.

135 Id. at 8.

136 Id.

137 Id.

138 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1946, at 10.

139 Id. at 17‐19.

140 Chapman v. King, 154 F.2d 460 (5th Cir. 1946).

141 Id.

142 Id.

143 Id.

144 Morgan v. Commonwealth of Va, 328 U.S. 373 (1946).

145 Id.

146 Id.

147 Id.

148 Id.

149 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1947, at 6.

150 Id.

151 Id. at 9.

152 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 309.

153 THE SPHINX, Dec. 1947, at 17‐18, 22.

154 Id.

155 Id.

156 Id.

157 Id.

158 Id.

159 Id.

160 Id.

161 Id.

162 THE SPHINX, supra note 166, at 42.

163 THE SPHINX, supra note 162, at 26.

164 Id.

165 Id.

166 Id.

167 Id.

168 THE SPHINX, supra note 166, at 16.

169 Dorsey v. Stuyvesant Town Corp., 74 N.Y.S.2d 220 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1947).

170 Dorsey v. Stuyvesant Town Corp., 87 N.E.2d 541 (N.Y. 1949).

171 Nw. Civic Ass’n v. Sheldon, 27 N.W.2d 36 (Mich. 1947).

172 Id.

173 Id.

174 Id.

175 Id.

176 Kennedy v. State, 22 Beeler 310, 186 Tenn. 310 (Tenn. 1947).

177 State v. Perkins, 31 So.2d 188, 192 (La. 1947).

178 Sipuel v. Bd. Of Regents, 199 Okla. 36 (1947).

179 Sipuel v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 332 U.S. 631 (1948).

180 Elmore v. Rice, 72 F. Supp. 516 (E.D. S.C. 1947).

181 Wrighten v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of S.C., 72 F. Supp. 948 (E.D. S.C. 1947).

182 Westminster Sch. Dist. of Orange Cty. v. Mendez, 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1947).

183 Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Tunstall, 163 F.2d 289 (4th Cir. 1947).

184 Patton v. State of Miss., 332 U.S. 463 (1947).

185 THE SPHINX, Dec. 1948, at 11; WESLEY, supra note 1, at 303.

186 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 304.

187 Id. at 319.

188 Id.

189 Id. at 301.

190 THE SPHINX, supra note 203, at 15.

191 Goetz v. Smith, 62 A.2d 602, 602 (Md. 1948).

192 Goetz v. Smith, 62 A.2d 602 (Md. 1948).

193 Law v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 78 F. Supp. 346 (D. Md. 1948). 194 Norris v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 78 F. Supp. 451 (D. Md. 1948). 195 Whitmyer v. Lincoln Parish Sch. Bd., 75 F.Supp. 686 (W.D. La. 1948).

196 McLaurin v. Okla. Regents for Higher Educ., 87 F.Supp. 526 (W.D. Okla. 1948).

197 McLaurin v. Okla. State Regents for Higher Educ., 87 F.Supp. 124 (W.D. Okla. 1949).

198 Davis v. Cook, 80 F. Supp 443 (N.D. Ga. 1948).

199 Brown v. Baskin, 78 F. Supp. 933 (E.D. S.C. 1948); Brown v. Baskin, 78 F. Supp. 933 (E.D. S.C. 1948).

200 Baskin v. Brown, 174 F.2d 391 (4th Cir. 1949).

201 Hampton v. Thompson, 171 F.2d 535, 538 (5th Cir. 1948).

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

203 Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).

204 Sweatt v. Painter, 210 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Civ. App. 1948).

205 Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950)

206 THE SPHINX, Dec. 1949, at 4.

207 Id. at 15.

208 Id. at 10‐11.

209 Id.

210 Id.