The 1950s

 Moving into the mid‐century, the nation developed in the areas of education, citizenship, and public service.1 Following the country’s trend, Alpha Phi Alpha experienced similar developments during this time. During the 1950s, although the Fraternity’s retention rates were previously viewed as a victory, those numbers were not the sole indicators of the organization’s progress. Alpha Phi Alpha brothers looked forward and aspired to advance and expand Alpha Phi Alpha programs and influence.2 By 1950, new sources of financial support were streaming in and the Fraternity marched forward in light of the prior years’ achievements, a certainty of attainment, and new spirit of liberalism.3

In 1950, some thought that “Negro organizations” in the past “veered too much to the frivolous and lighthearted life without much regard to the weighty issues of the day.”4 However, things began changing in the 1950s, including the initiation of social action programs and promotion of scholarship funds for needy and worthy students.5 The idea of collective action again came into play, and the notion that in the future, issues “will require the moral and financial support of our people—advocating that a combined effort of black organizations is necessary.”6 In December of 1950, General President Belford V. Lawson gave a “Convention Call,” emphasizing Alpha Phi Alpha’s fundamental characteristics of brotherhood and love, stressing that “we” are called to serve something “bigger than ourselves.”7

Alpha Phi Alpha also engaged in national efforts to end segregation. In that year, President Truman was called to end job discrimination in industries producing war materials, and a call was made by the American Council on Human Rights (“ACHR”), Alpha Phi Alpha was a partner in this effort.8 As a partial result of such joint efforts, in a report to General George C. Marshall, recommendations were made for the immediate integration of African American soldiers into all branches of the United States Armed Forces and the opportunity for African Americans to attain promotion all the way up to the rank of General.9 The group embraced three major areas in its work: (1) the national legislative program in Congress, (2) the non‐ legislative program, and (3) public relations.10 In the summer of 1950, the ACHR also created a bulletin titled “Congress and Equality,” which described Supreme Court Decisions that outlawed segregation in the education and rail car settings. Officers of the 1950 ACHR included: Elmer Henderson, director; Patricia Roberts, assistant director; Edna Gray, Alpha Kappa Alpha president; Mae Wright Downs, Delta Sigma Theta vice president; Emma Manning Carter, Sigma Gamma Rho secretary; R.O. Johnson, Phi Beta Sigma secretary; Esther C. Peyton, Zeta Phi Beta treasurer; and General President Lawson.11

In 1950, Brother Edward C. Maddox litigated in Ex parte Backstron at the California Court of Appeals. There, Brother Maddox petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to secure Eugene Backstron’s release from custody after his arrest on a warrant for extradition. Backstron was an African American held in California pending extradition to Mississippi. Brother Maddox alleged that confining Backstron to a Mississippi jail constituted cruel and unusual punishment due to his race. The court held that the scope of the inquiry in the proceeding was limited to a sufficiency determination of the extradition papers and the identity of the prisoner. The court refused to hear or determine the constitutional validity of a demanding state’s penal action in respect to the fugitive or his offense.12

In 1950, Brother Jawn Sandifer litigated Henderson v. American Airlines before the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York against a motion to transfer a case. Elmer Henderson and John Myles, Jr. had a flight delay in Kentucky, they were given a food voucher by the airline. The food voucher was for “Sky Chefs,” which denied Henderson and Myles service because they were African American. Henderson and Myles sued American Airlines and a restaurant operator for damages and an injunction, and alleged that they were discriminated against because of their color. A motion by the defendants to transfer the actions from the District Court of New York to the Eastern District of Kentucky was based on the existence of a more convenient forum and that “an indispensable party beyond the jurisdiction” of the present court had not been joined, and thereby required a transfer. The court agreed with the defendants and granted the motion to transfer the case from New York to Kentucky, holding that the “overwhelming balance of convenience was in favor of” the defendants.13

On March 20, 1950, the United States Supreme Court came down with its decision in Henderson v. United States. This was a victory that Mr. Henderson and the N.A.A.C.P. attributed to Alpha Phi Alpha and the work of General President Lawson.14 Alpha Phi Alpha’s treasury financed the case to a large extent in conjunction with the ACHR.15 The litigation had started almost a decade before. On May 17, 1942, Elmer Henderson, an African American United States citizen, traveled to Atlanta from Washington, D.C. aboard a Southern Railway (“Southern”) Train. At 5:30 p.m., as the train proceeded through Virginia, a number of passengers waited to enter and the car filled promptly. At the time, Southern served meals to passengers of different races at different times. However, the increase of passenger traffic in 1941 required the train to adopt a policy that accommodated serving both races simultaneously. Southern issued a policy whereby each train would install a curtain in the diner to separate the African American passenger tables from the white tables. The policy further stated that in the event no African American passengers arrived for service, the curtain would be pulled back and the two tables reserved for African Americans would become available for white usage. In the event that the tables became available and were occupied by whites, the next African American passenger to arrive was required to wait until the African American table was made available. Essentially, Southern’s policy permitted whites to be served ahead of African Americans at the tables reserved for African Americans if the tables had already been opened (because no African Americans showed up immediately when the diner opened) and no seats were available at white tables. This was true regardless of how long an African American stood in line. To alleviate this potential problem, Southern allowed that if one race of passengers could not eat in the diner because another race was occupying his seat, the train would serve him in his passenger seat.16

At the opening of the diner the evening of May 17, no African American passengers immediately arrived for service. As such, the curtain was pulled back and white passengers were allowed to sit at the end tables (those generally reserved for African Americans). When Henderson arrived, neither of the end tables were vacant (though seats were available among the whites sitting at the colored table), yet the steward refused to seat him among the whites. The diner was filled continuously, passengers from line taking seats as soon as others vacated them, and Henderson was forced to wait. The steward offered to serve Henderson in his seat back in the Pullman car, but Henderson declined service and waited to be seated in the dining car. By the time the diner was removed by 9:00 pm Henderson had not been served.17

The following October, Henderson filed a complaint with the Interstate Commerce Commission (“Commission”) alleging that Southern had “unjustly discriminated against him in violation of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”) and Section 2, Par. 1 of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States, by failing to furnish him with dining car service equal to that furnished to white passengers. The Commission granted Henderson a hearing and on May 13, 1944 heard oral arguments. Relying on its examiner’s recommendations and its own factual conclusions, the Commission ultimately dismissed the complaint finding that although Southern violated the ICA by subjecting Henderson to “undue and unreasonable prejudice,” Henderson did not sustain any compensable damages and, more importantly, the prejudice was the result of a casual incident and not of the Railroad’s general practice.18

Following the Commission’s decision, General President Lawson and Josiah F. Henry (Kappa Alpha Psi) brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on Henderson’s behalf. After dispensing with jurisdictional issues, the court discussed the distinction between segregation and equality of treatment. Citing Plessy v. Ferguson, the court recognized that “it has been repeatedly declared by the Supreme Court that race segregation by state law is not per se an abridgment of any constitutional right secured to the citizen.”19 Further noting that by virtue of the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to prohibit segregation in interstate travel, but has not done so; choosing rather to limit Section 3 of the ICA prohibition to “undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.”20 Furthermore, the court cited Mitchell v. United States, noting that the right to a particular accommodation does not depend upon the volume of traffic . . . if such accommodations are provided, substantial equality cannot lawfully be withheld. Because segregation of interstate passengers was not per se forbidden by the Constitution, the court directed its attention to whether ICA policy provided equal accommodations.21

The court concluded that the service was not equal. It based its decision on the fact that Southern’s policy (approved of by the ICA in its previous ruling) “[did] not in fact require the setting aside of the two tables . . . exclusively for Negro passengers, but merely [said] that they are not to be used by white passengers until all other seats in the car have been taken.”22 Additionally, the court observed that the regulations failed to require the steward to take steps to ascertain whether there were any African Americans on the train and that the regulations failed to consider the probability that an African American passenger may not desire a meal as soon as he boards the train.

Therefore, the court concluded that Southern’s policy did not afford that substantial equality of treatment between the races that the ICA and Mitchell required. The court did not discuss the quality of the seats themselves—e.g., closeness of the African American tables to the noisy kitchen, located behind an obvious curtain of separation, and limited to only two of the twelve tables, but relied solely on the fact that the tables were not exclusively reserved. Accordingly, the court dismissed the Commission’s order and remanded.23

Following the remand, Southern adopted new regulations for its dining cars where one of the behind‐the‐curtain tables was reserved exclusively for African American passengers. Unlike the previous iteration of Southern’s segregated dining experience, the “improved” policy provided for the possibility that white passengers would have to wait regardless of whether the African American table was empty. The Commission, in reviewing Southern’s new policy, affirmed its prior findings in that although Henderson was subjected to undue and unreasonable prejudice, no basis for an award had been shown, and further found that the new regulations did not violate the ICA. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the complaint and Henderson again brought suit in federal district court to set aside the Commission’s order.24

The court agreed with the Commission and dismissed Henderson’s complaint on similar grounds as in Henderson I. First, the court reestablished that racial segregation of interstate passengers is not forbidden by the United States Constitution, the ICA, or any other Act of Congress. The court recognized recent United States Supreme Court decision in Morgan v. Virginia, noting that the Court held unconstitutional a Virginia statute which required separation of the races in buses. The Court distinguished between state action and a rule of a carrier requiring segregation of interstate passengers. The Court held that “when passing upon the rule of a carrier that required segregation of an interstate passenger . . . we must keep in mind that we are not dealing with the law of a state attempting a regulation of interstate commerce beyond its power to make.”25 The district court distinguished Morgan on additional grounds because Southern’s regulations applied only to service in dining cars, the regulations applied uniformly over the entire railroad system, and the regulation enforcement would not disturb the passengers by forcing them to change seats.26

Additionally, the court agreed with the Commission’s determination that the regulation allotting only one reserved table was adequate. Based on statistical evidence, the court concluded that less than four percent of Southern’s passengers were African American, yet the reserved table allowed for eight percent of available seats in the diner. Although the number of African American passengers increased nearly two percentage points over the course of a year and was conceivable to become greater than eight percent, the court held that “should the indicated trend continue, substantial equality of treatment may require the reservation of additional accommodations for Negroes in the future.”27 However, the court also held that the 1946 data coupled with the one table policy provide “an equitable and reasonable division between the races of its available dining‐car spaces.”28

Finally, the court observed that the principle of segregation was approved by the Supreme Court and that the curtains were merely a method of carrying it into execution and was therefore for the Commission to determine. Accordingly, curtains were a reasonable means to segregate. The court devoted four lines of the Federal Supplement to dismissing the notion that the table located near the kitchen with its heat, noise, etc. was less desirable than any other seat. As such, since neither the curtains nor the location of the tables were inadequate or unequal, the court dismissed Henderson’s complaint.29

Following the district court’s dismissal, Henderson appealed directly to the Supreme Court. On brief for Henderson were six attorneys—Brothers Belford Lawson, Jawn Sandifer, and Sidney A. Jones, Jr., along with Marjorie McKenzie, Earl B. Dickerson (Kappa Alpha Psi), and Josiah F. Henry, Jr. (Kappa Alpha Psi). There were also six Of Counsels—Charlotte R. Pinkett, along with Brothers Aubrey Robinson, Edward W. Brooke, William M. McClain, Theodore Berry, and George H. Windsor.30 Several organizations submitted amicus briefs. Alpha Phi Alpha brothers, Robert L. Carter and Thurgood Marshall, submitted one for the N.A.A.C.P.31 On brief for the National Bar Association were Brothers Joseph R. Booker (President) and William A. Booker, as well as Richard E. Westbrooks (Chairman of the Civil Rights Committee), George N. Leighton (Kappa Alpha Psi), Zedrick T. Braden (Kappa Alpha Psi), Lucia Theodosia Thomas, Georgia Jones Ellis, Earl B. Dickerson (Kappa Alpha Psi), and Joseph E. Clayton, Jr., (Members of the Civil Rights Committee). Richard Westbrooks and George Leighton also served as Of Counsels on the brief.32

The Court determined that its decision was largely controlled by its recent decision in Mitchell v. United States. In Mitchell, an African American passenger was denied a seat in a Pullman car although he held a first‐class ticket, the seat was unoccupied, and the seat would have been available had Mitchell been white. Railroad regulations allotted a limited amount of “Pullman space” to African American passengers, and because the allotment was met, Mitchell was required to ride in a second‐class coach. The Court held that the passenger had been subjected to an unreasonable disadvantage, as the Railroad violated section three of the ICA. Likewise, the Court observed that here, Henderson was denied a seat in the dining car that would have been available if he was white. As in Mitchell, the Court concluded that Southern’s regulation subjected passengers to undue and unreasonable prejudices in violation of the ICA.33

The Court emphasized that the right to be free from unreasonable discrimination under the ICA belongs to each particular person. The Court observed that denial of dining service to any passenger based on Southern’s segregation by race regulation imposed deprivation upon white and African American passengers alike. For instance, assuming only ten African American passengers arrived and the white section was entirely empty, six of those African Americans would have to wait even though forty white seats remained available. Likewise, if forty‐one whites arrived without any African Americans eating, the one white would have to wait. Furthermore, the Court dismissed Southern’s “volume of blacks” argument. Here, the Court cited Mitchell’s holding in that “the comparative volume of traffic cannot justify the denial of a fundamental right of equality of treatment, a right specifically safeguarded by the provisions of the [ICA].”34 Having established that the regulation violated the ICA, the Court saved the constitutional arguments for another day. Its terse holding granted life support to Plessy in that the Constitution still permitted segregation, but Plessy’s foundation was severely weakened. Henderson demonstrated “separate but equal” was an “undue or unreasonable prejudice,” and could provide for dicta in the movement to overrule Plessy.35

This decision, along with the Sweatt and McLaurin cases decided on the same day, initially cracked the legal foundation of segregation established in Plessy.36 This case was also an achievement for Alpha Phi Alpha, as this was the only major civil rights case of the era not funded by the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational

Fund.37 Elmer Henderson singled out General President Lawson for praise, saying, “The major credit is due Mr. Lawson . . . for his excellent legal talent and his perseverance in toiling with the case for a period of eight years involving frequent appeals and transfers and a running battle with the Southern Railway Co.—one of the country’s largest corporations.”38 After the Supreme Court laid down precedent that aided the Fraternity in furthering its goals of equality, Alpha Phi Alpha was determined to keep on moving forward. The Fraternity’s new alliance with the ACHR led to President Harry Truman being inclined to take a stance against job discrimination based on race and/or religion in war material producing industries and the creation of an agency, a huge PR victory for the Alpha Phi Alpha men.39

In 1950, The Fraternity’s conventions echoed the efforts of its members. At the Southern Regional Convention, there was an address on human rights and the rejection of segregation in all of its forms.40 Additionally, the Atlanta Convention’s theme was “Jim Crow Must Go.”41 Generally, the Atlanta Convention privileged the gains of Civil Rights and planned new action.42 Recommendations at the convention included: Expand and develop the National Legal Program of the Fraternity, a special award be given in the future, recognition pertaining to contribution to the field of civil rights, and that each chapter organize a civil and human rights committee to focus on poll taxes and registration for local and general elections.43 Highlights of the Thirty‐Fifth General Convention included Beta Sigma Lambda Chapter’s establishment a scholarship fund of $500,44 it was recommended that undergraduate chapters spend less on social affairs and instead spend it on “self‐sustaining projects,” and members considered whether gradualism works and whether they would be able by compromise to eradicate certain racial prejudices.45 Moreover, the convention agreed that President Truman’s Civil Rights Bills must be passed.46

College chapters continued to push education and social justice initiatives. The chapters were encouraged to participate in the “Education for Citizenship Week,” have forums on equal education, and to organize “a program of action to inform and stimulate the thinking of students personnel on the achievement of equal education for all citizens.”47 Just as national efforts were made, college chapters too were urged to “resolve itself to fight discrimination and segregation,” in addition to taking part in campus life and activities.48 Perhaps answering the call, the Chi Chapter (Meharry Medical College) detailed a successful education project and had plans for another education project as well as a civic project, and also gave out a $100 scholarship.49 Alpha Sigma Chapter (Wiley College) sponsored a charity program that helped the elderly and underprivileged children during the holiday season.50 Upsilon Chapter (University of Kansas) headed an effort “to raise the scholastic standing of Alpha and the Negroes at the University of Kansas,” after which an increased GPA was observed.51

In the fall of 1950, Delta Kappa Chapter (Alcorn A & M College) sponsored a speaker, Brother Lewis O. Swingler, who stated that “[a]ll Greek letter organizations must cooperate in the pursuit of the common goal of helping to promote the Negro’s welfare, socially, politically, and economically through higher education.”52 Scholarship was stressed as vital to success, and the speaker urged Alpha Phi Alpha brothers to join together and help youth accomplish academic achievement. 53 Aligning with this message, Iota Chapter (Morris Brown College) awarded a scholarship to a deserving high school student,54 and Gamma Iota Chapter (Hampton Institute) created a new scholarship fund for the most outstanding male graduating senior at Phoenix High School and raised funds to show free movies at the local community center for underprivileged children. 55 Further still, Nu Chapter (Lincoln University) presented a medallion to Mary Bethune and Brother Dr. W.E.B. Dubois due to their fight against Negro illiteracy and discrimination,56 and Beta Sigma Chapter (Southern University) celebrated “Education for Citizenship Week” by sponsoring programs at high schools and the chapter won the President’s Intramural Trophy. 57

Alumni chapters were also busy in 1950 championing civil rights, such as voting, and tackling social issues. Beta Theta Lambda Chapter (Durham, North Carolina) reported several successful community projects and championed the cause of Civil Rights within the Carolinas.58 Alpha Sigma Lambda Chapter (Dallas, Texas) pledged

$1,000 to a local YMCA.59 Delta Nu Lambda Chapter (Danville, Virginia) sponsored events that educated the community on the pros and cons of Civil Rights legislation,60 while Gamma Mu Lambda Chapter (Tallahassee, Florida) held programs in churches across the city with the theme of “Registration and Voting.”61 Beta Phi Lambda Chapter (Savannah, Georgia) “[worked on] the education of citizens to meet the qualifications required under the voters’ registration laws of Georgia” and sponsored events that educated the community on the pros and cons of Civil Rights legislation.62

Toward the fall of 1950, chapters shifted their focus more along the lines of education and hosted Education for Citizenship Programs. Alpha Phi Alpha brothers in Kentucky showed support for African Americans seeking admission in institutions of higher education mostly through legal representation and financial support,63 and Delta Upsilon Lambda Chapter (Shreveport, Louisiana) stated that they were in the process of planning a “full seven day observance of “Education for Citizenship Week,” which would cover three cities and four high schools.64 Similarly, Alpha Delta Lambda Chapter (Memphis, Tennessee) sponsored their annual Education and Citizenship Program, for which Brother Alexander Dumas stated, “It is incumbent upon all college Greek‐letter organizations to unite their forces for calm thinking and action about problems we are presently facing in this world of unrest.”65 Meanwhile, Zeta Lambda Chapter (Newport, Virginia) engaged in multiple projects, including a scholarship awarded to a Huntington High School graduate, purchasing uniforms for a local football team, contributing to the community chest, and providing financial aid.66 Taking initiative, Beta Lambda Chapter (Kansas City, Missouri) was dissatisfied with the educational programs, so they developed their own program called “the Five Point Program of Civic Education and Development.”67 Instead of a one‐week “Education for Citizenship Week,” this new program was a yearlong initiative that focused on Juvenile Guidance of Borderline Correctional Cases, Organization of Constructive Groups, Vocational Opportunities, Housing and Recreation, and Sponsorship of Delinquent Boys.68

Individually, fraternity members took initiatives of their own in 1950. Brother Aubrey Williams gave an address entitled, “Does Gradualism Work?” He argued that the method of gradualism (in securing civil rights) will “set back the fight against segregation many years,” says that we cannot accept this way of thinking,69 and noted that gradualism is a “compromise.”70 He also noted that segregation was keeping the idea of the “social superiority of the white man” intact,71 and he pushed for African American children to have modern schools.72 Arthur D. Shores gave a convention address that identified the African American struggle for first‐class citizenship as a national problem, not just a Southern one, and he identified new barriers being raised to prevent African Americans from progressing through voting, including poll taxes, personal character, property requirements, and education requirements.73 He also detailed Klan violence,74 and stated “[n]othing short of a complete acknowledgment of my manhood will satisfy me. I have no compromise to make and shall unwillingly accept anything less than my full measure of the rights as a man,”75 and declared that “the time is now.”76 This address also pointed out that America fights for democratic values abroad but refused to address the civic problems domestically and challenged Alpha Phi Alpha brothers to meet the challenge of the day.77 The address ended by saying that even the smallest steps “brings us a step nearer to a complete enjoyment of all that this country offers.”78 In a similar vein, Brother Dr. Moron, Educational Director, set the goal of the Hampton Convention, which was to develop a new educational program, and he voted to observe April 16‐23 as Education and Citizenship Week.79

Brother James C. Evans gave a speech during one Regional Convention in which he “pictured the ideal of equality of opportunity for all human beings as the goal not only of his fellow Alpha Phi Alpha men but for all who believe[d] in better race relations and for America itself.”80 This speech aimed at equality in civil rights, in job opportunities, in education, in the armed forces, and in the ballot, and Brother Evans noted that “educational disparity between the races is the greatest bar to equal opportunity.”81

On the litigation front, Brother Gregory H. Swanson sought to desegregate the University of Virginia, the law school more specifically, in Swanson v. Rector of Visitors of the University of Virginia.82 Brother Swanson, a 1948 Howard Law School graduate, applied for admission to undertake graduate study at the University of Virginia School of Law.83 The law school dean and faculty favored admitting Swanson; however, the University Board of Visitors directed Colgate W. Darden, the institution’s president, to seek an opinion from Attorney General J. Lindsay Almond, Jr.84 When queried, Almond predicted that if the University rejected Brother Swanson’s application, he would challenge the exclusion before a three‐judge federal court and easily win, in part because the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions seemed inapplicable to professional and graduate education, and the Supreme Court’s law school precedent would govern the dispute’s resolution.85 The University decided to ignore Attorney General Almond’s advice and to deny Swanson admission. As such, Brother Swanson filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. After Brother Swanson’s attorneys—Oliver W. Hill, Sr. (Omega Psi Phi Fraternity), Spottswood W. Robinson, III (Omega Psi Phi Fraternity), and Brother Thurgood Marshall—made their case before a three‐judge federal court, arguing that they mandate Brother Swanson’s enrollment, the University of Virginia School of Law admitted him in September 1950. The panel determined that the law school could not reject Swanson solely on the grounds of race because the Commonwealth maintained only one government‐sponsored institution which provided graduate legal study.86

In Louisiana, Brothers Thurgood Marshall and Alexander Pierre Tureaud won their case—Wilson v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College—before the federal trial court. Roy Wilson filed this suit on his own behalf as well as on the behalf of all African American citizens similarly situated. He claimed that although he made a timely application for admission to the University’s Department of Law, and that he complied with all rules and regulations of admission and possessing all of the necessary qualifications entitling him to admission, he was denied admission solely based on his race or color. He claimed that this refusal denied him the rights guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment. The State of Louisiana maintained and operated an institution known as Southern University, which was limited to only African American students. Southern University also had a law school. Wilson was notified by the Louisiana State University that the State maintained separate schools for its white and African American students. The State Board of Education had required, in 1947, that Southern University open and maintain a bona fide law school for African American students of the highest possible standards. However, the court found that the Law School of Southern University did not meet these requirements and did not afford African American students substantially equal opportunities to those afforded to white students at the Department of Law of the Louisiana State University. Southern University was not a member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, while Louisiana State University was a full university accredited by every recognized accrediting agency in the country. Thus, the court held that the opportunities were not the same, and that Roy Wilson and all others similarly qualified and situated were entitled to educational advantages and opportunities available within the state, at the same time, upon the same terms and substantially equal to those the state provided and made available to white residents and citizens of the states. Further, the court held that Wilson’s denial to admission to the Louisiana State University Department of Law would inflict irreparable damages upon him. Issuance of an interlocutory injunction was granted.87

Before the District of Columbia federal court of appeals,  General President Lawson and Brother Aubrey Robinson—along with Charlotte R. Pinkett and Marjorie McKenzie (Alpha Kappa Alpha)— represented the Browne Junior High School Parent‐Teacher Association (“PTA”) in Carr v. Corning.88 Argued before the D.C. Circuit, Carr consolidated two cases seeking declaratory judgment regarding the actions of a school board pertaining to an African American public school.89 General President Lawson represented the second of two cases, an action by the PTA seeking declaratory judgment against the Superintendent of Schools and members of the Board of Education of the District of Columbia and also as well as injunctive relief which would permit plaintiff pupils to attend junior high school which would guarantee to them educational opportunities, facilities, and equipment equal to those allegedly afforded white students.90 In its complaint, the PTA alleged that the Board of Education’s policies regarding the segregated schools were substantially unequal to the white schools— e.g., poor maintenance and “double shifts”—effectively reducing classroom time for all African American students, and the arbitrary transfer of several students to other schools, and deprived them of due process protection.91 The school district attempted to transfer Browne students to vacated elementary buildings which lacked important facilities and denied proper instruction in music, art, typewriting, home economics, woodshop, print shop, metal shop, or other vocational skills provided to white students.92 Accordingly, the PTA prayed for an order of permanent injunction which would permit plaintiff students to attend the junior high school with equal facilities, equipment, and opportunities afforded to the white students.93

Additionally, General President Lawson argued that segregation of the students, apart from equality analysis, was facially forbidden by the Constitution. The court concluded that “social and economic interrelationships of two races living together is a legislative problem . .

. and is not a problem solved fully, finally, and unequivocally by a fiat enacted many years ago.”94 Acknowledging the debates before the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the court concluded that the actions of Congress to enact legislation which specifically provided for separation of the races in the schools of the District of Columbia, “conclusively support our view of the Amendment and its effect.”95 The court identified that the Board of Education of the District of Columbia is appointed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and thus operates under direct mandate of Congress.96 As such, the court examined Congressional mandates regarding District of Columbia school policies and determined that Congress intended the schools to be racially segregated.97 Additionally, the court noted that the Supreme Court has “consistently held that if there be an ‘equality of the privileges which the laws give to the separated groups,’ the races may be separated.”98 Having lost the argument that segregation on the basis of race is a per se violation of the Constitution, General President Lawson turned to the inequality of the facilities argument. However, the court held that the “treatment accorded [to the black plaintiffs] . . . would have been accorded them had they been white.”99 Furthermore, the court rationalized that “if the separation of the races in and of itself is not constitutionally invalid, such treatment, indiscriminate as to race, is not the unequal extension of privileges which violates constitutional prohibitions.”100

In Texas, Brother Heman M. Sweatt sought to desegregate the University of Texas Law School. In a case—Sweatt v. Painter—argued before the United States Supreme Court by William J. Durham and Brother Thurgood Marshall, Sweatt applied to the University of Texas Law School in February 1946. He was rejected only because he was African American. The court recognized that this denial was a violation of Sweatt’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, however, they did not grant his requested relief but continued the case for six months to allow the State to supply substantially equal facilities. The judgment was later reversed because the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required that Sweatt be admitted to the law school in “legal education equivalent to that offered by the State to students of other races.”101

In 1951, the Fraternity began to ask, “Do Alpha’s procedures need reform?”102 Brother Howard Long pointed out that in terms of sticking to the goals of the Founders, the Fraternity’s “history reveals Alpha Phi Alpha as a rather conservative organization,”103 which posed a possible source of conflict in a changing world.104 Brother Long recommended careful examination of the Fraternity’s fundamentals and identification of possible areas of reform, more democratization in the governing of the Fraternity, and an organization of internal election processes.105 Nonetheless, the Fraternity remained dedicated to its mission. The ACHR, of which Alpha was a member, condemned the “Confederate flag craze.”106 The ACHR encouraged the public to instead display the American flag “as a symbol of . . . equality of citizenship for all.”107 Additionally in 1951, Alpha Phi Alpha “helped to drive the opening wedge in breaking down the practice of hotels in refusing accommodations to Negroes” through litigation.108

The year 1951 was also a big one for Alpha Phi Alpha’s college chapters. Epsilon Pi Chapter (Norfolk State University) contributed an idea of a Citizen‐Scholar, providing “camperships” for underprivileged students by conducting a contest for citizenship scholars over a two‐ month period.109 The winner, who won a small scholarship, took twenty‐six people to register to vote and pay poll taxes.110 The chapter also signed forty‐two people up for membership in the N.A.A.C.P.111 Psi Chapter (University of Pennsylvania) aimed to promote “better citizenship in Philadelphia,” and refused to become complacent in breaking racial barriers.112 Delta Nu Chapter (Maryland State College) hosted its Education for Citizenship Week, toured high schools, and promoted the importance of education to youth.113

Each region also remained committed to Alpha Phi Alpha’s mission in 1951. Brother Edward Brooke wrote about successes in the Eastern Region,114 noting, “eastern chapters have been participating actively in human rights activities on local levels, and [many] chapters have made contributions to help the NAACP in its financial crisis.”115 He further noted, “the East has worked out legislation and recommendations for the benefit of all.”116 In the Southern Region, the focus was on democracy and citizenship, with a theme of “Mobilization for Full Democracy.”117 Brother J.R. Henderson noted that the subtopics of the Southern Region Convention included “Securing and Discharging the Responsibilities of Citizenship,” “Achieving Democracy Through Integration in Employment,” “Achieving Democracy through Democratic Education,” and “Peace Democracy.”118 The VP published a proposal of a program for social action, which emphasized practical approaches.119 Noting these successes, Delta Kappa Lambda Chapter (Florence, South Carolina) Delegates were impressed by Regional’s success.120 This chapter sponsored four annual programs: Citizenship and the Ballot, Citizenship and Religion, Education for Citizenship, and Citizenship and Recreation. In the Midwest, chapters collectively surpassed the goal by $25 in donations to the region’s branch of the

N.A.A.C.P. 121

Brother Sandifer lost his case in 1951 before the Court of Appeals of New York. After a city court judge who conducted initial proceedings on charges against the defendant disqualified himself, an acting city court judge who was appointed by the mayor conducted the trial. The defendants sought to have the conviction set aside, arguing that the judge’s appointment was improper under the New York Code of Criminal Procedure Section 702‐(a)(2) because the appointment of the acting judge had to have been made by a county judge. The court disagreed and reasoned that the city mayor could designate a person with the same qualifications as the judge who had to temporarily excuse himself. As such the appointment was proper and  the conviction was upheld.122

In a Tennessee federal court, Brothers Carter and Marshall represented Gene Mitchell Gray and others similarly situated in Gray v. Board of Trustees of University of Tennessee. Gray and three other African American students applied for admission to the University of Tennessee Graduate School and College of Law. However, they were denied admission due to their race or color. The defendants were the University of Tennessee, the Board of Trustees, and certain admissions officers. They claimed that they were abiding by the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, as well as its statutes, that forbade white and African American students from attending the same school or institution of learning. Gray claimed they were denied their privileges and immunities as United States citizens, their liberty and property without due process of law, and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Gray sought to have their case heard by a panel of three judges. However, the court determined that Gray’s case was not appropriate for a three‐judge court, as it did not claim the unconstitutionality of a statute. Two judges assigned to sit with the district judge withdrew from the case.123

In a Louisiana federal court, Brother Tureaud represented Ardie C. Heard and others in a case—Heard v. Ouachita Parish School Board—that involved the motion for a declaratory judgment proving that there was, in fact, discrimination in building facilities, equipment courses, transportation to and from school for school children, solely based on race or color. Defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. The Western District Court of Louisiana held that the State Board of Education and State Superintendent were necessary parties, which could be made such by amendment, and that Heard was not required to resort to state courts before seeking relief in those of the nation. Using Cook v. Davis as precedent, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered to make the State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Education necessary parties to the appeals, thereby sustaining the District Court’s decision.124

In Briggs v. Elliot, Brothers Robert Carter, Thurgood Marshall, and Arthur Shores won their case before the United States District Court of the Eastern District of South Carolina. The plaintiffs were Harry Briggs, Jr. and other African American schoolchildren of District No. 22 in Clarendon County, South Carolina and their parents and guardians. Briggs and the others alleged that the schools and educational facilities provided for them were lacking in quality and inferior to those provided for white children in the same district. Further, Briggs claimed that the segregation of African American and white schoolchildren required by Article 11 § 7 of the South Carolina State Constitution and § 5377 of the State Code of Laws was itself in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The defendants were the school officials in control of the schools in the district. A court of three judges—Parker, Waring, and Timmerman—heard the evidence of the case. The injunction to abolish segregation was denied on the principle that states have the right to determine legislative policy in such areas. Judge Waring dissented in this decision. As long as equality of rights is preserved, the federal courts decided that they were powerless to intervene. They felt that allowing local and state governments to determine their own solutions to local problems was essential to the peace and happiness of the people. However, the injunction to equalize educational facilities was granted because the evidence supported the Briggs’ allegation. The court also asserted that for segregation to be allowed, facilities must be absolutely equal in the separate schools, otherwise, the Fourteenth Amendment would indeed be violated. Though the defendants claimed that the reason for the inequality in educational facilities was due to insufficient funds and not race, the court ordered that the facilities be improved to match the quality of the white schools. The way in which these improvements would be completed was left up to the school authorities, however the court required that the defendants submit a file within six months showing that action had been taken to carry out the order set by the court.125

In a similar action involving the same litigants, Brothers Carter, Marshall, Shores, along with Harold R. Boulware (Omega Psi Phi Fraternity), Spottswood Robinson, III (Omega Psi Phi Fraternity), and A. T. Walden lost their case where, in 1951, the United States District Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of   South  Carolina,  entered  a  decree finding that the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of South Carolina requiring segregation of the races in the public schools were not of themselves violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did find that the defendants had denied Briggs and the other schoolchildren rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to furnish a school for African American students that was equal to that of the white students. The decree denied the application for an injunction in abolishing segregation in the schools but did direct the defendants to promptly furnish an equal school for African American students. Briggs appealed the decree in that it denied an injunction that would abolish segregation. The appeal was pending in the United States Supreme Court when the defendants filed with the District Court the report required by its decree. The Court then remanded the case back to the District Court and vacated the original decree so that the District Court could take action deemed appropriate. Defendants showed that the orders of the decree had been followed to equalize the facilities and opportunities of the schools. The new school for African American students was at that point under construction. The court found that the defendants had done so promptly and in good faith. Briggs stated that because the schools were at that point not equal during construction, the court should enter a decree abolishing segregation and open all the schools in the district to both white and African American students. The court held that the defendants had complied with the decree as rapidly as possible, and that the equal school would be open for the next academic year. It found that no good would be accomplished by disrupting the organization of the schools so close to the end of the academic year. It held that Briggs and the other schoolchildren were not entitled to a decree enjoining segregation in the schools, but that they were entitled to a decree directing the defendants to promptly furnish an equal school for African American students. The injunction abolishing segregation was denied. The injunction directing the equalization of educational facilities and opportunities was granted.126

Before the United States Supreme Court, Brothers Carter and Shores prevailed on behalf of the Briggs and the other families joined in Briggs v. Elliot. The United States Supreme Court previously decided that nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution forbade segregation of the races in the public schools, provided that equal facilities were accorded to the children of all races. On appeal, the Supreme Court mandated that the federal trial court enter such orders and decrees as were necessary and proper to admit the parties with all deliberate speed to public schools on a racially non‐ discriminatory basis. Briggs then moved for judgment and decree in accordance with the mandate. The court also set aside its previous decree in accordance with the mandate and decreed that the provisions of the constitution and laws of South Carolina requiring segregation were null and void.127

Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority), Brothers Robert and Marshall, as well as James A. Burns prevailed in their case—Bates v. Batte—on behalf of a group of African American teachers. Gladys Noel Bates and other teachers in Mississippi sought to enjoin their superintendent and members of the board from fixing and maintaining lower teacher salary schedules for African American teachers. After this case was tried but before it was decided, the Northern District of Georgia held in Cook v. Davis that all administrative remedies provided by Georgia laws governing education and controversies arising under school laws must be exhausted before a plaintiff could maintain their suit, which was similar to this one in that African American school teachers sought to enjoin their superintendent from assigning disparate pay. The district judge in this case maintained that the administrative remedies relating to controversies under schools laws set up by the state of Mississippi were substantially similar to those set up by the state of Georgia. Therefore, the decision in the Cook case was controlling, and the present suit could not be maintained until all available administrative remedies set up by the state were first exhausted. Two days before the judgment had been filed, Bates gave notice of appeal. The case of Cook v. Davis was regarded as thoroughly considered and well decided enough to warrant an appeal in this case. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that African American school teachers could not bring said suit without having first exhausted their administrative remedies provided by Mississippi statutes governing education and controversies arising in and about schools.128

At the 1952 General Convention, five programs were inaugurated: (1) “Undergraduate Problems;” (2) “Strengthening the Brotherhood;” (3) “Chapter Housing;” (4) “Building an Effective National Program;” and (5) “Providing Adequate Financing for Program Action.”129 Other actions approved at the Convention consisted of: approval of the purchase of a National Headquarters building; creation of a National Housing Fund and an Official Memorial Service for Departed Brothers; appointment of a Constitutional Revision; Music and Drama, and Reorganizational Committees; continuance of affiliation with the ACHR for 1953; and an increase in grand tax for additional money being “earmarked” for certain programs.130 The General Convention of 1952 further revealed the support and balance the Alpha organization had from other Greek organizations. At the Thirty‐Seventh Convention, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Delta Sigma Theta, Sigma Gamma Rho, Zeta Phi Beta, and Kappa Alpha Psi were all present and engaged in their separate business sessions, and also attended cooperative joint sessions.131 This Convention showed the above Greek organizations as a united front. Whether it was intentional or not, moving forward into the midcentury, the Fraternity began to realize that the idea of progress was not solely based on the quantity of members, but also measured by the quality of performance they put forth. Because of this realization, Alpha chapters began to dedicate their efforts to improving leadership and performance in operational established organizations, instead of focusing solely on increasing numbers and retention rates.

The year 1952 was an eventful one for Alpha Phi Alpha, largely in the political realm. Alpha continued to engage in conversations about the Confederate Flag, and one noted that the flag does not represent “our nation”—rather it represents “a cause that has been lost for more than a half a century.”132 Members also considered the 1952 election and the role of the Fraternity.133 Louis Martin tried to objectively compare the platforms of the Republicans and Democrats for the 1952 Election, but acknowledged his bias to lean Democratic.134 He made the following points—the Democratic ticket was more likely to go further in using federal power against racial discrimination, the GOP proposal for civil rights had more room for interpretation and could be problematic for states that are anti‐civil rights, and stressed that both parties had identified African Americans as a key voting demographic and said things to garner the African American vote.135

The Fraternity also highlighted each party’s platform on civil rights in 1952.136 The Republican Party’s platform was described in the following way: bigotry was a danger to the Republic, members noted “we believe that it is the primary responsibility of each state to order and control its own domestic institution,” anti‐lynching, and the desire to eliminate poll taxes.137 As far as the Democratic Party, it was stated: “The Democratic Party is committed to the support and advancement of the individual rights and liberties of all Americans;” “The Federal Governments must live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and must exercise the powers vested in it by the Constitution;”138 “The right to equal opportunity for employment,” and the right of full political participation.139 The ACHR gave a Human Rights Statement in which Elmer Henderson endorsed the Democratic Party platform prioritizing civil rights, although he also said that “Negroes are not wedded to any political party.”140 He also pointed out that foreign policy wise, America has “halted communism, but they have not sold democracy”141

Aside from dedicated political efforts, Alpha Phi Alpha welcomed a new National President in 1952, Brother A. Maceo Smith. 142 His accomplishments included being the first executive secretary of an N.A.A.C.P. unit at Dallas and helped with the adoption of a three‐point program, which included breaking the white primary, achieving complete educational equality, and outlawing Jim Crow.143 During the new president’s address, Brother Smith said that the organization had to go past “calling attention” to issues and actually take action, he emphasized the importance of full participation and reclamation of inactive members, stated that “we also must re‐think the role of the undergraduate,” and he looked to create “a national auxiliary of Alpha wives.”144

As a farewell to the outgoing president, General President Lawson, President Smith identified problems that were addressed but not fixed during his tenure as president, noting that the problem of race is Alpha Phi Alpha’s business; “we must continue to initiate men of all races,145 we must streamline our organization,146 and we must [continue to] build up our financial reserves.”147 Finally, Brother Lawson stated, “Alpha Phi Alpha is not an achievement. It is in process of becoming.”148

Alpha Phi Alpha continued its education efforts throughout 1952. Brother Milton Wright stated that the “most significant national program of Alpha Phi Alpha was, and is, its annual education program.149 He prompted Alpha Phi Alpha brothers to assist in combatting ignorance and illiteracy, noting that thousands of dollars were spent in scholarships and educational programs.150 The theme for the 1952 Education campaign was “More and Better Education for a Greater and Better World.”151

Still, in a mission to improve its larger impact, fraternity members questioned, Are We Losing Sight of Our Aims?152 Brother John Richardson pointed out numerous reasons why the usefulness of Greek‐letter organizations is often impaired, including when the objectives of the Fraternity conflict with the interests of the college or university, the emphasis of the group to the detriment of the individual, and the existence of “juvenile” practices (i.e. Hell Week).153 Instead, he detailed “Help Week,” in which he noted members doing “constructive and beneficial” acts within the community, made high school scholarship an objective, and identified the development of leadership as an objective.154

As far as education, Alpha experienced new educational horizons.155 Brother William Robinson mentioned interracial understanding and cooperation as the most important educational goal for the African American community, saying that “Better Racial Cooperation through Education Week” should be promoted through white institutions as well as African American ones.156 He noted that there should be a push for African Americans to integrate previously all‐white schools.157 In this regard, Milton Wright set the theme of the National Education for Citizenship Program as “Full Civic Participation—the Price of Freedom,” and when making a decision for the 1952 election, Wright said we must “study the issues, the candidates, and the parties.”158

Members were also busy on the alumni and college level. Beta Chi Lambda Chapter (Muskogee, Oklahoma) held a pre‐college clinic that attracted over 200 high school seniors from twenty‐two Eastern Oklahoma high schools, during which ten colleges were represented, the chapter helped prospective students select a college, a field of study, helped the students register, and the chapter hosted orientations.159 Additionally, “program contribution was made to the N.A.A.C.P. for a fund to be used to open the law school of the University of Georgia to Negroes.”160 Epsilon Iota Chapter awarded a scholarship to Jacquelin Majett, based off of an examination where she got a ninety‐seven percent.161

College chapters made notable improvements toward desegregation. Notably, the N.A.A.C.P., along with the brothers of Alpha Mu Chapter (Northwestern University), helped the first African American student be admitted to the University of Tennessee. They won through litigation, marking the first African American man to be admitted to the University in its 158 year history.162 Additionally, Alpha Pi Chapter (formerly Louisville Municipal College) made the transition from the segregated branch of the University of Louisville to the main campus of the University.163

On the social issues front, Beta Omicron Chapter (Tennessee State University) took a new voters qualification test in order to better understand how to help people within the community register.164 They also took part in other charitable drives, such as the Community Chest, March of Dimes, and the Red Cross.165 Beta Gamma Chapter (Virginia State College) started to make an effort to transition from “Hell Week” to “Help Week.”166 Instead of Hell Week the brothers performed community service by installing street signs on all street corners on the campus and awarded a scholarship to the freshman with the highest grade point average during the first semester.167 Additionally, the Gamma Mu Lambda Chapter (Tallahassee, Florida) began “Help Week” by setting aside, for the celebration of the Education for Citizenship Week, awards totaling $300.”168

Alumni chapters engaged in civic programming throughout 1952. The Eta Lambda Chapter (Atlanta, Georgia) appointed a committee to study the possibilities of more African Americans in governmental agencies in Metropolitan Atlanta.169 Alpha Phi Alpha brothers also registered many African Americans within the city and carried 500 to the polls through taxi services free of charge.170 In another chapter, “[t]he brothers adopted the theme of the problems confronting youth today, and set up workshops in education, military training and the spiritual, social and physical problems of the times and their impact on youth,”171 while Gamma Phi Lambda Chapter (Berkeley, California) sponsored the Vocational Institute of Oakland and compiled a brochure ‘Helpful Hints to the Young Jobseeker.’172

During the Convention Call of 1952, Brother A. Maceo Smith took a stance of finding solutions to our problems in ways other than going to war, saying that we should not be identified as a certain race but “as a man,” and emphasized that Alpha men find a way for a better world.173 Brothers Thurgood Marshall and Louis L. Redding, among others, took up this charge.

In 1953, Brother Sandifer and Hayward Bell prevailed in People v.   Bell before the County Court of Nassau County. Hayward Bell and others were arrested for loitering around a radiator in a railway station for thirty‐five minutes, in violation of Penal Law 1990‐a(2). Bell challenged the validity of Section 1990(a)(2) and argued that they had been arrested based on their race. On appeal, the court rejected the argument by reasoning that nothing in the record referred to the defendants’ race. The appellate court found that the NY Penal Law Section 1990(a)(2) was meant to only apply to people who were by definition “wander[ing] about as an idle vagrant.” In this case, the defendants were merely lingering and delaying. Thus, Section 1990(a)(2) did not apply to them. The Court reversed the decision of the trial court without deciding whether or not there was discriminatory intent behind the arrest.174

In Delaware, Jack Greenberg and Brother Louis L. Redding represented plaintiffs in an appeal before the Delaware Supreme Court in the case Gebhart v. Belton. The initial case was decided by the Delaware Court of Chancery in 1952 and affirmed the same year. Gebhart was one of the five cases combined into Brown v. Board of Education the 1954 decision of the United States Supreme Court, which found unconstitutional racial segregation in United States public schools. The trial court ordered that African American children be admitted to the state’s segregated white only schools, and the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. This case was brought by Ethel Belton and six other parents of eight African American high school students. Segregation forced them to send their children on a public bus to attend the run‐down Howard High School.175

In Tennessee, Alexander Looby (Omega Psi Phi Fraternity), Avon N. Williams, Jr. (Omega Psi Phi Fraternity), and Brother Marshall represented plaintiffs in Hayes v. Crutcher. Hayes and others filed a motion for summary judgment in their action for a declaratory judgment for their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and an injunction restraining defendants, members of a city board of park commissioners, from refusing to allow Hayes and other African American citizens’ equal use of the golf course. The court denied the motion for summary judgment as to the request of injunctive relief, finding that there were material facts in dispute as to issues of whether Hayes and the others involved represented a class and what amount of time would be required to furnish equal and separate facilities. The court denied the Hayes’ motion for summary judgment.176

The same group of lawyers, along with Brothers Carl A. Cowan and Thurgood Marshall represented another group of plaintiffs in Tennessee in the case of McSwain v. County Board of Education of Anderson County. Joheather McSwain along with other African American students and their parents, filed an action against defendants, a school board and others, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction restraining defendants from continuing alleged usage and customs that denied the students’ rights guaranteed to them under the Fourteenth Amendment. McSwain and others claimed that they were entitled to attend a white high school in their county of residence instead of being bused to an African American school in another county. The court found that separate schools for the races were required under Articles 11 and 12 of the Constitution of Tennessee. The court found that McSwain had no ground for complaint under equal educational opportunity and dismissed the action.177

In 1956, in McSwain v. County Board of Education of Anderson County, Brother Marshall prevailed before the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Tennessee. The action was remanded to the district court for further proceedings upon the authority and in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. The original complaint alleged discrimination against African American students of elementary grades, but this phase of the suit was abandoned. McSwain insisted that the original suit was a class action, instituted by plaintiffs for themselves and for all other African Americans of high school grades in Anderson County. The court decided that desegregation as to high school students in that county should be effected by a definite date, and that date should be fixed as one not later than the beginning of the fall term of 1956.178

In 1953, Alpha Phi Alpha set goals it sought to achieve at the Cleveland Joint Conference: (1) to stimulate interest among rank and file membership, (2) to demonstrate the will of Greek organizations to fight for equality and justice for all, and (3) to further the cooperation between Greek‐letter organizations.179 Furthermore, Alpha continued the fight for the “abolition of segregation and discrimination of all forms in the Nation’s Capital,” in addition to promoting the passage of federal aid to the education bill. On the legislative front, the Fraternity, through its General Counsel, recommended “introducing in every state in the union having strong and workable Fair Employment Practice Laws” and invited interested groups to work with them in accomplishing the writing of effective FEPC laws and their passage.180 On the education front, in 1953, Alpha was offering five scholarships of $410 each and four fellowships of $500 each with the theme “More and Better Education for a Greater and Better World” for the annual Education Campaign.181

In 1953, President A. Maceo Smith expressed plans to launch a campaign to raise $25,000 for an Alpha Headquarters Building.182 He also argued that “Alpha men and Greek letter members will grow strong, only through service to mankind.”183 He encouraged work outside of explicit responsibilities, and attributed slow progress of some projects to “creeping selfishness.”184 Following up on the Human Rights Council and Alpha Phi Alpha’s involvement in December of that year, through litigation and brothers’ efforts the Southern Railway company was no longer allowed to practice racially restrictive dining car regulations as of 1953.185 As far as the Fraternity’s involvement, “Attorney Robinson, a representative of Alpha Phi Alpha on the board of directors of ACHR called it a significant step toward the complete removal of Jim Crow practices from the nation’s railways.”186

On the college level, members also continued working in the areas of social issues and education. Beta Alpha Chapter (Morgan State College) planned activities for the year, which included promoting drives for the N.A.A.C.P., selling Christmas seals, aiding in raising money for the March of Dimes, and a program that inspired high‐ schoolers to achieve higher education.187 Beta Chapter (Howard University) sponsored a complete library display as an element of the National Education and Citizenship Week.188 Highlighting the importance of education, Eta Chapter’s (Columbia University) Scholarship Committee screened high school students who applied for their scholarship and worked to establish a tutoring program for high school students who might need extra help.189

Alumni chapters celebrated successful years as well. Kappa Chapter (Greensboro, North Carolina) launched a program that would broaden the national educational program.190 For its Education Week Campaign, Delta Theta Lambda Chapter (Normal, Alabama) presented Brother, Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, who stated, “[w]ithout minimizing the importance of formal education, Brother Powell drove home to his audience the necessity of achieving a practical education designed to attain economic and civic competency.”191 Accomplishments of Epsilon Nu Lambda Chapter (Portsmouth, Virginia) included extensive volunteering with the Boy’s Club of Portsmouth, Virginia, and a donation to a local “old folks home,”192 while Alpha Eta Lambda Chapter (Prairie View, Texas) sponsored specials talks regarding citizenship responsibilities, and citizenship clinics.193 This program presented by Alpha Eta Lambda Chapter (Prairie View, Texas) “brought to the attention of everyone; students, visitors, and faculty members alike, the importance of exercising their privilege of voting, and their responsibility in preserving the ethics of good citizenship.”194

Individually, Brother Joe Island spent his off‐time “convincing boys 7 to 13 that honesty and integrity pays off” as part of a club that has a religious and education emphasis and whose membership went from twenty boys to a membership of 100.195

The Thirty‐Eighth General Convention that year also proved fruitful. Some of the “significant actions of the 38th General Convention included” the approval of a National Headquarters building, the appointment of a Constitution Revision Committee, and the affiliation with the American Council on Human Rights for 1953.196 Workshops at the Convention were as follows: Workshop I—Undergraduate Problems, Relations, and Participations, which included suggestions such as proper instruction for pledges, elimination of the “blackball” system, educational requirements; Workshop II—“Strengthening the Brotherhood, which aimed to improve graduate‐undergraduate relations and have more representation; Workshop III—“Chapter Housing; Workshop IV—“Building an Effective National Program;” and Workshop V—“Providing Adequate Financing for Program Action,” which urged an increase of grand tax and other local taxes.197

At the Eastern Regional Convention, Brother Logan spoke  about the racial climate of the time.198 He agreed with the majority of the Time article which identified the last decade as a decade of “progress for the Negro,”199 and said that Alpha Phi Alpha brothers had a responsibility to help “to determine the best strategy and tactics for this era of desegregation.”200 Brother Logan pointed out that tactics which might have worked on the eastern seaboard probably would not work in the south, so they developed regional strategies, and further, that “the advances made in the last fifty years give is legitimate hope that the goal [of first class citizenship] is in sight.”201 The theme of the Eastern Regional Convention was “Youth Reconstruction,” and “Brother A.   Maceo Smith stressed the necessity for Alpha to continue its active role of leadership through strong men and an appealing program.”202

Strong men like Brother Tureaud were on the front‐line of the battle for racial equality. Brother Tureaud represented the interveners in Freret Civic Association v. Orleans Parish School Board, a case before the Louisiana Supreme Court. The case involved a civil suit seeking a temporary injunction, restraining the parish school board from converting schools from white usage to African American usage. The District Court of Louisiana dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed. The appellant contended that the lower court erred in dismissing its suit and denying it an injunction for the reason that the school board had not complied with the mandatory provisions of LSA‐ R.S.17:‐321‐326, and especially the provision that: “It shall be unlawful for any parish school board in any city having a population in excess of three hundred thousand to change the use or classification of any school building or property from Negro to white or vice versa.”203 The Court of Appeals, using Carey v. Louisiana Highway Commission and Turner v. City of New Orleans, dismissed the appeal.204

In a Louisiana federal court, Brothers Tureaud, Carter, and Marshall brought a class action in Tureaud v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agriculture and Mechanical College, with Brother Tureaud serving as class representative. The purpose of the class action was to obtain an injunction requiring the defendants to admit Tureaud and other African Americans similarly situated to the combined six year arts and sciences and law course at Louisiana State University. It was the admittance policy of Louisiana State University to deny admission to African Americans. Tureaud asserted that the combined art and sciences and law course offered at Southern University, a college exclusively for African Americans maintained by the State of Louisiana, was not equal to the combined arts and sciences and law course offered by Louisiana State University. The court was of the opinion that the denial of admission of Tureaud to the Junior Division of Louisiana State University for the purpose of pursuing the combined arts and sciences and law course offered by that University solely because of his race or color denied a right guaranteed to Tureaud by the Fourteenth Amendment.205 On appeal, Brothers Tureaud, Carter, and Marshall represented the appellee. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, upon careful examination, reversed and remanded with directions that the action required a District Court review of three judges.206 On appeal, Brothers Carter and Tureaud, along with W. Scott Wilkinson, L.H. Perez, L.W. Brooks, C.V. Porter, and J.R. Fuller, the federal court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that upon review by the Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that due to recent segregation cases and changed conditions (referring to Brown v. Board of Education), the defendants should have another chance to present their case and granted a motion for rehearing.207

In the Federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Brothers Carter and Marshall represented appellees in Kansas City v. Williams. Defendants, the city of Kansas City and its Board of Park Commissioners, appealed a judgment of a federal district court, which entered a judgment and decree in favor of plaintiff Williams and two other African American residents, individually, in their declaratory and injunctive action seeking to eliminate alleged racial discrimination. Williams cross‐appealed from the denial of their request for class relief. They challenged the restrictions at a public park, which prohibited African Americans from using the swimming pool. All other facilities at the park could be used by members of any race. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court which had ruled in favor of the African American plaintiffs.208

In 1954, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board decision, General President A. Maceo Smith appointed a Special Committee on Human Relations to report at the General Convention in Miami, Florida. The committee consisted of Brothers Charles H. Wesley, Howard H. Long, Rufus B. Atwood, Raymond W. Cannon, Frederick D. Patterson, Alonzo G. Moron, Felton G. Clark, W.M. Springer, Sydney P. Brown, Channing H. Tobias, A.F. Walden, Thurgood Marshall, G. Lamar Harrison, M. L. Harris, Rayford W. Logan, Frank Stanley, Bindley Cyrus, and Byron Rumford.209 The Fraternity’s work aligned with the racial advancements of the nation in that year regarding education. Brother Marshall spoke at the General Convention on the topic of “Education Without Segregation.”210 He made the following points: “segregation cannot be escaped even through education and it is found everywhere.” He went on, “we must utilize the resources of our college trained men and women to the fullest extent in our fight for our rightful place in the world.” Further, as he underscored, “we are indebted to the past,” and “[t]he only possibility for all of us to help is for us to buckle down . . . and go to work.”211 Additionally, speaking on the Fraternity’s responsibility in the program of integration, Brother Williams’ argued, “We have . . . a responsibility to fulfill our pledge to the process of integration with instruments we already hold as men of Alpha.”212

Making other educational moves, the Fraternity authorized their educational director, Dr. Milton Wright, of Wilberforce University, Ohio, to launch a $40,000 scholarship program on behalf of undergraduate students,213 and Brother Walter Booker spoke on the unfinished task of the university concerning education.214 After summarizing the past successes of the Fraternity’s programs revolving around education, Booker said that the job is not yet finished, stating,

“. . . the Negro race, is like that of an offensive football team that has made great gains from deep in its own territory, across mid‐field and down to the twenty yard line of the opponents.”215 He went on to argue that African Americans cannot be satisfied and cannot be afraid to advance just because the road may be tough, and also pointed out that the path has to be chosen carefully, noting “we run the risk of being investigated as to our loyalty merely because we question the methods of investigation and the loyalty of others.”216 He also urged collective action, saying “it is our challenge to invite the cooperation of other groups and/or lend our own cooperation to other groups . . . to  improve the total status of Negro people and minorities here and over the world.”217 In general, Booker said “Alpha Phi Alpha . . . must rise to the occasion and continue to immortalize the spirit of its founding . . . of doing something about the inequality of opportunity among people in every area of life and living.”218 Concerning the Fraternity’s work with the ACHR, “President Dwight D. Eisenhower extended his personal greetings to the annual board of directors meeting of the American Council on Human Rights . . . lauding the Greek letter Council’s efforts to preserve and strengthen our liberties.”219

College chapters also focused on education and racial advancement. Xi Chapter (Wilberforce University) had a great year,220 and its National Educational Program had a couple of focuses—an educational program at East High School in Xenia, Ohio, where scholarship certificates were given to high achieving students and a symposium on “Education—A Beacon Light in a Confused World.”221 Beta Upsilon Chapter (Alabama State College) engaged in the following activities: radio programs centered on citizenship; support of a March of Dimes campaign; and a Clean‐up Campaign benefiting the Community Center in Montgomery, as well as making plans “to help needy citizens through a solicitation project, consisting of such items  as food and clothing.”222 Furthermore, in Missouri, the chapter sponsored “an essay writing contest for the high school students of Missouri,”223 and Beta Sigma Chapter (Southern University) helped in the recovery of a Baton Rouge neighborhood by painting houses and conducting an old clothes drive after a fire destroyed a whole city block.224

College members also engaged in various community service and scholarship activities. Delta Beta Chapter (Bethune‐Cookman College) held a “Sox Hop,” a type of dance marathon where the price of admission was a can of food, which was later donated to a local orphanage.225 The Toledo Chapter sponsored a Career Clinic that was attended by 100 high school students and interested adults in the community.226 Gamma Mu Chapter (Livingston College) presented a program of “Youth on Parade” where there was a youth talent show and an awarding of a scholarship based on need, scholarship, and virtues.227 Beta Delta Chapter (South Carolina State University), for their week on Human Rights, sponsored speakers who talked on the subjects of “A Beacon Light in a Confused World” and “New Hopes for a Changing World.”228

Alumni chapters also had a big year in terms of awarding scholarships. Gamma Gamma Lambda Chapter (Greenville, South Carolina) sent its eighth high school graduate to college on scholarship based on an oratorical competition—something they had done for the past five years.229 Furthermore, the chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha in Wilmington, Delaware presented a $300 scholarship to Richard Brooks.230 The scholarship was awarded annually on the basis of scholarship, character, and leadership ability.”231 Lastly, Beta Nu Lambda Chapter (Charlotte, North Carolina) gave a scholarship as part of the national Go‐to‐High‐School, Go‐to‐College and Education for Citizenship campaigns; the chapter awarded scholarships annually to some of the highest ranking graduating high school seniors.232

In the south, Alpha Phi Alpha brothers Carter and Marshall were continuing their campaign to end racial segregation and vindicate African Americans’ voting rights. In Louisiana, they joined forces with Brother Tureaud in Constantine v. Southwestern Louisiana Institute. The case was a civil suit by African American youths, for themselves and for all others similarly situated and qualified, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief precluding defendants from excluding them from admission to a state supported institution of higher learning as students, upon the ground of their membership to the African American race. The District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled that the refusal to permit African American students, otherwise qualified, to attend an institution of higher learning constituted an unlawful discrimination. On appeal, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit on claims that the District Court had no jurisdiction to try this case, and the fact that a minor cannot sue an institution. In the Appellate Court decision, the court granted relief to the petitioners. The court stated that the question of whether the state statute is constitutional was irrelevant and the entire theory of the Fourteenth Amendment is that where an officer or other representative of a state, in the exercise of authority, so uses the power possessed to deny a right, inquiry concerning whether the state has authority becomes irrelevant.233

In Alabama, Brothers Carter and Marshall prevailed in Sellers v. Wilson in a federal trial court. Aaron Sellers and other African American plaintiffs brought suit against the defendants who constituted the Board of Registrars of Bullock County, Alabama for a declaratory judgment, declaring the policy, custom, or usage of the defendants in allegedly refusing to register as electors Sellers and others solely on account of their race or color, unlawful and in violation of federal constitutional rights. The court found the actions of the defendants amounted to discriminatory treatment that was not required or administered to white applicants. The court found the failure of the Board members to supply Sellers with application blanks was discriminatory. The defendants were taxed with cost.234

In 1955, the Fraternity pushed for passage of the federal Fair Employment Act.235 During that year, the Fraternity encouraged its members to immerse themselves in an effort to advance integration. At that time, more than $600 was raised in efforts to defend against false allegations made against the Fraternity that prevented some chapters from operating.236 Further, the Fraternity sent a proposed resolution to the President of the United States, the Attorney General, and the Director of the FBI, which expressed the organization’s belief that their Constitutional rights were being infringed upon. That resolution was met with assurance of cooperation pledged in letters sent back to the Fraternity, by the Attorney General, and FBI Chief.

Before a Pennsylvania federal trial court—in Johnson v. Levitt & Sons, Incorporated—Brother Marshall, along with Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha), Walter A. Gay, Jr., and David E. Pinsky, represented Arthur Johnson and other African American plaintiffs against a New York corporation engaged in the construction of a new community in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The complaint alleged that the Johnson and the others attempted to buy houses in Levittown from the corporation but were refused solely because of their race and color notwithstanding the fact that they were able and willing to pay and had good reputations and satisfactory credit ratings. Johnson conceded that government defendants did not exercise or attempt to exercise any control over the sales policy adopted by Levitt. The court found that the jurisdiction of this court was lacking and the complaint was dismissed.237

In Texas, Brothers Carter and Marshall lost their case—Bell v. Rippy—before the United States District Court of the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiffs were Albert Bell along with African American students and their parents, they sought an injunction against defendants, public school principals and officers, for having refused to allow the African American students to attend several different white public schools. The court found that when similar and convenient free schools were open to African American and white students, there then existed no reasonable ground for requiring desegregation. The court concluded that the case should be dismissed without prejudice to re‐ file at some later date. The court dismissed the African American students’ suit for an injunction against the school principals and officers.238

In Kansas, Brothers Carter and Marshall won their case—Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka—before the United States District Court of Kansas. The plaintiffs, Oliver Brown and others similarly situated, filed a motion for a hearing on the formulation of a decree  and judgment in this cause. The matter was set down for a hearing in August 1955 in Topeka, Kansas. Oliver Brown asserted that the system of racial separation perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for African Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely from the seventeen states that required racial segregation to the sixteen in which it was prohibited. The suit called for the school district to reverse its policy of racial segregation. The Board of Education operated separate elementary schools under an 1879 law. The Board of Education’s practice of maintaining segregated schools was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.239

Before the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Adams v. Lucy, Brothers Carter and Marshall brought an action against the Dean of Admissions of a state university for declaratory judgment and injunction. It was brought by Autherine Lucy and Polly Anne Myers, applicants who were allegedly refused admittance to the university on account of race and color, on behalf of themselves and all other African Americans that were similarity situated. The United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama rendered judgment for Lucy and Myers, and the Dean of Admissions appealed. The Court of Appeals held that Lucy and Myers were entitled to an injunction enjoining the dean from denying applicants the right to enroll in the state university solely on account of race and color.240 At the Supreme Court level in Lucy v. Adams, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision, holding that it enjoined and restrained the respondent and others designated from denying Lucy and Myers solely on account of their race/color the right to enroll in the University of Alabama.241

In Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Dawson, appeals were taken from orders of the United States District Court, which dismissed the action brought by the appellant African American citizens to obtain declaratory judgments and injunctive relief against the enforcement of racial segregation in the enjoyment of public beaches and bathhouses maintained by appellees, the public authorities of the State of Maryland. The court explained that the district court had followed prior state decisions that approved of the separate but equal doctrine. The United States Supreme Court held that it was a denial of the equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment for a state to segregate on the ground of a race of a student. The court explained that racial segregation in recreational activities was no longer sustainable as a proper exercise of the police power of the state. The Court reversed the order of the district court.242

The following year, in 1956, brothers and their families gathered in Ithaca, New York to celebrate Alpha Phi Alpha’s fifty year anniversary. The fifty year anniversary, also known as “The Golden Jubliee” and “The Golden Anniversary,” was held to mark and honor the accomplishments and traditions of the Fraternity.243 Many corporate executives, public officials, and community leaders joined in celebrating the occasion. The Fraternity marked their anniversary with several speeches and songs throughout the course of the convention. As much as the anniversary was a celebration of the history and years  of service of the Alpha Phi Alpha, General President Frank L. Stanley urged that the “Fiftieth Anniversary should be more than a celebration. It is a period of rededication.”244 By the Golden Anniversary General Convention in 1956, the Committee on Human Rights had become the Committee on Human Rights and Public Policy. At the General Convention, Brother Charles H. Wesley’s report detailed progress in  the areas of civil rights, employment, housing, and integration, among other things.245 Brother Moss Kendrix additionally noted that the Fraternity recognized its fifty years of service.246 General President Stanley further stated that there would be challenges and opportunities in the future on which the Fraternity must take advantage.247

The ideals and goals deeply rooted in Alpha Phi Alpha were weaved throughout many of addresses. Some speeches spoke of future goals and congratulatory statements and some were direct calls to action on civil rights. Specifically, Brother Dowdell H. Davis delivered a statement directed at the Democratic and Republican Conventions calling for advancement in civil rights.248 Alpha Phi Alpha, along with some liberal organizations, “call[ed] upon these parties to adopt the guarantees of the right to vote, equality of employment, elimination of discrimination, full protection of the laws, the privilege to live in peace in surroundings of one’s own choosing, federal laws and actions to guarantee these rights, a Division of Civil Rights in the Department of Justice, and the elimination of cloture in the Senate.”249 Brother Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. presented on the past and future state of civil rights and notions and freedom. He proffered bases of action to further civil rights and freedom and noted that “segregation . . . is nothing but slavery covered by niceties and complexities.”250

Guest speakers also invited encouraged mobilization on the part of the Fraternity and other community organizations on social issues. Autherine Lucy Foster encouraged “courageous action in all endeavors for human rights.”251 New York Governor W. Averell Harriman condemned racial discrimination, noting that it weakens the unity of the nation.252 He added that “it is vital to our security that we move forward to eliminate racial discrimination in law, in fact, and in our hearts.”253 Other speakers focused solely on the Fraternity and its direction. Brother A. Maceo Smith “placed special emphasis upon the changeless preamble to the Fraternity’s constitution and urged continued loyalty to the Fraternity’s ideals.”254 During the convention, Alpha Phi Alpha also announced the establishment of a scholarship fund at Cornell University.255 Brother William H. Hale announced the $25,000 scholarship that would aid future students.256 It would be available to a freshman entering Cornell in the fall term of 1956 and would be an annual award of $1,000 that could be renewed as long as the student maintained a good academic record.257

That year was imbued with a sense of repurpose even in the articles in The Sphinx. Dr. Theodore Mason Howard published a piece entitled, “The Challenge of the Hour,” in which he discussed the state of racial affairs in the nation.258 He noted, “American democracy is the greatest philosophy of government that has been given to man since the dawn of creation,”259 and that “those of us who lived in the Deep South and still had faith in the American concept of democracy have had to believe that the darkest hours are just before dawn or that “it’s got to get a lot worse before it gets better.”260 He also said that “as African‐Americans we will not compromise when it comes to the Supreme Court decision that outlawed “separate but equal.”261 Howard noted the various racial tensions within the states, using Mississippi as an example of the African American struggle.262 He detailed two amendments to the Mississippi State Constitution that abolished integrated school districts and placed rigid reading and writing requirements on African Americans who attempted to register to vote;263 he stated, “[t]he White Citizen Council was organized . . . dedicated to the proposition of maintaining segregation at any and all costs in Mississippi;”264 he noted, “[o]n August 28th, the little Chicago Negro boy Emmitt Till, 14 years of age, was kidnapped and badly disfigured and lynched . . .”265 To summarize the tension in Mississippi, he stated, “. . . no amount of outside pressure can make them change their ways of dealing with the Negro in Mississippi,”266 and questioned, “How can our National Government go to Geneva and before other international bodies and talk about free elections in Germany or any other place in the world so long as we have a Mississippi?”267 Howard noted that racism “is an American problem and must be solved by the American people.”268

Urging a new mindset for African Americans, Howard noted “[t]he educated Negro of the South for the most part has accepted the results of southern culture with the evils of segregation and discrimination . . .”269 but “there is no such thing as separate but equal facilities where the rights of the individual are concerned.”270 He urged “[w]e must prepare our young people for the emerging integrated social order in the South . . . it is my belief that we need to restudy our education approach to our problems in a completely integrated society.”271 Finally, Howard suggested the answer to the race problem in America was a spiritual one, stating, “I believe that our hope is found in the return to moral values which are found in the Gospel of Christ.”272

Also addressing the race problem in America, Brother C. W. Anderson273 stated, “[t]he long range objective of the American Negro … is to uphold the ideals and perfect the process of democratic government,”274 and that civic unity should have been America’s number one priority.275 Referencing differences between the north and south, he stated, “we must give concrete evidence of the fact that here in America there will not be one type of democracy in Mississippi and another type of democracy in New York.”276 He noted the impact American racism had on foreign affairs, stating, “Unless America becomes more equality conscious on the home front it is going to be more difficult for this nation to retain its leadership in world affairs and to advise other nations as to the formal principles of democracy,” and that “the American Negro must continue to protest against racial discrimination with every means at his command.”277 Brother Anderson believed “[t]he assurance of the future lies in the education of the masses and in the development of a new and more liberal public opinion,”278 noting, “ . . . it has become necessary for the Negro to combat judicial decisions and legislation enactments which have nullified the processes and intentions of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and          Fifteenth Amendments.”279  Anderson also emphasized the importance of voting, stating, “[i]n our fight for justice and equal rights, the ballot is our most potent weapon.”280 He also believed African Americans should not accept less than civil liberties and privileges, urging, “[w]e must see that the Negro working classes benefit as they should by the Wage and Hour Law,”281 as well as “the American Negro must become a man in his own right, in assuming his own responsibilities, and in carrying his own privileges.”282 Finally, he urged, “we must develop a leadership which can sense the problems facing a rapidly changing world . . .”283 which he believed, “is a challenge not only to America but an opportunity for the members of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to continue its fight for total integration as its goal.”284 According to Brother E. Fredric Morrow,285 “[i]n this continuing fight of ours for first class citizenship, we must be ever aware of the great responsibilities that will go with this new role in our national life.”286 He stated, “ . . . when this selfish and naïve lust for the tinsel of life is the motivating force of our university‐trained professional men and women in their daily tasks; when the talented tenth of our race . . . meet and act and exist solely as excuses for social activity and personal publicity, we have reached a stage in our citizenship development that borders on mental, social, and economic incompetence.”287 He suggested “that we invest less money in the non‐essentials of life and more in the fight for equal education and Civil Rights”288 because “ . . . if Negroes are able to become wholly free in this country, they must fashion their freedom by their own sweat and toil and sacrifice.”289 Perhaps in reference to the Fraternity’s mission, Brother Morrow stated “I trust that in the months to come not only Alpha Phi Alpha, but all fraternities and sororities will be occupied with, and talking about, fulfilling the American Dream: the dream of merit finding its own level, the dream of a person’s being able to rise in the world as far as his ability and ambition can carry him.”290

Alumni chapters also remained committed to the Fraternity’s mission in 1956. Delta Lambda Chapter (Baltimore, Maryland) held a Big and Little Brother activity, a social action program, an interracial scholarship award movement, and a new Human Relations Committee which addressed itself to a number of community problems including the discriminatory policy of Baltimore’s department stores.291 Additionally, Beta Lambda Chapter (Kansas City, Kansas), in accordance with the national program, sought to register qualified citizens to vote in the Newport, Virginia election.292 Delta Upsilon Lambda Chapter (Shreveport, Louisiana) planned their citizenship week, and throughout the year, “included ways and means of enlightening our less fortunate.”293 In Boston, the undergraduate Sigma Chapter (Harvard University), with help from the National Urban League “embarked upon a program of Vocational Guidance Clinics for the benefit of high school students in the area” on a project “working with the children of one of Boston’s many foundling homes, The Home of Little Wanderers.”294

In the courts, Alpha Phi Alpha brothers were still on the march. In 1956, Eugene H. Kaplan and Brother Jawn Sandifer lost their case before the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut in Murphy v. Murphy. After a divorce, the mother was granted custody of the son while the father had custody of the daughter. After the mother remarried an African America dentist, she was excommunicated from the Catholic Church and alienated by her parents. The father sought custody of the son, and the trial court granted it, reasoning that the mother deprived the child of care and good influence. On appeal, the mother argued that the trial court decision was based on the fact that she had married an African America man, but the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision. It stated that this was not a consideration included by the trial court and that the trial court made its decision based on the “best interest of the child.”295

In Aaron v. Cooper, Brothers Carter and Marshall won their case before the federal trial court in Arkansas. John Aaron and the other predominately minor plaintiffs between the ages of six and twenty‐one, filed their complaint in the court against the President and the Secretary of the Board of the Directors of Little Rock School District, the Superintendent, and the Little Rock School District itself. Aaron alleged that the defendants conspired and would continue to conspire to deprive Aaron, the other minors, and the persons that they represent by maintaining segregated public schools. They continued to say that the defendants threatened to continue to conspire and deprive the minors of their constitutional rights. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint, and the answer eliminated many of the allegations contained in the complaint. The district court granted the application of the petitioners to suspend for two and half years the operation of the school board’s court approved desegregation program.296

Before the Eighth Circuit federal court of appeals, the School Board of Little Rock, Arkansas sought to implement a program of desegregation. There was resistance by the State Government and public hostility. Federal troops were necessary to allow eight African American children into the school. The School Board filed a petition to suspend court orders to implement the desegregation program claiming disruption made it difficult to maintain a sound education program. The court granted the petition. The Eighth Circuit reversed and ordered a program of desegregation.297

In an action involving the same parties, Brother Marshall along with Wiley A. Branton (Omega Psi Phi), Elwood H. Chisolm, Irma Robbins Feder, Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha), and Spottswood W. Robinson, III (Omega Psi Phi) made another appeal in Aaron v. Cooper. In this action, Aaron filed a motion for relief in which they prayed for an order restraining defendants, a school board and a superintendent, from leasing school properties to private institutions for conducting a high school program on a racially segregated basis. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case after the trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ motion and defendants’ petition for instruction. The court had issued an opinion holding that racial discrimination in public education was unconstitutional. After various proceedings, the State of Arkansas, pursuant to legislation, ordered the public schools closed until an election could be had regarding integration. Defendants filed a petition for instructions as to whether they could lease school properties to private institutions on a racially segregated basis, and Aaron sought an injunction against such an activity. The court dismissed defendants’ petition and plaintiffs’ motion. The appellate court reversed as to plaintiffs’ motion, holding that a three‐judge court was not required for the insurance of an injunction because the validity of the state was not an issue, as there was a violation of federal law. On remand, the court vacated its earlier order and granted the requested injunctive relief.

Although defendants were not directed to open the schools, they were enjoined from impeding the execution of the integration plan mandated against them. Defendant has a duty to comply with the court orders, and if they chose to open the schools, the schools had to be racially integrated.298

On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Brother Marshall continued to represent the respondents in Cooper v. Aaron. Petitioners, the Little Rock School Board and School Superintendent, asked a district court to postpone their program for desegregation mandated by the Brown v. Board of Education decision because of great difficulties in implementing the program. Certiorari was granted to review this judgment. The school authorities claimed that that while they made good faith efforts to implement a desegregation program, the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas resisted the program and enacted laws and took other actions to make implementation impossible. The court upheld the appellate decision requiring the desegregation program to proceed. The prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment extended to all action of a state denying equal protection of the actions; whatever the agency of the state taking the action, or whatever the guise in which it was taken. While one might sympathize with the position of school authorities, they were in fact agents of the State of Arkansas. Moreover, the constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color could neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers, nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation. Finally, the Court noted that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer could war against the constitution without violating his or her undertaking to support it. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court.299

In Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, Brothers Carter, Marshall, and Tureaud along with A. M. Trudeau, Jr., won their class action to obtain admission of African American children to the public schools of the parish on a non‐segregated basis. The court held that provisions of the Louisiana Constitution and statutes that required or permitted segregation of races in public schools were invalid under United States Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education and that no three‐judge court was not required to review this matter.300

In Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Brothers Carter and Marshall along with Oliver W. Hill (Omega Psi Phi), Martin A. Martin, and Spottswood W. Robinson, III (Omega Psi Phi) brought one of the five cases combined into Brown v. Board of Education. An all‐African American school in Farmville, Virginia suffered from terrible conditions due to underfunding. The school’s requests for additional funds were denied by the all‐white school board. A sixteen year old student named Barbara Johns organized a strike, which lasted two weeks. Two lawyers from the N.A.A.C.P. filed suit on behalf of the students. The state court ruled against the students, who appealed to the United States District Court. The students’ request was unanimously rejected by a three‐judge panel. Eventually the case moved to the United States Supreme Court and was consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.301

During 1956, Brothers Carter and Marshall also brought appeals in the federal courts in the South and Midwest. In an appeal before the Fourth Circuit in Flemming v. South Carolina Electric & Gas, an initial suit was brought about by Sarah Mew Flemming. She was an African American woman, and the case was against the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company on the grounds that the driver of a bus operated by the defendant company required her, as a passenger, to change her seat, in accordance with the segregation statutes. The judge dismissed the case on the ground that the state statutes were valid under the decision of Plessy v. Ferguson. On appeal the judgment was reversed.302

Before the Fifth Circuit, in Brown v. Rippy, appellant schoolchildren brought an action against the appellee‐school district for declaratory judgment and injunction requiring appellee to desegregate the schools under their jurisdiction. The trial judge declined to hear evidence, under the mistaken view that the schoolchildren had agreed to the facts pleaded by appellee. The trial judge found the suit premature and dismissed the action without prejudice.303

In Heyward v. Public Housing Administration, Brother Marshall represented appellant‐public housing applicants, Heyward and others, and petitioned the Fifth Circuit to review an order by the Georgia Federal District Court which granted the appellee‐housing authority’s motion for dismissal. Heyward filed a civil rights action alleging that the Public Housing Administration and city housing authority maintained policies that promoted racial segregation. The court determined that the Public Housing Administration was not entitled to summary judgment on claims brought under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. It found that there was a genuine issue of material fact that pertained to the administration’s role in low rent housing areas. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment on Heyward’s claims because there was an issue of material fact.304

In Jackson v. Rawdon, Brothers Carter and Marshall fought on behalf of Nathaniel Jackson and other African American children. It was an action against the school board and officials that sought a declaration of the childrens’ constitutional rights and an injunction requiring desegregation of public high schools. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice and Jackson appealed. The Fifth Circuit denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and reversed and remanded the district court’s judgment. The court found that the evidence showed that defendants had not given serious consideration to their duty to proceed with integration, and defendants’ concession to public opinion did not justify the inaction. The court ordered the district court to declare Jackson’s and the other schoolchildren’s right to attend the high school on the same basis as white students and to restrain defendants from further unlawful acts. The refusal to admit students on account of race or color was unlawful. The court reversed and remanded the district court’s judgment.305

Before the Sixth Circuit, in Clemmons v. Board of Education of Hillsboro, Brothers Marshall and James H. McGee, along with Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha), represented a student named Joyce Clemmons who sought an order enjoining the Board of Education from enforcing its segregation policy in its elementary schools, and from requiring the student to withdraw from a white elementary school and enroll in an African American one. The district court denied the Clemmons’ request for injunctive relief on the ground that an injunction would disrupt the procedure of the elementary schools, and that the board of education should not be subjected to interference from the district court. Clemmons and the other students were entitled to equitable relief because they had no adequate remedy at law. The court reversed the district court’s denial of the student’s request for an injunction against the board of education.306

In Detroit Housing Commission v. Lewis, Brother Marshall and Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha) represented appellees from an appeal of a judgment of the District Court issuing a permanent injunction against the Detroit Housing Commission, its members, and Director‐Secretary, in an action attacking racial segregation as claimed to be practiced in public housing projects carried on in Detroit. The action included claims that the defendants refused to lease to qualified African American applicants, and that the defendants segregated tenants into projects on the basis of race or color in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The court found that discrimination on the basis of race and color in housing facilities was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.307

Alpha Phi Alpha brothers were optimistic of great social improvement following the Golden Anniversary in 1956.308 Though there remained a number of further challenges to the Fraternity’s social goals, there were some markers of progress to celebrate.309 Colleges and universities across the United States were desegregating.310 The federal courts continued to rule against racially discriminating practices.311 Alpha Phi Alpha celebrated this progress but remained diligent by striving toward the full realization of their social goals and applying the Fraternity’s ideals to new challenges and opportunities.312

Reports detailing Alpha Phi Alpha activity at the Fraternity’s functions illustrated the dedication to improvement and steadfastness for social change in the face of resistance. At the 1957 General Convention, Brother Bishop Frank Madison Reid addressed the Fraternity and detailed his and fellow brother’s desegregation campaign in South Carolina.313 He encouraged Alpha Phi Alpha Brothers to take a larger part in the civil rights movement.314 Brothers on the Committee on Human Relations and Public Policy also continued to provide updates and “progress[ed] in the areas of school integration, civil rights, employment, housing, [and] international developments” since the Golden Anniversary.315

These reports were also encouraged action by Alpha Phi Alpha Brothers and by other communities. For example, Brothers Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Thurgood Marshall contributed in inspiring and influencing the “Sit‐In” Movement in the southern states.316 This movement spread to more than 100 cities across multiple states and provided momentum for civil rights legislation in the 1960s.317 There were other demonstrations and community action by Alpha Phi Alpha, like the one at the Sheraton‐Park Hotel during a fraternity conference.318 Members of the Fraternity and their families were denied entrance to the hotel’s swimming pool.319 General President Page made clear to management that the Fraternity’s convention would close if members were continued to be denied access.320 The management opened the pool to members and their families.321 Such action inspired similar demonstrations in many communities.322 Individual Alpha Phi Alpha chapters were also active in their communities, and inspired and organized such action.323 For example, much of the Fraternity’s participation in the sit‐ins were at the individual level, each individual illustrating the ideals of the Fraternity as a whole.324 The Fraternity had expressed some concern about the potential of self‐segregation, but the civil rights movement still inspired democracy for all.325 The Fraternity continued to donate money from its budget to social organizations like the N.A.A.C.P., National Commission Against Discrimination in Housing, and the United Negro College Fund to further social action.326 Just after the Fraternity’s fifty‐year anniversary, Jewel Henry Arthur Callis emphasized the Fraternity’s work in the first half century of its existence.327 He noted, “[t]oday we participate in another revival of American Conscience.”328 He emphasized that “[t]he Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity faces another half century of dedicated service. The fundamental need is the removal of undemocratic practices in the exercise of the franchise in many Southern states.”329 He believed “[m]uch needs still to be done to eliminate the fear and sycophancy created by a century of intimidation”330 and “Negro Nationalism can become the albatross around our necks. Our interest lies in the protection of all the rights and privileges guaranteed in the Constitution to all Americans. We must be just as vigilant about all  civil rights for others as for ourselves.”331

The Fraternity’s General President, Frank L. Stanley, revisited the original purpose of the Fraternity:332 “To promote a more perfect union among its members, to preserve the sanctity of the home, the personification of virtue, the chastity of women, sympathy and aid to the weak, to further brotherly love, and a fraternal spirit and justice among men, and destroy all prejudices, and to discountenance evil.”333 He reminded members, “[w]e are all in the same boat,”334 and “[i]f we are to hold our place of leadership, we must build upon these great deeds of the past and effect swift and decisive solutions to the human problems that engulf us.”335 He emphasized, “. . . our founders did not form just another fraternity solely for their own selfish interest . . . they created an organization suitable for any man,”336 and therefore, “[i]t is right and proper, therefore, that we recall the courage of our founders.”337 Urging members toward the Fraternity’s ultimate mission, he stated “[w]e must accept the challenge and lead the way by lighting the torch of freedom for oppressed people all over the world,”338 and “we must not yield to the myths of gradualism, moderation, or go‐slow.”339 Furthermore, he concluded, “Basically our task is no different now from what it was in 1906. The only variation is that our role is now more clearly defined and stems from a far broader base.”340

Much progress was made at the Southwestern Convention that year in Omaha, and workshop topics included “Integration—its effects on Housing,” “Integration—as it affects the undergraduate,” and “Integration—its social implication.”341 College chapters also remained committed to the task of Alpha Phi Alpha after fifty years. Delta Phi Chapter (Jackson College) collected clothing, shoes, soaps, and money for CARE during Help Week.342 The chapter “also sponsored several worthwhile cultural activities for the college community including a series of discussions on pertinent campus issues and a quiz program.”343 Beta Upsilon Chapter (State Teacher’s College) raised $300 for the March of Dimes Campaign—the most out of any group on campus, and their “Education for Citizenship Week” featured brothers speaking at four high schools in the Montgomery Area.344 Alumni chapters did not forget their dedication to educational attainment. Gamma Iota Lambda Chapter (Brooklyn, New York) awarded Andrew E. Van Keuren a scholarship for study at Michigan State College during the 1956‐1957 school year.345 Additionally, Epsilon Iota Lambda Chapter (Suffolk, Virginia) sponsored a competitive scholarship examination among the local high schools and a musical program at the local Booker T. Washington High School.346

In 1957, Brother Ozell Sutton worked with the N.A.A.C.P. to recruit African American students to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.347 The nine students he helped recruit would go down in history as the “Little Rock Nine.”348 In addition to Brother Sutton, Brothers Carter, Marshall, and Tureaud were also working to end racial segregation in education. In Louisiana, Brothers Carter and Tureaud litigated Ludley v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University. The case was a declaratory judgment action sought by African Americans against the University Board of Education to determine the constitutionality of statutes by which the legislature sought to preserve segregation in the state educational institutions.  The District Court held that the statute which requires, as prerequisite to attendance in state institutions of higher learning, a certificate of eligibility and good moral character signed by student’s former principal and superintendent and the statute which, in effect, provided that principals and superintendents signing such certificates for African Americans, would lose their jobs, are unconstitutional.349

In Georgia, Brothers Carter and Marshall litigated Ward v. Regents of Univ. System of Georgia. The plaintiff‐applicant, Alpha Phi Alpha Brother Horace T, Ward, brought an action against defendant‐ university challenging the denial of admission to law school. Ward was denied admission on the ground that he was not qualified as to attitude and character. This was due to the fact that Ward refused to submit a new application which was requested by the University six years after his original application was denied. Ward also disclaimed his right to enter as a first‐year student, based on his old application and argued that he had the right to enter as a transfer instead. It was the court’s belief that the court should not interfere until the pupil correctly applied and was denied relief. Because of this, the court found that the applicant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, barring him from any relief. Therefore, the court dismissed the law school applicants’ action against the university.350

Before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Brother Marshall represented the plaintiffs in School Board of City of Newport News v. Atkins. This was an appeal from injunctive decrees in the trial court, forbidding racial discrimination in the public schools of Norfolk and Newport News, Virginia. The case concerned the parents of Jerome Atkins and fifty‐three other African American children who filed suit claiming that the school board was denying the plaintiffs their civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. They petitioned the court to restrain the school board from barring admission on the grounds of race. The federal trial court ruled that racial segregation must end, and that the schools must be opened on  an integrated basis. The Court of Appeals affirmed.351

Before the federal court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brothers Carter, Marshall, and Tureaud sought to bring an end to segregation. In Borders v. Rippy, Brother Marshall prevailed in a case where appellant schoolchildren were denied admission to appellee school district based upon race. Their claim was dismissed by the district court, based upon a directive that stated African American children could not go to school with whites. The appellees failed to show that they had exhausted each administrative remedy. After appeal the court reversed the judgment because state law gave the appellee and the superintendent the power to act. The Fifth Circuit determined that the school children were not required to go to all lengths with the school administrative process before going to the court.352

In Gibson v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Brother Marshall represented Gibson and other schoolchildren who, along with their parents, filed a complaint against appellee Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Florida. They alleged that because the Board would not integrate its school systems, the schoolchildren suffered irreparable injury and deprivation of constitutional rights. The case was dismissed on the grounds that the schoolchildren did not set a justiciable case. Gibson sought review and the Fifth Circuit reversed.353

In Orleans Parish School Board v. Bush, Brothers Carter, Marshall, and Tureaud appealed a case from a judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The school district made three arguments. The suit was one against the state, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that the court erred in holding that the Louisiana Constitution requiring segregation. The Court of Appeals held that the suit did not seek to compel state action, but to prevent action taken by state officials under a state constitution and laws.354

In Avery v. Wichita Falls Independent School District, Brothers Carter and Marshall represented twenty African American children of public school age and residents of the Wichita Falls Independent School District as a class action. They alleged that they were members of a general class of persons who were segregated and discriminated against by order of the defendant Board. They sought relief for themselves on account of their exclusion from certain public schools. The students were certified as a class and pursued a declaratory judgment against the appellee school district. The court reversed the order granting appellee school district’s motion to dismiss the complaint of the students. The case was remanded for a determination whether actual segregation still existed in most of appellee’s schools.355

Before the Sixth Circuit federal court of appeals, Brothers Carter and Marshall represented plaintiffs from the trial court case in Booker v. State of Tennessee Board of Education. The plaintiffs—Ruth Booker and four other students—were residents of Memphis, Tennessee. They brought a claim against defendants, the Board of the State of Tennessee and its officials. It was found that the applicants were fully qualified for admission into the College, and they were denied admission based on their race. It was the policy of the State of Tennessee to maintain the college of higher education solely on the basis of race. The court reversed the trial court order and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.356

Before the United States Supreme Court, Brothers Carter and Marshall worked to chip at the foundation of the “separate but equal” doctrine. In County School Board of Arlington County v. Thompson, Brothers Carter and Marshall, along with Edwin C. Brown, Oliver W. Hill (Omega Psi Phi), and Spottswood W. Robinson, III (Omega Psi Phi) appealed to the Supreme Court where the District Court found that seven African American children had been denied admission to schools in violation of the terms of the decree and entered an order enjoining defendants from refusing to admit them to the schools to which they had applied for admission. The Court found that there were no grounds on which they could justly complain and the appeal was affirmed. The Supreme Court denied certiorari.357

Changes in the late 1950s brought cautious optimism within the Fraternity. With the announcement of the unconstitutionality of compulsory reporting of membership lists in N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama, Alpha Phi Alpha Brothers were hopeful that there would be less trepidation in joining the Fraternity.358 Despite this progress, however, Alpha Phi Alpha would now face more competition for membership as fraternal organizations at public universities could no longer exclude members on the basis of race after the ruling in Webb v. State University.359 Though Alpha Phi Alpha did not have limitations for members based on race in its constitution, the expansion of membership in other fraternities meant that the Fraternity would contend for initiates in a manner not previously seen.360

In 1958, the Committee on Public Policy and Program made an incisive statement in its report—that the Fraternity could neither be effective in the area of public policy nor return to its “former preeminent position” without “critical self‐appraisal.” As a result, General President Myles Paige appointed a committee to focus on the Fraternity’s fiscal and operational structure.361 The national theme of the Fraternity was A‐Voteless‐People‐is‐a‐Hopeless‐People.362 Aligning with this theme, the Committee on Human Relations article in The Sphinx wrote, “[A] vote‐less people is a hopeless people. We confidently believe that the ballot is our salvation.”363 The author voiced concerns over the fact that laws have been written into the Constitution but certain representatives in the government refuse to enforce these laws concerning civil rights.364

The following petitions were made concerning civil rights: “That the POTUS . . . speak overtly . . . against the evils affecting civil liberties,” “[t]hat the POTUS make available time to appeal to the people of this nation by means of a television broadcast in behalf of a decent and strong Civil Rights Bill in somewhat equal proportion to the recent television appeal for Foreign Aid,” “[t]hat the Department of Justice act with the laws at its disposal. . . . Enforcement of the law is as important as its enactment,” and “[t]hat the leaders in the House of Representatives and the Senate cease playing politics with the civil rights of the American people.” 365

As far as college chapters’ activities, Alpha Rho Chapter (Morehouse College) donated $300 to the United Negro College Fund, achieved the highest scholastic average out of all of the fraternities on campus, and sponsored a cultural aspect of the chapter program in that year and planned in the future to give “an annual gift to some reserving institution in the community.”366 Alpha Epsilon Chapter (University of California—Berkeley) started a counseling program which encouraged and provided support to high‐school students who want to go to college.367 The chapter volunteered a couple times a year at the local orphanage and collected food in a canned food drive to help the orphans around Christmastime.368 Keeping with the educational and philanthropic mission of the Fraternity, Gamma Iota Chapter (Hampton Institute) awarded an annual scholarship to a junior, sponsored a Red Cross Blood Drive, and sponsored an N.A.A.C.P. membership drive.369 Notably, Kappa Chapter (Ohio State University) became the “first Negro organization to join one of the Campus Political parties”370 Alumni chapters also actively participated in scholarship and service activities in 1958. Alpha Gamma Lambda Chapter (Richmond, Virginia) launched a scholarship and student aid program targeted at encouraging local youth to complete high school,371 while Alpha Delta Lambda Chapter (Memphis, Tennessee) hosted a scholarship dance and made another payment towards its lifetime membership in the N.A.A.C.P.372

In 1958, Brothers Carter and Marshall, along with R. Jess Brown and Constance B. Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha), lost their case, Darby v. Daniel, before the United States District Court of the Southern District of Mississippi. H.D. Darby, an African‐American citizen, and others similarly situated commenced an action against the defendants, the county and state, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction on the grounds that they had been denied the right to register to vote because of their race, through the enforcement of a policy of discrimination against African Americans, the enforcement of unconstitutional voting requirements, and the discriminatory administration of valid votes. The amended statue in question required that every elector be able to read and write any section of the state constitution, and give a reasonable interpretation. Darby contended that the statue was void on its face because it bestowed upon the county uncontrolled discretion in determining a “reasonable interpretation,” void because it purpose was to discriminate against qualified African Americans, and void because it purpose was being administered in a discriminatory manner. The court upheld the statue. The court held that: (1) the statue was not void on its face because the provision applied with equal force to both white and African American citizens; (2) the decision maker did not have uncontrolled discretion because administrative appeals and were given de novo review; (3) newspaper articles expressing the statue’s evil motives were not tangible proof of a discriminatory purpose and; (4) Darby’s witness did not support their burden in proving that they were qualified to be registered because they answered some questions incorrectly, did not write legibly, and provided no proof that any white citizen was ever treated more favorably than African American citizens. The court dismissed Darby’s race discrimination complaint.373

In 1958, Brother Thurgood Marshall, Z. Alexander Looby (Omega Pi Phi) and Avon Williams (Omega Psi Phi) won their case— Kelly v. Board of Education—before the Middle District of Tennessee. The plaintiffs, Robert Kelly and parents of African‐American children eligible to attend city public schools, sought injunctive relief in a class action to restrain defendants, members of the Board of Education and the Superintendent of Schools, from discriminating against the children on account of their race. Pursuant to court order, the board submitted a plan to abolish segregation, and Kelly filed objections to the plan. Pursuant to court order, the board submitted a plan to abolish segregation, and Kelly filed objections to the plan. The court denied the motion to dismiss and held that the administrative remedy under the Act would not have been adequate because it would require Kelly and the others to go before the board, which was committed to the continuance of compulsory segregation, resulting in no reasonable prospect of success. The court disapproved the board’s proposed plan as practically unfeasible and unworkable. The court ruled that the plan wholly failed to meet the test of constitutionally and did not offer, in any realistic sense, an alternative of choice to members of the minority race. Due to the complexity of desegregation, the board was granted additional time within which to study the problem and present a plan.

The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted the board additional time within which to submit another plan.374

Brothers Carter and Marshall, along with Oliver W. Hill (Omega Psi Phi) and Spottswood W. Robinson, III (Omega Psi Phi), won their case, N.A.A.C.P. v. Patty, before a Virginia federal trial court. The case was against the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Commonwealth Attorneys for the City of Richmond, the City of Newport News, the City of Norfolk, Arlington County, and Prince Edward County, Virginia, to secure a declaratory judgment and an injunction restraining and enjoining the defendants from enforcing or executing various provisions of the Acts of Assembly of the Commonwealth, all which were passed at the Extra Session convened between August 27, 1956 and September 29, 1956 and were approved by the governor of the Commonwealth. The suits alleged a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that the two registration statutes, and one of the statutes relating to the improper practice of law, were free from ambiguities requiring prior interpretation by courts of state, and that no reasonable interpretation thereof would render them constitutional; but held that the remaining two statutes relating to the improper practice of law were vague and ambiguous, and that the constitutionality thereof would not be passed upon until after state courts had had opportunity to interpret them.375

Brother Thurgood Marshall and Wiley A. Branton (Omega Psi Phi) lost their case, Faubus v. United States, before the Eight Circuit. The United States, joined by the parties of Aaron, filed a petition to enjoin the Arkansas Governor, Adjutant General of State, and Commander of National Guard Unit from using National Guard to prevent eligible African American children from attending city high school pursuant to a court approved plan of gradual integration.376 The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling.377 It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction and granting a preliminary injunction after its court‐approved gradual plan of integration required further orders to obtain effectuation of plan when the National Guard prevented the plan.378 The suit, as the court framed it, was not against the state, but involved state officials invading “rights secured by the Federal Constitution” and were therefore under federal jurisdiction.379 Furthermore, the Eight Circuit did not find that a three‐judge panel was required in that decision.380

Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha), A.T. Walden, and Brother Thurgood Marshall lost their case, Cohen v. Public Housing Administration, before the Fifth Circuit. Multiple plaintiffs filed an action against appellee housing agencies for an injunction, declaratory judgment, and money damages on account of alleged racial segregation in public housing. Prior to the commencement of the trial, all but one of the plaintiffs’ withdrew, leaving Queen Cohen as the sole plaintiff. Cohen remained, arguing she had been denied admission to a public housing project solely because of race and color. At the conclusion of the trial the district court dismissed Cohen’s claim. On appeal, the court found that Cohen did not claim that she had filed any written application. Cohen argued she was not required to prove that she applied for or was denied such admission because equity did not require a vain act. The court stated that a tenant could not be admitted to a housing project without having made an application. The court concluded that Cohen did not have standing to maintain the action because she had not been denied admission to the public housing project on account of her race or color. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.381

Brother Alexander Pierre Tureaud and Louis B. Portetie won their case, New Orleans City Park Improvement Association v. Detiege, before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was an action for the declaration of rights of the parties and permanently enjoining a municipality from denying Negroes use of park facilities on account of their race. When the Louisiana District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, citing Holmes v. City of Atlanta, declared unconstitutional all state laws which prevented African American persons from using public facilities and, seeing as this case involved the same issue, the Court decided to affirm and uphold the judgment of the district court.382

Brother Carter lost his case, Evers v. Dwyer, before the District Court. An African American resident of Tennessee, O.Z. Evers, brought a class action suit against officials of the City of Memphis, the local street railway company, and one of that company’s employees. He sought a declaratory judgment as to his claimed constitutional right, and that of others similarly situated, to travel on buses within the city without being subjected, as required by Tennessee statue, to segregated seating arrangements on the account of race. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that no actual controversy had been shown because the appellant had ridden a bus in Memphis only once. However, Evers appealed and the Supreme Court found that where Evers boarded the bus and was told to move to the rear or either get off or be arrested, and whereupon Evers left the bus, an actual controversy existed over the validity of the state statute requiring segregation. The Supreme Court emphasized that it did not matter even if Evers boarded the bus for the purpose of starting litigation. Because of this the case was reversed and remanded.383

Brother Carter won his case, N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, before the U.S. Supreme Court of Alabama. A suit against the association to oust it from the state and enjoin it from conducting further activities, wherein the association was adjudged in contempt  for non‐compliance with an order requiring it to produce records including names of its members. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied certiorari to review the adjudication and the association brought certiorari. The Supreme Court held that the order requiring the association to produce records including names and addresses of all members and agents was a denial of due process as entailing likelihood of a substantial restraint upon member’s exercise of their right to freedom of association. The court reversed and remanded the suit.384

In 1959, in a piece entitled “Fraternal Address”385 in The Sphinx the identified obligations of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers were: “To defend freedom actively,”386 “[t]o support education as a function of democratic government,”387 “[b]y advice, encouragement, and direction, to increase the penetration by our young people into every phase of the American economy,”388 and “[t]o stand as Gideons on the ramparts of the political arena to judge and to battle for the civic and cultural welfare of our communities.”389 In fact, Alpha Phi Alpha brothers were challenged to “live out the Fraternity ideals in our everyday relationships . . . we must exhibit a greater sensitivity to the human problems which are so prevalent around us . . . the most delicate and perplexing problem which we now face is one of racial strife . . . Alpha men must take an uncompromising position in favor of democracy and universal justice. We must not wavier . . . we must be firm but not overbearing.”390 Furthermore, members were encouraged to adhere to the ‘Cult of Excellence.’391 Brother James Evans advocated ‘a cult of excellence’ and spoke on the Alpha tradition of “being carefully selective and frowning upon mediocrity,” stating, “[w]e must push the individual along as far and as fast as he can go.”392

Perhaps answering the call, college chapters hosted programs addressing social and community concerns. Alpha Beta Chapter (Talladega College) hosted several campus projects including painting benches, painting trash receptacles, lowering and raising of the flag each day, collection of old clothes and the distribution of the received clothes to needy families within the community, and “[t]he presentation of a certificate to Robert Strickland for his work in securing a new gym for the Talladega Negro High School.” 393

In a push for education, Alpha Delta Lambda Chapter (Memphis, Tennessee) sponsored its first annual scholarship dance which was a success, for the purpose of establishing a $2,000 scholarship loan fund for students,”394 while Pi Chapter (Western Reserve University) provided a recreational outing for underprivileged boys at Gordon Park, which was a program designed to assists high school seniors in their future endeavors pertaining to college.395 Furthermore, Theta Chapter (University of Chicago) sang carols and distributed toys at local orphanages during the holiday season, visited homes for the elderly, collected Thanksgiving baskets for needy families within the community that fall, and persuaded high school students to continue their education at the college level.396 Later that year, Delta Xi Chapter (Central State College) planned a voter registration program, a Christmas party for community children, and sponsored a summer camp for needy children.397

Elsewhere, “[t]he members of Mu Lambda joined with the Alpha wives in sponsoring the premier performance of ‘Ebony Fashion Fair’ for the benefit of the scholarship fund.”398 In the Jersey Shore area, Zeta Epsilon Lambda Chapter’s (Red Bank, New Jersey) Cultural and Citizenship Committee “surveyed the advisement of the project to give free to all students who are interested, tutoring in several scientific and engineering courses, mathematics, English and music, with the direct purpose of preparing students to equip themselves proficiently for college entrance requirements.”399 Gamma Iota Lambda Chapter (Brooklyn, New York) raised money for the scholarship fund of $500 that supported two ladies going to Brooklyn College.400 Additionally, the two‐year‐old Zeta Zeta Lambda Chapter (St. Albans, New York) focused on racial issues by sponsored a speaker who spoke about how desegregation alone is not enough.401 He noted, “. . . the Supreme Court decision of May 19th 1954, instead of lessening suffering, sacrifice, and work has placed the Negro on a more exploratory status . . . so that the negro has to work even harder.”402 Focusing on education and citizenship, Delta Kappa Lambda Chapter (Florence, South Carolina) planned activities for the following year, including observance of Education and Citizenship Week, observance of Education and the Ballot, working with civic organizations on community involvement, and presentation of annual scholarships.403

Brother Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha), and C.O. Pearson lost their case, Tonkins v. City of Greensboro, before The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. African American citizens who were denied admission to a white‐only, municipally owned swimming pool sought a declaratory judgment and to enjoin the sale of the pool to a private corporation.404 The District Court decreed a dismissal within thirty days of sale unless plaintiffs proved that the sale was “not bona fide in the sense that there was collusion between the defendants and the successful bidder regarding the future use of the pool.”405 The Court of Appeals affirmed after noting that the district court’s finding regarding the bona fide sale was not clearly erroneous.406 The court also noted that racial discrimination in respect to a privately owned, financed and operated pool did not constitute state action or conduct which federal court could enjoin under the Fourteenth Amendment.407

Wiley A. Branton (Omega Psi Phi) and Brother Thurgood Marshall won their case, Aaron v. McKinley, before the Arkansas District Court. African American students in Little Rock, Arkansas, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against state officers after Arkansas Governor Orval E. Faubus blocked the enrollment of the Little Rock Nine by passing a statute closing public schools scheduled to be integrated and instituted an election to determine whether or not schools were to be integrated.408 The statute also enabled the Governor to withhold the pro rata share of state funds schools has been ordered closed, which made those funds allocable to other public school or nonprofit private school attended by white students.409 The three‐judge District Court found such action unconstitutional.410

Brother Thurgood Marshall along with E.E. Moore, Jr., Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha), A.T. Walden, and Donald L. Hollowell (Kappa Alpha Psi) won their case, Calhoun v. Board of Education, before a Georgia federal trial court. Vivian Calhoun and other students brought suit against defendant officials, arguing that city schools were being operated on a racially segregated basis and seeking injunctive relief. After finding that discrimination existed, the court ordered the officials to submit a plan whereby it would be discontinued. The officials filed their plan, and the students filed their objections to it. The plan abolished segregation beginning with the

twelfth grade and thereafter took in a lower grade each year. The court held that the plan was not invalid because it prohibited racial discrimination rather than requiring a mixing of the races. The court stated that the fact that the plan would take twelve years to complete did not mean that desegregation was not being accomplished with sufficient speed. The court held that the plan could not consider the possibility of friction, breaches of the peace, or economic retaliation in placing students where such factors pertained only to race or color. The court stated that standards involving psychological factors must be applied without reference to race or color. The court rejected the students’ argument that the plan was not proposed in good faith and would be violated, stating that without evidence, the court could not assume that the official would violate the plan. Finally, the court held that the plan should be amended to provide for more expeditious administrative procedures and to contain severability provision. Accordingly, the court ordered that the officials file an amended plan for the courts consideration. The outcome is the court ordered the certain amendments be made to the plan and that the amended plan  be submitted for its review.411

Brothers Carter and Marshall, along with E. E. Moore, Jr., Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha), A. T. Walden, and Donald L. Hollowell (Kappa Alpha Psi), won their case, Hunt v. Arnold, before a Georgia federal trial court.412 Barbara Hunt and several other African American applicants with scholastic credits sufficient to qualify them for admission to Georgia State College of Business Administration were denied admission.413 African American applicants were required to submit certificates of good character certified to only by alumni of white institutions, which the court recognized “prevent[s] Negroes from meeting this admission requirement.”414 The District Court granted the injunction preventing the denying admission to “qualified Negroes solely because of their race and color, and to prohibit the adoption of admission requirements that will deny to them the equal protection of the laws and due process of law.”415

Brother Carter lost his case, Parham v. Dove, in federal trial court in Arkansas. Three African American students sought to have the court order their immediate admittance to a particular school, in Dollarway School District Number 2, of Jefferson County, Arkansas. The court felt that both the preceding statute and the superseding statute had to be legally regarded as not being an unconstitutional facility, and that there was accordingly no occasion for a three judge court to hear the matter. On subsequent trial the single court entered a decree declaring both the 1956 and 1959 Acts to be constitutional on their face, but holding that notwithstanding this fact.416

Jack Greenberg, J. Kenneth Lee, Conrad O. Pearson,  and Brother Thurgood Marshall won their case, Covington v. Edwards, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The parents of African American children in Montgomery County, North Carolina, sought an injunction against Superintendent and County Board of Education, directing them to create a desegregation plan and forbid the assignment of students to particular schools because of their race. The District Court dismissed the suit because the students failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Fourth Circuit affirmed by holding that parents were required to exhaust the right to be heard by the County Board when dissatisfied with their child’s school placement before seeking relief in federal courts.417

Brother Carter won his case, Gomillion v. Lightfoot, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. An act of the Alabama legislature re‐drew the electoral district boundaries of Tuskegee, replacing what had been a region with a square shape with a twenty‐eight sided figure. The effect of the new district was to exclude essentially all African Americans from the city limits of Tuskegee and place them in a district where no whites lived. The unanimous court held that act 140 of the Alabama legislature violated the Fifteenth Amendment. The court admitted that states are insulated from judicial review when they exercise power.418

Brother Carter lost his case, Brooks v. School District of the City of Moberly, before the United States Supreme Court. Namoi Brooks and six other African American school teachers, who were employed by the defendant School District to teach in its segregated school maintained for African Americans during the 1954‐1955 school year and were not reemployed when the school system was integrated commencing in the fall of 1955, appealed from a final order entered in 1958, that dismissed their complaint praying for declaratory judgment. Brooks’ cause of action was based on their claim that the defendants denied them reemployment after integration solely because of their race or color, pursuant to a rule, practice, or custom of the Board of Education not to employ African American teachers. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Brooks failed to meet the burden of proving that the board’s action in failing to renew their teaching contracts resulted from racial discrimination.419

In N.A.A.C.P. v. Harrison, Brother Thurgood Marshall won his case before the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. Appellant non‐ profit membership corporations sought review of decrees by the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond which held that non‐profit membership corporations’ constitutional guarantees were not violated, the non‐ profit membership corporations were engaged in the improper solicitation of legal business, and that non‐profit membership corporations were violating 1956 Va. Acts ch. 33. The court determined that under the status of non‐profit membership corporations were violating canons of legal ethics by improperly soliciting legal business and employment and that the nonprofit membership corporations had no direct interest with the person that they claim to represent. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s determination that 1956 Va. Acts ch.33 was not unconstitutional as it was valid under the state’s police power and the solicitation of legal business by the nonprofit membership corporations were in violation of this statue. The Court reversed the holding that corporations were in violation of this statue. The Court reversed the lower court’s decree that held 1956 Va. Acts ch. 36 Constitution because the court concluded that it violated the right of free speech and denied equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lower court’s decrees were affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for entry of a decree consistent with the opinion. The court found that one statue was a valid regulation of the practice of law enacted under the police power of state. However, the other statue in question was deemed unconstitutional because it violated the nonprofit membership corporation’s right to freedom of speech.420

1 CHARLES H. WESLEY, THE HISTORY OF ALPHA PHI  ALPHA: A DEVELOPMENT  IN  COLLEGE  LIFE 342 (16th ed. 1996).

2 Id. at 340.

3 Id.

4 Fraternities Get Together, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1950, at 3.

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 B.V. Lawson, Convention Call, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1950, at 2.

8 Human Rights Council Calls on Truman to Set UP FEPC, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1950, at 7.

9 The Negro Solider in the United States Army – Report to General George C. Marshall, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1950, at 15‐16.

10 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 342.

11 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 445.

12 Ex parte Backstron, 98 Cal. App. 2d 500 (1950).

13 Henderson v. Am. Airlines, 91 F. Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1950).

14 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 335‐36.

15 Elmer W. Henderson, The Henderson Case, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1950, at 6.

16 Henderson v. United States, 63 F. Supp. 906 (D. Md. 1945).

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id. at 913.

20 Id. at 906.

21 Id.

22 Id. at 915

23 Id. at 906.

24 Henderson v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 80 F. Supp. 32 (1948).

25 Id. at 38 (1948) (quoting Chiles v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co.,218 U.S. 71, 75, 30 S.Ct.

667, 668, 54 L.Ed. 936, 20 Ann.Cas. 980).

26 Henderson, supra note 23.

27 Id. at 36.

28 Id.

29 Id. at 32.

30 Brief for Petitioner, infra note 30, at cover.

31 Motion and Brief for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as Amicus Curiae, Henderson v. United States, 70 S. Ct. 843, at cover (1950) (No. 25).

32 Brief Amicus Curiae on behalf of the Civil Rights Committee of the National Bar Association, Henderson v. United States, 70 S. Ct. 843, at cover (1950) (No. 25).

33 Henderson v. United States, 70 S. Ct. 843, 846 (1950).

34 Id. at 847.

35 Id. at 846.

36   DEREK CATSAM, FREEDOM’S MAIN LINE: THE JOURNEY OF RECONCILIATION 56 (2009).

37     JACK GREENBERG, CRUSADERS IN THE COURTS: HOW A DEDICATED BAND OF LAWYERS FOUGHT FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS REVOLUTION 73 (1994).

38 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 309‐313.

39 Id. at 336.

40 Alpha Renews Fight for Democracy at Southern Regional, THE SPHINX, 1950, at 4.

41 Convention Impressions, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1950, at 4.

42 Id.

43 Convention Impressions, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1950, at 5‐6.

44 Highlights of “The 35th General Convention – Atlanta, GA, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1950, at 6.

45 Id. at 7.

46 Id.

47 A Program for Undergraduate Chapter, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1950, at 22.

48 Id.

49 Chapter Echoes, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1950, at 31.

50 Id.

51 Id. at 39.

52 Chapter Echoes, THE SPHINX, 1950, at 29.

53 Id.

54 Id. at 35.

55 Id.

56 Chapter Echoes, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1950, at 18.

57 Id. at 19.

58 Chapter Echoes, supra note 48, at 29.

59 Id. at 30.

60 Id.

61 Id. at 31‐32.

62 Id. at 34.

63 Kentucky Alphas Pace Fight for Integration in Education, THE SPHINX, 1950, at 11‐12.

64 Chapter Echoes, supra note 51, at 26.

65 Id. at 33.

66 Chapter Echoes, supra note 55, at 27.

67 Beta Lambda Chapter (Kansas City) Sponsors Point Program¸ THE SPHINX, Dec. 1950, at 29‐30.

68 Id.

69 Aubrey Williams, Does Gradualism Work?, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1950, at 9.

70 Id. at 10.

71 Id. at 11.

72 Id. at 9‐12, 26‐28.

73 Convention Address, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1950, at 13.

74 Id.

75 Id. at 14.

76 Id.

77 Id.

78 Id. at 20.

79 Greetings from Brother Dr. Moron, Educational Director, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1950, at 21, 26.

80 James C. Evans, …Stressing Equality at Regional, THE SPHINX, 1950, at 5.

81 Id. at 6.

82 Swanson v. Rector of Visitors of the Univ. of Va., No. 30 (W.D. Va. Sept. 5, 1950) (order granting preliminary injunction); see also Brief for Plaintiff, Swanson, No. 30.

83 PETER WALLENSTEIN, BLUE LAWS AND BLACK CODES: CONFLICT, COURTS, AND CHANGE IN

TWENTIETH‐CENTURY VIRGINIA 76 (2004); Anthony B. Deel, Virginia’s Minimal Resistance: The Desegregation of Public Graduate and Professional Education, 1935‐55 75 (1990) (unpublished M.A. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) (on file with author).

84 WALLENSTEIN, supra note 82, at 107.

85 1950‐51 Op. Va. Att’y Gen. 58 (1950).

86 Swanson v. Rector of Visitors of the Univ. of Va., No. 30 (W.D. Va. Sept. 5, 1950) (order granting preliminary injunction).

87 Wilson v. Board of Sup’rs. of La. State Univ. and Agr. And Mechanical College, 92 F. Supp. 986 (E.D. La. 1950).

88 Carr v. Corning, 182 F.2d 14 (D.C. Cir. 1950).

89 Id.

90 Id.

91 Id. at 16.

92 Id. at 23.

93 Id.

94 Id. at 16.

95 Id. at 17

96 Id.

97 Id. at 17‐18.

98 Id. at 17.

99 Id. at 22.

100 Id.

101 Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950).

102 Do Alpha’s Procedures Need Reform?, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1951, at 5‐6.

103 Id.

104 Id.

105 Id.

106 Council Launches Counter‐Drive to Dixie Flag Fad, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1951, at 9.

107 Id.

108 Call Says Alphas Helping to Break A.C. Segregation, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1951, at 30.

109 Id.

110 Id.

111 Norfolk Chapter Contributes Idea of Citizen‐Scholar, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1951, at 22.

112 Psi Chapter Looks Back…, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1951, at 26.

113 Delta Nu Chapter…, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1951, at 28.

114 Brother Edward Brooke, New Chapters, Memorable Convention Highlight Eastern Regional Report, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1951, at 18, 21.

115 Id. at 18.

116 Id. at 21.

117 J. R. Henderson, Democracy, Citizenship Topics at Southeastern Regional, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1951, at 22.

118 Id.

119 Id.

120 Florence, S. C. DKL Chapter Delegates Impressed by Regional’s Success, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1951, at 13.

121 Midwest Reports Good Year, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1951, at 12‐13.

122 People v. Davis, 303 N.Y. 235, 235, 101 N.E.2d 479 (1951).

123 Gray v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn., 100 F. Supp. 113 (E.D. Tenn. 1951).

124 Heard v. Ouachita Parish School Board, 94 F. Supp. 897 (W.D. La. 1951).

125 Briggs v. Elliot, 98 F. Supp. 529 (E.D.S.C. 1951).

126 Briggs v. Elliott, 103 F. Supp. 920 (D.S.C. 1952).

127 Briggs v. Elliott, 342 U.S. 350 (1952).

128 Bates v. Batte, 187 F.2d 142 (5th Cir., 1951).

129 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 356.

130 Id. at 356‐57.

131 Id. at 355.

132 The Confederate Flag, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1952, at 1.

133 Martin Weighs Platform…, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1952, at 7.

134 Id.

135 Id.

136 Party Platforms on Civil Rights in 1952, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1952, at 8.

137 Id.

138 Id.

139 Id.

140 ACHR Human Rights Statement, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1952, at 18.

141 Id.

142 Maceo Smith, Texas Giant, Takes Helm, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1952, at 5.

143 Id.

144 The New President Speaks, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1952, at 6.

145 A ‘Farewell’ from President Lawson, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1952, at 12.

146 Id.

147 Id.

148 Id. at 13.

149 Milton Wright, Education and Citizenship in Alpha, THE SPHINX, May 1952, at 3‐4.

150 Id.

151 Id.

152 Are We Losing Sight of Our Aims, THE SPHINX, May 1952, at 6‐8.

153 Id.

154 Id.

155 New Educational Horizons for Alpha, THE SPHINX, May 1952, at 15‐17.

156 Id.

157 Id.

158 Milton Wright’s…¸ THE SPHINX, Oct. 1952, at 19.

159 Pre‐College Clinic in Muskogee Said Project with National Significance, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1952, at 25.

160 Educational, Social Program Set for Year by Alpha Phi, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1952, at 26.

161 THE SPHINX, Feb. 1952, at 30.

162 Alpha Mu’s Fight is Won; Gray Admitted to Tennessee, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1952, at 28. 163 Achieve Transition from Segregated Branch of School, THE SPHINX, May 1952, at 19. 164 THE SPHINX, May 1952, at 19.

165 Id. at 24.

166 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1952, at 21.

167 Id.

168 Tallahassee Spurs ‘Help Week’ Plan, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1952, at 24.

169 Vital Part in Civic Life Played by Eta Lambdas of Atlanta, THE SPHINX, May 1952, at 9.

170 Id.

171 Chapter was Aid in Staging Meet, THE SPHINX, May 1952, at 13.

172 Convention Over, Berkeley Reviews Distinguished Year, THE SPHINX, May 1952, at 18.

173 The Convention Call – ’52, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1952, at 4.

174 People v. Bell, 204 Misc. 71, 72, 125 N.Y.S.2d 117 (Co. Ct.), aff’d, 306 N.Y. 110, 115 N.E.2d

821 (1953).

175 Gebhart v. Belton, 87 A.2d 862 (Del. Ch. 1952), aff’d, 91 A.2d 137 (Del. 1952).

176 Hayes v. Crutcher, 108 F. Supp. 582 (M.D. Tenn. 1952).

177 McSwain v. County Bd. of Ed. of Anderson County, 104 F. Supp. 861 (E.D. Tenn. 1952). 178 McSwain v. County Bd. of Ed. of Anderson County, 138 F. Supp. 570 (E.D. Tenn. 1956). 179 Greeks Demonstrate to World, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1952, at 2.

180 Alphas to Push State FEPC Laws, THE SPHINX, May 1953, at 3.

181 Education, Citizenship Drive in High Gear, THE SPHINX, May 1953, at 8‐9.

182 THE SPHINX, May 1953, at 30.

183 The General President Speaks, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1953, at 6.

184 Id. at 7.

185 Human Rights Council Wins…, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1953, at 1.

186 Id.

187 Beta Alpha Reports, THE SPHINX, May 1953, at 13.

188 THE SPHINX, May 1953, at 17.

189 News of Eta, THE SPHINX, May 1953, at 33.

190 Kappa Lambda Launches Program, THE SPHINX, May 1953, at 16.

191 Delta Theta Lambda, THE SPHINX, May 1953, at 28.

192 Chapter Has a Very Successful Year, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1953, at 17.

193 Alpha Eta Lambda Chapter…, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1953, at 22.

194 Id. at 24.

195 Brother Island – A Guiding Hand to Boys, THE SPHINX, May 1953, at 21.

196 From the General Secretary’s Desk, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1952, at 6.

197 Workshops at the Convention, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1952, at 11.

198 Brother Logan Speaker at Eastern Regional, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1953, at 4‐5, 7.

199 Id. at 5.

200 Id.

201 Id. at 7.

202 Great Constructive Program Presented, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1953, at 20.

203

204 Freret Civic Ass’t v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 65 So.2d 893 (La. 1953).

205 Tureaud v. Bd. of Sup’rs. of La. State Univ. and Agr. and Mechanical College, 116 F.Supp. 248 (E.D. La. 1953).

206 Board of Sup’rs of La. State Univ. and Agr. and Mechanical College v. Tureaud, 207 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1953).

207 Board of Sup’rs. of La. State Univ. and Agr. and Mechanical College v. Tureaud, 226 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1955).

208 Kansas City v. Williams, 205 F.2d 47 (8th Cir. 1953).

209 WESLEY, supra note 1.

210 Alpha Echoes at National Convention, in THE SPHINX, Feb. 1954, at 4‐5, 8.

211 Id. at 4.

212 Alpha’s Responsibility in the Program of Integration, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1954, at 20.

213 THE SPHINX, Feb. 1954, at 7.

214 Brother Walter Booker, Our Unfinished Task in Education, THE SPHINX, May 1954, at 5‐6, 28.

215 Id. at 5.

216 Id. at 6.

217 Id.

218 Id.

219 THE SPHINX, May 1954, at 20.

220 Xi Chapter Has a Great Year, THE SPHINX, May 1954, at 12‐13.

221 Id. at 12.

222 Beta Upsilon is Moving Forward, THE SPHINX, May 1954, at 17.

223 THE SPHINX, supra note 217, at 21.

224 Beta Sigma Helps the Needy in Baton Rouge, THE SPHINX, May 1954, at 23, 31.

225 THE SPHINX, supra note 217, at 26.

226 Id. at 28.

227 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1954, at 22‐23.

228 Human Rights Program Highlights Activities Here, THE SPHINX, May 1954, at 3, 26.

229 Gamma Gamma Lambda Sends Eight to College, in THE SPHINX, Dec. 1954, at 4.

230 Wilmington Chapter Awards Scholarship, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1954, at 7.

231 Id.

232 Beta Nu Lambda Gives Scholarship, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1954, at 16.

233 Constantine v. Southwestern Louisiana Institute, 120 F. Supp. 417 (W.D. La. 1954).

234 Sellers v. Wilson, 123 F. Supp. 917 (M.D. Ala. 1954).

235 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 372.

236 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 397.

237 Johnson v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 114 (E.D. Pa. 1955).

238 Bell v. Rippy, 133 F. Supp. 811 (N.D. Tex. 1955).

239 Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, 139 F. Supp. 468 (D. Kan. 1955).

240 Adams v. Lucy, 288 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1955).

241 Lucy v. Adams, 350 U.S. 1 (1955).

242 Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Dawson, 350 U.S. 877 (1955).

243 WESLEY, supra note 1, at 401.

244 Id. at 402.

245 Id. at       .

246 Id. at 405.

247 Id. at 424.

248 Id. at 406.

249 Id. at 406‐07.

250 Id. at 416.

251 Id. at 410.

252 Id. at 411.

253 Id.

254 Id. at 407.

255 Id. at 412‐13.

256 Id. at 413.

257 The Cornell Memorial Scholarship, THE SPHINX, May 1956, at 10.

258 Dr. Theodore Mason Howard, The Challenge of the Hour, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1956, at 3‐ 7, 40.

259 Id. at 3.

260 Id. at 4.

261 Id.

262 Id.

263 Id.

264 Id.

265 Id. at 5.

266 Id. at 6.

267 Id.

268Id.

269 Id. at 7.

270 Id. at 40.

271 Id.

272 Id.

273 C. W. Anderson, Defensive and Offensive Struggles, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1956, at 22‐27, 40.

274 Id. at 22.

275 Id.

276 Id. at 23.

277 Id.

278 Id.

279 Id.

280 Id. at 24.

281 Id.

282 Id. at 26.

283 Id. at 27.

284 Id.

285 E. Fredric Morrow, Implications of the Current Social Revolution, THE SPHINX, May 1956, at 5‐9.

286 Id. at 5.

287 Id.

288 Id.

289 Id. at 5‐6.

290 Id. at 9.

291 Programs of Baltimore’s Delta Lambda Chapter, THE SPHINX, May 1956, at 13; Delta Lambda Brothers Strive for Action, THE SPHINX, May 1956, at 15.

292 Beta Lambda Chapter Booms with Activity, THE SPHINX, May 1956, at 21. 293 Delta Upsilon Lambda Seeks High Heights, THE SPHINX, May 1956, at 26. 294 Sigma Reports to Alpha, THE SPHINX, May 1956, at 40.

295 Murphy v. Murphy, 143 Conn. 600, 600, 124 A.2d 891, 892 (1956).

296 Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956).

297 Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957).

298 Aaron v. Cooper, 257 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1958).

299 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

300 Bush v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 138 F. Supp. 337 (1956).

301 Davis v. County School Bd. of Prince Edward County, 142 F. Supp. 616 (E.D. Va. 1956).

302 Flemming v. South Carolina Elec. & Gas. Co., 239 F.2d 277 (4th Cir. 1956).

303 Brown v. Rippy, 233 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1956).

304 Heyward v. Public Housing Admin., 238 F.2d 689 (5th Cir. 1956).

305 Jackson v. Rawdon, 235 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1956).

306 Clemmons v. Bd. of Ed. of Hillsboro, 228 F.2d 853 (6th Cir. 1956).

307 Detroit Housing Comm. v. Lewis, 226 F.2d 180 (6th Cir. 1956).

308 WESLEY, supra note 1, 425.

309 Id.

310 Id.

311 Id.

312 Id.

313 Id. at 427.

314 Id.

315 Id. at 433.

316 Id. at 445.

317 Id. at 446.

318 Id. at 466.

319 Id.

320 Id.

321 Id.

322 Id.

323 Id.

324 Id.

325 Id. at 444‐45.

326 Id. at 451.

327 Jewel Brother Henry Callis, End Fifty Years in Dawn of a New Era, THE SPHINX, Oct.— Dec. 1956, at 10.

328 Id.

329 Id.

330 Id.

331 Id.

332 General President Frank L. Stanley, Our Continuing Responsibility, THE SPHINX, July 1957, at 14‐17.

333 Id. at 14.

334 Id.

335 Id. at 15.

336 Id.

337 Id.

338 Id. at 16.

339 Id.

340 Id. 16‐17.

341 Southwestern Regional Makes History in Ohio, THE SPHINX, July 1957, at 15.

342 Delta Phi Chapter Progress, THE SPHINX, July 1957, at 5.

343 Id.

344 Beta Upsilon Enjoys Successful Year, THE SPHINX, July 1957, at 21.

345 THE SPHINX, July 1957, at 24.

346 Onward and Upward with Alpha, THE SPHINX, July 1957, at 35, 37.

347 ROBERT L. HARRIS, THE HISTORY OF ALPHA PHI ALPHA: A TRADITION OF LEADERSHIP AND

SERVICE 34 (2014).

348 Id.

349 Ludley v. Board of Supervisors of L. S. U., 150 F. Supp. 900 (E.D. La. 1957). 350 Ward v. Regents of Univ. System of Ga., 191 F. Supp. 491 (N.D. Ga. 1957). 351 School Bd. of City of Newport News v. Atkins, 246 F.2d 325 (4th Cir. 1957). 352 Borders v. Rippy, 247 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1957).

353 Gibson v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Dade Cnty, 246 F.2d 913 (5th Cir. 1957).

354 Orleans Parish School Bd. v. Bush, 242 F.2d 156 (5th Cir. 1957).

355 Avery v. Wichita Falls Independent School Dist., 241 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1957).

356 Booker v. State of Tenn. Bd. of Ed., 240 F.2d 689 (6th Cir. 1957).

357 County School Bd. of Arlington County, v. Thompson, 353 U.S. 911 (1957).

358 WESLEY, supra note 1, 439.

359 Id. at 442.

360 Id.

361 Id. at       .

362 General President Speaks, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1958, at 2.

363 Committee on Human Relations, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1958, at 15.

364 Id.

365 Id.

366 Alpha Rho, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1958, at 21.

367 Id. at 27.

368 Id

369 Gamma Iota is On the Go, THE SPHINX, May 1958, at 22, 23, 27.

370 THE SPHINX, May 1958, at 30.

371 Have Your Cake and Eat It Too!, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1958, at 27.

372 Alpha Delta Lambda Holds Alpha High, THE SPHINX, May 1958, at 24.

373 Darby v. Daniel, 168 F. Supp. 170 (S.D. Miss. 1958).

374 Kelly v. Bd. of Educ., 159 F. Supp. 272 (M.D. Tenn. 1958).

375 N.A.A.C.P. v. Patty, 159 F. Supp. 503 (E.D. Va. 1958).

376 Faubus v. United States, 254 F.2d 797, 802 (8th Cir. 1958).

377 Id. at 808.

378 Id. at 805.

379 Id. at 807.

380 Id. at 806.

381 Cohen v. Pub. Hous. Admin., 257 F.2d 73 (5th Cir. 1958).

382 New Orleans City Parks Imp. Ass’n v. Detiege, 252 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1958).

383 Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U.S. 202 (1958).

384 N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).

385 Fraternal Address, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1959, at 1‐3.

386 Id. at 3.

387 Id.

388 Id.

389 Id.

390 Alphas Challenge, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1959, at 15.

391 Alphas Told to Adhere to ‘A Cult of Excellence’, THE SPHINX, May 1959, at 12.

392 Id.

393 Open Letter to All Undergraduate Brothers in Alpha, in THE SPHINX, Feb. 1959, at 9.

394 THE SPHINX, Feb. 1959, at 21.

395 The Revitalized Pi Chapter, THE SPHINX, May 1959, at 11.

396 Delta Theta’s Activities, THE SPHINX, May 1959, at 15.

397 Delta XI Highlights the Coming Year, THE SPHINX, May 1959, at 7.

398 THE SPHINX, Feb. 1959, at 12.

399 Zeta Epsilon Lambda Charts New Course, THE SPHINX, May 1959, at 8.

400 Emphasis on the Culture, THE SPHINX, May 1959, at 4.

401 Two Year Old Chapter Grows, in THE SPHINX, May 1959, at 30‐31.

402 Id. at 30.

403 New from Delta Kappa Lambda, THE SPHINX, May 1959, at 8.

404 Tonkins v. City of Greensboro, 162 F. Supp. 549, 551 (M.D.N.C. 1958), supplemented,

175 F. Supp. 476 (M.D.N.C. 1959) aff’d, 276 F.2d 890 (4th Cir. 1960), and aff’d, 276 F.2d

890 (4th Cir. 1960).

405 Id. at 558.

406 Tonkins v. City of Greensboro, 276 F.2d 890, 892 (4th Cir. 1960).

407 Id. at 892.

408 Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F. Supp. 944, 945–46 (E.D. Ark.), aff’d sub nom., Faubus v. Aaron, 361 U.S. 197 (1959).

409 Id. at 947.