The 1960s

By the time the 1960s arrived, Alpha Phi Alpha, as an organization and the brothers in the fold, had been fighting for more than half a century to uplift African Americans. This work was multi‐faceted, encompassing community service, philanthropy as well as efforts to shape public policy, and civil rights litigation. In 1960, overall, Alpha Phi Alpha accomplished major achievements on national, state and local levels. On the national level, for example, Judge Myles Paige, the General Secretary of the Fraternity, sent a letter to President Eisenhower. The letter urged the President to help America “rid herself of the cancer of segregation” by making recommendations to the 87th Congress.1 Additionally, the Go‐to‐High‐School, Go‐to‐College movement was renamed “Don’t Be Average, Be Exceptional” to add a new dimension to the program. Although more and more minority students were attending college, their continued attendance rates faltered in comparison to their white counterparts, and therefore the program aimed to keep students in schools throughout its duration as well as increase the quality of schooling they received during that time.2 In October, the General Convention voted to create a voluntary “Freedom Fund” that would direct donations to aid sit‐in demonstrations.3 In response, Alpha Delta Lambda Chapter (Memphis, Tennessee) cancelled their spring formal and donated all the money designated for the event to the Freedom Fund.4 The Southwest Regional Conference, whose theme was “Alpha Phi Alpha Meets the Challenge of Full Citizenship in Today’s World,” was held in New Orleans and the public mass meeting was held jointly with the

N.A.A.C.P. Brother Thurgood Marshall was the keynote speaker who delivered his speech to a crowd of over five thousand.5

Alpha Omicron Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha (Johnson C. Smith University) strove to demand legislation that protected equal civil rights, as well as encouraged members to align themselves with like‐ minded organizations. This chapter partnered with an Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority chapter to collect 360 cans of food to distribute to indigent families in Charlotte, North Carolina.6 In the “Report Committee on Human Relations,” the committee urged members to align themselves with “liberal movements in church organizations, human relations commissions, labor groups, and others which have taken a positive stand upon democratic and religious ideals with effective offensives against inequality and injustice.” They further added that no Alpha Phi Alpha brother should ever “adjust ourselves to any kind of racial denial.”7 The committee also penned a letter to President Eisenhower urging that he give a statement in support of “unqualified citizenship rights” and make specific recommendations to Congress regarding measures supporting said statement.8 A second letter addressed to Vice President Richard Nixon, Thurston Morton, and Lyndon Johnson called for the end of the practice of filibustering (Senate Rule No. 2) as it has been used multiple times to kill civil rights legislation. The committee used harsh language (“racists and bigots”) in regards to those who utilize the practice. They also urged these men to enact legislation that protects and extends the rights of the oppressed minority.9 The report also mentioned that, for the past three Congresses, the Fraternity had sent one of its officers to solicit senators in person and that he has made some successful headway in gaining support for the effort.10

During the same period, various alumni chapters worked to support the N.A.A.C.P. as well as local schools and families to promote economic security and better education. Gamma Theta Lambda Chapter (Wilmington, Delaware) donated uniforms to a local high school band, gave a monetary donation to the building fund of a new school, as well as a monetary donation to the local chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. It also awarded scholarships to worthy undergraduate students and it sponsored a Career Conference at a local junior high school.11 Epsilon Tau Lambda Chapter (Prairie View, Texas) conducted a successful Christmas toy campaign to collect toys to distribute to underprivileged children. The brothers collected and repaired 611 toys, as well as made seventy‐five toys that were given out to 105 families. Because of this success, the brothers of the chapter decided to adopt the toy drive as their annual project.12 This chapter also formed an Adult Enrichment Committee aimed at giving community members an awareness of professional growth and talents of local faculty members.13 Zeta Iota Lambda Chapter (Trenton, New Jersey) and the Alpha Bettes donated thirty large baskets of food to needy families, including 142 children, in New Jersey. These families were identified through cooperation with local church and welfare organizations.14 The Educational Committee of Gamma Lambda Chapter (Detroit, Michigan) urged brothers to contribute to a scholarship fund through participating in a car raffle.15 Gamma Upsilon Lambda Chapter (Marshall, Texas) reported that they gave an annual scholarship to one student to attend a local college and that they donated money to the Harrison County Health Center.16 Beta Delta Chapter (Orangeburg, South Carolina) completed several community projects, including giving wood to needy families during the winter, initiating N.A.A.C.P. membership within the chapter, aiding in preparing the new Youth Center and giving a $50 scholarship to a high school senior.17 Zeta Zeta Lambda Chapter (Queens, New York) canceled their formal dance to donate those funds to the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund as a symbol  of the “depth of their support on the issue of Civil Rights with special emphasis on the ‘Sit‐In’ Movement.”18 Gamma Iota Lambda Chapter (Brooklyn, New York) began collecting $1 from each brother following each chapter meeting. This money was donated to the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund and earmarked to assist in the defense of the students arrested during sit‐in campaigns.19 The Alpha Wives of Queens, New York donated $350 to the United Negro College Fund.20

Several individuals were recognized and honored for their achievements. Brother William Byron Rumford, a member of the California State Assembly, was recognized for his instrumental contribution in battling for the passage of a strong Fair Employment Practices (“FEPC”) legislation. His efforts were deemed successful when the California Governor signed the FEPC bill, one of the strongest in the nation, into law. Brother Rumford’s other accomplishments included laws eliminating racial discrimination in California’s National Guard and in the hiring of public school teachers. Outside of the legislature he also “spearheaded the organization of the Beneficial Savings and Loan Association which made funds available in the vital area of housing and home ownership.”21 Brother W. E. Shortridge, treasurer of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Welfare, was hailed by Omicron Lambda Chapter (Birmingham, Alabama) for his role helping raise over $50,000 “for use in the fight for full civil rights for all American citizens. Brother Wills is praised for his efforts in extending Boy Scouts opportunities to as many African American boys as possible in the Birmingham area.22 The chapter gave a competitive scholarship to one young man every year.23 Brother L.T. Reid of Epsilon Iota Lambda Chapter (Suffolk, Virginia) was honored for being “instrumental in securing jobs for the newsboys out of work because of the massive boycott of the Suffolk News Herald by the Negro population due to its repeated discriminatory policies.” The chapter also hosted a smoker for all local high school seniors to discuss their future.24

On the state level, the President Elect of the Fraternity, William H. Hale, was called to determine whether all public schools in Georgia would be closed to prevent integration or to adopt a program allowing each community to make that decision for themselves. In his statement at the Sibley School Study Commission in Georgia, he expounded the belief that no one should fear integration.25 Finally, on a local level, in an event sponsored by Alpha Phi Alpha, twenty‐eight studious boys from local schools in Cleveland, Ohio were honored for their scholastic achievements.26 Additionally, during a stay at a Washington, D.C. hotel for a fraternity conference several brothers and their families were denied access to the hotel’s pool because of the color of their skin. After unsatisfactory dealings with the hotel management, the Fraternity General President appointed a committee to discuss the matter and negotiate with the hotel. After stating their demands, which included a threat of a “swim‐in,” the committee successfully gained equal access to all hotel services.27

In 1960, two of the Little Rock Nine lost their case before the District Court. They were notified that they would not be admitted to Central High School during the 1959‐60 school term and would instead be assigned to the all‐African American Horace Mann High School.28 The District Court held that the students whose applications for reassignment to certain high schools had been denied were not violated by action of school board in denying the applications for reassignment.29 The court reasoned that “the Constitution of the United States does not require integration[,] [i]t merely forbids the use of governmental power to enforce segregation.”30 Furthermore, it concluded that the School Board in good faith concludes that particular children cannot make the change without injury to themselves or to other children with whom they will be associated, and to the school system, it should and must take action which will not subject the child to the change.”31 Thus, the court denied relief. Several of the original plaintiffs appealed in Norwood v. Tucker, where the decision was reversed.32

In 1960, Brothers Thurgood Marshall, Alexander Pierre Tureaud, and Earnest M. Morial, along with A. M. Trudeau, Jr., won their case, Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, before the Eastern District Court of Louisiana. Plaintiffs, United States and parents, sued defendant state officials in consolidated cases, seeking injunctions preventing the officials from enforcing a series of acts aimed at defying the United States Supreme Court’s landmark desegregation decision, as well as the resulting orders issued by the district court. The officials moved to dismiss the suit and to vacate or delay the effective date of the desegregation order. The acts in question declared that they would not recognize the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision or the resulting district court orders, and abolished a parish school board and transferred its functions to the state legislature. The court determined that the acts were unconstitutional and granted the requested injunctions. The Supreme Court was the final arbiter on questions of constitutionality. The Court noted that the constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color declared by the Supreme Court could neither be nullified directly or indirectly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers. While the legislature was insulated from federal judicial review regarding the exercise of power wholly within the domain of state interest, the acts here were used to circumvent a federally protected right. The acts were clearly aimed at resisting desegregation. The court declared the legislatures reenactment of certain previously voided laws to again be unconstitutional, notwithstanding the mere deletion of words like “segregation” and “integration.”33

In 1961, Brother Tureaud also litigated the case Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board. The suit involved temporary injunctive relief against enforcement of certain acts and a resolution of the state legislature. The District Court ruled that the legislative acts ordering the removal of the New Orleans School Board and replace it with a new group appointed by the Legislature was unconstitutional and enforcement thereof would be enjoined. The Court of Appeals granted the temporary injunction citing Faubus v. United States as a “compelling precedent.”34 Continuing into 1963, Brother Ernest Morial litigated Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In that class action, Orleans Parish School Board sought court approval of its long‐range plan for operation of parish schools on a non‐discriminatory basis. The court held that elimination of dual‐zone systems made the need for stopgap measures—such as lateral transfers—less critical. The court  did not require the Board to provide lateral transfers where such provision for lateral transfers did not practically fit into the desegregation plan.35

In 1960, Donald L. Hollowell (Kappa Alpha Psi), Brother Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, and Peter A. Hall lost their case, Coke v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, before the District Court. The plaintiff was H.D. Coke, an African American man, who was traveling by plane with a connection in Atlanta, Georgia. He brought class action suit against the City of Atlanta, its mayor, Dobbs Houses, Inc.—an Atlanta airport restaurant—and the airport terminal manager. The restaurant corporation operated in city‐owned airport terminal under a lease. Coke entered the Dobbs Houses Restaurant and was refused service at a table of his choice before the hostess directed him to a single corner table to a segregated section behind a screen. Plaintiff contended that the restaurant operated on city property subject to the supervision and control of the city. He alleged that refusal to serve an African American man on the same basis as white passengers was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court held that the refusal to serve Coke in the restaurant except on a segregated basis could fairly be said to be the conduct of the city; thus, it was a “state action” in violation of the equal protection clause and injunctive relief is proper. However, the court dismissed the complaint as to the mayor, the manager of the restaurant, and the manager of the airport terminal.36

In 1960, Charles Wilson, Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority), and Brother Thurgood Marshall represented the plaintiffs in Augustus v. Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida.37 Plaintiffs were Karen Augustus, a minor, and other African American students that brought suit against school authorities to enjoin them from assigning students, teachers, principals, and other school personnel on the basis of race and color. The District Court held that it was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause as defined by the Supreme Court. It reasoned that “[s]tudents herein can no more complain of injury to themselves of the selection or assignment of teachers than they can bring action to enjoin the assignment to the school of teachers who were too strict or too lenient.”38 It struck “all portions of the complaint and prayer concerning teachers, administrative personnel, school system, etc.”39

Charles Wilson, Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority), Jack Greenberg, and Derrick A. Bell, Jr. represented Augustus on appeal.40 However, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in sustaining the defendant’s motion to strike. It reasoned that the district court should “defer action on motion to strike pleading and leave sufficiency of allegations for determination on merits” when there is no showing of prejudicial harm to moving party.41 The Fifth Circuit also explained “[T]here cannot be full compliance with the Supreme Court’s requirements to desegregate until all dual school districts based on race are eliminated.”42

In 1960, Crawford Bernard Bunkley, Jr. (Omega Psi Phi), Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority), Brother Thurgood Marshall, William J. Durham, and Elwood H. Chisolm lost their case before the United States District Court. In Boson v. Rippy, Sandra Craig Boson and other citizens sought review of a judgment from the United States District Court, which overruled Boson’s objections to an alternative plan to end racial segregation in public schools and which approved the plan. Appellee Board of Trustees of the Dallas Independent School District sought review of the district court’s disapproval of appellee’s original plan. The district court disapproved of Plan 1 and required appellee to file an alternate plan (Plan 2), which was approved by the district court. Boson and citizens sought approval for Plan 2, and appellee sought review of the disapproval of Plan 1. The Court reversed the approval of Plan 2, finding that the plan would continue the practice of enforced segregation in the all‐white and all African‐American schools and would require the operation of mixed schools if parents and pupils of both races so desired. Instead of removing the forbidden classification according to race, Plan 2 added another such classification. In order to assure the prompt start toward full compliance and reasonable progress toward bringing about the end of racial segregation in the public schools, the court remanded with directions to disapprove Plan 1 after eliminating a provision that recognized race as an absolute ground for transfer of students.43

Also in Boson v. Rippy, Boson sought review of the order from the United States District Court, which denied their motion for further relief and praying for a judgment and decree directing and requiring defendant school district to immediately desegregate the schools in its district, after enjoining defendant from the practice of segregation in  its school. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that upon consideration of the evidence there was no error in the order from the district court, except that the district court should have required defendant to make a prompt and reasonable start towards full compliance with its original order. The court affirmed the order from the district court that denied Boson’s motion for further relief praying for a judgment and decree directing and requiring defendant school district to immediately desegregate schools. The court held that the district court should have required defendant to make a prompt and reasonable start towards full compliance with the original order of desegregation, and affirmed as modified.44

In 1960, Brothers Arthur D. Shores and Thurgood Marshall, along with Jack Greenberg and James M. Nabrit, III (Omega Psi Phi), won their case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In Boman v. Birmingham Transit Company, appellants, Lillie Boman and other African American patrons of the appellee transit company, challenged a decision from the United States District Court dismissing a class action. Boman sought to enjoin appellee from enforcing its segregated seating policy. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision dismissing a class action brought by appellants alleging unconstitutional segregated bus seating policies. Appellee city commissioners were joined as parties. Boman argued that a municipal ordinance expressly granting authority to the franchised transit company to adopt seating rules delegated the city’s governmental authority, especially when the ordinance contained criminal sanctions for violation of the rules, as to make the appellee transit company’s adoption of a segregation rule state action. The Court agreed, holding that where a city delegated to its franchise holder the power to make rules for seating of passengers and made the violation of such rules criminal, appellee transit company to the extent became an agent of the state and its actions in promulgating and enforcing the rule constituted a denial of appellants’ constitutional rights. The court held that the transit company performed the function of the public utility, and its relation to the city and state of Alabama was a holder of a special franchise to operate on the public streets. Ultimately, the court reversed and remanded, holding that the constitutional rights of appellants, African American patrons of the transit company, were violated due to the segregated seating policy of the transit company. Further, where a city delegated to its franchise holder the power to make rules for seating of passengers and made the violation of such rules criminal, the appellee transit company became an agent of the state.45

In 1960, Spottswood W. Robinson, III (Omega Psi Phi), Victor J. Ashe (Kappa Alpha Psi), J. Hugo Madison, Joseph A. Jordan, Jr., Oliver W. Hill (Omega Psi Phi) and Brother Thurgood Marshall lost their case before the Fourth Circuit. The District Court approved the Norfolk School    Board’s    gradual    desegregation    plan    that    progressively desegregated higher grades first. On appeal, in Hill v. School Board of City of Norfolk, Virginia, plaintiffs (Julia Hill and other minor schoolchildren) were represented by Spottswood W. Robinson, III, with Victor J. Ashe, J. Hugo Madison, Joseph A. Jordan, Jr., Oliver W. Hill, and Thurgood Marshall on brief. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s approval of the interim measures. The court took note of the Board’s purpose to proceed in good faith and with reasonable speed in compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court.46

In 1960, Spottswood W. Robinson, III (Omega Psi Phi), Victor J. Ashe (Kappa Alpha Psi), J. Hugo Madison, Joseph A. Jordan, Jr., Oliver W. Hill (Omega Psi Phi), and Brother Thurgood Marshall won their case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Farley v. Turner. Andrew Farley and three other qualified African American students sought admission to predominantly white schools.47 The School Board of the City of Norfolk approved the transfer, but the State Pupil Placement Board refused to make the enrollments. The Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia policy routinely denied every African American student’s application for enrollment in violation of the Virginia Pupil Placement Act. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ordered admission of four African American children to a mostly‐white school. The Board appealed, but the Fourth Circuit affirmed by holding that qualified students should be admitted to such white schools.48

In 1960, Brother Thurgood Marshall and James Nabrit (Omega Psi Phi) won their case, McCoy v. Greensboro City Board of Education, before the Fourth Circuit. In 1960, four African American fathers brought a class action suit on behalf of Valerie McCoy and their children against the Greensboro City Board of Education, the North Carolina Advisory Committee on Education, and the North Carolina State Board of Education.49 The school board refused to grant their application to the Caldwell School, an all‐white school, and instead forced them to attend an all‐African American elementary school with inferior facilities.50 The motion for leave to file supplemental complaint alleged that the board assigned eligible African American students while reassigning all white students from that school, which led to a general pattern of racial segregation.51 In response, the board integrated the schools. 52 However, all white teachers, students, and the principal applied for reassignment and received transfers. As replacements, the board assigned African American faculty and administration to the newly all‐African American Caldwell school.53

The District Court dismissed the case as moot, stating that the McCoy’s transfer request for the Caldwell School had been granted while the case was pending, however this did not happen.54 It also found that “under the North Carolina Enrollment and Assignment of Pupils Act, relief in cases of this type must be sought as individuals, not as a class or group.”55 Furthermore, the District Court alleged that “Brown cases do not require integration, but only hold that states can no longer deny anyone the right to attend a school of his choice on account of race or color.”56

Thurgood Marshall and James Nabrit appealed by brief to the Fourth Circuit.57 The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the Board’s actions violated both the Pupil Assignment Act and the spirit of Brown v. Board of Education.58 The court reasoned that “although the colored children gained admission to a superior building, their desire to attend an integrated school was completely frustrated.”59 Upon remand, the lower court was to instruct the board to reassign the students.60

In 1960, Brothers Robert Lee Carter and Tureaud lost their case—Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. N.A.A.C.P.—before the federal District Court. The state of Louisiana sued in a state court to enjoin the N.A.A.C.P. from operating in the state because of its failure to comply with a state law, requiring certain types of organizations to file lists of their officers and members with the Secretary of State, annually. The goal had been to identify and root out communist organizations. The suit was removed to a federal District Court. The N.A.A.C.P. contended that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional. The trial court granted an injunction.61 Represented by Brother Carter, on appeal before the United States Supreme Court, the N.A.A.C.P.’s lower court victory was affirmed.62

In United States of America v. State of Louisiana v. Orleans Parish School Board v. Williams v. Davis, Brothers Thurgood Marshall and Tureaud, as well as Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority) represented plaintiff Bush and others. The case involved consolidated actions for injunctive relief against the enforcement of measures enacted by the Louisiana legislatures with respect to school integration. A district court granted relief, and the defendant moved  for a stay of injunction. The Supreme Court held that the Louisiana interposition statutes, which asserted that Supreme Court decisions in school segregation cases was usurpation of state power, and which purported to interpose state sovereignty, were invalid. The Court of Appeals ruled that the basis on which the Louisiana enactments were created conflicted with the United States Constitution and declared the interposition unconstitutional.63 However, the application for a stay of the temporary injunction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana was denied by the Supreme Court.64

Despite the social advancements since the inception of Alpha Phi Alpha, many of the challenges the Fraternity faced were the same issues in the 1960s that plagued the early 1900s.65 American social action was not matching the progressive American social thought.66 Community organizations were not concretely moving forward on particular issues significant to Alpha Phi Alpha, issuing more generalized statements and goals on freedom rather than delivering on that which Alpha Phi Alpha found imperative.67 General President William H. Hale recognized this and noted the roles of the individual and the national organizations and encouraged action on the duty of the individual citizen.68

Founder Henry Arthur Callis noted that, “One hundred years is such a long time to be denied the dignity, privileges, and freedom that belong through God and the Constitution to every American citizen. Where one tenth of the population[] is separated from the body politic[s] by any means there is cancer in the state.”69 He encouraged diligent action to realize the essential social goals. Brother Charles H. Wesley also encouraged other members to be involved in their individual communities in all strides for civil rights and public accommodation.70 He noted other issues afflicting the African American community like poverty and poor education and urged “cooperation ‘with those who are carrying forward our legal battles for freedom in the courts.’”71

Overall, Alpha Phi Alpha pledged to expand community civil rights activism and educational opportunities. In a keynote address, General President William H. Hale called for each chapter to adopt a service activity that involves something specific in the fight for full citizenship. He wished to see “well defined community civil rights action programs initiated by chapters to help assure the achievements of rights for all.72 In a separate issue, Brother Milus J. Graham points out that “an examination of National Convention Programs during the last decade does not reveal a single sustained effort directed to the general welfare of the Nation or the Negro.” This was an effort to renew enthusiasm towards service activities that are driven by the NationalConvention in which all chapters participate. He hails the examples of the past, such as Go‐to‐High‐School, Go‐to‐College, A‐Voteless‐People‐ is‐a‐Hopeless‐People, and the University of Maryland Law School Case.73

An increase in the scholarship budget made it possible to increase available academic awards. The small section labeled “Alpha Awards Scholarship Awards, 1961‐62” stated that the Fraternity would award four scholarships ($225 each) to high school seniors, five undergraduate awards ($400 each) and six graduate awards ($400+).74 In bids for the Fraternity’s Presidential race, nominees put forth proposed programs which often included the expansion of public service and civil rights related activities, showing the buying power of such programs within the Fraternity.75 In addition, the Southern Region of Alpha Phi Alpha presented a check to the N.A.A.C.P. for Sit‐In Demonstrations.76 In “General President William Hale Requests Your Presence,” the General President stated the theme of the upcoming General Convention to be “Democracy’s Fulfillment: Our Continuing Challenge.” This was designed to “focus attention on the fact that though much progress in human relations has been made since our founding in 1906, much remains to be done.” The idea was to direct efforts towards dismantling ignorance and apathy. One of the main focuses would be how the organization will continue to fight for full citizenship for all.77 The General Convention of 1961, held in December, approved a resolution that called for “activity in seeing that school desegregation moves faster in each community, support the freedom riders, more sit‐ins and stand‐ins, and called for President Kennedy to issue his long‐awaited housing order.”78

In 1961, the college chapters of Alpha Phi Alpha had a major focus on public activism, philanthropy, and legal justice. For example, Eta Alpha Chapter (Paine College in Augusta, Georgia) made a financial contribution to support Brother Edward Brooke who was nominated as Secretary of State in Massachusetts, a first for the race.79 The pledges of Beta Alpha Chapter of Morgan State College repaired broken toys to give to underprivileged children for Christmas.80 The Association of Alpha Phi Alpha Chapters of Virginia (a coalition of seventeen chapters) pledged $1,000 to the Prince Edward County School case.81 Previously, the only way to measure the varying success of the Fraternity’s efforts to improve local education was for each individual chapter to measure local success.82 The director believed that chapters had been less enthusiastic about the program in years leading up to 1961 because they falsely assumed previous programs had eradicated the issue in their localities. For example, the initial success of the older Go‐to‐High‐School, Go‐to‐College movement misled chapters into thinking it was no longer useful.83 He then quoted statistics that proved it was still an issue for the Negro public, particularly concerning graduation rate comparisons and the quality of education in the so‐ called “integrated schools,” which still remain predominately African American.84 Brother Clifton R. Jones states that individual brothers have historically been at the forefront of legislation to break down segregation in public education. He says that the Fraternity has often misconstrued the success of these individuals to paint it as the success of the entire organization and that the Fraternity has failed to follow up on this legislation.85 Overall, the author called for the chapters to recognize Education Week as one of the most important aspects of the Fraternity’s program.86

The alumni chapters of Alpha Phi Alpha again focused their efforts on improving educational opportunities, supporting families through philanthropic activities, and promoting political awareness and debate. Zeta Beta Lambda Chapter (Sacramento, California) established a tutoring group run by brothers that offered their services to local high school and college students at no cost. However, the project was met with opposition by paid tutors and was subsequently run into the ground.87 Nu Chapter (Lincoln University) hosted an Easter egg hunt for community children and made plans to turn its philanthropic efforts to improving the living conditions of migrant workers in their community.88 Xi Chapter (Wilberforce University) hosted their citizenship program for local residents. During the program, candidates from both the Democratic and Republican parties addressed those gathered about their campaigns. At the end, there was a question period, through which the audience could become more actively involved.89 Xi Chapter also hosted its Education Week program during which speakers were brought in to address the audience on the national theme of “Education of the Highest Quality; Leadership that can stand the Test! The 60’s Demand It.”90 Delta Gamma Chapter (Alabama A&M University) awarded two trophies to outstanding freshmen.91 The Sphinx club “gathered two 1 ½ ton truck loads of clothing during a clothing drive for Freedom Village, Tennessee (comprised of the Negro sharecroppers who were ousted from their adobes because they exercised voting rights).”92 Finally, Zeta Gamma Lambda Chapter (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) promoted educational growth by pleading $1,750 to the Langston University Development Foundation.93

Individual members of Alpha Phi Alpha noted for their achievements included Brother Dr. Aaron Brown and Brother Hamilton Holmes. Brother Dr. Aaron Brown, the president of the Phelps‐Stokes Fund, was the director of a five‐year project for “the Improvement and Instruction of Secondary Schools” for African Americans that was conducted in four southern states—Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Mississippi. The idea for the program came from Brother F. D. Patterson. The project used prominent educators to act as consultants for four workshops for high school teachers that were held during the summer. The program received high praise.94 Brother Hamilton Holmes of Eta Lambda Chapter (Atlanta, Georgia) became the first African American student to be admitted to the all‐white University of Georgia. He, supported by his chapter, had to file a suit in the Federal District Court of Macon, Georgia after being denied admission, which he claimed only occurred because of his race. The court ruled that he must be permitted to enter the university. Following his entrance to school, heightened racial tensions on campus resulted in his suspension, but the courts later ruled that he must be readmitted.95 Brother Clifton R. Jones brought focus to issues individual education.96 Dropouts constituted a problem in communities and prevented an individual from participating in the political process. Alpha Phi Alpha responded by having their individual chapters active in their own communities in 1961 and 1962.97

In 1961, Tucker R. Dearing, Juanita Jackson Mitchell, Brother Thurgood Marshall and Jack Greenberg won their case, Myers v. State Board of Public Welfare, before the trial court. Appellants, State Board of Public Welfare and the boards of managers for four juvenile detention schools, sought review of a decision of the circuit court of Baltimore City, which declared, pursuant to an action by juvenile appellee Robert Myers, that the racially segregated detention schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial count rendered judgment in favor of Myers. The court found that the juvenile’s subsequent commitment action was moot because the order of commitment could always be rescinded and the issue of segregation was an important issue that needed to be addressed by the courts. The court also found that the juvenile lacked standing to attack the racial segregation of the girls’ schools and all back school. Finally, the court found that the system of racially segregated reform schools was illegal because the reform schools were more of a school than a detention facility, thus were subject to the laws regarding the integration of public schools.98

In 1961, Brothers Russell B. Sugarmon, Jr. and Thurgood Marshall, along Hosea T. Lockard, Archie Walter Willis, Jr., and Constance B. Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority), won their case, Turner v. Randolph, before the District Court. The plaintiff, Jesse Turner, an African‐American resident of Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee, brought an action against defendants, city and county officials, to desegregate the public libraries. Defendants agreed that all public library units and facilities would be available to all qualified persons without discrimination on account of race. However, whether defendants were required to desegregate restrooms and lavatory facilities remained before the court. The court required the defendants to desegregate the restroom facilities in the city and the country libraries.99

In 1961, Conrad Odell Pearson (Kappa Alpha Psi), M. Hugh Thompson, William A. Marsh, Jr., F. B. McKissick, J. H. Wheeler, Jack Greenberg, and Brother Thurgood Marshall lost their case, Wheeler v. Durham City Board of Education, before the District Court. Plaintiffs, Warren Wheeler and other African‐American minors and their parents or guardians, brought an action against defendant Durham City Board of Education, seeking a declaration that the minors and the class of persons that they represented had the right to attend the public  schools of the City of Durham without discrimination on account of race and color. Warren also sought a decree integrating the entire Durham School System. The court first had to decide whether Warren and the other minors had exhausted their administrative remedies under the North Carolina Assignment and Enrollment of Pupils Act. The court concluded that those minors who attended either one of two board hearings concerning school assignment, of who were not represented by a parent or guardian at the hearings, did not adequately exhaust their administrative remedies and were not entitled to relief. The court then concluded that the board had not assigned students to schools based on the statutory criteria for school assignments. The court remanded the actions of those plaintiffs who had exhausted administrative remedies to the board with directions that the board give separate consideration to the application for reassignment filed on behalf of each the minors.100

In 1961, Donald L. Hollowell (Kappa Alpha Psi), Brother Horace T. Ward, and Constance B. Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority) won their case—Holmes v. Danner—before a federal trial court. This action was brought by African American residents of Georgia on behalf of themselves and other African American residents of Georgia, to enjoin the registrar of the state university from refusing to consider applications of the African American plaintiffs and other African American residents on the same terms and conditions as he considered white applicants for admission. The District Court held that the evidence established that the plaintiffs were denied admission solely because of their race. It also held that there was a tacit policy to exclude African American individuals from admission to the university solely because of their race. It also held that state officials cutting off funds on the admission of a African American student was unconstitutional. The order was therefore reversed and a permanent injunction was granted.101

In 1961, T.H. Wyche, Conrad Odell Pearson (Kappa Alpha Psi), Brother Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, and Derrick A. Bell lost their case before the District Court of the Western District of North Carolina. This civil action, initiated by Hamilton Holmes, the father of eight African‐American children seeking to enjoin the defendant, the Mecklenburg Country Board of Education, from refusing to reassign  the minor plaintiffs to certain schools within the Board’s justification, on account of their race and color. The jurisdiction for the action as alleged in the complaint was based on 28 U.S.C.A 1331, as an action arising under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and 42 U.S.C.A 1981. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to show any unconstitutional administration of the Pupil Placement Law.102

Brother Ernest N. Morial broke significant racial boundaries in his legal practice by arguing numerous desegregation cases. In 1961, General President Morial litigated Louisiana State Board of Education v. Allen before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In that case, Samuel Allen and other students alleged that a state Board of Education had refused to admit them as students in trade schools because of their race and color. The Fifth Circuit held that no issues of fact were presented and that the suit could be maintained without the state’s consent.103 That same year, General Counsel Sandifer litigated People ex rel. Cavers v. Grasheim before the Supreme Court of New York. There, Walter Cavers brought a habeas corpus proceeding against the Deputy Warden of the Prison of the City of New York to prevent the extradition of Cavers to South Carolina where he was convicted of reckless homicide. Cavers was an African American man belonging to a church in York County, South Carolina when he was involved in a collision that killed an eighty year old white man.104 Cavers was found guilty of reckless homicide and appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court which affirmed. A petition for rehearing, and a petition for writ of certiorari were both denied and the minister failed to present himself to the appropriate South Carolina authorities before being arrested in New York. The court granted extradition to South Carolina, holding that the New York court could not inquire into any rulings in the trial in South Carolina, which had decided this cased based on a jury trial and that there was no law that would allow the New York court to overturn it. Cavers asked to be considered “a fugitive from injustice rather than a fugitive from justice” and was to be turned over to the correct authorities in South Carolina. The court held it was foreclosed from inquiring into the propriety of the rulings made at Cavers’ trial where: 1) the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction; 2) the South Carolina Supreme Court adhered to the affirmance on rehearing; and 3) certiorari had been refused by the United States Supreme Court.105

In 1961, Donald L. Hollowell (Kappa Alpha Psi), C. B. King, Brother Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, Norman C. Amaker, and James M. Nabrit, III (Omega Psi Phi) won their case, Brazier v. Cherry, before the Fifth Circuit. Hattie Cherry, a widow, filed suit pursuant to the civil rights statues against defendants, a sheriff, police chief, police officers, and insurance carrier, based upon the decedent husband’s alleged illegal arrest, beating, and subsequent death. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant and for lack of jurisdiction. Cherry appealed. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. It applied 42 U.S.C.S 1988 to the civil rights discrimination claims. Because federal law failed to furnish explicit suitable remedies for violations of the civil rights statues resulting in death, the court applied Georgia law with respect to the survival of decedents’ cause of action and survivorship actions in order to further the policy of the civil rights statues to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses where the offenses caused deaths.106

In 1961, Matthew J. Perry (Omega Psi Phi), Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Brother Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, and James M. Nabrit, III (Omega Psi Phi) lost their case, Cummings v. City of Charleston, before the District Court. Appellants, John Cummings and other minority citizens and residents of Charleston, South Carolina, attacked the United States District Court’s delay of eight months for enforcement of a permanent injunction against appellees, the City of Charleston, and officials of the city golf course that restrained appellees from denying access to the golf course to any person for reasons of race or color. The District Court, in a permanent injunction, concluded that it was equitable to give the City of Charleston a reasonable period of time for compliance with the injunction and provided that the order was not effective until eight months after date of its entry. Cummings attacked the delay as unreasonable, unsupported by any evidence that demonstrated necessity, and as a denial of the equal protection of laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court remanded with instructions to modify the effective date to six months after the date of its entry, which had been originally proposed by the minority citizen’s counsel. The Court found no evidence that explained the postponement of the effective date of the injunction order for what was an unreasonable period of time. The Court concluded that the record disclosed nothing that indicated that the injunction could not have been immediately effective. Matthew J. Perry, Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, and James M. Nabrit, III for Cummings and other appellants.107

In 1961, Brothers Tureaud, Thurgood Marshall, and Ernest Morial, along with Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority) and A. M. Trudeau, Jr., represented appellees in East Baton Rouge Parish School Board v. Davis v. McCraine. The case involved an action against the parish school board and its school superintendent  for a declaratory judgment that asserted that the existing practice of school segregation was illegal and that such practice be terminated. Upon review by the Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed the District Court’s grant of an injunction due to the evidence being undisputed. The Court cites St. Helena Parish School Board v. Hall et al. as a precedent case in which this decision was based.108

In 1961, Brothers Tureaud, Thurgood Marshall, and Ernest Morial, along with Constance Baker Motley a(Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority) nd A. M. Trudeau, Jr., won their case before the trial court. Appellant Louisiana State Board of Education challenged a judgment of the United States District Court granting African‐American appellees’ motion for summary judgment. While applying to a train trade school they were told that the school was for white students only. Appellees brought a class suit alleging that appellant Louisiana State Board of Education refused to admit them because of their race and color. Appellees sought summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion. On appeal, appellant contended that there were issues of fact to be tried and hence the granting of a summary judgment was in error. The court affirmed, finding no merit to that contention. The court also rejected appellant’s argument that it was an agency of the state and that, as such, it could not be sued without the consent of the state. Tureaud, Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority), A. M. Trudeau, Jr., and Ernest N. Morial represented appellees.109

In 1961, James M. Nabrit, III (Omega Psi Phi), Z. Alexander Looby (Omega Psi Phi), Avon N. Williams, Jr. (Omega Psi Phi Fraternity), Brother Thurgood Marshall, and Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority) won their case, Louisiana State Board of Education v. Allen, before the Sixth Circuit. At trial, the district court ordered the board to file a plan for desegregation of the schools. The board appealed the District Court’s decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which tentatively rejected as insufficient the plan for desegregation filed by the board, and instead requiring it to file an alternate plan. At trial, the board pursued a policy of operating a biracial school system. Although more than five years had elapsed since the United States Supreme Court held racial segregation in the public schools was a violation of constitutional rights, no plan for desegregation had been adopted by the board until ordered. The board contended that it publicly announced its policy of the compliance and engaged in extensive educational activities of the board. In affirming the District Court’s decision, the court found that the district court correctly applied the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. In affirming, the court agreed with the district court because the plan did not disclose the number of schools to be selected for desegregation or the reason for the selection. The plan was also indefinite as to when desegregation would take place in all schools.110

In 1961, Wiley A. Branton (Omega Psi Phi), Brother Thurgood Marshall and James Mr. Nabrit, III (Omega Psi Phi) won their case, Norwood v. Tucker.111 This was the appeal of the previously mentioned Aaron v. Tucker. Little Rock students were previously permitted to integrate at Central High School, filed a motion for further relief after being reassigned to the all‐African American, Horace Mann High School.112 They alleged that because of their race or color, they were denied admission to the schools they were entitled to attend under a plan of desegregation presented by the Board and affirmed by the court.113 They alleged that the defendants were required to desegregate the schools in Little Rock because the students lived within the school attendance zones or area of the schools.114

In 1961, Brothers Tureaud and Thurgood Marshall litigated the case St. Helena Parish School Board v. Hall v. Harvin v. Hall. The case involved an action by African American students against the parish school board and superintendent of parish schools for an injunction against racially segregated basis. The Court of Appeals, after considering arguments from the defendant, affirmed the District Court’s judgment which stated: “It is ordered . . . that the defendant St. Helena Parish School Board, its agents, servants, employees, and successors in office are hereby restrained from requiring segregation of the races in any school under their supervision . . .”115

In 1961, Brothers Thurgood Marshall and Paul B. Zuber, along with Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority) and Jack Greenberg, won their case before the Second Circuit—Taylor v. Board of Education. The defendants, a city school district, the board of education, and a school superintendent, appealed from the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ordered defendants to implement a plan for desegregation by allowing the plaintiff children, Leslie Taylor, other minor students, and their parents, to transfer to other elementary schools within the city as a means of addressing unlawful racial segregation. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that defendants had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the basis for school districting with the purpose and effect of producing a substantially segregated school. The court found that the district court’s plan reasonably addressed the problem by requiring that students who enrolled in the schools in question be allowed to apply for transfer to other elementary schools in the city and to be placed in the same grade they were in or would be in their current school without any requirement by defendants for emotional or academic testing or approval prior to placement.116

Further along in the case, school officials challenged an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which found that it violated Taylor’s and the other African American schoolchildren’s constitutional rights, reserved the damage issue until after appellants submitted a desegregation plan, and denied a stay on the filing of the plan requirement pending an appeal. Taylor challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the appeal. The court found it lacked jurisdiction until the lower court finished its work by directing the School Board to take or refrain from action. The court found that the order was not a final order because it constituted only a determination that the appellants were entitled to relief, the nature and extent of which would be subject of subsequent judicial consideration, and what remained to be done was more than ministerial duties. It further found that although the document was titled a decree, the words used indicated that it was simply the lower court’s explanation of how it planned to fashion the decree. The Second Circuit held that the lower court did not intend for the use of the word “order” in directing appellants to file the plan to carry contempt sanctions, and even if it did, the mere taking of a step in a judicially proceeding was not regarded as a mandatory injunction. The outcome of the case is the court dismisses appellant school official’s appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction because it had no power to entertain the appeal until the lower court finished its work by directing appellants to take or refrain from action.117

In 1961, Brother Louis L. Redding lost his case before the Delaware Supreme Court. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority was a Supreme Court case that considered the application of the Equal Protection Clause on a private business that operates in close relationship to a government to the point it becomes a state actor. Several African American local Chrysler workers were arrested for trespass when they staged a sit‐in at the counter and refused to leave until they were served in an unsuccessful attempt to desegregate the restaurant. Rather than appeal the arrests, the civil rights attorney had a City Councilman park at the garage, and then go to a coffee shop where he was refused service because he was an African American. The Delaware Court ruled that the government’s lease to a discriminating company was a violation of Burton’s civil rights. However, the Delaware Supreme Court overruled that decision and said their refusal was legal due to state law. Louis L. Redding represented the appellant.118

In 1961, Edward W. Jackson and Brother Jawn A. Sandifer litigated Pierce v. La Vallee before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. New York prisoners sued under the Civil Rights Act for religious persecution while in Clinton State Prison. The prisoners alleged that they were: denied permission to purchase the Koran, been subjected to solitary confinement because of their religious beliefs, and “were denied permission to establish contact with [their] spiritual advisor on the ground that such person was not on an approved correspondence list.”119 Defense argued that this was a matter for state court, but the court disagreed and remanded the case to decide under federal courts.120

The year 1962 represented a remarkable year for Alpha Phi Alpha’s educational endeavors. Brother Clifton R. Jones, the Director of Educational Activities, announced that the total amount of scholarship awards given in 1962 was $12,000.121 Through this, high school, undergraduate, and graduate recipients received a minimum of $500.122 The year 1962 represented the highest number of applicants.123 Undergraduate and graduate students were selected based on their grades and extra‐curricular activities.124 High school students were awarded scholarships based on an essay on the topic of “My Life’s Goal and Why I Need Assistance.”125 The Fraternity had made its first scholarships available in 1928, and in 1956, it established and endowed a scholarship at Cornell University (the first of its kind available to an African American student).126 On another note, the New York‐ Baltimore convention was canceled in protest of segregated restaurant facilities in Baltimore and then quickly moved to New York.127

As part of February (and Negro History Week) acknowledgment the author of “Editorial” commended the N.A.A.C.P. on the continued, steady work it did to uplift the race and encouraged each brother to become a working member. Up to that point, the Fraternity annually donated $800 to the N.A.A.C.P. The Fraternity, as well as several chapters, became N.A.A.C.P. life members.128 The editorial staff go on record as giving their full support to the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, Inc., of which Brother Charles Wesley is the president. The Fraternity has “given substantial moral and financial support” to the organization for many years.129

In 1962, the Beta Phi Chapter of Dillard University in New Orleans sponsored an annual party for a local orphanage. Brothers also participated in a program at the Lighthouse for the blind.130 In the upcoming year, the chapter planned to host “a series of forums at which instructors and students may in informal discussions seek to better student‐teacher relationships” as well as give a scholarship to a male student and donate to the United Negro College Fund.131

Various alumni chapters of Alpha Phi Alpha focused largely on expanding education resources as well as holding forums to discuss opportunities after graduation. Mu Lambda and Omicron Lambda Alpha Chapters, along with Beta Chapter (Howard University), of the District of Columbia established the “Henry A. Callis Student Loan Fund” for which $2,000 has already been raised.132 Alpha Zeta Lambda Chapter (Bluefield, West Virginia) sponsored an Alpha day during which a public forum was held on the issue of “Federal Aid to Education.” Senator Jennings Randolph gave an address on the issue that is included earlier on in this issue of the Sphinx.133 Alpha Gamma Lambda Chapter (New York, New York) launched its first “Career Institute,” sponsored by seven New York area Alpha chapters, which was a panel discussion and lecture that served around 200 interested high school students.134 Additionally, the same coalition of chapters sponsored an Education Week during which they presented a $500 scholarship award.135 Zeta Nu Lambda Chapter (Plainfield, New Jersey) held their annual Fellowship Breakfast, which brought together 150 leading professionals to hear the Executive Director of the National Urban League speak on the how individuals can pursue “first class citizenship.”136 The Education Committee of Zeta Phi Lambda Chapter (Stamford, Connecticut) worked to improve drop‐out rates in the local area by sponsoring college information programs, supplying African American professionals for high school career days, providing guidance counselors with information on primarily African American colleges, giving an annual scholarship, and running a study hall during the week that is staffed by professionals.137

Several individual brothers were recognized for their achievements in 1962. Brother Louis L. Redding of Gamma Theta Lambda Chapter (Wilmington, Delaware) was honored by citizens of the state of Delaware “for his ingenious handling of the desegregation and integration suits in state and federal court.”138 Brother Thurgood Marshall, ‘Mr. Civil Rights,’ was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.139 Brother George Allen of Epsilon Pi Lambda Chapter (Ocala, Florida) was the first African American to graduate from the University of Florida where he  was a  law  student.140

In 1962, Brother Ernest Morial litigated Adams v. City of New Orleans before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In this case, William Adams as plaintiff sought to enjoin the segregation of races in certain facilities serving food and beverages at an airport owned by the city and maintained by an agency of the  city. The court held that the failure of a franchise holder to operate food and beverage  facilities on  desegregated  basis was a  “state action” depriving African Americans of equal protection; thus, such action was enjoined even where the franchise holder might suffer disproportionate financial loss as result. The District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana granted injunctive relief to Adams and the defendant appealed.141 Carrying on into 1963 on an appeal litigated by Brother Tureaud and Herman L. Barnett, the Court of Appeals called the defendant’s claims “frivolous” and stated that the Supreme Court has “settled beyond question that no State may require racial segregation of interstate or intrastate facilities.”142 With precedents such as Bailey v. Peterson et al, and Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, among others, the Court of Appeals upheld the judgment.143 When Adams motioned for injunction, the Court granted it.144

In 1962, Brother Jawn A. Sandifer, William C. Chance, Jr., Robert Seavey, and Morris Sterenbuch lost their case on behalf of the plaintiff, Yvette Wright and others, before the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York. In Wright v. Rockefeller, the court rejected the Wright’s argument that their constitutional rights were violated as a result of New York’s redistricting statute, and held that the complaint be dismissed. Wright failed to prove that the congressional districts segregated voters by race and place of origin.145 Continuing into 1964, Irving Galt and Brother Jawn F. Sandifer lost their case before the Supreme Court of the United States. Voters challenged the constitutionality of a New York gerrymandering statute, claiming that the congressional irregularly shaped districts were drawn with racial considerations. The voters claimed that this statute was in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Fifteenth Amendment. As a result of this statute, one district excluded non‐white and Puerto Rican citizens, who were both largely concentrated in one of the other districts. The Court held that the voters had not met their burden to show constitutional violations, and deferred to the District Court (which held for the state). The majority found that Wright failed to prove that the New York legislature was “either motivated by racial considerations or in fact drew districts on racial lines.”146

In 1962, Brothers Robert L. Carter and Jawn A. Sandifer, along with Herman A. Austin and Maria L. Marcus, lost their case, Black v. Board of Education of Amityville, New York, before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This was a class action brought on behalf of all African American children in the Amityville, New York school district. The suit challenged the segregation of Amityville’s two elementary schools; one of the schools had 90% African American enrollment, and the other (which was only about a mile away) had about 90% white enrollment. This case was also related to the Manhasset, New York cases. Here, Black, as lead plaintiff, motioned to enjoin the board from requiring African American students to register in the racially segregated school system—the court denied the motion.147

In 1962, Brother Jawn Sandifer won his case before United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In Branche v. Board of Education of the Town of Hempstead, School District No. 1, Branche as lead plaintiff, sued for injunction against alleged maintenance by the Hampstead school board district of racially segregating schools; in response, the board filed a motion for summary judgement. The court denied the motion. The board argued that there was no legal duty to integrate educational facilities, and that the district patterns were not gerrymandered—they were simply residential patterns appropriate for the school system. The court disagreed and found that the defense showed facts “compatible with an absence of responsibility on their part for the racial segregation that exists in the schools” but these facts “do not demonstrate that there has not been segregation because of race” and that integration of schools is “primarily the responsibility of the educational authorities.”148 The motion to dismiss was denied.

In 1962, Brother Robert Lee Carter lost his case before the court. In Clark v. Thompson, L.A. Clark and two other African American residents of Mississippi brought an action to enjoin the alleged enforcement of Section 2046 and 2056 of the Mississippi Code. The complaint attacked the constitutionally of said statutes. The complaint further alleged that the defendant officials of the City of Jackson had denied Clark the use of public facilities solely on the grounds of race. Clark contended that they had been denied the right to use the public parks, libraries, zoos, and golf course. The court concluded that this was not a proper case for a three judge court. The final action was dismissed. Robert Lee Carter represented Clark in this action.149

In 1962 Brother Tureaud, Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority), James M. Nabrit, III (Omega Psi Phi), Jack Greenberg, Derrick A. Bell, litigated the case Christian v. Jemison. The case involved an action for injunction against enforcement of a Baton Rouge ordinance requiring local transportation companies to segregate white and African American passengers. The District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the plaintiff Theodore Jemison’s motion for summary judgment, and the defendant appealed. Using Supreme Court cases such as Morgan v. Virginia, Gayle v. Browder, Boynton v. Virginia and others, the Appellate Court restated that the Supreme Court has “settled beyond question that no State may require racial segregation of interstate or intrastate transportation facilities.”150 The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment granted by the district court and ruled that the defendant’s objections “have no merit.”151

In 1962, Avon N. Williams, Jr. (Omega Psi Phi), Jack Greenberg, Carl A. Cowan, Z. Alexander Looby (Omega Psi Phi), Jack Greenberg, and Brother Thurgood Marshall won their case, Goss v. Board of Education of the City of Knoxville, Tennessee, before the Sixth Circuit. The appellants, who were children, sought review of a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee which approved a plan presented by appellees, city school board members, a superintendent, and administrative officers (board), whereby the school district would be desegregated one grade per year. The children bough an action seeking to have the schools desegregated in a timelier manner. Thereafter, the board instituted a plan whereby one grade, beginning with the first grade, would be desegregated per year and then adopted a zoning that divided the school district. On appeal, the court determined that the board failed to sustain its burden to establish that twelve years, which it would take to fully desegregate the district under the plan, was necessary in the public interest and was consistent with good faith and compliance at the earliest practicable date. The court found that board was entitled to amend its plan. The court, however, agreed that the children were not entitled to restraining orders to prevent the board from refusing them admission to certain white schools as such questions were moot as some of the children were already in segregated classes and would be moot once an accelerated plan was in place. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the portion of the district’s court judgment approving the board’s plan pertaining to grades already integrated and to the zoning and dividing of the district, modified the portion of the judgment that approved the board’s plan for continued segregation of all grades not reached by the plan by directing the board to submit an amended plan, and remanded with instructions to the direct the board to submit such amended plan.152

In 1962, Brother Thurgood Marshall and Russell B. Sugarmon, Jr., along with Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority), Archie Walter Willis, Hosea T. Lockard, Benjamin L. Hooks (Omega Psi Phi), B. F. Jones and Ira H. Murphy won, Northcross v. Board of Education of the City of Memphis, Tennessee, before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs were Deborah Northcross and other African American students and their parents. Northcross appealed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee approving the Tennessee Pupil Assignment law, Tenn. Code Ann 49‐1701et seq., as a plan for desegregation and denying further relief in an action alleging that defendant school board and others operated a biracial school system. Defendants moved to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds. The district court ruled that the Assignment Law provided adequate relief for integration and denied injunctive relief. Northcross appealed. Meanwhile, thirteen of thirty‐ eight applications by African American students were accepted by defendants for transfer to white schools under the Assignment law. Defendants moved to dismiss the appeal. In denying the motion and in reversing, the appellate court ruled that the dispute was not moot and the Assignment Law could not serve as a plan to recognize and desegregate Memphis’ schools. The burden was on defendants to initiate desegregation, African American students could not be required to apply for that which they were entitled to as a matter of right. Therefore, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds were overruled. The original judgment approving the Assignment Law as a desegregation plan and denying other relief was reversed and the case was remanded with directions to enjoin the defendants from operating a biracial school system and to adopt and submit a plan to desegregate the schools with all deliberate speed. A petition for rehearing by defendants was denied.153

In 1962, Brother Weldon H. Berry won his case, Ross v. Dyer, before the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiffs Delores Ross and other African American students were denied admission for enrollment in first grade.154 Ross filed motions to hold the school board in contempt for enforcing rules in racially discriminatory ways, but the district court denied the motions. The district court noted that the parents applied for admission after the school term began and the first grade classes had already reached their maximum capacity permitted by school policy. The district court also found that school policies requiring all children of the same family to attend the same elementary school, which resulted in younger children being grandfathered into racially segregated schools was not invalid because the rule also prevents white children from attending the school of their choice. Thus, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motions regarding the policy. Weldon H. Berry represented Ross on appeal.155 The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision by holding that the family assignment rule could not be applied “where its operative effect in many situations was to compel continued attendance at a racially segregated school.”156

In 1962, Brother Thurgood Marshall and Russell B. Sugarmon, Jr., along with Derrick A. Bell, Jr., Archie Walter Willis, Jr., Constance Baker Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority), Elwood H. Chisolm, Benjamin L. Hooks (Omega Psi Phi), C.O. Horton, B. F. Jones, and Hosea T. Lockard, lost their case before the Sixth Circuit court. In Watson v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, Watson had been denied access to a golf course, a boat dock, an art gallery, a tennis court, and a museum solely on racial grounds. Watson and other African‐American citizens challenged a decision of a United States District Court, which denied a permanent injunction restraining appellees, a city park commission and others, from operating and maintaining certain public recreational facilities on a racially‐segregated basis. The district court gave the city six months to develop a plan for the total desegregation of its recreational facilities. Prior to the hearing of this case, the city had already desegregated several of the facilities. In affirming, the circuit court held that the law permitted a delay on the part of the city in effecting the desegregation of its parks and recreational facilities. Brown v. Board of Education, under certain circumstances, was applicable to the instant action involving public recreational facilities. Brown, which contemplated allowing a delay in desegregation under certain circumstances, was applicable to the instant action involving public recreational facilities. The court noted that the city had a great number of recreational facilities and a large number of children. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court.157

Like many of the prior General Conventions, the 1963 General Convention in Boston focused on human relations and civil rights.158 Alpha Phi Alpha, as a whole, focused on national representation in Congress as well as the expansion of integration within the Fraternity in 1963. Several Alpha Phi Alpha brothers attended the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights that campaigned to change certain rules in the House and Senate, such as the cloture rule and the system of calling bills to debate and voting in the House.159 The Midwestern Vice President, Bro. L. R. Nix, urged brothers to consider the wider integration (racial, ethnic, and cultural) of the Fraternity to bring new ideas to the organization.160 Brother Belford V. Lawson, chairman of the Human Rights Committee, claimed that Alpha Phi Alpha “laid the foundation for the Civil Rights Movement in 1905 when Brother W. E.

B. Dubois organized the Niagara Movement, forerunner of the N.A.A.C.P.”161 In the “second phase of the Civil Rights Revolution” the Fraternity organized movements and developed interest in areas of education and employment.162 Specifically, Alpha Phi Alpha founded the Go‐to‐High‐School, Go‐to‐College and A‐Voteless‐People‐is‐a‐ Hopeless‐People movements, funded lawsuits and challengers to test discriminatory admittance practices (ex. Murray v. University of Maryland), as well as voting practices (Sweatt v. University of Texas), public accommodation (Henderson v. Southern Railway System), and employment rights (New Negro Alliance, Inc. v. The Safeway Grocery Company—which established a right to peacefully picket for jobs based on the purchasing power of African Americans).163 By the General Convention in 1963, the Committee on Human Rights and Public Policy had become Committee on Human Rights and Civil Rights. At the General Convention, the committee stressed the need for Alpha participation in the March on Washington. Many of the convention activities focused on Civil Rights issues. It was recommended that each chapter become a Life Member of the N.A.A.C.P. and that the Fraternity support other civil rights organizations.164

In The Sphinx, brothers attempted to rally the troops. In “A Challenge—To Alpha Men,” Brother Whitney M. Young expressed his view that the Fraternity must not rest on the laurels of the past, particularly considering his belief that the “progress” that had been recently hailed had only been a slight closing in the inequality gap between the races.165 “We stand today on the verge of winning rights and respect long denied. But rights and respect are empty symbols unless they can be translated into tangible social, economic, and cultural gains.”166 It was stressed for young advocates of Alpha Phi Alpha to financially and morally support groups like the N.A.A.C.P., C.O.R.E., and the Urban League.167 Additionally, an editorial on “Brother Martin Luther King” states that the Fraternity should give its full support both morally and financially because he has proven his sincerity. The author urged brothers to send means if they cannot go to Birmingham and other places to participate in this righteous struggle in person. It goes on to state that the actions of the Birmingham protestors are reasonable and the harsh response they are receiving is not justified.168

College chapters were noted for their progress within their communities. The Rho chapter held its Sixth Annual Career Conference. The conference was founded to encourage the education and career goals of junior high and high school students, bringing together consultants from various fields to speak with students on their experiences and careers.169 More than 300 pupils registered and awards were given to students for excellence in scholarship and academics.170 The Beta chapter of Howard University participated in the university‐ wide “Cans for Citizenship” program that collected can goods and clothing for the 22,000 African Americans who had been taken off relief roles in Greenwood, Mississippi.171

The alumni chapters of Alpha Phi Alpha made significant strides in the fields of healthcare, education, and voting rights in 1963. Epsilon Upsilon Lambda (Flint, Michigan) deposited $1,000 in a special account for the Scholarship Fund.172 Three members of Alpha Delta Lambda Chapter (Memphis, Tennessee) opened a convalescent center in Memphis to “help meet the vital need in Memphis and the Mid‐ South” for such facilities as well as “lighting lamps for the health and welfare of the Negro community.”173 Epsilon Phi Lambda Chapter of (Port Arthur, Texas) donated to the Salvation Army during the Christmas season, participated in YMCA efforts, and sponsored an explorer post for the Boy Scouts.174 Eta Mu Lambda Chapter (Gastonia, North Carolina) launched a voter registration campaign in 1962 that had a far‐reaching effect and successfully registered not only African American voters, but white voters as well.175 Gamma Lambda Chapter (Detroit, Michigan) initiated a program “to raise cultural, vocational, and educational horizons for underachieving youth in a local high school.”176 The project selected the “underachievers” (by reference from school administrators) before they entered high school who would remain with the program (primarily peer‐counseling with the brothers) throughout high‐school, college, and into the working world.177 The chapter planned to track students’ results in a research project to estimate the effectiveness of such a program.178

Also in 1963, several brothers were at the forefront of the March on Washington.179 During the Summer Convention, the attendants went on a Freedom March to the Monument of Robert Gould Shaw, the leader of a Massachusetts Negro regiment during the “fight for freedom.” The march ended at the State House of Boston with N.A.A.C.P. pickets demonstrating against “de facto” segregation.180 The Summer Convention also approved $2,500 in aid as gift to the March on Washington.181 (More details on the March found in “March on Boston”).182 During the March on Washington, “brothers by the hundreds march[ed] with one accord . . . and the spirit of the Alpha Hymn became a marchers song of praise . . . AND ALPHA WAS IN THE FOREFRONT. The Alpha banner, ‘lifted high’ was in the lead and continued that way until we reached the Lincoln Memorial.”183

Brother Roland D. Ealey was recognized for his role as the chief counsel in the Ford T. Johnson, Jr. case heard before the Supreme Court, Johnson v. State of Virginia.184 In this case, the petitioner was convicted of contempt of the Traffic Court after being seated in a section in the courtroom reserved for whites and would not comply with the judge’s order to move. When the Traffic Court judge called Johnson up to the bench and instructed Johnson to seat himself in the section reserved for African Americans, Johnson then moved back in front of the counsel table and remained standing with folded arms. Johnson was then arrested for contempt, although he had not behaved in an abusive manner. The subsequent, unanimous decision of the Supreme Court declared that racial segregation in courtrooms was a violation of the United States Constitution.185

In 1963, Brothers Robert L. Carter and Jawn A. Sandifer, along with Barbara A. Morris, appeared before the Court of Appeals of New York on behalf of the N.A.A.C.P. in Vetere v. Mitchell. The Court held that the Commissioner’s assignment of white students to schools outside of their neighborhood where the student population was primarily African American, and African American students to schools where the student population was primarily white violated Section 3201 of the Education Law, which provides that: “No person shall be refused admission into or be excluded from any public school in the state of New York on account of race, creed, color or national origin,” because the students were being denied admission to schools within their neighborhoods on the basis of race. The Commissioner contended that the situation nevertheless constitutes de facto segregation, and that he sought only to prevent having racially imbalanced schools (those having fifty percent or more African American pupils enrolled). He contended that such imbalance was harmful to education. This court was constrained to find that Section 3201 of the Education Law precludes the Commissioner from abolishing that concept, under the law as it now exists.186

In 1964, Brothers Robert L. Carter and Jawn A. Sandifer lost their case—Vetere v. Mitchell—argued before the Third Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. Union Free School District contained a junior high school which all junior high students in the school district attended. The district also had three elementary schools: Woodfield Road School; Davison Avenue School; and Lindner Place School. As the result of a concentration of Negroes in a specific area, Woodfield School had a Negro‐to‐white ratio of approximately 75%, which was constantly increasing. Each of the other two elementary schools had a Negro pupil enrollment of approximately 14%. Negro children through their parents appealed to the Commissioner from the refusal of the Board of Education to alter zoning areas for school attendance. The petitioners (the parents of white children) relied on Section 3201 of the Education Law which provides: “No person shall be refused admission into or be excluded from any public school in the state of New York on account of race, creed, color or national origin.” The Commissioner’s direction to the board was also to “[r]eorganize the attendance areas of the District so that all pupils from kindergarten to grade 3 inclusive, will attend either the Davison Avenue or the Lindner Place elementary school.”187 The issue presented to the court was solely the validity of the Commissioner’s decision. The court decided, “on application of the conventional test we find the Commissioner’s decision to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. Where there is found to be a rational basis for the administrative determination the judicial function is exhausted and the administrative agency, not the court, is the final arbiter. The court cannot substitute some other judgment for judgment of the Commissioner that correction of racial imbalance is an educational aid to a minority group in attaining the skills and level of education which others have had for generations and that compulsory education should be designed for the greatest good of all.”188 The order and judgment was modified, on the law and the facts, by reversing so much thereof that annulled a determination of the appellant Commissioner of Education and that denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the petitions, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.189

In 1963, Brother Ernest Morial litigated United States ex rel. Scott v. Davis before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This case involved state prisoner Eugene Scott, Jr. bringing forth a habeas corpus proceeding. The Fifth Circuit held that a prisoner under a state‐imposed death sentence was not required to exhaust any further state remedies, including remedies under habeas corpus  statute, with respect to his contention that conviction was unconstitutional after failing on appeal at both the state trial court and state supreme court. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that African Americans were excluded systematically from jury venires—particularly from the grand jury that indicted Scott and the petit jury that convicted him.190

Also in 1963, General Counsel Maddox litigated Holmes v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association in the California Courts of Appeal. That case involved an action against home building companies and a bank for refusing to sell Clarence Leroy Holmes a home solely because of his African American race. Mr. Holmes alleged that the defendants conspired to deprive him, and all other African Americans, of a home in a National Award Homes tract. Holmes also alleged that the defendants maintained a practice of refusing to sell because of race and color and systematically discriminated against such persons. The court held that the complaint was sufficient to state a cause of action against the bank.191

In 1963, Brother Ernest N. Morial and Alvin J. Liska litigated the case Barthe v. City of New Orleans. The case involved a class action against the City of Louisiana for segregation of city parks and other recreational facilities. The District Court required the City of New Orleans to desegregate its parks, playgrounds, and community centers, and all recreational and cultural festivities. It also granted the motion for preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs. Upon review by the Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that the City of New Orleans must comply with the desegregation of all public facilities. The Court used McCain v. Davis as precedent for this decision.192

In 1963, Ernest Morial, Tureaud, Alvin J. Liska, and Ernest L. Salatich litigated the case Bynum v. Schiro. The case involved a request for injunctive relief against the city’s segregation at public functions held in the city auditorium, and against discrimination against the N.A.A.C.P. and similar organizations by denying use of the auditorium. The court held that segregation of the races at the auditorium was a violation of both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. Although Mr. Wiltz Wagner and Mrs. Melda Boyd testified that there was no race‐based discrimination, the Court of Appeals, in accordance to Cantwell v. Connecticut and the Equal Protection Clause, ruled that the defendant’s motions were overruled and granted the injunction to the plaintiff.193

In 1963, Benjamin Smith, Tureaud, L.K. Clement, and others won their case before the three‐judge District Court. They litigated the case McCain v. Davis v. Sheraton Corporation of America. This case involved the validity of a Louisiana statute forbidding “white” hotels from providing accommodations for African American clients. A three‐ judge district Court ruled that the statue violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause in that it was clearly discriminatory against African Americans. Upon review by the Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that the city statute was in fact unconstitutional and cited Buchanan v. Warley and Harmon v. Tyler in their decision.194

In 1963, Brother Tureaud and Jack P. F. Gremillion litigated the case Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish Schools. The primary suit involved the segregation of public schools. Upon review by the Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs, Clifford Davis and others, wanted to present their objection to the preliminary desegregation plan the defendants had presented to the court. After careful consideration, the Court cited Aaron v. Cooper D.C. and established that the primary responsibility for implementing the constitutional principle was announced in the Supreme Court decision, declaring segregation of public schools to be unconstitutional and is upon the school authorities. It also stated that is discriminatory and violated of the Fourteenth Amendment for the School Board to make initial assignments of pupils to racially segregated schools. Given these circumstances, the Court ordered the defendants to amend their preliminary plan to include specific rules and restrictions, regarding transfer students, parents’ choice, and an appeal procedure for denied transfer applicants.195

Tureaud won the appeal in 1967 before the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Upon review from the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court ordered the School Board to enter decree governing admission to public schools without discrimination in accordance to Court of Appeals mandate. Further, the court required the defendants to submit tabulating by race the number of choice applications and transfer applications received for enrollment in each grade and each school. The report  also stated the reasons relied upon in denying choice and tabulated, by school and by race of student, the number of choices and transfers denied for each such reason.196 Using the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, the Court of Appeals ruled that the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board must adhere to the compulsory desegregation of all public schools, noting that failure to comply would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ordered the development of a desegregation plan within four months and required the defendant to submit the report to the court. The Court retained jurisdiction of the case until such time.197

During the 1964 General Convention, measures were adopted to continue the support of the N.A.A.C.P., with emphasis on voter‐ registration campaigns, Life Membership drives, and re‐training programs under the Manpower Act, and to issue a public statement concerning “Civil Rights, Economic Opportunities, citizenship Responsibility, Education, Housing and Public Relations, and Community Responsibility” (the statement itself was not included).198 The Eastern Regional chapters raised funds for a scholarship program to aid one student to study abroad for a year.199 These chapters also formed a “Youth Guidance” Program designed to touch the lives of 500 African American students in a “big brother” type structure.200 Also in 1964, Alpha Phi Alpha worked in conjunction with Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, and Wilkie House on three major projects, including a study hall (some success, although they did not have enough staff to run it throughout the week), a monthly session on vocational exploration, and the beginnings of a scholarship fund used to pay the fee for a local summer school that offered a remedial reading program.201

In tackling overarching problems in society, an editorial entitled “Civil Rights Legislation” encouraged brothers to contact their senators to encourage them to support civil rights legislation, as well as give moral and financial support to lobbying groups seeking to pass such measures.202 Additionally, The Sphinx listed the chapters which have subscribed as life members of the N.A.A.C.P. as part of a broader effort to encourage fraternal support for the organization.203

College chapters continued the mission of greater integration community support in 1964. Beta Upsilon Chapter (Alabama State College) worked “alongside the Montgomery Improvement Association to procure voters among the Negro citizenry in the city.”204 They also raised money for the March of Dimes and instigated an all‐Greek blood donor campaign to supplement the local Red Cross. Additionally, they sponsored “a civil defense information center for the purpose of informing the citizenry of the dangers of nuclear fallout.”205 Nu Chapter (Lincoln University), for a second year, hosted a community service week designed to help needy community families. This program was also open to other students of the university.206 Epsilon Sigma Chapter (St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, Texas) became the first fully integrated chapter in the Southwest region.207

Alumni chapters of the Fraternity made great legislative, educational, and philanthropic progress in 1964. Alpha Xi Lambda Chapter (Toledo, Ohio) participated in local and state drives asking for legislation for non‐discriminatory housing.208 Epsilon Lambda Chapter (St. Louis, Missouri) launched a weekly radio program over a local station that was dedicated to informing and counseling the youth of St. Louis.209 Alpha Eta Lambda Chapter (Houston, Texas) collected more than 400 toys in the Annual Toy Dance. They gave the toys to the Texas Children’s Hospital, Arabia Shrine Crippled Children’s Hospital, Child Centers, Individual Needy Families, and other institutions during the Christmas season.210 Delta Nu Lambda Chapter (Princess Anne, Maryland) participated in a march concerning segregation during which a few brothers were arrested.211 Alpha Sigma Lambda Chapter (Dallas, Texas) recognized over fifty top students from local schools and gave out $1,000 in scholarships and aid to promote and support further education. These students would be a part of a program where seniors were given further aid if they continued to excel in college, and sophomores and juniors would be a part of a group that would receive guidance—such as seminars and career conferences—to heighten their interest in future pursuits.212

Upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, Brother Martin Luther King, Jr. dedicated the award money to the civil rights movement.213 He stated that the award marked the efforts of individuals to achieve civil rights and the personal significance of multiple countries choosing to recognize this struggle for equality in the United States.214 Brothers also donated money and other assistance to civil disturbance victims in Cleveland, Ohio.215

In 1964, Brothers Robert L. Carter and Jawn A. Sandifer, along with Barbara A. Morris, and Joan Franklin, lost their case, Balaban v. Rubin, before the New York Supreme Court. The court decided that the school board did not violate Section 3201 by drawing zoning lines for a new junior high school to prevent segregation at the school’s inception. It reasoned, Section 3201 was, on its face and from its history and plain purpose, an anti‐segregation statute only, which was not to be construed so as to invalidate a zoning plan because the plan accomplishes integration. Furthermore, the school board could take into consideration the ethnic composition of the school. On appeal, the court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment that the zoning plan did not violate Section 3201. The zoning plan excluded no one from any school and had no tendency to foster or produce racial segregation.

Also, the school board had express statutory power to select a site for a new school and to determine the school where each pupil was to attend, pursuant to N.Y. Educ. Law Section 2556, 2503(4)(d). There were no oppressive results and no child had to travel farther to the new school than he would have to go to get to his “neighborhood” school.216

In 1964, Brothers Robert L. Carter and Jawn A. Sandifer, along with Maria L. Marcus, won their argument before the Court of Appeals of New York on behalf of the N.A.A.C.P. In Board of Higher Education of the City of New York v. Carter, they argued that the State Commission for Human Rights has the power and authority to investigate a complaint of discrimination where an educational institution is involved. The Board of Higher Education filed a petition for a determination as to whether it or the Commission had the right to enforce the law against discrimination in employment in the public schools. The trial court held that the Commission was prevented from taking any action either informally by way of inquiry, or under its enforcement process with regard to the educational institutions under the Board’s jurisdiction. The appellate division agreed with the order to the extent that it prohibited the Commission from exercising its enforcement jurisdiction. It found, however, that the order improperly prohibited the Commission from making such investigations, studies, recommendations, programs, conciliation efforts, reports and proceedings as were provided for by N.Y. Exec. Law Section 295(8), (9), (10) in addressing discrimination. The court modified the appellate division’s order to dismiss the petition. It reasoned that the order should not construe the authority of the Commission liberally because it was the only state agency that, by law, was charged with attacking discrimination.217

In 1964, Brother Arthur Shores lost his case before the Supreme Court of Alabama—Banks v. State of Alabama. This case involved six consolidated appeals. Banks and the other defendants, were African American individuals convicted in the Circuit Court of Talladega County of remaining on the premises of a privately owned drugstore after receiving a request by an owner to leave. Banks entered a drugstore and sat down, requesting service. The owner asked Banks to leave, stating that it was private property and he had the right to refuse service. Banks remained. A police officer, who was in the drugstore, was asked by the owner to tell Banks to leave. The police officer asked them to leave. When they did not leave, the police officer placed them under arrest. Banks argued that the basis for the refusal of service was solely on the grounds of race. Upon conviction, the defendants appealed. The sole question in this case became whether the prosecution of Banks was a private or State action. The Supreme Court of Alabama found the refusal of service to be a private action, therefore there the Fourteenth Amendment was not relevant. It found that the Fourteenth Amendment was only relevant in instances of State action. The conviction was affirmed.218

In 1964, Brothers Robert L. Carter and Jawn A. Sandifer, along with Maria, L. Marcus, won their case, Blocker v. Board of Education of Manhasset, New York, before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Blocker alleged discrimination by racial segregation in their New York school system, and sued under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. The court agreed with Blocker and retained jurisdiction to oversee the school board until an adequate plan was presented to desegregate the school system.219 Further along in the case, the school board submitted a plan to desegregate its elementary school system, there was previously a strict policy in place that did not allow for students to transfer. The argument for this policy was that transfers would result in overcrowding. The court found that “overcrowding of schools and classrooms can never be a justification for continued segregation” and ordered students be transferred to desegregate the elementary schools in the city.220

In 1964, Donald Hollowell (Kappa Alpha Psi), Brother Horace T. Ward, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit, III (Omega Psi Phi), and Michael Meltsner won their case before the District Court. They litigated in Bell v. Georgia Dental Association. The suit was filed because the defendants excluded African American individuals from membership of the Georgia Dental Association. The defendants moved for dismissal of the case on the grounds that they were a voluntary association of professional men whose acts were not acts under “color of law” within the Fourteenth Amendment and civil rights statutes. The District Court held that because the state legislature gave the dental association the right to nominate members of state agencies, it made the association an agency of the state. Therefore the action of the association in excluding African American dentists from its membership was state action and was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The motion was overruled.221

In 1964, Brother Robert Lee Carter Lost his case, Craggett v. Board of Education of Cleveland City School District, before the District Court. This was an appeal from a District Judge’s denial of a preliminary injunction which would have required the Board of Education of the Cleveland City School District to discontinue work on the construction of three public schools in Cleveland. Contracts for construction of such schools had been made and substantial work done when this suit was commenced. The suit was brought by African American children whose complaint asserted that the building of the schools in question was motivated by a plan of the Cleveland School authorities to re‐segregate the plaintiffs into schools which will be predominantly African American. The court found that it is familiar law that the granting or refusing of preliminary injunction rests largely within the discretion of the District Judge, and the judge adequately expressed his reasons for denying the preliminary injunction. Robert Lee Carter represented the plaintiff in this action.222

In 1964, Brother Ernest A. Finney, Jr. and Jack Greenberg lost their case before the District Court. They litigated James v. Carnegie Public Library. In this case, African American citizens and residents of the City and County of Sumter, South Carolina brought a class action against library officials to enjoin them from denying the plaintiffs the right to use the public library facilities because of their race. This was brought on the grounds that they were denied equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants answered saying that since the commencement of this action, the plaintiffs have been granted full membership of the library. They said the case was moot because the library trustees have in good faith fully permitted the defendants and all other African American individuals to full membership, and would continue to do so. On these grounds, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss since they have complied with all the demands in the complaint. District Court Judge Simon J. held that the complaint would be dismissed on ground that the case was moot because defendants had fully complied with the demands of the complaint, and had fully complied with the requirements of decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and that it appeared there would be no future violations of rights of African American citizens and residents.223

In 1964 Brother Tureaud and William P. Schueler lost the case before the United States Fifth Circuit Supreme Court. Tureaud and William P. Schueler litigated the case McCoy v. Louisiana State Board of Education. Ms. McCoy, an African‐American student, sued the Louisiana State Board of Education on allegations that she had been denied admission solely because of her race. Upon review, the United States Fifth Circuit Supreme Court stated the Louisiana State Board of Education’s special status provided by the State’s Constitution protects it from civil action against it. The Court also granted the petitioner sixty days within which to make the individual Board members defendants, and warned that failing to do so would result in the case being dismissed.224

In 1964, Brother Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Ira Kaye, Matthew J. Perry, Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., and Jack Greenberg lost their case, Randall v. Sumter, South Carolina before the District Court. This action was filed on behalf of thirteen African American children and others similarly situated. It was filed for an injunction enjoining defendants, their agents, etc., from: (1) operating a compulsory biracial school system in Sumter School District No.; (2) maintaining a dual scheme or pattern of school zone or attendance area lines based on race or color; (3) assigning pupils in the District on the basis of race and color; (4) assigning teachers or school personnel on basis of race and color; and (5) administering the District affairs in a manner designed to maintain or support compulsory racially segregated schools; or, in the alternate, seeking a decree of direction and order to defendants requiring presentation of a plan of reorganization of the schools in the District on a nonracial basis. The students also asked for costs and attorneys’ fees. The court found none of the schools in the district to be racially integrated. The District Court Chief Judge Hemphill held that the students were entitled to injunctive relief to restrain operation of the segregated public school system and any action that regulated or affected the admission, enrollment, or education of African American children on the basis of color.225

In 1964, Brother Horace T. Ward, along with E.H. Gadsden, B. Clarence Mayfield, Constance B. Motley (Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority), Jack Greenberg, Derrick A. Bell, Jr., and Donald L. Hollowell (Kappa Alpha Psi), won their case, Stell v. Savannah‐Chatham County Board of Education, before the Fifth Circuit. These appeals presented issues from a suit to desegregate the public school system in Savannah and Chatham County, Georgia, as well as a suit to prevent the  desegregation of the school system of Glynn County, Georgia. The first suit was brought by African American individuals who sought to enjoin the operation of a biracial school system in Savannah and Chatham Counties. The second suit was brought by white parents to prevent desegregation of the Glynn County school system. The trial court found that a racially mixed classroom would be detrimental to both African American and white students, and that segregation was beneficial for both as well. The district court concluded that even a partial integration of students would be damaging to African American students. The District Court denied injunctive relief in the first suit and enjoined school boards from effecting voluntary desegregation in the second suit. Appeals followed. The Court of Appeals held that enjoining school transfers under a voluntary plan of desegregation effected by the school board and the referral of the matter of desegregation to the school board under school administrative procedure statute was done in error. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded in the first suit. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part in the second suit. The Fifth Circuit reversed the trial court’s approval of race‐segregated schools, and acknowledged that separation of the races was per se discriminatory under Brown v. Board of Education, despite the proffered evidence that it might actually help at least some African American children.226

In 1964, Brother Ernest Morial provided counsel in Louisiana Board of Education v. Baker before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. There, Baker and the other African American plaintiffs sought admission to a state college. The Fifth Circuit held  that federal courts had jurisdiction over the state college and the state board of education despite the Eleventh Amendment.227

Again, in 1964, General Counsel Jones litigated Curtis v. Tozer before the Missouri Court of Appeals. In that case, Robert Curtis and other petitioners were demonstrators sentenced after violating a  Circuit Court temporary restraining order prohibiting petitioners from barring entry to a bank through sit‐ins and lie‐ins. Curtis brought a habeas corpus proceeding. The court held that evidence sustained the contempt citations against those demonstrators who physically blocked entry to and exit from the bank after imposition of the Circuit Court’s order; however, the evidence did not sustain the citations against those who merely appeared in the crowd of demonstrators prior to the physical barring of access to the bank.228

In 1964, Brother Arthur Shores and Julius LeVonne Chambers, along with Orzell Billingsley, Jr., Jack Greenberg, Norman C. Amaker, won their case, Smith v. City of Birmingham, before the Court of Appeals of Alabama. Flora Smith was convicted of violating a city ordinance making it “unlawful for any person to stand or loiter upon any street or sidewalk of the city after having been requested by any police officer to move on.”229 Smith was protesting on the steps of the City Hall of the treatment “given her people by the City.”230 She was told to leave, but was arrested after failing to do so. The Court of Appeals of Alabama held that the steps of the city hall were not within the scope of the city ordinance. The case was thus reversed and remanded.231

In 1964, Brother Arthur Shores, Orzell Billingsley, Jr., Jack Greenberg, Norman C. Amaker, and Geo. B. Smith won their case before the Supreme Court of Alabama. The case was Middlebrooks v. City of Birmingham. Middlebrooks was convicted of a violation of the Code of the City of Birmingham for standing or loitering so as to obstruct a street or sidewalk. Middlebrooks appealed. The Court of Appeals of Alabama held that the mere refusal to move on after a police officer has requested that a person standing or loitering should do so is not enough to support the offense. It held that it must also be shown that the defendant blocked a free passage. The Supreme Court of Alabama found that the evidence sustained the conviction. Therefore the judgment was affirmed.232

In 1964, Brothers Horace T. Ward, and Robert L. Carter, along with D. L. Hollowell (Kappa Alpha Psi), won Cobb v. Balkcom before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was a habeus corpus proceeding for Cobb, a state prisoner. He was indicted for murder and convicted without a recommendation of mercy. He was sentenced to death by electrocution. Cobb was a fifteen year old African American individual who killed a white man. At the trial there was no challenge made to the composition of the grand jury or the traverse jury by his court‐ appointed counsel. Shortly after the sentence, Cobb hired new counsel who made a motion for a new trial. He then challenged the constitutional validity of Cobb’s indictment, trial, and conviction because of the systematic exclusion of African American individuals from grand and traverse juries in the trial court. It was also asserted that there was no valid waiver of the constitutional right. The motion for new trial was overruled, and that was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia upon appeal. It was affirmed on the holding that any objection to the composition of the grand jury and the traverse jury was waived upon the failure to challenge the array before indictment. Cobb stated that he had no fair opportunity to raise the question due to his age, his lack of intelligence, and inexperience, and due to the inexperience or reluctance of his court‐appointed counsel. The Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to show that trial counsel was capable of raising the issue, and was authorized to waive the objection in view of Cobb’s lack of intelligence, etc. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Thereafter was a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence filed on the behalf of Cobb, and the denial of the motion by the trial court was affirmed on appeal.

Cobb then filed a petition for habeus corpus in the District Court. It presented the systematic exclusion issue as well as the additional contentions that Cobb was denied due process of law in that his confession was coerced, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because of the failure of the trial counsel to apprise him on his constitutional right with respect to the systematic exclusion question, or to explain it to his mother or any other person on his behalf, and because the issue was not raised. The District Court denied the petition and an appeal followed. The Fifth Circuit granted Cobb’s application for a stay of execution pending appeal.

The Court reversed on the systematic exclusion question. It found the facts as asserted by Cobb to be valid. It found no intentional relinquishment of his constitutional right, so for the state to subject the defendant to the situation amounted to a denial of due process and the equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. It pretermit a ruling of the coerced confession question, as well as the question of denial of the effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed  to a state prisoner by the Sixth Amendment and its inclusion in the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was reversed, rendered, and remanded.233

In 1964, Brother William T. Coleman and Louis H. Pollak lost the lost their case before the United States Supreme Court in McLaughlin v. State of Florida.234 In that case, defendants, including Dewey McLaughlin, were convicted under a Florida statute providing for punishment of any African American man and white woman or any white man and African American woman who were not married to each other and who habitually lived in and occupied the same room in the nighttime. The Criminal Court of Record for Dade County entered judgment, and McLaughlin appealed. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, and McLaughlin appealed. The United States Supreme Court held that the statute was invalid as a denial of equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, on appeal the decision was reversed based on the Fourteenth Amendment.235

In 1965, Alpha Phi Alpha outlined its greater objectives through policy statements and declarations by leading members. The Director of Educational Activities pledged approximately $7,000 worth of scholarships to graduating high school seniors, as well as undergraduate and graduate brothers, for the upcoming year.236 This section also includes information of outside scholarships that may be available to students of the race.237 The General Secretary remarked that several brothers took active part in the “March on Montgomery” (Selma) and that a telegram urging him to intervene in the situation and curb the actions of Selma officials was sent to President Johnson in response.238 The 58th General Convention issued a directive that the Fraternity will actively support the War on Poverty.239 Finally, “Alpha Phi Alpha’s Public Policy” stated:

§  No.1: “The Fraternity pledges to lend its full weight in continuing the thrust to achieve as rapidly as possible the full realization of the American dream and constitutional declarations of equal rights, equal treatment and equal opportunity for all people regardless of race.” In doing so, they urge individual/smaller efforts because there can be no uniform method as community circumstances very too greatly.240

§  No. 2: The Fraternity desires that more people of color should be put in policy shaping positions when it comes to employment in order to admit the Negro population to full economic life.241

§  No. 3: Alpha Phi Alpha urges all members of the race to exercise their newly protected voting rights (Voting Rights Act of 1965).242

§  No. 5: Urges Negro leaders to join hands with members of other oppressed minorities to work for the “general uplift of humankind.”243

United States Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey similarly recognized education’s importance in his guest address at the 1965 General Convention, particularly in regard to desegregation. He stated that “Education for Negroes . . . is the next step to construct a society in which each citizen has full citizenship in fact, not just in law.”244 Civil rights activist Daisy Bates requested that Alpha Phi Alpha assist with the N.A.A.C.P. voter registration initiative.245 Alpha Phi Alpha approved her request. Brother L. Howard Bennett of the Committee on Public Policy echoed the importance in voting and noted that with the 1965 Voting Rights Bill meant more access to voting, essentially in addressing problems facing the African American community.246

In The Sphinx were articles like “Alpha’s Contribution to Education,” where Brother Charles H. Wesley demonstrated the key role Alpha Phi Alpha played in the civil rights efforts of the recent past. “During World War I, Alpha men were instrumental in the launching of the first training camp for Negro officers at Fort Des Moines in 1917.”247 The ‘second period’ of the Fraternity was the “Go‐to‐High‐ School, Go‐to‐College” movement. The ‘third period’ was the “Education for Citizenship” campaign.248 The Alpha Phi Alpha Foundation was founded by thirty‐seven brothers who subscribed $100 each to the fund that is used to grant scholarships, grants, and loans.249 In 1957, on the 50th Anniversary of the Fraternity, a $25,000 scholarship was established at Cornell, the birthplace of the organization.250 Other brothers penned pieces concerning issues of importance to the continuing fight for equal rights, which were primarily scholarly in their analysis.251

College chapters worked to spread awareness and continue local philanthropic efforts. Delta Nu Chapter (Maryland State College) hosted two community fundraising dances that were met with success. The money gathered supplemented the scholarship fund of the chapter.252 On Thanksgiving, the brothers of Delta Nu distributed food baskets to needy families in the area.253 Beta Gamma Chapter (Virginia State College) used bulletin displays to educate their peers on the work of famous African Americans during Negro History Week.254 Additionally, they held a Christmas party for the patients at Central State Mental Hospital “to show that the world has not forgotten them.”255 Finally, the brothers “worked diligently in the voter registration campaign during the recent presidential election.”256

The alumni chapters of Alpha Phi Alpha made extensive progress in efforts expand scholarship opportunities and increase awareness of educational resources. Gamma Theta Lambda Chapter (Wilmington, Delaware) sponsored their fifth informal social for high school and college aged males, designed to stimulate interest in post‐ high school education. The program used small groups, led by college members, to instigate a conversation about college life, financial aid sources, and the leader’s respective schools.257 The brothers of this chapter also offered assistance on forms to any senior class boy applying for scholarships and colleges. They also gave these students information about financial resources that they may not have known about before. The chapter claims that several local boys received “substantial scholarship grants” from these actions.258 From these consultations, the brothers select the recipient of their annual scholarship.259 Eta Tau Lambda Chapter (Akron, Ohio) co‐sponsored a remedial reading program in deprived areas along with an Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority chapter.260 Additionally they are working to promote a fair housing law in the city.261 Alpha Delta Lambda Chapter (Memphis, Tennessee) initiated a “Scholarship Society” which was comprised of boys from grades 7‐12 that made the Honor Roll. The aim of this program was to show these young men the importance of scholarship, citizenship, and brotherhood.262 Beta Lambda Chapter (Kansas City, Kansas) started a program called “Alpha’s Plus project” which aims to help young community boys who did not have a father or male figure in their home. The brothers spent time with these boys, counseled them and attended activities with them.263 Members of Delta Phi Lambda Chapter (Tuscaloosa, Alabama), alongside leading teachers in the area, led a march on the Dallas County Court House in Selma, Alabama in protest of the problems and blockages they faced concerning voter registration.264

Eta Psi Lambda Chapter (Tucson, Arizona) joined together with local chapters of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Kappa Alpha Psi, and Omega to host an “extensive training and orientation program for Negro Junior High School boy dropouts.”265 The chapter also worked with Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority chapter and the local N.A.A.C.P. to run a seminar for local high school students that provided information on collegiate opportunities and available scholarships. Furthermore, the chapter awarded several scholarships to junior high and high‐ school students to assist them in furthering their education. One recipient, a high school senior, was selected to receive financial and scholastic aid until his senior year.266 Beta Psi Lambda Chapter (Los Angeles, California) worked with the Los Angeles Board of Education on the “Student Tutorial Education Project,” which was a summer program designed “to help failing high school students pass, and passing high school students to obtain better grades.” The chapter recruited college students to run the secession and split the cost of the program evenly with the Board.267

In 1965, Brother Arthur Shores, Orzell Billingsley, Jr., Jack Greenberg, and Norman C. Amarker lost their case before the Supreme Court of Alabama in Clemons v. City of Birmingham. Clemons, an African American man, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County of violating the General City Code of Birmingham after refusing to leave the lobby of a restaurant when requested to leave. He was convicted on the grounds that it was unlawful for any person to remain on the lands of another after having been warned not to do so. Clemons appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment without opinion. He then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Court held that the conviction was not invalid on the grounds of racial discrimination. It found no evidence that Clemons was refused service in the restaurant. It also found that African American individuals had been accepted as guests in the restaurant prior to this event. Therefore, it found no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the writ was denied.268

In 1965, Brother Ernest Morial litigated Lebeauf v. State Board of Education of Louisiana before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. That case involved suit against the State Board of Education to bring about immediate desegregation of all public schools in state. The court mandated desegregation plans for dozens of districts within a state. After law school, General Counsel John Winfred Walker, Sr., became the N.A.A.C.P.–Legal Defense and Education Fund’s third intern. Before starting his own practice, Brother Walker worked as Assistant Director of an affiliate of the Southern Regional Council in Atlanta, Georgia, known as the Arkansas Council on Human Relations. In 1965, he opened a private civil rights and general practice of law in Little Rock, Arkansas. He is currently a member of the House of Representatives in the Arkansas state legislature. Brother Walker litigated more than 200 civil rights cases— many in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.269

In 1965, Brother Walker litigated Rogers v. Paul, in which the Eighth Circuit held a school desegregation plan that provided for gradual integration by grade was proper, even though the integration of all grades would require four additional years. The court reasoned that any speedier desegregation requirements would cause undue administrative problems.270

In 1965, Brother Robert Lee Carter won his case, Henry v. Collins, before the Supreme Court. After Henry’s arrest for disturbing the peace, petitioner stated that it was a result of a diabolical plot in which respondents, a county attorney and a chief of police, were implicated. Respondents brought suits for libel, and obtained jury verdicts. The judgments were reversed since the jury might well have understood the instructions to permit recovery on a showing of intent to inflict harm, rather than intent to inflict harm through falsehood. The constitution permits recovery by these public officials.271

During the Sixtieth Anniversary General Convention in St. Louis, the Fraternity led a pilgrimage to the site of the Dred Scott decision where United States Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall gave an address.272 Moreover, further policies were adopted to the public policy of Alpha Phi Alpha. Concerning civil rights, the convention urged that each brother becomes acquainted with the recently passed Civil Rights Acts so that they may aid in their implementation and utility within their communities.273 Concerning the middle class and the ghetto, the convention urged the use of the Fraternity’s leadership to lessen the gap between middle class and lower class African Americans for the forward movement of the race as a whole.274 Concerning demonstrations and marches, the conventions declared that these tools should be used as means of implementing worthy goals, but they should not be allowed to remain only “flashes in the pan.”275 Concerning black power, the Fraternity urged that African Americans do not make their power too exclusive, instead the focus should be on eliminating distinctions in color and class in favor of a “positive and enlightened community effort” toward equality for all.276 Concerning basic education, the convention called for more Alpha Phi Alpha effort in the education of youth in cities where African Americans are more centralized. These efforts should include sponsoring better school buildings, teachers, and better overall educational environments.277

The Eastern region of the Fraternity developed a new concept of the Go‐To‐High‐School, Go‐To‐College movement. These chapters created a “bold, new program” that deals mainly with African American boys aged eight to twelve from disadvantaged families. Once these boys are identified in a given community in which Alpha Phi Alpha brothers reside they will be given support to realize the importance higher education as well as help in overcoming personal issues that may keep them from pursuing their education.278 Essentially, “the chapters will ‘adopt’ these students and furnish them with guidance, cultural opportunities and financial assistance” through Big‐Brother type relationships.279 The author of this issue encouraged all Alpha Phi Alpha chapters to adopt a similarly structured program. He even included a list of “Outreach Program Suggestions.”280

Two college chapters were recognized in 1966 for their efforts to aid those struggling with poverty and illness. Gamma Phi Chapter (Tuskegee Institute) participated in a Summer Education program that was designed to alleviate poverty at home and abroad.281 A member, Brother Armstrong, initiated a “Christmas Around the World” program for mentally handicapped and underprivileged children in Macon County, Alabama.282 Additionally, the members visited a local hospital and gave out Christmas cards and fruits to over 200 patients and needy families in the community.283 Beta Epsilon Chapter (A&T College) visited local hospitals to console the sick and give reading materials to patients. Additionally, they distributed food baskets to needy community families.284

For their part, alumni chapters of Alpha Phi Alpha continued to encourage educational and occupational ambition among local communities. Brother Ross W. Newsome donated $1,000 to Nu Lambda Chapter (Petersburg, Virginia) for the establishment of a trust fund  that will later be used for scholarship loans to help 4‐H young people in Virginia to go to college, regardless of race.285 Nu Chapter (Lincoln University) has a separate scholarship fund of $3,000 which had been accumulated solely based on donations of chapter brothers. The fund was invested and the interest it accumulates is used to fund scholarships.286 The brothers also administered a 9‐week “cultural‐ tutorial program to aid disadvantaged youth alongside of the Alpha Outreach Program.287 Rho Lambda Chapter (Buffalo‐Rochester, New York) had a $500 scholarship fund and it sponsored a career day in which high school students visited Alpha Phi Alpha brothers at their places of work to get a better understanding of various careers.288 Beta Psi Lambda Chapter made “significant financial and personal service contributions” to their local N.A.A.C.P. and YMCA branches, the Boy Scouts, and the Authors Study Club. Additionally, they sponsored a “Go to Church Sunday” program and they held “regular current affairs programs concerning the local community, civil rights, voting and education.”289

In 1966, while United States Solicitor General, Brother Thurgood Marshall was amicus curiae by special leave of Court, before the Supreme Court in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections. In 1966, Harper challenged an order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissing their actions against respondent state’s voting officials, seeking to have a poll tax under the Virginia Constitution declared unconstitutional. They alleged that the poll tax violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the actions, relying on the earlier case that had authorized the poll tax, and the state sought to review. The Supreme Court reversed and overruled the prior case to the extent that it sanctioned the tax. It held that a state violated the Equal Protection Clause whenever it made the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications had no relation to wealth or to paying or not paying this any other tax. The Equal Protection Clause prohibited the states from fixing voter qualifications that invidiously discriminated. To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a high measure of a voter’s qualifications was to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor. The degree of the discrimination was irrelevant. As a condition of obtaining a ballot, the requirement of fee paying caused an “invidious” discrimination that ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause. The outcome of the case is the court reversed the order dismissing the stare residents’ action, the poll tax was an invidious discrimination that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall filed amicus curiae brief.290

In 1966, Solicitor General, Brother Thurgood Marshall and J. Lee Rankin won their case before the Supreme Court. In 1966, registered voters challenged the constitutionally of 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C.S 1937b(e), because it precluded enforcement of N.Y Const. art. II, 1 and N.Y Elec. Law 150, which imposed English literacy requirements on the right to vote. Appellant challenged the order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which entered judgment and injunctive relief for appellees. The district court held that in enacting 4(e), Congress exceeded the powers granted to it by the Constitution and usurped powers reversed to the states by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Appeal was taken directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed. It held that under the McCulloh v. Maryland standard, Section 4 of the Act was “plainly adapted” to furthering the Equal Protection Clause and that it remedies constituted means consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It therefore held that the state English literacy requirement could not be enforced to the extent that it was inconsistent with Section 4(e) of the act. The outcome of the case was that the court reversed the lower court’s judgment. Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall and J. Lee Rankin argued for appellants.291

In 1966, Matthew J. Perry, Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Jack Greenberg, Nicholas deB. Ketzenbach, John Doar, Terrell L. Glen, and Frank M. Dunbaugh, won their case before court in Miller v. School District No. 2, Clarendon County, South Carolina. Plaintiffs were Miller and other African American children attending school in the defendant district who were denied admission to a previously white school. The defendants argued that the students’ academic records indicated that a transfer would have been inadvisable. Defendants indicated that the transfer of Miller and the other children would have been injurious to their educational process and would violate the defendant’s duty. Judge Hemphill held that there was credible evidence and the inferences adduced revealed the proposed plan for desegregation of schools advanced by the school board was not designed to effect any change, it did not have integrity of good intention, and racial discrimination had been practiced in the district in every way in which Miller complained.292

“In School District Number 2, Clarendon County, South Carolina every aspect, every facet, of school planning, administration, operation, policy, and practice, by design and purpose, racial characteristics. This includes, among others, the fact that students, teachers, staff personnel, and the curricula with its related and unrelated activities now captive of an active plan to complete and maintain separation of the races. White and Negro simply do not receive the equal treatment. There is no credible evidence of a bona fide attempt to comply with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.”293 The judge ordered an injunction against the school board.294

In 1966, Brother William T. Coleman lost their case before court. In 1966, William T. Coleman litigated Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Brown.295 In that case, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its Attorney General, the City of Philadelphia, and seven minor African American male orphans brought action against trustees to enjoin trustees from refusing to admit the minor African American male orphans to a charitable school established under testamentary trust for poor white male orphans. The trustees made a motion to dismiss which was denied based on the fact that the school was considered a ‘public accommodation’ and ‘educational institution’ under the supervision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which meant it was prohibited from racial discrimination under the Pennsylvania Public Accommodations Act.296

In 1966, Brother Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Donald James Sampson, Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Matthew J. Perry, and Jack Greenberg, Enbergheir case, Williams v. Sumter School District No. 2. The plaintiff, Williams, an African American school teacher in Sumter, South Carolina, brought this action under the complaint that defendants acted under the color of authority invested in them by the laws of South Carolina, and failed and refused to offer renewal of her contract to teach in the Sumter County Schools for the 1964‐65 school year “by reason of the civil rights activities and associations designed to end racial discrimination engaged in by her.”297 Her demand was for relief, asking that the court “enter a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the defendants and those acting in concert with them to offer plaintiff a teaching contract and to continue her contractual basis without regard to her activities in behalf of civil rights generally and the desegregation of public schools in particular.”298 In reality Williams sought mandamus. Judge Hemphill held that action of the school board in refusing to reemploy the plaintiff was arbitrary, capricious, without constitutional foundation, and beyond constitutional authority where  it was obvious that the plaintiff was refused reemployment because of her civil rights activities.299

In 1966, Brother John Winfred Walker litigated Smith v. Board of Education of Morrilton School District No. 32. There, African American teachers sought an injunction requiring the employment of high school teachers, and the reassignment of elementary teachers and pupils without regard to race. The Eighth Circuit held that such conduct was unlawful segregation.300

In 1966, Howard Moore, Jr., and Brother Horace T. Ward lost their case, Cobb v. State, before court. Preston Cobb, Jr., an African American man, was convicted of murder of a white man in 1961. He appealed on the complaint of the overruling of his challenges to the arrays of the grand and traverse juries put upon him, the overruling of his special demurrer to the indictment, and the denial of his motion for new trial. Specifically, Cobb’s challenges to the arrays of the grand and traverse juries were on the grounds of arbitrary and systematic exclusion and inclusion of African Americans. The court found this challenge to be without merit, because it found the record did not sustain the contention. It found that officials charged with the responsibility of jury selection did so properly. They also found that each jury commissioner testified that the jury list was selected without regard to race or color.301

In 1966, Brother Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Ruben L. Gray, Matthew J. Perry, and Carl Rachlin, represented defendants in State of South Carolina v. Davidman. Defendants included Davidman, who asked for the State of South Carolina to remand the criminal prosecutions of the defendants to the Court of General Sessions for Dorchester County, South Carolina. Included was a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Davidman and others were arrested for contributing to the delinquency of minors by enticing said minors not to attend school and sitting and marching on and near the school grounds and being in a group of pickets on and near the school. Davidman alleged criminal prosecution was because they were civil rights workers, encouraging African Americans to register to vote, and to participate in picketing activities to end all racial segregation in the country. Davidman alleged that such state action violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the statutory United States laws providing for equal rights of all citizens.

An answer to the petition for removal, stating that petitioners could enforce any rights and receive equal treatment in the state court and that the motion to remove was premature in that no indictments had ever been returned with a true bill from the grand jury. The Court decided that it was without jurisdiction and that the cases were to be remanded. The Court ruled that the petitioners had the burden to prove that (1) they were being denied their equal civil rights, within the meaning of the removal statutes, by discriminatory state legislation, or (2) they could not enforce their federally protected civil rights in the state courts. Petitioners conceded that they statute under which they were being prosecuted was not discriminatory at its face. They said that they would not be able to receive a fair trial in Dorchester County because the community was hostile towards them as civil rights workers.

The Court stated, “[i]t is certainly undisputed that petitioners have engaged in activities unpopular to a large segment of the population of Dorchester County, and from the attitude and demeanor of Mr. Davidman who testified at the hearing it is understandable that many good citizens of Dorchester County, or elsewhere, would find him personally obnoxious regardless of the causes he might embrace. Nevertheless, petitioners have failed to convince this court that they cannot enforce any of their civil rights in the state court and have a fair trial, or that they have been refused or cannot invoke all pretrial procedures in the state court such as change of venue motions, reduction of bond, etc., which they have not sought to pursue. Furthermore, if defendants are tried in the Court of the General Sessions for Dorchester County, a state Circuit Judge will preside at the trial and this court personally knowing all of the State Judges to be dedicated, unbiased jurists of the highest caliber has no hesitancy in stating that defendants will receive a fair and impartial trial in their court regardless of a hostile community and all and any of their civil rights will be fully protected.”302

In 1966, Solicitor General Brother Thurgood Marshall won his case before the Supreme Court, United States v. Guest. In 1966, the government appealed the decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment for criminal conspiracy under 18 U.S.C.S § 241 on the ground that it did not charge an offense under the laws of the United States. Defendants were indicted by a grand jury for criminal conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C.S § 241. The indictment alleged a single conspiracy by defendants to deprive African‐American citizens of the free exercise and enjoyment of several specified rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it did not charge an offense. The district court sustained the motion and dismissed the indictment as to all defendants. The Supreme Court held that the indictment contained an express allegation of state involvement sufficient at least to require the denial of the motion to dismiss. The Court found that a criminal conspiracy affecting an individual’s rights of free interstate passage was within the sanction of § 241, where a specific intent to have interfered with a federal right was required to be proven. The Supreme Court reversed the decision granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and remanded the case for furthering proceedings. Thurgood Marshall for the appellant—the government of the United States.303

In 1966, Solicitor General Brother Thurgood Marshall won his case before the Supreme Court. In United States v. Price, the United States charged defendants, law enforcement officials and their associates, with civil rights violations. The federal charges stemmed from the murders of three civil rights activists by defendants. The indictment against defendants charged that they acted in concert to pull the victims over, arrest them, and later murder them. The indictment for the federal crimes charged that the defendants, acting under color of state law, conspired to deprive the victims of their right to due process of law. The lower court had dismissed in part two of the indictments that charged the private citizens on the basis they could not act under color of state of law. On review, the Supreme Court held that private persons jointly engaged with law enforcement officials in the prohibited action were acting under color of law. Defendants were also charged under a broad federal statute prohibiting a conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise of any right guaranteed to them under the United States Constitution. The Court held that the statute was not overbroad in its application to the defendants. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded for further determination of the matter. Thurgood Marshall argued for appellant.304

In 1967, the Public Policy Committee of Alpha Phi Alpha released a statement, setting “forth in a preliminary manner, the economic, sociological and educational stance of the Fraternity and, on revision and adoption by the General Convention becomes the light by which the Fraternity is guided for another year.”305 This re‐emphasized its support of steady organizations such as the N.A.A.C.P. saying that “we believe more in the rule of law and for less in the many forms of militancy that have led to violence, death, and destruction.”306 The Fraternity was urging all chapters to develop a “Big Brother” program to aid those of the race that are less fortunate.307 In response to the recent rash of riots, the Fraternity stated Alpha Phi Alpha “unalterably is opposed to violence as a solution to social problems; however, our greater concerns is with the intolerable conditions which five rise to these riots . . . there are reasons to believe these acts of violence are an expression of the hopelessness” people feel.308 The Fraternity noted that the Senate was investigating these riots, yet “there was no Senate investigation in the bombing of the Church in Birmingham . . . or the hundreds of killings of Negroes in the South since Emancipation.”309 “Alpha Phi Alpha deplores the continued discriminating practices of too many labor unions . . . Alpha Phi Alpha urges all National Brotherhoods of organized labor to use their power to erase every vestige of racial discrimination so that all Americans regardless of race can be employed on the basis of ability.”310

Two alumni chapters of Alpha Phi Alpha stood out for their defense of legislative equality and development of individual success. Theta Psi Lambda Chapter (Somerset, New Jersey) in response to the recent Congressional actions taken against Brother Adam Clayton Powell, decided to form a “formidable vote bloc” and wrote a letter to President Johnson, Congressman Edward J. Patten, and Speaker John W. McCormack to express their skepticism in continuing to support the Democratic Party in the light of recent events.311 Zeta Omicron Lambda Chapter (Philadelphia, Pensylvania) opened a second boys club that focused on “the development of the spiritual, intellectual, social, and physical life of the adolescent toward the objective of Christian living.”312 In The Sphinx, Brother Grady E. Poulard called on the brothers of Alpha Phi Alpha to “write to your Congressmen, send them telegrams; remind them that they cannot afford to forget that you influence a hell of a lot of votes in your community.”313

In 1967, Brother Tureaud and Jack P. F. Gremillion lost the case Amedee v. Fowler before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Upon the review by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a declaratory judgment brought by the elector, Fowler, attempted to determine the constitutionality of Louisiana statute requiring a voter to vote for as many people as the number to be elected to a particular office. The Court ruled that due to insufficient evidence proving that the statute’s real goal was to prevent a person from minority group to be elected, the plaintiff, Amedee, was denied of the relief he sought. The Court cited Boineau v. Thornton in its decision.314

In 1967, Brother Tureaud, along with Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit, III (Omega Psi Phi), Michael Meltsner, Norman C. Amaker, Charles H. Jones, Jr., Demetrius C. Newton, Oscar W. Adams, Jr., Orzell Billingsley, Jr., David H. Hood, and Johnnie A. Jones, won their case, Baton Rouge Parish School Board v. Davis, before the United States District Court. Appellant School board and superintendent challenged a judgment of a United States District Court granting appellee students a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief regarding appellants’ illegal segregation practice. Most of the questions raised by this appeal had been disposed of adversely to appellant school board and superintendent in a companion case involving another school board. The action was a suit against the state, it failed to state a cause of  action because Louisiana adopted a pupil placement law. In this appeal, appellants contended that the posture of the case was such that the motion for summary judgment, which was granted at the same time as that in companion case was not appropriate because there were fact issues that required a full trial. The court affirmed, holding that it was undisputed that appellants were operating its schools separately maintained for the race. Thus, the court found that appellee students were entitled to have a declaratory judgment declaring such practice to be illegal and an injunction that such practice be terminated.315

In 1967, Brother Tureaud and Alvin J. Liska won the case Pania v. City of New Orleans in the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. When Mr. Pania sued the City of New Orleans on claims of violation of constitutional rights, the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana established that Section 561.1 1343 of the Code of the City of New Orleans was in fact constitutional even though it prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages (in this case) on the premises under the same roof to African Americans and whites alike. Upon review in the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court decided that the City of New Orleans does not have the right to enforce the provisions of this ordinance because it violated Pania’s constitutional rights. The injunctive relief requested by Pania was then granted.316

Brother Tureaud, Macon L. Weaver, Maurice Bishop, William P. Schuler, Alvin Bronstein among others litigated the case United States v. Jefferson County School Board before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. During this case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the majority opinion of the original panel and held that school boards have an affirmative duty to bring about integrated, unitary school systems. The Court also held that boards and officials administering public schools in this circuit had the affirmative duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to bring about an integrated, unitary school system in which there are no African American schools and no white schools—just schools. With this decision, the Court ordered very specific proceedings regarding exercise of choice, prospective students, transfer students, school equalization, faculty and staff, reports to the court, etc.317

Brother John Winfred Walker litigated Kelley v. Altheimer, Arkansas School District. In that case, African American residents of a school district sought to enjoin the school district and a construction company from continuing plans to construct separate elementary schools for white and African American students. The same year, he provided counsel in Bynum v. Burns. There, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s holding that an African American candidate for justice of the peace was not certified as a candidate. Brother Walker also provided counsel in Robinson v. Willisville School District. In that case, a school district denied African Americans admittance to the school and bus transportation because of race or color. The Eighth Circuit held that the defendant was properly required to submit a desegregation plan.318

Brother Floyd McKissik litigated the Powell v. McCormack case in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The motion for leave to file supplement to petition, motion of American Civil Liberties Union for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, motion of Congress for Racial Equality for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, motion of National Bar Association for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, and motion of New York City Chapter of National Lawyers Guild for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, were granted. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, prior to the judgment, was denied.319 Floyd  McKissick represented the parties.

In Reitman v. Mulkey, plaintiff respondents (Mulkey) alleged they were racially discriminated against by their landlords. United States Solicitor General, Brother Thurgood Marshall served as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Petitioners challenged a decision of the California Supreme Court holding that Article 1, Section 26 of the California Constitution, which forbade the state from limiting a person’s right to decline their lease or sell real property in his absolute discretion, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. One trial court held that the California constitution rendered Sections 51 and 52 null and void; another trial court denied petitioner’s motion for a declaratory judgment, preventing him from terminating one of Mulkey’s tenancies if such eviction was based on racial considerations. In a consolidated appeal, the California Supreme Court held that Art. I 26 was invalid, as it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court affirmed. Although the state was permitted a neutral position regarding private racial discrimination, the California Supreme Court properly concluded that Art. I 26 prohibited state involvement in private discrimination, as it represented affirmative state action designed to authorize and make legally possible private discrimination. Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall filed an amicus brief by special leave of the Court. Herman F. Selvin and A. L. Wirin represented the respondents seeking racial redress.320

In 1967, Brother Arthur Shores, Orzell Billingsley, Jr., Norman C. Amaker, and Jack Greenberg lost the case Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham after the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and remanded the decision of the Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Shuttlesworth was convicted in the Recorder’s Court of the City of Birmingham of parading without a permit, in violation of the General City Code of Birmingham. Shuttlesworth appealed to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County and was granted a de novo trial before a jury. He was found guilty. He then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Alabama and the decision was reversed, discharging him “sine die.” The City of Birmingham then filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of certiorari, which was granted. The Court found that Shuttleworth had engaged in a parade, procession, or other public demonstration in the streets or other public ways of the City of Birmingham without first having obtained a permit as required by the City Code. The Court did point out that the City commission did not have a right to refuse an application for a permit solely on the grounds that it could provoke disorderly conduct. It held that the discretion of the commission must be exercised uniformly upon the facts of each application, free from improper or inappropriate considerations and from unfair discrimination. However, the Court did not find the application of unfair or discriminatory discretion. It held that the Code was not void on its face and that it did not deprive Shuttlesworth of any rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The case was thus reversed and remanded.321

In 1967, Brothers Ernest A. Finney, Jr. and Robert L. Carter, along with Matthew J. Perry, Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Hemphill P. Pride, and Maria L. Marcus, won Hammond v. South Carolina State College before the District Court. The action was brought by Hammond and other suspended college students against their college for protection of their individual and collective constitutional rights for injunctive relief. Hammond had ‘assembled’ with other students on the college campus, expressing themselves concerning certain practices in existence at the college. Following suspension, Hammond complained that they were deprived on their First Amendment rights by virtue of the authority or color of office enjoyed by the administrators and faculty of the defendant. Judge Hemphill held that a rule promulgated by college authorities prohibiting ‘parades, celebrations, and demonstrations’ without prior approval of college authorities was prior restraint on the right of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and was incompatible with the First Amendment. He ordered the rule invalid, and that a violation of the rule therefore did not constitute a basis for suspension of students.322

In National Labor Relations Board v. Allis‐Chalmers Manufacturing Company, Solicitor General Brother Thurgood Marshall and John Silard represented the petitioner. Petitioner National Labor Relations Board appealed the judgment of the United State Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the decision that the union board did not violate the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.S. 158(b)(1)(A), when it imposed fines against the employees of respondent employer for crossing the union’s picket line. The Seventh Circuit reversed the Board’s decision. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment. A literal interpretation of the phrase “restrain and coerce,” to find that 158(b)(1)(A) stripped unions of their power to fine members for strikebreaking, was at odds with Congress’ understanding of the union‐membership relations and their national policy.  Additionally, the legislative history and the 1959 Landrum‐Griffin amendments indicated that Congress’ intent in enacting 158(b)(1)(A) was not regulate internal union affairs. The Court affirmed the National Labor Relation Board’s decision that the union did not violate the National Relations Act by imposing fines against employees, because the statutory language and legislative history indicated that Congress did not intend to regulate the internal affairs of union.323

On December 11, 1967, in W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America v. Clark, Appellee Attorney General Clark filed a petition (that the Supreme Court later denied) with the Subversive Activities Control Board for an order requiring the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America to register as a Communist‐front organization under 50 U.S.C.S. § 786. Appellants, the W.E.B. Dubois Club, sued in the District Court for the District of Columbia to have the registration provisions declared unconstitutional in an attempt to bypass the Board as well as present the Attorney General and SACB from enforcing the registrations. The three‐judge District Court dismissed the complaint because they failed to exhaust administrative remedies; the Supreme Court found that Congress had provided the W.E.B. Dubois Club with a way for them to raise their constitutional claim after the Subversive Activities Control Board made findings of fact. The court declined the requirement to permit substitution of an injunctive proceeding for the civil proceeding which Congress had provided and affirmed the judgment that the District Court had dismissed the appellants’ complaint which alleged that the registration requirement was unconstitutional. The Court did so because important and difficult constitutional issues would be decided devoid of factual context and before it was clear that appellants were covered by the Internal Security Act of 1950, which provides a full evidentiary hearing which is to be held in public and a way for the appellants to raise their constitutional claims. Brother Floyd McKissick, along with William M. Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy, Melvin L. Wulf, David Rein, Monroe H. Freedman, represented appellants. 324

In 1968, Alpha Phi Alpha further solidified its stance on educational and civil rights matters. Alpha Phi Alpha’s Education Foundation rebranded their efforts under the title “Stay‐in‐High‐ School, Go‐to‐College,” urging chapters to circulate scholarship information among junior high school students. The Foundation also considered offering “Alpha Outreach” programs as a general organizational program, rather than an individual chapter program.325 The Eastern Regional Convention of Alpha Phi Alpha supported the proposal of one of its members to get Congress to declare a national holiday in honor of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.326 In relation to this, one issue of the Sphinx is a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as such it includes several writings and speeches given by the late brother and/or written in his honor and it details his life and the various civil rights efforts of which he stood at the forefront.327

The Public Policy Committee submitted a “Statement on Public Policy,” stating that “For Alpha Phi Alpha, Black Power does not mean revolution by violence, nor the destruction of property, or the creation of a separate racist society . . . [r]ather it means the exercise of legitimate means to obtain control over the destiny of the black community by black people must be out utmost concern. It will come only through organization and concerted efforts.”328 Instead of supporting violence, therefore, the Fraternity supports “legislation which has as its purpose the maintenance of law and order, and the protection of all citizens. At the same time, we insist that all laws be applied justly and impartially, and without restriction.”329 The Fraternity also turned its attention to the dismal poverty statistics that plague the nation, particularly citizens of color. They are doing so by demanding that Congress change poverty law and adjust the welfare system.330

General President Cole stressed that chapters of Alpha Phi Alpha remain involved with the community by supporting civil rights organizations and through life membership with the N.A.A.C.P.331 The Alpha Phi Alpha Building Foundation also began assisting in the development of a public housing complex in urban St. Louis in 1968.332 The Beta Alpha chapter at Morgan State College of Baltimore, Maryland awarded a scholarship to a local boy heading to college. They also sponsored a Christmas Party for underprivileged children and started an “Alpha Outreach Program” which seeks to give “inspiration and guidance to fourteen boys through sports events, cultural programs, education and pleasure trips, tutorial sessions, as well as other general socializing experiences.333

Two alumni chapters were noted in 1968 for their accomplishments in Detroit and Cleveland. Gamma Lambda Chapter (Detroit, Michigan), located on the fringe of one of the biggest public housing projects in the city, started a Youth Leadership Training Program that drew on the skills and resources of its brothers to “encourage, promote and develop the leadership potential among young African Americans in poverty areas.”334 Through this program, youth leaders have given a community Christmas party for neighborhood children that included donated toys and funds. Additionally, they organized a service core to aid the elderly.335 A detailed explanation of the program and was included in the magazine in hopes that other chapters would have a desire to replicate the program in their localities.336 Delta Alpha Lambda Chapter (Cleveland, Ohio) raised funds to assist families who “were burned out and suffered many hardships as a result of the violent acts.” This was a response to the “Granville Area Disturbance” in the city, which “witnessed shocking and irresponsible actions on the part of a few misguided individuals.”337 They have raised over $4,000 for the families began buying items of necessity for the families in the most critical circumstances.338 These actions were taken because the chapter wanted “to show the public  that violence on Cleveland’s east side does not represent the thinking of the average Negro, nor does it meet the approval of the average Negro.”339

Brother H.M. Price chartered Human Resources Clearinghouse, Inc. of Tallahassee, Florida, a social service agency that sought to “find worthy models and ‘father surrogates’ for eight to thirteen year‐old boys and to find and/or create jobs for teenage boys and girls.” Many Alpha brothers made financial donations to support this program.340 Brother James Frazier was appointed as Special Assistant to the Chairman of Equal Employment Opportunity of the Civil Service Commission, a position in which he served as the Chairman’s principal adviser in assuring minority‐group members have equal opportunity for employment, utilization, training and advancement in the Federal service.341

In 1968, Matthew J. Perry and Brother Ernest A. Finney litigated Brown v. South Carolina State Board of Education. This was a class action in which plaintiffs (including Brown), by their amended complaint, and the United States, plaintiff‐intervenor, by its complaint in intervention, sought to enjoin the implementation of Act. No. 297 (1963) of the South Carolina General Assembly. The Act provides for the payment of scholarship grants to qualified school children in the State who desire to attend private schools in the State. The Court held that Act 297 was unconstitutional and that a review of the record, including the historical background of the Act, revealed that the purpose, motive, and effect of the Act was to unconstitutionally circumvent the requirement first enunciated in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The Court ordered that the defendants, their members, officers, agents, servants, employees and successors in office and all those who were acting or may act in concert or participation with them, were permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited from enforcing or seeking to enforce by any means the provisions of Act 297 of the 1963 Session of the South Carolina Legislature.342

In 1968, Brother Tureaud litigated Poindexter v. Louisiana Financial Assistance Commission before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. That case involved a class action suit filed by African American public school children and their parents. The claim attacked the constitutionality of certain Louisiana statutes that established a system of state tuition grants for children attending private, non‐sectarian elementary schools on the ground that the grants were given to maintain an unconstitutional segregated school system supported by state funds.343

In 1968, Jesse H. Queen, Edward S. Christenberry, Brother Tureaud, William Bennett Turner, Louis Berry, Murphy W. Bell, and Marion Overton White, represented plaintiffs in the case Conley v. Lake Charles School Board before the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. When Conley sued the Lake Charles School Board, the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ordered the school board to implement a “freedom of choice plan” in which African‐ American students would be able to choose which school to attend, without having to worry about racial discrimination. However, Conley appealed this decision arguing that the “freedom of choice plan” only allowed white students to change from all‐African American schools to schools with a predominantly white population, and thereby undermined the unitary school system plan. Upon review in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that, while the “freedom of choice plan” may not be working in other areas of the country, the practice was slow, but considerable progress in its goal of creating a unitary system.344

In 1968, Franklin E. White and Brother Tureaud, for plaintiffs, litigated the case Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board before the Eastern District Court of Louisiana in the Fifth Circuit Court. When Moore sued the Tangipahoa Parish School Board, the Eastern District Court of Louisiana ordered the defendants to submit to the court a desegregation plan to be put into effect for the 1969‐1970 school year, calling for the assignment of students by the adoption of geographic attendance zones, or pairing of classes, and a plan for the assignment of teachers, as well as supervisory personnel, on a non‐discriminatory basis. Upon review by the Fifth Circuit Court, the Court ruled that, in light of decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Green v. New Kent County and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Adams v. Matthews, the defendants were to submit to the court a plan to be put into effect when classes commenced for the 1969‐1970 school  year. Such plan should be devised in a manner that no school now operated by the Parish shall be attended only by students of one race. Finally, the defendants were also required to devise and present a plan for the assignment of teachers, as well as principals on a non‐discriminatory basis, based on the assignment plan for students.345

In 1968, Jack Greenberg, Brother Tureaud, Louis Berry, and Jack P. F. Gremillion litigated the case Jones v. Caddo Parish School Board before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Jones and other teachers brought lawsuits to implement faculty integration in school districts in Louisiana. The teachers involved in the case filed a motion for summary reversal and for injunction pending appeal. Upon review in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court denied the motions and suggested that Jones and the other teachers dismiss the appeals and “concentrate their efforts in working out the method of obtaining substantial compliance administratively with the appellate court.” The Court cited the Rapides and Evangeline Parish cases and the Caddo and Madison Parish cases in their decision.346

Brother Floyd McKissick represented plaintiff Morris Grossner in the 1968 Grossner v. Trustees of Columbia University case. Grossner and others for whom he purported to speak conducted “sit‐ins” in four of the university’s buildings and the university president’s office uninterruptedly for a week, in an attempt to bring about a discussion and negotiation of structural and policy changes within the university, until forcibly removed. Grossner and four other students, the pastor of a church near the University, a chapter president of the Congress of Racial Equality, an alumnus, and lecturer in the College and Graduate Faculties, charged that the president called in the police who, without any provocation by the plaintiffs, utilized excessive and unnecessary force, by brutally and inhumanely assaulting and beating them, to eject them from the buildings. In response to disciplinary proceedings arising, or threat of, plaintiffs brought their action against the trustees and president. The Grossner’s first “cause of action,” was to enjoin the University disciplinary proceedings and declare void the general statute of the University announcing its disciplinary powers and the second to charge that the 700‐odd people arrested the morning of April 30th committed no illegal acts, yet were facing criminal charges because they resisted an invasion of their University and an uncontrolled exercise of violence. The third “cause of action” added that defendant Hogan had dual roles as District Attorney of New York County and Trustee of the University which would deny equal protection and due process if the proceedings were not enjoined and the fourth was that the plaintiffs reiterated the charges of violence and police brutality that may occur in further acts of peaceful protest. A fifth “cause of action” charge was that the police take‐over of the university was in violation  of the university community and integrity of the institution, and the sixth “cause of action” charge was to the University structure that violated the constitutional rights of its members.347

In 1968, Brother John Winfred Walker was on brief in Daniel v. Paul. This case involved a suit in equity for injunctive relief under public accommodations provisions of Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Eighth Circuit held that a recreational facility used for swimming, boating, miniature golfing, or dancing was not a covered establishment under Civil Rights Act where the facility was located on a country road and was not close to any state or federal highway. In his efforts to vindicate African American’s rights, General Counsel Morris M. Hatchett litigated State v. Dowe in 1968. There, an African American defendant, Willie Dowe, was convicted of robbery and appealed. He contended that his indictment and trial were improper because African Americans were systematically excluded from participation in the grand jury that found the indictment and the petit jury that was empanelled at trial. The Supreme Court of Missouri, nonetheless, affirmed Dowe’s conviction.348

In 1969, the General Secretary addressed the student unrest and activity at Cornell University. He claimed that the “sit‐in” occurred as a result of a “year of frustrated attempts by black students to have a meaningful dialogue with the University.” Despite the rumor that “black students took over the student union at gunpoint,” Young says that “weapons were brought into the building only after dear was generated on both sides and manifested in repeated threats of violence against African American students, and an assault by a group of Fraternity men, of the other persuasion, during the occupation.”349 The General President, Ernest N. Morial, recommended that the Fraternity join with the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History to convene a national conference on African American history and culture.350 During the General Convention held at Texas Southern University in Houston, the Fraternity sponsored a Job Interview Day during which Brothers representing fifty employers interviewed more than 200 job seekers in the Houston area.351 The new public policy statement adopted at the most recent General Convention began by saying that: “Almost every statement of public policy since the beginning of the Fraternity has been an announcement that we are not only advocates of the proper use of BLACK POWER to win full citizenship in America, but WE ARE BLACK POWER.”352

In The Sphinx, in “First Fraternity,” Brother G. Alx. Galvin wrote of the legal support the Fraternity has offered the race, through the actions of Thurgood Marshall and their support of the N.A.A.C.P. legal fund, as well as contributing to the defense of the Scottsboro boys, the Henderson dining car case, and Martin Luther King’s Montgomery campaign.353 Galvin also claims that the national fraternity has given over 76,000 scholarships to date.354 Finally, concerning measures that Alpha Phi Alpha took as a whole, the Fraternity announced an essay contest (with monetary prizes for the winners) on the subject of “Black Power: A Creative force in America’s Complete Development.”355 In one of the 1969 issues of The Sphinx, there was a positive emphasis on Black Power.356 One of the last pages in this issue was a provocative ad for the Legal Defense Fund of the N.A.A.C.P. which reads “On August 25, 1969 the United States Government broke its promise to the children of Mississippi.” The ad then detailed the facts of the case that the legal group plans to pursue and asks for a donation from the reader to support the continuing fight for equal education rights.357

At the college level, Nu Chapter (Lincoln University) successfully ran an “Alpha Outreach” program that aimed at improving African American communities by means of education. For the program, brothers volunteered to tutor children on Saturdays.358 Alumni chapters in 1969 raised both funds and awareness in an effort  to lift local communities out of poverty and provide greater employment opportunities. The Alpha Wives of Washington, D.C. held an annual luncheon that raised funds for the special charities of the group, which include a home for temporary wards of the District of Columbia, Stoddard Baptist Home for the Aged, the Urban League, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and a Children’s Hospital.359 This group (the wives of the Mu Lambda Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha) also collected gifts to distribute to the underprivileged children of Meriwether Home, which houses temporary wards of the district.360 Theta Lambda Chapter (Dayton, Ohio), along with Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, sponsored a “Job Opportunity Day” at three local high schools. At these events, twenty‐seven companies conducted on site interviews with the students. The overall program was aimed directly at graduating seniors that do not plan to attend college and will be looking for full‐time employment. The students were provided counseling on how to seek employment, including proper dress attire and positive attitude.361 The program received praise from the Secretary of Labor—George P. Shultz—and Congressman Charles W. Whalen Jr.362 The chapter also sponsored a little league team.363

Several brothers were recognized in 1969 for their individual accomplishments. For example, the newly elected General President, Bro. Ernest N. “Dutch” Morial, was the first African American to be elected to the Louisiana State Legislature, as well as being the first to service as Assistant United States Attorney in the Attorney General’s office in Louisiana.364 President Nixon appointed Brother William H. Brown, III as a member and Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.365 Brother Howard Bennett, acting in his position as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for civil rights, headed a team of investigators that toured military bases and interviewed service men to assess the status of interracial relations in the United States military. They concluded that “although racial unrest may be subsiding in American society, it is on the rise in the military.” Upon analyzing their findings, the group of investigators proposed that the military institute an open forum for airing complaints.366 Brother Arthur D. Shores was elected as a City Council member in Birmingham, marking the first time that an African American was elected to a city governing position in the city’s history.367 This brother had been active in the civil rights movement of the city for many years. In 1963, his house was bombed because he took park in negotiations that ended many segregation practices in the city. He also filed “court suits which struck down a city ordinance that called for zoning of white and African American property and allowed the first African American student to be enrolled in the University of Alabama in 1957.”368 Lastly, three brothers—James A. McLendon, James Y. Carter, and Lewis A.M. Caldwell—were members of the state legislature. They, along with other African American legislators made history by creating a “black caucus” which “developed a program designed to solve the problems peculiar to the communities they represent.” Using filibustering, the legislators overcame differing partisan ties to ensure that the needs of the African American community were being addressed by the General Assembly.369

In 1969, Matthew J. Perry, Brother Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Earl W. Coblyn, Mordecai Johnson, Jack Greenberg, and Henderson Moore litigated DeLee v. School District No. 3 in the District Court of Dorchester County, South Carolina. This action was filed asking for relief from the constitutional deprivation and diminutions imposed upon Van H. DeLee and Elijah DeLee and members of their class, allegedly resulting from the operation of a school system on a racially segregated basis. The Court ordered the transfer of African American students to another school. Following that order, there was harassment at the school, even at the hands of the petitioners. The DeLees, as a class, asked the court for relief, and because the court would not give the exact relief asked, refused to obey the orders of the court. DeLee appealed from the court’s order. They then asked for further relief or modification of that order, although the case was on appeal. District Judge Hemphill held that it was without jurisdiction of such motion. The motion was dismissed.370

In 1969, Norman Amaker, Brother Tureaud, A. M. Trudeau, Jr., and Jack Greenberg litigated the Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board case. As part of an ongoing desegregation order, and in response to an injunction granted to enjoin segregation in defendant school district, the state legislatures passed emergency legislation, La. Rev. Sat. Ann 17:3501 et seq., to allow public schools to convert to private schools. The trial court issued an injunction to enjoin defendant school district from engaging in practice of desegregation. The court found that while the language of the Act was not discriminatory on its face, that when read in context of the legislative intent and history, it was clear that the Act was an attempt by state legislators to contravene the desegregation order. Because the substance of the Act had the effect of continuing racial segregation it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The outcome of the case is the court found that the statutory scheme was unconstitutional and issued a temporary injunction to enjoin the enforcement.371

A year later, in 1970, Brother Tureaud, A. M. Trudeau, Jr., Jack Greenberg, and colleagues represented appellants in Hall v. St. Helena Parish School Board before the Fifth Circuit Court. The District Court had accepted a plan submitted by the school board and an appeal was filed. The Court of Appeals held that the school board’s desegregation plan—which required the closing of two all African American elementary schools in one year and assignment of students to traditionally white schools, was invalid due to failure to meet implicit constitutional standards and an explicit court mandate requiring abandonment of freedom of choice plans. The district court ordered the St. Helena Parish School Board, as well as the Department of Education and the United States Department of Health, Education, and Wellness, to develop a plan that would ensure the operation of the parish school system on a unitary, non‐discriminatory basis. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the HEW plan to come into action by the commencement of fall term in July 1970 and ordered the school board to take appropriate action before the opening of the schools in July to carry out the other provisions of the Court’s order.372

In 1969, Franklin F. White and Tureaud, litigated the case Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board before the United States Fifth Circuit Appellate Court. The defendant in this case appealed with a petition for an extension of time in which to comply with the order to review a desegregation plan prepared by the Educational Resource Center on School Desegregation for the unitary operation of the schools within this school board. The defendants argued that the School Board should be relieved of its duties to implement a desegregation plan until the Fifth Circuit Court ruled on pending school desegregation cases. The United States Fifth Circuit Appellate Court denied the motion by stating that “the end of school desegregation litigation is not in sight and there is no time to further delay the planning for the 1969‐1970 school year.” The Court cited cases such as Green v. County School Board of New Kent County and Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School District to justify the denial of a motion for an extension.373

In 1969, Brother Ernest A. Finney, Jr. and colleagues litigated Whittenberg v. Greenville County School District before the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. This action sought desegregation of certain school districts in South Carolina. After hearings, decrees were entered in thirteen of such actions and,  for some time, the school involved in those action operated in conformity with the decrees. Nine of the actions did not proceed to decree. Whittenberg found that the outstanding decrees and plans of operation by the school districts did not comply with constitutional standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Green Case. The Court felt that because the school districts varied considerably in terms of composition and character, they required individual appraisal.

Chief Judge Martin held that defendant school districts would be ordered to promptly submit to Office of Education of Department of Health, Education and Welfare, their existing methods of operation, along with any changes proposed by them under previously issued order of the court, and should seek to develop, in conjunction with experts of such Office, an acceptable plan of operation, conformable to constitutional rights of Whittenberg, and consonant in timing and method with practical and administrative problems faced by the particular district.374

In 1969, a number of attorneys, including Nils R. Douglas, W. C. Falknheiner, Jack Greenberg, Gus Voltz, Brother Tureaud, and Fred Jackson, litigated the case Cleveland v. Union Parish School Board before the Fifth Circuit Court. The appellee school board presented a motion for hearing en banc, but the Fifth Circuit Court denied it. Circuit Judges Wisdom, Brown and Goldberg found that the school board had been “non‐compliant” in their attempts to implement a desegregation plan. With the use of statistical evidence regarding school composition based on race, the Court established that the evidence points plainly to the fact that in a freedom of choice system white students will simply not attend a school having an African American principal and all‐African American facilities. With this in mind, the Court then ordered the school boards to immediately submit a desegregation plan that “promises realistically to work now,” with the final product being a system without white or negro schools, but just schools.375

In 1969, Brother John Winfred Walker litigated Jackson v. Marvell School District No. 22. There, the Eighth Circuit held that public opposition to a school desegregation plan was not a valid consideration and that where separate—predominately white and all‐ Negro schools—were maintained, a freedom‐of‐choice plan was not constitutionally permissible. Also in 1969, Brother Walker was on brief in Freeman v. Gould Special School District of Lincoln County, Arkansas. In that case, African American school teachers sought to compel the school district to renew annual teaching contracts. The Eighth Circuit held that the teachers who failed to show racial discrimination were not entitled to relief under civil rights statutes.

Later that year, Brother Walker provided counsel in Haney v. County Board of Education of Sevier County Arkansas. In that case, parents and children sought to enjoin the continued maintenance of racially segregated system of public education in Sevier County, Arkansas. The Eighth Circuit held that where various reorganized districts reflected a bi‐racial system of education by district lines and school district reorganization took place under color of state law; also, the court found that de jure segregation was established despite claims that there was no intentional gerrymandering for racial reasons.

1 THE SPHINX, Feb. 1960, at 30.

2 Lionel H. Newson, Why a New Theme and Slogan, THE SPHINX, May 1960, at 32‐33.

3 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1960, at 9.

4 Id. at 12.

5 Marcus Neustdater, Southwest Regional Conference Packed with Activity, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1960, at 13‐14.

6 Robert Eugene Hatchel, President‐Elect Hale Begins Work, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1960, at 7.

7 Report Committee on Human Relations, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1960, at 11‐13.

8 Id. at 14.

9 Id. at 14.

10 Id.

11 Id. at 17.

12 Alfred T. Kynard, Epsilon Tau Lambda Chapter Brings Yuletide Joy to Destitute Children, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1960, at 31.

13 Alfred T. Kynard, Epsilon Tau Lambda Chapter Sponsors Cultural Enrichment Programs, THE SPHINX, May 1960, at 37.

14 News Items, THE SPHINX, May 1960, at 18.

15 Scholarship…How Can I Help??…How Can I Benefit??, THE SPHINX, May 1960, at 36.

16 THE SPHINX, May 1960, at 37.

17 THE SPHINX, supra note 3, at 30.

18 Id.

19 Brooklyn Chapter Aids Southern Students, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1960, at 12.

20 THE SPHINX, Dec. 1960, at 13.

21 LeRoy W. Jeffries, The Amazing Mr. Rumford, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1960, at 19, 21.

22 W. Wesley Whetstone, Panorama of Service, THE SPHINX, May 1960, at 22.

23 Id. at 23.

24 THE SPHINX, supra note 3, at 16.

25 THE SPHINX, supra note 16, at 17.

26 Scholarship Our First Defense, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1960, at 25.

27 Ramon Scruggs, The Swimming Pool Incident, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1960, at 6‐7.

28 Aaron v. Tucker, 186 F. Supp. 913, 915 (E.D. Ark. 1960), rev’d sub nom., Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798 (8th Cir. 1961).

29 Id.

30 Id. at 931.

31 Id. at 932.

32 Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798 (8th Cir. 1961).

33 Bush v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960). 34 Bush v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 191 F. Supp. 871 (E.D. La. 1961). 35 Bush v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 230 F. Supp. 509 (E.D. La. 1963). 36 Coke v. City of Atlanta, 184 F. Supp. 579 (N.D. Ga. 1960).

37 Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cty., 185 F. Supp. 450, 450 (N.D. Fla. 1960), rev’d by, 306 F.2d 862 (5th Cir. 1962).

38 Id. at 453.

39 Id. at 454.

40 Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cty., 306 F.2d 862, 863 (5th Cir. 1962).

41 Id. at 868.

42 Id. at 869.

43 Boson v. Rippy, 275 F.2d 850 (5th Cir. 1960).

44 Boson v. Rippy, 285 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1960).

45 Boman v. Birmingham Transit Co., 280 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1960).

46 Hill v. Sch. Bd. of Norfolk, 282 F.2d 473 (4th Cir. 1960).

47 Farley v. Turner, 281 F.2d 131, 131–32 (4th Cir. 1960).

48 Id.

49 McCoy v. Greensboro City Bd. of Ed., 283 F.2d 667, 668 (4th Cir. 1960).

50 Id.

51 McCoy v. Greensboro City Bd. of Ed., 179 F. Supp. 745, 749 (M.D.N.C.) rev’d, 283 F.2d 667 (4th Cir. 1960).

52 McCoy v. Greensboro City Bd. of Ed., 283 F.2d 667, 668 (4th Cir. 1960).

53 Id. at 669.

54 Id. at 669.

55 McCoy v. Greensboro City Bd. of Ed., 179 F. Supp. 745, 749 (M.D.N.C.) rev’d, 283 F.2d 667 (4th Cir. 1960).

56 Id.

57 McCoy v. Greensboro City Bd. of Ed., 283 F.2d 667, 668 (4th Cir. 1960).

58 Id. at 669.

59 Id.

60 Id. at 670.

61 Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 181 F. Supp. 37 (E.D. La., 1960).

62 Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U.S. 293 (1961).

63 Davis v. Williams, 364 U.S. 803 (1960).

64 Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. v. Bush, 364 U.S. 803 (1960).

65 CHARLES H. WESLEY, ALPHA PHI ALPHA: A DEVELOPMENT IN COLLEGE LIFE 469 (16th ed. 1996).

66 Id.

67 Id.

68 Id.

69 Id. at 481.

70 Id. at 482.

71 Id.

72 William H. Hale, A Return to the Future, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1961, at 13.

73 Milus J. Graham, Needed: A New Frontier, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1961, at 8‐9.

74 THE SPHINX, May 1961, at 9.

75 The Alpha Phi Alpha Presidency, THE SPHINX, Oct.1961, at 21‐24.

76 THE SPHINX, Feb. 1961, at 20.

77 Gen. President, General President William Hale Requests Your Presence, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1961, at 7.

78 Lewis O. Swingler, Democracy’s Fulfillment: Our Continuing Challenge, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1962, at 11.

79 THE SPHINX, supra note 75, at 24.

80 Alvin Thomas, Beta Alpha Chapter Strives, THE SPHINX, May 1961, at 26.

81 THE SPHINX, Dec. 1961, at 16.

82 Clifton R. Jones, Alpha Phi Alpha’s Educational Program, and Individual Chapter Responsibility, THE SPHINX, May 1961, at 10.

83 Id.

84 Id.

85 Id. at 11.

86 Id.

87 THE SPHINX, supra note 75, at 25.

88 Nu News, THE SPHINX, May 1961, at 9.

89 J. Wayman Henry Jr., Striving Forward to Success, THE SPHINX, May 1961, at 14.

90 Id. at 14.

91 THE SPHINX, May 1961, at 18.

92 Id. at 23.

93 Allen A. Hancock, Zeta Gamma Lambda, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1961, at 21.

94 Improvement and Instruction, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1961, at 12‐13.

95 Roy E. Hadley, Undergraduate Honored, THE SPHINX, May 1961, at 30.

96 WESLEY, supra note 64, at 477.

97 Id.

98 Bd. of Pub. Welfare v. Myers, 167 A.2d 765 (Md. 1961).

99 Turner v. Randolph, 195 F. Supp. 677 (W.D. Tenn. 1961).

100 Wheeler v. Bd. of Educ., 196 F. Supp. 71 (M.D.N.C. 1961).

101 Holmes v. Danner, 191 F. Supp. 94 (M.D. Ga. 1961).

102 Morrow v. Bd. of Educ., 195 F. Supp. 109 (W.D.N.C. 1961).

103 La. State Bd. of Educ. v. Allen, 287 F.2d 32 (5th Cir. 1961).

104 People ex rel. Cavers v. Grasheim, 214 N.Y.S.2d 936 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961).

105 People ex rel. Cavers v. Grasheim, 28 Misc. 2d 102, 214 N.Y.S.2d 936 (Sup. Ct.), aff’d, 13

A.D.2d 999, 217 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1961).

106 Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401 (5th Cir. 1961).

107 Cummings v. City of Charleston, 288 F.2d 817 (4th Cir. 1961).

108 East Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd. v. Davis, 287 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1961).

109 La. State Bd. of Educ. v. Allen, 287 F.2d 32 (5th Cir. 1961).

110 Mapp v. Bd. of Educ., 295 F.2d 617 (6th Cir. 1961).

111 Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798 (8th Cir. 1961)

112 Aaron v. Tucker, 186 F. Supp. 913, 915 (E.D. Ark. 1960), rev’d sub nom., Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798 (8th Cir. 1961).

113 Id. at 931.

114 Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798, 800 (8th Cir. 1961).

115 St. Helena Par. Sch. Bd. v. Hall, 287 F.2d 376, 377 (5th Cir. 1961).

116 Taylor v. Bd. of Educ., 288 F.2d 600 (2nd Cir. 1961).

117 Taylor v. Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 36 (2nd Cir. 1961).

118 Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715 (1961).

119 Pierce v. La Vallee, 293 F.2d 233, 234 (2d Cir. 1961).

120 Id.

121 Scholarships, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1962, at 20.

122 Id.

123 Id.

124 Id.

125 Id.

126 Id.

127 Cliff Mackay, Eastern Regional, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1962, at 21.

128 Editorial, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1962, at 18.

129 Id.

130 Otto W. Duncan, Jr., Beta Phi Standing High, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1962, at 26.

131 Id.

132 THE SPHINX, Feb. 1962, at 26.

133 Id. at 27.

134 Frank A. Doe, Educational Activities, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1962, at 28.

135 Id. at 30.

136 Thomas Barnette, Fellowship Breakfast, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1962, at 26.

137 Otha N. Brown, Jr., Zeta Phi Lambda Leads the Way in New England, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1962, at 27.

138 THE SPHINX, supra note 131, at 28.

139 Id. at 9.

140Id., at 25.

141 Adams v. City of New Orleans, 208 F. Supp. 427 (E.D. La. 1962).

142 City of New Orleans v. Adams, 321 F.2d 493, 493‐94 (5th Cir. 1963).

143 Id. at 494.

144 City of New Orleans v. Adams, 321 F.2d 493 (5th Cir. 1963).

145 Wright v. Rockefeller, 211 F. Supp. 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1962).

146 Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52, 56 (1964).

147 Black v. Bd. of Ed. of Amityville, N.Y., 31 F.R.D. 44 (E.D.N.Y. 1962).

148 Branche v. Bd. of Ed. of Town of Hempstead, Sch. Dist. No. 1, 204 F. Supp. 150, 153 (E.D.N.Y. 1962).

149 Clark v. Thompson, 204 F. Supp. 30 (S.D. Miss. 1962).

150 Christian v. Jemison, 303 F.2d 52, 54 (5th Cir. 1962).

151 Id. at 55.

152 Goss v. Bd. of Educ., 301 F.2d 164 (6th Cir. 1962).

153 Northcross v. Bd. of Educ., 302 F.2d 818 (6th Cir. 1962).

154 Ross v. Dyer, 203 F. Supp. 124, 125 (S.D. Tex.) rev’d, 312 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1962)

155 Ross v. Dyer, 312 F.2d 191, 191 (5th Cir. 1962).

156 Id. at 192.

157 Watson v. City of Memphis, 303 F.2d 863 (6th Cir. 1962).

158 WESLEY, supra note 64, at 482.

159 Civil Rights Conference, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1963, at 21.

160 THE SPHINX, Feb. 1963, at 28.

161 Belford V. Lawson, Alpha Phi Alpha and the Civil Rights Revolution, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1963, at 5.

162 Id.

163 Id. at 5, 8.

164 Wesley, The History of Alpha Phi Alpha .

165 Whitney M. Young, A Challenge – To Alpha Men, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1963, at 12.

166 Id.

167 Id. at 12‐13.

168 THE SPHINX, May 1963, at 12‐ 13.

169 Herbert C. Johnson, Rho Chapter Holds Sixth Annual Career Conference, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1963, at 28.

170 Id. at 28.

171 Robert T. Flynn, News from Beta, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1963, at 20.

172 John A Feaster, Epsilon Upsilon Lambda, THE SPHINX, May 1963, at 28.

173 Willie E. Lindsey, Brothers Open Convalescent Center, THE SPHINX, May 1963, at 29. 174 Vendon Beck, Progress of Epsilon Phi Lambda Chapter, THE SPHINX, May 1963, at 32. 175 Joel C. Marable, Eta Mu Lambda, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1963, at 32.

176 Higher Horizons for Motor‐City Youth, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1963, at 23.

177 Id.

178 Id.

179 Id. at 5.

180 O. Wilson Winters, Convention Echoes, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1963, at 9.

181 Id. at 9.

182 March on Boston, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1963, at 19.

183 C. A. D., March on Washington, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1963, at 17.

184 Johnson v. Virginia, 83 S. Ct. 1053 (1963).

185 Alpha Men Active in Civil Rights, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1963, at 19.

186 Application of Vetere, 41 Misc. 2d 200, 201, 245 N.Y.S.2d 682 (Sup. Ct. 1963), aff’d as

modified sub nom. Vetere v. Mitchell, 21 A.D.2d 561, 251 N.Y.S.2d 480 (1964), aff’d sub

nom. Vetere v. Allen, 15 N.Y.2d 259, 206 N.E.2d 174 (1965).

187 Vetere v. Mitchell, 251 N.Y.S.2d 480, 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964).

188 Id. at 483‐84.

189 Vetere v. Mitchell, 21 A.D.2d 561, 251 N.Y.S.2d 480 (1964), aff’d sub nom. Vetere v. Allen, 15 N.Y.2d 259, 206 N.E.2d 174 (1965).

190 United States v. Davis, 323 F.2d 663 (5th Cir. 1963).

191 Holmes v. Bank Am. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n, 216 Cal. App. 2d 529 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1963).

192 Barthe v. City of New Orleans, 219 F. Supp. 788 (E.D. La. 1963).

193 Bynum v. Schiro, 219 F. Supp. 204 (E.D. La. 1963).

194 McCain v. Davis, 217 F. Supp. 661 (E.D. La. 1963).

195 Davis v. East Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd., 219 F. Supp. 876 (E.D. La. 1963). 196 Davis v. East Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd., 269 F. Supp. 60 (5th Cir. 1967). 197 Davis v. East Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd., 372 F.2d 949 (5th Cir. 1967).

198 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1964, at 14.

199 Frank W. Morris, From the Eastern Vice President, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1964, at 22.

200 Id.

201 Eddie V. Easley, Motivation for Youth Project Report, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1964, at 26.

202 THE SPHINX, Feb. 1964, at 20.

203Id., at 27.

204 James Crayton, Beta Upsilon, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1964, at 36.

205 Id.

206 Ronald E. Butler, Brothers of Nu are on the Move, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1964, at 27.

207 Bob Brischetto, Epsilon Sigma Chapter, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1964, at 36.

208 Carroll Jordan, Alpha Chi Lambda Leads the Way in Toledo, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1964, at 30.

209 Thomas L. Gentry, Epsilon Lambda Activities, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1964, at 32.

210 Mark C. Sims, Houston Alpha Present Annual Toy Dance, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1964, at 39.

211 Douglas Hutchins, Delta Nu Chapter, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1964, at 27.

212 Earnest L. Wallace, Alpha Lambda Sigma Recognizes Students, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1964, at 32.

213 WESLEY, supra note 64, at 489.

214 Id. at 488‐89.

215 Id. at 509.

216 Balaban v. Rubin, 14 N.Y.2d 193, 199 N.E.2d 375 (1964).

217 Bd. of Higher Ed. of City of N.Y. v. Carter, 14 N.Y.2d 138, 199 N.E.2d 141 (1964).

218 Banks v. Alabama, 170 So.2d 417 (Ala. 1964).

219 Blocker v. Bd. of Ed. of Manhasset, N.Y., 226 F. Supp. 208 (E.D.N.Y. 1964). 220 Blocker v. Bd. of Ed. of Manhasset, N.Y., 229 F. Supp. 709 (E.D.N.Y. 1964). 221 Bell v. Ga. Dental Ass’n, 231 F. Supp. 299 (N.D. Ga. 1964).

222 Craggett v. Bd. of Ed. of Cleveland City Sch. Dist., 234 F. Supp. 381 (N.D. Ohio 1964).

223 James v. Carnegie Pub. Library, 235 F. Supp. 911 (D.S.C. 1964).

224 McCoy v. La. State Bd. of Ed., 229 F. Supp. 735 (E.D. La. 1964).

225 Randall v. Sumter Sch. Dist. No. 2, 232 F. Supp 786 (D.S.C. 1964).

226 Stell v. Savannah‐Chatham Cty. Bd. of Educ., 333 F.2d 55 (5th Cir. 1964).

227 La. State Bd. of Educ. v. Baker, 339 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1964).

228 Curtis v. Tozer, 374 S.W.2d 557 (Mo. Ct. App. 1964).

229 Smith v. City of Birmingham, 168 So. 2d 35, 36 (Ala. Ct. App. 1964).

230 Id. at 37.

231 Id.

232 Middlebrooks v. City of Birmingham, 170 So.2d 424 (Ala. 1964).

233 Cobb v. Balkcom, 339 F.2d 95 (5th Cir. 1964).

234 McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964).

235 Id.

236 Oscar W. Ritchie, From the Director of Educational Activities, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1965, at 10.

237 Id.

238 Laurence T. Young, From … The General Secretary’s Desk, THE SPHINX, May 1965, at 14.

239 THE SPHINX, Nov. 1965, at 18.

240 Alpha Phi Alpha’s Public Policy, THE SPHINX, Nov. 1965, at 14.

241 Id.

242 Id.

243 Id.

244 WESLEY, supra note 64, at 492.

245 Id. at 491.

246 Id. at 496.

247 Charles H. Wesley, Alpha’s Contribution to Education, THE SPHINX, May 1965, at 6.

248 Id.

249 Id.

250 Id.

251 THE SPHINX, Dec. 1965.

252 Earle B. Jones, Delta Nu Chapter, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1965, at 29.

253 Id. at 29.

254 Robert Dillard, Beta Gamma on the Move, THE SPHINX, May 1965, at 39.

255 Id.

256 Id.

257 William S. Young, Gamma Theta Lambda, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1965, at 26.

258 Id. at 26‐27.

259 Id. at 27.

260 Robert L. Brown, Onward and Upward, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1965, at 31.

261 Id.

262 Harold Winfrey, Alpha Delta Lambda, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1965, at 35. 263 John F. Henson, Beta Lambda Chapter, THE SPHINX, May 1965, at 40. 264 Willie J. Taggart, Alpha Leads March, THE SPHINX, May 1965, at 44. 265 Felix L. Goodwin, Eta Psi Lambda, THE SPHINX, May 1965, at 52.

266 Felix L. Goodwin, Eta Psi Lambda, THE SPHINX, Nov. 1965, at 21.

267 Booker T. Hogan, Jr., Beta Psi Lambda Chapter, THE SPHINX, May 1965, at 53.

268 Clemons v. City of Birmingham, 171 So.2d 456 (Ala. 1965).

269 Lebeauf v. State Bd. of Educ. of La, 244 F. Supp. 256 (E.D. La. 1965).

270 Rogers v. Paul, 345 F.2d 117 (8th Cir. 1965).

271 Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356 (1965).

272 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1966, at 24.

273 Our Public Policy, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1966, at 15.

274 Id.

275 Id. at 16.

276 Id.

277 Id.

278 Otha N. Brown, A Case for Alpha Outreach: A New Concept of Go‐To High School, Go‐To College, THE SPHINX, May 1966, at 11.

279 Id.

280 Id. at 13.

281 Gamma Phi Brothers: Active Across Nation, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1966, at 22.

282 Id.

283 Id. at 22.

284 Brothers of A&T Off on the Right Foot, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1966, at 22.

285 Alpha Donates 41,000 Gift for Scholarships, THE SPHINX, May 1966, at 24.

286 Id.

287 Id.

288 Rho Lambda Growth Strong, THE SPHINX, May 1966, at 28.

289 THE SPHINX, Dec. 1966, at 20.

290 Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).

291 Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966).

292 Miller v. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 253 F. Supp. 552 (D.S.C. 1966).

293 Id. at 556.

294 Id.

295 Pennsylvania v. Brown, 260 F .Supp. 358 (E.D. Pa. 1966).

296 Id.

297 Williams v. Sumter Sch. Dist. No. 2, 255 F. Supp. 397, 397 (D.S.C. 1966).

298  Id.

299  Id.

300 Smith v. Bd. of Educ. of Morrilton Sch. Dist. No. 32, 365 F.2d 770 (8th Cir. 1966).

301 Cobb v. State, 152 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. 1966).

302 South Carolina v. Davidman, 250 F. Supp. 989 (D.S.C. 1966).

303 United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966).

304 United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966).

305 Our Public Policy, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1967, at 19.

306 Id. at 19‐20.

307 Id. at 20.

308 Id.

309 Id.

310 Id.

311 Theta Psi Lambda Decries Powell Removal, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1967, at 24.

312 New Boys Club for Zeta Brothers, THE SPHINX, Feb. 1967, at 29.

313 Grady E. Poulard, Who Can Save America?, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1967, at 25.

314 Amedee v. Fowler, 275 F. Supp. 659 (E.D. La. 1967)

315 Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd. v. Davis, 389 U.S. 840 (1967).

316 Pania v. City of New Orleans, 262 F. Supp. 651 (E.D. La. 1967)

317 United States v. Jefferson Cty. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 380 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1967)

318 Kelley v. Altheimer, Arkansas Sch. Dist., 378 F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1967).

319 Powell v. McCormack, 387 U.S. 933 (1967).

320 Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967)

321 Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 206 So. 2d 348 (Ala. 1967)

322 Hammond v. S.C. State Coll., 272 F. Supp. 947 (D.S.C. 1967)

323 NLRB v. Allis‐Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175 (1967)

324 W.E.B. DuBois Clubs v. Clark, 389 U.S. 309 (1967)

325 THE SPHINX, May 1968, at 39.

326 THE SPHINX, Oct. 1968 at 14.

327 Id.

328 Statement on Public Policy, THE SPHINX, Oct. 1968, at 45.

329 Id.

330 Id.

331 WESLEY, supra note 64, at 481.

332 Id. at 508..

333 Beta Alpha Chapter at Morgan State College of Baltimore, MD, THE SPHINX, May 1968, at 8.

334 Gamma Lambda Chapter: A Model Youth Program–Self Help Style, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1968 at 17.

335 Id. at 18.

336 Id. at 17‐18.

337 Elmer C. Collins, Delta Alpha Lambda’s Outstanding Project in Cleveland, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1968 at 19.

338 Id.

339 Id.

340 THE SPHINX, Dec. 1968 at 11.

341 Jesse F. Goodwin, James Frazier Gets High Office, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1968 at 13.

342 Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 296 F. Supp. 199 (D.S.C. 1968)

343 Poindexter v. La. Fin. Assistance Comm’n, 296 F. Supp. 686 (E.D. La. 1968).

344 Conley v. Lake Charles Sch. Bd., 293 F. Supp. 84 (W.D. La. 1968) 345 Moore v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd., 290 F. Supp. 96 (E.D. La. 1968) 346 Jones v. Caddo Par. Sch. Bd., 392 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1968)

347 Grossner v. Trs. of Columbia Univ., 287 F. Supp. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)

348 Daniel v. Paul, 393 U.S. 975 (1968)

349 Laurence T. Young, Alpha Workshop, THE SPHINX, May‐June 1969, at 42.

350 Ernest N. Morial, The General President Speaks, THE SPHINX, Oct.‐Nov. 1969, at 8.

351 Alpha’s Annual Job Conference Texas Southern University, THE SPHINX, October‐ November 1969 at 213 (In‐text citation indicated pg. 16).

352 THE SPHINX, Oct.‐Nov. 1969, at 36.

353 Brother G. Alex Gavin, First Fraternity, THE SPHINX, Oct.‐Nov. 1969.

354 Id.

355 THE SPHINX, May‐June 1969, at 7.

356 THE SPHINX, May‐June 1969.

357 THE SPHINX, Dec. 1969, at 43.

358 Why There’s An Alpha: Nu Chapter – Lincoln University – Oxford, PA, THE SPHINX, May‐June 1969, at 8.

359 Alpha Wives of Washington Hold Annual Benefit Luncheon, Card Party, THE SPHINX, May‐June 1969, at 37.

360 Washington D.C. Alpha Wives Christmas Party to Benefit Needy Children, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1969, at 23.

361 Alphas On The Move: Dayton, Ohio, THE SPHINX, Oct.‐Nov. 1969, at 8.

362 Id.

363 Id.

364 THE SPHINX, May‐June 1969, at 5.

365 Id. at 15.

366 Racial Unrest in the Military, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1969 at 30‐31.

367 Won Election in Birmingham, Alabama, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1969 at 32.

368 Id. at 32.

369 Alphas Make History: Illinois General Assembly, THE SPHINX, Dec. 1969 at 33.

370 DeLee v. Sch. Dist. No. 3, 306 F. Supp. 905 (D.S.C. 1969)

371 Hall v. St. Helena Par. Sch. Bd., 303 F. Supp. 1224 (E.D. La. 1969)

372 Hall v. St. Helena Par. Sch. Bd., 417 F.2d 801 (5th Cir. 1970)