Desegregating Private Higher

Education in the South

DUKE, EMORY, RICE,

TULANE, AND

VANDERBILT

Melissa Kean

LOUISIANA STATE L'\J]VEr~SITY PRESS tUATON ROUGE

(2008) 333 pp.

209 I PII~11C01llfS to Sho1.'e: The Early 19605

IV

At Tulane University, the search for Rufus Harris's successor began in 1959.

For the first time, the Board of Administrators authorized a faculty advi­sory committee to assist in the task, Jnd this committee saw desegregationas a major consideration.1J.tThe new president, they said, "should recognizethat durlng his tenure of officedesegregation will be onc of the crudal prob­lems facing educational institutions, private as \vell as public. He shouldbe capable of furnishing leadership to the Board, the faculty, the studentbody, the alumni and the general public in arriving at an equitable solutionof this problem which wi1lreflect credit on both the University and the re­gion."IJ':;President llarris's longtime secretary and close confidant KathrynDavis took the bold step of writing board chairman Joseph Jones with herO\vn thoughts on the matter . .MissDavis argued that the next head of Tulaneought to come from the ranks of Tulane's professoriate. The disad\"antagcsof bringing someone from outside were many, "not least of which would beto find someone acceptable to not only the South but also New Orleans. Notonly must he-and his wife \"...ho is a most important campus personality­be Jcccpted here but he and she must accept us and accept segregation anddrinking and Can11val(many people Jre against these things!) and yet go tochurch and kno\\-'how to handle themselves with these other things."IJ6

The Tulane board did not follow Miss Davis's advice, shrewd though itwas. They hired instead a man who was an ouLsider in almost every con-

Dl'segregatiux Pri'1'afe !-fiX/ICY Erlllcatio/J ill the South I 210

ceivable wayY7 }-I~rbertLongenecker was a northerner, a native of Penn­sylvania. A chemist, he was educC1tedentirely at Peru1State, where he re·ceived his B.s. in '1933, his master's in 1934, and his Ph.D. in biochemistryin 1936. He went abroad as a Nationall{esearch Council Fellow in the bio­

logical sciences, studying at the University of Liverpool, the University ofCologne, and Queen's University in Kingston, Canada. Longenecker taughtchemistry for eight years at the University of Pittsburgh, becoming dean ofresearch in the natural sciences in 1942.He held that position connurentlywith the deanship of Pitt's Graduate School from 1946 until 1955. lie cameto Tulane from the University of Illinois, .••..Ihere he was responsible for lheuniversity's professional schools in Chicago, including a graduate college,medicine, dentistry, nursing, social work, the University of Illinois hospi­tals, and related research institutesY~

Longenecker \vas a generation younger than Rufus Harris c:md hadrcached professional maturity in an environment that was far different fromthe one that nurtured his predecessor. He had spent his entire academic ca­reer in large, northern, public institutions. His style, for both good and ill,was that of a bureaucrat. The kind of personal leadership that had alwaysbeen the hallmark of small southern universities was not familiar to Lon­

genecker. Harris's total identification with Tulane was not to be repeated,was, in fact, probably not repeatable. Harris well understood the situationLongenecker was walking into and shared his thoughts in a letter he wroteon his last day in office. "I wish," Harris told his successor, "that I could ex­press some measure of the warm good wishes I have for YOll.1have everyconfidence in you and in your intent and ability to direct Tulane's coursewisely into another generation .... I do know the stumbling blocks ahead,and believe me, I will be rooting for YOll and will be on your side, and ahvaysavailable to you for anything YOll want of me."UQ

Longenecker hit those stumbling blocks the minute he set foot on cam­pus in April1960.1-w \Vith the New Orleans public scho()1sunder cOllrtorderto integrate in the fall and the city's business establishment (unlike Atlan­ta's) unwilling to stand up to segregationists in the state government, ra­cial tension \vas near a peak of hysteria.14I As the crisis unfolded, it becamea regular topic of discussion at Tulane board meetings. In May the Univer­sity Senate asked the board to make a statement about the need to preservepublic education in Ne\v Orleans. They refused., saying that "such a state­ment would be a disservice to the University and would have a detrimentalresult." TIwy \vere more amenable to another Senate request, however, andagreed to look into the possibility of setting up a school (segregated, of

211 I PIlS" Comes to Shove: The Early 1960s

course) for the children of Tulane staff, facuHy,and students if the New Or­leans public schools c1osed.142

Tulane administrators also spent much of May and June dancing to thetunc called by the South Louisiana Citizen's Council, which had been "reli­ably informed" that Tulane was violating state segregation laws by allow­ing black employees to LIse"white only" drinking and toilet facilities. Withoffhand menace, the council's executive director, Jack Ricau, professed thathe was trying to help out: "\Ve are anxious to hear from you-to know thatyou "vill correct conditions in these matters-so that we can assuage thosewho have complained of the violations."143This letter set off a barrage offact-finding on campus. Vice President and Comptroller Clarence Schepshad the business manager conduct a thorough census of which maids andcustodians used which toilets. Scheps wound up stymied-although thereseemed to be no problem with the employees, Tulane allowed black profes­sionals to eat lunch when they attended meetings on campus, which wasagainst the law. Despite counsel's repeated assurances that the Louisianalaw was certainly unconstitutional, Scheps ·was troubled that he could tellthe Citizen's Council only that Tulane \-vasin compliance with the spirit ofthe law.I""

Trouble came from another direction when Tulane students joined dem­onstrations and sit-ins organized by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)at New Orleans businesses. Although these sit-ins were not as successfulas others around the South and soon ended, public awareness that Tulanestudents were involved \vas cause for alarm. After one of these students,

Sydney Goldfinch, brought black friends to the snack bar at Tulane's Uni­versity Center, the administration began to compile dossiers on the stu­dents, threatened them with the loss of their graduate school teaching po­sitions, and generally made life difficult.14C>Tulane did not, however, expelthem. 'Ihc lesson of the La\vson episode at Vanderbilt had been well learned.In Longenecker's files, a copy of the Christiall Century editorial of Apri113,1960, entitled "Vanderbilt Should Reinstate Lawson" is marked with his

handwritten comment: "There is a significant lesson in the v\ridereaction tothe hasty drastic step taken by Vanderbilt."l46Outraged citizens, though, letTulane knmv that allowing these "troublemaking students" to remain en­rol1ed "wi11surely degrade your institution in the e)'es of many." The SouthLouisiana Citizen's Council again \veighed in, insinuating in an echo of thelate ']940s that the shldents involved wifh CORE as \vell as two sympatheticTulane professors were engaged in "subversive or Communistic activity"and that the university would do nothing about it because "Tulane is the

Desegregating Private Higher Eduwtion ill the South I 212

recipient of numerous Grants from certain foundations and therefore Tu­lane's hands are tied."J47

Matlers only got worse in the fall. In the face of federal court orders that

required the New Orleans public schools to begin desegregating first grade,the Louisiana legislature enacted a series of laws designed to take control

of the city's schools and shut them down. A restraining order from Judge J.

Skelly Wright prevented this, but the state froze payroll funds meant for the

city's teachers. Nonetheless, un November 4, four black children enrolled

in previously \vhite schools. \lVhite parents at these schools [armed jeering,rock-throwing mobs. Mayor Morrison remained uns\vervingly focused on

his own political futu re and denied any responsibility for the situation. The

national press had a field day as the mobs gathered to scream and spit at

children day after dayl4X

At Tlllane, the faculty was unhappy. On December 14, 1960, the College

of Arts and Sciences adopted a resolution that in rather intemperate termscalled for an end to the street protests and for the governor and the legis­

lature to stop fueling the discord and resolve the crisls. The next day, the

graduate faculty proposed a slightly different statement, with the languagetoned down. This statement wa.s signed by over three hundred Tulane fac­

ulty members and released to the press. This, together with a similar public

appeal from a group of businessmen, was the first hint that anyone might

possess the will to confront the crisis.149As bad as all this was, 11()\vever, it took money to really get the Tulane

board's attention. During the fall of 1960, Longenecker and Joseph Jones

had been overseelng the preparation of a proposal for a major Ford Foun­

dation Challenge Grant. Tulane, now engaging in deep deficit spending,

badly needed the money.150 The foundation had already announced sev­

eral of these very large grants, induding the one to Vanderbilt, aimed at

strengthening research universities. Talks with James W. Armsey, director

of the Foundation's Special Program in Education, \vere going I,vell and ex­

pectations ",.,rerehigh. Armsey visited Tulane, hmvever, at the very height of

the chaos in the city's streets. He attended the board meeting on Novelnber

22, along I,vith Ne\v Orleans Ma.yor DeLesseps Morrison, \vho apparently

I,vas there to assure Armsey that thl' present school crisis was temporary,that law and order would 50011return, and that New Orleans was well able

to solve its racial problems.151 Armsey, though, was not assured. On De­

cember 8, at the next meeting of the board's executive committee, Joseph

Jones reported that he had received a letter from the Ford Foundation "reI a-

213 I PII"IJComes to Shove: The EMI)' 19605

tive to Tulane's position in the matter of segregation." The following week,

at a meeting of the full board, Jones explained that Armsey wanted a reply

in advance of Tulane's application materials. fIe offered two possible state­ments, neither of which survives.152

One piece of evidence that sheds light on the board's debate about how

to answer the Ford Foundation is a memorandum prepared by law commit­

tee member Marie Louise Snellings on January 24. She very quickly covered

the basic legal quandary-that the original gifts to create Tulane and New­

comb (the women's college) were bound by restrictions that limited theiruse to the education of \-vhites, but that Tulane later came to include the as­

sets of the public University of Louisiima, giving the school a public aspect

that would seem to require the admission of blacks. "Hmvevcr," she con­

tinued, "we have remained a private university, privately supported, and

under the recent Girard Ca!'c which \ve followed with interest, the day is not

yet here when the Supreme Court is ready to invalidate conditions such

as Paul Tulane's and 1\:1rs.Nc\-vcomb's as cOIltra ba1los mores. The day may

come, anytime. But arc we ready to seek it?"ISJMrs. Snellings's answer was no. While insisting that she had no personal

objection to "the admission of a bona fide qualified negro applicant to Tu­

lane University in the Graduate School," she had several reasons for declin­

ing to support such a move.

1. I fear the possible repercussions in the form of contests by the Tu­

lane heirs and angry dissatisfaction among the alumni.

2. I do not see that we are forced to this decision at this point, and

when the state of Louisiana is in a condition of upheaval and un­

rest in the public schools because of this question it seems an ill ad­

vised time to take such action. My loyalty to my home, my neigh­

bors, and to the South and the burden of the problem she has had

to bear compels me to say that J must vote to maintain our status

quo at the present.

3. The last reason is vcry important to me. Any change we \vould

make in our policy at this time would be caused, to all practical in­

tent, by the possibility of the grant of money from the Ford Foun­dation. This 1 cannot do. Under no circumstances could J vote for

a change which would appear to all the world as a sell out.

If I had to guess, I wou Id guess that J cou Id vote for this change

in good conscience somewhere from three to ten years hence.15-1

DesegreXtltillg Private Higher Edllcatioll ill the South I 214

TI1Cletter that Jones finally sent to the Ford Foundation was exactlywrong. It was the sort of letter that might be expected from a board chair­man with an inflated estimation of his own power and without any realunderstanding of the people, culture, and intertwined relationships of thephilanthropic foundations. Jones produced an extraordinarily dense, four­page, single-spaced explanation of why Tulane ,,,,'aulddo nothing to deseg­regate. He leaned heavily on the language of Paul Tulane's 1882donation,which stated that the funds \\'ere "for the promotion and encouragement ofintellectual, moral, and industrial education among the white young per­sons in the City of New Orleans," and asserted that thc administrators "vcrcbound by this language to continuc barring black students. Any attemptto change this would be "improvident" because of the "dependence of theUniversity upon the wholehearted support of the community and the verytense situation existing regional1y respecting the racial question." Muchof the rest of this letter is reminiscent of Hollis Edens at hls windiest and

touches repeatedly on the themes of the need to rely on the judgment of theboard members and of Tulane's importance as a regionalleader.155

Armsey forwarded thc letter to Henry Hl'ald, the head of the foundation,along with a yery crisp summary and reaction:

We arc boxed in by legal restrictions; we cannot get out of the box ex­cept by instituting legal action; to do so now would be unwise, so wehave decided officially to do nothing; we must ourselves decide ourfuture course of action.

In short, the legal status is segregation; the policy is to keep it thatway; there is no intent to change; and there are no plans to do 50_

In this context, I don't see hmv \ve can continue to carryon discus­sions about a possible SPE grant to Tulane.

TIle following week Jones sent a supplemental statement, almost fuurmore pages of reasons why desegregJting Tulane was impossible. His pa­tience at an end, Armsey \\'rote Heald what was really the bedrock state­ment of the situation: "Tulane could find ways to enroll Negroes if it reallywished to_The reason it docs not is not the legality of an original agreement;it is a current policy decision reached and mJintained for reasons other thanthe founder's statement about 'white young persons.'"

Barely ten days later, Longcnecker received a brief letter from Armsey

215 I Push Comes to 5/1OL"": The Early 19605

declining to support Tulane's proposa1.15h Until this moment, Marie LouiseSnellings had been right~the only problems caused by failing to desegre­gate were prospective. But by refusing to trike the threats seriously, Tulanecourted disaster and disaster came. And it ","'asonly that disaster, finally,that created a consensus on the board that they had to do something.

When they met on March 8, it seemed that the dithering might finally beover.I:;7 Longenecker had gotten a letter from \-VatterMartin at Emory abouttheir desegregation, which he reported, and then he raised the matter of thePord Foundation rejection.ISiIJones was a sudden convert, proclaiming thatreconsideration of the admissions policy was nmv of "the utmost impor­tance." After discussion, "it was the sense of the meeting that the Board rec­ognize it is incumbent upon it, to the extent it legally can, to change the ad­missions policy, which on a controlled basis, would permit the admission ofany qualified student to attend any college in the University." On Apri112the board approved the announcement of this decision. Long(~neckeralsonotified the presidents of the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foun­dation.1S'I

The dithering, though, was far from over. In spite of Joseph Jones's claimthat "the action taken was bold cmdcourageous," the statement that the ad­ministrators released was a masterpiece of equivocation. "Tulane Univer­sity would admit qualified students regardless of race or color," it read, "ifit were legally permissible."I60The board rn,aintained, huwever, that it \vas/wt legally permissibJe. Further, they had 110 plans to seek a dec1aratoryjudgment on the question. If they truly intended to desegregate the univer­sity, their failure to file such an action is difficult to understand. Although itis possible that the board feared bringing such an action because it wouldhave to be filed in a Louisiana state court rather than in federal court, the

most likely explanation of their refusal to ask for a declaratory judgment isthat they lvere afraid of the reaction.

This concern is clear in the hiring of a public relations firm to help man­age the news of their decision. TnAugust a member of this hrm accompa­nied Tulane's director of public relations, Horace Renegar, to New York toseek the counsel of a pioneer of American public relations, Earl Ne\\'som.Probably not coincidentally, I\'ew50m and his firm had deep tics to both theFord ,Motor Company and the Ford Foundation.I"l Nel\rSOm,an old handat crisis management, gave the Tulane representatives clear and cogent ad­vice, identifying several possible strategies for dealing with "the spotlightof national attention," The first~thc option he endorsed-was simply toadmit qualified black students. Ne\vsolll pointed out that the administra-

Descgrcgatillg Privote Higllt'f EduCflti01l ill the South I 216

tors had acted for the past eighty years as if they were not bound by therestrictions in Paul Tulane's gift-except for the restriction against blacks.Admitting the students ","ould "avoid a defensive posture in the face of thethreatened la\-vsuit; it would implement the stated opinion of the Adminis­trators on April 12; it would avoid the criticism inherent in excusing itselfby legal inhibitions it had not heretofore recognized; it would align itself,vith the inevitable; and would take a position endorsed by a majority of theAmerican people." A second option \-vasto institute a suit for a declaratoryjudgment, which had the disadvantage of being unpredictable but was atleast positive action. Finally, Ne,vsoffi concluded, if the board failed to takeany action on its own, they would certainly be sued and would then be leftto claim that they welcomed the suit as a way to "clarify the matter." 111iswas the worst possible choice because "it is inconsistent \-vith the facts ofUniversity decisions over the years, and this inconsistency would immedi­ately be exposed by thoughtful people all over the land-including editorsand commentators. The Administrators '\vould be put in the public positionof recoiling timidly from prosecution of a line of action that the Universityhas, in reality, consistently followed."162

The administrators, inevitably, chose the last option. One factor seenledto outweigh all others in their decision-the likelihood that most of whiteNew Orleans, including the upper crust from which the school drevvmanyof its students, would be angry about allowing blacks to attend Tulane.The administrators probably hoped that if they waited for someone to suethem, they would be seen by the white community as defending themselvesrather than instigating more unwanted racial change in a troubled dty.Rufus Harris later endorsed this explanation with his usual candor. In 1963

he wrote that Tulane had not desegregated earlier because of "a small groupof illiberal members lof the board] who wanted a court decision orderingthem to integrate, which they could hide behind." In 1962 an article in thestudent newspaper, the Hullabaloo, entitled "The Ford Foundation and In­tegration: Money Talks/' stated it just as bluntly. "Sensitive as they are topublic opinion in this region, lthe administrators} were extremely reluctantto make any blatant shifts in admissions policy without having a fall guy onwhom to pin the blame."J~1

So as applications from qualified blacks began to arrive, the Tulane boardsat and waited to be sued. Too fearful to initiate legal proceedings in whichthey would argue for what they claimed they wanted-the right to admitany qualified student- they put themselves in the position of having to de­fend the exact opposite. The board minutes reveal a clear understanding

217 I Push Comes to Shove: The Early 19605

that they would be sued and their carefully drafted response to black appli­cants seemed to beg for a lawsuit, confessing that the student would be ad­mitted if it \\rere legaL164

On September I, 1961, Pearlie Hardin El10ieand Barbara Guillory, quali­fied applicants who had been rejected, filed suit in the federal district courtto compel Tulane to adn1it them.165 Tulane's administrators responded byvigorously trying to stop what they had announced they wanted. Not, theysaid, because they meant to keep blacks out-they asserted that they wantedthem to come in-but because they wanted to defend the donor's vvishesinan effort to find out 1fthey were valid. Whatever it was they really thoughtthey were doing, it did not take long before they found out they were play­ing with fire.166

On March 28, 1962, U.s. District Court JudgeJ. Skelly Wright, a New Or­leans native and the man who had ordered the desegregation of the NewOrleans public schools, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judg­ment. Just as the adn1inistrators had feared throughout the late 19505,Tu­lane's undeniable public aspects provided a wedge for a ruling that couldstrip away the school's independence. Wright declared that the racial re­strictions in the original donations were unenforceable. But then he went

much farther, ruling in sweeping terms that Tulane had sufficient public as­pects to bring it within reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its refusal to

admit black applicants was thus unconstitutional "state action." 'YVrighten­joined the university to admit the plaintiHs.lh7

Tu]ane's trustees \vere horrified. They would never acquiesce in a ded­sion that could conceivably make them subject to the whims of the Loui­siana legislature. Wright's probably intentional failure to address one of theother issues-whether the heirs of Paul Tu]ane could now sue for the re­

cision of his donation (or even the present value of that gift)-also causedconsternation, in spite of the palpable lack of interest in such a suit on thepart of the three Tulane sisters in St. Petersburg, Florida.168

Angered by VVright'sdecision and by the sarcastic Janguage he directedat the university's board, Tulane immediately announced that it \votlld ap­peal the decision. 1na letter to Rice University's president, Kenneth S.l'itzer,Longenecker stressed that it 'ivas the uncertainty about Tulane's public sta­tus that prompted tl1l' appeal. "While it maybe said Ihat Judge Wright's ref­erence to Tulane University as a public institution is 'obiter dicta,' thereis enough doubt about the meaning of his judgment to make it necessaryfor Tulane not to accept the decision."16'JTulane's lawyers quickly shiftedstrategy when Wright \-vasappointed to the Second Circuit Court of Ap-

Dcscgrcgatin;;;Private Higher Educatio/l ill the South I 21K

peals in \Vashington, DC, and was replaced on the New Orleans District

bench by Frank Ellis. Rather than appeal, they filed a motion for JJ1e\v trial,

\vhich El1is granted on May 12, 1962.170

The board's refusal to accept VVright's decision brought varied reaction.

\Vhile it certainly helped Tulane's reputation among staunch segregation~

ists and with the Citizen's Council, it drew anger from other quarters. In cor­

respondence with Mark Etheridge, a longtime friend and the editor of the

Louisville Courier-Joumal, Rufus Harris ·wrote,

And speaking of good old Tulane, I somehow bleed for ller. So much

of the image of her stimulating life and action she has lost. That hurts,

for it is so much easier to lose it than to form it. Bettcr than anyone, I

kno"v her difficulty. She is in very bad trustee leadership and action.

Too many new trustees came in who arc too juvenile, materialistic

and egotistic. They came within too short a period to be either trainedor absorbed. You know so well that such training is frequently neces­

sary if the fine university is to escape their basic ignorance and Jack

of sympathy or understanding of the nature of a great university and

its raison d'etre. Even in the <.nvfulsegregation conflagration-not to

mention some other juvenile decisions-they have not permitted the

University to manifest any leadership, or prepare the community for

its responsible action and life in a desegregated society. Their posture

of bitter enders is almost tragic.17l

This correspondence is of particular interest because Etheridge \vas also

a member of the board of the Ford Foundation. His reply to Harris indicates

that Etheridge believed Tulane's administrators had deliberately misledthe foundation about their intentions regarding desegregation (a problem

that could easily have been avoided by filing a suit for a declaratory judg­ment):

I share your sorrow over Tulane; in fact, I'm shocked at what seemsto be the board's turnabout from what 1had understood the situation

to be. vVeon the Ford board were told that this suit vvas to protect the

trustees, that the outcome was foregone and that the board \vould not

vigorously appeal. That does not appear to be true. \Ve voted Tulane$750,000, if I remember the figure correctly, in spite of the feeling of

almost all the members of the board that we were not willing to vote

money to private institutions which, if not legally bound by the Su-

219 I Pusl, Camc:, to SJWl't': The Ec1r1y 1960s

preme Court decision, \vcrc .1tleast morally 50. 1must say that in myown case had Iknown that Tulane was doing more than to protect it­

self from Paul Tulane's wilL J would have voted differently.171

Longenecker and the board faced other complications in the spring of

1962. The local CORE chapter, reinvigomted after the 1961 Freedom l"{idcs

(in which Tulane students participated), was again organizing demonstra­

tions and sit-ins at downtown lunch counters. Although internal problemsled the now numerous Tulane student members to leave CORE in early

1962, these students were far from defeated. They responded by bringing

direct action to the Tulane cilmpus. In January and Pebruary, and again in

April, they staged llumerous interracial sit-ins in the cafeteria of the Tulane

University Center. Longenecker and the board stepped very carefully, con­

scious that their litigation was pending. By and large, they simply tolerated

the sit-ins, stationing security in the room but otherwise doing Jiule. Only

one student, Ed Clark, was suspended, and he was later allo\\'ed to return.

Much of Tulane's faculty supported the students. The College of Arts and

Sciences passed several resolutions urging that students not be suspended

for the sit-ins, that the University Center be desegregated, and that blackstudents be admitted. The board rejected these resolutions and prepared for

the trial scheduled to begin that summer.li3

The trial took place in early August, but Judge Ellis's decision was nothanded down until Decembcr.17-IThe months ill between "vere difficult ones

on campus. Faculty who hwored desegregation suspected that the board

was dragging its feet. 'The faculties of the College of Arts and Sciences andthe School of Social Work both adopted resolutions that implicitly threat­

ened resignations if the racial ban \vas not dropped soon. The College of En­

gineering, on the other hand, expressed. its willingness to abide by whatever

the board decided. liS Students, almost equally divided on segregation, agi­

tated on both sides. Cafeteria sit-ins began again in October, now with tem­

pers flaring, fueled in part by the crisis over James Meredith's enrollment at

the University of Mississippi. After violence nearly broke out during a cafe­

teria protest on October 8, the campus quieted down, but it \vas an anxious

peacc.176

On December 5, 1962, Judge Ellis announced his decision.177 Tulane, he

said, was a private institution that could not be compelled to admit blacksunder the Fourteenth Amendment. However, fol1owing the reasoning of

the United States Supreme Court in Shelley P. Kramer, Ellis also concluded

that the racial restrictions in Tulane's founding documents were unenforce-

Desegregating Private Higher Education ill the 50/1111 I 220

able. Whether the heirs could sue for return of the gift was uncertain, but

the disinclination of Paul Tulane's relatives to do so, coupled \vith aware­

ness of the federal courts' refusals to enforce any private racial restrictions,

led Tulane's aUorney to believe there was no danger. Two days later the

board's la\\' committee met and decided that Tulane would not appea1. OnDecember 12 the full board endorsed this conclusion and voted to admit

Barbara Guillory and Pearlie Hardin Elloie for the spring semester of 1963.

Rufus Harris telegraphed his congratulations to Longenecker on December

13. Two days later, Mark Etheridge's Louisville Courier !oufl/al praised Judge

Ellis and the Tulane board for removing the "dead hand of the past.Fll7S

In the end, segregation at Tulane went out with barely a whimper. Al­

though the university anticipated media coverage and possibly demon­strations at registration that spring, there ·were none. The first black stu­

dent to register (out of cleven that semester), Percell Church, signed up for

classes on January 24. Tulane registration officials reported, "It \-vasan over­

statement that not an eyebrow ,vas raised. Very quiet. No one seemed togive a damn.Fl179

Notes ta Pages 207-209 I 296

121. Excerpt from Chancellor's Report to till' Board of Trust of Vanderbilt University, Oc­

tober 24-25,]958; Memorandum, "The University Senate," 11<1fch 9,1959, Box 217, RG 300,

Chancellor's Office Papers, VUSe.

122. Digest of the tvlinutes, Board of Trust, Vanderbilt Uniwrsity, May 4-5, 1%3, Box V-27,

Stahlman Papers, VUSe.123. "A communication from the University Senate to the Board of Trust adopted April 26,

1962, by unanimous vote of those members present and voting," April 26, 1962. Box 212, RC 300,

Chancellor's Office P.1pers, \lUSe.124. Ibid.

12S. Branscomb, "Present Status of this Problem," tv1ay 4, 1962, Box V-29, St<lhlman P<lpcrs,

VUSe. Wade discussed the Tul,me case before the meeting in a 1etter to board chairman lIarold

Vanderbilt. John W. Wade to I Iarold Vanderbilt. April 4, 1962, Box 212, R(; 30(], Chancellor's Of­

fice Papers, vese.126. There arc several drafts of \1w data that Vanderbilt provided to the other trustees and a

text of his long presentation to the bO<lrd, which he appart>ntly read largely verbatim, .1t Box 3,

I larold S. Vanderbilt Papers, VUSe.

127. Branscomb to Hubert V{ ['v10rrmv, May 23, 19h2, Box 199, RC 300, Chancellor's Office

Papers, VUSe.

128. Confidential Digest of the !vlinutes, Board of Trust, Vanderbilt University, \1ay 4-5,

1962, Stahlman Papers, Box \1-27, \lUSe. This requirement was apparently more honored in the

breach. Conkin, COliC with the Ivy, 577.

129. Alan W. Heldman to (3ranscomb, June 21, 1962; Rnmscomb to Alan W. Heldman,

June 28, 1962, Box 176; Richard J. Burrmv Jr. to Branscomb, :tvby 23, 1962, Branswmb to Burro"v,

M.1Y30,1962, Box 133, Chancellor's Office Papers, RG 300, \lUSe.

130. Vmlderbill Tfflstlel~ May 11, 1962. 111l' 1963 editor, Roy Blount Jr. '·wnt on to become a

vvell-known and prolific writer and humorist.

131. Branscomb to John VV.Gardner, May 14, 1962, Box 137; William C. Finch to Br<.mscomb,

May 14, 1962, (3ox 158, RG 300, Chano.'llor's Office Papers, \lUSe.

]32. Hustler, May 11, 1962. .\Jot surprisingly, James Stahlman knew exactly what he was

looking: for in a nl"'" l~hancellor. "} have some very definite ideas about the type of man ,ve

want," he wrote fellow trustee Devcreaux Lake, "and I am determined as best I can to see that

we don't get any of the left-wing boys v...·ho ,vould like to subvert Vanderbilt, the last b.1stion of

educational wnservatism among the better institutions of higher learnin~." After a long search,

the board settled on Alexander Heard, dean of the Graduate School at the University of North

Carolina. Stahlm.1ll to Devereaux Lake, January la, 1962, Stahlman Papers, Box V-3, VUSe. On

the se1cdion of Heard, see Conkin, COli!' with the It,y, 583-87. Heard, certainly no left-winger,

went on to have his fair share of scrapes with Stahlman, p.1rticuJarly in 1967 when Stokely Car­

michael spoke at a Vanderbilt forum. This incident is discussed in Conkin, Cone 'with the Ivy, 617­

22, and much more circumspectly in Alexander I leard, S;wllkiug (If the University: 'liuo Decades at

Vmlder/lilt (Naslwil1e, 1995), 92-97.

133. Harvie Branscomb, Spcech to the Faculties, September 14, 1962, I:$ox5, Branscomb Pa­

pers, VUSe.134. The Advisory Committee worked closely with the buard in the search that resulted in

the selection of IIerbert 1.ongenecker. Report of the faculty Advisory Committee on the Selec­

tion o( a President, April, 1960, lIarris P<lpers, Box 20, TUA.

297 I Nolt'S to Page:; 209-212

135. Advisory Committee to Joscph Junes, June 25,1959, IIarri..;l-'apers, Box 31, TUA.

136. Kothryn Davb to Joseph Jones, June 15,1959, Harris Pupers, Box 31, TVA.

137. Dr. Maxwel1 Lupharn, dean of Tulane's i'.kdicul School since 1940, served as acting

president from the time of Ilarns's uepilrturc in ~larch 1960 until Longenecker assumed his uu­

lies in September.

138. Press Release, Tulane L"ni\"er<;ity r--:ews BUrl'au, D<-cember 18, 1959, Box 42, Harris Pa­

~rs,TVA.

139. H<uris to I.ongenecker, \Iun:h 31, 1960, Box 42, Ilarris Papt.>r:;;,TUA.

140. I.ongem>cker arriw'd on campus in the spring and attended his first board meeting on

i\pril20, 1960. Minutes of the 11l'c1ing of the Bourd of Administrators, April 20, 1960, TUA.

141. On t1w crisis surrounding chunging race relations in !\Jew Orleans, see F<lirdough, Race

alld Dt'lIwcrm".!/. generally, but especi<1lly chapter 9; Baker, The Scnmd BaJl/e of j\iew OrIel/liS; and

for a blistering assessment of the h<>havior of the city's dite, \,1O£ton Inger. Po/itic~ and Healify in

an AmeriCilfl City: Tile New Orleans 5c1l001 integration Cril'ois ill 1960 (!\:ew York, 1969). "t\fas.sin>

resis.tance" in Louisiana is analyzed in Bartley, Ri..<:e(If Alassil>e Rt~;st(jllce, chapters 10-12.

142. Minutes of the Meeting of the Hoard of Administrators, June 15, 1960, TUA. Plans for

a Tulane t.'1l'ml.'ntary school <Irt'in Box 14, Longened.l'r Papers.

143. J,Kk Ricau to Tulane University Maintenance Department, AprillS, 1960, Box 99, Lon­

~l'm.'Cker I'arers, TL'A.

144. \-1",mo, Business Managl'r to Clarence Sehers, April 25, 1Y6U,Box 66, Longenecker Pa­

pers, TVA. l:"'lChblack employee was assigned a specific toilet and giwn a drinking glass \vith

instructions to draw w.lter from any fountain and drink only from the glass. Clarence Sehers to

Edmund \Icllhenny, May 3, 1960; \kllhenny to Scheps. 1\1ay -1,1960; Schcps to ~1dlhenny, ~1ay

26, 1960; ~kllhenny to Scheps, JuneS, 1%0; Scheps to I\'lax Lapham, June 14, 1960, Box 99, TUA.

Scheps addsed Lapham to bring this up with the board, which he did at the June 15 meeting.

They reaffirmed the policy of allowing blacks to p,uticipate in professional meetings on campus.

~1inutes of thl.' I\leeting of the Board o( Administrators, TVA. At the same time, Citizen's Coun­

cil preskiL'nt Joseph Vigul.'rie objectl'd that blacks \".·cre being allowed to take 1m\-'<lnd medical

school admissions tests from the Educi1tional Testing Service alongside whites at the Tulill1l>

testing site. Joseph E. Viguerie to \1. E. Lapham, May 3,1960; Lapham to Viguerie, May 5, 1960,

Box 99, Longt.>necker Papers, TUA.

U5. A memo enlillf'd "integration Problems" discusses thl.' attempts to dl'St'hregate the

snack bar at the Cni\'crsit)' Center as well as the p.utidpation of Tul,me students in the CORE

sit-ins. October 12, 1960, Box 99, Longenecker Papl.·£:;;,TeA. On the formation of tht.>New Or­

leans CORE d1apter and the 1960 demonstrations, see Fuirclough, Ran! alld Dell/valley. 272-76.

146. Box 99, Longeill'cker Papers, TVA. Longl'lll'cker was .,Iso in contact with Vanderbilt

ndministrator Rob Roy Purdy, 'who SPilt him a rl.·port of the Vanderbilt fucuity, written in the

wake of 111('Lawson episode, on proper procedures for disciplining students. R. R. Purdy to

[.ongenech'r, Si,,'ptcmber 30, 1960; Longl'nl.'cker to R. R. Purdy, Oliober 4, 1960, 130x 102, Longe­

nl>eker Papers, TUA.

1-17. Copy of Confidential Police Report, Dave \,lcCuire to I loran> Renegar. October 13,

1960, Box 99, Longenf'<"ker Papers, TVA \1cGuire was lvIayor D('Lesseps Morrison's chid ad­

ministrative otticer. His death in November tkprived Morrison of pl'rhaps the steadiest hand

in City Hall during the worst of the school crisis. See Haas, Vel.esseps 5. M(Jrri~oll, 274, and 249­

S2gem'r<ll1y on the chaos thatenvl'lopt>d t!w city in the fall and winter of 1960--61. F. C. Haley to

Notes to Pages 212-215 I 298

Ll.m~enecker, CXtober 6,1960 (quot<1tion); JMk Ricau "nt.! Joseph Viguerie to Longen~'cker, Oc­

tobl.'f 25, 19fiO(quotation), Rox 99, I,()I1g:~nechr P.1pers, TUA.

1-18. Fairclough, Rile£' Iwd D('II!{lcracy, chapter 9, remunts the battle lx,tween Wright and till'

state, as well as the' battl.,. in the stn.·t'ts of the lity.

149. College of Arts and Sciena:s Resolution, December 14, 1960; Statement by Mt'mbo>rs nf

tht.' Faculty of Tulane Unhwsit~~ DeCt.'mber 16, 1900, Box 9Y, longem'('ker Papers, n.;A. Rufus

Ilarris, now pn'sident of ~tcrcer, wrote to Provost Bob I.umiansky of his ple<lsure at the public,,­

tion of tht.' statement. He quott.'d a rrlJminent t\'ew Orll',mi.m who likt.'••....'ise stmngly approved.

"It looks like decency ami dignity have a cnance to com~ back, ••.....hidl already would have {)('­

curn.>d.but for the State legislature. It ,•...ould exhaust your imabrination to dwell on the amas~'d

ignorance and prt.iudice of our law m'lking body. \\l\en th~'y speak befure the state and natiun

I h.\\"e the feeling that the family halt-wit has come downstairs to talk tu the company." Harri ••

tu Robert Lumiansky, Dect.'mber 22, 1960, Box 28, Harris Papers, TVA150. for the ford Foundation program, SL'C Roger L. Geiger, Rl'St'lIrc1Jl1/Jd Rele,1r1l1t KlltJ1.I'/­

edge: Amerin/11 Re~~~archU,liver~itit's ~illn'World Wllr 11(0.:I'W York, 1993), 113-15. Iv1inutes of the

A·fl't'ting ot the Buard of Administrators, Odoht:"r ]2, 1960, TVA.151. Minutes of the ),Il't..'ting of the Board of Administrators. ::\"owmber 22,1960, TUA. On

November U, Jones also wrote to Dean Rusk at The Rockefeller foundation, which was t.'On­

.••idering a grant to tht' t•..tedical Sehoul, asking for "sympath~,tic under<;tanding:" of the vise in

whkh Tulane found. its~'If. Joseph Jones to '[A,.1IlRusk, Novemocr 14, 1960, Box 75, Longt'necker

I'apers, TVA. Also in November Longenecker had his fir ••t tastl' of thl' Association ~)fAmeri«1n

La,,·; Schouls pr~':;sure, when l)e,m Ray Forrester of the Law School sent him a copy of a lett •...r

from the chairman of th(' Cummittee on Raci,IlDiscrimination. whu warned that "unlc~s we in­

dit.-.ltt..'some ••ter's arc being taken, then those who advoc<1te stronger measures may prevail."

Ray Furrester tu Longent.x:ker, I\oVt'mber 30, 1Y60; Long~'necker to rorrester, Th.'Cember 2, 1Y60,

&,x 99, Longenecker Papers, TUA.

132. ~finutes of the ?\.h>eting of the EXl'C'UtiveCummittee, December S, 1900, Box 99, Longe­

necker Papers; Minut~s uf the \·Ieeling of the Bl.lMd of Administratorb-, D~.'\'ember 14, 1960, TVA

153. Marie Louise Snellings, To the Board of Admini!'trators of Tulane Education rund,

January 24, 1961, Addendum, "Policy-Negroes:' Harris Papers, TUA.

154. Ibid. Tht.' only (.,ther person whose opinion on this mattl'r survi\Tes, interestingly, i.••

l{ufus Harris. He 'Hot~: tu Joseph Jones, hardly his dose friend, ()n J.muar)" 30, about "lulanl"s

dilemma with the Ford Foundation. "I deeply hope the Ford Foundation will de.11generously

with Tulane. [ knm· •..somt"thing ot your difficulty. Have you cunsidl'red havlng Tul,lne publicly

annuunn' nm ••.• a decision tu ildmit qualified Nq;Tl)('s in Sept,-'mber of 1962, or ewn in 1963, to

tne graduate and professional schouls, the idea being that it is weJ] to mlnOLlliCl'nm,' such a de­

cisiun, ewn though its consummiltion is:>t't for a later datc?" Harri .••to Junes, Janu.lry 30,1961,

Box 64, Harris PaJX'rs, ITA. Jones replied only that "I would like to th,mk )"ou for the thought·

ful suggestit)n which you mad~' in this direction." Copy uf letter, Jones to Harris, February 4,

1961, Box 75, Longenecker PaJX'TS,TUA.

155. Joseph 1'1.JuJU's to James W. Arm"-t'Y,J.muary 16, 1961. Cr<mt :;PA06400247, Ford Foun­

datiun Archivt's. The following lellers of Janlwry 18,20, and 24 an.' frum the same sourn'.

156. In a letter to Longeneckl'r, Jones indicatl'd that he had sent <In•.mSWl'r to Armsey, and a

similar lettcr to the Rockefeller fOUIldalion, on February 4. Neither letter is in thl' files. Jone •• to

I.ongenecker, h'bruary 4,1%1, Box 75, Longenecker Papers, TUA. Interestingly l'nough, Arm-

sey's Jetter, like mUl'h of this material, is only found in Rufus ilarris's papers. James Armse}' to

Long('necker, February 15, 1961, Uox 64, Harris Papers, TVA.

157. In the intervening board meeting: on February 8, r ,ongenecker raised another prospec­

tive problem, federal appropriations to segregated st:hoob. "One of the first acts of the new

housing administrator [in 1,..V<tshington,DC] \vi11be an attempt to pl<1cerestrictions on the I1l'W

college housing joans against those institutions Ivhich have admissions po1kil's barring r\'e­

groes. It is expected that thl're will be <I strong effort made to attach discrimination clauses on

all appropriations made by the government to institutions of higher learning." Ivlinut('s of the

130ard of l\dministrators !\1eeting, februJrY 8,1961, TUA.

158. Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees, March 8, 1961, TUA. The correspon­

dence from Emory is S. \Valter 1lartin to Robert Lumiansky, February 23,1961; Longeneckl'r to

Martin, February 28, 1961; M<trtin to Longenet:ker, March 1, 1961, 130x102, Longelwcker Papers,

TUA. In a remarkable coincidence, the Duke Board of Trustees \••.'as meeting to decide the same

question on this very same day. Duke provost Taylor Cole recounts in his memoirs that he was

Culled out of the meeting in Durham to answer a phone call from a Tulune administrator \",ho

"wished to know what 'progress' we were making." Cole, Rcrollecfiol1s, 161.

159. Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Administrators, !\.'larch 8, 1961; April 12, 1961,

TUi\; Longenecker to Henry Heald, Odober 20,1961; Longenecker to George Harrar, Octoher

20,1961, Box 100, Longenecker Papers, TUA.

160. The announcement appeart'd in the local press the following day. New Orlel/ns Timcs­

Pim.1!lIllc;,II,'cw Orlt'mls States-ftem, April 13, 1961. In reaction, the South Louisiana \VhiteCitizen's

Council purported to be "stunned." Given the kid-glove treatment they had received from Tu­

lane in the past, they probably were. On campus, a random sumpling of student opinion found

a wide range of reactions. lit/ane Hul/abaloo, April 28, 1961. An October 1962 poll revealed the

same bck of consensus, with 48 percent favoring integration and 42 percent opp'osed. Telling!y,

90 percent of faculty members and graduate students wanted the school to desegregate. Tldalll!Hullabaloo, October 26,1962.

161. On !'\ewsom, see Stuart Ewen, PR.f A Social History of Spill (:\Jew York, 1996), 352.

Newsom and Co. partner W. H. ferry .:1dvised the Ford Foundation on a wide variety of issues.

Finding Aid, W. H. Ferry Pupers, Public Policy Papers, Department of Rare 1300ks and Special

Collections, Princeton Cniversity l.ibrary.

162. Earl Newsom to Horace Renegar and Kenneth H. Corm in, August 29,1961, Box 100,

Longenecker ['apers, TUA. Tulane officials re<ldily acknowledged among themselves that "other

than 'young white persons' ha\'e long been admitted" but took great care to keep this out of

their public discourse. I lorace Renegar to Jos('ph Jones, May 11, 1962, Box 87, Longenecker Pa­pers, TUA.

163. Rufus I Tarris to Frl'derkk I lard, .!\.1archfI,1963, Box 40, Harris Papers, TUA; Tulalli:' l-flll­

(alm(oo, April 13, 1962.

164. At least thirtC'en applications or fl'quests for appJiLation materials wt'J"e received from

blilcks by the middle of June. :\linutes of the ivleeting of the 130ard of Administrators, June 14,

1961, TUA. Among the first and best of these applications were those of Pearhe Hardin Elloie

and Barbara Marie Guillory, both graduates of Dillard University. Dil1ard political science pro­

fessor Paul Furey ilnd Rosa Freeman Keller had been quietly working to prepare a legal chal­

lenge to Tulane's admissions policy and had identi ned these two women as potential applicants.

Keller and Furey wen.' probably unaware of the Tulan(' hoard's decision on \1arch 8 \vhen tlwy

;••••'otcs fo Pages 217-219 I 300

undertook this effort. ElIoie's applicatit)n was datt'd .\farch 6, and Furey St'nt it to Tulant>'s ad·

missions direc\(Jr, Cliff \Ving, on March] 3, after the ~1arch B board decision but before the April

12 announCf'ment. Furey indud{>d both a CO\lt>rleiter and a brief person.)l note. In tht>note, he ac­

knowh:dgt-d that he h,ld encouragt-d tht>application and that it was his "intention to put Tulane

University squ,uely on tht' spoL" In tht' letter, he said that he had "selected this student with the

same care \-\lith which the Brooklyn Dodgers s ••leded Jackie Robinson for big It'agut:' b<lsebi111."

March 13, 1961, Box 102, l.ongem'Cker Papers, TUA. On Kt'ller's role, St't' \1ohr and (;ordon, Tu­

lal/e, 262-65. The rejL"-iion leiters arL' in Robert Lumiansky to ~Iiss Barbara t\larie Guillory, JunL'

23,1961; W. L. Kindelsperger to Pparlie Hardin Elloic, April 19,1961, Box 100, I.ongeneCkt'T Pa­

pers, TUA.

165. New Orleall:; TiltJ{"!'.-PicaYIl11£,St>ptembt.·r 2, 1961; The Tl.llal1iau, 5<-ptembcr 1%1. Mohr

and Gordon, TII/alle, 266-i2, contains detailed analysis of the It'gal iSSUL'S.

J 66. Despite, or perhaps bl'cause of, Iht' dear invitation to a l.1wsuil, the ,\dministrators ex·

pressed frequent concern that this action 11(Itbe perccivl'd as a "friendly" suit. Tlwre is abso­

lutely no doubt that it WdS not.llorare Renegar, J\lemorandum, ~Iarch 30, 1962. Box 99, Long:t.'­

nl,t'ker Papers, TUA. ElIok' .md Cuillor)"s attorneys uafted an argument that struck Jirl'Ctly at

I"ulam"s slatus as a private, indt>pendl.!nt university and Tlilanl.!'s attorneys furiollsly defl.!ndt'd

that status. See rairc1ough, Race //lId Dell/ocr/KY, 263.

167. In spite of lulant"s loud claims that \\fright had "ruled" that Tulane was a public school.

he did not seem to claim that Tulane was a "public university," only that it had enough public

aspects to bring it under the sway of Ihe FOllrtf'enth Amendment. \-Vright found these public as­

pects in !>en-ral areas: Tulane was originally a public university, and its n.lme was changed by

tht' state legislature in 1846; it retained state university propert)' and threestdte government rt:'p­

rest:'nt,ltives as ex-offjcio mt:'mbt>rs of its board; it opcTalt'd under a special state franchise th,ll

providl'd a tax exemption for state property; and, most arguably, it }"'>Crformecla function "im­

pressed with.1 public int('resl." Gl/;Uory v. I\dmi"i:;fralor .••of Tulalle Ulli'.'t'r:;ily, 203 F.5upp. 85S

(~1arch 1962). Set:-also Neit' Orleans Til1l!!5-l'imywle, 1\-larch 29, 1962; Jilla!!!? Ifulla/!aloo, April 6,

1962. On Wright, ~t't"'Arthur St'lwyn t-.-1illl'r,!\ "Glpllcity fM Outrage": '1'111' fudicilll Ody~s!?y(~f

J. Skelly Wrighl (Westport, cr, 1984).

J6B. Licla Tulane to Susan B. Ke •.1n(', June 29,1%2; SU<>a11Ke,1I1to Lida Tulane, July 6.1962,

Box 100, Longeneckt>r 1'.1pt..'rs,'1VA. The si51ers were brought in ;1Sthird party defendantsin 1962.

169. Minutes of the Mt"eting of the 130ard of Administrators, AprilS, 1962; Longenl'Cker to

Kl'nneth PitZer, ;\-Iay 29, 1962, Box 102, Longent._'Cker Papers, TVA.

170. Tulane'~ attorneys judgl'd that they were better off with a 11l'\V trial under ,11es5 liberal

judge than in front of Ihe activist fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On the Fifth Circuit, ~('e B<lSS,

UIllikel.l/ Hem'S. Remarkal;1ly, just befon' he left ~ew Orleans Jud~e Wright spoke at a large mt't't­

ing sponsored by the AAUP oJt"ulilne's C"niversity Center, discussing the Tulane case and St'g­

regation law in gellPral. New OrlMIlS Til11('~-ricaywl!',April 6, 1962; Iulmlt' Hrtilabilloo, April 13,1%2.

171. Ilarris to Mark Etheridge, April 11, 1962, Box 55, Il,uris Papers, TUA. Harris also wrote

Skelly Wright congratul.1ting him on his .lPpointment to the DC Circuit and on his dt'cision

in tht' Tulane case. "I regret to ohserw~ the assumed petlilanl~e of the TuLme Bmlrd over it," he

wrote. Harris to Wri¢1t, April 6, 1962, l30x 55, Harris Papers, TUA.

172. Mark Etheridge to Harris, April 16, 1962, Box 55, Ilarris P.lpers, TUA.

173. Tulane Police Report, Fl>bruary 7, 1962; Jesse B. ~forgan to Longenecker, April 19, 1962;

301 I Not~ to Pages 219-222

Jesse B. \'lorgall to Clarence Scheps, J;muary 29, 1962; HoraCt' Renegar, Report to the Board of

Trustees, May 2, 1962, Box 102, Lon~t'n('cker Papt>r<;,TVA. fairclough, Rl1cemld Dt'lIIvcmcy_ chi'lp­terlO, is a detailed look alnonviolent direct action in Louisii'lna from 1960 to 1962. \-lohr and

Gordon, TlIlallt', 276-86, discus. ••Tulane students' involvement with CORE and the <;it-ins at the

t.:niversityCentl'r.

17-1. On the is.<.;uesat triJl, ~ .Mohr and Gordon, TI/h/llc, 286--88, and Cht'ryl V. Cunning­

ham, "The Desegregation ufTulane University" (~1A. thesis, University oiNew Orleans, 1982),77-YI.

175. \-finutes of the faculty of tilt' College of Arts and Sciences, Spclial r-..leetin~ September

14, 1962; Minutes of the ramIty of the School of SOfial \"ork, Septem ber 28, I%2; Proposal of the

Faculty of the School of Social Work, Ck;:obcr 1, 1%2, Box 87, I.ongml'cker Papers; Statemcnt of

the Farulty of the School of EnginC'l'ring. Minutes of the 1\·1ccting of the Board of Administra·

tors, Ck'tober 8,1962, TUA. Longenecker also received a letter from a group of Newcomb fac­

ulty who deplored tht' university's failure to eXl'rei$(' responsible lealkrship on race relations.

Cl'ciHa Davis to Longenecker, Novt"mlX'r 5, 1962, Box 102, Longenecker l'apers, TUA.

176. Tul,u1t' Police Report, Odober 3, October 8,1962, Box 102, Longenecker p,'pers, TUA;

Tl/lallc HI/Ilabllloo, (k-toh('r 12, 1962. On campus response tu the lroubl(' at Ole Miss, see T/I­

lmll' Hullabaloo, (ktobcr 5, October 12, :\!ovembcr 2, 1962. ~Iore ordinary problt"ms as..<;odated

••••.ith the continuation of segregation did not tlis.<;ipate eith('r. In November, for (>xample, Tu·

lant" turned a\\lay an NS •...grant for.:t summer mathematics institute because it (ontained a non­

dbnimination requireml'nt. Edmund \1dlhenny to Longenecker, Nowmber 15, 1%2; Longe­

I1l,(ker to Mcllht'nny, November 19, 1962, Box 9Y, Longenecker Pdpcrs, TVA177. Guillory l'. Admillislrators ofTl/lane UlIil'l'rsily, 212 F.Supp. 687 (rNcembt'r 1962).

178. John I'at I.ittle to JoscphJones, Decemb<>r 13, 1962, Bux 100, I,ongcnecker Papers; ~Iin­

Ull'S of the r..leetingof the Board of Administr.1tors, Ot..-ccmber 12, 1962;} lanis hi Kathryn Davis,

LJen>mber 13, 1962, Box 102, Longenl'(kerPapers, lUA. Tlll'administratorsarmounl"l>d theded·

sion immediately. New Or/cans Timcs-PiCllY!llIe, December 13, 1962; nIt' 'IillanilH/, JanuilfY 1963.

179. Horan> l~enegar to Longelwcker, l)f'cl'mber 29, 1%2, Box 100, I.ongenecker Papers; In­

tcrdepartmenti~1 Memo, January 25, 1963, Box YY,Longt'necker Papers, TUA.

180. \Ieiners, History of Ricl', 196-97; '\linutes of the ~kt.'ting of the Board of Trustees, l)e·

("('mix-r 16, 1959, March 30, 1960, June 29, 1960, Bo.trd of Trustl't.'s Records, \VRC181. Houston to Faculty, July 27, 1960, Rll)( 13, Pil::.ler Papers, \\o'RC; Minutes of the MC'l'I­

ing of the 130ard of TruStL'<.'S,July 27, 1960, September 19, 1960, Rice C'nivcrsity; Rice 71trt~l1t'r,

St>plemlX'r 10, 23, 1960. Ilou<;ton was given the title of chancellor and appointed distinguished

profl'ssor of physics. When Carey Croneis was n,1med chancellor upon Pitzer's appointment as

president, IIOll<;ton's title tx.'came honorary chancellor. \Iinutes of the 1'Ieeong of the 130ard of

rnl5tees, \tay 31,1%1.

182. Geiger, ResearcJlami Rclel'ant KllowledRe, 20,

183 . .\1einers, Hi~fory of Rice, 199-200.

1B-1. lnter"k'w with Kenneth S, Pitzer, conducted by John Boles and Louis Marchiaf.wa,

~'Iar(h 22, 1994, l~ice Ilistory Pwjl'ct Oral History Series, WRC.

185. In 1959, at the suggl'stion of !\!ASAdirf'l'!or Keith Clcnnan, ]{ice was working on a pro­

posal for a $1 million grant for materials n'so..'arch. This grant would (arry the standard fedt'ra]nondiscrimination clause.

186. Suppleml.'J'Itary Statement Concerning the Pro~-'d Institute SponS<.lrl'd by the Ut.•.•

partment of Health, Educiltion. and Welfare, October 16, 1963, Rice files, K-93, Baker and Bolts.

Desegregating Private Higher

Education in the South

DUKE, EMORY, RICE,

TULANE, AND

VANDERBILT

Melissa Kean

LOUISIANA STATE L'\J]VEr~SITY PRESS tUATON ROUGE

(2008) 333 pp.