Several things happened in the readings for April 4th; education reform continued, Charles Houston died, and Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP’s now robust legal department continued to win small and ever-increasing victories. However, the main focus was on the litigative shift from a focus on “equalization” cases, where the litigators fought to make the separate black and white schools equal, to a focus on cases that attacked the very idea of segregation. Thurgood Marshall, Oliver Hill and other NAACP lawyers thought that they had won enough cases and had made enough headway to start to challenge the very institution of the Jim Crowe South.

Many of the successes that were won prior to the 1951 national convention where the resolution to focus exclusively on anti-segregation cases and no longer promote equalization cases were highly thought of. These cases helped raise the salary of black teachers, got better facilities and refurbishments of black schools, and got many state schools to begin graduate programs for black students. Although these victories were hard fought and highly thought of, many people within the black community believed that equalization policies and cases were putting “the nail in the coffin” for hopes to end school segregation. After all, if black schools actually get refurbished and appear similar to white schools, then it becomes harder to make the case against separate but equal schools when the appearance of equality is maintained.

In addition, especially in places like Virginia where many in the white populace believed that they were in control of the pace of desegregation, the practice of equalization was not believed to be radical enough and played to white comfort zones and not black needs. It could be misconstrued that by fighting for only equal and not desegregated schools and facilities, the NAACP and the black lawyers were actually supporting segregation.

However, in 1951, the NAACP decided to do away with equalization practices in favor of anti-segregation lawsuits and cases. With their victory in Henderson vs. United States earlier that year, the NAACP began to tear down the barriers between southern whites and southern blacks.

In my opinion, the shift in focus and the NAACP’s realization that a new direction should be pursued represents incredible strength of leadership and organizational management. Only a strong organization with competent leaders can identify when the time is right to make a shift in its/their mission. However, the argument could be made that anti-segregation cases should have been pursued all along or the shift could have happened sooner. Based on the readings that you did for class, what do you think and why?

What are your thoughts on the shift from equalization to anti-segregation?

How would you classify the leadership that the shift of focus required?

Bonus fun question: I personally was very sad read about Charles Houston’s death. The testimonies at his funeral were all very nice but I thought that section of Sullivan’s chapter was underwhelming. Knowing what we have learned about him and his massive affect on the NAACP, what would you say at his funeral if you were asked to speak at it?