Tulane Integration 1960-1964

In order to address current issues such as the Civil Rights movement along with campus issues such as social fraternities and sororities, Tulane University held a “town hall’ forum in the Kendall Cram room of its university center. Over 350 students participated in the event that took a poll on an “integration resolution.” The resolution- “Resolved that Negroes be admitted to all education and social facilities of Tulane and Newcomb College” was defeated by 26 votes.

The Board of Administrators of Tulane University announced a change in policy at the university. "The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund met Wednesday and voted that tulane University would admit qualified students regardless of race or color if it were legally permissible." The Administrators cite a change in the times and the need to keep up with the times as a reason for the change in policy. "This course of action was taken in the knowledge that Tulane University must move ahead and assume its rightful place of leadership among America's outstanding Universities." Moving forward it will be the policy of Tulane University to admit students regardless of race or color.

Tulane University published an official release on their change in policy regarding the admittance of Negro students. "Tulane University will admit qualified negro students effective with the start of the new semester in February." This is a milestone because it marks the official start of the new policy put into place at Tulane because of the case of Guillory et als. vs. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Funs, et als. This release sent out by Tulane University marks the start of the implementation of the new policy and commits the University to follow through with the policy moving forward.

Little over a week after a federal court ruled that Tulane is not require to admitted Negro students, the President Jones announced the admittance of Elloie and Guillory to Tulane at the start of the winter semester.

The university was given a federal grant due to its efforts made in desegregating its campus. The Department of Health and Welfare cited that Tulane was “one of 20 institutions” that was awarded funds for a program aimed at the continuation of familiarizing the school with desegregation.

This motion came about because of the historical tradition and policy of not accepting African-American students at Tulane University. Although the university, “understood the need for great Negro professionals” they believed it was wrongfully against the law to admit them. On the same day, President of the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund Joseph M. Jones stated that the policy of no Negroes before Longenecker was appointed and therefore Jones is bound to uphold the policy.

Reid Butler’s affidavit states, ““application was found acceptable to the said authorities, but that his application was denied solely due to the fact that he is a member of the Negro race.”

Member of the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund since April 29, 1947 an President thereof since December 12, 1950 stated, “ That it affiant’s knowledge no Governor, State Superintendent of Education, nor Mayor not, in fact, any other official of either the State of Louisiana, or the City of New Orleans, has sought to exercise (or exercised) any direction, control, supervision, authority or instruction relative to the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund in any manner, including its administration of the University; That the full direction, control, supervision, authority and instruction relative to the University and all of its departments now rests and has, to affiant’s knowledge, always rested with the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, its agents, employees and representatives.”

Seeking admittance into Tulane University, Pearlie Hardin Elloie and Barbara Marie Guillory requested a summary judgment by Federal Judge J. Skelley. The judgement by Skelley would potentially prohibit the university from denying admission to the two because of their race. Attorneys for Elloie and Guillory argued that because Tulane reeives revenue from the state from state-owned land and tax exemptions, it has grounds to be recognized as a public institution. Therefore, the university should grant admission to the plaintiffs under the protection of the 14th amendment.

Judge Skelly Wright ordered for the admittance of Elloie and Guillory to the “all-white” Tulane University. Similar to his ordering of New Orleans public schools integration, Wright issued a judgement which restrained Tulane from prohibiting “Negro entrance” because of race. Wright denied the school’s argument of it being a private institution.

President of Tulane Joseph M. Jones announced the University would appeal Wright’s decision that Tulane is a public institution and therefore must admit Negroes. Jones announced that the board of administrator voted “unanimously” to file an appeal before the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Federal distirct Judge Frank B. Ellis ordered a stay, or halt, on all the proceedings in Tulane’s desegregation case.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals announced a delay in the ruling for the Tulane University desegregation case. Judge Ellis cited the delay due to the “sensitivity” of the case and its potential outcomes.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Judge Wright’s ordering of the desegregation at Tulane was not valid. Judge Ellis declared that such was invalid due to the case not being given a full trial. Ellis ruled that the case be given a full trial starting August 4th.

“In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit No. 19730, Barbara Marie Guillory and Pearlie Hardin Elloie, Appellants, versus The Administrators of the Tulane University of Louisiana, et al., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Before Cameron, Brown, and Wisdom, Circuit Judges.
1. PER CURIAM: This case involves the question whether the Negro plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief compelling Tulane University to admit them as students. As this is the assertion of Federal Constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment, the claim necessarily asserts that Tulane University, by reason of its unique historical background or by circumstances showing substantial state control is a State Agency, or its operation under Act 43 of 1884 constitutes state action. The District Court first granted a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and entered a temporary injunction. Guillory v. Administrators of Tulane University, D.C. La., 1962, 204 F. Supp. 855. Subsequently, on application and motion of Tulane University, the Court granted a new trial, set aside the summary judgment, and vacated the injunction. The plaintiffs appealed from those actions.
2. We AFFIRM the actions attacked by this appeal. We REMAND the case for an early trial and for such other and further action as may be consistent with this order. The mandate of this Court is to be issued forthwith.”

On August, 4th, Federal Judge Frank Ellis began to hear the trial regarding the admittance of two black women into Tulane University. The trial began with a total of ten witnesses testifying before Judge Ellis. In additions, the attorney for the university, John Pat Little, asked that the court refrain from making a decision until “some of the issues have been ruled upon by state courts.” Taken under advisement by the court, the motion proved to ensure a significant period of time before the court’s decision was given.

In the Judge Frank B. Ellis' decision regarding the case of Barbara Marie Guillory and Pearlie Hardin Elloie versus the Administrators of the Tulane University of Louisiana, and Herbert E. Longenecker, President of Tulane University of Louisiana, and the administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, the Judge found Tulane University to be a private institution. "There is insufficient state involvement in the operation of the Tulane University of Louisiana to bring it within the privileges and prescriptions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." As a result of this decision, Tulane University wasn't under any legal obligation to desegregate when they did and this decision helped to preserve Tulane University's status as a private institution.

Following the decision by Wright, Archbishop Joseph Rummel ordered the desegregation of Catholic schools in his archdiocese. The proved to be wildly controversial, as many believed the situation involving Tulane was “much more important” than a situation involving a local private school system. Thus, many believed similar action was not justified.

In a study done by the Times-Picayune, despite the desegregation of Catholic and public schools, along with the Tulane desegregation case, the city of New Orleans did not “experience the bitter violence which has accompanied similar changes in the southeast region.”

Vol. LXVIII N0. 6-Z-258, “Tulane Awaits Judge’s Decision in Guillory Case; Poll Tallies Pro-Integration By Narrow Margin” By: Betsy Roosa

Roosa’s article captures the emotional suspense on Tulane’s campus regarding the desegregation trial. First she recaps the general argument of the Plaintiff. “John P. ‘Jack’ Nelson, attorney for the two Negroes who are suing for admission to Tulane on the graduate level, argued that there is sufficient state involvement for Tulane to be liable to the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution.” Embedded in the article is a public opinion poll that states that 42% of the Tulane community was opposed to integration. However, it should be noted that 90% of the graduate students believed that Tulane should integrate. This interesting juxtaposition of the two communities (undergraduate and graduate) within the institution of Tulane reflects maturity and logic. Overall, the article’s message projects the potential harm to Tulane’s reputation that seems to become more valuable than the actual process of integration in the minds of students.

Broadcast regarding the new policy at Tulane University, "the university's administrators voted unanimously to admit qualified students regardless of race or color if it is legally permissible." This broadcast announced that the Tulane Administration was ending the traditional policy of admitting White students only and would now admit students of color. However, the broadcast then goes on to state that "The Tulane administrators have a responsibility to respect their legal obligations. But, if and when it's determined that they are not a barrier, Tulane will begin admitting all qualified students." The broadcast then goes on to talk about how this change in policy by Tulane University is a movement away from some of the more traditional ideas held by people in the New Orleans community. The host ends the broadcast with "We believe the leadership exercised by Tulane in this respect is a hopeful sign for New Orleans and Louisiana."

The article reads, ““Wright Speaks to Tulane Men: expects Wider ‘Base of Support’ for Rulings”. Judge Wright said in a speech at Tulane that “ Tulane had sufficient state contacts to bring it within reach of the 14th Amendment- not the US Congress, not the US government and the President of the US… said the state contacts are found in the facts that: 1. Tulane originally was a public university- the University of Louisiana- and its name was changed in 1846 by an act of the state Legislature… 4. It performs a function impressed with a public interest.”

This letter to the editor candidly expresses the desire to maintain segregation on Tulane University’s campus. The anonymous writes, “Tulane does not lack the means to desegregate, it lacks the will.” Perfectly explaining the overall staunch racism from the student body, this letter cites public opinion as the primary reason for not desegregating.
The letter states that although “Negroes” would be allowed to enter the cafeteria, they would not be served food. Scenarios like these throughout the article reflect a discerning tone towards change. Moreover, the quite candid response to the upcoming desegregation creates a community of fraction and division. This division inherently leads to controversy that plagues the perspective of other students who may be more willing to be open to the idea of desegregation. Overall, this article represents a cultural era where political correctness and civility towards those of different races is nonexistent.

In "The Tulane Hullabaloo- Vol. LXVIII No. 13-Z-258" an article was published called "Two Negroes to Enroll Starting Next Semester" which was written by Dean M. Gottehrer- Hullabaloo editor. This article talks about how as a result of the decision made by the The Administrators of Tulane to voluntarily desegregate that afternoon in the following February Negro students will enroll at Tulane. i. “Board of Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund voted at a regular meeting this afternoon to admit all qualified students regardless of race to the undergraduate and graduate schools beginning with the opening of the 2nd semester in February.” This article shows how Tulane was changing with times.

See citation “Judge Ellis' Decision” under Judicial Process layer for more information. The article was published in “The Times-Picayune" Section Two, Pages 10-13 from the morning of December 6, 1962.

See annotation "Change in Administration Policy" under Tulane Community layer for more information. The article was published in “The Tulane Hullabaloo- Vol. LXVIII- Extra Edition- Z-258

An editorial piece in "The Tulane Hullabaloo, Vol. LXVIII Extra Edition Z- 258." It talks about the two benefits of the decision handed down the day before by Judge Frank Ellis. The article cites one of the benefits is that the status of Tulane University as a private institution has been maintained. The other benefit is that there is the possibility that the University will voluntarily desegregate in order to maintain a good public image.

Hullaballoo Editor Gottehrer quotes John P. Nelson, attorney for the plaintiffs saying, “Our clients and other Negroes similarly situated were denied the injunctive relief requested. Our efforts to secure this relief and to place this case on a sound constitutional foundation will be continued. We have filed an appeal and will request an early hearing.” These closing statements reflect both the emotional rollercoaster of the trial but also the motivation for appealing the decision in the Tulane Case. This Hullaballoo article presents a factual occurrence of what happened at the trial and why appeals are being set in motion. The outcome represents the overall division in both public opinion and historical discrimination. Although the defendant’s attorney did not release a statement, the article is overall less biased than others portraying the results. Overall Judge Ellis ruled that Tulane University is a private institution on December 5, 1962 but did not specific whether or not the university should desegregate therefore leaving room for speculation and wild interpretation. It is because of these reasons why Nelson and the plaintiffs plan on appealing.

An article published in "The Tulane Hullabaloo- - Vol. LXVIII No. 15-Z- 258" entitled “Eight College Teachers Among 11 Registrants” under the masthead of “Negroes Register." This article lists the 11 African-Americans registering at Tulane University and the schools to which they are registering. They are the first people of color to register at Tulane University,

In an interview published in "The Tulane Hullabaloo- Vol. LXVIII No. 23-Z-258" in an article entitled “Negro Students Discuss First Impression of University”, a staff writer for the Hullabaloo interviewed some of the African-American students who registered for classes a few months prior, the first students of color to do so. Here is what Miss Barbara Guillory had to say "Anyone who has expressed it has thought that it was very good and wonderful that we showed courage. No one has felt that I was wrong in being a plaintiff in the original suit. So that whatever it is has been good. I think that this was evident the day I registered. There were two or three young men that came up and said, 'We are happy that you are here today'." The tone of the article leaves the reader with the impression that those 11 students who registered for classes in February felt well received on campus and that they felt welcomed. This article helps to highlight the social change that was occurring at Tulane, the South, and around the country at this time.

Hullabaloo Article Vol. LXVIII No. 1-258- “District Court Hears Tulane Case Oral Arguments Judge to Study Briefs; Decision in October” By: Dean M. Gottehrer

This article summarizes the oral arguments in the desegregation case of 1962. The article reads, “Attorney for the plaintiffs, John P. Nelson Jr., argued that their case rests on state involvement in Tulane University. This was a change of emphasis in the case of two Negroes who are suing for admission to Tulane on the graduate level. Nelson made it clear that the question of the public or private nature of Tulane under state law is not an issue. He listed several instances of state involvement with the University today.” The defense argued, “Little summed the defendant’s case up by answering the question whether or not there is significant state action. He maintained that all three branches of Louisiana government had at one time or another rejected their opportunities to control or to influence the University.” The tone of the article reflects deep historical racism not only in the judicial system but also in New Orleans’ community. Moreover this article introduces the role of government and the state in reference to these individual students that highlights the ways in which the individual and state intersect.