Dynamics of Desegregation; 10; Face to Face

S Epitaph for Jim Crow, face to face, series 10, take one. The dynamics of desegregation.

And next month, the annual Brotherhood Week dinner is being held in the main ballroom of the plaza at 6 o'clock on the 17th. Now, we all know that one of the most urgent problems is to get Negroes and white people

together more to see that they have more contact with one another. At last year's dinner, those of us who went met so many interesting colored people and had so many good talks with them. Probably many of the same will be here this year, and we can compare notes with them. And it is up to the organized women of the community to help improve this problem. And so I do hope that every one of you will help in this important effort. We could only get people to gather more. This has long been the goal of many earnest Americans, like this lady, who sincerely want to improve in a group relations. And yet, unfortunately, the problem is not so simple. Think a minute. Jews and Gentiles have more sheer contact in the Eastern United States than in any other region, and yet public opinion polls and other measures indicate that anti-Semitism

is highest in this very same region. Likewise, Negroes and whites have more contact in the South, and yet my native South is not really conspicuous for its interracial tolerance. It almost appears as if more contact between peoples, the more they get together, the more, not less prejudice there is created. Actually, this conclusion would be just as hasty and fallacious as the lady's assumption that more contact leads to more understanding. The crucial questions we must ask concern the kind of contact existing between two groups. What types of contact lead to greater tolerance and trust, and what types lead to greater prejudice and distrust? The importance of such questions is heightened by their direct relevance to today's racial scene. As the epitaph for Jim Crow is written, and desegregation of public facilities becomes a reality, what changes in racial attitudes of both whites and Negroes will come about?

Once the races are face to face as equals, what effects will there be? Some initial answers to these questions about intergrouped contact have been advanced by the noted social psychologists Professor Gordon Allport in his classic work, The Nature of Prejudice. After reviewing the many social science studies on the subject, he concluded that four characteristics of the contact situation were of the utmost importance. First, for tolerance to increase, the two groups must be of equal social status. If the two groups are of widely different status, contact may do little more than reinforce the old and hostile stereotypes. In the typical southern situation in the venerational contact, for example, the vast majority of Negroes met by white southerners are servants, porters, and other service workers. White soon come to feel that these are the jobs best suited for Negroes, that somehow

this is their proper place. To be sure, there are many professional Negro southerners, doctors, ministers, teachers, but segregation forces them to stay deep within the Negro ghetto, where whites are not likely to meet them. The segregationists who boast that he really knows Negroes is usually referring to his casual encounters with particular Negroes who have had most restricted opportunities. The next two conditions listed by Allport concern the goals and the structure of the contact situation. Before groups can better understand each other, they must be striving for similar goals, but not in competition along group lines. For instance, the San Francisco Giants baseball team were all white, and the Los Angeles Dodgers were all in the grove, they could play for an eternity and not become more racially taller.

Fortunately, however, both teams have members of the two races, so the competition for the common goal of winning is not divided along racial lines. Fourth, Allport notes that contact between groups is maximally effective at reducing intolerance when it is supported by authorities or by law or by custom. In some, then, contact lessons in a group intolerance when it occurs in a type of situation that allows members of each group to discover the interest and basic humanity they share. Let me say some concrete examples. One year ago, two social psychologists studied the racial attitudes of housewives at four public housing projects in New York City and in New York, New Jersey. The two New York projects had desegregated their apartments within the same buildings, but the New York projects segregated their tenants with all the Negroes living in some buildings and all the whites and others.

Fortunately the desegregated projects of New York City had the type of interracial contact that meets Allport's four conditions, and so, as you would expect, the White Housewives in these projects favorably changed their attitudes toward Negroes far more than the women in the segregated New Jersey projects. The major change that took place among the desegregated women was that they tended to think of new goes not so much as a separate group anymore, but more as individuals. When questioned by a social psychologist, one lady answered this way. I thought I was moving into the heart of Africa when I came here. I had always heard things about how they were dirty, drank a lot, were like savages, but after living with them, I changed my mind completely. Just like with white people, some of them I like and some of them I don't. You know, they're just people, they're not any different.

Other studies by social scientists and situations that meet Allport's criteria have led to similar conclusions. For instance, at the beginning of World War II, virtually all army units were totally segregated, then in Europe, late in the war, when the fighting became desperate, a number of Negro infantry platoons were attached to previously all white companies and fought side by side with white platoons till the completion of the war. Note this situation meets all four prerequisites for favorable attitude change. For one of the few times in our national history, Negro and white soldiers were on equal status terms. Furthermore, they had common goals, namely stay alive and win the battle. They were not competing along racial lines, whether a Negro or a white infantryman shot the oncoming Nazi was an academic matter, providing someone shotting.

Finally, the contact had the sanction of top authority. Indeed, it had been ordered by the army's high command. The effects of this contact would dramatic. When questioned later, the vast majority of white soldiers who had fought with Negroes had radically changed their ideas about the Negro American as a fighting man. Regardless of whether the white respondent was an officer or an enlisted man or whether he was from the north or from the south, he typically believed the Negro troops to be as good or better than white troops. Now many of the white soldiers did admit that they had previously believed that Negroes would run in battle, and of course, a few did run, but the whites could hardly hold it against them when the Negroes were running, they too were running alongside. The late great professors Samuel Stauffer conducted extensive research on the American

soldier in World War II, this monumental study he conducted illustrates another important aspect of the effects of contact. Professor Stauffer found that despite the fact that their opinions about the Negro as a fighting man had sharply changed, the white soldiers did not change their attitudes to its segregated post exchanges back of the lines. In other words, in a group contact tends to affect attitudes that are directly and specifically involved in the altered situation itself. But such contact does not necessarily mean that a person's whole attitudinal structure will crumble without other situations changing too. Most of us instead managed to rationalize away unusual experiences, and we keep them from generalizing to new situations. In all ports words, we're good at fence-mending our prejudices and our stereotypes.

The importance of this limited generalization effect for desegregation becomes obvious when we remember that little rock, even little rock, successfully desegregated its buses in 1956 without any serious incident. One year later, it became tragically embroiled in its violent school crisis. The effects of the bust desegregation were too limited to benefit the school situation. Likewise many southern cities in recent years have had a series of desegregation conflicts, first over schools, then over lunch counters, then over bust and train terminals. One by one, they finally succeed in desegregating them, but the effects of one on the next so far seem rather minimal. Or in the north for that matter, studies have found white union members who overwhelmingly approve of racial desegregation in employment and public facilities, but who nevertheless vigorously oppose residential desegregation. These limitations of the effects of even optimal contact are a result of the depth and complexity

with which segregation is snarled the vital fabric of American life. On time one not will not prove a solution, of course, but in time, as a desegregation process unwinds, there should be more of a generalization effect from one situation to another. Back of a certain type, then, can help to modify prejudice attitudes, but frequently with limited effects. Yet modifying prejudice attitudes is only the beginning, for the elimination of discriminatory behavior is the central problem, and we must not confuse the two. Prejudice frequently does lie behind discrimination, but it is not uncommon to find racially prejudiced individuals who do not discriminate, and unprejudiced individuals who do discriminate. Again, let me describe some examples of what I mean.

During the 1930s, a sociologist on a Chinese couple toured the United States and stopped to sleep and eat at 250 different establishments. They will refuse service only once. Later, after the couple had returned to their homeland, the sociologists wrote each of the 250 establishments and asked if Chinese guests were welcome there, over 90 percent replied that they did not serve Chinese people, even though they had in fact served the Chinese couple. Here's a clear example of verbal prejudice and rejection combined with no actual face-to-face discrimination. When facing other human beings directly, you see, we often act better than our own attitudes. Other illustrations of the difference between attitudes and behavior, and the power of the situation to change behavior, range from West Virginia to the canals on. For years, in one coal mine in West Virginia, Negro and white miners were totally integrated

and treated equally in the workforce, as long as they were underground. But as soon as the miners came above ground, they lived totally segregated lives, even to the extreme of returning to their homes and separate buses provided by the company, the same company that practiced the traditional desegregation below the ground. Likewise, in the canal zone, there is a business street, one side of which is in the American zone and the other side of which is in Panama. For many years, the facilities on the American side were tightened segregated by race, while no segregation was practiced on the Panamanian side. And yet customers, busily conducting their business, managed to adjust their behavior easily as they crossed first to one side of the street and into the other. Now, obviously, the miners did not change their racial views each time they went below the ground or came above it. You know, the canals on residents

shift their racial attitudes each time they crossed and recross the business street, behavior and attitudes then need not always be congruent, particular situations, constructions, how most people behave in spite of what attitudes they may harbor. With these situational principles in mind, we're now ready to evaluate the old controversy about the effectiveness of law. Many sincere observers feel that laws cannot change the hearts and minds of men and that the Supreme Court's desegregation rulings are therefore ill-fated efforts. Segregation is naturally readily agreed. But what does modern social science have to say about this problem of the effects of the law? The general assertion that laws cannot change our prejudices and feelings certainly sounds reasonable, doesn't it? But it ignores a vital and immediate step. That is, laws certainly do change behavior and once behaviors change, the hearts and

minds of men often follow suit. In fact, many social science studies indicate that it is usually easier and more effective to first change behavior and then have attitudes change accordingly than it is to first change attitudes and then behavior. For example, when the merchant marine some years ago desegregated its crews and allowed negro sailors to be promoted to all positions on ship, the study was done of the white sailors' racial attitudes. It found that this new, equal status contact led to greater tolerance. In fact, the white sailors tended to change their attitudes more with, with each new desegregated voyage they took. And remember our previous examples. The residentially desegregated housewives and the combat desegregated soldiers sharply changed their attitudes only after their behavior had already been changed. Finding themselves in novel situations, you see, and interacting with Negroes in entirely new ways, the merchant

marines, the housewives and the soldiers managed to shift their opinions to fit with their changed experience. Note, too, that these dramatic attitudes changes were brought about by first having authorities, merchant marine and public housing officials, and the army commanders, order the new situations. Or consider the effects of a law directly. In the late 1940s, New York State passed a fair employment practices law, forbidding racial or religious discrimination in the hiring of workers. One result of this law was the hiring of a number of Negro sales clerks for the first time in many of New York City's leading department stores. This new practice was set the scene for two revealing studies. One found that white sales girls became markedly more favorable in their attitudes toward having Negroes' workers' colleagues once they got used to it. The second study was performed with customers. Social scientists followed customers who just been served by Negro clerks out into the

street, and then they caught up with them, and then they briefly interviewed them. Some of the customers indicated that they were against being served by Negro clerks, while some claim never have even seen in the Negro clerks. So we know that just five minutes before they had in fact been waited on by Negro. But among those who did recall being served by Negro, there was solid evidence that the new experience set up by the law had at least dented their prejudices. A person who'd just been served in the clothing department, for instance, would tend to say, well, I think it's okay in some departments to have Negro clerks like saying the clothing department. But I wouldn't like to be weighed on by Negro clerk in the clothing department. Again, we see the limited but definite attitude changes that occur after law had changed behavior first. In time, after customers had the opportunity

to be served by Negro clerk in a great variety of departments in a number of different stores, he comes to accept this as simply the way things are done. Laws then can and do change the hearts and minds of men. They do it first by modifying behavior, by bringing about contact that meets all ports for conditions for attitude change, following which men fit their new actions to new ideas. Now, this is especially true for laws and court rulings dealing with desegregation since these are buttressed by the firmly rooted ideal of equality of opportunity that stems from the very birth of our nation. In other words, both in the North and in the South, these laws and rulings are supported by America's conscience. Once we take into account these research studies and the principles they confirm, we can

begin to understand why most social scientists are skeptical about the results of just getting groups of different kinds of people together at church, socials, or brotherhood dinners, and other carefully arranged gatherings. In fact, social scientists are not the only ones who are skeptical. Cartoonist Jules Feiffer looks at such gatherings with his usual kinder. In the old days, I used to get invited to these parties, you know, where the host insisted they had to be integrated, you know, so they invited me. And I'd always meet a whole bunch of official friendly people, you know, guys with strong handshakes, chicks who had to dance with me. It's not easy being robbed of a choice when a girl is ugly. And sooner or later, a couple of these cats would get me in a corner and will all blow smoke at each other and be enlightened, and they would want to talk about civil rights under the Democrats, because there's nothing a liberal loves better than being made to

feel guilty. But I wouldn't touch it. I talk about cars, baseball, and how dull foreign movies are. I thought they got so jumpy that one of them had to bring it up. And I pretend to be surprised that they'd be interested in my problem. But they insisted that being a member of the ADA, they considered it everybody's problem. So while I only said I didn't look on civil rights, they humanist issue. The way I look at it, it was strictly self-interest, you know, I could have been a long wait, and I went mine. So a couple of them here and there got restless about what they called my extremist attitude, but all the while they kept smiling. As a people, I find liberals very good-natured. But the party always broke up about an hour early, and I could see nobody really got what they came for, except me. I felt I was suddenly pushing a fast rate of social integration, and I was right. At their next party, they had two Negroes, just in case the first one didn't work out.

Virtually all of these well-meaning efforts are predicated on the erroneous assumptions that contact itself is a panacea, and that attitudes and behavior are always congruent. They further assume that the best means of bringing a boat better in a group relations is to first change people's attitudes. Persuasive as these assumptions may sound, and true as they may be in individual cases, we've seen that these assumptions are not generally justified. Contact alleviates prejudice only in particular types of situations, situations that are seldom duplicated at formal interracial teas and ad banquets, and it must fight for his cocktail party. Further, we've noted that prejudice attitudes and discriminatory behavior are not always found together, and in fact are frequently found separately, as with the reactions to the Chinese couple during America. Finally, we know that the idea

of changing attitudes first and hoping behavior patterns will follow suit usually works more effectively in reverse. Consider Brotherhood Week and Brotherhood Dinners in particular. These events do serve some useful functions. They remind us of our true religious and national ideals, and they strengthen the determination of the already convinced to achieve these ideals in our daily lives. But as a means of convincing the unconvinced, of changing prejudice attitudes and ending segregation barriers, they appear to be of dubious value at best. A vast body of psychological data indicates that prejudice individuals in such a situation as a Brotherhood Dinner will tend to avoid the message altogether, or they will deny the relevance of the message for them, or they'll find ways of twisting the meaning of the message. Worse yet, by tending the annual Brotherhood Dinner and paying the

tax deductible 50 or $100 per plate, many prejudice individuals have considerable influence regularly relieve their guilt. Having gone through the motions, they're free to go right on back, discriminating as before. Consequently, most modern sociologists and social psychologists agree that direct action, not socials and dinners, is the most effective way to combat prejudice and discrimination in American life. Now, by direct action, I mean actions that break out of the old patterns of race relations, where whites always remain in the superior social status to that of Negroes. I mean anti-discrimination laws, private citizens' fair housing practices, committees, sit-ins, and freedom lines, all of which are direct means of establishing new situations of interracial contact, where all ports for a criteria are met, equal status, common goals, knowing a group competition, and authority

sanction. Direct actions, unlike mere speeches and awards for Brotherhood, attempt to change behavior, not attitudes, first. But effective social change is always uncomfortable. Let's be honest, it's easier let everything just stay as it is. So in direct actions for racial change you're made, there's usually a negative reaction, not only from Southern segregation, but also from their northern counterparts. Remember the initial comment on the Negro southerners sitting in Freedom Ride protests? Many seem to think that the protestors were purposely seeking publicity and trouble that they were merely rabble rousers. But of course to be rabble rousers there must first be a discontented rabble to rouse. Often to concern whites who joined in sets direct actions were distinctly call do-gooders. A sad commentary

on our culture that the term do-gooders has achieved a negative connotation. Apparently our segregationist critics prefer do-nothings or do badders or something. But fortunately the protestors have not read their press clippings. They've persevered with their non-violent actions despite violence against them, despite internment. And these and other direct actions have successfully achieved more actual desegregation in a few years than all the brotherhood dinner speeches combined. Supported by law and court rulings, these direct protests are now generally recognized as the major breakthroughs against Jim Crow in modern times. The most encouraging thing on the American race relations seen today is that the many social science principles we've been discussing are becoming widely understood and acted upon. With every gear,

more and more groups of private citizens, white and negro, sincerely wanting to better race relations are turning to intelligent direct action. And as we've seen, such direct action brings the long awaited positive changes where mere words and sentiments have failed. Factors were Natalie Grohl and B. Pepper. Appetite for Jim Crow is a presentation of the Commission on Extension courses Harvard

University's 75-Mount Auburn Street, Cambridge 38 Massachusetts, an association with the Lowell Institute Cooperative Broadcasting Council, WGBH-DV Boston. Studio production costs were provided in part with the assistance of grants from the Anti-Defamation League of Benebris, the Commonwealth School Boston and the Claudia B. and Moricell Stone Foundation. This is NET, National Educational Elevator.