Tag Archives: segregation

[October 4, 1964] Are You Literate Enough to Vote in Louisiana?


by Erica Frank

Voter registration drives are sweeping across the South. Tensions are running high: some people want everyone to have a voice in the government, and others want to restrict voting rights. Mississippi has recently gained thousands of new voters, and the conservative establishment in Louisiana is nervous.

Three members of COFO, two black and one white, explain voting rights to an 81-year old man in 1964.
Three members of COFO explain the registration process and his voting rights to an 81-year-old man in Mississippi.
Photo credit: Ebony, September 1964.

Fighting Against Equality

Although this year has had several advances for civil rights and equality, not everyone is willing to share their freedom. Between the 24th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, many formerly disenfranchised people now have the right to vote—and some communities are fighting back against that.

Louisiana's Tangipahoa Parish has decided the standard voting registration process is too easy. The parish fears that if it loses the ability to literally just refuse to allow black people to register, they might actually vote. The new test, which "may be given to anyone who cannot prove a fifth grade education," is guaranteed to block voting rights at the whim of the administrator.

The previous test was available across the state but administered selectively. Registration offices mostly required black citizens complete it, but it was occasionally used for some whites without much income or education. It involved a statement of identity and moral qualifications, followed by a short multiple-choice test.

The moral declaration involved criminal history (most misdemeanors disqualify a person from voting for five years) and personal life questions: "Common law" marriages or an illegitimate child were five-year disqualifiers. Women had to declare they had not given birth to an illegitimate child; men only needed to declare that they had not "acknowledged" themselves as the father of an illegitimate child.

1963 Voter Registration Card in Louisiana
1963 Voting Application in Louisiana

The test asked questions about the Constitution and government, and covered facts like the required age of the President and the limits on Congressional powers to regulate commerce. It asked for details that Civics classes often cover, but that any adult might not recall readily.

Card showing the first question of a voting literacy test from 1963.
How often do we need to consider who would preside over a Presidential impeachment trial?

Although it asks about some obscure facts, the test itself, and even the application form, don't seem particularly onerous. What they hide is a long history of excluding black voters; many parishes in Louisiana have not registered a single black voter this century. Some required that new voters must be personally identified by two registered voters, even if they have a driver's license or military ID card. If no local white voters agreed to "verify" the identity of a black person, they are neatly barred from the vote.

A History of Discrimination

Recent legal changes threaten that entrenched racism. The new Civil Rights Act bars literacy tests as requirements to vote–except for people who haven't completed the sixth grade. Hence the new test, which "may be given to anyone who cannot prove a fifth grade education."

Note the "may." Registration officials can skip the test for anyone they think is qualified to vote: that is to say, wealthy or well-educated white people or friends of the registrar. Of course, they cannot give the test to anyone who can "prove" a fifth grade education, but the law establishes no standards for "proof."

Educational Differences

Before Brown v. Board of Education ten years ago, most areas in the South had segregated schools, and there were fewer non-white schools. Black children had to walk much farther than white children, and the schools often lacked the amenities of white schools, like heating in the winter, or enough books for every student, or a curriculum that covered advanced topics like "algebra" or "literature." Some of the many problems with black schools in the south were described years ago in Charles Johnson's Growing Up in the Black Belt, which discusses, among other topics, the difficulties of getting an education while working on a farm.

The schools themselves are better now, and will be better in the future without segregation, but their legacy continues. Today's adults include those who attended Depression-era schools that operated under a scant fraction of the money received by white schools.

One-room schoolhouse in 1941 in Georgia.
One-room Negro school in Veazy, Georgia, in 1941. These students are now in their late 20s to late 30s. Courtesy of Library of Congress, Delano, Jack, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, October 1941

Many who did get grade-school educations did not complete high school, because they needed jobs as soon as they were able to work. While the law only requires a 6th-grade education, how many schools give out certificates of completion of 6th grade? And how many adults keep that certificate for decades? Even if they did receive one, and kept it, nothing guarantees the voting registrar will accept it. The local official may decide, "That document looks like a forgery. I don't recognize the name of that school, the date is unclear, and I can't read the signature of the principal. You'll have to take the literacy test."

The Unpassable Test

This new test is literally unpassable. Several questions have more than one potential answer, allowing the administrator to declare the test a failure no matter what is answered. It consists of 30 questions that must be answered entirely correctly in 10 minutes—and a single wrong answer disqualifies a person from voting.

The average reading speed is 200 words per minute; the full test has about 650 words. Most people will waste over a third of their time just reading the questions. They then have, on average, 13.5 seconds to answer each question.

It looks simple enough at the start. The instructions say "Do what you are told to do in each statement, nothing more, nothing less." That seems simple—until you consider how someone could interpret it.

1. Draw a line around the number or letter of this sentence.

Any reasonable person would circle the "1." An unreasonable person, like a registrar trying to find an excuse to bar someone from voting, might claim the answer is incorrect if the line around the "1" also included the dot after the number, as that was not part of the instructions. A very unreasonable person might mark it as a failure if the words "the number or letter" were not circled.

2. Draw a line under the last word of this line.

Normally, we'd assume the correct answer is to underline the final word, "line." Someone looking to disqualify an answer might insist the underline belongs under "word"—the last "word" of that line. Or they might decide the phrase "the last word" needs the underline.
Nothing in the law prevents irrational interpretations.

There is no answer key with the "correct" version. The administrator decides whether an answer is using the "right" interpretation, and appealing that judgment requires access to the courts. A would-be voter might be able to file a legal claim, but that won't help in time to vote in the upcoming election.

6. In the space below, draw three circles, one inside (engulfed by) the other.

Which of these answers is correct?

Two pictures of circles, one with three circles inside each other, and the other with one circle inside another, and a third circle off to the side.

Guessing wrong will cost you your ability to vote.

9. Draw a line through the two letters below that come last in the alphabet.

Z V B D N K I P H S T Y C

Does that mean "draw a line through Z and another line through Y?" Or does it mean, "draw a single line through Z, the intermediate letters, and Y?" Or does it mean, "draw a curving line through Z, running over or under the remaining letters and going through Y?" Remember the instructions: Do nothing more or less than what you are told to do.

Guessing wrong means you can't vote this year.

Multiple Interpretations

As the test progresses, the instructions become increasingly opaque and subject to interpretation. Biased officials can use these ambiguities to disqualify potential voters.

20. Spell backwards, forwards.

Does that mean, "spell the word backwards as it appears normally," or "spell the word 'forwards' as 'sdrawrof'?"

21. Print the word "vote" upside down but in correct order.

Does that mean printing the word as ǝʇoʌ, so it looks correct if you turn the page 180°, or ʌoʇǝ, so the letters are in the normal correct order but are upside down? Note that writing "Ǝ┴OΛ" may disqualify you; the original used lower-case letters only.

24. Print a word that looks the same whether it is printed forwards or backwards.

Is that a palindromic word like "civic" or a mirror-image word like "bid?" A word like "MOM" qualifies as both, but the registrar might decide that's a name and not a normal word, or that words in all capitals don't count.

27. Write right from the left to the right as you see it spelled here.

Is that asking for the single word "right" or the entire phrase "right from the left to the right as you see it spelled here"? Or the partial phrase, "right from the left to the right?"

Incomprehensible Questions
And then there are questions that are just incomprehensible:

28. Divide a vertical line in two equal parts by bisecting it with a curved horizontal line that is straight at the point of bisection of the vertical.

Everyone knows how important geometry is when you're trying to make a sensible, well-informed vote. Note the impossibility of a "curved… line" that is "straight at the point of bisection." The administrator might also  use a ruler to decide if the vertical line has two "equal" parts.

29. Write every other word in the first line and print every third word in the same line, but capitalize the fifth word that you write.

Better hope you saved time on some of the early questions, because this one is going to take more than 13 seconds to complete. See that switch from "write" to "print?" Apparently, voting in Louisiana requires both cursive and print skills. Did you print the answer to the question 27? NO VOTING FOR YOU.

Finally, we come to the pièce de résistance, the ultimate question for barring undesirables from exercising their right to vote:

30. Draw five circles that have one common interlocking part.

Bottom of a page, showing a question with almost no space left to answer it.
If the instructions said to just "Draw five circles," I'm not sure there's space for that.

This question is about half an inch above the bottom of the page. A biased registrar can find many ways to mark the answer wrong, no matter what the would-be voter has drawn in the space:

First, by declaring that the answer must have only one common interlocking part. The registrar may demand that no two circles connect other than at that part—a physical impossibility that would disqualify anyone.

Second, by declaring that the submitted drawing does not consist of true circles.

Third, by saying the resulting image is too small to see, or the interlocking part is not clearly a part of all five circles.

Fourth, if the drawing touches the words, or the applicant erases a mistake, the registrar may claim that he or she did "more than what was asked."

Fifth, if the drawing is done on the back of the page where there is more space, the registrar can insist the answer isn't in the correct place. He may decide the applicant left the answer blank. If, to avoid that, the applicant wrote, "answer on back," that may count as "more than what was asked"

Racism in Action

I've mentioned under half of the questions on the test. Some of the remaining are more clear-cut than these, but even one wrong answer disqualifies a person. This test is not designed to test whether someone can read well enough to cast a ballot. It's not designed to test someone's general literacy, or understanding of civics. It's not even designed to require black voters to have a better education than is required for white people. It's designed for one purpose: to prevent black people from voting. It forces them to undergo an unpassable test administered with subjective bias.

This is exactly the kind of discrimination the Civil Rights Act was designed to prevent. If the Civil Rights Act can't stop this, we need a new law that does. Every adult should have the right to vote!

(Are you registered?)

Activists protesting literacy tests in 1964
Activists in Mississippi protest literacy tests.

[Come celebrate with us at Portal 55, Galactic Journey's real-time lounge! Talk about your favorite SFF, chat with the Traveler and co., relax, sit a spell…]




[July 4, 1964] A Struggle for Freedom (The Civil Rights Act)


by Erica Frank

Free at Last?

On America's 188th birthday, we have much to celebrate. Congress and President Johnson have expanded the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to many people who have faced discrimination and bigotry.

This has been a landmark year for civil rights: In January, the 24th Amendment to the Constitution abolished poll taxes: voting is no longer limited by income. Two days ago, in a ceremony broadcast nationally, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, fulfilling one of Kennedy's campaign promises.

“One hundred eighty-eight years ago this week, a small band of valiant men began a struggle for freedom,” Johnson said. “Yet those who founded America knew that freedom would be secure only if each generation fought to renew and enlarge its meaning.”

President Johnson, surrounded by a large crowd, signs the Civil Rights Act.
Lyndon Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the famous civil rights activist, is prominently visible right behind President Johnson as he signs the groundbreaking law. Immediately after signing, Johnson turned and shook the Reverend's hand, and gave him one of the pens used to sign the law.

Johson shakes Martin Luther King, Jr.'s hand, and gives him a pen

The new law bars many forms of previously legal discrimination. It ends racial segregation of schools and businesses, and ends discrimination in jobs based on race or sex. It also grants equal voting access by requiring that everyone face the same restrictions. This means states and cities may no longer make voting easier for wealthy or white voters.

One of the key passages is:

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

This means no more "whites only" restaurants and hotels, no more segregated schools or drinking fountains. Even more importantly, no more "whites only" hospitals that leave entire communities without access to health care: until now, less than half the hospitals in the South admitted anyone who wasn't white. People have died from being refused treatment, or from being transferred to the "black" wing of a hospital while in critical condition. These catastrophes will now be illegal; hospitals can focus on providing health care to everyone.

Businesses no longer need to have two sets of facilities, with the expense resulting in one set—invariably, the one reserved for people who aren't white—being of lower quality. I don't know if the "separate but equal" ruling would've stood unchallenged if most businesses actually did provide equal services; the truth in practice has fallen far short of that. The common approach has been, "Provide white people with good service. Everyone else gets whatever we can cobble together out of leftover parts." This has resulted in de facto second-class citizens, who now have the same rights of access as the majority.

De Jure vs. De Facto

Many people are already testing the new law. In some places, integration is going smoothly: Yesterday, in Kansas City, Missouri, a 13-year-old boy got a haircut at the Muehlebach Hotel. Eugene Young had been turned down just one day before, but is now free to go to any barber shop in the nation. However, in other places, would-be patrons are facing resistance or even violence. A restaurant owner in Atlanta, Georgia chased away three Negro ministers with a gun, insisting that his place would stay segregated.

A black teen gets a haircut from a white barber.
Eugene Young's Haircut
Photo: AP Photofax

While the law prevents race-based restrictions on voting registration, it's not being accepted everywhere. Charles Evers, field secretary for the NAACP, attempted to register to vote in Jackson, Mississippi. He was told he would have to provide proof that he had voted in the previous two general elections. That's a simple way to prevent non-voters from ever becoming voters!

The NAACP and other organizations are asking for federal protection in Mississippi, where segregationists are using threats, physical attacks, and even bombs to prevent new voters from registering. On Thursday, just after the law was signed, two churches used for civil rights activism were destroyed. One was set on fire; a bomb went off in the other. It is possible, of course, that those attacks were just coincidental, and have no direct connection to racist agendas. Possible, but not likely.

Governor Wallace of Alabama gave a speech today in Atlanta, Georgia, calling the law "a fraud, a sham, and a hoax" created by "left-wing liberals" to put people in bondage. He claims that "every American citizen is in jeopardy" of losing "the rights of free men"—by which he apparently means, the right to discriminate against other free men. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that the people protected by this law are also American citizens. Wallace claimed the Supreme Court's recent decisions benefit "criminals, Communists, atheists" and left-wing minority groups. His presidential campaign, he insists, is focused on fighting against the "tyranny" of the "liberal left-wing dogma."

People like Wallace make it clear that the law will not change life in America overnight. It will take some time (and likely police action) for everyone to comply. It will take even longer to undo the differences in income and living conditions caused by segregation. Because of this, many people are dedicating themselves to keep working for equal rights for everyone. In Indianapolis, activists held a 10-mile march for freedom, hoping for a better future for all Americans.

Several people, both black and white, marching, holding a sign that says 'Freedom March, Independence Day 1964, Indianappolis.'
Photo: Indiana Historical Society

The Civil Rights Act brings even broader protections to employees:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…."

This law protects women as well as people of different races and religions. A workplace can no longer insist on hiring only white men, nor to pay them more than other employees. They cannot restrict women to secretarial and janitorial positions. They cannot fire someone because they realize his ancestry isn't what they expected. And they can't relegate some groups of employees to only working at night, or in the back rooms where customers can't see them.

Last year's Equal Pay Act guaranteed equal wages for equal work, but it didn't require that employers hire women at all. Now, they can't refuse to hire a qualified woman to do the job. There's still a long way to go, as most women can't even get bank accounts in their own name, but this is a good start.

A black woman carrying a partially visible banner that reads 'March for Jobs.
A young woman in the Civil Rights march in Washington DC, on August 28th, 1963.
Photo: National Archives

And Justice for All

America isn't perfect; we have our share of short-sighted people, of bigots, of greedy and corrupt politicians. But today, we can celebrate that we are closer to equality and prosperity for everyone, because many people who were held back by force now have the rights to strive for the best future they can create for themselves. And we are all enriched by a nation of hardworking, free-thinking, thriving people who wish to be involved in their communities.


[Come celebrate with us at Portal 55, Galactic Journey's real-time lounge! Talk about your favorite SFF, chat with the Traveler and co., relax, sit a spell…]




[July 14, 1963] JFK gets a Ph.D.


by Victoria Lucas

[Would you believe that the Traveller got scooped in his own home town?  I knew JFK had been downtown, but I didn't know he'd been to (one of my) alma maters…]


(a thank you to SDSC for providing these pictures)

I really wish I had been able to be there.  Fortunately my friend in San Diego came through again, and I’ve been drooling over the prints and tape she sent.  She was at the commencement ceremonies on the 6th of June at San Diego State College (SDSC) when President John F. Kennedy was presented with an honorary doctorate in the Aztec Bowl.  Kennedy is one of my favorite people, and I look forward to voting for him when I vote in my first presidential election next year.

Not for the first time, Kennedy was the star of a motorcade.  This one went down a main drag (El Cajon Boulevard) in San Diego
as he sat and stood in a limousine and rode from the airport on his way to San Diego State as Marines pushed the crowd back.  His primary reason for this trip to San Diego was the inspection of local military installations, so he just picked up a degree on his way to Pendleton Hall for a ceremonial inspection of the nearby Marine Corps base.

Kennedy was accompanied in the limo by California Governor “Pat” Brown, Senator Thomas Eagleton, and Lionel Van Deerlin (whom you've read about here), the local member of the House of Representatives.  Once at the college, he was nearly smothered in academics as he was hurriedly dressed in a cap and gown to join the academic procession to the officials’ platform.

It seems that in 1960 the California State Legislature authorized schools in the California State College system to grant honorary doctoral degrees "to individuals who have made unusual
contributions toward learning and civilization."  This conferral of an honorary Doctor of Laws degree on JFK is the first time that power has been used to grant a degree.

There was quite a crowd, but anyone could stand at the top of the Aztec Bowl and watch the program, and photographers could sneak up and snap away if they could find a spot not already occupied by a dozen newsmen.

Of course every politician and dignitary for hundreds of miles wanted to be a part of this.  With the Governor of California, “Pat” Brown, watching, it was California State College Chancellor Glenn Dumke and San Diego State College President Malcolm A. Love who performed the academic hooding ceremony with Kennedy.  They then presented the newly minted doctor of laws to the faculty and officials on the platform and the commencement crowd.

The academic hood is a device that, despite its name, is not currently designed to be worn over the head.  If you look closely at the color photo below, you will see that the President has something with a red trim across the front of his shoulders.  That’s the hood.  (The back is more colorful.) It carries the colors of the conferring institution, in this case red and black.  Above you will see that both Dumke and Love are putting the “hood” over Kennedy’s head—that isn’t normally done.  It really only takes one person (generally the academic advisor who worked with the student to earn the degree), but in this case it’s a wonder there were only two and there weren’t people fighting over it.

Once the “hood” was on his shoulders, Kennedy was introduced as the commencement speaker by California Governor Pat Brown and gave a thrilling commencement speech before being whisked away in a helicopter to the Marine Corps base for ceremonies there. 

At least I found the speech thrilling.  The tape I received of the short (20-minute) oration has some memorable quotes that I transcribed (which is something I do for money or even fun). 

For those of you who couldn't be there, here's what the President had to say:

As an “instant graduate” of SDSC, Kennedy speaks about “the recognition by the citizens of this State [California] of the importance of education as the basis for the maintenance of an effective, free society.” He addresses the citizens of California before him, saying, “You recognize that a free society places special burdens upon any free citizen.  To govern is to choose and the ability to make those choices wise and responsible and prudent requires the best of all of us.” Again, he emphasizes, “no free society can possibly be sustained, unless it has an educated citizenry whose qualities of mind and heart permit it to take part in the complicated and increasingly sophisticated decisions that pour … upon all the citizens who exercise the ultimate power. “

Moving on to a related but equally urgent problem, he asks “The first question, and the most important—does every American boy and girl have an opportunity to develop whatever talents they have?  All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop those talents.  Let me cite a few facts to show that they do not.”

These “few facts” include the inequality of spending on public schools in various states, the inequality of graduation rates among whites and the “nonwhite population,” and the inequality of age of the school buildings they attend.  He states the obvious, then, that “American children today do not yet enjoy equal educational opportunities for two primary reasons: one is economic and the other is racial.“

The next bit, it seems to me, indicates a direction for public policy that Kennedy advocates: “ If our Nation is to meet the goal of giving every American child a fair chance, because an uneducated child makes an uneducated parent who, in many cases, produces another uneducated child, we must move ahead swiftly in both areas.  And we must recognize that segregation and education and I mean de facto segregation in the North as well as the proclaimed segregation in the South, brings with it serious handicaps to a large proportion of the population.”

He went on to speak about the resulting “increasingly unskilled labor available,” which, along with an “increasing population” of young people, forms “one of the most serious domestic problems that this country will face in the next 10 years.”

Worse than that, the illiteracy rate “in this rich country of ours” is so high that illiterate people “constitute the hard core of our unemployed.  They can’t write a letter to get a job, and they can’t read, in many cases, a help-wanted sign.” He quotes Francis Bacon: “Knowledge is power."

Yes, he does mean to make policy:

“Government must play its role in stimulating a system of excellence which can serve the great national purpose of a free society.  And it is for that reason that we have sent to the Congress of the United States legislation to help meet the needs of higher education …. We have to improve, and we have so recommended, the quality of our teachers … and … to strengthen public elementary and secondary education ….  And finally, we must make a massive attack upon illiteracy in the year 1963 in the United States ….”

Lastly:

“I recognize that this represents a difficult assignment for us all, but I don’t think it is an assignment from which we should shrink.” He pointed out how the birth rate is “going to pour into schools and our colleges in the next 10 or 20 years and I want this generation of Americans to be as prepared to meet this challenge as our forefathers did in making it possible for all of us to be here.”

In short, he called his privileged audience to account for its advantages and challenged them to bring others up to their level. 

It’s about time.