In Defense

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I can't help feeling, from hearing a few arguments over the long distance phone, that the critics have failed to take my main point, and that they somewhere along the way feel that I am advocating something, be it white supremacy, or segregation.

As intended there was no such intention, and reading back I feel reassured that basically there is no such insinuation, because I don't advocate any technical steps. If anything, I was advocating understanding instead of emotionalism as a basis with which to view and judge the present conflict.

I think it was rather plainly stated that the present moral and sanitary neglect of the Negro is not the product of a natural inferiority, but rather of historical conditions and the system here. I was merely trying to explain why, no matter how sincere a person is, there are certain factors preventing and slowing down the process of integration.

The critics may not like these factors, but they should not make believe that they are not here, no more than they should make the mistake that I endorse them. They are here, and they must be dealt with. It is all very well to be in Cambridge and say, "Segregation is bad: end it," but I assure you that it does absolutely no good for progress in Mississippi, and that whether you like it or not, you must work within the racial framework already existing here, and created long before the Court even considered discarding "separate but equal."

I gather that the (critics) have discovered that whites receive preferential legal treatment in cases involving Negroes. This is, of course, widely known, and since the articles were introduced as describing other aspects of the situation here which I felt might not be so well known in the North I used the explanation of the other double standard of justice.

It would seem to me, that the only basis for criticism of the articles, which attempt to evaluate and report at the same time, would be either directed to a factual lapse, or a failure to support a judgment I make about the people here. I know of only one factual lapse--an inadvertent reference to the grand jury's failure to indict in the second (kidnap) trial of Milam and Bryant as an acquittal; and on reviewing the pieces, the second and third which were the ones with judgments. I find all the judgments on emotionalism supported.

I think the main purpose of the articles has been misconstrued by the critics, since they appear to feel I am advocating something. They should remember, that the main work in implementation of the decision has just begun, and that it is of the utmost importance to understand the feelings of the conflicting sides--and you get one side constantly in the North.

Finally, I am charged with being undemocratic (which I find somewhat comforting by the way, since it clashes with the general belief down here that I may well be the radical left winger that they have heard so much about.) I would like to be sanctimonious as well and suggest that the critics, if they still don't believe me, come down to Mississippi and contribute to the Democratic process. If they are not able to travel South but still feel obligated to help the racial situation (an obligation which I share) they should form a committee and investigate the ratio of Negro teachers as to Negro pupils in the Boston schools. I may be wrong, but it is failings of the North such as this which invalidate most Northerners as critics in the eyes of their Southern sinners. David L. Halberstam '55