Integration in Professional Education: The Story of Perkins, Southern Methodist University

• Author: Merrimon Cuninggim
• Date: 01 March 1956
• Published date: 01 March 1956
• DOI: 10.1177/000271625630400114
• Subject Matter: Articles

109

Integration

in

Professional

Education:

The

Story

of

Perkins,

Southern

Methodist

University

I N

November

1950,

the

Board

of

Trustees

of

Southern

Methodist

Uni-

versity

took

action

to

permit

one

branch

of.

the

University,

Perkins

School

of

Theology,

to

admit

Negroes

as

regular

students.

Several

features

of

this

action

were

symptomatic

of

later

developments.

The

men

responsible

were

not

fuzzy

idealists

or

emancipated

sophisticates.

They

were,

for

the

most

part,

south-

erners

who

still

clung

to

some

of

their

regional

reflexes,

but

they

were

all

churchm~n,

clergy

and

laity,

who

felt,

in

varying

degrees,

the

judgment

of

the

Christian

ethic

upon

them.

One

influ-

ential

member

of

the

Board

is

reported

to

have

said

in

the

discussion,

&dquo;I

don’t

like

this

proposal.

It

goes

against

what

I’ve

always

believed.

But

I

can

tell

which

way

the

wind

is

blowing,

and

I’m

going

to

vote

for

it.&dquo;

This

first

step

was

indicative

of

the

continuing

ability

of

the

Board

to

detect

which

way

the

wind

was

blowing

before

the

wind

had

become

a

gale.

SMU

has

moved

stead-

ily

on:

the

Law

School

was

opened

to

Negroes

last

year,

and

the

Graduate

School

this

year.

The

University

has

not

succumbed

to

the

temptation,

siz-

able

in

its

region,

to

hold

back

for

the

sake

of

short-range,

though

supposedly

large,

financial

advantage

over

tax-

supported

institutions

whose

desegrega-

tion

is

now

dictated

by

the

Supreme

Court

decision.

The

method

was

gradual.

One

school

at

a

time

was

to

be

the

formula,

and

the

School

of

Theology

was

to

be

first.

This

may

be,

as

southerners

contend,

the

only

method

that

will

work,

but

inherent

in

it

is

the

danger

that

progress

will

be

slower

than

necessary,

or

even

cut

off

altogether.

As

will

be

described

below,

the

University

did

not

escape

this

danger.

Gradualism

is

no

guarantee

against

die-hardism.

Finally,

the

Board’s

action

was

not

announced.

The

University

indulged

in

no

public

breast-beating

of

virtue.

To

this

moment

no

general

description

of

what

happened

at SMU

has

been

made

available.

Though

such

a

policy

can

have

the

mark

of

expediency

about

it,

its

real

justification

lies

rather

in

the

freedom

it

allows

for

getting

ahead

with

the

job.

If

the

job

is

got

ahead

with,

and

if,

as

was

true,

no

effort

is

made

to

hide

or

deny

the

developments

taking

place,

then

a

policy

of

no

publicity

can

give

important

protection

to

a

program

of

desegregation

in

its

early

stages.

FIVE

NEGROES

ENROLLED

So

the

way

was

open.

A

couple

of

rapid

admissions

were

made

in

January

1951,

two

local

Negro

ministers

who

wished

to

seize

the

opportunity

for

taking

special

courses.

But

both

failed

to

make

the

grade

academically.

Thus

no

Negroes

were

enrolled

at

Perkins

in

the

school

year

1951-52,

and

it

was

clear

that

special

effort

would

have

to

be

made

if

fully

qualified

men

were

to

be

secured.

Five

able

men

were

ad-

mitted

in

September

1952.

They

were

from

Arkansas,

North

Carolina,

Okla-

homa,

Tennessee,

and

Texas,

and

rep-

resented

three

different

denominations.

Because

they

were

the

key

figures

in

SMU’s

experiment,

their

names

deserve