Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-04-18
In Techs Defense

nv ell , GSIGHSS
I found 1t hard to follow
the reasoning Of the writer of
the editorial in The Star Of
April 8 entitled I'm Techs
Defense" Perhaps nostalgia
tears dimmed his logic as well
as his vision. Forty years ago,
Tech was only 81 years old,
and should have been in
pretty fair shape. Now, it is
81 years old, and the wear
and tear in the interim must
have deteriorated it some
what. In fact, over IA years
ago the Strayer survey staff
of qualified school buildings
appraisers concluded that:
"The educational adequacy Of
the plant is so low that no
reasonable amount Of reha-
Utilization could correct its de-
ficiencies." Since no improve
ments Of any substance have
been made since 1948-49, 1t Is
safe to assume that the pres
ent condition Of Shaw is
worse than it was at the time
of the survey. I am bound to
give greater weight to the
evaluation of DR.. Strayer's
professionals than to that of
an editorial writer-even one
for so eminent a newspaper
as The Star. incidentally,
when was the last time your
editorial writer visited his
haunts of 40 years ago?
The logical support for the
editorial is weak in another
respect. DIR. Henderson's ref
erence to Shaw as evidence
of the inequality Of the OPP
portunitieS and facilities af-
forded Negro pupils in Dis
trict public schools is support
ed by facts. There are four
junior high schools currently
in use with predominantly
white pupil populations IDEAL,
Gordon, Hart and Kramer.
Not one is subStandard struc-
turally or educationally. In
fact, only Hines has a poorer
plant than Shaw among all
the "a junior high school
plants now in use-and that
also has a predominantly
Negro population. This has
been true for the past Is
years. But 40 years ago, when
the old Tech building was 81
years old, 1t was newer than
Western - though probably
not as adequate education
ally. Eastern and Central
were newer than Tech, and
so was Dunbar-for Negroes.
Even Business Oater old Car
dozo) was probably better
than Tech. But Techs oppo-
site number in the Negro
segment. Armstrong, was built
the same year as Tech and
In l948-49 - was rated 81
points higher as a senior high
than Shaw was as q junior
high. II Techs pupils did not
feel any discrimination in the
facilities they enjoyed, COM
pared with those used by
comparable Negroes, there
was good reaSon-there was
not much. BY standards exist
ing when Tech was built In
1902, 1t wasn't a bad school.
BY 1868 standards 1t is a very
bad building. II your editor
ial writer doesn't think so, he
ought to go through the
building. / would like to &C.
company him and observe his
reactions to the sights he
would see. Harry b. Merican.
Your editorial comment
anent my criticism of past
policies Of Southern school
administrations in providing
for education Of Negroes
afforded us a bit Of nostalgia
history.
We still insist that In
Washington and points South
1t was a policy Of school ad-
illustrators and Boards OF
Education to give TO Negro
education abandoned schools
and second hand buses
where travel was provided.
Tech moved TO It's handsome
edifice In Northeast and even
today Shaw students still
are in the building, with
all It's inadequacies, erected
nearly q half country ago.
Until Judge Parker's Cir
cult Court decision on June
8, 1910. that unequal pay for
equally qualified teachers
was a clear violation OF
the Fourteenth Amendment,
more than s25 million In
salaries was lost each year
by Negro teachers solely be-
cause they were Negroes.
We repeat that many OF
the present day problems In
our urban areas we are reap
ing from the seeds OF neglect
and discrimination planted
during the past 100 years.
Il. u. Henderson,
Publicity director, Virginia
State NAACP.