Note:
Gunnar Myrdal died in 1987, less than 70 years ago.
Therefore, this work is protected by copyright,
restricting your legal rights to reproduce it.
However, you are welcome to view it on screen, as you do now.
Read more about copyright.
Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - Footnotes - Chapter 15
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
1272 An American Dilemma
mean that it is carried out in the southern states. In fact it is the exception and not the
rule for the Negro schools in that part of the nation to be anywhere near as efficient as
those for the whites. The inequalities are manifest to anyone who has even a cursory
knowledge of the present status of education in the South.” {Ibid.y pp. 129-13O5 Com-
pare p. 137.)
Charles H. Thompson, “The Status of Education Of and For the Negro in the
American Social Order,” Jourttal of Negro Education (July, 1939), pp. 494-495.
See also, Bond, of, cit,y p. 1 7 1
Wilkerson, of. cit.y p. 79. Where the federal government has left it up to the
state legislatures to allocate the funds for agricultural, industrial, or home economics
training, Negroes have received little of the benefits. According to Wilkerson, such
federal acts include: Hatch Act (1887), Adams Act (1906), Smith-Lever Act (1914),
Clarke-McNary Act (1924), Purnell Act (1925), Capper-Ketcham Act (1928), and
Bankhead-Jones Act, Sections 1-8 and 21 (1935). But where the federal law stipulates
that Negro schools are to receive an equitable share of the funds, Negroes have received
benefits. Such laws include: Nelson Amendment (1907) to the Morrill Act (1890) and
Bankhead-Jones Act, Section 22 (1935). Negroes have received about half their propor-
tionate share of the Smith-Hughes Act (1917) funds. {Idem.)
Ibid.y p. 72.
Robert M. Lester, “Corporation Grants for Education of the Negro,” A Report
of the Carnegie Corporation of New York (1941), p. 26.
Advisory Committee on Education, The Federal Government and Educationy
pp. 17-18.
Ira DeA. Reid, In a Minor Key (1940), p. 39.
Advisory Committee on Education, Federal Relations to Education^ two vols.
(1931)5 Advisory Committee on Education, Refort of the Committee (1938), p. 243.
More recently the American Youth Commission, headed by Owen D. Young and com-
posed of eight laymen and eight educators, came to a similar conclusion after extensive
investigation. (Educational Policies Commission, Education and Economic Well-Being
in American Democracy [1940].) The conclusion of the former of the two commissions
was summarized as follows:
“The facts presented previously in this report indicate that no sound plan of local or
state taxation can be devised and instituted that will support in every local community
a school system which meets minimum acceptable standards. Unless the Federal Govern-
ment participates in the financial support of the schools and related services, several
millions of the children in the United States will continue to be largely denied the
educational opportunities that should be regarded as their birthright.” (Advisory Com-
mittee on Education, Refort of the Committee^ p. 47 5 compare Clarence Heer, of. cit.y
particularly pp. 86-87.)
The subject is touchy, and the Advisory Committee on Education is anything but
clear in its pronouncements on this point. On the one hand, it recommends, in its
main report, that:
“. . . all Federal action should reserve explicitly to State and local auspices the
general administration of schools, control over the processes of education, and the deter-
mination of the best uses of the allotments of Federal funds within the types of
expenditure for which Federal funds may be made available.” {Refort of the Com^
mUteSy p. 42.)
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
