Transcribe
Translate
Burlington Self-Survey on Human Relations: Final report, 1950
Page 27
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
27 an interest"... in knowing what other shops did as she had never had the occasion before." The lunch counter manager said, "they do everywhere." The two restaurants that noted insufficient space gave the impression that the reason they did not serve Negroes was because their space did not allow for segregated sections. The miscellaneous comments are equally revealing. Some of them were: " You know better than that." "It's against the State Law to serve them." "..we will serve them because it is a Civil Rights Law.. but we don't care to." "I don't want to get them started." " I thought some one was trying to kid me. Yes we serve them." "What's the gag?" "I don't see why not." ".... the only time we served (them) was during the flood and the Red Cross brought them here to eat, " The variety of comments made are fairly evenly distributed, no one category listed reflects a majority opinion on the factors involved in the question of serving Negroes. It may be said in terms of this study that precedent ipso facto is not the barrier; half of the establishments that have never served Negroes would continue the discriminatory practice, and the other half at least expressed a willingness to change. It would appear that public opinion, as expressed in terms of the “other customer,” and public practice and policy, as indicated in the reference to the “other shops” and legislation would be potent factors breaking down segregation in Burlington. The comments in these categories comprise 22 percent of the total comments made. Those observations referring to precedent -- if we add “never have..” and generally do not serve Negroes” -- add up to 31 percent of the total; but from these
Saving...
prev
next
27 an interest"... in knowing what other shops did as she had never had the occasion before." The lunch counter manager said, "they do everywhere." The two restaurants that noted insufficient space gave the impression that the reason they did not serve Negroes was because their space did not allow for segregated sections. The miscellaneous comments are equally revealing. Some of them were: " You know better than that." "It's against the State Law to serve them." "..we will serve them because it is a Civil Rights Law.. but we don't care to." "I don't want to get them started." " I thought some one was trying to kid me. Yes we serve them." "What's the gag?" "I don't see why not." ".... the only time we served (them) was during the flood and the Red Cross brought them here to eat, " The variety of comments made are fairly evenly distributed, no one category listed reflects a majority opinion on the factors involved in the question of serving Negroes. It may be said in terms of this study that precedent ipso facto is not the barrier; half of the establishments that have never served Negroes would continue the discriminatory practice, and the other half at least expressed a willingness to change. It would appear that public opinion, as expressed in terms of the “other customer,” and public practice and policy, as indicated in the reference to the “other shops” and legislation would be potent factors breaking down segregation in Burlington. The comments in these categories comprise 22 percent of the total comments made. Those observations referring to precedent -- if we add “never have..” and generally do not serve Negroes” -- add up to 31 percent of the total; but from these
Campus Culture
sidebar
