Desegregation and Its Chances for Success: Northern and Southern Views

Abstract

T HE mass media have kept the nation's attention focused sharply on race relations in the South since the momentous Supreme Court decision of 1954 abolishing racial segregation in public education. Little notice has been taken, however, of attitudes towards racial integration of northerners and how these attitudes compare with those of southerners. As part of a larger study of regional differences in intolerance of the Negro, attitude data concerning a number of facets of racial segregation were gathered in both the North and South. Among other measures, a 12-item, Likert-type scale of anti-Negro prejudice (the N scale) and a 10-item, Likert-type scale of authoritarianism (the F scale) were included in the interview schedule.' Six of the N scale's items bear on the subject of racial integration. In addition, direct questions concerning the discussion, viewed importance, and the possible success of school desegregation were asked. Employing public opinion polling techniques in four towns ranging in population from 4,000 to 14,000 in each region, two experienced interviewers collected data from 186 southerners and 180 northerners during the summer of 1955. The selection of white respondents from recently published town directories was done randomly. The final samples involved slightly younger, slightly less educated, and far more native born southerners than northerners-all differences that exist between the two regions taken as wholes. Random procedures were not employed in selecting the towns, however. Since all eight of them had to have new directories, they were probably somewhat more industrial and prosperous than average. Moreover, the southern communities, located in North Carolina and Georgia, were selected to have Negro densities in their populations varying from 10 percent to 45 percent. The northern towns, all located in New England, had less than 1 percent Negroes each. An introductory letter was mailed to all potential respondents within a week before the arrival of the interviewers. The letter informed the interviewee that his name had been selected by chance and that this poll was interested in determining the importance of mass media in shaping public opinion. The letter stressed the anonymity of the interview, and it did not refer in any way to questions concerning minority groups. The interview began with a series of questions concerning mass media reading and listening, and it seemed largely due to this guise that the blatantly phrased prejudice items of the study caused no interview break-offs. Upon arriving in each town, the interviewers first reported to the head of the local chamber of commerce and to the chief of police. Upon locating a sample member, the interviewer displayed a copy of the letter, briefly reminded him of its contents, and offered to return later if it were not convenient to be interviewed then for 20 minutes. Of the original sample 74 percent was located and of these only 8 percent refused to be interviewed.