
          A Letter from Lillian_Smith
          Edited by Gladney, RoseRose Gladney
          Vol. 10, No. 3, 1988, pp. 16-17
          
          The letter below, written to the editors of the ATLANTA
CONSTITUTION though it was never published there, is the
fourth in a series from the correspondence of Lillian_Smith. The
letter did appear in the NEW YORK TIMES, June 6,
1954.
          Smith's strong position against racial segregation had been clearly
established for more than a decade prior to the Supreme_Court's
historic 1954 ruling. What is significant about her stand against
segregation, however, is not only her timing--that she spoke out as
early as she did--but her perspective and depth of
understanding. Because she saw racial segregation as symbolic and
symptomatic of many other aspects of human nature and society, it is
not surprising that her first public response to the BROWN decision
would contain broad and far-reaching interpretations of the new
law.
          Her passing reference to the ruling as a "powerful political
instrument against communism" was not a new argument for Smith or for
many others who for years had 

pointed to the hypocrisy of America's
willingness to defend freedom abroad while blatantly denying the
rights of citizenship to black Americans. At the same time, her use of
anti-communist language reveals a certain blindness in Smith's
otherwise clear vision of the relationship between means and ends in
any struggle for social change. Although she clearly intended to
defuse the red-baiting tactics of those who called "communists" the
Supreme_Court and all others who worked to end racial segregation, her
willingness to use the anti-communist rhetoric--even against
itself--leaves her vulnerable to charges of feeding the very
red-baiting she would otherwise deplore.
          In the remainder of the letter, Smith's strategy was brilliant. To
call the Brown decision "every child's Magna Carta" was at once to
move the subject out of the realm of black versus white or federal
government versus state and local school_boards and to place it in the
tradition of freedom for the individual that even the most staunchly
Celtic descendant would have to revere. Simultaneously, she pushed
beyond the stereotype of race by renaming skin color an "artificial
disability" compared to "real disabilities" of physically or mentally
disabled children.
          Smith's knowledge of the legal, social, and educational plight of
differently abled Americans was grounded in extensive research. At the
time of this letter, she and Paula Snelling were compiling materials
for an anthology on the subject. Although never completed, the
proposed book as outlined in correspondence with her publisher
included autobiographical experiences of a number of differently abled
people, a bibliography of resources, and a list of relevant state and
federal laws.
          Her perception that the BROWN decision would affect differently
abled children as well as children of color was truly prophetic. Few,
if any, of its defendants or opponents were even considering such
far-reaching implications in 1954, yet educational historians now look
to that decision as a major precedent for the extension of educational
access to all children, culminating in the 1975 enactment of Public
Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
          Smith's confidence that "millions of other southerners" would
"wholeheartedly" accept the challenge of the Brown decision reflected
her basic educational strategy for social change. She believed that
people would rise to the vision of their leaders; and she herself
always tried to embody the vision she held for the South. She would
develop this appeal and outline specific creative responses to
court-ordered desegregation in her 1955 book NOW IS THE
TIME.
          Unfortunately, voices like Lillian_Smith's did not receive the
media coverage given those who dissented loudly or even moderately, as
did William Faulkner when he pleaded for the white South to be given a
little more time. If in hindsight we wonder at Smith's optimism in
1954, we must also acknowledge that her vision is being realized, that
her prophecy came true.
          To the Editors,*
          The Atlanta Constitution
          Atlanta,
Georgia
          Dear Sirs:
          May 31, 1954
          I have read, again, the recent decision of the Supreme_Court. It
bears rereading. For it is a great historic document--not only because
its timing turns it into the most powerful political instrument
against communism that the United_States has, as yet, devised, but
because of its profound meaning for children.
          It is every child's Magna Carta. All are protected by the
magnificent statement that no artificial barriers, such as laws, can
be set up in our land against a child's right to learn and to mature
as a human being.
          There are, perhaps, 5 million children in the U.S.A. who are
colored. There are close to 5 million other children who would be
directly affected by this decision. I am not speaking, now, of "white
children"-many of whom have undoubtedly been injured spiritually by
the philosophy of segregation. I am speaking of disabled children:
          Children who are "different," not because of color but because of
blindness, deafness; because they are crippled, or have cerebral
palsy; because they have speech defects, or epilepsy, or are what we
call "retarded." These children we have also segregated.
          There are more than 40 states with laws forbidding a child with
epilepsy to attend public school--even though most children's
convulsions can now be controlled with modern drugs. Little blind
children are segregated in schools from sighted children; our deaf
from the hearing. Many cerebral palsy children are kept out of school
not because they are unable to attend but because there are teachers
who do not want to teach them. And yet, a basic principle of
rehabilitation is that acceptance and a natural relationship with his
human world is necessary for the disabled child, if he is to make a
good life for himself.
          All these children--some with real disabilities, others with the
artificial disability of color--are affected by this great
decision. Then why are so few politicians protesting so angrily?
Perhaps because they feel THEY will now be handicapped if the old
crutch of "race" is snatched away from them.
          It is true: this decision may shackle a few politicians. But it
frees so many of our children. I, for one, am glad. And I believe
millions of other southerners are glad, also; and will accept
wholeheartedly the challenge of making a harmonious, tactful
change-over from one kind of school to another. It will be an ordeal
only if our attitude makes it so; there are creative, practical ways
of bringing about this change. And in the doing of it, we adults may
grow, too, in wisdom and gentleness.
          Sincerely yours,
          Lillian_Smith
          
            *From a carbon copy in the Lillian_Smith Papers,
Special Collections, University of Georgia Libraries
          
          
            Rose Gladney is an assistant professor of American
Studies at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
          
        
