College Football in Georgia: the Age of Segregation, 1892-1957 Author(S): Charles H

Home , Bobby Dodd, John Heisman, Technique (newspaper), Wally Butts

Georgia Historical Society

Racial Change and "Big-Time" College Football in Georgia: The Age of Segregation, 1892-1957 Author(s): Charles H. Martin Source: The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 80, No. 3, HIGHER EDUCATION IN GEORGIA (FALL 1996), pp. 532-562 Published by: Georgia Historical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40583490 . Accessed: 05/11/2013 21:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Georgia Historical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Georgia Historical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions RacialChange and "Big-Time" CollegeFootball in Georgia: The Age ofSegregation, 1892-1957

ByCharles H. Martin

a cool Fridayevening in earlyDecember 1955, an angry mobof Georgia Tech students poured into the streets of At- lantaand stageda seriesof large and rowdydemonstrations. The targetof their wrath was Governor Marvin Griffin, who had earlier in theday announced his intentionto preventthe Yellow Jacket footballteam from playing in the 1956 SugarBowl game in New Orleanson January2. Afterburning an effigyof Griffinon campus,the unruly Tech students then unexpectedly staged a march towarddowntown, catching local police offguard. A boisterous crowdof nearly2,000 demonstrators eventually assembled at the statecapitol, where they hung another effigy of the governor and damagedtrash cans and severalbuilding doors. Still upset, many of the protestersthen marched on to the governor'smansion, wherea phalanxof jittery policemen and statehighway patrolmen blockedtheir path. After a lengthystandoff, the crowd eventually dispersedpeacefully in theearly morning hours of Saturday,De- cember3.1 Footballgames have frequently inspired much passion and ex- citementin theDeep Southand in Georgia,but rarely have they

'AttentaJournal, December 3-5, 1955; Atlanta Constitution, December 3-5, 1955.

MR. MARTINis assistantprofessor of history at theUniversity ofTexas at El Paso.Re- searchfor this article was funded in partby a grantfrom the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The GeorgiaHistorical Quarterly Vol. LXXX,No. 3, Fall 1996

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Change and College Football 533

come close to settingoff a mob attack on an elected governor. What ignited this particularexplosion was a direct collision be- tweenthe contemporarypolitical campaign to maintainstrict segregationin Georgia and the desire of the state'spremier college sportsprograms to pursue nationalathletic prominence free from external meddling. GovernorGriffin, a leader in the emerging "massiveresistance" movement against federally mandated school desegregationin the South, opposed Tech's Sugar Bowl tripbe- cause the school's opponent would be an integratedteam from the Universityof Pittsburgh.The governorapparently feared that allowinga Georgia universityto participatein such a highlypubli- cized athleticcontest would be inconsistentwith his commitment to total segregationand might undermine massive resistance. Griffin'sefforts and a subsequent campaign in early 1957 by ex- tremesegregationists in the stateassembly to pass a law prohibit- ing all interracialsporting events thus clashed head-on with previousdecisions by administrators at Georgia Tech and the Uni-

When Governor Marvin Griffinannounced his opposition to Georgia Tech's participation in the 1956 Sugar Bowl againstthe Uni- versity of Pittsburgh because it had a black player on itsteam, students staged an angrydemonstration on December 2, 1955, in which theyhung Griffinin effigy, and then proceeded to march on the state capitol and the governor's man- sion. Photographfrom the At- lanta Constitution.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 534 Georgia Historical Quarterly versityof Georgiato abandontheir long-standing tradition of racial exclusionin athleticcompetition. This articledescribes the historyof Georgiaand Georgia Tech'sinstitutional policies concerning race and sportsfrom 1892 to 1957,focusing primarily on football,by far the most popular college sportin thestate. At thestart of thetwentieth century both schoolshad committedthemselves to a policyof rigid racial exclusion,refusing to play against any team whose ranks included an Af- rican-Americanmember, even if the game were playedin the North.During the 1920sand 1930s,both universities successfully defendedthis policy against northern critics. But after World War II, thegrowing presence of black athletes on non-southernteams forcedthe two schools to re-evaluatetheir commitment to fullseg- regation,which now threatened to interferewith their passionate desireto wina nationalchampionship. During the early1950s, bothschools cautiously began to displaya willingnessto schedule an integratedcontest if it were held outside the Southeast, a racial deviationwhich Governor Griffin and severalinfluential legislators attemptedto halt. The failureof extreme segregationists toreverse theprocess of racial change thus marked the end ofthe age offull segregationin big-timecollege sports in Georgia.Although the ac- tualintegration of both universities' football teams still lay over a decadeaway, the shift to a policyof integrated competition outside the statedemonstrated that by the mid-1950sthe state'scollege athleticestablishment placed a greateremphasis on thepursuit of athleticglory than on themaintenance of total racial exclusion. The Americanizedversion of English rugby which came to be called footballspread rapidlyacross college campusesin the Northeastduring the 1870s.By the mid-1880s manywhite stu- dentsin Dixie wereexcitedly experimenting with the new fad.2 GeorgiaTech studentsbegan playingformal matches against othercolleges in 1892,only four years after the school had opened itsdoors to young men seeking a technicaleducation which would preparethem for careers in an industrializingNew South. In 1904, Techlured Coach John Heisman away from Clemson for what was

2RonaldA. Smith,Sports and Freedom:The Rise ofBig-Time College Athletics (New York, 1986) , 67-98;Benjamin G. Rader,American Sports, second ed. (Englewood Cliffs,N.J., 1990) , 101-112,172-88; Patrick Miller, The Playing Fields of American Culture: Athletics and HigherEd- ucation,1850-1945 (forthcoming, Oxford University Press).

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Changeand College Football 535 thena remarkablesalary of $2,250, plus 30 percentof the gate re- ceiptsfrom football, making him the first full-time paid coach in theSouth. During an incrediblysuccessful sixteen-year reign, the legendaryHeisman, for whom the annual award to themost out- standingcollege football player today is named,built the Yellow Jacketsinto a powerhouseand led themto a shareof the national championshipin 1917. His successor,William A. Alexander, coachedthe Engineers to fiveconference titles in the 1920sand thenational championship in 1928.Succeeding "Coach Alex" in 1944was anotherlegendary figure - BobbyDodd. The amazing Dodd spenttwenty-two highly successful years at Tech and di- s rectedthe team to thenational championship in 1952. Atthe University ofGeorgia, an all-maleinstitution until 1918, ProfessorCharles H. Hertyintroduced the eastern version of football to eagerstudents in 1890.In early1892 the school fielded its firstintercollegiate football team, defeating Mercer and losingto Auburn.Rough play was common in thenew game, and injuries werefrequent. After the tragic death of a playerin 1897due to a head injury,the stateassembly almost prohibited the sport.De- spitethis violence, and to someextent because of it,the football squadgenerated tremendous enthusiasm and soonbecame an in- tegralpart of campus life. In orderto improvethe quality of play, thecollege hired W. A. Cunninghamas head coach in 1910.Cun- ninghamsubsequently produced winning teams in sevenof his ten seasons.James Wallace (Wally) Butts was the bestknown of Cunningham'ssuccessors, serving as head coach from 1939 through1960. Butts' outstanding 1942 teamwon the Southeast- ernConference title and defeatedUCLA in the 1943Rose Bowl. Locatedjust eightymiles apart, Georgia and GeorgiaTech soon developeda fiercerivalry with each other.Their annual confron- tation,held at theend ofthe regular season after 1926, quickly became a majorspectacle which captured the fancyof sportsfans acrossthe state,many of whomhad neverset footon a college

^RobertC. McMath,Jr.,Ronald H. Bayor,James E. Brittain,Lawrence Foster, August W. Giebelhaus,and GermainM. Reed, Engineeringthe New South: Georgia Tech, 1885-1985 (Ath- ens, Ga., 1985), 124, 138-40,172-74, 232, 272-74,350-51, 390; GeorgiaTechFootbaü 1992 (At- lanta, 1992), 238-43.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 536 Georgia Historical Quarterly

In 1904,John Heisman became the South's firstfull-time paid footballcoach whenhe came to Georgia Tech fromClemson. He spent sixteenyears building Tech into one of the nation's most formidablepowerhouses. Two yearsafter leading the YellowJackets to a national championshipin 1917, Heisman leftAtlanta to become the head coach at Penn. Photographof Heisman from Clemson University. campus. For both schools, then, footballproved to be "the ulti- mate public relationsweapon."4

4ThomasG. Dyer,77* UniversityofGeorgia: A BicentennialHistory, 1 785-1 985 (Athens,Ga., 1985), 165, 183-85,246, 285; Georgia:1993 FootballMedia Guide(Athens, Ga., 1993), 132-37; McMath,et al., Engineeringthe New South, 350; Germaine M. Reed, "CharlesHolmes Herty and the Establishmentof Organized Athleticsat the Universityof Georgia,"Georgia Histori- cal Quarterly77 (Fall 1993) : 525-40;Jesse Outlar, Between the Hedges: A Storyof Georgia Football (Huntsville,Ala., 1973), 14-18, 109; Clyde Bolton, UnforgettableDays in SouthernFootball (Huntsville,Ala., 1974), 128-35.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Changeand College Football 537

In the1890s, football programs also beganto spreadto southernblack colleges, where students proved to be just as enthusiastic aboutfootball as theirwhite counterparts. By World War I, Atlanta University,Clark College, Morris Brown College, and Morehouse Collegewere all fieldingvarsity teams and enthusiasticallypartici- patingin thefrenzy of college football.5 Despite their shared devo- tion to football,the Universityof Georgiaand GeorgiaTech inhabitedan athleticworld totally separated from these African- Americancolleges. In an age ofrigid segregation, neither univer- sityever considered playing against a southernblack team. In fact, eventhe idea ofplaying against a northernsquad which included one African-Americanplayer was unacceptable.Such a contest wouldhave violated the Jim Crow practices of thetimes and dis- ruptedthe racial hierarchy that most white southerners cherished so strongly.Judge Ben Jackson, a memberof the Georgia Board of Regents,voiced the classicwhite supremacist position in 1941 whenhe declaredthat "an unintelligentwhite man, if he is white, is betterthan the most educated Negro on earth."But even more thansocial status was at stake.Since the culture of college football emphasizedmanliness and physicalprowess, interracial competi- tionwould also open up thepossibility of white defeat, an intoler- able threatto white masculinity and thesocial order. Nonetheless, intersectionalmatches, which proved to be highlypopular with fansand quiteprofitable at thebox office,occasionally created the unthinkablewhen at thelast minute a northernteam was discov- eredto includean African-Americanplayer.6 Southernwhite universities (and collegesin severalborder statesas well)sought a strategywhich would avoid these racial con- frontations.Such unexpectedproblems began in theearly 1900s whennorthern baseball teams came southin thespring for early seasongames in warmweather or whensouthern football teams headed northin thefall to gainbroader national exposure. The resultwas the so-called "gentlemen's agreement," an arrangement

5BiddleUniversity and LivingstoneCollege playedthe firstintercollegiate football game between black colleges in December 1892, at Salisbury,North Carolina. Ocania Chalk, BlackCollege Sport (New York,1976), 197-203,218, 275-77;Arthur R. Ashe,Jr., A Hard Road to Glory,3 vols. (New York,1988), 2: 103; "Run forRespect" (reprint)Atlanta Constitution, September7-14, 1986, p. 6. 6Dyer,The University ofGeorgia, 233.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 538 Georgia Historical Quarterly

In 1892, the Universityof Georgia footballteam (pictured above), coached by chemistry professorCharles H. Herty,engaged in its firstintercollegiate rivalry, with games against Mercerand Auburn.A roughgame withlittle bodily protection, football was almostbanned by the legislaturewhen a playerdied of a head injuryin 1897. Photographfrom the Hargreti RareBook and ManuscriptLibrary, University ofGeorgia Libraries. whichhad become widelyaccepted by the early1920s and which lasted until the 1950s. Accordingto thisone-sided compromise, any northernschool withblack playerson itssquad was expected to withhold them from competitionwhen playing a southern white school, even if the game site were located in the North. Sometimesthis was explicitlystated in the game contract;more commonlyit was merelyan understandingamong "gentlemen." Several incidents involvingintersectional matches illustrate the seriousnessof whitesoutherners' concerns and the changing northernresponse. One of the earliestexamples of racial conflict came in June 1907, afterthe touringUniversity of Alabama baseball team arrivedin Burlingtonfor two games againstthe Univer- sity of Vermont. Alabama coach John H. Pollard promptly demanded thatthe New England squad bench itstwo black regu- lars for the series. When Vermontdeclined to do so, Pollard re- fused to play the games and paid a $300 cancellation fee. In October 1923, the Washingtonand Lee footballsquad dramatically demonstratedsouthern white intransigenceat a game in Pennsylvaniaagainst Washingtonand JeffersonCollege. Before

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Change and College Football 539 theywould take the field,the visiting southerners unexpectedly demandedthat their hosts bench star quarterback Charles West, an AfricanAmerican. When Washingtonand Jeffersonindig- nantlyrefused to comply,the Virginians picked up theirbags and droveback home. A differentresult occurred the following April, whenthe Universityof Georgiabaseball team traveled to Cam- bridgefor a two-gameseries against Harvard University. The Crim- son rosterincluded pitcher Earl Brown,a blackhurler, but the home teamsimply adjusted his pitchingschedule so as to insure thathe did nottake the mound against the Georgians.7 Bythe early 1920s most northern teams had acceptedthe gentlemen'sagreement, bringing predictability to intersectional contests.At the same time, college footballwas enjoyingun- precedentednational popularity, as thepopular press helped turn matchesinto public spectacles for ever-growing audiences. Reas- suredby the security of the gentlemen's agreement and theaccep- tance of racial segregationacross the country,southern universitieseagerly sought full entry into the national mainstream ofbig-time sports, which provided an athleticversion of sectional reconciliation.The financialrewards of intersectional games were importanttoo. As GeorgiaTech coach WilliamAlexander once sagelyobserved about playing in theNorth, "If you've got to lose, lose beforea crowdof people and bringa lot of moneyhome." Southernfootball achieved an importantmilestone in 1926,when theUniversity of Alabama became the first southern team to participatein the prestigiousRose Bowl.Inspired by the Crimson Tide's upsetwin, one Georgianewspaper characterized the tri- umphas "thegreatest victory for the South since the first battle of BullRun." Georgia Tech's 1929 Rose Bowltriumph over the Uni- versityof California,which solidified the Yellow Jackets' number one nationalranking, likewise evoked a massiveoutpouring of sec- tionalpride and won additional public support for the university.8

'Harvard Crimson,April 24-28, 1924; Chalk, Black CollegeSport, 22-23, 29-30; Pittsburgh Courier,October 13, 1923; NewYork Age, October 23, 1923. 8RichardH. Edmonds, editor ot the ManufacturersKecord, enthusiastically praised tne Georgia Tech squad for"rendering an invaluableservice ... byshowing to all sectionsthe superb physicaland mental stamina and alertnessof the people of the South." Andrew Doyle, "'Causes Won, Not Lost': College Football and the Modernizationof the American South,"International Journal of the History of Sport 11 (August1994): 231-51;Atlanta Constitu- tion,January 1-4, 1929; Al Thorny,The Ramblin' Wreck (Huntsville, Ala., 1973), 104. On the rise of college footballas a public spectacle,see Michael Oriard, ReadingFootball (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1993).

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 540 Georgia Historical Quarterly

Georgia Tech's 1928 team,pictured above, became national championswith a Rose Bowl victoryover the Universityof Californiaon New Year's Day of 1929. Because therewere no black playerson the Californiateam, there was none of the controversythat would plague both UGA and Tech in laterintersectional match-ups. Photograph from Georgia Tech Archives.

GeorgiaTech's Rose Bowl tripdid not involvethe gentlemen's agreement,since therewere no African-Americanplayers on the Californiateam.9 But just ten monthslater, the Universityof Geor- gia unexpectedlystumbled into a well-publicizedtest of the new policy.The controversyover thatfall's Georgia-New York Univer- sityfootball game clearlyillustrated the conflictbetween demo- craticsportsmanship and racialexclusion in intercollegiatesports. The 1929 season was a memorableone forGeorgia's athleticpro-

historical studiesby Edwin B. Henderson and ArthurAshe erroneouslystate that Geor- gia Tech unsuccessfullytried to preventCalifornia from using a black halfbackin the 1929 contest.The playerin question,Brice Taylor,actually played at the Universityof Southern California,and the incidentdescribed by the twoscholars probably happened at the 1924 ChristmasFestival game in Los Angelesbetween USC and the Universityof Missouri.Edwin B. Henderson, TheNegro in Sports,revd. ed. (Washington,D.C., 1949), 120-21;Ashe, A Hard Road toGlory 2: 93, 110.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Changeand College Football 541 gram.On October12, theuniversity proudly dedicated Sanford Stadium,its handsome new facility which featured what was then consideredan enormousseating capacity of 30,000. Georgia's op- ponentthat day was Yale University,bearer of a richfootball tradition as one of the originatorsof college footballand a school whichhad notpreviously visited the Deep South.Public interest in thematch was so widespreadthat the state assembly declared theday a legalholiday. Paced byend Vernon (Catfish) Smith, who scored two touchdowns,Georgia successfully turned back the northerninvaders by a scoreof 15-0before an overflowcrowd of 10 nearly35,000. Fourweeks later, the Bulldogs returned the inter- sectionalfavor by leaving Dixie and travelingnorth to playNew YorkUniversity atYankee Stadium in theBronx. Georgia'strip north set off a controversyin theeastern press overwhether NYU woulduse its twoAfrican-American players, David Myersand WilliamO'Shields, against the Bulldogs.Since O'Shieldsrarely played, attention focused on thetalented Myers. New Yorknewspapers reported in late Octoberthat NYU had agreedto honorthe gentlemen's agreement and withholdMyers fromthe match. Several white sportswriters including Ed Sullivan of the New YorkEvening Graphic and HeywoodBroun of the Scripps-Howardchain condemned NYU's plans. Sullivan praised Myersas "a finetype of colored boy" and urgedthe NYU adminis- trationnot to allow"the Mason-Dixon line to be erectedthrough the middleof YankeeStadium."11 The NationalAssociation for theAdvancement of Colored People (NAACP),several black leaders,and NewYork congressman Emmanuel Celler also voicedan- gryprotests to NYUpresident Elmer E. Brown.Celler denounced Myers'benching as "a slap in the face to good sportsmanship," whilethe NAACP singled out head coach"Chick" Meehan for special censure,accusing him of a "cowardlycapitulation to color prejudice."Broun also subjectedMeehan to witheringcriticism, denouncinghim as "thegutless coach ofa gutlessuniversity."12

"Outlar,Between the Hedges, 11-12, 40-41; NewYork Times, October 13, 1929. "Ed Sullivancolumn, n.d., in C. M. Snelling Papers, HargrettRare Book and Manu- scriptLibrary, University of Georgia Libraries;Pittsburgh Couner, November 2, 23, 1929. l2EmanuelCeller to ElmerE. Brown,November 4, 1929,Snelling Papers; PittsburghCou- ner,November 2, 1929.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 542 Georgia Historical Quarterly

In October 1929, the Universityof Georgia inaugurated its new Sanford Stadium,with hedges alreadyin place, in an intersectionalcontest against Yale (picturedabove) . A month later,the Bulldogswent north to face New York University,whose twoblack playersled to a showdownbetween the twoteams and the tworegions of the countrythey represented. Photographfrom Hargrett Rare Book and ManuscriptLibrary.

The NewYork protests alarmed supporters of the Universityof Georgia and othersouthern white fans. In late October and early November,President Charles M. Snellingand thestudent newspaper,the Red and Black,both receivedseveral letters warning them thatthe New York press was exploitingthe issue of Myers'forth- comingbenching. These writersstrongly urged PresidentSnelling to respectsouthern athletic traditions and to uphold the gentlemen's agreement.James Thayer Pate wrote from Washington, D.C., that"it is unthinkablethat such a typicallySouthern school as Georgia would condescend to enter into any athleticcontest againsta team on whicha negro plays."Thayer and the othercor- respondentscontended that playingagainst an integratedteam would "lower"the statureof the universityand thatany compromise on segregationwould be morallywrong. One writereven asserted thatfundamental principles such as racial puritywere far more important"than the doubtfulhonor of winninga football

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Changeand College Football 543 game."But President Snelling was not alarmed. As he calmlyreas- suredone ofhis nervous correspondents, "The athletic authorities of thetwo institutions have understood each otherall along;the coloredboy will not be in thegame."13 Embarrassedby mounting public criticism, NYU officialsde- fendedthe school's actions. In a letterto CongressmanEmman- uel Celler,Acting Chancellor William H. Nicholsblithely insisted thatNYU only wanted to putits best players on thefield. While is- suingsuch disclaimers, NYU officials desperately sought to finda face-savingdevice which would enable them to honortheir prom- ise to Georgiawithout provoking additional negative publicity. Fivedays before the game,the school convenientlyannounced thatMyers had reinjureda shoulderthe previousSaturday and wouldbe physicallyunable to participatein theupcoming match. Such a remarkableturn of eventsprompted the Atlanta Constitu- tionto comment,"Fate came to therescue of a delicatesituation." WhenGeorgia and NYU finallysquared off before 42,000 fans in YankeeStadium on Saturday,November 9, Myerswas not in uniform.In "thewildest blood and thunderfootball game of the season,"the Violets derailed the visitors by a scoreof 27-19.14 Althoughdisappointed over the loss to the Yankee squad, Georgiasupporters were pleased thatthey had at leastwon the battleover the gentlemen'sagreement. Despite conceding that Myerswas undoubtedly injured, Ed Danforth,sports editor of the AtlantaConstitution, congratulated NYU coach Meehanfor with- holding"his best back simply to keephis word with Georgia." Ap- parentlyreferring to Myers'decision not to siton theNYU bench afterhis exclusion,Danforth crudely noted that even "powerful binocularscould not discern the nigger in thegrid pile."15 On the otherhand, black spokesmen harshly criticized both universities.

"Redand Black, November 1, 1929;Brown Bufford to C. M. Snelling,October 25, 1929; Snellingto Bufford, October 28, 1929; W. T. Nettlesto Snelling, October 28, 1929; Snelling toNettles, October 30, 1929; James Thayer Pate to Snelling, November 5, 1929;Snelling to C. R. Spence,Jr., October 25, 1929,Snelling Papers. 14Myerswas not originally among the NYU players listed as injuredat thestart oi the week.He alsosat out the following week's home game against Missouri, which usually de- clinedto playagainst African Americans, before returning to actionin theseason's final twogames. William H. Nicholsto Celler,November 6, 1929,Snelling Papers; Atlanta Con- stitution,November 9, 10, 1929; PittsburghCourier, November 16, 1929; New YorkTimes, No- vember5, 6, 9, 15,1929. 15 AtlantaConstitution, November 10, 1929; PittsburghCourier, November 16, 1929.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 544 Georgia Historical Quarterly

Somewhatsurprisingly, they also chastisedMyers himself in heavilygendered language, questioninghis masculinityand honorfor quietly accepting his exclusion.The PittsburghCourier contendedthat if NYU officialshad toldMyers that he could not play,then he shouldturn in hisuniform, "if he has themanhood and self-respectto quitthe team." Iconoclastic columnist George S. Schuylerpraised white sportswriter Heywood Broun forhis "manlystand on thematter" but characterized Myers' silence on hisbenching as reflectinga lack of "manly spirit." Tragically, Myers endedup excludedby the Georgians, abandoned by his own university,and shunnedby fellow African Americans who questioned hismanliness.16 The Myersincident dramatically revealed the widespread ac- ceptanceof the gentlemen's agreement in big-timecollege sports at theend ofthe roaring twenties. In fact,racial prejudice was so prevalentduring those years that several universities outside the ex-ConfederateSouth also requiredvisiting teams to benchAfri- can-Americanplayers. Colleges in the borderstates of Missouri, Kentucky,Maryland, West Virginia, and even the Districtof Co- lumbiawere at timesguilty of such practices.For example,Wil- liam Bell,an all-conferencetackle at Ohio StateUniversity, was subjectedto a bench-warmingin 1930 when the Buckeyes played theU.S. NavalAcademy in Annapolis,Maryland. In 1937the Uni- versityof Maryland required Syracuse University towithhold black quarterbackWilmeth Sidat-Singh from a game held in Balti- more.17 The 1934intersectional game between Georgia Tech and the Universityof Michiganfurther demonstrated the strength of the gentlemen'sagreement but also revealedthe beginnings of an im- portantshift in studentopinion in the North.The controversy centeredaround Willis Ward, an outstandingend and Big Ten trackstar for the Wolverines. At the beginning of the year, Coach Alexanderinformed Michigan officials that it would be impossible forTech to playthe game unless provisions were made forWard

"PittsburghCourier, November 9, 30, 1929; TheCrisis 37 (January1930): 30. "PittsburghCourier, October 17, November7, 1931; Henderson, TheNegro in Sport,113; Ashe, A Hard Road toGlory 2: 83, 94, 97.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Changeand College Football 545 to siton thebench. "Public sentiment in thesoutheastern states simplydemands that no teamin thissection play against a Negro athlete,"he explained.In March,Tech officialsreminded Michi- ganathletic director Fielding H. Yostabout their concern and sug- gestedthat it would "be betterfor us to call thegame off than for the incidentto cause eitherinstitution unfavorable criticism." Sometimeduring the summer,Michigan officials apparently as- suredGeorgia Tech that Ward would not see actionin thematch.18 As theRambling Wreck headed northby train to AnnArbor forits October 20 gameagainst the Wolverines, Coach Alexander and hisplayers were primarily concerned about the team's bum- blingearly season performance, which had producedtwo straight lossesafter an openingwin over Clemson. But when the Golden Tornadoreached Ypsilanti, they were shocked to discoverthat the issueof Ward's exclusion had unexpectedlybeen reopened.19Re- portsin thenational press about Michigan's plans to bench its star end had resultedin a growingwave of protest and forceda reluc- tantCoach HarryKipke, Athletic Director Yost, and theBoard in Controlof IntercollegiateAthletics to reconsidertheir decision. RoyWilkins, assistant national secretary of the NAACP,urged Kipkenot to withholdhis blackstar. Appealing to idealismand self-interest,Wilkins cleverly suggested that Georgia Tech sought "behindthe cloak of race prejudice,to takean unfairadvantage ofthe Michigan team." The NewYork Age criticized college coaches whogladly shared in thechampionships won bytheir black ath- letesbut who did not"have enough manhood to standup and de- fend"these very athletes against "a crackerfrom the South."A disappointedWard had initiallyindicated his desireto compete againstthe Georgians, but as thegame approached he grewsilent. Manystudents, led bymembers of the Communist-influenced Na- tionalStudents League and theMichigan Daily, joined in thepro-

l8Wardwas reportedly the first black football player at Michigansince 1892, and Coach HarryKipke had toovercome considerable opposition from alumni and administratorsin orderto recruithim. W. A. Alexanderto FieldingH. Yost,January 3, 1934;Alexander and A. H. ArmstrongtoYost, March 17, 1934; Dan E. McGuginto Yost, May 2, 1934,Board in Controlof Athletics Papers, Michigan Historical Collections, Bentley Historical Library, UniversityofMichigan; John Behee, Hail tothe Victors! (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1974), 19, 23. ™ AtlantaDaily World,September 26, 30, 1934; AtlantaConstitution, October 18, 1934.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 546 Georgia Historical Quarterly tests,holding demonstrations on campusand urgingstudents to boycottthe game.20 Brieflycontemplating a reversal of their earlier pledge, Mich- iganofficials quickly huddled with Alexander. Despite their pleas, Alexanderheld firm to Tech'sposition that it was unthinkable for a Deep South team to competeagainst an African-American player.If Michiganviolated the agreement,he warned,Georgia Techwould refuse to playthe game. On theother hand, if Tech actuallyplayed against Ward, Alexander's job wouldbe placedin jeopardy.Furthermore, some of his playersfeared that if they abandonedthe color line an angrycrowd of "bitterrednecks" mightgreet them back in Atlanta."What they would have called us, or done to us, I cannotimagine," one memberof the team laterspeculated. After a heateddiscussion, Yost and Alexander reacheda bizarrecompromise whereby Michigan would withhold WillisWard from the game,and in returnTech wouldhold out starend Hoot Gibson.This last minute agreement would permit Techto maintainracial purity without placing Michigan at a com- petitivedisadvantage.21 The twofootball teams finally took the field on Saturday,Oc- tober20, 1934,under an overcastsky. The uncertainweather and a call bystudent protesters for a boycottof thegame kept atten- dancebelow expectations. In a ratherdull contest, the Wolverines defeatedtheir southern visitors by a scoreof 9-2. Some ofthe dis- appointedGeorgia Tech fansblamed their defeat on the player compromise.Journalist Ralph McGill,then a youthfulAtlanta sportswriter,flatly stated that "Willis Ward won the football game," since the exchange"hurt Tech more thanMichigan." But in a

20RoyWilkins to Kipke,September 20, 1934, Board in ControlPapers; Wilkinsto Alex- ander G. Ruthven,October 11, 1934, RuthvenPapers, Michigan Historical Collections, BentleyHistorical Library, University of Michigan;Atlanta Daily World,September 26, 1934; PittsburghCourier, October 6, 1934; "Run forRespect," p. 1; NewYork Age, October 13, 1934; RobertP. Cohen, Whenthe Old Leftwas Young:Student Radicals and America'sFirst Mass Stu- dentMovement, 1929-1941 (New York, 1993), 22, 211; Howard H. Peckham, TheMaking of theUniversity ofMichigan, 1917-1967 (Ann Arbor,Mich., 1967), 190. 21Alexanderhad firstsuggested the idea of a playertrade-off in hisJanuary letter to Yost, but Michiganadministrators had not pursued the idea untilthe campus protestserupted. Alexanderto Yost,January 8, 1934, Board in ControlPapers; AtlantaConstitution, October 20, 1934; "Run forRespect," p. 1; GeorgiaTech Alumnus 13 (November-December1934), 26; AtlantaDaily World, October 21, 1934; interviewwith Bobby Dodd, byAugust W. Giebelhaus and LarryFoster, July 5, 1983, UniversityArchives, Georgia Tech.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Change and College Football 547 largersense, Georgia Tech actuallywon themore important battle,because the Yellow Jackets had forcedMichigan to honorthe gentlemen'sagreement, even thoughTech was also inconven- ienced.At the same time, the unexpectedly strong opposition on campusat AnnArbor showed that politically conscious students and African-Americanleaders were increasingly demanding that theconcepts of "fairplay" and "goodsportsmanship" be applied to interracialsporting events. The episodefurther suggested that moreserious attacks on thecolor line in collegesports might be expectedin thefuture.22 In theNorth, the controversy left Willis Ward privately bitter and black representativesopenly hostile toward Michigan. The PittsburghCourier termed the incident "a stingingand bitterinsult" whichwould discredit the university's name for generations. The newspaperpointed out that this was especially disheartening since blacktrack stars William DeHart Hubbard and Eddie Tolan had broughtglory to theiralma mater in recentyears by winning gold medalsin theOlympics. The Crisis, the NAACP monthly magazine, scolded Michiganfor not defendingWard's right to play and GeorgiaTech for falsely assuming that its players were superior to Ward.The Crisis ridiculed the Yellow Jackets as "superiorsons of theSouth who got that way by never going into a situationwhere a blackboy might have an equal chance,under common rules, to showthem up." Writing in theAtlanta Daily World, the city's black newspaper,sportswriter Art Randall, a 1934 Michigangraduate and formerroommate of Ward, praised the Wolverine star. Ran- dall congratulatedWard for not turningin his uniform,arguing that"he shouldbe praisedfor swallowing his pride and disap- pointmentlike a man."Any criticism in theaffair, he suggested, shouldbe aimedat GeorgiaTech, which had demandedWard's benching"because of its fear that he mighthumiliate its team by dumpingtheir superior bodies on thegrass."23

22According to Georgia Tech coach Bobby Dodd, Hoot Gibson became quite upset over beingbenched for Ward and remained"bitter until his death bed" over the incident. At- lantaConstitution, October 21, 1934; Georgia Tech Alumnus 13 (November-December1934), 26; Dodd interview.For details on therise of the student movement during the 1930s, see Cohen, Whenthe Old Leftwas Young. ™TheCnsis 41 (November 1934), 333; AtlantaDaily World,October 3, 1934; Pittsburgh Couner,October 27, 1934; Behee, Hail tothe Victors! 29-30.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 548 Georgia Historical Quarterly

Despite effortsat interventionfrom the NAACP, Georgia Tech coach Wil- liam Alexander (left) held firmin his insistencethat a black playerfor the Universityof Michigan be benched when the Rambling Wreck went to Ann Arborto play in 1934. Photograph fromGeorgia Tech Archives.

As a resultof the episode, severalobservers suggested that the desirabilityof intersectionalmatches should be re-evaluated.After criticizingMichigan administratorsfor surrenderingto Georgia Tech, the MichiganDaily declared thatthe college's "principlesare incompatiblewith the South's positionon racial differences"and urged greatercare in selectingfuture opponents. Writingin the AtlantaConstitution, Ralph McGill agreed that betterscheduling was indeed needed in order to head offconfrontations over the gentlemen'sagreement. "Until thistime-honored custom is honored more in the breach than the observance,it mightbe well for southernand northernteams to avoid scheduling games when thereis anypossibility of racial friction,"he suggested.24 The 1934 controversyover the gentlemen'sagreement left a painful legacy with the participatingschools. It took nineteen yearsbefore Michigan would again meet a southernteam on the footballfield. Georgia Tech (and also the Universityof Georgia) rejected McGill's call for a suspension of intersectionalplay, but both schools began to screen potentialnonsouthern opponents

24Ashe,A Hard Road toGlory 2: 94; AtlantaConstitution, October 18, 1934.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Change and College Football 549 morecarefully so as toavoid integrated teams. For example, Geor- gia acceptedan invitationto playUCLA in theJanuary 1943 Rose Bowl,which brought a substantialfinancial windfall to theuniversity.Since black stars Jackie Robinson and KennyWashington had previouslycompleted their highly successful careers for the Bru- ins,and therewere no newblack players on the1942 UCLA squad, the intersectionalcontest did not endangerthe Bulldogs'racial traditions.Apparently administrators at the twoGeorgia institu- tionsbelieved that the substantialfan interestand the national publicitygenerated by high-profile intersectional games were es- sentialto big-timefootball in thestate. Proper advance screening thereforebecame an importantcorollary to the gentlemen's agreementand themaintenance of athletic segregation.25 WorldWar II unleashedforces which ultimately led to thede- miseof thegentlemen's agreement. The warhad a profoundef- fect on race relationsin the United States,particularly by discreditingNazi doctrines of racial superiority, which in turnput whitesupremacy and segregationon thedefensive. The threema- jor Americanprofessional sports - football,baseball, and basket- ball- were all influencedby these trendsand slowlybegan to abandonthe color line. In themost dramatic development of the period,Jackie Robinson successfully integrated major league baseball,the country's most popular sport, when he joined theBrook- lynDodgers in 1947.National Football League teamshad quietly resumedsigning black players the previous year after a twelve-year ban,and in 1950three African-American players signed contracts withmembers of the NationalBasketball Association, indicating thatracial integration in professionalteam sportswas here to stay.26The postwarracial climate on northerncollege campuses was decidedlymore liberal than in the 1930s.At the same time, thecomposition of northern football teams also changed,as itbe- cameless unusual for them to haveone or twoAfrican-American playersin uniform.Some of these black athletes were veterans, but regardlessof their military status northern white students were no longerwilling to acceptpassively their exclusion from intersec-

25Michigandid not recruit another African-American football player for seven years. Be- hee, Hail tothe Victors! 30. 2(iRader,American Sports, 308-313; Ashe, A Hard Road to Glory3: 65, 129-30.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 550 Georgia Historical Quarterly tionalplay. In thisnew campus environment, the compatibility of thegentlemen's agreement with the continuation of big-timein- tersectional games would be calledinto question. Attitudesat southernwhite colleges changed more slowly thanin theNorth. Still, a growingpragmatism about an occasional interracialsporting event, if held far away from one's state, was be- ginningto appearin Georgiaand especiallyin theborder South. Administratorsat the Universityof Georgiaand GeorgiaTech wereless frightened by the possibilityof playingagainst an Afri- can-Americanathlete than were theircounterparts in Alabama and Mississippl.Scheduling by the twoschools revealed caution but not totalopposition to thepossibility of integratedmatches. Administratorsrefrained from addressing the issue publicly, but at thestart of the 1950s they quietly revised their traditional policies in order to permitan occasionalintegrated game outsidethe Southif the home team would no longerhonor the gentlemen's agreement.The policyconcerning home games remainedun- changed,however. Georgiawas the first of the two schools to takethe plunge and abandonits tradition of racial exclusion. In lateSeptember 1950, theBulldogs traveled west to San Franciscoto playSt. Mary's Col- lege. Led bytheir star black halfback, John Henry Johnson, who ranback the opening kickoff of the second half ninety yards for a touchdown,the St. Mary's Gaels battled the favored Bulldogs to a 7-7tie. Newspapers in Georgianoted Johnson's participation in thecontest but did notmake an issueof the color line, indicating resignationrather than resistance to thisimportant modification of thegentlemen's agreement. Two years later, the Bulldogs traveled northto Philadelphia,where they defeated the University of Pennsylvaniaand itsblack star "Big Ed" Bell bya scoreof 34-27, confirmingGeorgia's abandonment of theagreement for games playedoutside Dixie.27 Duringthe 1950s, Georgia Tech football enjoyed its finest era. Underthe brilliant leadership of Bobby Dodd, Yellow Jacket teams claimedtwo SEC championshipsand made six consecutivebowl appearances,beginning with the 1951 squad. More remarkably,

11 Redand Black,September 29, October 6, 1950; Los AngelesMirror, October 2, 1950; At- lanta Constitution,December 1, 1955.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Changeand College Football 551 theEngineers won all six of thosepostseason games. The unde- feated1952 teamwas arguablyDodd's mostoutstanding, and it earneda shareof themythical national championship by defeat- ingOle Missin theSugar Bowl. In Octoberof thefollowing year, in themidst of these "glory days," the Yellow Jackets journeyed to SouthBend, Indiana, to battleNotre Dame in thepremier inter- sectionalmatch of the collegeseason. The Irish,rated number one in thewire service polls, eventually prevailed over the fourth- rankedEngineers by a scoreof 27-14,ending Tech's remarkable stringof thirty-one straight games without a loss.28 Mostlyoverlooked in themassive publicity surrounding the in- tersectionalshowdown between two of the country's most success- fulprograms was the factthat two African Americans, halfback DickWashington and end WayneEdmunds, saw action as substi- tutesfor Notre Dame. This important racial milestone meant that, in orderto play the best teams in thecountry, Tech was now willing to quietlywaive the gentlemen's agreement in theNorth. As was thecase with Georgia, however, university officials made no public announcementabout the policy change. Self-interest and thepur- suitof athleticsuccess had triumphedover the principle of total segregation,provided that the violations of traditionalracial eti- quettetook place farfrom the Peach State.29 The nextmajor incident involving race and GeorgiaTech sportsarose unexpectedly in late1955 when the team accepted an invitationto playin theSugar Bowl. The ensuingcontroversy ex- poseda growingsplit among white Georgians over whether to ac- ceptor challengethe emerging trend toward playing interracial footballgames, especially since public school integration had just becomea vitalconcern across Dixie in the aftermathof the Su- premeCourt's famous Brown v. Boardof Education ruling in May 1954,which the high Court had reconfirmedin May1955. A dis- agreementbetween these two forces quickly escalated into a major publicshowdown over athletic policy, involving university administrators,students, the Board of Regents of the University System,

™ AtlantaConstitution, December 1, 1953; PittsburghCornier, October 31, 1953. ^PittsburghCourier, December 5, 1953;John E. Heislerto author,June 24, 1994;Tech- nique,November 27, 1953.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 552 Georgia Historical Quarterly the governor,extreme segregationists, and numerousGeorgia Techfootball fans. The 1955Yellow Jacket team enjoyed another highly success- fulseason, finishing with a numberseven national ranking and a covetedinvitation to theJanuary 2, 1956,Sugar Bowl game. The NewOrleans business and civicleaders who ran the Mid-Winter SportsAssociation, sponsor of the postseason classic, had been re- examiningthe association'sracial policies for several years. Re- flectinga "booster"mentality and a pragmaticapproach to racial matters,they sought to securefor the Sugar Bowl the most attrac- tivepossible match of teamsfrom all overthe country,not just fromthe Deep South.Since the classic'smain competitors,the CottonBowl and theOrange Bowl, did acceptintegrated teams, NewOrleans leaders worried that they were facing a competitive disadvantage.For its game the previous year the organization had modifiedits policy on segregatedseating in TulaneUniversity stadium,the match's annual location. The newpolicy opened up the visitingteam's section to unrestrictedseating while maintaining thetraditional all-black area in one end zone.This concession had been partof a successfuleffort to enticethe U.S. NavalAcademy to accept an invitationto the January1955, bowl game. Ten monthslater, the association further broke with tradition and ex- tendedan offerto the Universityof Pittsburgh,fully aware that Panthersenior BobbyGrier, a black fullbackfrom Massillon, Ohio,would accompany the team.30 GeorgiaTech officialswere informed about Grier's presence on thePitt squad whenthey received their Sugar Bowl invitation. Afterconsulting with the players and keymembers of the Georgia TechAthletic Association, President Blake R. VanLeer and Coach BobbyDodd acceptedthe bowlbid. As a precaution,Dodd also had contactedGovernor Marvin Griffin, who responded, "Bobby, I can'tcome out publiclyand supportthis. But you go ahead and do it."Since thegame would be playedoutside the state and no majorobjections had been raised,Tech administratorsthought

■'"'Navydid not have any black playerson its 1954 squad, but severalblack midshipmen were partof the studentdelegation attending the game. AtlantaDaily World,January 8, No- vember27, 1955.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Changeand College Football 553 thatthe issuewas settled.But theysoon learnedthat they were quitewrong.31 On Wednesday,November 30, the executive committee of the StatesRights Council of Georgia,an influentialpro-segregation organization,fired off a telegramto Dodd protestingTech's ac- ceptanceof thebowl invitation and urginghim to help prevent "anybreakdown of our laws,customs, and traditionsof racial segregation."Robert O. Arnold,chairman of the Board of Regents of theUniversity System, quickly defended the trip by pointing out that"Georgia and Techboth have played against Negro players in thepast." A GeorgiaTech spokesman attempted to head offcriti- cismby minimizing Bobby Grier's importance to thePitt team, in- accuratelyclaiming that he was just a thirdstring fullback. Confinedto bed withthe flu throughout the crisis, President Van Leer made onlyone publicappearance, telling reporters that he had neverbroken a contractin hislife and that"I do notintend to startnow." Officials for the University of Pittsburgh responded to theinitial news reports by forcefully stating that Grier was an in- tegralpart of theirteam and thathe would"sleep, eat, practice, and play"with the squad in NewOrleans.32 At this point Governor MarvinGriffin suddenly jumped into the public debate and delib- eratelyprovoked a majorcontroversy. Griffin had won the 1954 governor'srace over eight opponents by emphasizing his total op- positionto publicschool integration. Shortly before taking office, he vowed,"Come hell or highwater, races will not be mixedin Georgiaschools." The outspokengovernor soon becamea leader in the "massiveresistance" movement, which sought to mobilize whitesoutherners to blockall federalefforts to implementthe Brownv. Boardof Education ruling.33 On Friday,December 2, 1955,Governor Griffin shocked the GeorgiaTech communityby reversing his positionon theSugar

*'"Runfor Respect," p. 2; McMath,et al., Engineering theNew South, 282; Dodd interview. ^AtlantaDaily World,December 1, l')bb; AtlantaConstitution, December l, b, Wöö; Mc- Math,et al., Engineenngthe New South, 282; NewYork Times, December 1, 1955; PittsburghPost- Gazette,December 3, 1955. ^Accordingto RobertW. üubay,Governor Onthn had initiallyrequested two dozen ticketsto theSugar Bowl game, before he changedhis mind and decidedto opposethe trip.Francis M. Wilhoit,The Politics of Massive Resistance (New York, 1973), 42, 115;Numan V. Bartley,The Rise of Massive Resistance (Baton Rouge, La., 1969), 68-72;ElPaso Times,]u'y 12,1955; Robert W. Dubay,"Politics, Pigmentation, and Pigskin:The GeorgiaTech Sugar BowlControversy of 1955," Atlanta Histoiy 39 (Spring1995): 23-25.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 554 Georgia Historical Quarterly

Bowltrip. Griffin sent Regents chairman Arnold a telegramde- mandingthat he callan emergencymeeting of the state university boardto considerprohibiting the Yellow Jackets from traveling to New Orleans.Warning in apocalypticterms of the impending doomto thesouthern way of life if Tech participated in thegame, Griffindramatically declared: "We cannot make the slightest con- cessionto the enemy in thisdark and lamentablehour of struggle. Thereis no moredifference in compromisingthe integrity ofrace on theplaying field than in doingso in theclassroom. One break in thedike and therelentless seas will rush in and destroyus."34 Griffin'saction ignited a firestorm"of indignation throughout thestate," especially among students, faculty, and administrators at Georgia Tech and Georgia,who bitterlyresented his interventionin whatthey regarded as an internaluniversity mat- ter.The governorannounced his newposition on thelast day of thefall term at Tech.With a toughschedule of final exams await- ingthem, male studentstraditionally used thatweekend to cram forexams and to relievethe end ofthe semester tension through wildbehavior, heavy drinking, or even "panty raids." Griffin's state- mentprovided an obvioustarget not only for students furious over histhreat to takeaway their team's hard-earned bowl trip but also foryoung men eager to "letoff steam" at theend ofthe term.35 GeorgiaTech students quickly displayed their displeasure with Griffin.Early Friday evening they spontaneously gathering on the campusand hangedthe governorin effigy.After more students joined theirranks, the demonstrators eventually launched a full- scale marchto thestate capitol, arriving there around midnight. Findingthat the governor had gonehome, the students and their supporters,who now numbered nearly 2,000, loudly voiced their displeasureto reporters,hanged another effigy of Griffin,and slightlydamaged property on thecapitol grounds before some of themdecided to marchto the governor'smansion. By the time thissmaller group finally arrived at theresidence, twenty-five law enforcementvehicles and a wallof policemen were already assembled in frontof the house.No majoraltercations were reported 54 ApparentlyGriffin changed his position when several of his segregationist political al- liescomplained. Atlanta Constitution, December 3, 1955;"Tempest O'er theSugar Bowl," TechAlumnus (December 1955), 8. "NewYork Times, December 4, 1955.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Change and College Football 555

GovernorMarvin Griffin (above) created an uproar throughoutthe state when he announced in December 1955 his intentionto prohibitGeorgia Tech fromplaying in the Sugar Bowl, where the team would face Universityof Pittsburgh'sblack fullback,Bobby Grier,on the field.Photograph of Griffin from Georgia Department of Archives and History.

during the ensuing standoff,and state representativeM. M. "Muggsy"Smith, a formerGeorgia Tech footballplayer who lived nearby,eventually persuaded the studentsto dispersein the early morninghours. Police made six arrestsduring the "riot."36Stu- dentsat severalother Georgia colleges also stageddemonstrations criticizingGriffin. In Athens, a crowd of over 500 students

^Georgia Tech officialsblamed the governor'smessage, end of the termpressures on students,radio stationbroadcasts about the march,and the encouragementof two"outside agitators"for causing the demonstrations.Property damages reportedto Tech officialsto- taled $212.80. AtlantaJournal, December 3, 5-6, 1955; AtlantaConstitution, December 3-6, 1955; George C. Griffinto Blake R. Van Leer, December 12, 1955; Van Leer to Harmon Caldwell,January 5, 1956, Board of RegentsCollection, University Archives, Georgia Tech; McMath,et al., Engineeringthe New South, 283.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 556 Georgia Historical Quarterly marchedthrough downtown streets, displaying a bannerwhich read,"This time we're for Tech."37 The college demonstrationsand Griffin'stelegram tempo- rarilyturned the bowl controversy into the state's major political issue.The presidentof the GeorgiaTech studentgovernment, GeorgeHarris, issued a publicapology to theUniversity of Pitts- burghfor the governor's actions. Harris told the press that his fellow studentswere "not against segregation but againstpolitical forceswhich are tryingto preventus fromgoing to the Sugar Bowl."Tech's campus newspaper, the Technique,charged that Grif- fin'sactions had madethe university and thestate "look like fools beforethe entire nation." Atlanta resident David Rice, a member ofthe Board of Regents, warned that the controversy could harm thefootball teams at Georgiaand GeorgiaTech by making it diffi- cultfor them to recruitout-of-state athletes. In itsSunday edition, theAtlanta Constitution condemned Griffin for creating a "teapot tempest"and fordamaging the reputations of both Georgia Tech and thestate. Several other state newspapers voiced similar criti- cismsof the governor.College officialsreported that President VanLeer had alreadyreceived over fifty telegrams concerning the incident,with all butone ofthem supporting the school's partici- pationin theSugar Bowl.38 The governor'soffice quickly tried to counter this flood of criticism.Staff members asserted that they too had receivednumer- ous telegrams,almost all of whichsupported the governor's position.Disgusted by the student protests, one angrystate repre- sentativesuggested that the legislaturecut offfunds to Georgia Techif it insisted on playingin theSugar Bowl. Roy Harris, a prom- inentpolitician from Augusta and memberof the Board of Re- gents,publicly endorsed the proposed ban on Tech'sNew Orleans trip.The powerfulsegregationist leader warned that such actions werenecessary because blacks were trying to underminesegrega- tionin thestate by attacking it in theareas of entertainment and sports.Ironically, during a 1951Regents debate on deemphasizing

^Sympatheticstudents at EmoryUniversity and MercerUniversity also stagedsmall pro- testsagainst Griffin. Atlanta Journal, December 6, 1955;Atlanta Constitution, December 6, 1955. ^AtlantaConstitution, December 4, 1955; Technique,December 6, 1955; "TempestO'er the Sugar Bowl,"9; New YorkTimes, December 3, 4, 1955; Dubay, "Politics,Pigmentation, and Pigskin,"28-29.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Changeand College Football 557 footballat the university,Harris had passionatelydefended big- timesports and declaredhis firm opposition to "doinganything to crippleor embarrassour athleticprogram." Despite this segrega- tionistcounterattack, public opinion seemed to be running againstthe governor.Even one pro-segregationnewspaper criti- cizedGriffin for acting after the fact and therebytarnishing "the reputationof our twogreat state universities whose football teams havebrought fame, glory, and prestigeto Georgia."39 The Boardof Regents of the University System of Georgia met forthree hours on Monday,December 5, to considerGovernor Griffin'srequest. Regent David Rice vigorouslydefended Tech's SugarBowl acceptance and openlycriticized Griffin for creating an unnecessarycrisis. Regent Roy Harris challenged Rice, arguing thatthe state's racial traditions should be preserved,regardless of thecost. After extended discussion, the board voted as predicted toapprove Tech's bowl trip. But in a mildsurprise, however, italso adopteda generalpolicy governing future games that was less re- strictivethan expected. According to thenew guidelines, state col- legeswere required to honorGeorgia's segregation laws, customs, and traditionswhen playing at home,but on theroad they would "respectthe laws, customs, and traditionsof the hoststate." Un- dauntedby the setback, Governor Griffin reaffirmed his commit- mentto Jim Crow, commenting emphatically that he wasstill 100 percentbehind segregation. As the crisissubsided, almost over- lookedon page twoof the December 6 issueof the Atlanta Consti- tutionwas a briefwire servicearticle reporting that African Americansin Montgomery,Alabama, were boycotting the city bus serviceto protest the conviction of a seamstressnamed Rosa Parks forviolating the local segregatedseating ordinance.40 The actualSugar Bowl game in NewOrleans and thefestivities surroundingit inspiredadditional debate about changing racial patternsin the Deep South.Most of the attentionfocused on BobbyGrier and thePittsburgh Panthers. Because downtown ho- telswere segregated, Pittsburgh elected to establishits team head- quartersuptown at TulaneUniversity, where the squad could use

M AtlantaConstitution, December 4-5, 1955; AtlantaJournal, December 6, 1955; Atlanta Daily World,December 8, 1955; McMath,et al., Engineeringthe New South, 285. 4(1 AtlantaJournal, December 5, 6, 1955; AtlantaConstitution, December 6, 1955; Atlanta Daily World,December 7, 1955.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 558 Georgia Historical Quarterly theathletic facilities for practice. A largerthan normal group of sportswriterscovered the game,provoking an irritatedFurman Bisherof theAtlanta Constitution to complain that their excessive reportinghad unnecessarilyexaggerated a "commonplaceinci- dent"into an epic event.Bisher sarcastically suggested that the gameshould be renamed"the Sociological Bowl." Requirements forsegregated seating in Tulane Universitystadium were again modifiedso as to permitblacks to sitin thePitt section, and the increasednumber of African Americans attending helped create a sellout.Several writers representing black newspapers covered thematch from the press box, establishing another precedent.41 The gameitself was a low-scoringaffair, with Pittsburgh gain- ingtwice as manyyards as Techbut failing to score.Ironically the keyplay of the daywas a questionablepass interferencepenalty calledagainst Grier, which gave the Engineers the ball on thePan- therone yardline. On theensuing play Wade Mitchell scored the game'sonly touchdown, and Tech clinchedits fifth consecutive bowlvictory by a scoreof 7-0.Grier was the leading rusher in the gameand receiveda loud ovationfrom the crowd when he leftthe fieldin thefourth quarter with an injury.After the contest, Grier denied thathe had committedpass interferencebut comple- mentedthe Yellow Jacket players for their excellent sportsmanship.That nightthe Pitt fullback broke another color barrier by attendingthe awards banquet at theSt. CharlesHotel. Grier sat withseveral of the Georgia Tech players during the presentations butdid notstay for the formal dance afterwards,preferring to at- tenda partyarranged by several fraternity brothers.42 GeorgiaTech escapedfrom the Sugar Bowl controversy with itsathletic policies intact, a resultwhich also benefited the Univer- sityof Georgia. But while the Board of Regents seemed content to let the issuefade into the background,several members of the GeorgiaAssembly had a differentidea. Caughtup in an emotional

"AtlantaDaily World, January 3, 1956; AtlantaConstitution, January 5, 1956; PittsburghCou- rier,December 10, 1955; New YorkTim«, January 3, 1956; interviewwith Bobby Grier, June 23, 1994. 42Pittsupporters and the Pittsburghnewspapers later insisted that game filmsconfirmed thatone officialhad unfairlypenalized Grierfor pass interferenceon the game's keyplay. "I had no problemsdown there,"Grier later recalled. "The onlyproblem was thatcall on the field."Grier interview; Atlanta Daily World,January 3, 1956; PittsburghCourier, February 11, 1956; PittsburghPress, February 5, 1956; NewYork Times, January 3, 1956.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Change and College Football 559

The YellowJacket team posed as theyboarded a plane in Atlantafor the 1956 Sugar Bowl in New Orleans. Though the game would bringthem theirfifth consecutive bowl victory, thiscontest proved far more memorablefor the racial controversysurrounding it than for the game itself.Photograph from Georgia Tech Archives. waveof massiveresistance to publicschool desegregation, many legislatorsbegan to viewcollege athletic contests as an integral partof thelarger campaign to resistintegration, rather than as a privilegedarea deservingan exemptionfrom broader public pol- icyconcerns. In early1956 a staterepresentative introduced a bill in theassembly to prohibitall athleticevents involving competi- tionbetween blacks and whites,but the proposal died without re- ceivingmuch attention.43 One yearlater, however, the 1957 GeneralAssembly gave moreserious consideration to another sports segregation bill. The January-Februarylegislative session was a livelyone, with assembly membersintroducing numerous bills designed to reinforcesegre- gationin thestate. In one oftheir more extreme moments, the in- 43 'MemphisCommercial Appeal, February 1, 1956, UniversityArchives, Mitchell Memorial Library,Mississippi State University;New York Times, January 18, 19, 1956.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 560 Georgia Historical Quarterly dignantlegislators even approvedresolutions calling for the nullificationof the Fourteenth and FifteenthAmendments to the UnitedStates Constitution and theimpeachment of Chief Justice EarlWarren and fiveother members of the U.S. SupremeCourt. As part of this segregationistcrusade, Senator Leon Buttsof LumpkinCounty introduced a billto ban integratedathletics and othersocial activities. This sweepingproposal sought to prohibit all athleticmatches, physical games, social functions, and enter- tainmentevents in whichblacks and whitesparticipated together. Emphasizingthe important symbolic role ofsports, Butts argued thatinterracial athletic competition set a dangerousexample, because "whenNegroes and whitesmeet on theathletic fields on a basisof complete equality, it is onlynatural that this sense of equal- itycarries into the daily living of these people." Governor Marvin Griffinstrongly endorsed the proposal,explaining that he was against"Negroes and whitefolks playing any typeof sportto- gether."In a mildsurprise, the senate unanimously approved the measurein mid-February.44 The growingrealization that the bill mightactually win ap- provalfrom the house and become law alarmedminor league baseball representatives,university officials, and varioussports fans.Columnist Jim Minter of the AtlantaJournal promptly at- tackedthe proposal, asserting that it would endanger the national prominenceof theGeorgia Tech and Georgiaathletic programs. Intersectionalmatches against the top nonsouthernteams might becomeimpossible to arrange, he cautioned,and thefuture status ofthe Southeastern Conference could be endangered.Dismissing themeasure as unnecessary,columnist Marion Jackson of theAt- lantaDaily World ridiculed the bill by suggestingthat the state neededsuch legislation about as much"as theproverbial Eskimo" needs "theproverbial refrigerator." For theirpart, baseball offi- cialswarned that the bill would destroy the Class A SouthAtlantic League,which had fourteams based in Georgiatowns, and endanger otherminor league franchisesas well,since majorleague teamswould no longertolerate such racial restrictions.45

«AtlantaConstitution, February 15-21, 1957; AtlantaJournal, February 16-21, 1957; New YorkTimes, February 15, 23, 1957. '"AtlantaJournal, February 16, 22, 1957; AtlantaDaily World,January 29, 1957.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Racial Changeand College Football 561

Determinedto protect professional and collegesports, a small band oflegislators led byrepresentatives George Bagby of Pauld- ing Countyand CharlesGowen and WilliamKillian of Glynn Countyquietly began working to defeatthe bill. Their main strat- egyfocused on preventingthe measure from ever coming before thefull house for a vote.Representatives ofminor league baseball also discreetlylobbied against the measure.Such tacticsslowed butdid not haltthe bill's advancement. On Friday,February 22, thelast day of the session, the proposal was finally ready for discussion beforethe fullhouse, but criticsdelayed consideration for severalhours through parliamentary maneuvers. Late in theafter- noon,these opponents then joined withother weary legislators to votefor adjournment before the bill could be returnedto the floor.Disappointed by his defeat, Senator Butts told reporters, "I thinkit's a shamethe major league ball clubs and theNAACP have gottencontrol of the Georgia House."46 The Georgiaand GeorgiaTech athleticprograms benefited fromthe bill's demise. Although the proposaltechnically would onlyhave enshrined in lawwhat regents' policy already required of thetwo colleges, it easilycould haveforeshadowed further in- terferenceby the legislaturein the schools'athletic policies. By avoidinga legislativedecree, the Regentsretained the powerto granta temporaryexemption to theirown rule, or evenabandon theirown policy, if they later felt that new circumstances so war- ranted.A statelaw, on the otherhand, would have been much moredifficult to repeal.Furthermore, the bill's defeat also helped thetwo Georgia universities avoid possible retaliation by northern states.For example, during the assembly debate three members of the Michiganlegislature publicly called upon the Universityof Michiganto cancel its scheduled1957 footballgame withthe GeorgiaBulldogs. These threeDetroit Democrats had charged thatthe proposed Georgia law and theexclusion of African Amer- icansfrom the state university constituted flagrant insults to Mich- igan'sblack students and athletes.47

"AtlantaConstitution, February 21-23, 1957; AtlantaJournal, February 21-23, 1957; New YorkTimes, February 23, 1957, p. 1; Red and Black,February 28, 1957; AtlantaDaily World, February23-26, 1957. 4" 'AtlantaConstitution, February 16, 1957; New YorkTimes, February 16, 1957; Dallas Ex- press,December 31, 1955.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 562 Georgia Historical Quarterly

Despite theseefforts at politicalinterference, the Georgia- Michigangame was held as scheduledon October5, 1957,in Ann Arbor.In frontof 85,000cheering fans, the Wolverines soundly smackedthe Bulldogs by a scoreof 26-0. Atlanta newspapers noted thepresence of black players on theMichigan team, but the trip did not provokeany substantial controversy inside the state.An ensuingmatch against the Naval Academy two weeks later in Nor- folk,Virginia, did prompta fewminor complaints when local sponsorsagreed to waivethe stadium'snormal policy of segregatedseating. Minimizing the issue,Georgia officials reassured the team'ssupporters that they could purchasetickets directly fromthe university for the special section reserved exclusively for Bulldogfans. When questionedby reporters,Governor Marvin Griffinresponded that he wouldnot attempt to interferewith the contest,since it was beingheld in anotherstate. Although Navy downedthe Bulldogs 27-14, the successful completion of thetwo gamesconfirmed that proponents of massive resistance had abandoned theirefforts to controlathletic policy. The era oftotal segregationin Georgiacollege sports was finally at an end.48 In thisnew, post-Brown South, segregationist ideologues pos- tulateda racial"domino theory" in whichany deviation from a comprehensiveand unifiedsystem of segregation endangered the basicinstitution itself. University students, supporters of the Bull- dog and YellowJacket athletic programs, influential Georgians, and moderatesegregationists combined to help thetwo universi- tiesnarrowly turn back this extreme segregationist assault. Having survivedthis threat, Georgia and GeorgiaTech continued for the nextfifteen years to enjoystrong support for their athletic pro- gramsfrom state residents while participating fully in a national collegiatesports system that necessitated competition against inte- gratedteams outside the state. To be sure,the abandonmentof the long-standingtradition of totalathletic segregation repre- sentedan importantbreak with tradition, but the likelihood of ad- ditionalchange in subsequentyears would be influencedmore by nationaldevelopments in racialpolicy and federalpressure than bycreeping liberalism on campusat eitherthe University of Geor- gia or GeorgiaTech.

4»NewYork Times, October 4, 1957; Red and Black,October 4, 1957; AtlantaJournal and Constitution,October 6, 20, 1957.

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.3 on Tue, 5 Nov 2013 21:04:01 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions