Page 34 - ACTL Journal Win24

Forced to work within the framework of Plessy, Vice Chancellor Seitz undertook a painstaking analysis of the characteristics and educational opportunities available at the University of Delaware and the all-Black Delaware State University. Finding that that the stark inequities in the grossly unequal facilities deprived Black students of an equal education, Vice Chancellor Seitz found that segregation violated the 14th Amendment.
Delaware had two institutions of higher ed- ucation. White students attended the Uni- versity of Delaware. Black students were required to attend Delaware State College.
In 1950, Louis Redding, the first Black admitted to the Delaware bar, filed a law- suit on behalf of ten Black students who were denied the opportunity to apply for admission to the University of Delaware.
The lawsuit claimed that the segregation
of Delaware’s schools of higher education
violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment. Because the complaint
sought an equitable remedy, a mandatory injunction to require the University of Delaware to allow students of any race to apply for admission, the case was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery.
Because the then-chancellor was a trustee of the all-white University of Delaware, the case was assigned to then Vice Chancellor Seitz, just thirty-six years old.
In his opinion in Parker v. University of Delaware, Vice Chancellor Seitz found that his alma matter, the Univer- sity of Delaware and its trustees, were state actors, sub- ject to requirements of the Equal Protection Clause. But after analyzing the issue, he concluded that under Plessy v. Ferguson he lacked the authority to declare segregation unconstitutional. As abhorrent as the decision was to him personally, he was powerless to overrule a decision of the United States Supreme Court.
After Parker, Chancellor Seitz frequently spoke about race relations. In his most notable speech on the issue, to a class of graduating high school students, he described the treatment of Blacks as “the most pressing domestic issue” facing the nation. He noted that while many people pro- fessed adherence to the Country’s foundational principles,
“too many of us talk out of both sides of our mouths at the same time on this important issue.” He asked “how can we say that we deeply revere the principles of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and yet refuse to recognize these principles when they are applied” to Black people? Answering his own question, he observed that “it takes real moral courage not only to say that those great principles apply to” Black people, “but also to see that [they] in fact receive[] their benefits of daily lives.” And he challenged that this should happen “not at some distant future time ... but now.” Is this “too much to ask,” he wondered, before observing: “I think not.”
In 1951, Louis Redding filed two new lawsuits. These ac- tions challenged segregation of public primary and second- ary schools. Committed to abolishing segregation in educa- tion, Mr. Redding agreed to take the case on the condition that the plaintiffs shared his commitment. As he told one plaintiff: “I won’t take the case so you can go to a Jim Crow school or if you’re just going to stop halfway.” The plaintiff
– Shirley Bulah and a mother of a student at School 107C – committed to the case “for the duration.”
Chancellor Seitz, who had been elevated from Vice Chan- cellor in the interim, presided over those cases: Belton v.
Gebhart and Bulah v. Gebhart.
As in Parker, Chancellor Seitz first addressed the constitu- tionality of segregation generally. Later in life, Chancellor Seitz explained his analysis of this issue: “I first stated that I
While decisions at the time typically afforded states oppor- tunities to bring inadequate segregated facilities up to the standards of the white schools, Vice Chancellor Seitz refused the defendants’ request for that opportunity. Instead, Vice Chancellor Seitz immediately enjoined the University of Delaware from considering race when reviewing admissions.
The University of Delaware did not appeal this decision.
33
JOURNAL