 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
| Prof. Broadus Mitchell In condemning ex-Senator Bruce's subtle and vicious defence of the Salisbury lynchers, we cannot afford to overlook' the constructive work done by Professor Broadus Mitchell of> the Department of Political Economy, of Johns Hopkins University, who made an investigation of the lynching for the Federal Council of Churches. There is little at anti-Negro Johns Hopkins for which colored people can thank God. The money left by the founder for a colored orphanage has found its way into other channels. Colored people are barred as students, doctors, nurses and private patients. The administration at Hopkins hates colored folk so much that the presence of a liberal like Professor Mitchell upon the faculty is an anachronism. His simple, frank report on Maryland's lynch-town declared the white people there to be ignorant, prejudiced, frightened, sullen, boastful. Cultured people, he explained, do not burn human beings in a public square and cut off Angers and toes for souvenirs. Professor Mitchell blamed Salisbury's police for the lynching, the plans for which were known an hour beforehand. His own child of two, the Professor said, would have been as much protection to the man about to be lynched, as a Salisbury policeman. Professor Mitchell is a member of the board of the Urban League. His interest in interracial matters is no accident. He inherits it from his father, long a liberal member of the faculty of the University of Richmond, Virginia. Prom him came the ability to look a situation in the face and courageously state the facts. Salisbury and ex-Senator Bruce may wriggle under Professor Mitchell's scientific magnifying glass, but in the final analysis the experience, however painful, should do them both good. |