¹ See Walker, Jack, “A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy,” this Review, 60 (06, 1966), at pp. 293–295Google Scholar.

² Geschwinder, James A., “Social Structure and the Negro Revolt: An Examination of Some Hypotheses,” Social Forces, 43 (12, 1964), at pp. 248–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ See for example, Killian, Lewis and Grigg, Charles, Racial Crisis in America (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964)Google Scholar; Thompson, Daniel C., The Negro Leadership Class (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963)Google Scholar; Walker, Jack, “Protest and Negotiation: A Case Study of Negro Leadership in Atlanta, Georgia,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 7 (05, 1963), 99–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ See Matthews, Donald R. and Prothro, James W., Negroes and the New Southern Politics (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966)Google Scholar. The present survey was made in addition to their surveys of the adult Negro and white populations in the South. The author is most grateful for their permission to use these data and their helpful suggestions at several stages of the research.

⁵ See, for example, Campbell, et al., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960), p. 92Google Scholar; and Matthews and Prothro, op. cit., 53–58. The latter uses a cumulative scale of political participation stretching from talking politics, voting, taking part in campaigns, belonging to political organizations and holding party or public office, and demonstrates that these factors “… are not only related to one another but are, in fact, different forms of the same phenomenon” (p. 53).

⁶ See Ford, R. N., “A Rapid Scoring Procedure for Scaling Attitude Questions,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 14 (Fall, 1950), at p. 507CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ The protest organizations included were: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), The Student Non-Violent Co-ordinating Committee (SNCC), the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), The Urban League and any other Negro Voters' League. No students claimed membership in the black Muslims.

⁸ In Organizational Measurement and Its Bearing on the Study of College Environments (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1961), Alan H. Barton gives useful guidance to the dimensions of colleges that may be measured and may have an impact on the behavior of individuals in them.

⁹ The New York Times, April 11, 1960, p. 25.

¹⁰ Quoted in Lomax, Louis E., The Negro Revolt (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), p. 209Google Scholar.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 207.

¹² Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Thielens, Wagner Jr., The Academic Mind (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958), p. 412Google Scholar.

¹³ Lazarsfeld and Thielens developed an index rather than a scale. In this case the scale was preferred because it gave the added assumption of uni-dimensionality in the indicators selected. The index, however, did have some advantages. It was not necessary for Lazarsfeld and Thielens to dichotomize their indicators, and as a result the index could take into account disproportionate “contributions” of quality by one of the indicators. An index was also developed in the present case and findings based on it were found to compare cosely with those derived from the scale method. As it resulted, the scale findings were the more conservative of the two in terms of fulfilling expectations of an association between college quality and protest participation.

Obviously no single indicator of quality would do justice to variations in such a heterogeneous collection of colleges; agriculture and technical colleges, teachers' colleges, and some of the most outstanding of southern Negro colleges concentrating on the humanities were all included. The indicators adopted were as follows:

• The number of books in the college library

• The ratio of books in the library to students

• The proportion of Ph.D.'s on the faculty

• Dollars in the college budget per student

• The faculty-student ratio

The last mentioned indicator was not used by Lazarsfeld and Thielens, despite the fact that it is one of the most frequently used “rules of thumb” about the quality of the education a college offers. Two indicators used by them were not used in the persent case. They were tuition fees paid and the Knapp and Greenblaum index of scholar productivity. Lazarsfeld and Thielens argued that higher tuition fees gave a college greater financial resources with which to provide education, and also that “tuition to some extent indicates the demand for a college's educational ‘product’” (p. 412). However appropriate this indicator might have been for the population of colleges they studied, for the present state and private colleges it does not seem likely to make valid distinctions of quality. The Knapp and Greenblaum index of scholar productivity, used by Lazarsfeld and Thielens, was not used here for the very good reason that the data on which it was based were not available for the colleges under consideration. It is also true that scholar productivity might not be a particularly good indicator of quality in a mechanical or agricultural college.

The variables were dichotomized in the following ways:

Student-faculty ratio: better than 1:11.8

Ph.D.'s on faculty: better than 22.5%

Books in library: better than 38,000

Books per student: better than 25

Dollars per student: better than $800.00

The decision was made by inspection in each case. The coefficient of reproducibility for the scale was .889.

The sources from which the college data were collected were: The College Blue Book, 1962 (10th ed.; New York: The College Blue Book, 1962); American Universities and Colleges (8th ed.; Washington: American Council on Education, 1960); American Junior Colleges (5th ed.; Washington: American Council on Education, 1960); The World Almanac 1961. In addition, use was made of Jones, G. W., “Negro Colleges in Alabama,” Journal of Negro Education, 31 (Summer, 1962), 354–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Newspaper reports of student demonstrations give reasonably good grounds for believing that geographic patterns were well established by the time the survey was taken in the early months of 1962. Examination of The New York Times for the two years between that date and February 1960, when the movement started in Greensboro, N. C, suggests that it took only a matter of two or three months for sit-ins to spread to other states outside the Deep South and then to penetrate the Deep South itself. It would be extremely hard to demonstrate from historical data that protest had still to reach the large number of lowquality colleges scattered throughout the whole South two years after the movement had begun, although the possibility must be admitted.

¹⁵ Blalock, Hubert M., “Theory Building and the Statistical Concept of Interaction,” American Sociological Review, 30 (06, 1965), at p. 375CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Matthews, Donald R. and Prothro, James W., “Social and Economic Factors and Negro Voter Registration in the South,” this Review, 52 (03, 1963), at p. 28Google Scholar.

¹⁷ H. Blalock, op. cit.

¹⁸ Testing for such a second-order interaction involves relating college quality and percent ruralfarm to participation with income held constant. It is thus possible to arrive at a difference between the two difference-of-differences scores. In this case the difference of difference-of-differences scores was 11 percentage points. The data are as follows:

¹⁹ For example, see Key, V. O., Southern Politics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949)Google Scholar; Penton, John H. and Vines, K. N., “Negro Registration in Louisiana,” this Review, 51 (09, 1957), 704–713Google Scholar, and Price, H. D., The Negro in Southern Politics (New York: New York University Press, 1957)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Op. cit.

²¹ Price, H. D., “The Negro and Florida Politics, 1944–1954,” The Journal of Politics, 17 (05, 1955), at pp. 198–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Matthews, and Prothro, , Negroes and the New Southern Politics, p. 118Google Scholar.

²³ Vander Zanden, James W., “Resistance and Social Movements,” Social Forces, 37 (05, 1959), at pp. 312–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ Op. cit.

²⁵ On the subject of party identification, for example, The American Voter concludes: “In the broad electorate devoted in an habitual way to a pair of traditional parties, there is little reason to expect much visible instruction of personality dynamics in the determination of who is a Republican and who is a Democrat”: Campbell et al., op. cit., p. 510.

²⁶ Srole, Leo, “Social Integration and Certain Corollaries,” American Sociological Review, 21 (12, 1956), at p. 710CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ Tumin, Melvin J., Desegregation: Resistance and Readiness (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), p. 199Google Scholar.

²⁸ Adorno, T. W.et al., The Authoritarian Personality (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1950), pp. 7–10Google Scholar.

²⁹ The questions used to measure anomia were those originally developed by Srole. They were, from “hardest” to “easiest,” as follows: “Sometimes I think people ought not bring children into the world, the way things look for the world”; “In spite of what some people say, the conditions of the average man is getting worse, not better”; “Nowadays a person has to live pretty much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself”; “These days a person doesn't really know whom he can count on”; One question was rejected because it failed to meet the Ford criterion that the positive category should contain more than 20 percent of the respondents (R. N. Ford, op. cit., p. 515). Interestingly, this question was: “There's not much use in people like me voting because the candidates are usually against what I want.” Only 11 of the 264 students were willing to agree with this proposition. Political alienation among southern Negro students, it seems, is very low.

³⁰ Maier, Norman R. F., “The Role of Frustration in Social Movements,” Psychological Review, 49 (11, 1942), at p. 594CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Vander Zanden, James W., “The Non-Violent Resistance Movement Against Segregation,” The American Journal of Sociology, 68 (03, 1963), at p. 546Google Scholar.

³² The questions and data are as follows:

³³ Williams, Robin, Strangers Next Door (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 86Google Scholar.

³⁴ There are two conceptual shortcomings in the use of responses to these questions as indicators of frustration. First, they deal with the anticipation of future frustrating experiences and it is perhaps stretching a point to argue that this is the functional equivalent of present experiences. Second, there is no way of telling from the responses the centrality of these expectations to the respondents. Mobility expectations might be unimportant to some individuals but loom large for others. One other battery of questions might have been used to strengthen these responses had the pattern of answers differentiated the students more than it did. They were directed in the same way toward expectations and aspirations on future jobs, but—interestingly—all kinds of students overwhelmighly anticipated job satisfaction.

³⁵ Of course we are not concerned here with riots and other kinds of unpremeditated mob action that might more plausibly be related to frustration. See Worchel, Philip, “Hostility: Theory and Experimental Investigation,” in Willner, D. (ed.), Decisions, Values and Groups (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960)Google Scholar, cited in Robin Williams, op. cit. In frustration, “there are changes in the perception of the field, widespread psychological involvements, interference with complex learning, and an affectual component of hate.” Described in this way we might even expect frustration to be dysfunctional to planned social action of the kind under consideration here—a speculation not inconsistent with the present slim data.

³⁶ Op. cit., p. 146.

³⁷ Ibid.

³⁸ Matthews, and Prothro, , “Social Factors …,” op. cit., p. 34Google Scholar.

³⁹ Sherif, M. and Sherif, C. W., Groups in Harmony and Tension (New York: Harper & Row, 1953), p. 136Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ The students were given a self-anchoring scale and asked to indicate where on a continuum between the “very worst” and the “very best” possible race situations they would place the South at the present time.

⁴¹ For example, see Searles, Ruth and Williams, J. A., “Negro College Students' Participation in Sit-Ins,” Social Forces, 40 (03, 1962), 215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The authors argue that reference groups have changed for a large part of the Negro middle class that now identifies with the middle class standards of the wider society. The result is feelings of relative deprivation that have led to the protest movement.