Session #91 · 1969–71

Speech #910172647

Of the 10. one was in California. and eight were in New York. Each of the nine districtsthe 21st California. the lth. 12th. 14th. 19th. 20th. 21st. and 22d New Yorkconsists. largely or partly of Negro ghetto areas. These statistics illustrate a prima facle relationship between northern literacy tests and low voter participation by Negroes. The U.S. Supreme Court told us in the Gaston County case which was decided in 1969. that any literacy test would probably discriminate against Negroes in those States which have. in the past. failed to provide equal educational opportunities for all races. Many Negroes. who have received inferior educations in these States. have moved all over the Nation. The Bureau of the Census estimates that between 1940 and 1968. net migration of nonwhites from the South totaled more than 4 million persons. Certainly. it may be assumed that part of the migration was to those Northern and Western States which employ literacy tests now or could impose them in the future. and the effect of such tests. as in the Gaston County decision. would be to further penalize persons for the inferior education they received previously. Thus. it would seem to be highly inequitable to permit Northern and Western States to administer a literacy test to such persons because they would still be under the educational disadvantage offered in a State which had legal segregation. Let me mention that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. the American Civil Liberties Union. and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. among others. have all urged the elimination of literacy tests as a precondition to voting. They have urged this ban nationwide. Perhaps the most significant change which H.R. 4249 would effect in comparison with the 1965 act is in the spirit of the law.
Identified stereotypes
Generalization that Negroes received inferior educations and are penalized by literacy tests.
Keywords matched
literacy test literacy tests

Classification

Target group
Sentiment
Neutral
Stereotyping
⚠️ Yes
Confidence
90%
Model
gemini-2.0-flash
Framing
Legal / procedural Victim

Speaker & context

Speaker
ROMAN HRUSKA
Party
R
Chamber
S
State
NE
Gender
M
Date
Speech ID
910172647
Paragraph
#3
← Prev Next →