iracial organization like the N.A.A.C.P. When it was formed, Monroe
Trotter refused to join it, claiming that its white membership would
blunt its efficiency and militancy. The fact that for many years DuBois
was the only black on its executive board led many to wonder whether it
had genuine biracial participation in its decision making.

Later, Ralph J. Bunche, professor of political science, U. N. diplomat,
and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, attacked the N.A.A.C.P. on the same
grounds. He argued that its dependence on white middle-class leaders, to
provide financial backing, the sympathy of a large segment of the public,
and on favorable court decisions prevented it from achieving significant
results. He claimed that whenever a controversial crisis arose, it would
be prohibited from taking a truly militant position. Even if its white
leadership was capable of making such a radical decision, it was always
forced to consider the effect of an action on its white, middle-class,
liberal financial backers.

Bunche also criticized the N.A.A.C.P. for relying on the courts and the
Constitution for support. He claimed that the Constitution was a brief,
general document which always required interpretation to relate it to
specific, contemporary issues. This interpretation, he maintained, was
always shared by public opinion. While the courts' understanding of the
Constitution might not always conform precisely to the majority opinion,
the influential, vocal, and dominant segment of the public inevitably
influenced the courts' thinking on important subjects. While in
individual cases it might even contradict this force, in the long run the
Constitution could never be more than what the vocal majority wanted it
to be. Bunche believed that the N.A.A.C.P. thinking was always sensitive
to the feelings of the white middle class, and therefore could never
afford to alienate that group. At the same time, he believed that racism
was so ingrained in the white mentality that it would have to receive a
series of hard jolts if significant changes were to occur.

In the final analysis, he said, the N.A.A.C.P. would have to bargain and
conciliate. Like Booker T. Washington, he felt that it could not afford
to be as militant as was necessary. At about the same time DuBois,
himself, became disillusioned with the gradual conciliatory approach of
the N.A.A.C.P. While he still wanted to work for a integrated society, he
had lost faith in th