Banyard Disputes Concerns Over Collaboration with Openly Racist Levitt Corporation: A Letter to The Rev. Carter, on June 18, 1958

Rt. Rev. Alfred L. Banyard
(photo by J. Pruszinski of portrait at Diocese of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ)
& the Rev. Junius F. Carter, Jr.
(Detail of "NAACP Million Dollar Campaign" (2021). B. L. Hooks Papers images. 648.)

As protests over the proposed diocesan collaboration with the racist Levitt corporation began to grow, and the racist policies were reported in the national press,[1] Bishop Banyard responded to a letter of concern[2] from the Rev. Junius F. Carter, Jr. of St. Augustine’s Episcopal Church, Elizabeth to dispute the legitimacy of the concerns.

Firstly, in his greeting Banyard uses Carter’s first name with no honorific, unlike in the letter on the same subject[3] he had just written to a younger White priest he addressed as “Father Ralph.” Without preamble he delves straight into the matter at hand.

Banyard repeats the same arguments he had already rehearsed in that correspondence with the Rev. Ralph Lasher, “countless others who have written me,”[4] and apparently to the Rev. Kenneth MacDonald and Mr. J. Arthur Jones at a Board of Missions meeting the previous week. He claims that the policy of the diocese is only to have integrated churches, implying that any church built would thus inherently be integrated (ignoring the possibility of de facto segregation). In re-stating that the Levitt policy conflicts with state laws, he also suggests that the policy would not be possible to enforce, and was thus moot. And he further states that he will establish the church “if it is at all possible to administer to our people on an integrated basis.”

He goes on to suggest that because it has been difficult to garner support for the project across the diocese, that he believes that racial concerns will only be used as an excuse for non-cooperation by “recalcitrants.” He claims to be “just as indignant about segregation as… anyone else” but pointedly singles out “the colored” for the segregation he believes they practice themselves. He claims that he did not previously bring up this issue even though it “annoyed” him, but that now he brings it up in order to argue against what he claims is “an organized campaign… to oppose the establishment of a church in Levittown.” He asks that Carter “do something about that.”

He ends with further assurances that he cares about the issue and that Carter does “not need to worry about the stand of our Diocese of New Jersey and of your Bishop.” However, Banyard ultimately chose to cooperate with the Levitt corporation in spite of their policy of racial discrimination against Black people, worked to marginalize and de-legitimize protests against the collaboration, and denigrated those who had questioned the propriety of the partnership. In fact, contrary to his promise, he chose to establish the church even though the community it served was not integrated. The full letter to Carter[5] is presented below.

Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, Ph.D.

Reparations Commission Research Historian

Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey

 

---

[1] E.g. in Tom Barrett, “N.J. Levittown Started; Negro Exclusion Stands,” New York Herald Tribune, June 8, 1958.

[2] “Junius F. Carter, Jr. to Alfred L. Banyard,” June 16, 1958. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ. See also Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski "St. Augustine’s, Elizabeth hesitant to Fund Building a Segregated White Church in Levittown: A Letter from The Rev. Junius F. Carter, Jr. to Bishop Banyard, June 16, 1958," DNJRJR (August 3, 2026): https://dionj-racialjusticereview.blogspot.com/2026/08/st-augustines-elizabeth-hesitant-to.html. 

[3] “Alfred L. Banyard to Ralph C. Lasher,” June 16, 1958. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ. See also Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, "Banyard’s Intent to Build a Church for the Segregated Levitt Co. Development, and Contempt for Concerned Black Leaders: A Letter to the Rev. Lasher, June 16, 1958," DNJRJR (July 21, 2026): https://dionj-racialjusticereview.blogspot.com/2026/07/banyards-intent-to-build-church-for.html. 

[4] This is likely a significant exaggeration.

[5] “Alfred L. Banyard to Junius F. Carter, Jr.,” June 18, 1958. Courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ.

St. Augustine’s, Elizabeth hesitant to Fund Building a Segregated White Church in Levittown: A Letter from The Rev. Junius F. Carter, Jr. to Bishop Banyard, June 16, 1958

The Rev. Junius F. Carter, Jr. 
(Detail from "NAACP Million Dollar Campaign" (2021). Benjamin Lawson Hooks Papers images. 648.)

As reporting on the segregation policy of the Levitt Corporation became more widely known,[1] members of Black Episcopal Churches in the Diocese began to raise serious concerns about Bishop Banyard’s planned collaboration[2] with Levitt for a new Episcopal Church in Levittown, NJ. Among them was the leadership of St. Augustine’s Episcopal Church, Elizabeth, including the Rev. Junius F. Carter, Jr.[3] The Rev. Carter wrote to Banyard on June 16, 1958, noting recent press coverage of Levitt’s anti-Black policy, and expressing his and his congregation’s concerns over the issue. He specifically states that the church might find it hard to justify participating in the funding of what he says “would undoubtedly be a segregated church” for an overtly all-white development. Carter assumes that the diocese “cannot help but take a stand against this kind of flagrant and deliberate discrimination.” Banyard would respond,[4] seeking to allay Carter’s concerns, but would not in fact ultimately “take a stand against this kind of… discrimination.” The letter shows that the leadership of the diocese were well aware of the problems with the Levitt scheme. Carter’s letter[5] is presented in full below, along with the newspaper article[6] he forwarded to Banyard.

 

Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, Ph.D.

Reparations Commission Research Historian

Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey

---

[1] E.g. Tom Barrett, “N.J. Levittown Started; Negro Exclusion Stands,” New York Herald Tribune, June 8, 1958. Reporting also appeared in the New York Times.

[2] Including Banyard’s staff soliciting a donation of land from Levitt, and the announced plan to fund the building of what would be, at least de facto, an exclusively white church through a pressure campaign on all the churches (including the Black churches) of the Diocese to donate. See Gerald R. Minchin, “Presentation of Mission Program to the Diocesan Convention,” in The Journal of the 172^nd Annual Convention of the Church in the Diocese of New Jersey Held in the Crypt of Trinity Cathedral, Trenton, Tuesday and Wednesday May 8^th and 9^th, 1956; 146.

[3] Carter was a highly respected priest in the diocese and later went on to become the first Black priest made a Canon of the Cathedral. See Laurence Fish, “Honorary Canons,” first published June 2, 2009; republished at https://dioceseofnj.org/archives/articles/2009lfcanons/.

[4] “Alfred L. Banyard to Junius F. Carter, Jr.” June 18, 1958. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ (See also Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, "Banyard Disputes Concerns Over Collaboration with Openly Racist Levitt Corporation: A Letter to The Rev. Carter, on June 18, 1958," DNJRJR [August 10, 2026]: https://dionj-racialjusticereview.blogspot.com/2026/08/banyard-disputes-concerns-over.html.

[5] “Junius F. Carter, Jr. to Alfred L. Banyard,” June 16, 1958. Courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ.

[6] Barrett, “N.J. Levittown Started.” Courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ.

The Black Caucus Responds to the Steinke Report on Shortcomings of Doss’ Episcopate, June 14, 1997

The Rev. Cn. Dr. Leroy Lyons of the Black Caucus
(archival photo courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey)

After a series of controversial and highly criticized actions taken by the newly installed Bishop Doss, the Diocese of New Jersey 

 

sought help from Peter Steinke, a Lutheran minister and consultant to troubled church communities. In May, after conducting more than 160 interviews with diocesan leaders and reading more than 100 letters and other submissions, he said he had found widespread mistrust and extensive criticism of the Bishop, including assertions that he “manipulates people,” is “arrogant” and “condescending,” and “doesn't consult others.”[1]

 

However, a number of early allegations against the Bishop involved charges of racism, and Steinke’s report resulting from his research[2] mentioned nothing whatsoever on that subject. As a result, on June 14, 1997 the Black Caucus published their own response to Steinke’s report entitled “A Response to the Steinke Report From the Black Caucus, The Diocese of New Jersey.”[3]

            The response relies heavily on careful biblical exegesis, disputing the value of Steinke’s use of 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 as a relevant text and drawing instead on Paul’s letter to Philemon.[4] The Black Caucus response notes how Paul’s argumentation in Philemon requires that the previous relations of hierarchy and subjugation that had defined Philemon’s relationship to Onesimus be transcended by what should be their new relations of brotherhood in the family of faith, based on love (agapē).

            The letter suggests that one of the shocking findings of the Steinke report is that none of those interviewed noted a gift of agapē in Bishop Doss. The Black Caucus claim that no repentance for wrongdoing leading to reconciliation is possible without agapē, and that, as such, the Bishop may not possess the necessary qualifications for his office.

            The letter also notes that even as racism existed in the diocese before the Doss episcopate, they cannot in good conscience be “tolerant with racist behavior.” They write 

 

We will not sit idly by and be passive or complacent about racism. Racism demeans us; it destroys our humanity; it is contrary to the will of God; it is very, very evil. No real fellowship can exist where racism abounds, for the power of the church is nullified and the Holy Spirit is spurned. If we are truly and fully committed to agapē, we will be fully committed to the eradication of racism. We are all victims of this deadly disease. The members of the Black Caucus stand ready to join with the bishop and the diocese to work together. We have expressed this sentiment before; we do it again. But we will not desist until our leaders, among whom we include the bishop, develop a passion and a conscience for this issue. To those well-meaning bigots who continue to attack us for withholding funds, but refuse to recognize the pain of racism and our desperate call for redress to this human tragedy, we point out that you continue to deepen the wounds and increase the pain that we daily endure.[5]

 

The letter ends with a commitment to engagement and a call to agapē for all involved, including, above all, Bishop Doss. Doss would not go on to win over those within the diocese who had viewed his leadership as too flawed to continue in office, and he would ultimately be removed as instances of inappropriate behavior continued to come to light. The full letter[6] from the Black Caucus responding to the Steinke report can be found below. It appears that the document was widely circulated within the Diocese of New Jersey at the time.

 

Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, Ph.D.
Reparations Commission Research Historian
Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey

---

[1] David M. Herszenhorn, “An Embattled Episcopal Bishop; His Ouster Is Sought by Leaders of the New Jersey Diocese,” New York Times (December 7, 1997): Section 1, page 45.

[2] Which he delivered to diocesan officials on May 16, 1997.

[3] MSS held in the private collection of Rev. Cn. Dr. Leroy Lyons, Plainfield, New Jersey.

[4] It is likely that the response of the Black Caucus was mostly authored by Rev. Cn. Dr. Leroy Lyons, as his doctoral dissertation was written on Philemon.

[5] The Black Caucus, “A Response to the Steinke Report From the Black Caucus, The Diocese of New Jersey,” 5.

[6] Courtesy of the Rev. Cn. Dr. Leroy Lyons.

Increasing Criticism of Racism in the Doss Episcopate Appears in Black Clergy Caucus Open Letter: Rev. Cn. Edward Geyer “Open Letter to Chris,” February 8, 1996

The Rev. Cn. Edward Geyer
(from Edythe Greene et al., eds., The History of St. Augustine’s
Episcopal Church, 1709 Arctic Avenue Atlantic City, New Jersey:
The First 100 Years [Norfolk, VA: Hill Printing Co., 2001], 103)

In the wake of racist incidents with Bishop Joe Doss, and further condescending and racist treatment by his staff, in early 1996 the Rev. Cn. Edward Geyer,[1] the Convener of the Black Clergy Caucus of the Diocese of New Jersey, penned an open letter on behalf of the organization to “Chris,” a member of Doss’ staff. The letter responds specifically to a letter from Chris from January 14, 1996 which had apparently made a series of accusations against the Black Clergy Caucus for behaving in a way that Bishop Doss did not like. Geyer disputes the legitimacy of many of these accusations in his open letter, suggests that these accusations themselves indicate racist attitudes, and insists that the Caucus was simply bringing concerns to the Bishop, and had a right to expect a timely response to their very serious concerns. Among these concerns was the fact that there was inadequate Black representation on the diocesan staff and in diocesan governance. The letter provides evidence of the pedantic way Doss and his staff treated Black leaders in the diocese, and shows a fracturing relationship in advance of the 1996 Diocesan Convention, when the Black Clergy Caucus made many of their concerns highly public by publishing their “Vision Statement.”[2] The, increasingly acrimonious, disputes stemming from Doss’ episcopate would gain national press attention.[3] Ultimately Doss would be ousted years later after a wide variety of inappropriate behaviors came to light, including racist incidents. The entire open letter of February 9, 1996 from Cn. Edward Geyer is presented here, courtesy of Rev. Cn. Dr. Leroy Lyons.[4]

 

Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, Ph.D.

Reparations Commission Research Historian

Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey

---

[1] Of Lawnside, New Jersey. Rev. Cn. Geyer had a national reputation, having served in various dioceses, as the executive assistant to Presiding Bishop Allin (See Harold T. Lewis, “Racial Concerns in the Episcopal Church Since 1973,” Anglican and Episcopal History 67.4 [1998]: 472 n. 16) and as the executive for “National Mission in Church and Society” at the Episcopal Church Center in the 1980s (See “Urban Caucus to Hold 5^th National Assembly,” ENS [August 23, 1984]: https://digitalarchives.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/ENS/ENSpress_release.pl?pr_number=84169). The Diocese of New Jersey invited Geyer to the diocese in 1988 to serve as the “urban missioner in Atlantic City” (See Robert K. Stuhlmann, “No Obvious Villain,” The Living Church [March 11, 1990]: 5-6: https://d7u3dh9x9blzp.cloudfront.net/1990/3.11.1990.pdf; See also Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey, Journal of the 227^th Diocesan Convention, [March 5, 2011], 143: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dioceseofnj/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/227thConvJournal.pdf). 

[2] “Vision Statement Presented by the Black Clergy and Delegates, Diocesan Convention-March 1996,” MSS held in the private archive of Rev. Cn. Dr. Leroy Lyons, Plainfield, New Jersey. See also Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, “Black Clergy and Delegates Vision Statement: 1996 Diocesan Convention,” DNJRJR (November 4, 2025): https://dionj-racialjusticereview.blogspot.com/2025/11/black-clergy-and-delegates-vision.html. 

[3] A long series of articles appeared in the Episcopal News Service (ENS), and multiple articles appeared in other publications, including the New York Times. See, for example, David M. Herszenhorn, “An Embattled Episcopal Bishop; His Ouster Is Sought by Leaders of the New Jersey Diocese,” New York Times (December 7, 1997): Section 1, page 45. See also “Bishop Doss of New Jersey Deflects Calls for His Resignation,” ENS (November 13, 1997): https://digitalarchives.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/ENS/ENSpress_release.pl?pr_number=97-1997; “Bishop of New Jersey Confronts Polarization of Diocese in Reconciliation Meeting,” ENS (December 4, 1997): https://digitalarchives.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/ENS/ENSpress_release.pl?pr_number=97-2033; “Study Finds Destructive Patterns and No Grounds for Removal of Bishop in New Jersey,” ENS (June 23, 1998): https://digitalarchives.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/ENS/ENSpress_release.pl?pr_number=98-2186. 

[4] MSS held in the private archives of Rev. Cn. Dr. Leroy Lyons, Plainfield, New Jersey.

Banyard’s Intent to Build a Church for the Segregated Levitt Co. Development, and Contempt for Concerned Black Leaders: A Letter to the Rev. Lasher, June 16, 1958

Tom Barrett - "N.J. Levittown Started; Negro Exclusion Stands" NY Herald Tribune June 8, 1958
(Courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey; MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ)

In response to the Rev. Lasher’s letter the previous week,[1] in which he warned Bishop Banyard of possible “trouble” for the proposed diocesan collaboration with the Levitt corporation stemming from Levitt’s very public policy of racial discrimination (see article above), Banyard penned a letter on June 16, 1958. In this letter Banyard expanded on the issue mentioned by Lasher, which had apparently been raised the previous Tuesday by members attending the diocesan Board of Missions meeting. As ever, Banyard’s private tone regarding those he disagreed with was nasty, in this case specifically toward the Rev. Kenneth MacDonald of St. Augustine’s, Atlantic City and Mr. Arthur Jones of Camden. He insulted their behavior as “rude” and “obstreperous” because they had dared to raise concerns at the meeting, and he also imputed untoward motives to them. Besides these ad hominem attacks, Banyard’s further comments are illuminating. He suggests that bringing up such concerns amounted to “nearly ruining” an otherwise “efficient” meeting, which is to say, his chief concern was that his agenda be acted on without any hindrance or question.[2]

            Banyard was aware of the Levitt policy but largely dismissed the expressed concern over taking an enormous gift from the racist corporation and cooperating extensively with their racist program. Firstly, he claims that the diocese “could not control Mr. Levitt’s company.” Then he suggests that the concern over discrimination is irrelevant because all the churches of the diocese were integrated (this was demonstrably false). How a church in an intentionally all-white development was to be considered “integrated” he does not say.[3] He also states that he does not think that Levitt would be able to discriminate successfully, since segregation in housing had been made illegal in New Jersey, and so the concern was not relevant. The distinction between de jure and de facto segregation seems not to have mattered to him. He does not seem concerned that Levitt was publicly telegraphing a segregationist agenda to attempt to ensure 1) that only white residents would seek to move there, 2) that a particular kind of white resident (those seeking an all-white development) would be disproportionately represented, and 3) that those white residents would help enforce de facto segregation (as the Klan had across the river in the Pennsylvania Levittown).[4]

            On the one hand, Banyard does suggest that if Levitt goes through with his segregationist agenda that he is “sure that we would not want to accept his gift.” But on the other, he immediately undercuts this statement by insisting that he is “determined to minister to the Episcopalians in Levittown,” which would, logically, be exclusively white, “even if I have to raise the money… to purchase land across the street.” He then states unequivocally “we intend to proceed with our Levittown project” irrespective of the outcome of what he claims will be his “thorough… investigat[ion]” of the issue.

            His seemingly feigned concern[5] is belied by his subsequent admission that at the aforementioned Board of Missions meeting he had asked MacDonald and Jones “Why would colored people want to live in a community where they are not wanted?” He also goes on to assert that West Indian Episcopalians discriminate against American “colored people” and that this fact he believes he has noticed undermines the legitimacy of any protest. His racial condescension in the letter is constant, and he makes his own prejudice inescapably clear in his final statements[6] where he writes: 

 

I believe one reason why Mr. Levitt feels the way he does, is that it has often been the feeling that colored people do not keep up their properties, and since he has such an enormous investment, I suppose he does not want to start out with the difficulties that are usually involved with these negro people.

 

The letter is a very clear piece of evidence for Banyard’s racism, and the racist policies that characterized his episcopate. The letter[7] is presented in full below.

 

Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, Ph.D.

Reparations Commission Research Historian

Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey

---

[1] “Ralph C. Lasher to Alfred L. Banyard,” June 10, 1958. Courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ. See Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, “A Warning of ‘Trouble’ over ‘Levitt’s policy of discrimination’: A Letter from the Rev. Lasher to Bishop Banyard, June 10, 1958,” DNJRJR (July 7, 2026): https://dionj-racialjusticereview.blogspot.com/2026/07/a-warning-of-trouble-over-levitts.html.

[2] The slavishly “enthusiastic” behavior of hand-picked committee members chronicled in the minutes of the diocesan Levittown Committee meetings of that year show exactly what Banyard expected of meetings. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ.

[3] Nevertheless he claims that had already told the Vice President of the Levitt corporation that “there would be no segregation permitted as far as the Episcopal Church was concerned.” He neglected to say exactly how tactfully and euphemistically he made this comment to the VP.

[4] See Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, “Christ the King, Levittown: An Example of the ‘White Flight’ Mission,” DNJRJR (October 8, 2024): https://dionj-racialjusticereview.blogspot.com/2024/10/christ-king-levittown-example-of-white.html, note 2: “When the first Black family moved in to the Levittown across the river in Pennsylvania in 1957, the neighbors called in the Ku Klux Klan to organize the protest and local police did not stop it (even as it included cross burning and rock throwing). This was all well reported and the racialized nature of Levitt developments was well known.” See also Jerry Jonas, “60 Years Later, the Levittown Shame That Still Lingers,” Bucks County Courier Times (August 12, 2017).

[5] And even while feigned, still only half-heartedly feigned.

[6] Which, by their location in the letter, carry more rhetorical import.

[7] “Alfred L. Banyard to Ralph C. Lasher,” June 16, 1958. Courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey. MSS held at the Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ.

EVENT: Diocesan Slavery History Pilgrimage Saturday, July 18, 2026 (11am) Perth Amboy

The Diocese of New Jersey Reparations Commission will offer its slavery history pilgrimage again on Saturday, July 18, 2026 beginning at 11am. The pilgrimage starts and ends in Perth Amboy and follows a liturgy of reflection and repentance through a circuit of sites of memory related to Anglican and Episcopal involvement in slavery. We will meet at 11am at the Perth Amboy Ferry Slip UNESCO slave trade marker (site #1) to begin the pilgrimage. We will eat lunch between sites #2 and #3 and will plan to arrive at site #3 (Marlpit Hall) at approximately 12:50pm. Email Dr. Jolyon Pruszinski (jolyonp@princeton.edu) to let us know you'll be participating or if you have any questions. The full pilgrimage guide is available as a PDF document online or in smartphone-friendly format and you can follow it yourself at any time. For the July 18th pilgrimage participants are responsible for their own travel to/from Perth Amboy but we may be able to travel more efficiently via carpool between pilgrimage sites.

The addresses for all of the sites are included in the pilgrimage guide but are also listed here.

Site #1: Perth Amboy UNESCO slave trade marker
300 Front Street; Perth Amboy, NJ

Site #2: Tinton Falls African Burial Ground

750 Tinton Ave.; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724

Site #3: Marlpit Hall Museum

137 Kings Hwy.; Middletown, NJ 07748

Site #4: Mount Mitchill Scenic Overlook

460 Ocean Blvd.; Atlantic Highlands, NJ

Site #5: Perth Amboy UNESCO slave trade marker (same as site #1)

300 Front Street; Perth Amboy, NJ

Please be aware that it is customary to make a small donation at the Marlpit Hall Museum to support the exhibit. Also, please plan to either bring a lunch, or to buy lunch at an establishment nearby the pilgrimage route. There are many lunch options available. We are looking forward to having you join us!

A Warning of “Trouble” over “Levitt’s policy of discrimination”: A Letter from the Rev. Lasher to Bishop Banyard, June 10, 1958

 

Ralph C. Lasher (photo from The Montrose Voice, 3/10/89) courtesy of the Texas Obituary Project.  
Alfred L. Banyard (photo by Jolyon Pruszinski of portrait displayed at the Diocese of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ).

The Rev. Ralph C. Lasher,[1] then as a twenty-nine-year-old Rector of the Church of St. John the Evangelist, New Brunswick, wrote to Bishop Banyard in June of 1958 in light of recent high-profile reporting[2] on the Levitt corporation’s formal policy of racial discrimination in its housing developments. Banyard had solicited and accepted a donation of land from Levitt for the construction of an Episcopal church in the planned Levittown development in New Jersey.[3] Lasher was concerned that Levitt’s stated policy of discrimination might cause fellow priests to reject the collaboration, stating that a “considerable feeling on the part of some clergymen” was that the policy “would make it embarrassing for the Episcopal Church to become involved.” Lasher did not seemingly agree with this concern, and even seemed to suggest that it might only be an excuse for these clergy to resist the project. Rather, he raised the “racial question” as a potential source of “trouble” but pledged his own full support, suggesting how important he and others felt it was that “when we go into a new area, we should do so by building an imposing Church.” The letter indicates how well-known Levitt’s discriminatory practices were, including among clergy and leadership in the diocese at the time. The full letter[4] is shown below.

 

Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, Ph.D.

Reparations Commission Research Historian

Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey

---

[1] Lasher went on later in life to become a well-known gay rights activist, director of the Montrose Clinic, and founder of support groups for those living with HIV-AIDS. For more information see https://www.texasobituaryproject.org/082614lasher.html. 

[2] Including in Tom Barrett, “N.J. Levittown Started; Negro Exclusion Stands,” New York Herald Tribune, June 8, 1958; but also in the New York Times.

[3] See Gerald R. Minchin, “Presentation of Mission Program to the Diocesan Convention,” in The Journal of the 172^nd Annual Convention of the Church in the Diocese of New Jersey Held in the Crypt of Trinity Cathedral, Trenton, Tuesday and Wednesday May 8^th and 9^th, 1956, 146.

[4] “Ralph C. Lasher to Alfred L. Banyard,” June 10, 1958. Courtesy of the Diocese of New Jersey. MSS held at Diocese of New Jersey archives, Trenton, NJ.