In this commencement address given by the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, a brief review of the Younger vs. Harris case is given. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts could not issue injunctions against state criminal proceedings on the ground that such prosecutions would result in a deprivation of the defendant's constitutional rights. The Younger Doctrine, or "Our Federalism" as it has been called contains two principal operating assumptions. First, it assumes that state courts, as well as federal courts have the authority, responsibility and competence to vindicate federal civil rights; secondly, it assumes that, to the extent that state courts fail to protect federal civil rights, such lapses can be remedied upon appellate review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Days argues that there is another doctrinal thread in the evolution of constitutional principles in the U.S. that undercuts the Younger or "Our Federalism" approach. The Court's approach seems to reflect its belief that only the most serious, egregious and systematic forms of civil rights violations deserve federal judicial remediation. There is a danger that state officials will not exercise their power to sue immediately upon discovering apparent civil rights violations. It is important that better state laws and procedures be developed to insure that individual civil rights are protected. It is concluded that fair and accessible state remedies are not inferior to approaches established uniformly by Federal Government action. (Author/AM)