 |
OGLETREE: 'We have the ability
to overcome the problems of our past.'
Jason Grow |
charles j. ogletree Jr.
is an outspoken civil rights activist and Harvard law
professor. Ogletree, ’75, MA ’75, served
as legal counsel to Anita Hill during the Senate confirmation
hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas and co-chairs the
Reparations Coordinating Committee working for descendants
of slaves. He recently published All Deliberate
Speed: Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown
v. Board of Education (Norton). Alex Beam, Boston
Globe columnist and Knight fellow at Stanford in
1996-97, interviewed him.
The title All Deliberate Speed is a sort of
play on words, isn’t it?
In May 1955, the Supreme Court declared that the lower
courts would pursue the end of segregation “with
all deliberate speed.” Ultimately, that meant
no speed at all. “Deliberate” meant slow,
and the process was slow. Brown said “end
segregation,” but Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus refused
to let blacks enter high school in Little Rock in 1957.
In Alabama, Gov. George Wallace developed his political
career on resisting segregation.
When my wife, Pamela, and I came to Boston in 1975,
we saw white parents and children attacking black children
and parents who were trying to attend school 21 years
after the Supreme Court decision.
All my life, I thought those words meant “do
it now.”
Everybody thought they meant “do it now.”
Even Bill Clinton used the phrase that way, when he
said “I will proceed with all deliberate speed”
to lift the restriction on homosexuals in the military.
Well, he took all deliberate speed because he never
lifted the ban. I’m sure that’s not what
he intended, but that was the impact.
Why do you call your freshman class at Stanford
in 1971 “Brown babies”?
We were the first class of African-Americans to attend
Stanford in significant numbers. We were all born around
the time of Brown and went through the public
education system in the post-segregation era. In many
cases, we were the first members of our families to
attend a prestigious institution like Stanford. We were
deeply committed to doing well and leaving a legacy
of our time on campus.
It was an important time in our political and social
development as well. We became cognizant of the significance
of the legal profession by attending the trial of [black
political activist] Angela Davis and seeing African-American
lawyers taking on the criminal justice system.
At the same time, Stanford engineering professor William
Shockley was openly discussing his views on the forced
sterilization of African-American women and his racist
theories of eugenics. So, we were admitted to Stanford
but challenged by some members of the faculty.
You took part in some important protests at
Stanford.
At our graduation, we decided to demonstrate against
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the main speaker. He was Richard
Nixon’s domestic policy adviser, who had endorsed
a policy of “benign neglect” for African-Americans
and written extensively about the dysfunctional nature
of black family life. That was a slap in the face to
our parents, who had raised children who graduated from
a place like Stanford.
We wanted our parents to know how much we appreciated
their efforts, so we staged the first alternative graduation,
with St. Clair Drake, director of the Afro-American
studies department, as our speaker. We had our ceremony
on Saturday, and then attended commencement on Sunday,
at the old Frost Amphitheater.
During commencement, we rose during Moynihan’s
remarks and quietly walked toward the exits. When he
stopped speaking, we came back. We were stunned at the
number of people who marched out with us—Chicano
students and white students joined us, and parents and
family members went out as well.
Has the law failed the civil rights movement?
The law has been important in ending slavery, ending
Jim Crow segregation, and creating civil rights opportunities.
At the same time, the law has been disappointing in
that we have a history of 300 years of slavery and segregation,
but we’ve spent only three or four decades of
serious efforts to redress those problems. The law hasn’t
caught up or surpassed the basic problems of racial
disparity.
You write that America has resegregated since
the Brown decision.
No one was prepared for the enormous amount of white
flight, or white resistance to black equality. As we
look at the demographics of urban America and public
education in the 21st century, we have massive resegregation
of our schools and of our communities because of white
flight, but also because of black middle class flight.
That is a product of the refusal of people of different
perspectives and persuasions to live together.
You and your wife started the Benjamin Banneker
Charter Public School in Cambridge, Mass. What were
your goals?
We refused to accept the determination by some public
school officials that some children are incapable of
learning, and so should be “tracked,” or
given fewer opportunities. We demonstrated that these
children had incredible talents that could not be fully
revealed in achievement tests.
We figured if we could equip children in certain areas,
like science, math and technology, they would forever
be empowered to take on the challenges of education.
Reading and writing are important, but we think the
quantitative skills are essential as well. If you go
to Banneker, you won’t see a more spirited, enthusiastic
group of children interested in education, despite the
overwhelming majority of them being products of abject
poverty.
"We
have massive resegregation of our schools and
communities because of white flight, but also
because of black middle class flight."
- Charles Ogletree |
 |
|
|
What are your views on affirmative action?
Affirmative action is a narrow remedy available to qualified
individuals in limited circumstances. There is no place
in America where you can simply say, “I’m
black, let me attend your college, give me a job.”
It takes more—it takes qualifications.
If you look at the enrollment numbers at Harvard, Yale
and Princeton, you can see modest success. Stanford
has a greater level of success in diversity than any
of its peers. Stanford’s minority enrollment for
the last few years has exceeded 50 percent. That includes
a substantial number of Asian-American students, but
also an increasing number of African-American, Hispanic
and Native American students. And people feel that Stanford
is nurturing and open to diversity without any stigmatization
based on race and with a track record of producing an
exceptionally qualified group of alumni.
You have filed suit for reparations on behalf
of the victims of the 1921 Tulsa race riot. What is
the status of that case?
It is currently on appeal. The Tulsa case is
about living victims of what I describe as domestic
terrorism. My clients are African-American women and
men, ages 89 to 103. A mob of whites deputized by the
Tulsa sheriff destroyed their businesses and their homes
and placed the [survivors] in campgrounds. They initially
charged the blacks with being responsible for the riot.
In 2001, the Tulsa Race Riot Commission concluded that
this white mob was responsible and that these victims
were entitled to reparation. They have never received
it, and that is why we filed this lawsuit.
The plaintiffs are not focused on receiving payments
or damages. They would like to see new health care and
educational opportunities for their grandchildren and
great-grandchildren. They are willing to sacrifice their
own economic benefits to improve the community.
My own view is that the reparations movement should
not be focused on individual checks, but that any benefits
should go to the poorest of the poor, or what I call
the “bottom-stuck” in the African-American
community, people who have not benefited from integration
or affirmative action. Any money that goes to uplift
this community solves a problem that is of concern to
all Americans.
The reparations debate is going to go on no matter what
happens in court. It’s divisive; it’s frustrating;
it has created hostility within communities. But it
requires a discussion about race that we need to have,
to get beyond the problems of the past and move forward
to the problems of the future.
Do you agree with your mentor, law professor
Derrick Bell, that “racism is endemic in America?”
I cite Derrick Bell to show that some people are less
hopeful and that they offer examples in our history
to support that view. I hope he’s wrong. I do
not accept the fact that racism is permanent. My belief
is that we have ability to address and overcome the
problems of our past and we should not give in to the
temptation to assume we can’t. I see the Cabinets
of President Clinton and President Bush as evidence
that we can find people who are diverse and excellent.
I am an optimist even as I see continuing economic disparities. |
