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.
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.
Read a May 2010 update on this story.
