- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Higginbotham, A. Leon (Aloyisus Leon), 1928-1998
- Summary:
- Part one. Civil rights attorney and professor Jack Greenberg talks about his involvement with the NAACP civil rights defense fund. He recalls his work on a Japanese citizen relocation rights case. He discusses important cases in civil rights law and his involvement in two of the five cases that constituted Brown v. Board of Education, the Delaware case and the Kansas case. Part two. Mr. Greenberg remarks he does not believe Southern society would be integrated if it had been left up to the states; it would be like South Africa and Apartheid. He mentions major cases litigated in Virginia, including the Davis case, the Prince Edward County case, and the NAACP v. Button case, wherein the Virginia General Assembly tried to put the NAACP out of business by making it illegal for it to function. Civil rights cases were filed purposefully in federal court because federal judges were insulated from state politics somewhat; there wasn't the problem of being reelected. Mr. Greenberg contends that the federal courts made civil rights possible. Part three. Mr. Greenberg recalls that Virginia's attempt to destroy the NAACP was really about a small group of Virginia lawyers, like Spotswood Robinson, Oliver Hill, Samuel Tucker. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund in New York relied on law school academics, legal scholars, and social scientists. Interview ends at 3:30. Footage resumes with Judge A. Leon Higginbotham being interviewed while walking around Columbia University. Mr. Higginbotham talks about Greenberg and Columbia Law School's impact on civil rights struggle
Search Constraints
Start Over You searched for: Collection William A. Elwood Civil Rights Lawyers Project ✖ Remove constraint Collection: William A. Elwood Civil Rights Lawyers Project
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
- Date:
- 2006
- Summary:
- Part one. James Duren explains how he became an activist for education in Clarendon County, South Carolina, by uncovering corruption in Clarendon School District One. He formed a parents group that grew into 200 members to fight the misuse of money by the district. Other parents describe how they became involved and actions they took to try to change the situation. Summmerton in Clarendon County, South Carolina, was the district involved in Briggs v. Elliott, one of the cases in Brown v. Board of Education. Part two. Clarendon County business people and parents of students in Clarendon School District One describe the fraud, mismanagement and extremely low educational standards of the district. Part three. Similar content to Disc 204. Part four. Clarendon County business people and parents of students in Clarendon School District One discuss race relations in South Carolina in the 1980s, as well as the many problems with Clarendon School District 1. Part five. Similar content to Disc 206.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A
- Summary:
- Part one: Civil rights attorney James Nabrit discusses childhood and segregation in Augusta, Georgia. He covers his law practice in Texas and how he fought to have one Democratic primary instead of two (one for whites, one for African Americans). He left Texas because Mordecai Johnson wanted him to come to Howard University. There, he taught in the law school and became dean, then secretary of the university, then president. He recounts how the news of Jack Johnson’s boxing victory in Augusta, Georgia was greeted by the taunting and burning of an African American man who was celebrating. Part two. Nabrit recalls how the civil rights struggle developed and touches upon African American economic development. He details his preparation for civil rights cases. He declares that winning court cases is not the same thing as achieving civil rights victory. Part three. Nabrit talks about Charles Houston and his contributions. Houston tried cases, met with people, spoke out, organized people. Houston is the one who connected all the lawyers together. Nabrit acknowledges the contributions of the lodges, like the Elks, the Moose. Nabrit elaborates on work he did on behalf of President Lyndon Johnson, like serving at the United Nations as deputy ambassador. Nabrit explains why he worked on Oklahoma civil rights cases. Part four. Nabrit extemporizes on ways to work the legal system. Part five. Stills of photographs. Part six. Mr. Nabrit had to work every summer while in school. His father would not give him money because Nabrit chose to study law instead of becoming a preacher. He discusses his appointment to the United Nations and President Lyndon Johnson. Unidentified woman at 11:46 talks about the background of Mr. Nabrit and why Elwood interviewed him. Still photographs at 13:30, many of Nabrit with various US presidents and officials.
- Date:
- 2006
- Summary:
- Part one. Footage of Chester High School band and football team, Chester, South Carolina. Part two and three. Principal Jeff Brown gives a tour of Chester High School, Chester, South Carolina. Part four. At 19:20, Mr. Brown attends a Chester Rotary Club meeting. Then more footage at high school. Part five. Footage of students at Chester High School. At 7:20, interview with Principal Jeff Brown. Mr. Brown recalls what schools were like when he began his career in education. Part six. Principal Jeff Brown recounts the early days of his education career in Chester, South Carolina. He describes the separate but equal doctrine and how the community imposed certain strictures on black teachers. He also talks about the changes brought by integration. Part eight. Interview with Principal Jeff Brown of Chester High School continues. At 8:38, footage of high school activities and students. At 14:20 interview with Mr. Brown recommences.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A
- Summary:
- Part one. Civil rights activist and history professor John Hope Franklin did historical research for the Brown v. Board of Education cases. He wrote opposition papers, vetted briefs for historical accuracy, and answered history questions from the lawyers. He describes the slow development of state segregation policies and laws, the 14th amendment and schools, the political climate regarding race issues in the late 19th century, and the suppression of African American voters in the South. Part two. Mr. Franklin describes the suppression of African Americans in the South via state legislation. He talks about the elaborate disenfranchisement of African Americans using restrictions regarding real estate, literacy, voting, etc. He mentions Plessy v. Ferguson, the Oklahoma State Constitution of 1915, and the cases about election primaries during the 1920s. Part three. Mr. Franklin contends that the irregular application of Jim Crow laws allowed the system of segregation to be challenged. He says that Brown defending attorney John W. Davis, like other complacent segregationists, expected to win the Brown case because he believed that everybody accepted the naturalness and permanence of a separate society. Mr. Franklin discusses Charles Houston and his legacy. Mr. Franklin tells the story about segregation in higher education in Oklahoma. Part four. Mr. Franklin recounts his participation in the Lyman Johnson case. Franklin says that Brown was a reaffirmation of the national ideal of equality, but like the framers of the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court escaped having to enforce the ideal. Mr. Franklin tells about his experiences as a field researcher in 1934 for the Fisk University/Charles S. Johnson study of the tenancy of African American cotton farmers in Texas and Mississippi.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Morgan, Charles, 1930-2009, Kulish, Mykola
- Summary:
- Part one. Attorney Charles Morgan and US Congressman John Lewis discuss many topics, including: Alabama legally disenfranchising African Americans with voting registration requirements like the poll tax and literacy tests; Reynolds v. Sims, the one-man, one-vote case; Bull Connor; Lewis being jailed because he was with an interracial group using public transportation; Lewis being beaten in Montgomery; Freedom Rides; the voter registration drive; Brown v. Board of Education; the importance of the Christian Church, the one place where African Americans could have control; Lewis meeting Dr. King and Rev. Abernathy. Part two. Morgan and Lewis continue their conversation, agreeing that in spite of symbols like the Confederate Flag flying over the Alabama Capitol, things are better because African Americans are allowed into positions of power. They discuss the racism deeply embedded in American society, as well as the most important aspect of the civil rights movement, its law-based nonviolence. Lewis recalls his involvement in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the difficulties he had meeting with white activists like Morgan because it was against the law. Part three. Morgan and Lewis describe the 1960s civil rights movement as a family, especially on the inside, and its informal, organic progress. They say that historians ignore Charles Hamilton Houston because they are ignorant of much of history. They review Sweatt v. Painter. Part four. Morgan and Lewis remark upon Charles Houston and suggest that integration is still, in the 1980s, in the embryonic stage. Lewis reminisces about the Sears and Roebuck catalog being his wish book as a child; he wanted to buy incubator to have chickens because he used to preach to the family's chickens. The two men talk about the Voter Education Project and the vote as a tool of liberation. They say that voter registration really did work because white politicians started speaking to African Americans and, at low levels of government, African Americans were starting to get elected. Part five. The relationship between Lewis and Morgan is discussed. Footage of Lewis walking to Capitol building to cast vote, then exiting the Capitol building after vote. Footage of Congressional office building.h
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
- Summary:
- Part one. Footage of classes at Scott's Branch High School in Clarendon County, South Carolina, and some rural housing. At 13:41, Journalist John Norton, an education reporter for a Southern newspaper, talks about how Clarendon County has changed, as well as how it hasn't, since the Briggs v. Elliott case. Part two. Norton recounts some of the history of the school districts in Clarendon County, South Carolina. He outlines how the schools have been neglected, and therefore how the whole community is failing. Part three. Norton describes the education situation in Clarendon County, South Carolina. At 7:18, footage of Clarendon County, South Carolina, including rural roads, Liberty Hill Church, cotton gin.
- Date:
- 2006
- Summary:
- Part one. Footage of Summerton, Clarendon County, South Carolina, the origin of the Briggs v. Elliott case, which was part of Brown v. Board of Education. At 5:10, interview with Clarendon School District One Superintendent Joseph C. Watson begins. Mr. Watson describes how the Summerton school district is not yet integrated, as it consists of only African American students despite the fact that the community is 40% white. He explains why he thinks the school district is so bad and defends the school's poor performance. Part two. Watson continues to explain the policies of the district school board, especially concerning budget restrictions. He reflects on his performance as superintendent. At 8:07, footage of Clarendon School District One.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
- Summary:
- Part one. Civil rights attorney Joseph Rauh talks about his clerkships to the US Supreme Court for both Justices Cardozo and Frankfurter. He discusses the 1941 Executive Order by President Franklin Roosevelt, called the Fair Employment Act, which Rauh wrote. During World War II, he worked as Gen. MacArthur's secretary and in the Lend-Lease Administration. He recalls the founding of the Americans for Democratic Action in 1947. He tells anecdotes about working with A. Philip Randolph. Part two. Mr. Rauh remembers, during the 1940s, African Americans and whites could not eat together in a restaurant in Washington DC. The District was a segregated city until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Mr. Rauh talks about his acquaintance with Charles Hamilton Houston. Mr. Rauh describes Houston's work in the Steele case. He explains the new civil rights platform adopted at the 1948 Democratic Convention. Part three. Mr. Rauh comments on President Truman's civil rights record. He states that the best US President for civil rights is Lyndon Johnson and the worst is Ronald Reagan. Mr. Rauh credits Charles Houston with the first use of the argument of state action in discrimination cases. He recounts his dealings with NAACP lobbyist Clarence Mitchell, especially their efforts in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Mr. Rauh recalls President John Kennedy, when proposing what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pointing out the irony that Alabama Sheriff Bull Connor did more for civil rights than anybody else. Mr. Rauh tell stories about civil rights champion President Johnson working to pass legislation. Part four. Mr. Rauh describes the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its effects on the nation's history using the example of the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987 primarily by Senators elected by African American constituents from the South. The first meaningful civil rights legislation since Reconstruction was the Act of 1964. Mr. Rauh suggests reasons for why Charles Houston is not well known.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
- Summary:
- Part one. Civil right attorney Juanita Mitchell gives a brief history of the life of Charles Hamilton Houston. She describes Houston's legal case to admit Donald Gaines Murray to the University of Maryland School of Law. Houston used the equal protection clause from the 14th amendment against states that did not admit African American students to their schools. Ms. Mitchell gives a vivid account of this court case. Houston encouraged Maryland lawyers like Mitchell to use the US Constitution to sue Jim Crow out of Maryland laws, which they did. Part two. Ms. Mitchell describes what it was like to be African American in the South during the era of Jim Crow. She recounts living in the African American ghetto in Baltimore during the 1930s. Ms. Mitchell, after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania in 1931, worked for the NAACP. She recalls lynchings near Baltimore and how the NAACP tried to organize African American citizens to write to their government representatives to outlaw lynching. Part three. Ms. Mitchell remarks upon the inspiring character of Houston. She tells the story of W. Ashby Hawkins' successful legal argument in 1913 against Baltimore's new municipal segregation residential order, which was like Apartheid. She talks about the heroism of her mother, who served as president of the NAACP. She also talks about the civil rights work of her husband, Clarence Mitchell, especially concerning the Fair Employment Practice Committee. Part four. Because the NAACP could not get tax exempt status for work being done by lawyers, the Legal Defense Fund was started, with Thurgood Marshall at its helm. Ms. Mitchell remembers filing case after case in Maryland led by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. She recalls working with Robert Carter and Jack Greenberg. Ms. Mitchell got her law degree because Houston suggested she do so, and she was the first African American student to write for the law review at the University of Maryland School of Law. She describes what it was like in Baltimore during and after the Brown court case, especially on the day the decision was announced. Part five. Ms. Mitchell remembers the funeral of Houston in 1950. She gives her opinion of why people don't know about Houston. She believes that the civil rights movement really began with Africans jumping off slave ships.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
- Summary:
- Part one. Judge Juanita Kidd Stout remembers hearing Charles Houston speak in 1937 in the Gaines case in Missouri and describes what it was like in the courtroom. She talks about becoming a lawyer, being an African American woman; she declares she never felt discrimination in the field of law. She tells the story of how she came to work for Houston when she was young. Stout recalls what Houston was like, his belief in the Constitution and the rule of law, and his plans for challenges to US law decades into the future. Part two. Judge Stout wants to know why Houston is not well-known, as most lawyers consider him to be one of the best legal minds ever. It is tragic that he is not taught in civil rights courses. Judge Stout declares that people now don't realize the deprivations that African Americans suffered before the civil rights movement. She recalls that everyone was aware then that it was Houston who did all the groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education. Stout discusses how Houston prepared for the case. She also talks about Judge William Henry Hastie and his appointment to the Third Circuit appeals court. Judge Stout's advice to young people: we will always need more lawyers because we always have new laws to handle changes in society. Part three. Judge Stout describes how she became a judge and remembers cases that stood out for her and her career. She declares that law is not passive; it must grow, change and be discarded. Also, many laws have been wrong and unjust. Stout recalls that Houston died at age 54 just before the the Brown decision. At 11:40 to end, footage of Judge Stout in her office, working. Part four. Footage of Stout's office.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
- Summary:
- Part one. Footage of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund offices including that of civil rights attorney, professor, and NAACP director counsel Julius L. Chambers. Part two. Mr. Chambers discusses the origins of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, important cases in fund history, the Keyes principle, and employment cases like Duke Power. Part three. Chambers recalls the most important civil rights case that grew out of his practice, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education in the US Supreme Court, which became known as the busing case. He talks about current concerns of the fund, responding to Reagan administration challenges to civil rights, developing protection for the poor. Part four. Some 1987 fund work in cases dealing with discrimination against the poor. More footage of fund offices.
- Date:
- 2006
- Summary:
- Part one. Mrs. Leone Lane describes her career as a teacher in Chester, South Carolina. J.W. Greene joins the interview at 7:26. Part two. Mrs. Leone Lane and J.W. Greene discuss the effects of integration on schools in Chester, South Carolina. At 5:55 footage of rural South Carolina and Brainerd Institute.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A
- Summary:
- Part one. Mr. Lorin Thompson discusses the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education, which in practice gave states the opportunity to close public schools in order to avoid desegregation. The Charlottesville schools closed in the fall of 1958, the teachers volunteered to teach in other venues. The crisis over school desegregation eventually became an important social, economic and moral issue. Mr. Thompson asserts that people should find an amenable solution and recognize the rights of all people. Thompson was the director of the Bureau of Population Economic Research at the University of Virginia which studied problems of urban development. Part two. Different camera angles.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Higginbotham, A. Leon (Aloyisus Leon), 1928-1998
- Summary:
- Part one. Civil rights attorney Louis Redding recalls his family, childhood, and going to Brown University. Part two. Mr. Redding tells his family’s history at Brown. After Harvard Law School, he returned to still segregated Delaware to practice law. Immediately, he tried to abolish separation based on race in courtrooms. He discussed the Parker case, its background, African American admission to University of Delaware, and Judge Collins Seitz. Part three. Redding says that he would not have filed the Parker case if he didn't know that Judge Collins Seitz would get the case. In Gebhart v. Belton, the public school case, Redding used testimony from psychology and sociology experts about how separate but equal was inherently detrimental to African American children. He also comments on Jack Greenberg, Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, and the day the Brown v. Board of Education decision was announced. Part four. The day the Brown decision became public, Redding heard the news on the radio while driving and crashed into the car in front of him. Mr. Redding discusses the Burton case, Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall, William Hastie, William Robert Ming. He also tells how John W. Davis, the lawyer defending separate but equal, wept during arguments in front of the Supreme Court in the Brown case. Part five. Charles Hamilton Houston. Advice to young lawyers. At 9:00 until end, still photos.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
- Summary:
- Part one. Historian William H. Harbaugh describes the irony of John W. Davis defending the separate but equal doctrine in Brown v. the Board of Education and explains why Davis took the case as its appellate lawyer. Harbaugh also comments on Thurgood Marshall's opinion of Davis. At 9:20 interview with engineer and business professor Louis T. Rader begins. Mr. Rader talks about his life and career, as well as his support of public education in the promotion of a successful business climate. During Massive Resistance, he protested closing Virginia public schools using the argument that businesses don't want to operate in a community with poor schooling. Part two. Mr. Rader recalls his support of public schooling in Virginia during Massive Resistance in order to sustain economic development within the commonwealth. At 5:30, interview with George R. Ferguson begins. Mr. Ferguson recounts the lawsuit brought by the Charlottesville NAACP to desegregate schools immediately following the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. Court proceedings continued into 1958, when the judge assigned several black children to attend otherwise white schools in Charlottesville. The commonwealth then closed schools in Charlottesville under the policy of Massive Resistance. Mr. Ferguson describes how the Boatwright committee of the Virginia General Assembly harassed Charlottesville NAACP members.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
- Summary:
- Part one. Judge Matthew Perry recalls his service in the US Army during World War II in Europe. His travels overseas allowed him to participate in a society without segregation. He discusses his upbringing and education, especially the segregation of higher education institutions. He decided to be a lawyer after seeing Thurgood Marshall and Robert Carter try a case in Columbia, South Carolina concerning segregation in education. Part two. Judge Perry recounts the story of seeing Thurgood Marshall and Robert Carter try a case to desegregate South Carolina University Law School. Perry's own law school alma mater, South Carolina State College Law School, was established in response to the above case. He practiced law in South Carolina until his 1976 appointment to the federal judiciary serving on the United States Court of Military Appeals. During his private practice, he fought to desegregate grand juries. Part three. Judge Perry talks about the state of the New South. He discusses how the law was used to institutionalize racism in America. He notes that it was also the law that was used to defeat the system. He goes over the legal strategy he and his colleagues used to integrate colleges and graduate schools in South Carolina. He talks about Briggs v. Elliott, one of the Brown v. Board of Education cases. Part four. NAACP Legal Defense Fund and NAACP General Counsel provided money and expertise to small, local lawyers all over the South. Judge Perry remarks on Baker v. Carr and various sit-in and protest cases like Edwards v. South Carolina.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
- Summary:
- Part one. Civil rights activist Modjeska Simkins discusses her childhood in South Carolina and the influence of her grandmother, who was a slave. She tells vivid stories of her family's ordeals with slavery and post-Civil War freedom and discrimination. Part two. Ms. Simkins shares stories about her family's experience with racial discrimination. She talks about people using the Bible to support their prejudices and why she quit the church. She explains the power structure among rich white people, poor white people, and African Americans. She recalls when NAACP lawyers like Thurgood Marshall would come down to South Carolina to try a case and stay in her house because they couldn't stay in any hotels. She tells how African American schools didn't have buses or fuel for heat. Part three. Ms. Simkins talks about her education. She recalls encounters with the Ku Klux Klan and her fearless attitude toward the Klan. She returns to a discussion of the power structure in the South, both when she was a child and in 1985. She expresses her opinion of Robert Bork. Part four. Ms. Simkins talks about her work with the NAACP. She talks about the salary case, transportation case, and the vote case in South Carolina. Her home was the center of South Carolina civil rights legislation in a way because out-of-town African Americans could only stay in private homes. The militia was called out in South Carolina; she remembers cannons on Statehouse grounds. She chats about Judge J. Waites Waring and Thurgood Marshall.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A
- Summary:
- Part one. Civil rights attorney Oliver Hill recounts his childhood in Roanoke. High schools for African Americans there were at least 100 miles away, so he moved to Washington DC to go to Dunbar High School. He recalls knowing Charles Houston in the early 1930s while at Howard Law School. Hill discusses the difference between desegregation and integration. Part two. Mr. Hill examines his first civil rights cases, the most important being Alston v. School Board of the City of Norfolk. He discusses the differences between trying a case in front of Virginia federal court and Virginia state court. Part three. Mr. Hill explains the civil rights court case strategy to force the “separate but equal” doctrine to be observed, which would be expensive and difficult, so the only reasonable alternative would be to integrate. Mr. Hill observes that it was essential to eliminate the disparity between African American and white teacher salaries because the South needed to retain good teachers. He won the Alston case then went off to World War II. He describes what segregation in the Army was like. He also discusses taking the Morgan v. Virginia case, which was based on federal interstate transportation law, to the US Supreme Court. Part four. Mr. Hill thinks that the war retarded the growth of the civil rights movement. He recalls the Tunstall case concerning traditional African American railway jobs as firemen. He was also involved in one of the five court cases that led to Brown v. Board of Education, the Prince Edward County case, chiefly concerning equal education facilities. He talks about the judges involved in Prince Edward case. Part five. Mr. Hill continues to discuss the judges involved in the Prince Edward case, including Judge Sterling Hutcheson. Mr. Hill explains that 10 years after the Brown decision there was no integration in Prince Edward County because the Supreme Court didn't order desegregation. Hill points to Harry Byrd as the chief antagonizer in Massive Resistance; Hill says that if Harry Byrd hadn't opposed the Brown decision, integration would have happened much sooner in Virginia. Part six. A message to young people from Oliver Hill: we have to stop thinking of ourselves as colors or ethnicities or nationalities and start thinking of ourselves and each other as humans. Interview ends at seven minutes. Footage of Old Dominion Bar Association convention begins at 7:10, conversations among bar members and William Elwood, chiefly concerning Samuel Tucker.
- Date:
- 2006
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola, Freeman, Anne Hobson, 1934-
- Summary:
- Part one. Civil rights attorneys Oliver Hill and S.W. Tucker discuss the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, including the meaning of "with all deliberate speed." They remark upon how long it took to desegregate schools. They comment on the policies of Senator Harry Byrd and President Dwight Eisenhower. Mr. Hill talks about his service in the military during World War II. Mr. Tucker also served, and he relates stories about how Jim Crow worked in the military. Discs two to five. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Hill recount stories of life under Jim Crow, including experiences with seating on trains and other forms of transportation, service at restaurants, taking the bar exam, race riots, and trying to reserve a bridal suite on a honeymoon. They also tell the story of Dr. Charles Drew. Part six. Mr. Hill reviews Virginia's policy of Massive Resistance, the General Assembly's Boatwright committee and Thompson committee, Virginia courts and judges, and the people placement board. At 11:20, Anne Hobson Freeman talks about her new book on the law firm of Hunton and Williams in Richmond. The firm represented the school board of Prince Edward County in 1951 when students there sued the district for integration.