- 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.
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
- 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
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
- 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
- Main contributors:
- Elwood, William A, Kulish, Mykola
- 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.
