tv Book TV CSPAN April 17, 2010 9:45am-10:30am EDT
9:45 am
america. i simply don't. it is to thoroughly integrate society. and we just couldn't. it's not going to turn into julie. it's not going to happen. it's simply not that i'm us more worried about israel. the doctrine i were talking about this last light briefly, and my concern is you basically have a crusade state model where a civilization is reimpose on the middle east but can't laughter coming, again, the middle east just isn't nurturing. and i hope israel will have a long grant healthy successful future. but i worry about the way the world has turned so profound it against israel. it is irrational, but again israel is a victim of its success. in the sense that it chains everybody else who fails. how good these jews from the shtetl, these despised jews who
9:46 am
somehow get to a palestine that is absolutely deluded of greenery and that the so is ruined, it has no hope, diseases and endemic, and making their own picks and shovels in many cases, they began to till the land. and they literally, the cliché is true, they make a garden in the desert. and from the garden in the desert they make a high-tech society where the standard of justice and legality, unprecedented in the entire history of the middle east. how can israel not be hated by the people have been there uninterruptedly and failed and failed and failed again, and failed again and failed again. how can israel not be hated by practicinpakistan who fail at everything. the supreme energy that went into israel reinvigorated
9:47 am
incredibly after the holocaust when the stakes were so under the clear, close to america as we will see on this earth. and those who can't replicate the success, because of their own failures, will hate the success. it's like the old russian joke, there's to present and one peasant has a beautiful cow and the other peasant dozen. and this doesn't in these that cow so much, loves that cow and the poor peasant one day, he's kicking around in the forest, and he sees a wooded spirit tied to a tree. and releases the woods spirit and the wood spirits is thank you, as a reward for your generosity i will get any one wish and the peasant says kill my neighbor's cow. unfortunately that is the attitude of too much of humanity
9:48 am
instead of working. think of the incredible synthesis that could occur if the palestinians were willing to work with israel, it airs are willing to work with visual how much progress, incredible progress could be achieved? but to do that, they would have to give up israel as a say in that is blamed for their failures. so again, as certain as a a no non-as a citizen of the united states, i think i can look at israel fairly objectively, and as i see israel compared to the squalor that surrounds them the self-indulgent and simultaneously self-aggrandizing squalor, i believe israel is worth fighting for. ladies and gentlemen, thank you. [applause]
9:49 am
9:50 am
>> the book "root and branch" features charles hamilton houston and his student thurgood marshall, valedictorian of his class in 1933 and future supreme court justice. the two lawyers lead the naacp's legal office and challenging jim crow laws with a focus on school integration. hue man bookstore in new york city hosted the 40 minute talk. >> good evening and i'd like to thank hue-man bookstore for having me here. what i'd like to do this evening is briefly discuss the legal strategy that helped bring about the end to segregation strategy put in place, designed by charles hamilton houston and put in place by charles hamilton houston and his protége and
9:51 am
later his coworker, thurgood marshall. the late televised theologian and cosmetic zealot tammy faye bakker remarked after her husband fall from grace, she said we are who we are because of who we were. and her words betrayed not only a mature compassion, but also speak to a recognition that the past is always with us. and indeed, as william falconer tells us in his 1950 nobel address, the past is not even past. and in this way, we as a nation are who we are. because of who we were. ours is not a nation that hides from history, or hides history in history books. and indeed one reason why we can be so proud of who we are is in
9:52 am
part because of who we once were. a nation that divided its own citizens by race. "root and branch: charles hamilton houston, thurgood marshall, and the struggle to end segregation" tells a story of how two men, two lawyers help to take this country from where we were to where they knew we one day could be. it explores how the moment, the brown v. board of education moment came about. brown is not a judicial miracle. it's not the miracle that it is often purported to be. the fact that it was a unanimous decision it still stands something as a judicial miracle, but the supreme court's decision in brown v. board of education was the result of careful planning and a careful strategy set forth by charles hamilton and enacted by houston and thurgood marshall.
9:53 am
in 1935, walter wright who is the executive secretary of the naacp, and truly an extraordinary character in his own right, an extraordinary american in his own right, he asked charles hamilton houston, please devise a strategy by which the naacp could seek to desegregate education and transportation in america. well, houston, was at the time the most famous african-american lawyer in american history, and certainty the most educated lawyer of african-american lawyer in american history, looked at the budget of $10,000 said, mr. white, you need to pick one or the other. so houston and white pic education. charles hamilton houston was a graduate of amherst college, graduate from hammers at the age
9:54 am
of 19. served in the army and went on to harvard law school and was the first african-american to serve on the harvard law review. he earned a doctorate of -- doctorate of judicial science from harvard, studied in spain what he was at harvard law school, and was very famous at this time because he had recently defended a very high profile, sensational murder defendant out in rural virginia. was widely known by americans across all races and classes at the time. he wanted to attack segregation in a way that, of course, would be successful, the law of the land at the time was plessy v. ferguson, a 19th century supreme court decision that established the doctrine of separate but equal. and those words never appear in the decision to be sure, but the
9:55 am
law was that so long as states, so long as the government provides separate and equal facilities for african-americans and for white americans, the constitution is satisfied. houston could not walk into court and ask a district court judge to overturn separate but equal. it would not work. the district court judge result is to have authority to do so. and secondly it was the way individuals live their lives. so the question became how was he going to attack this? and i would just like to briefly read two paragraphs here, and i see two paragraphs because the legal strategy was so brilliant in its simplicity that it can be summarized in a very short number of words your of voters case is a ship. is wind is the law that he must
9:56 am
put to his command. gifted attorneys sometimes persuade courts to extend existing law, but rarely to reverse it. while often heralded as a reversal of long-standing jurisprudence, the supreme court's decision in the case is touted as brown v. board of education was in fact an extension of the course earlier decision. brown expand the existing law and the ship launched by charles houston 20 years earlier that last reached uncharted shores. in 1935, however, the wind blew steadily in the opposite direction. separate but equal schools and buildings were constitutionally permissible under this bring courts plessy v. ferguson decision. to challenge plessy, to set sail into the wind would be the mission of a doomed a fool. so what walter white asked houston to present a plan by which the naacp could launch a sustained legal campaign to end segregation, houston chartered a
9:57 am
novel course. to defeat the law of separate but equal, he would argue for the enforcement of separate but equal. in southern states he would argue that segregation's mandate needed to be met. he would seek to end segregation scourge by arguing for its promise. so here was the strategy, if you as a state were segregating black and white citizens, houston said that's fine. were not going to challenge that right now, but what we will say is you need to have these facilities need to be separate and they need to be equal. they started in the law schools. first houston hires thurgood marshall, who was his favorite student at howard law school. marshall graduate founded one of his class at howard law school, and came to work for the naacp, and they went to work on the mission of the segregating --
9:58 am
desegregate schools. and they start in law school. why? because every judge has gone to law school. and the judges do not need to rely so much on expert witness to tell them what separates one law school from another, what makes this law school better than law school. and they started in maryland where thurgood marshall was born and were thurgood marshall wanted to attend law school, but could not. he exacted not apply to university of merlot school because the university of maryland law school did not accept black students. now that he was an attorney for the naacp and working with charlie houston, mr. marshall said we will see about that. they filed suit on behalf of donald murray, a young student, and amherst grad and design of a prominent baltimore family. they filed suit against the university of maryland and the case was being seen by
9:59 am
blackmailers and white noticed that no one showed up to watch the case, no one except thurgood marshall's father, willie, would've been there if it had been a hit and run trial. the our unit was simple. the university of maryland is obligated under plessy v. ferguson to provide separate but equal law school. maryland provide the university of maryland for its white students, maryland provide no law school for its black student. they don't have one. so until maryland build a law school for its black students and build an equal law school for its black students, maryland must allow its black applicants who are qualified to attend the university of maryland. houston and marshall assured the trial judge were not asking to overturn plessy, we are asking you to enforce plessy v. ferguson. you have to make this separate
10:00 am
but equal, but there is no separate school, your honor. and they put on the witnesses who agreed with the simple fact is there are law schools for law school for negro students? , and others not. thank you very much. is there a law school for white students? yes, there is. thank you. the only way to equalize them was to allow white students -- black students into the university of maryland unless and until maryland is able to build up his law school for blacks to. to the shock houston and marshall, the trial judge issued his ruling from the bench and said you are right, there is a law school so the law is very clear on this point and, therefore, mr. murray, you are admitted to the university of maryland law school. the appeals went on and houston and marshall prevailed. . .
10:01 am
he wrote an editorial called don't shout too soon because there's so much in korea -- euphoria and he knew there was a long road ahead and he knew it would be sometime before the african-americans would be able to apply to law schools, colleges and, indeed, even when they go to elementary school of their own choosing. so he said shout if you want but
10:02 am
don't shout too soon, he knew they needed federal precedent. maryland case was only good law in maryland and didn't go to the supreme court of united states. they needed federal president and they found it in this area a few years later. lloyd gaines another promising non and applied to the university of maryland law school -- missouri and denied application on account of his race. he said missouri has a policy were will contribute your tuition at and out of state school because we don't allow our misery black citizens to go to the university of missouri law school. floyd gains, charles houston and sp -- thurgood marshall took on a case in this man did to this be one of the united states. they finally put their strategy saying to the justices there is no law school for black students
10:03 am
so there is no separate but equal and we don't even reach the question of a quality because there's no separate and there's nothing there, there's nowhere for them to go because this is a personal right the 14th amendment personal right that each individual coming each american citizen enjoys you have to remedy it immediately and the only way to remedy is to allow our client, mr. gaines, to attend the university of missouri law school and the justices agreed and said it is a personal right of 14th amendment and he should be allowed to attend the law school. a mysterious development, mr. gaines, the plaintive disappeared into this day there is no record, no one and not even his own family knows what happened. there are numerous theories of some saying, of course, he was murdered and buried in other said he went to teach english and mexico. there are a number of rumors about it but no one knows to
10:04 am
this day, but finally the naacp and houston and marshall has some federal president. it said there if there's no other school for them to go to you have to let them go here. oklahoma was not having it. oklahoma said we don't care what the supreme court of the u.s. says, we don't allow negros to attend the university of oklahoma law school and that's back. houston took up a case of a very young talented young woman, bright and gifted young woman, took that case back to the supreme court and by now we're up to 1948 and the supreme court is getting irritated. the washington post described as a hazing and said the justices inflicted a hazing upon the council, the lawyers for the university of oklahoma asking why does this woman have to come all the way here to go to this law school when we issued this opinion 10 years ago? we told you you have to let her
10:05 am
go and you're back here saying no? the justices, of course, decided in to allow her into the university of oklahoma. here's what oklahoma did -- they allowed her into the classroom, she had to sit in the back of the class beneath a huge banner that said it covered student section. she had to eat at the table that was only for her that said colored dining section and in the library there was only one table she could sit back, the colored student section in the library. this was noxious, but it was stepping exactly into i don't want to say track, but it was the track laid by houston and marshall because now they can move into the intangibles. they say we have an individual in the classroom and she can hear every word said by the professor and she can take all the notes she wants to take but she is under this banner and
10:06 am
literally this banner and badge saying that she is different than the other students. and they decide now it's time to turn to the wind and attack plessey versus ferguson. and say the separate cannot be equal. they get their case with an excellent jann with a 68 year-old man and awarded a phd. he was that the university of oklahoma and we have a 68 year-old man in a classroom with 20, 21 year-old students and he has to sit there, he went to school every day with a suit and he called it humiliating to sit beneath this banner to have to eat at this one table a specified time he was allowed to eat and said its humiliating and hard for me to do my work. that case along with another case out of texas, those cases trundled forests to the supreme
10:07 am
court and on april 4th 1950, the anniversary coming up, the justices heard oral arguments and this time thurgood marshall asked the justices to overturn the plassey. he said separate cannot be, the justices unanimously said you are right, sweat -- misters what should be allowed to attend the university of texas and they should take down the banner sitting above this man, colored student section, take the banner down. that offends the constitution but mr. marshall reed declined to reach the question of overturning the plessey v. ferguson. we aren't going to overturn it and they don't say just yet, but marshall noted after the justices came down he said this is a decision replete with road marks. this is 1950 and the path had
10:08 am
been set. the foundation had been set and everybody knew it. in texas in 1950 they found the texas legislature appropriated $3 million to build a law school for black students because the attorney general of texas said what they did desegregation in is graduate schools they're coming for elementary schools. thurgood marshall went to the university of texas and said this is no secret, this is what i've been trying to do all this time. there was a huge rally an integrated rally and when marshall finished speaking everyone was clapping and excited and a white student leader, up and took the microphone and thing to mr. marshall for coming and said i have a big announcement to make, today we signed the papers and his official we now have an naacp chapter and all white university of texas and the whole place went crazy and no one heard what he said after that. it was no secret that they were going to attack segregation.
10:09 am
the justice slowly and took time and by the time they got to 1950 the had the president because what we have now we have it in adult sitting in a classroom, how can a state -- a state is not allowed to sit and adults in the classroom beneath a banner that says, colored student section, but a state is allowed to sit thousands of children in a building across the street with colored children? you can't have both. the constitution cannot allow both. no logical document can allow both. so the court had been painted into a corner at this point and it took time, it took years, it took plaintiffs putting their lives and livelihood on the line to get there but finally after 1950 going into brown and had to
10:10 am
have the issue before them. if you're not allowed to have a 60 year-old man in the same classroom and he can't be set off because of his race, how can you allow thousands of children to be set off in different buildings because of their race? the court was in a corner. two close, i would like to leave you with the thought that i would like to end with after spending four years researching and writing "root and branch" and that is that over the past decade or so we've heard a great deal about activists judges. the phrase has been used so often by the right and left that at this point is almost bereft of meeting. at this point in activist judge is the judge's opinions have not been too light. and i will admit on some occasion the course of our nation's history has been changed by activist judges.
10:11 am
on every occasion however, every single time the course of our nation's history has been changed by activist citizens and often these citizens are working with activist lawyers. in 35 of the 55 founding fathers were activist lawyers who gathered with their fellow citizens who were so enraged at the treatment they received that they formed a new nation. activist citizens like lloyd gaines, like david lewis c. brill. like george maclaurin, activist citizens are the men and women who helped make the system great because they believed in their country more than their country believe in them. and they joined with charles hamilton houston and thurgood marshall and together they defeated staggering odds. so sometimes when i hear this talk about activist judges i think it's scary the judges a little too much credit.
10:12 am
the structural beauty of the strategy that hamilton and marshall put into place was is false modesty its vain to patients. they chipped away at the doctrine of separate but equal by asking only that the doctrine of separate but equal been forced. because they knew it couldn't, they knew that separate could never be equal. and history, time and justice has proven them right. al there's an airport that is named in baltimore after a thurgood marshall and there are a number of schools named after charles hamilton houston. but the true monuments of their labor are the lives that you nie are able to leave each day because each day that we are able to gather as we are here this evening coming each day
10:13 am
that we can, under one room regardless of our race, regardless of our gender, regardless of our religion, each one of those days is both a testament in a celebration of the outstanding work and the battles fought and won by these two great americans. thank you. [applause] >> who is going to take up 40 acres and a mule? >> take up? >> they took up the cost to desegregate. there's always a bit of a discussion among folk that don't bring that up, you'll never get
10:14 am
back to, and you think well, but there is an effort to bring forth legal action. i was following one case about five years ago, a local lawyer had taken a dna of long lineage in the country and file the case on that merit. so how do you see that discussion legally? and i understand whenever i bring up that connors -- representative connors continues to put forth that. >> john conyers, so you are referring to reparations? >> yes. >> as i see that going for the the word reparations has been turned into something of a toxic worded, but i see progress being made on that front on individual
10:15 am
channels. in example i will give you is the recent settlement of african-american farmers that the department of agriculture just signed. the secretary of the department of agriculture under president obama's administration, $1.6 billion, president bush was not moving forward on that and the new administration did move toward on that so no one would call that preparations and would put that word attached to it, but what it is is a whole line -- a whole lot of taxpayer dollars to correct a wrong that was inflicted upon thousands of african-american farmers over the time of years so as i say that developing i see it being done not limited but in very discreet ways individually. agriculture in this way. going after education in another way. that's how i see that progressing and i don't think anyone will put the word
10:16 am
reparations on it because it makes it much more difficult to move through the legislation, but, yes, congressman conyers has been doing a good deal of work on that out of michigan. >> to you still cloak the position of 40 acres and a mule? reparations is loath to sophisticated for me. another point that the servicing is what constitutes african-american. mr. de usa today on the front page has come up repeatedly when the president was running for office, he dodged questions about a mixed marriage and mixed-race and all that. so what constitutes -- constitutes an african-american if one was to pursue the thought? >> [inaudible] [laughter]
10:17 am
>> you raise a good point as far as what constitutes an african-american. mrs. three's is heinz kerry raised a great deal of fuhrer when she declared herself an african-american. in fact, she is africana and lives in america. i see it as referring to black americans, a race, extension of afro-american which interestingly is a term that thurgood marshall refused to use into the last 34 years of his life even through the use, through the '80s he still insisted on calling african-americans in the gross. if you're talking to him referring to them as negros. it's an evolving question, but i think african-americans, i like the term.
10:18 am
it's the one i used. >> [inaudible] >> i appreciate that. >> talk a little bit more about the relationship between houston and marshall which was pretty interesting. >> their relationship started as teacher and student. houston was the dean of howard law school and was in the process of turning the school from an academic backwater into a veritable west point for civil rights advocacy and houston was a very button-down individual, very esteemed individual and three piece suit kind of guy. thurgood marshall walked with a strap that was so mean that his fellow students called him turkey. dean houston was so tough and rigorous on his students that
10:19 am
his students called him to his -- not to his face -- called him iron shoes. there were two very different kinds of individuals and when they meant they immediately took to each other. in part because marshall was extremely gifted lawyer and a gifted student. marshall's class started with 36 students and only six of those graduated. houston was working very hard at howard law school at that time. marshall by virtue of his ranking first in his class after two years was able to get a job working in the library and for the first time he worked alongside houston and that's really when their relationship took off. marshall later justice marshall and his aides repeatedly say everything i learned about the law i learned from charlie houston and it was something that bothered justice marshall deeply that more people did not know about charles hamilton
10:20 am
houston and his contributions and he would speak of him on prompted at every given opportunity. so that people would know what this man did and what he sacrifice. they also became very good friends, but it was certainly a case of an opposites attract. ended up traveling together throughout the south on road trips, working cases together and obviously working successfully, but the relationship was a teacher student that became mentor and tea and then at the end became very, very close friends. marshall was one of mr. huston's pallbearers, but he could not speak and refuse to speak to the media about mr. huston for some time after houston's death because he was so emotional for him. it was such an emotional event losing to houston at such a young age. he was only 54 when he passed away and it was very difficult
10:21 am
for marshall. >> i heard the statement which really puzzled me, but then did was so clear when they say that all the work that thurgood marshall did and all the law that he was supposedly to pass and help put together and didn't somebody say, you know what, with all he did say to the point that it had not the army backed up whatever he pushed it wouldn't mean nothing because the people rebelled against it to and when they told me how much the military played a part in making sure that these laws were passed because of not the people that didn't want to do it wouldn't have done it had not the military be there.
10:22 am
so tell me how ironic that is for someone to have such a law degree and put things together and how they marched and organize and construct only to find out that had it up in the military behind it would have gone noplace. >> you bring up an excellent point that to because the supreme court issued these rulings and laid up the lock did not mean that people woke up one day and decided to follow. we all love that did not happen and it did take the army come into the 82nd airborne and president eisenhower sending them into little rock, arkansas years after brown vs. board of education. but it is not marshall's job, not the supreme court's job to enforce the law. the branches of government, the legislative and judiciary and the executive branch and the
10:23 am
president executes the law. puts them in the forests and makes sure that people follow them. that's why eisenhower's was forced to act. he did not want to act, he was not happy about the brown decision at all and, in fact, the white house press secretary refused to comment on the brown vs. board of education decision. the only other major official who refused was the governor of mississippi, the two people who refused to comment on brown v. board of education. the president was unhappy but as the years went on he realized there was a great deal of a rebellion in some places and resistance and he had to execute the law. so he did send in the military if it was very sad, no one was happy that had to happen. but, yes, he had used the military on the united states soil to enforce the law. >> so what does that mean when
10:24 am
people organize the fact they're doing something right in using the courts are supposed to be the final say so or the government and the government itself is fighting to come out what does that mean to particular individuals that say we won a but then again we didn't win because henry not had -- you know, it's almost like you are so insignificant that in spite of the logic, the truth and the fairness and the moral less of a pushing a certain agenda that will bring about equality to a group of people and yet to to see it is not a real because what would happen now coming even out of hollis seven if the military or the army is really holding this together from a group of people that may be more in the position
10:25 am
to take back the rise other people may have and for them -- so to me that's like i'm walking on thin ice. all these so-called laws that have been put down that the only reason why they're here is because the military will back it up but what would happen -- so i'm not really a. >> first of all, it's like the military would back it up but that's why we have a -- there are laws were people follow them because there are consequences of a break them so i see the flip side of what you're presenting, something of a a comfort to. it's a weary comfort and i understand your uneasiness but at the end of the day the law will be enforced and that's what happened with little rock in the that's what happens when they bring the police. >> this is what i'm saying -- even though it may be a force
10:26 am
but every time somebody sues a loophole to get someone come and get my brother, to shoot them 50 times or to deny some day a certain type of right, you know, so i am saying the world this didn't carry over to it to. it did not base into humanity to a degree and is more or less somebody can take a potshot at you. >> right there are 300 million people in this country and some of them are not on the straight and narrow and some of them don't care what the law is. and some of those people who don't care what the law is in the past some have been governors. that's part of the price we pay a living in every society.
10:27 am
living in a free society. >> i have a multi question. plessey v. ferguson was passed will add to the 14th and 15th amendments that sort of interpersonal sole rights. how much of the legal strategy for houston and hamilton was built around this unique nature of plessey and sort of progressive in nature of that decision that was taking away rights that anomaly existed? >> plessey was the big mountain that they had declined. the means by which they were going to get there was the 14th amendment which guaranteed -- said that no state shall violate the rights of an individual and that's an awful paraphrasing of the 14th amendment, but it was the means and almost like the climbers boots that they had to climb over plessey. plessey was the big mountain that they had to get over and the question was when could they go right at it? they went around and chipped
10:28 am
away and its posted for the fallacy that it was. was it was exposed as a policy by the same court they realized -- marshall wrote in a letter to houston saying i think we should challenge plessey now been set for the reasons why. part is because were not granted a court decision and another because they have president truman and office and he will enforce what the supreme court says as of to be proven right a few years later we had eisenhower and it took a great deal of doing for his administration to enforce the law. so the 14th amendment was the means by which they had to jump over or tear down plessey versus ferguson and in the district of columbia the had to do to the fifth amendment because of rules of washington d.c. including our taxation without representation.
10:29 am
>> hello, thank you for coming to harlem, we appreciated. what i would like to ask you is today what you think is the state of our judiciary to de? the naacp and other civil-rights organizations are still fighting hard for all minorities on all fronts, so where do think we stand today? >> part of my being a lawyer, that's how i determine if i had a senator i would live in washington d.c. but if i had a senator would be how i determine the presidential vote based on judges because the judges, article three federal judges are appointed for life. i think the state of the judiciary right now is it's hard to move -- hard to change from right to left or even from left to right because everything stops in the senate. so it's a political issue of
252 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on