January/February 2005

Featured Story

Racism is Not an "Old Issue"

Theodore M. Shaw is director-counsel and president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the nation’s premier civil rights law firm. The NAACP LDF has led the fight for decades to break down the walls that have divided the nation by race and class – both the official legislation that upheld Jim Crow segregation up until the 1960s, and the de facto efforts that have maintained the oppression of poor people and communities of color despite those legal victories.

Shaw is LDF’s fifth director-counsel. Thurgood Marshall served as its first director-counsel from 1940-61, when he was named to the Supreme Court; he was succeeded by Jack Greenberg, who joined Marshall and other LDF plaintiffs in arguing the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case (1961-84); Julius Chambers (1984-92); and Elaine R. Jones (1993-2003).

Shaw was interviewed for Fellowship by Editor Ethan Vesely-Flad.

Fellowship: Ted, thank you very much for taking the time to talk with us today.

Shaw: You’re welcome. I’m glad we could arrange this conversation.


Fellowship:  Our U.S. Election Day recently passed. One day later, you testified in Washington before Congress on the Voting Rights Act. What did you say?

Shaw:  I spoke to a House judiciary subcommittee about the extension of the Voting Rights Act, parts of which are scheduled to expire at the end of 2007. My testimony focused on one part of the Act, Section 5, which has helped to spur increased minority political participation. It requires jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to comply with the Act by submitting new election laws for approval, which is withheld if measures would harm minority voters.

A recent Supreme Court decision could weaken Section 5 review through changes to what is called the “retrogression” standard. This decision seems to allow majority black and Latino legislative districts [that had been drawn up in previous districting efforts] to be replaced by “influence districts.” Under this model, those communities may no longer be able to elect the candidate of their choice, but only “influence” the process. We want Section 5 to be restored to its original meaning.

Of course, in my testimony I was generally advocating for reauthorization of all of the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act.


Fellowship:  How did the congressional subcommittee respond to your testimony?

Shaw: We had a very good exchange after my official testimony was delivered. [The full text can be accessed at www.naacpldf.org. Eds.] They are serious in their consideration of extending the Voting Rights Act. But there is a range of views on the committee, of course.


Fellowship:  Last year was the 50th anniversary of the historic Brown v. Board of Education case. What is your assessment of the state of education in the United States?

Shaw: Sadly, we’ve seen a significant amount of resegregation among our public schools. The crux of this has been the courts’ role in allowing resegregation to occur. Once the courts allowed school districts to return to “neighborhood schools,” it happened easily. Jonathan Kozol’s recent book, Shame of the Nation, and the Harvard Civil Rights Project both document how this been done by law and by practice.

We’re fighting attempts by conservatives to curtail or prohibit even voluntary efforts to desegregate. Voluntary desegregation plans are “race-conscious” and have been made part of this whole assault by conservatives on anything that focuses on racial inequality.


Fellowship:  With concerns about voting patterns and resegregation in our schools, and an increase in attention to the overwhelmingly disproportionate number of black and brown people in prison, do you feel racism is really being addressed at this time in the nation?

Shaw:  The question is very complex. Most people in our country don’t consider themselves to be racist. Americans really do want to be in the right place on this issue, but often don’t know how. I think we’re still talking about a country that is schizophrenic about race and racial equality.

It takes moments like [Hurricane] Katrina to force the country periodically to face the fact that these problems exist – but people like to sweep these problems under the rug.

Poverty and race are closely intertwined, and yet they are separate issues. Racial discrimination can affect African Americans regardless of class, but those most impacted by our long legacy of racism, slavery, and segregation are the black poor. And while at the core of this nation’s most intractable poverty are the black poor, poverty extends beyond race and affects economic inequality. This is a challenge for LDF and the country. What we want is for people to vote, and to vote for policies and representatives that stand for economic and social justice. We want people to embrace the values of the civil rights movement and its legacy.

I’d like to see the country move in a way that responds to issues like health care, housing, and feeding the hungry. These policy issues go beyond what we at LDF can do in the courts. A lot of this work has to be done by others. And I have been very disturbed in recent years that much of the American public is sort of sleepwalking.


Fellowship:  You’re engaged in some tough battles and it sounds like these are bleak times for supporters of civil rights. Have you won any important victories?

Shaw:  Yes. We won the University of Michigan Law School case in 2003. The case was one of the most important affirmative action cases in the past 25 years. Affirmative action is firmly entrenched, and it has become central to the culture of the nation. We’ve also been able to stave off numerous attacks by the radical Right on conscious efforts to address racial inequality.


Fellowship: The black church played a critical role in the civil rights era. What role do you believe the religious community offers now?

Shaw:  The black church is a mainstay in the African-American community. It was critical to the success of the civil rights movement, and continues to play an important role in addressing racial and social justice today. However, the church varies in its views and there are black churches that are very conservative on certain issues today.

I think there’s a growing concern about the separation of church and state. We have people who are very religious and believe in the role of the church in addressing racial justice. But many people are concerned that this [presidential] administration has been selectively kind to the religious Right – only to voices that agree with them.

Just recently, it came out that the IRS was investigating a church in Los Angeles [All Saints’ Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California]. I don’t know whether this investigation is politically motivated, and wouldn't accuse it of being so. But there is a blurring of the line between church and state by this administration. When the IRS is investigating a church that’s been critical of this administration while churches that have worked closely with this administration are not being targeted, that’s a concern.


Fellowship:  NAACP LDF just recently held a major event where you honored several people, including Sean Combs, better known as the hip-hop artist “Diddy” or “Puff Daddy.” Why did you choose to give him an award?

Shaw:  The rap community has been juxtaposed against the civil rights community in the mind of the general public – including the black community – with the perception that the “hip-hop generation” feels civil rights issues are “no longer relevant.” That’s not true. Some in the hip-hop generation are out there doing important work like voter registration. We want to acknowledge and encourage that. Our dinner program honored John Lewis, who is a living icon of the voting rights and civil rights movements, and Sean Combs together – we were bridging the generations.

Clearly there are some things done by some in the hip-hop generation and some rap stars that I take issue with. But we want to honor what Combs is doing with respect to voter registration. As long as work is done in a way that is consistent with our agenda, we support it. We are a nonpartisan organization, and Sean Combs worked to increase the number of registered and active voters.

A recent conservative press release accused LDF of having “strayed from the legacy of Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks” for honoring Combs. They felt comfortable in saying this now that Rosa Parks is safely dead and unable to respond. It was deeply hypocritical and dishonest. If they want to talk about morality, I think it’s immoral for them to attempt to hijack our heroes and use them in support of efforts to undo everything they worked for – they [conservatives] were never allies of the civil rights movement.


Fellowship:  LDF spoke against John Roberts’s nomination to the Supreme Court. What is your stance on the Samuel Alito nomination, and will the court be dealing with new topics or the same issues it's been facing for several years?

Shaw:  We’ve got to look at any nomination carefully. There is no question that Alito is very conservative, but there is a question as to whether he is “open-minded.” Sometime soon, we expect to take a position on this nomination.

While much of the media is focused on the issues of privacy, choice, and abortion, we are looking at Judge Alito’s views on race and civil rights. The more we look, the more troubled we are. The 2003 Michigan case was an example of how we have to continue working to prevent the rollback of affirmative action. And when some said that racism is an “old issue,” along came Katrina – which showed this isn’t old at all.

The underlying issues that will appear before the Supreme Court will continue to be (1) interpreting the Constitution, (2) the structural challenges of our government, and (3) race. Race is our nation’s most daunting challenge, and that hasn’t changed in 229 years. Our past informs our present.