S10E18 – The 70th Anniversary of Brown v Board – Do It Live!

S10E18: The 70th Anniversary of Brown v Board - Do It Live!

Andrew: Welcome to the Integrated Schools Podcast. I'm Andrew, a White dad from Denver.

Dr. Val: And I'm Val, a Black mom from North Carolina.

Andrew: And this is the 70th anniversary of Brown v Board - Do It Live!

Dr. Val: Oh my gosh! Okay. I need some context. What do you mean “do it live,” Andrew?

Andrew: Val, we did a live show!

Dr. Val: Whoo! Now we have to tell the good people about how we had this wonderful opportunity to be in the room with some of the people leading the effort to help Brown become a reality 70 years later.

Andrew: Yes. It was incredible, a, a deep honor that we got to participate in this event. Um, we've been talking about doing a live show for a long time, and we finally got to do it in Washington DC. We got to be in the same place as each other for only the third time ever, which was also great. And talk about a historic venue to have our first live show: the Oprah Winfrey Theater at the National Museum of African American History and Culture. It was, it was amazing! It was incredible!

Dr. Val: It was incredible. We had a lively audience of about 300 people who were there, committed to figuring out how we do integrated schools well.

Andrew: Absolutely. So this was an event put on by the Century Foundation, the National Coalition of School Diversity and the American Institutes of Research to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Brown. They brought in leaders from across the country who are all thinking deeply about, about this question of “What does it mean to fulfill the promise of Brown?”

And Val, we got to, to facilitate some panel discussions in the middle of the whole thing.

Dr. Val: That's right! So, these wonderful people trusted you and I to bring together three different panels to have really meaningful conversation. And for us, it was an opportunity to engage audiences that may not have heard us at all, or those who have listened to us for years. And it was such a warm and welcoming experience, and I'm just really grateful that we had the opportunity.

Andrew: Me too. So, we're gonna listen to some of the audio from that today. We have a couple of different parts of it to share with you. The entire event is up on YouTube and we'll include a link to that in the show notes if you wanna watch the whole thing.

But to kick us off, to welcome everybody to the event, the Bridges Collaborative is part of the work of the Century Foundation that's looking at, you know, bringing together practitioners in school integration and also in housing integration, and figuring out ways to support both of their work together.

Listeners may remember Stefan Lallinger from an episode a while back.

Dr. Val: My best friend! [Val laughs]

Andrew: He's, uh, Val's best friend, and one of the leaders of that work. And Alejandra Vasquez Bauer is another leader of the Bridges Collaborative work and they kicked us off for the evening to kind of set the context and they were great.

Dr. Val: So, do we get a chance to take the people into the auditorium with us right now?

Andrew: Absolutely. So let's go into the auditorium and take a listen to Stefan and Alejandra.

[Applause]

Alejandra: Good evening everyone. [Audience replies “Good evening] Thank you and welcome to Brown at 70, Fulfilling the True Promise of School Integration. My name is Alejandra Vasquez Bauer.

Stefan: And my name is Stefan Lewis Lallinger. We are so honored to be able to host this event. It's such a historic venue, the National African-American Museum for History and Culture.

Let's give them a round of applause!

[Applause]

Alejandra: We want to thank our partners and co-hosts, the National Coalition on School Diversity and the American Institutes for Research.

[Applause]

As well as our many sponsors for their generous support. We are here to commemorate 70 years since the momentous decision in Brown versus Board of Education.

Stefan: 70 years. Think about that.

70 years is about two generations, and one of the things that we want you to think about is how much progress can be made in the span of 70 years. Think about your own family. How much has it changed in the last two generations? At the same time, some dimensions of progress can also feel painfully slow. Many of our battles for justice today feel far too eerily similar of those from 1954. Our work remains unfinished.

Alejandra: So we're here tonight to grapple with that duality. What has been won in 70 years and what has not.

Stefan: Two generations ago in my family, my grandfather Louis L. Redding, stood not two miles from this place right here at the Supreme Court and argued Brown v Board of uh, Education alongside Thurgood Marshall. 70 years ago.

[Applause]

I also want to point out that two of his three daughters, my aunt, the Reverend JB Redding, and my mother, Dr. Rupa Redding Lallinger, are here today. Mom and Aunt JB, where are you? Right there.

[Applause and Cheers]

So, a day 70 years ago, when a Black man stood before the Supreme Court, is a day that his grandmother (my grandfather's grandmother, my great-great-grandmother) probably could never have imagined. She was born into slavery in Maryland two generations prior. That's progress.

At the same time, in dozens of states in 1954, my grandfather would have been unable to vote, would've been unable to dine in certain establishments, and would, would've been unable to secure a hotel room to sleep at night.

Alejandra: In my family, two generations ago, my abuelitos, Consuelo and Remigio got on a train from Jalisco, Mexico and came to the central coast of California to work in the lemon and avocado fields.

They dreamt of a fulfilling life, not just for themselves, but for their children and their grandchildren, and all other Mexican children who at the time were learning in segregated classrooms. They coincidentally arrived just after the decision of Mendez versus Westminster, which desegregated four California school districts and led to California becoming the first state to officially desegregate. And it was in that context that my mother and her siblings first enrolled in school. Progress.

And yet, two generations later, California schools continue to be highly segregated. Those very towns where my grandparents settled are now unaffordable to most immigrant families, especially those that continue to work in the fields.

Would Consuelo and Remigio have thought that their dream would remain this far from reach?

Stefan: That's why Alejandra and I stand before you here today, because of our progress and our unfinished business. Since Brown, our Nation's school children collectively are more diverse than ever. A full 55% of America's K-12 students are students of color. And yet at the same time, our schools are as segregated as they were in the late 1960s.

Alejandra: At the Century Foundation, we have the privilege of running the Bridges Collaborative, a network of school districts and housing organizations that are making sure that our neighborhoods and classrooms reflect the diversity of our country. Our members are on the grounds doing the hard work, and many of them are here today.

They're in places like North Carolina, Seattle, and Tucson, doing things like rethinking school zone boundaries, working to remove bias baked into curriculum and fighting anti-DEI and anti-immigrant rhetoric that instills fear and threatens the safety of our students.

[Applause]

Our challenges may look different today, but they're no less real than they were two generations ago. That's why nights like tonight are so important. For us to come together, to learn from each other and to collectively deliver on the promise of equity and education for all.

Stefan: Tonight we encourage you to reflect on two generations of progress and unrealized potential.

We hope you leave this remarkable museum, which is itself a testament to that duality with a renewed commitment to finishing the work of Brown versus Board and brimming with hope for the future.

You know, about three months ago my daughter Zoe, who's four and a half, did her Black History Month project on her great-grandfather, my grandfather, Louis Redding.

Couldn't, couldn't have been prouder. And my wife deserves a lot of credit for that project.

[Laughter and Applause]

When Zoe went to school the next day to present her project to her class, Zoe explained all of the things that her great-grandfather did. And as Zoe looked out, she looked out to a sea of faces as diverse as our country, as diverse as this crowd, in fact. That's progress. So, tonight we ask you: what shall be true for your grandchildren?

What story will we sit here and tell in another 70 years?

[Applause]

Andrew: So, that was the context. We've come so far and there is still so much work to do and that really became a theme that kind of ran throughout the entire event.

So after Alejandra and Stefan set the, set the tone for the evening, the keynote speaker for the event was the great Congressman Jim Clyburn from South Carolina.

Dr. Val: That's right. The South has something to say. And my favorite part is that Congressman Clyburn had some notes prepared for him and he kindly said, “I appreciate whoever put these together for me, but I am not using them tonight!”

And when he did that, I knew that he was going to go into the most remarkable storytelling and context-setting that you could possibly imagine because he lived these moments that we're talking about now.

Andrew: Yeah. You know, 10+ minutes just off the top of his head in incredible detail. He, you know, remembers the people that, that were part of the cases that then eventually became part of Brown. He's been there for the whole thing. And, uh, yeah, I mean, it was truly an honor to get to hear him talk about it.

And so, we'll take a listen to that now. And he was introduced by the Century Foundation President Mark Zuckerman.

Dr. Val: I want you all to be as excited as we were listening.

Andrew: All right.

Dr. Val: Hit play.

[Applause]

Mark Zuckerman: Most of us know that early in his career, Congressman Clyburn was a school teacher for a few years. I'm here to tell you tonight that the congressman has never quit teaching. He just kept making his classroom bigger to include all of us, and we are truly blessed for that.

[Applause]

Congressman, you teach us every day to revere our history, to follow our conscience, to take risks, to turn setbacks into comebacks, to stand up and fight for our civil rights. To build powerful alliances, to make progress like you have done all your life. And most of all, to treasure one's dearest friends and family.

Like your 60 year friendship with John Lewis and your remarkable family. A number of them who are here tonight, let's have them stand and recognize your family tonight.

[Applause]

Congressman, in your honor, I want to read the two most cherished sentences of Brown v Board, “We conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate education facilities are inherently unequal.”

Congressman, there is no one in Congress or even in the country better suited to kick us off tonight on this historic 70th anniversary of Brown than you, Congressman Jim Clyburn.

Please join me in welcoming him to the podium.

[Applause]

Rep. Jim Clyburn: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mark. Thank you so much for introducing and presenting me here this evening. Now, my staff has done good work on researching the lead up to Brown v. Board of Education and it's, it's, it's good work.

[Audience laughs]

But, somebody apologize to them for me 'cause I'm not going to use it. [Audience laughs and one shouts “Woo!”]. I grew up in the little town of Sumter, South Carolina [A few audience members clap and cheer]. And, if all goes well, come July 21st, I'm going to celebrate the 45th anniversary of my 39th birthday.

[Audience laughs and claps]

Now that means if your math is good, come July 21st I will turn 84 years old. [Audience claps] Now, that means 70 years ago I was about to turn 14 on May 17th, 1954 when this decision was handed down. Like many of you, I can remember exactly where I was when I got the news. I was in the corner of Bartlette and Salem Street on my way walking home from segregated Lincoln High School.

When someone came to the door and yelled that this decision had come down, and they were yelling “In September we'll be going to integrated schools.” So we thought.

Two years later, a second Brown decision came down, and in that decision, the critical words were “with all deliberate speed.”

We are still trying to figure out what that means. [Audience laughs] Now, after all of the opposition to Brown, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals wrestled with what to do to integrate the schools.

Now, the Supreme Court, in trying to get to a unanimous decision, did a lot of compromising. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in trying to implement integration came to the conclusion that they were never going to get the votes that were necessary to do that. And Minor Wisdom, one of the justice judges on that court, came up with the idea of moving forward using the term “desegregation.”

So if you go through all of the cases, you'll see that the United States of America to this day has not made a commitment to integrate schools. We have desegregated many schools, but we've never committed ourselves to integrate the schools. So the battle still goes. In fact, my father had a saying that he was fond of repeating all the time. He would say to me, “Son, where there is a will, there's a way.” And I point that out tonight because we are still trying to develop the will to integrate our schools. The will of building equity and equality in our system. And I don't know when or how we are going to get there.

Rep. Jim Clyburn: This I know, Brown v Board of Education, as many of you know, was one of five cases. The original case was Briggs v Elliot. Well, I should really correct that since Mark has already said I'm at heart a teacher. Uh, the first case, uh, was Pearson v Elliot. Levi Pearson, a gentleman farmer in Clarendon County brought the first lawsuit.

And when they got into discovery, they found out that Levi Pearson's farm was situated (most of it) in the school district, but the house he lived in was not inside the school district, and therefore the case got thrown out. And the lawyers had to start over. And they found a gentleman, Harry Briggs, his wife, Eliza Briggs, both of whom I knew very well. Harry Briggs worked at a local filling station making $22 a week. Eliza worked, was a child lady at a local motel making $18 a week. They wanted something better for their children. Two unlettered people wanted something better for their children.

They didn't ask to integrate schools. Many of you may recall. All they asked was, “Give us a school bus. Our children are walking seven miles to school every morning, seven miles back home after, in the afternoon. And the White kids are driving past them on the road in school buses.”

They didn't ask for school buses. They wanted one school bus. And they even told the school board, “Give us a bus, we'll put the gas in it.” And they were denied. And the superintendent said to them, “You do not pay enough for us to waste money on the school bus.” That was the original case. But the case was folded in with Davis from Virginia, Bolton from Washington DC, Belton v. Gebhart from Delaware, and Brown from Kansas.

Now, the big challenge at the time for the lawyers was the fact that John W. Davis, who was the lawyer for the segregationists, defended all of these states by saying “They're not arguing the law,” because the law was already determining Plessy versus Ferguson, separate but equal. That was the law. So John W. Davidson’s position was, “This is the law.”

So they're not arguing the law. They are challenging a way of life. In fact, when the Briggs case was decided, it was about a three judge panel and the Briggs case was three to two to maintain the way of life. A dissenting opinion written by J. Waties Waring, the great grandson of a Confederate general, a native of Charleston, South Carolina. Everybody expected him to maintain the way of life.

But while sitting as a federal judge, something happened to a gentleman who had just been discharged from the Army, got on a bus to go home and stopped in the little town of Abyville.

I'm sorry, the county of Lexington. Leesville. Batesburg, Leesville. And when he stopped there, he wanted to use the restroom and was denied. He was in his uniform, all of his ribbons covering most of his chest. And not only was he denied, but a deputy sheriff jerked him off the bus, beat him with his Billy club, and took the Billy club and punched his eyes out.

Harry Truman heard about that. That's what made Harry Truman write the executive order to integrate the armed services.

J. Waties Waring sat as a judge on the case, and the deputy sheriff was declared by the jury to be innocent. Waties Waring, sitting on that case, had a transformation, a “Saul to Paul” transformation.

And so when this case came before him, he wrote a dissenting opinion disagreeing with the way of life.

And as a result, Thurgood Marshall and others took that dissenting opinion and that became the basis of the appeal of these five cases that went up to the Supreme Court in the nine to zero decision. The Brown case was handed down, a tremendous victory.

Now, I point this out as the background to Brown. And the reason I do that tonight is because a lot of people have, uh, argued, “Well, why is a case called Brown?”

Why wouldn't they call it Briggs? Uh, alphabetically it, it should have been Briggs.

Chronologically it should have been Briggs. So why was it called Brown? Simply because it was the decision made by the judges. That the one case of the five that was not a southern case, that was not about preserving a way of life, was a Brown case, and that is why the case is Brown.

It was part of their tactics. It was part of who made that decision Nine to zero. It was part of what made Minor Wisdom in the others on the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals do what they did to get the schools desegregated.

The question now becomes, will we ever develop the will and find the way to integrate?

[Applause]

Dr. Val: I’m so excited hearing that again. And if I can be honest, I'm also excited that he didn't leave when it was our turn to talk!

Andrew: That's right, Yeah!

[Val laughs]

Yeah. And his whole family, I mean, they were like, the whole front row was him and his family. It was incredible. Yeah. His grasp of all the details still, all these years later, you can tell that it is, a case and a history and a story that is important to him and that, that he carries with him.

Uh, definitely raised the stakes for us, I feel!

Dr. Val: That's right. I wanna, I wanna touch on that, carrying that story. You know, we are, we are also living in a time that I, I hope we remember and we recall in great detail about the changes that we have, um, experienced and/or worked for and fought for, um, during our lifetime. And so, if you're not, um, telling those stories to your children and your grandchildren about how you showed up, I wanna encourage you to do that, because I think that is a gift that we need to continue to pass on.

Andrew: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely.

Dr. Val: You know, at this point of the evening, Andrew and I have been in the green room preparing and meeting the guests. And I can speak for myself, getting really nervous about this opportunity. But, we could tell right away that the audience was gonna be receptive to, to our conversation.

How are you feeling before getting on stage?

Andrew: Yeah. I was, I definitely was nervous. I mean, I was nervous for, for the whole, like–

Dr. Val: So nervous.

Andrew: –three weeks leading up to it!

Dr. Val: I knew he was nervous, y’all. I just asked him, but he was definitely nervous.

Andrew: Uh, yes! I was, I was nervous. It felt like there was a big, a big responsibility and, you know, not having the, uh, beauty of editing to, to have to do it live in real time felt like the,

Dr. Val: Right.

Andrew: You know, like, the pressure was on.

And there's so many people in the audience and on stage with us whose work I have admired, whose work has shaped me, who's impacted me in so many ways. And so, felt like a real responsibility to, to do the best job that we could.

Dr. Val: Absolutely.

Andrew: So after Congressman Clyburn finished, we heard from Terrace Ross from AIR who introduced Shaheena Simons from the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, and they were both great.

If you want to hear them, you'll have to go watch the full video, which again, there'll be a link in the show notes to the whole thing, 'cause we wanna get to these panel discussions that were why Val and I came in the first place. Three really meaty conversations that we, we did our best to squeeze into about 15 minutes each.

Dr. Val: Yeah. The opportunity to hear directly from leaders in the field, uh, grapple with some of these questions that we grapple with on the podcast, gave us opportunity to, to hear the, the different ways in which people are trying to solve these problems.

And so, Andrew and I, our offering is to model how to engage in these conversations across difference. And it's nice to hear the many different ways in which our panelists are aiming to make sure that we are still moving in the right direction.

Andrew: Yeah. Incredible people. We will put a link to all of their bios in the show notes. You should definitely go check them out. Some of the names you may be familiar with. We did not spend any time doing bios during the event, because we wanted to get into the conversation.

But, they're all worth checking out. They all have done incredible work, and so to be in conversation with all of them was really, was really an honor. And then to really dig into these, three really, really heavy nuanced conversations, which, you know, we tried to do here every week.

But, the first panel, the question we were grappling with: How do we reckon with the deficit language of the Brown decision and approaches to integration that harmed Black communities?

Dr. Val: Our second panel, the question that we grappled with was: What should integration look like in our increasingly diverse society, and how can we cultivate multiracial cross-class coalitions to advance integration?

Andrew: And then the, the final panel: How do we move away from either/or framing, pitting increased school resources against greater integration, and instead work towards a future where both are the reality?

And so you can imagine, each one of those questions could be several episodes and certainly, uh, uh, you know, one full episode each.

But we, uh, we're gonna play 'em all for you right now. We squeezed them into about 15 minutes each, and, uh, had great panelists to, to help get right into the meat of that.

Dr. Val: And there were other questions that we wanted to ask, and so we're hopeful that, uh, panelists will join us on a future episode.

Andrew: Yeah. So the, the format, we had a framing statement read by somebody connected to the work. And then the panelists came out and we had the conversation. So we're gonna turn it over now, take a listen to Gina Chirichigno, who leads the National Coalition for School Diversity, who's been a long time inspiration to me and she has been behind a lot of really important work that NCSD has done. And so she introduced us and then read that first statement. Let's take a listen to it.

Dr. Val: I really admire Gina. Let's hear!

[Applause]

Gina: Good evening. It is so wonderful to see you all in person, whether you know it or not, tonight you are surrounded by greatness. Take a moment to really take that in.

This auditorium is filled with so many people who have provided critical support to me through the years. I want to express my gratitude to you. If you find yourself surrounded by some of your people as well, tonight's a great time to let that be known.

And if you're new to us, I hope that you emerge from this evening with caring connections that sustain, inspire and push you. It is not uncommon to feel alone in this work, but the people in this room can mitigate that. Call on them when you need them. Please meet as many people as you can tonight and carry those relationships forward.

My name is Gina Chirichigno and I serve as the National Coalition on School Diversity's director. NCSD is a cross-sector network of civil rights organizations, university based research centers, and state and local coalitions working to expand support for school integration.

NCSD serves as the main hub of the school integration movement. And we happen to be celebrating our 15th year this year.

[Applause]

The concept for tonight's events emerged from several late nights of reading a series of essays edited by Derrick Bell (yes, that Derrick Bell) and published around the 25th anniversary of Brown. He lamented that the absence of quote, positive criticism has taken its toll in several areas of civil rights activity, but nowhere has the damage been more apparent than in school desegregation. His authors grapple with some of the thorniest aspects of desegregation: implementation.

Tonight we turn the mirror on our movement and attempt to discuss some of the most long standing and pernicious challenges in our work with the goal of finding a path forward together.

We will barely scratch the surface of these issues, but we aim to open a true dialogue about them in the spirit of Derrick Bell's call for positive criticism.

No one gets into this work and stays in this work because it's easy or provides instant gratification. We are here out of a deep commitment to changing the circumstances of our nation, of upending White supremacy, and ensuring that all children have access to the resources and opportunities they deserve.[a]

We could spend the entire night reading names of people who committed their lives to this work and whose efforts profoundly altered the course of history and helped our nation live more into its values. People who spent time at kitchen tables and in courtrooms or classrooms doing what they could to bend the arc of justice. It is difficult for many of us to truly fathom the realities they were navigating.

I would be remiss not to call into the room a few such people. Nathan Margold, Charles Hamilton Houston, Pauli Murray, Thurgood Marshall, Barbara Johns, Julius Rosenwald, Horace Tate, Daisy Bates. We honor them by assuming responsibility for carrying the sacred work forward, and we commit ourselves to taking the time to study the foundation they laid even when we ultimately choose to take a different path than they did.

Tonight, you'll hear from some of the leading voices in our movement. Some will be more familiar to you than others, but all our guests are making important contributions to this work, as are you.

We will be joined shortly by Andrew Lefkowits and Val Brown, co-hosts of the Integrated Schools podcast. Integrated Schools has been an NCSD member and trusted collaborator for many years, and we're excited to bring their signature podcast to you this evening.

We gather tonight to manifest powerful ideas and prepare ourselves for the next leg of the journey. Thank you for being part of that. Please welcome Andrew Lefkowits and Dr. Val Brown.

[Applause]

Andrew: Thank you, Gina. I'm Andrew, a White dad from Denver.

Dr. Val: and I'm Val, a Black mom from North Carolina. [Some audience members cheer] Thank you! Thank you.

Andrew: Yes. We are honored to host these panels on the 70th anniversary Brown v Board, fulfilling the true promise of school integration.

Dr. Val: That's right. And this is not our first time co-hosting.

We're honored to co-host the Integrated Schools podcast, and we're very excited to be here with you all tonight. So, thank you for giving us your time and attention. We share our identities because we think it's important for our audience to know our positionalities and know that we're gonna come at this at a, in a very nuanced way.

Andrew: That's right. Yeah, on the podcast, we strive to have nuanced conversations about race, parenting, and the persistent segregation of our schools.

Dr. Val: Now, normally we have one to two guests and we can have a leisure conversation to learn who they are and why this work matters. Tonight we have several guests, so please grant us some grace as we dive right in.

Andrew: Yes, these three conversations we're gonna share could each be an entire episode or several episodes of the podcast, but we're gonna jump right in. Um, there's a QR code you probably have seen somewhere that has the bios of all the speakers. We are not gonna spend any time giving you their bios.

Um, trust us, they are brilliant people who are worth believing and listening to. [Audience chuckles] We mean them no disrespect by not telling you all of their qualifications, but we wanna get right into the conversation. And we have also all agreed to use each other's first names to try to keep it more conversational. Also, no disrespect intended there.

Dr. Val: That's right. And, Andrew and I have been dreaming about a live show for a long time, and I know his mom is out here in the audience, so we'd like to say, yeah! [Audience cheers] Yeah, we'd like to say, “Mama, we made it!” Yes! [Audience laughs]

Andrew: Here we are. So, with that, Gina, I think we're ready to set the context for this first panel.

Gina: Okay. In Brown, the Supreme Court ruled that quote separately is inherently unequal. That even if physical facilities, and other tangible factors are made equal, the very fact of segregation is a violation of the 14th amendment. To reach this conclusion, the court relied on specific aspects of the social science research submitted by the plaintiffs. Focusing on the research showing harm to Black students, the court found that quote, to separate Black students from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race, generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone, end quote.

However, the court was also presented with social science evidence on the negative effects of segregation on White children. In an appendix to the appellant's brief, social scientists wrote that White children suffered, quote, confusion, conflict, and moral cynicism as a consequence of being taught the moral, religious, and democratic principles of the brotherhood of man and the importance of justice and fair play by the same persons and institutions who in their support of racial segregation and related practices seem to be acting in a prejudiced and discriminatory manner, end quote.

To what extent did the courts focus on the detrimental effects of segregation on Black children create an impression of Black educational spaces as intrinsically inferior? Which, particularly in light of massive resistance to desegregation, led to the elimination of those spaces as the main remedy.

As scholars like Vanessa Siddle Walker, and Leslie Fenwick had pointed out, many Black educational spaces were in fact thriving with strong pedagogy, exceptionally well-educated and credentialed teachers, and a supportive network of care. Many of those teachers and educational spaces were a casualty of the way we went about desegregation.

To be clear, it was not Brown, but massive resistance to the implementation of Brown and the continued need to work within the legal constraints that led to many of these outcomes. Tonight, however, we hope to squarely reflect on those issues, acknowledging that hindsight is 20/20.

How might we fulfill the true promise of school integration by rethinking the court's framing, taking serious the research showing harm to all kids from segregation, and moving towards a strength-based approach to integration and educational equity?

Andrew: Thank you, Gina. So, we're gonna bring our first two panelists out. Let's make a lot of noise for Damon Hewitt and Stefan Lallinger.

[Audience cheers]

Alright, here we go. So, Stefan, you mentioned earlier that your grandfather, Louis Redding, was one of the lawyers who argued the Brown case. You now, 70 years later, teach a class to grad students at American University, and you have them read the decision. It's relatively short, it's not very dense legalese, it's pretty accessible.

Tell us about your understanding of the decision and then your students' reaction to it, and sort of how that broadly reflects our cultural understanding of the decision.

Stefan: Sure. So we know, at the time the decision was rendered, that it was obviously highly controversial, right? In some parts there was jubilation.

Um, people saw the decision as the nation finally living out its highest ideals. As the congressman mentioned, people thought they were attending integrated schools in the fall. And in other parts of the country, uh, particularly in, in parts of the South, there was vicious opposition to the decision.

Now, what's interesting is we think about how it's evolved in the public, public consciousness. You know, you might say that Brown's reputation is aged like fine wine, right? Folks, generally are not opposed to Brown. In fact, folks support it. If we got 10 politicians on the stage and asked them what was the best Supreme Court decision ever rendered, and many of them, probably nine out of 10 would say Brown versus Board of Education.

But that stands in stark contrast to the segregated nature of our schools. And so, there's questions about what, what does that commitment actually mean?[b] What does that, favorability of Brown actually mean?

In any case, it's a unanimous decision. And many people think of it as unimpeachable. And so, you'd expect when I assign the case to my students that they would all have really favorable, opinions of Brown.

And by the way, a lot of people think that they've read the decision and they actually haven’t. So I encourage folks to, to, to actually go read it. It's not very long. Um, and in the class after I assign the decision, there are overwhelmingly very negative reactions to the text. Not the verdict, right? Not the symbolism, the idea, that segregation is illegal, but the words that are actually in the text. And the piece that I think rankles students the most is they feel there's an assumption baked into the decision that there is something about Black students and all Black spaces that on its own is inferior. That can't be redeemed without the presence of White people. And that is something for my graduate students that is, is unacceptable and they can't live with that. And there's one paragraph in particular that, that rankles students, I'll read it really quickly: Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.

That paragraph always comes up in the class after I assign Brown.

Dr. Val: I'm one of the people who had not read it closely until recently. And so, I am, in hearing that I am upset and I understand a little bit more about where we are. And so, Damon, this question is for you. Um, you have been deeply involved in civil rights work as an attorney for a while, I want you to talk to us a little bit about how that language continues to reverberate through the legal system and how that deficit language continues to harm Black communities.

Damon: Sure. Well, thanks for having me. Um, what we've seen over decades is that assumption of inferiority actually perpetuating throughout the jurisprudence. Throughout this lived experience of Black students and parents. And throughout the thinking, sadly, consciously or subconsciously, of many school leaders.

Practically what we've seen is I've litigated a number of school desegregation cases, as many of you in the audience have as well. We see the majority of Black schools being shut down. We see their facilities, uh, being called into question. Never really enforcing Plessy, not really making separate frankly equal. And I can't tell you how many times Black parents would say, “Attorney Hewitt, we just want what those other kids have, what the White kids have.” Right? And so, I think this sense of inferiority actually has also allowed this really twisted logic of narrative. A Supreme Court justice wrote this some, I'm gonna paraphrase. It's not exact. “It never ceases to amaze me how courts can assume that something that is predominantly Black must somehow be inferior.”

That sounds like a Black nationalist statement, but that was Clarence Thomas.

[Some audience members react]

Andrew: I heard gasp. I heard a gasp!

Damon: I'm no Clarence Thomas apologist. [Audience laughs] He twisted the logic of Brown, right? He twisted that logic and said efforts to further do the work that Congressman Kleinberg said wasn't done, the integration of schools, that that somehow claimed that Black students were inferior.

And so, being stuck in that paradigm of inferiority without really understanding Newton's third law of motion: for every force is an equal opposite force. You cannot have under privilege, without over privilege. Right? [Applause] You have to balance that equation. Right? And so I think that's what the courts have failed to do.

Andrew: Yes. Yes, absolutely! Yeah. Gina mentioned Derrick Bell. In “Silent Covenants” he reconceived of a different version of the Brown decision, and he writes us this sort of imaginary court, I think pushing back on some of that language you mentioned, Stefan, he says, quote: “We suggest that segregation perpetuates the sense of white children, that their privileged status as whites is deserved rather than bestowed by law and tradition. We hold that racial segregation afflicts white children with a lifelong mental and emotional handicap that is as destructive to whites as the required strictures of segregation are to Negroes.”

Um, Damon, I know you have also publicly wondered about a different version of Brown, one that added a White plaintiff. And setting aside the legal challenges of pulling something like that off, what might've been different in both the potential remedies that would come from a case like that, but also in kind of the broader cultural understanding of the case?

Damon: Putting me on full blasting, Andrew.

Andrew: That's right! [Laughter] You said it!

Damon: So, I was a, I, I've never taught in law school seriously. I was an adjunct, but you know, you gotta think big right outside the box, right? As our litigators do. Right? So, you know, I thought about (really difficult to do at the time, right?), but I thought about, when the NAACP decided to bring their head on attack (on segregated, on dejure education, on America's caste system), what if there were not just one, but a class of White plaintiffs? Not sure who those people would be, but what if there were?

Because you think about the theories of equal protection, there is the fact of racial classification being a violation. Then there's the anti-subordination or anti-subjugation line of thinking, which I think was kind of part of the heart of Brown.

But, I wonder if there was a notion that there was a harm that was far reaching, far and wide, and therefore the remedy would also have to be far and wide, and involve everyone who was involved. Even if it was a Black/White binary, involve everyone who was involved, then we would not maybe have seen the same types of mechanics remedies that we saw that was so restrictive and that was so destructive to Black communities.

[Applause]

Dr. Val: We'll take it! Stefan, you've written about the power of your Black church. The impact of your wife being a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. And, and the value of HBCUs. I was in town early enough today to visit the historic Dunbar High School as well and see, [Audience member says “Woo!”] yes! See the beauty in that community there. So can you help us understand the difference between intentionally created culturally affirming spaces and what we often see in segregated schools today?

Stefan: Absolutely. And I, I think we'd live in a day and age where nuanced conversation doesn't happen too often. Doesn't happen enough, right? Uh, and I would make three points on this. The first point is, uplifting spaces of affinity have always been important to racial, ethnic, religious, cultural minorities in this country. They've been critical. They've been lifesaving for some, some folk. Right?

And so, for the second generation Chinese American student who goes to Mandarin Language School on Saturday, or the Muslim American student who goes to mosque on Friday. Or the young Black child who goes to church on Sunday when they show up at the schoolhouse door on Monday, they're better off. They're not worse off.

They come with a sense of self. They're strong, they're, they're ready to engage with people who are different than they are.

And we see attacks on that concept today. People labeling that as segregation, and that's not segregation. What segregation is (this is my second point), and this is thanks to the research of folks like Sean Reardon and Owens, who I, I believe, are in the audience today.

The research shows us why racial segregation in K-12 education is so pernicious is because what it does is it tends to concentrate mostly Black and Latino students in high poverty schools. And we know what we do to high poverty schools in this country. We give them less resources. We send less experienced teachers their way. We give them less opportunities to, uh, access advanced courses. And so, that is the operating mechanism by which segregation operates in underfunded under-resourced K-12 schools. That is segregation.

And then the third point that I'll make is a point around agency. So my family chose to go to the church that we went to growing up because we saw something there that we wanted to go to. My wife chose to become an AKA. Well, they chose her too.[Audience laughter] But the young Black child in Detroit who attends a school where 99% of his classmates come from poverty, where 95% of his classmates don't read proficiently.

Where all the teachers he's ever had are in their first or in their second year, he didn't choose to go to that school.

We, we chose that school for him and we chose to under-resource and underfund the school. And I think that is the difference. And, and we don't have enough nuanced conversation around “this versus that.” They're completely different.

Andrew: Yeah. Give it up for that!

[Applause]

So, so, so those are, those are sort of the issues. I, I want us to (just for the couple of minutes we have left here) imagine a new way forward, one that's not based in this deficit mindset. One that acknowledges the ways that both all of our kids, but also our democracy is harmed by segregation and moves away from this deficit mindset. What, what might that look like?

Damon: Well, I think what it looks like is what a lot of us are fighting for. It looks like a school district and a school where you don't have bubbles within bubbles. Where you don't have this side of the county, that side of the county. Or special programs within the school that others can't access.

Now I know that's controversial, because it, it cuts against a lot of the mechanisms that we know that we've used. That we've leveraged, right? Even in our magnet schools or magnet programs within schools. Right? But I believe in the notion that there are no throwaway kids.

[Applause]

Right? I believe in the notion that not every child is going to achieve to the same degree, but every child has potential until we tell them they don't. Until we retard that potential. I believe that all the things that we fight for are not wishes and hopes for the future, but it's the future that we deserve.

And so, we have to act like we know. You know, I think every child should have an IEP. [Applause] Whether you have special needs, gifted and talented or not. Because we should be uniquely invested in that child's success. Now, of course, that costs money. Of course that's expensive. Of course, my mother who taught for 42 years in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, had to go on strike at least once.

Should have been paid more. Right? But, that's where we should be placing our value: in every single child.

[Applause]

Stefan: Damon, are you a preacher on the side? [Audience laughter]You just said a word. I'm gonna let Damon have the last word on that one. I think that was a good way to end.

Andrew: All right! Well, we're gonna, we're gonna move right on through. Alright. Well, uh, we're gonna welcome to the stage now Elizabeth Horton Sheff, who is the mother of the lead plaintiff in Sheff v O'Neill and the co-chair of the Sheff Movement. And as she comes up, uh, please give a big, another big round of applause to Stefan and Damon. Thank you.

[Audience cheers]

Elizabeth Horton Sheff: Can I just say hello?

[Audience responds “Hello!”]

Hello! Around the birth of the civil rights movement, integration efforts primarily aimed to desegregate Black and White communities. Given the legacy of slavery, the undoing of rights for Black Americans secured during reconstruction and the insidious effects of Jim Crow laws and segregation in the South, this was the just and appropriate focus for the framing of the implementation of Brown versus the Board of Education.

But the fight for civil rights and integration has long been more than just a Black and White issue. Challenges to segregation have been brought by many groups over the course of our nation's history, from cases like Gong Lum versus Rice, in which a Chinese family led one of the first challenges to school segregation in the 1920s, to Mendez versus Westminster in 1947, which ruled that segregation of Mexican American students was unconstitutional and paved the way for many of the arguments in Brown v Board.

Today, Latina students are fast approaching 30% of the total student population and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders constitute the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in America. Both groups have faced significant discrimination and many have funneled into extremely segregated schools.

As we commemorate 70 years since the Brown decision, and as the neighborhoods and schools and communities continue to change and further diversify, integration efforts must evolve to meet the changing needs of local communities being served.

How have integration efforts shifted as our populations have changed since 1954, and how can we fulfill the true promise of Brown for the increasingly multi-racial multi-ethnic America of the next 70 years?

[Applause]

Dr. Val: Thank you, Mrs. Sheff! All right. Please welcome Vanessa Leung and Anna Cole to the stage to continue the conversation. Come on out.

[Applause]

Andrew: All right. Anna, you are the leader of a district in Colorado that is about 60% Latine. All of your schools are pretty close to the district average in terms of their demographics, so segregation between schools isn't a major issue. Bu,t as we so, so often see segregation can also show up within schools.

As you think about integration, particularly with your large Spanish speaking population, what challenges do you have and how are you trying to address them?

Anna Cole: Thanks, Andrew. You know, in our rural district, and there’s two things to that question actually I wanna address. One is how segregation shows up in what looks like integrated schools and the other are the challenges we face.

And I would, I would say our greatest challenge across our, our rural schools are the limits of a school system that centers Whiteness, where the priorities, the interests, the linguistic skills of upper middle income White families drives school culture and decisions and choices. [c]

For example, what that looks like is our Spanish speaking families are not a challenge, but the limits of our English monolingualism absolutely are. That reframing is really important because it leads us to different solutions. So, when we reframe and think about the limits of Whiteness, we come to solutions like language justice that, that challenge us as a school district to, one, commit to creating spaces where everyone can speak from the language of their heart. Two, where we acknowledge that all of us need interpretation. And then, three, that we really implement technical solutions where everyone walking in a room picks up a headset if they're not multilingual or bilingual, especially monolingual English speakers.

And then the, the other piece of that question was, you know, we demographically, our schools look integrated, but within the school, and Damon mentioned this, kind of bubbles within bubbles. And, we have an equity advisory council that our, especially our, Latine students are well-represented as leaders on that council.

We were looking at our “student belonging” data, which is really important data. How do kids perceive, um, sense of belonging in schools. And our data when we disaggregate it for racial groups is, is great. Like it's really high and there's not huge differences between our Latine community and our Anglo community.

So I was looking at that data with some of our student leaders and they said, “Well, of course we belong, we're half the school. We have our crew, we have our people.” And they said, they pushed and they said, “You're, you're asking the wrong question. And what you should be asking is, ‘Are we, are we included everywhere? And are we represented everywhere?’” Because they said “We're not there, um, in AP classes, we're not there on student council. We're not designing the pep rally and planning prom. It's not our stories that are on the intercom every day.” And they really push us to say it's more than just integration. It's about representation, it's about inclusion. And it's, it's even more so, it's about power and it's about agency and who gets to tell the stories.

[Audience cheers]

Andrew: Yeah.

Dr. Val: I love that!

Andrew: That's great.

Dr. Val: Thank you. Vanessa, I'm gonna pass this question to you. So the Coalition of Asian American Children and Families recently surveyed Asian American parents in New York City about their views on integration.

Why did you decide to do that and what'd you learn?

Vanessa Leung: You know, I'm from a city with the most segregated public school system. And we saw the arguments against integration set up as a really simple “us versus them.” It was Whites and Asians on one side, and Black and Latino students on the other, and we really wanted to push back on that narrative.

It was really important for us to push back on being used as a wedge to actually think about how we integrate our New York City public schools. We were like, “We are saying no to being pitted against each other” and actually wanted to uplift and rather focus on what all of our young people, all of our parents wanted. And that was high quality, supportive, inclusive, and inspiring school environments.

And what we heard from those parents and from our young people, it really was like they did not want a system that allowed selected groups to be able to hoard opportunity. They did not want a system where students had to compete in order to be able to access a well-resourced school, a high quality school.

And what they really believed was there was intrinsically value to being into an an integrated learning space, because that was where those environments would create much more rich conversations. Being able to be challenged around perspectives, really kind of focus on critical thinking. And that's what would prepare our young people to actually be able to live in the global society that we, we, we are in.

Andrew: Yeah. Yeah, that's great. I mean, I think it's, it sounds like one of, one of the challenges, one of the ways that the, the AAPI community in this instance gets used as a wedge is this sort of umbrella thinking that there is an AAPI community, that is one community that has one set of beliefs that believes one thing.

Um, obviously the AAPI community, no community is a monolith. Help us unpack a little bit about, not just sort of the diversity of opinion, but also the diversity of lived experiences captured within that big umbrella of Asian American or AAPI.

Vanessa Leung: Yeah. And I am from a coalition, so this is our work about uniting a really diverse AAPI community in New York. I mean, we're talking about a community that is at least 50 different ethnic groups. We speak over a hundred different languages. We have varied experience of what brought us here. What and when. Like third, fourth generation to recent immigrants. We have undocumented green card holders, refugees. You know, there's different class and educational differences that, you know, we have low income working poor, families who are working multiple jobs. And then we have folks who have that college degree. And then all of that gets lumped all together.

That diversity and the challenges and the inequities within the AAPI diaspora is lost when we're seen as a monolith. When data is lumped together under this one umbrella, you know, or, um, sometimes like that data doesn't even exist for us. We're, we're subjugated to “other,” or “unknown” or not even included in the dialogue.

It’s like, when that happens, we're not building that understanding of the gaps and the challenges. And if we don't articulate those gaps and the problems, then we're actually never gonna get to the right solutions. And so, when we actually also don't see where we have those shared struggles and how we can best collaborate, on what we need to do to transform our communities together.

[Applause]

Dr. Val: Anna, sometimes we get a little personal on the podcast, so I'm gonna ask you, like, a direct question and identity related question. So, as a White school leader serving a majority Latino/Latina community, what are some lessons that you've learned, um, in trying to fulfill this promise of integration at a school level?

Anna Cole: Thanks, Val. You know, I, I think it's similar to what I mentioned before, that is having a really keen awareness of the limits of a White dominant school system and to really recognize how, how centering Whiteness doesn't get us to the right practices or solutions that we need to really get to support our multilingual and multiracial community.

Our Latine students are similarly as, as diverse as what Vanessa named. Our students and families represent countries and have roots in countries across South and Central America and the Caribbean. Linguistically politically, socioeconomically diverse. And what a White dominant system does is likes to over generalize and other, and clump groups together.

And we lose the, the diversity of voices, of lived experiences, of possible solutions. You know, I've learned that it's to be very concerned when, when I hear statements like, “Well, Latine families think X or want Y.” And it had, we really need to be challenged to dig deeper, to build relationships, to really recognize and amplify the many voices that make up our community, and center those voices, not the narratives, um, that we're hearing, or that a White system likes to generalize.

Dr. Val: Thank you. We have another meaty question, but I got the sign that we are at time. Um, so you all have to agree to come onto the podcast [Audience chuckles] so we can continue to ask you many questions. Please, let's give it up for Anna and Vanessa.

[Applause]

Alright. We get to welcome Malasia McClendon, program coordinator at the Dudley Flood Center for Educational Equity and Opportunity in North Carolina. Whoop, whoop! To help contextualize our final panel, thank you so much for being here.

Malasia: Thank you.

[Applause]

As we discussed in our first conversation, Brown did not challenge resource and equities between Black and White schools. Instead, the lawyers focused on the impact of state sanctioned segregation itself. The court recognized that quote, the Black and White schools involved have been equalized or are being equalized with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications, and salaries of teachers and other tangible factors. Our decision therefore cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.

However, we know that resource inequities between Black and White schools were and continue to be prevalent and persist despite the goals espoused in Brown. Because Brown sought to end the very concept of segregated schools as a matter of law, it could not at the same time effectively address the resource inequities that then continue to exist when its central promise was undermined in the following decades.

14 years after Brown in the 1968 Green v New Kent County decision, the Supreme Court finally endorsed a more holistic legal framework for desegregation.

In Green, the court held that in order to remedy segregation, root and branch, districts must address four things in addition to student assignment: faculty/staff assignment, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities. Although Green introduced more factors into the framework for desegregation, resource equity continued to operate on a separate legal track.

Not too long after Green, with decisions like San Antonio v Rodriguez in 1973 and Milliken v Bradley in 1974, the court turned its back on addressing both segregation and inequitable school funding.

Our last conversation focuses on two main questions. What are the implications of this bifurcation between integration and resource equity, and how can we address these two issues in tandem as we move forward?

Andrew: Thank you, Malasia. [Applause] To help us unpack all of that, please welcome Saba Bireda and Matt Gonzalez. [Applause]

All right. Saba, starting with you, in the courts (and I think also in the public's mind) school finance equity and school desegregation are two separate and I know this is in part why you started your organization, Brown's Promise. What's the harm of keeping those two things separate and what could be gained if we tried to bring those two things together as you're trying to do with Brown's Promise?

Saba: Thank you. It's such an important observation and very much the reason why Ary Amerikaner and I started Brown's Promise. If you'll indulge me a little bit, um, I think it's important to really think about how we got to this place where school funding equity and desegregation became so distinct in jurisprudence and policy advocacy in our research.

And I teach education law, when I teach Brown, I have to remind my students Brown is not an education adequacy case. It is a case in which the court demands that states dismantle their systems of de jure segregation. It does not demand that states provide a super high quality education.

If states decide to provide an extremely poor quality education, which unfortunately some of our states have decided to do, but does that with no legally imposed segregation of the races, there's no violation of Brown.

So right there in our seminal case regarding school desegregation, the court is treating segregation as an issue, separate and apart from the laws and the policies that create resource inequities between schools.

So, given the law's treatment of these issues is so distinct, it makes sense that the public also sees them as distinct. And I think the harms that have resulted from this, in my view, are one, states have maintained these racially neutral laws around student assignment, around how we draw our district lines, around how we fund schools, and that's allowed for significant entrenched resegregation of our schools, which often undermine school funding gains.

There's also a level of comfort that we have accepted with racially segregated schools because we hope that school funding can overcome those challenges that those schools face. And I think treating these issues as distinct allows us to ignore the fact that in most places, educational resources (money, great teachers, rigorous coursework), is plainly correlated to the Whiteness and the wealth of schools. And to put it plainly, green follows White.

So, as Ary and I reflected [Saba pauses and laughs]. Such a great audience!

[Applause]

So as Ary and I reflected on that in our own professional context, where Ary had been a school funding person her whole life and really thought about “How do we get more money and resources to schools of concentrated poverty?” And I spent a lot of my career thinking, “Well, how do we get more of those students to have access to schools that have higher resources, we really saw the need to link the goals of reaching resource equity and school desegregation as inextricably linked.

We know racially and socioeconomically segregated schools can be successful, but it's difficult, it's expensive, it's hard to do at scale. And at majority White state legislatures, we don't get the funding that districts of concentrated poverty need to be successful.

And then finally, if we have any hope of building a multiracial 21st century, strong democracy in this country, we cannot have generations of students continuing to go to schools that are segregated and expect that they're somehow gonna be prepared for the military, for higher education, and the workplace after never experiencing going to school with kids of difference.

Andrew: Absolutely.

[Applause]

Dr. Val: She said “green follows White”!

[Audience laughs]

Andrew: Val's White supremacy headache is acting up again.

Dr. Val: That’s right. Okay! Here we go, Matt. Okay. I think it's fair to acknowledge communities of color who push back on integration as a tool for educational equity because past attempts have cost communities of color so much. So Saba just named that our system would be more efficient overall, without these concentrations of segregation, and that there are ways to think about school funding differently that may lead to more equity.

So, what does it look like for a system to embrace as integrated NYC students call real integration?

Matt: Sure. Um, thank, thank you so much y'all. Um, I like, I cringe at the, the “green follows White,” not because you said it, but because it, what it represents is so much an, an investment in White supremacy and, and capitalism. Right? That I think is so dangerous and, and is like the, like the rotten fruits of segregation is equitably funded schools? You know, a rotten fruit of segregation is Eurocentric curriculum, right? Is, is, uh, school to prison pipeline based discipline policies, right? And so for us in New York City, we've kind of taken that, that “green follows White” tension and I think, and, and leaned into it, right? And like, what does it actually mean to disrupt and dismantle that? Right?

And so, thankfully, you know, I got to be in partnership with young people from IntegrateNYC, uh, a, a grassroots student-led movement in New York City where we, we started to tease that question, right? Like, what is, what does actually an integrated school mean?

A desegregated school means “We all together,” right? But, but, like, that we can be together and power can still be rooted in Whiteness and White supremacy, right? And for me, integration means we're sharing power, right? And so the framework, The Five Rs of Real Integration, thinks about race and enrollment, right? How do we assign students, right? But, but it also acknowledges in New York State, at least, we have this framework called the Sound Basic Education Framework, which, which is a school funding case, right? And I think for me, really the only way to build meaningful coalition with Black and Brown families in New York City to talk about integration was to say, I'm also committed to fully funded schools, right? Regardless of who's in 'em, they need to be fully funded. And if we are not fighting that fight, we're not doing the fight for, for real integration, right?

And so, resources is another element of that, right?

But the other piece, right? Um, why are all the Black kids sitting together, right? Like really thinking of, of like what's happening inside of the school, right? And so we think about relationships as another R, like, what are the investments we're making in creating school cultural practices, uh, curriculum and pedagogical opportunities for young people to connect with each other, right?

Because if we're all sitting separately, we're never gonna build together. We're never gonna grow together, right? So, like, again, this framework is, is thinking of all these different layers and all the rotten fruits of segregation, right?

The fourth R is about representation. Who's at the front of the classroom? Who's leading the school? Who are young people getting to see as representatives of, of educational leaders, right? Edu-color in the crowd, right? How are we ensuring that Black and Brown educators are leading our young people and, like, the exponential benefits that Black and Brown students receive from a Black or Brown teacher, right?

And lastly, right? Thinking about restorative practices because the school to prison pipeline, again, is a, is a rotten fruit of segregation, right? The first, uh, policies in New York City to exclude and, and remove children from schools came a year after the Brown decision was passed down. And that was because the city knew that the, the one, once Black and Brown students and White students were together, the school needed to figure out a way to remove them, right?

And so, we need to understand the relationship between, like, disproportionate discipline policies, culturally destructive policies and practices. Um, the, the inequitable funding of schools and segregation, right? Those are all part of the practice and, and, and, and part of the functions of segregation.

And, and, and so for us, our policy framework, our advocacy has always had to be intersectional. And this is because young people are rooted in intersectionality. And I think it means our movement as an integration movement, it ain't integration if we're not doing it all, right? And if we're not committed to doing it all, let's not do it then, right?

[Applause]

Andrew: Yes, sir. Yeah. Um, we're, we're, we're coming up on time, but I do, I do want to give you each a chance, you know, the people will point to challenges from the past ways we went about desegregation and rightfully highlight areas where, where they've sort of failed.

But, we don't have to go back to that. There are other ways to think about both of these tracks, resource equity and desegregation of schools. And just in sort of a minute each, Saba, you can start, like, what, what, what does that look like?

What does it look like to kind of do this different for the next 70 years?

Saba: Sure. Um, so first I really do think it is important that we sit with and honestly confront the challenges of integration 1.0 so that we can move differently going forward. Um, I'm a direct beneficiary of Brown. I went to wealthy, highly resourced schools in Tampa that litigators litigated the right for me to go to. And my mother went to segregated schools in Florida. And so, in one generation we had access to opportunities in those schools that I never would've had access to.

But I also faced outright racism every day of my schooling. Teachers who didn't believe in me, a sense of not belonging, feeling estranged from my own community. And so, I think we have to start from a place where we do not repeat any of those things going forward. And that means being serious about not viewing integration as only students of color bearing the burden, of students of color leaving their schools, and their communities. [Applause] That that's not the only way that we achieve integration, and that means we have to be creative and aggressive about different policy solutions.

Let's keep it real. We have to think about changing school district lines. We treat them like you cannot change them, even though we change congressional lines every 10 years. [Audience laughs] Like, they are not immovable. They are not divine by a higher power.

We can change them, and we can do it in ways that do not, you know, end public education. We can think about how to make districts more porous so students can move between them for, um, inter-district boundary programs. We can think about strengthening magnet programs, but all of that has to be done with the student experience at the center to get to the places that you're talking about.

We have diverse educators. We have a curriculum that accurately reflects culture and history. We have, uh, extracurriculars where kids can actually go to and feel that they're, they belong in a school. So I think we start from the student experience place and then, like, challenge some of these ideas that we think have been immovable, like school district lines.

Andrew: Absolutely. Matt, bring us home.

Matt: I'll be, I'll be really brief. Um, I think there's, like, two things that I'm really holding right now. Um, one is integration is not just about moving bodies. It's, it's about moving policy, resources, opportunity and power. That's one. The second thing is, like, we need schools that truly love our children. Um, and, like, we don't have that, right? We have schools that actually hate our children and our communities. And so if we're not investing, we're not making those commitments to love our young people, love their families, love our communities, then we will constantly be doing violence.

And so, like, I think that comes from (and we can talk more about this later outside [Audience laughter]), that comes from an abolitionist, like, ethic, right? I think we all, in this movement and everything we're doing centered or rooted in equity, need to start thinking about how abolition fits into the, the, the practices we live in and, and then those that we engage in with our, our communities. That's all.

Andrew: Let's hear it for Saba and Matt!

[Applause]

Dr. Val: Yes. Give it up! Let's give it up for our last panelists!

Andrew: On behalf of all the panelists, on behalf of Val and myself, thank you to the Century Foundation, NCSD, AIR, the museum, the staff here, this is, uh, just an incredible event.

We are really honored to be part of it.

Dr. Val: Yeah. And thank you all for being such a dynamic audience. We really appreciate it. And then taking Matt's final words, if we're sitting separately, we will never build together, so stay together. All right?

Andrew: Thank you!

[Audience cheers]

Andrew: So Val, what did you think?

Dr. Val: Listening to that episode again, I'm filled with gratitude for the opportunity to engage in such meaningful conversations with people who care deeply about this work. What we were able to witness in the conversations, was true expertise and deep commitment to the work at different entry points.

And so, to learn from and with them and to have them trust us in that conversation means a lot! Right? Because they are, they're putting themselves out there. And they, they just let us walk with them through that conversation and, and that, that meant a lot to me.

Andrew: Yeah, me too. I mean, yeah, I still think it's certainly, like, on the list of coolest things I've ever done. Um, to be in that historic space, to be, in that room with all those people, was really special. And then to get to spend the whole weekend, you know, we were in DC for several days, and there were a whole bunch of Integrated Schools people there. Board members and staff members, leadership team people. Like, it was just a really, really special weekend.

Dr. Val: Right. You know, you, and I've only met a couple times, and this was the first time I got to spend any quality time with the Integrated Schools community. And it was great because we walked out on stage and we automatically had fans in the stands who were cheering loudly for us and taking pictures for us and rooting us on. But to, to actually meet people in the local community, in DC who were part of the Integrated Schools community for people to fly in from as far as California to be part of the conversation.

It was really a homecoming of sorts. And the question came up at one of the meals that we shared together. It was like, how do we do this regularly? Like, how do we bring the Integrated Schools together face to face so that you know that you're together and you, and you have a community?

Andrew: Yeah. You know, something that, that Gina said as she was introducing us, that this work can be lonely, but that, that it's opportunities, like this event to bring people together to remind everybody that, that we are in this fight together. And that, you know, the, as you always say, the only way we win is together.

So it feels really important to make the most outta the times that we can be together and remind ourselves of the connections that we all share and the number of, of just incredible people who are committed to doing this work.

Dr. Val: Yeah. So would you do a live show again, sir?

Andrew: Absolutely! Absolutely. Listeners, if you are looking for a live show, let us know. We would love to come. It was great. It was a, a different and a fun and a challenging experience and it was special.

Dr. Val: It was special. And, I absolutely would do a live show with you again. You know, we are talking to ourselves most of the time. And so, to be able to be even, in conversation with people in the audience who gave us different, like, facial expressions, or like an “Amen!” You know?

Andrew: The woman who gasped when Damon, when Damon confessed that the, his quote was from Clarence Thomas. That was this loud audible [Andrew makes audible gasp sound]. Yeah. yeah. It was great.

Dr. Val: And so to be able to, to engage with folks, you know, the audience in a, in a new way, that that was really energizing. So, thank you all. I know that you all are gasping and clapping and “Amen”-ing, you know, when you hear us on the podcast. Uh, we would love to continue to hear that by calling in and giving us a voice memo, so that we really know what you think about what's going on.

But, definitely a live show again.

Andrew: Yeah, I mean, you know, it was a, it was a tight timeline. They were nuanced conversations that could have gone much deeper. We'll definitely circle back with some of the guests to hear more of their stories and have a little more time and space to expand on those things. And if you have thoughts that came up during those conversations, things that you're thinking about grappling with after listening, as always, we welcome your voice memos integratedschools.org and click on the “Send Voice Memo” button, or go to Speakpipe.com/integrated schools, S-P-E-A-K-P-I-P-E dot com slash integrated schools, and send us a voice memo. Let us know what you thought.

Dr. Val: Absolutely, and you don't have to wait for next year's anniversary to keep talking about Brown v Board and what it means for your community and what it has meant to your community. So make sure you listen, listen to previous episodes. Share, have discussions with your local communities. Um, the way that we continue to build momentum is by getting the word out about our discussions.

Andrew: Absolutely. Check the show notes. There's been so much good stuff written about the 70th anniversary. We'll put some links to some of that, um, in the show notes and a link to the full event again. The evening ended with the amazing Dr. Bernadine Futrell. She brought things home. So, definitely go click on that link and check out the full event to hear her closing remarks.

And if you enjoyed this, if you appreciate the conversations we're sharing here, and want to support our work, we would always be grateful for that. Patreon.com/integrated schools. Throw us a few bucks to, uh, help make the next live show a reality.

Dr. Val: That's right.

Andrew: Val, this is, it's just like yet another evolution of the podcast, of our friendship, of this, uh, work. It's, it was really special. I'm so grateful we got to do it, and as always, I'm grateful to be in this with you because I try to know better and do better.

Dr. Val: Until next time.

[a]3

[b]1

[c]2