What a great sight to see this space, this beautiful, beautiful space so full of people. Thank you all for coming on this day, this beautiful, beautiful space so full of people.
Thank you all for coming on this day that. Brought a second winner to New England. I'm happy that we can fill the room.
I'm happy for those of you who have traveled from afar to be here, Chicago, Washington, DC.
Thank you for being here. And I'm glad your planes arrived safely and on time. So that you can join us.
My name is Rosalyn Cabro. I'm the chair of the legal studies program here at Brandeis.
And it is my pleasure to introduce this year's Joshua A. Griman lecture. I'd like to say a few words about the lecture itself.
And we have some other introductions as well. That I'll pass the mic on to in a moment.
This lecture is made possible through the generosity of the government family. Who are seated in the front rows here.
And they endowed the lecture as an annual lecture in social policy in tribute to Mr. Guberman, Josh Goodman who passed away in 1,976.
Joshua Gibberman was a practicing attorney in the greater Boston area, well known for his commitment to social justice.
His wise judgment, and his depth of caring for his clients and his community. After serving in World War 2, he became a dedicated public servant active in the American Jewish Congress, combined Jewish philanthropies, the capital punishment in information services, among many other groups.
I should note here, just as an aside. That nearly the entire faculty in legal studies, including myself, started their careers at Brandeis as Goberman Fellows.
Goberman Fellows are practicing lawyers who assist with the introduction to law course, which is the required course to earn a minor in legal studies at Brandeis.
We call ourselves gobermans and we still hire every fall. 5 attorneys to serve in this program and Joshua G, remember, and rings model for who we select to be a fellow.
So thank you for that. In 1946 joshua married milli goberman Who? I would like to especially honor in my opening remarks this evening.
Millie was a beloved member of the Brandeis community, having worked on campus for over 2 decades.
First, as at the Heller School in Social Welfare as a research associate for gerontology and then as its director of admissions.
With the founding of the Hornstein Program in Jewish Communal Service at Brandeis.
She became its director of field placement. And University Professor Jonathan Sarna, a Distinguished Warrenstein faculty, shared that Milly was an inspiration to generation of students, generations of students.
In both her work on campus and in the community. She modeled commitment, integrity, and generosity.
Through her work on the board of the Jewish community housing for the elderly. And the Scholarship Committee of Combined Jewish Jewish Philanthropies among these are just 2 examples among many of her service to the community.
During the course of her long life. And 1981. Millie married Nate Kravitz and continued her community service into their retirement.
Sadly, Millie passed away on September 20 seventh, 2023. At the age of 101.
And a half. We are fortunate to have many members of her family and friends in the audience this evening, including her children with Joshua Guberman, David, Daniel, and Karen, as well as her children with Nate Kravitz.
Jane, Charlie, and John and many other family members as well, Eric and Front row from Chicago.
I see you. And others. Thank you for being with us and made the memory of Millie Gberman Kravitz.
Be an eternal blessing. Since, 1,984, we have been fortunate to have many distinguished experts and advocates share their wisdom with our community through the Yeah.
Yeah. Tonight is certainly no exception. With this being the 70 fifth anniversary of Brandeis and next year being the fiftieth anniversary of the legal studies program.
It is truly a special moment. We are delighted to both celebrate and learn from our own Professor Anita Hill.
This evening. And with that, I would like to welcome Mrs. Joan Cohen, daughter of David Pocross to say a few remarks about the Po Cross chair in law and social policy also established in the 1,983, 1,983, in 1,984, which has now been conferred upon Professor Hill. Dr.
David Weil will then more fully introduce our keynote speaker for the evening. Thank you for joining us and thank you, Jump.
Thank you so much for that. Very interesting introduction. Welcome everyone to this landmark celebration of Brandeis University's 70 fifth anniversary and a significant chapter in our family history.
We are delighted to join you in celebrating. Not only 75 years of Brandeis University, but also 65 years.
Of the Heller School. My father, Dave.
My father, David Pocross. Played a pivotal role at Heller, helping to create and chair its Board of Overseers from its inception in 1,972 for and for over continuing for over 30 years.
His legacy deepened when in 1,984. The Heller School established its first chair exclusively under its own control.
In his honor. Thanks to his and his colleagues efforts, including Edward Sachs, his long-term part law partner and friend.
And my husband, Ronald Curran. Both of whom were integral to the fundraising. Indeed, I am happy to report that Ronald is here tonight with me.
Yeah. Well, unfortunately, at the very last minute, Ed had to cancel due to the inclement and icy weather in Weston where he is now living.
The recent news that Professor Anita Hill university professor at Brandeis would receive the David R. Pol Cross chair was both an honor and a personal joy.
Over the years both my dad and I as well as other members of our family have long applauded a Anita's strength and bravery.
In my recent conversation with Professor Hill, we uncovered striking parallels between her life and that of my father's.
This I had not expected and was pretty exciting to us. To have that link. Both of them. Emerged from challenging beginnings.
Anita, born in Lone Tree, Oklahoma. The youngest of 13 children.
Years with no kosher meals. And he moved to Fall River, Massachusetts where my dad was born.
He lost my dad lost his mother at age 2. And work tirelessly with his father building three-decker houses starting an elementary school and continuing through his long school days.
Both summers and in us and during the school year for no pay at all.
If you can imagine that. He, he had to pay for all of his, his education at Harvard College for 3 years at Harvard Law School for 3 years, but he wasn't allowed to earn money in the summers when he was in college and or and law school just do the work it was not easy but he did it.
The only way he could get out of working on those triple deckers was when he was studying and studying he did as often as possible.
Graduating number one in his high school class, he entered Harvard College where his father could only pay for his freshman year before his father went bankrupt.
For the next 6 years, as I mentioned, my dad had to pay for the rest of college and all of law school and believe me, there was no financial aid given to poor students at that time.
Their paths reflect a shared tenacity. And determination in the face of adversity. Both encounter discrimination in their professional journeys but preserved to achieve remarkable success after a short stint with a law firm and either turned to government service after facing various barriers.
And then to academia. While my father after being terminated from his first job in a law firm due to his religion being Jewish.
Found a longstanding place at Peabody Brown Raleigh and Story where he excelled becoming a senior partner and mentor to many.
And remaining there of council through the age of 95. At the same time, he contributed enormously as a leader in the greater Boston nonprofit community.
For instance, in 1,986 he was the very first recipient of the Alexis to talkville Society of Massachusetts Bay Award for his extensive leadership roles in nonprofits in the Boston area.
Their shared experiences highlight a profound connection, bridging past and present in the spirit the spirit of resilience and dedication.
It is a gratifying tribute that Anita Hill, a figure of immense respect and an admiration, now holds the cheer named for my dad.
In closing, Professor in closing, although Professor Jonathan Sarner could not be here tonight. His words resonate deeply.
And I quote him, it is fitting that David Pogras's name will forever be linked with Anita Hills.
A figure of immense respect and an admiration now holds the chair named for my dad.
Thank you for being part of this. Momentous occasion and for giving me the opportunity to tell you a little bit about my father.
Well, good afternoon and thank you all for joining us. Today both here and present and also on zoom my name is David Weil.
I am the former dean of this wonderful Heller School of Social Policy. And management and a Now a member of the faculty both here at Heller and in the economics department.
I am here in the stead of our Dean Maria Madison, who is not well.
But is definitely with us in spirit and. Maria gave me the happy task of introducing our speaker tonight, Anita Hill, as well as making a very special presentation.
To her. I want to extend my gratitude to the Gooberman family. For coming together tonight for this lecture in Joshua Guberman's name as well as to honor Millie Guberman.
And I also want to acknowledge the Po Cross family and in particular John. Joan and Ron Curran.
Who I have a very special connection to that I have to actually acknowledge. It was Joan Curham when she was working at Harvard at the time.
Counseled a young Harvard student about to embark on his graduate career, me about going to talk to someone at Boston University.
And that's where I actually began my academic career. First through Jones good auspices and then having Ron Kerhan as my senior faculty colleague at the university.
So when I found out as Dean of David R. Poe Crosses. Seminal role in the school including serving as the chair of our board of overseers for many years.
And knowing some about the career that Joan just talked about. It felt like a full circle as they say in Yiddish it was a Beshared kind of moment And it is the, David R.
Pocross chair intersecting with the Goberman lecture, intersecting with the appointment of Anita Hill into it.
That creates this this wonderful almost astrological convergence of factors. And so to begin with before I formally introduce a needa, I would like to actually present the physical chair to Anita of the David R.
Po Cross. Chair in law and social policy. So.
So the actual chair in.
And the NETA has to actually sit in the chair. This is the requirement.
Yeah.
Okay. In fact, this is a very devious trick because Anita does not like to be praised in public.
So by having her sit in the chair and also.
Okay. Holding the flowers. She can't move until I finish this introduction. So, the idea of an endow chair actually I am told by reliable sources, which is Courtney Lombardo goes back to Marcus Aurelius was the first to endow a chair.
In 1 76 apparently and there ensued 2 millennia of history where that became a tradition.
Really to provide both people who wanted to support scholarship, a way of doing that. As an ongoing matter and also for universities to recognize the top of faculty excellence in pandemic.
Work and impact. And to our most distinguished faculty members. So it's in that spirit, it is very wonderful to present Anita Hill with this chair tonight.
And now to the introduction. One of the reasons and I feel many reasons I was fortunate to serve as Dean and to come to be a part of this community has been the opportunity.
To work with to learn from. To be inspired by. To have many, many conversations with and to become friends.
With our speaker tonight, Anita Hill. All of us in the Heller and Brandeis community feel so fortunate.
To have her as one of our most treasured colleagues. Whether in an event like this in a class, in a forum.
In one to one. Discussions about our community or society. Anita brings insight. Provokes new thoughts, poses difficult questions.
And always leaves one with a profound sense of optimism. Her distinguished reputation and career in academia as well as a major public scholar and speaker of truth to power are well-known to everyone in this room.
She is the author of many, many influential articles and major books. Most recently, the critically acclaimed believing our thirty-year journey to end gender violence.
In tonight's talk, she draws together her grounding in both law and social policy. And it is fitting that the David R.
Pro Cross Chair in law and social policy goes to someone with a legal background. Is titled Law Policy and the Future of Social Justice Lived Experience is our measure of equality.
She will propose that equal access principles alone are not enough to promote social justice. And brings insights from our own lived experiences into the space to help us consider how to move forward as a society.
To paraphrase Justice Thurgood Marshall, someone Anita has also written about. To reach complete equality, we must bring quote reality closer to theory and democratic principles.
Before turning it over to Anita, I cannot resist quoting her own words. From her most recent book, Believing.
That to me crystallizes to why she is such an inspiration to so many of us. In it, she discusses recent setbacks to the move towards greater gender and racial equality.
And she writes backlash against gender equity in the 1990. Had disabused me of the idea that the race to equality was a sprint.
So over the years I resigned myself to the idea that the struggle was more of a marathon.
It helped me to understand that the race, the struggle is a relay. A new generation would come along and mine would pass the baton to them.
Relay notwithstanding, there was no reason for me to relax. I hadn't finished my leg.
I think that passage captures Anita's impact on the areas of civil rights. Gender violence and social justice.
She understands that any social policy issue of importance will not be solved in a year in a decade in a lifetime.
Because social policy problems are systemic and systemic change is complex and that requires persistence and vision. But it also requires the lifelong commitment to nacity and optimism to say even after contributing so much to that effort, quote, I haven't finished my leg yet.
So I am very, very fortunate to introduce to you all my colleague, Professor Anita Hill.
I think I should just. Go home now. The introduction was great. I still do like the the idea being compared to us, astrological conversion.
So we're like the solar eclipse now here tonight with the So I always like to start with thanking people and I'm always worried because I'm at the end, you know, you forget someone.
And, I do admit someone I want to. Ask your forgiveness right now. But I just want to say, of course, thank you to Dean Wild for that generous introduction.
It's always a pleasure just to hear from Help. And of course it's a pleasure to hear him saying nice things.
But you know, the, the real privilege is really to have worked with Hamas Dean.
For the years that he was in the position of dean at the Heller school. But that's just my beginning of Dean at the Heller School.
But that's just my beginning of thanks. Thanks, of course, to everyone who has been a part of even possible.
Courtney. Limardo. Joanne Bethwick.
Roz, Gabriel, Melissa. I mean, there are so, many people who have guessed this has been just a wonderful experience just seeing this come together.
And I also want to thank my research project team that that's been helpful with this information that. I'm going to talk with you about tonight.
They are, Lenny Eisenberg, Frank Lee, Bonley, and Ika, Broadnex, we have have the work that I'm doing.
That it's part of. Of this conversation tonight. Is something that I didn't plan to start to work on.
But came out really of the whole idea of law and policy and the relationship between the 2 and the reality of what is happening now with our Supreme Court, with legislation policies throughout the country now that I believe are really setting back.
The, the in the progress of civil rights movement from the sixtys and seventies and and beyond.
And so, I'm with that, I'm going to start. Much has been written about students for fair admissions versus Harvard.
And some of you are probably wondering what else can be said. The about the end of affirmative action in college admissions.
We know the story. We know what happened. But one state month stood out for me, particularly relevant to today's for this evening's conversation.
And that was. A state book from Professor Jerome. Carabo who is a Meredith sociology professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
He noted that with its decision, the court's decision in the SFA case, the Supreme Court has consigned race conscious admissions policies.
To the grave. He added. That the intensity intensity and duration of the attack on such policies.
Are sad confirmation. That many Americans remain unwilling to reckon with the barbarity of our racial history.
Now that's, you know, that's a pretty deep and painful. Commentary on where we are now.
One of the things that I have noticed. Especially since the jobs decision and now with SSA.
Versus Harvard is that. People are actually feeling. The weight of this period and the movement against rights.
Deeply within. Their own personal experience at a time, there was a time when the Supreme Court decision, people who hadn't read them or heard about them.
And they, intellectually, they were kind of interesting. But now people I think feel that they're personal and they're private.
And it's true because lives will be effective. The lives of people who you know will be affected.
But for me, the demise of affirmative action. Offers the chance to actually interrogate the logic behind the reasoning and SFA.
Versus Harvard and to confront our commitment. To reckon our racial history and discrimination in light of racial and gender realities.
Of today. So there are 3 parts. To my talk and I know this talk is going to be longer than it should be because I want to give you a chance to ask your questions.
And by the way, in terms of Thank you. I want to thank the. The Po Cross family.
I want to thank the Guberman family, all of you who really have made this day possible because it's in your name that I'm speaking tonight.
But I wanna start by saying that the 3 parts. Part one is a brief introduction to the contest, what I call the contested concept.
Of equality under the law is written in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Having been crafted to respond to the pre-C Civil War Supreme Court decision denying rights to black people in this country.
The amendment was a compromise that chose legal equality over social equality. And a contradiction to ideals of a representative democracy.
Human rights and fundamental freedoms. Found in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere in the Constitution.
Part 2 of my talk examines limits that the Supreme Court has over time placed on the fourteenth amendment's ability to in the words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Undo generations of rank discrimination. In part 2, I discussed the colorblind legal theory behind the Students for Fair admissions case.
And adjacent legislation passed in the states of Texas. To eliminate DEI in universities throughout that state.
Rather than present a workable remedy for ending discrimination. Both, I think, the legal decisions and state policies will likely perpetuate historic discrimination and will thereby undermine democracy.
Part 3 of my talk proposes the adoption of what Bergen Marshall call the adoption of the idea for achieving complete equality.
That is, how do we fill out equality? How does our understanding equality grow to evolve, to include all of those ways that discrimination is acting today and causing great disparities throughout our society.
Justice Marshall stressed. That in order to remedy discrimination, legal theories must be guided by democratic principles.
Must acknowledge historic and contemporary racism and must be informed by the experiences of those living with inequalities.
Actually living within inequalities. So let's begin. In the US, equality has always been a contested concept.
Including both before and since the fourteenth amendment was ratified. And I And now I'm at a real disadvantage because this is not my computer and I'm going to have to figure out.
How to move it. And that's not it. There's that. I hope you're seeing what I'm saying.
That's not working.
Do I use this? Okay.
Not working either.
Well, you won't know when
Of course Okay. Okay, I will let you know when did that decide. So.
So. Let's begin in the United States. It's always been a contested concept, equality that is, including before and since the fourteenth amendment was ratified.
This slide shows the depiction of Representative Stadius Stevens. Arguing for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Unfortunately, there is no video of the actual representative. So I saddle for a Steven Spielberg, Tommy Lee Jones movie version of That is Steve and speech during a fourteenth and minute amendment debate that comes from the movie Lincoln.
And so can I get the, the back to the next slide, please.
Okay. And I will need to the. The link should be embedded.
Okay, here we go.
Good time.
World Herald Times. New York, Chicago. Journal of Commerce Even your hometown paper too.
Say you believe only in legal equality for all races. Racial equality. I beg you, sir.
Are you risk it all?
I've asked you a question, Mr. Stevens, and you must answer me.
Do you or do you not hold that the precept that all men are created equal? It's meant literally.
Is that not the true purpose of the amendment? To promote your ultimate and ardent dream to elevate.
The purpose of the amendment, Mr. Wood. You perfectly named brainless obstructive objects.
Always insisted Mr. Stevens. That Negroes are the same as white men are. The true purpose of the amendment.
I don't hold with the quality of all things only with the quality before the law and nothing more.
That's not shown. You believe that Negroes are entirely equal to white men. You've said it a thousand day for 10 Stop reallocating and answer Representative Wood.
I don't harm with the quality in all things only with the quality of the decades. He's answered your questions.
Before the law is no good. Whoever gets that all nightmare capable of such control. We might make a politician someday.
Your frantic attempt to delude us now is unworthy of our representative. It is in fact Unworldly of a white man!
Thank you. How can I hold that all men are created equal? Here before me stands stinking the moral carcass of the gentleman from Ohio.
Proof! Some men are inferior. Endowed by their maker with dim wits, impermeable to reason.
With cold pallets slime in their veins instead of You are more reptile than man George so low and flat that the foot of man is incapable of pressure.
Oh dear you Yet even you! We should have been jited for treason long before today, even worthless, unworthy you ought to be treated equally before the law.
Here I say
See all things only with equality before the law.
There's
And so I am not absolutely not certain that. That's exactly how the debate went. But what the scene does reveal to me is that
Idea of equality was hotly contested. What was going to become of the protections of the Constitution found in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Was really not a set. It didn't, you didn't know even after the ratification you didn't know.
What? Equality under the law actually meant. And what we, what I see that fell. It really does for me, it has this chilling effect.
Because those of us who have read the law, those of us lived in society, realize now what happened afterwards.
That those words as interpreted as opposed to an idea of socially or complete equality. What we got was equality under the law.
Equal equality under the law. A compromise, clearly a compromise. And it was a compromise in many ways.
The principles debated, but were defeated by a group of undemocratically elected white men. Reflected the compromise that was going on throughout the body of the House of Representatives.
It was a compromise really about the conception of what the law was going to be. And it was a compromise also because there the people who were making the decisions were not.
Democrat, democratically elected. And therefore, it was a contradiction. With other parts.
Of the competition. The Constitution as well as our bill of rights. So here we have. Out of just the very beginning from the very beginning of equality being discussed.
And, and ratified and put in the Constitution. We have, we're left with a question about what it actually means.
Who it's going to apply to and how. And then we turn over the decision to define and describe and apply.
The protections to another. Undemocratically selected body. In the Supreme Court. And that's where it has been.
And will continue to be forever. And we may or may not agree with the what the Supreme Court says.
In fact, we have a whole history of laws that many of us will disagree with. And in fact, which the Supreme Court has overturned.
And so here we are from the very beginning. With language that's supposed to protect the newly freed slaves.
But ultimately, does not protect them at all because we have given so much. Control over the language. They were so disputed.
So contradictory, so much of a compromise. That it has took it actually took years. For there to be a positive assertion.
That the fourteenth amendment In fact, protected. Black people in this country. Against discrimination. Now.
That scene has stuck with me and it will stick with me. And one other part that sticks with me about that scene is the idea that you have.
Women. And black people waiting in the wings to find out what their fate is going to be. And I think for me that was incredibly symbolic.
Because that's the way it was in 1868. When the fourteenth amendment was ratified.
We still didn't know. How women were going to be protected, how any of us were going to be protected.
And right now I'm gonna just pick a little bit of a side because I want you to think about what you saw.
What was actually going on in this contest over whose idea of equality was going to prevail. And think back now to where we are today.
With so much attention. To by the Supreme Court and a leaning by the Supreme Court toward the idea of originalism.
As the basis for. Defining the rules and the protections and the standards of the Constitution. And I ask you this question.
It given that the way things were contested is there any way that you believe that you, anyone, whether you're on the Supreme Court or not, is going to be able to go back and look at what happened in 1,868 and know exactly what The drafters meant for equality to be.
It seems to me that they didn't even know. What equality was going to be? And that to me, you know.
And that's that's 1 point that I want to take away a point. Originalism, textualism.
It is not. Valid in defining equality in this country. It does not work. Because we cannot know, given all of those differences.
What the drafters really mean. All we know for certain is that whatever came out of it was compromise.
So now. Unfortunately,
We have evolved. And the courts and understanding of equality and the fourteenth amendment half. Have a has evolved but.
We are still dealing with what Ruth Bader Grim Ginsburg call.
The The damage that has been done. Through over the years. Bye. Discrimination.
That has gone unacknowledged. But as in sort of a way, it's sort of way rank discrimination that has been happening over the years and that has sort of compounded over the years.
And I'll get to what that means. In just a moment.
I have an example of of what I believe Justice Ginsburg meant by rank discrimination, but I want That's to also understand how she came to her own meaning of equality under the law.
I believe that her understanding of equality under the law was richly informed by her life and particularly her life as a practicing attorney representing individuals who were in fact being discriminated against under the law.
It was that experience that I believe enabled her to become such a formidable force. On the Supreme Court.
And 2015, she was unapologetic when she declared during a Supreme Court oral argument that the grand goal of federal law was to undo generations of break discrimination.
And she persuaded Justice Anthony Kennedy. Typically a conservative justice to take into account the disparate impact.
That housing discrimination past and present. Hat on point us in the This was just one of her accomplishments and one of the ways that she was influential in terms of what constituted equality and how we were going to deal with it.
The right discrimination that existed even after the fourteenth amendment's passage out matched. The anemic protections passed by lawmakers and allowed by the court even into the twentieth century.
And back the law allowed discrimination in education. And this is a quick aside. And this goes to our own father.
In 1,923 when David R. Po Cross graduated from high school in Fall River he was admitted to Harvard through a new policy that allowed automatic acceptance.
Of boys in certain high schools and who graduated in the top 7% of their high school class.
This was a sort of if you think about it, a sort of affirmative action. That was in existence even in 1923.
David being at the top of his class applied and of course was admitted. High school preparation had not prepared him for a Harvard education.
However, so he had to teach himself how to study and prepare for lengthy reading assignments. There were no student services to help him navigate his educational experience.
At at Harvard. But one thing that had, but one thing that was in his favor was that He was part of a community of other Jewish students during this time.
Oh, and this is something I make those points because right now in schools around the country. There are students who are going in the into quite capable students who are going into education into colleges and universities who are not quite prepared.
For college education, but have the benefits of student services. Have the benefits of what we call in this school the posse.
Our affinity groups. That help them navigate their work. But that was not a guarantee. In, 1923.
As a matter of fact, The, the, the affinity group, the the understanding that there would be a group of students with whom he would be in community with because of their shared religion.
Was going to go. Because with in the twentys, 1,900 twentys, that decade, Harvard then started to put limits.
On the number. Put quotas on the number of Jewish students. They also dropped at the same time the 7% policy.
So, arbert started to push back. I think it's ironic when we think about that part of the history.
What got lost in the 1920. I think it's ironic, but not surprising that Harvard today is still the focus of challenges.
To inclusion. Higher education. Has been forever committed to its legacy of inclusivity. Or exclusivity or lack of inclusivity.
And, and Harvard is no exception and most universities throughout the country is no exception. That has been part of their history.
From the very first Harvard College nearly 400 years ago, Marcus of exclusivity were front and center.
The order in which members of the first graduating class receive their degrees was determined not according to age or scholarship or even the alphabet.
But according to the rank their families held in society. That, of course, would put somebody like. Your father and me at the very end of the line.
And so what we have. Is really a institution. Not an institution being specifically Harvard, but an institution that is a part of our society, education.
Which is is has. Embraced. Eliteism. And has practiced it in its admissions policies.
You know, and, I could go on, I could talk about. Princeton, I could talk about Yale.
I could talk about any number of them. I could talk about Oklahoma State University where I went to school, which is certainly, not considered as an elite or an Ivy League.
But it's still built into the policies where I went to school. University of Oklahoma.
In 1973. 0, there was a student body about the size of. Oh, but one player around maybe close to 20,000 students.
I was one of 200. Black students. At the school. I was the only one student.
Woman I know who lived in the honors door. Who had no roommate. Because my room mate moved out because her.
Parents didn't want her rooming with a black person. And so we've always had these barriers.
To, really inclusiveness. In education. But. Now, things have been ratcheted up even further.
We expected that those barriers would have existed a long time ago. And then now we would have moved into an a better place as a society.
But I will leave that.
This is all about to change. With the story of with the case of SFA. Versus Harvard.
And that decision as well as legislative policies. That have. Really mushroomed across the country. And I'll tell you more about them.
But I also want to, as I promised you, to give you this idea, an example of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg met when she talked about.
Undoing generations of rank discrimination. We talk about Hi, higher education and discrimination.
But racial and class discrimination in Texas. Didn't begin at the university level. Since the territory of Texas was annexed, Texas school districts regularly established schools for Mexican-americans.
Through de facto segregation. And I think this is again one example of generations of rank discrimination.
The Texas school system is that example. Dating back to 1,848 and continuing to end today.
In 1930 when 90%, 90% of the schools in South Texas were segregated. The League of United Latin American Citizens.
Atahano advocacy group supported a court challenge to school segregation. The Texas court of appeals, however, ruled that school districts could use.
Such a criteria as language and irregular attendance due to seasonal work. To separate students. In other words, the proud and the black students employed as agricultural workers.
Seasonal work would be an exception to any integration policy. Therefore, it was fine to segregate them.
It was, it was segregation. Didn't mean inequality. This was in the 1930.
S this was after. You know, of course, Plessy versus Ferguson, but it was before Brown versus the Board of Education.
I'm gonna show, move us. To the Yeah, oh, going fast.
I will tell you, keep going. Keep going back. Back. Yeah.
He, One more, forward. Generations, that's the. That's the link that I want you to.
Click on right now. It's a, it's a video and there was just 2 or 3 min of this video.
It's a video, former students. That really tells the story of how one generation of Texas students in the Austin school district faced discrimination.
That continued into the desegregation era of the 19 fiftys and sixtys. And went well beyond our agricultural workers.
1,938. I went to the first grade at Kabala Elementary School.
You didn't take me long to realize that the only person that school was an accident, so in was a surrogated school.
Totally divided. I 35 and so Mexican Americans live on the east side of I. 35 in South.
This is a total construction on the part of the city council dating back to the 1,900 twentys.
There's nothing natural about it.
My mother was to Mexico, so she spoke Spanish to us all the time. So I truly was bilingual.
I'm spoke Spanish at home and when I was at school the teachers would Punish us and we spoke Spanish.
When I went into the first grade at Gavali Elementary School. I sent to the principal's office you'd get you get swatted with a paddle.
They would discipline us and take us to the restroom. And you know, Russia and I thought it was so not felt that it was something wrong, but I was too young to know better, speak up about it.
I decided that if they're gonna. Attacked me because of my speaking Spanish, I wasn't going to speak.
So I didn't speak. I spent 3 years in the first grade.
Palm Elementary. They are in age 35 and says Chavez used first pack at that time.
Old building. I worked there for a while and they only had electrical plugs not enough for let's say overhead projector that the teacher used or a tape recorder or whatever electrical devices that a teacher would need.
They didn't have their condition, so they had to open up the windows. And guess what? The noise of all the cars on I.
35. When I went there, looked like a little mini prison. We had to cross Highway 35 every day.
To get to the school. It was primarily Mexican-american, although most of our teachers were by the principal was white.
At that time I thought, well, maybe people who look like me couldn't be educators.
The Mexican-americans were not included in the celebration plan originally. Had a den that Austin High.
Going way back. But the kids that were going to Austin had prior to the integration plan. They faced a lot of discrimination.
They said that the word was. All you mentioned is you're going to vote to Johnston now.
When they opened Johnson. You know, you can go to Austin, how are you going to go to Johnson?
That's your school over there. As from excellence. The stories that came to me came from.
From students who haven't been there. They weren't talking about hearsay. They had lived it.
So it was tough. I had a whole group of friends and we were all in the honour system and when we got to Austin High, We were struggling and we sat down to talk to each other and it hit us real quick that we had gotten an inferior education.
Do you know our A's were probably a C plus. And we were finding ourselves having to study really hard and so much.
Just to catch up with the students that were there. Austin High is kinda where you start seeing the social class differences.
I went to school with the
Okay, the video goes on to talk about the disparities between what was happening at Austin High in the Johnson High and the original elementary and K through 12 school, all of it.
Well, the reason that I think we need to think about this is because that kind of experience that those students had.
The students who who appeared in the video had didn't begin. With their for elementary school, their entry into elementary school.
It began way back in 1,848. When Texas segregated the schools.
And when, funding. For the schools that were primarily Mexican Americans. Was limited. And, you had school buildings.
That were, really uninhabitable. You also had some behavioral and cultural barriers to education.
You had structural barriers in the form of a highway dividing the school and the community from others. That is what generations of wealth of rank discrimination ultimately comes to.
And, And I would also say that about the state of Texas. That the economic disadvantages were exacerbated.
By the Supreme Court's decision in a 1976 case. And, 1,976 case.
That was not necessarily a desegregation case, in fact, but was a school finance case. And in that decision.
San Antonio versus Rodriguez that some legal analysts have said, set.
The movement. For school integration back further than any other case. That case, in that case, the Supreme Court concluded.
That proceeds from higher city property tax collects neighborhoods. Could remain in those wealthy neighborhoods that were primarily white.
And the proceeds that were from neighborhoods where the property's values were lower would remain in those neighborhoods. And those properties.
Those neighborhoods were. Primarily black or brown. But the so the court not only locked in class discrimination.
By refusing to recognize class as a protectable category. The court locked in racial discrimination. At the same time.
And so. What we have is compounded. Old generation, racism. New generation racism.
Structural barriers, cultural barriers that existed in the Texas system. And again, it is then no surprise that Texas is now the center.
Of the conversation about. Educational equality. Texas, of course.
Has had affirmative action cases. Wages against the University of Texas. They've had their own, they have a 10% rule.
But the 10% rule does not make up for the discrepancies. Of college admissions in that state.
So 4 decades after the decision in the Rodriguez case and 2 decades after the state adopted the 10% policy rules.
National campaigns for new generation. Love barriers to equality would begin. Of course, to take hold in Texas.
On June, seventeenth. 2023, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas signed into law. Senate Bill 17.
Banning DEI. Diverse equity, diversity, equity, and inclusion in hiring. Prohibiting state colleges and universities from establishing or maintaining DEI offices.
And requiring them to establish policies and procedures for disciplining. An employee or contractor who violates the law.
2 weeks later. On June 2920 23 the Supreme Court issued the SFA versus Harvard decision, concluding consideration that consideration of race as a factor for admissions and Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act.
Of, 1, 64. They redefine the meaning of equality.
And so we're not back to square one. But we are facing a strong headwind. We are facing a strong headwind.
The, the debate about equality, what equality under the law means, has taken on a new turn.
And only, didn't do, let's not kill ourselves. Only marginally does the case focus on access to a university education?
And certainly as interpreted by the Texas legislators. In the form of Senate Bill 17. The student for fair admissions case prohibits all forms of DEI in Texas universities.
Including in employment and in student services. The case will be known for its political impact as much as it is for its legal impact.
The courts color blind theory has the appeal of being simple. Yeah, it is offered no evidence to support the justice Roberts speculation that a race neutrality approach to equality.
Will bring about the end of discrimination. The reasoning in that case offers little more than an ad hominem.
Mad is the way to stop demonstration on the basis of race. Is to stop discriminating. On the basis of race.
Now, what does that mean?
I'm not sure. Exactly what it was supposed to mean. But what it has done is unleashed a wave of legislation throughout the country.
And my Heller team research team has identified anti-DEI policies in states ranging from Idaho to Florida and in between.
Republican lawmakers in more than 30 states have introduced or passed more than a hundred bills to either restrict or regulate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the current legislative session.
And school policies, especially in Texas, have been inconsistent. With different universities interpreting SB.
17 in different ways. But in many in most of those ways. That they have to interpret it and even in some of the places where one thought that the enforcement of SB 17 might be a little bit more forgiving.
They results have been brutal. With firings of entire departments and. And, well, I can give you a list of some of the things that have followed from SB.
17. So with this is of course, we have noted that diversity and this much of this is found in the chronicle of higher education.
If you're interested in calling up on exactly what is going on, diversity officials are being stripped of their titles.
LGBTQ plus student centers have closed. And affinity graduation ceremonies canceled.
The university bulldozed and this is the words of someone who is observing these, has bulldozed the many programs that the multicultural engagement center housed.
Including the new black student weekend. Adelante, Cultivation, the Cultiv, Asian.
A block party for directions and the leadership institutes. Africa, African-american affairs, Asian, Desi Pacific Islander.
American Collective Latino Leadership Council, Native American and Indigenous collective, queer trans black indigenous people of color and allies.
Students for equity and diversity and signature graduation ceremonies like black graduation ceremonies like black graduation, Latinx graduation, graduation.
Lab under graduation. The list goes on and off. No one is being left out of this.
And it's not as though these organizations are excluding any other students. They're open to all of the students who want to participate.
They are not discriminating on the basis of race. But they are being eliminated. And if we think this is just a question about gender or sexuality, gender identity.
It's not. In fact, however, the gender and sexuality center has been replaced. By the Women's Community Center.
Now, I don't know what that means. But, What they are being careful to do is eliminate, erase.
Identities.
And they're being very successful. I witnessed the chaos personally in September of 2023 when I was at Texas Tech University, a place where I had been several times and a place where I had been several times and I always had been in the company of a huge, and always had been in the company of a huge, very, very active and engaged community.
Both inside and off campus. What I witnessed when I was there was. Individual scrambling.
Because They really didn't know whether they were going to have jobs. Or what the jobs would be.
After SB. 17. So, and you know, the, where is the loss?
The loss is, is really huge. It's not just about student services, it's not just about admissions policies.
The loss is not only been about the accessibility to education the loss has been through these campaigns has been to knowledge transmission.
As well as knowledge production. And that means that that what is happening. Is that in 28 states throughout the country legislators, attorney generals and state boards of education have proposed measures that limit the study of involving race, gender, sexual identity, and gender identity.
In addition to higher ed restrictions, proposed restrictions on transmission of educational content in what is called divisive subjects apply to learning in grades K through 12 as well.
So throughout, this movement is sweeping. And it will change education. It will change education as to how it is transmitted.
It will also. Change research. So, I was also at the University of Houston.
This fall and during the QA session someone asked me
How she should respond. To having been told. That she would no longer be able to do the research.
This was a woman who was a graduate student. The research that she had come to school to do. Because it her research required the consideration of identity.
And she was told that she could no longer do it because of SB. 17. So here's where we are.
Now, fortunately, I mean, and that is really what asked, at the, the student for fair admission society case has brought us to.
It's also what legislative policies. Have brought us to. Those 2 forces combined. To create the situation that we are in.
And. While, you know, I am no longer concerned about where I will go to school.
I am concerned about. Where I would my children will go to school. Might affect fictitious children.
I don't have children. My grandchildren will go to school. And what they will be able to learn.
When they're in the schools. And I think those. Are the things that we should be worried about?
Fortunately, American history is and Okay, American history is replete with cases. That the US Supreme Court got wrong.
And I believe that FFA will be. In that long line of cases. That include Dread Scott versus Sanford.
Include Brad, well, you know, Drascott, blacks were altogether unfit to associated with white race.
Either in social or political relations. Bradwell versus Illinois, which in a concurring opinion, the court said.
Women were intended by the creator to be mothers and therefore the decision by the state of Illinois to deny them employment opportunities was reasonable and beneficial to the community.
A minor versus half percent in 1875 where the court upheld the Missouri Constitution that denied women the right to vote.
And Plessy versus Ferguson for the court rule that state imposed segregation of the races was a reasonable exercise of government power to promote health safety welfare and morality of community.
Now know that in 2 instances the court has said or asserted that denying equality for black people and or women was good for the community.
But what community? And so. Equality still is big.
Allowed for some people. But not others. Oh, and that, I believe, is what we are returning to now.
In reality. All those list of students who no longer can get the services that they need who no longer have their interests supported by their college institution, even though they are paying service fees to those institutions.
Will be the losers. And we will all be the losers. If the information that we need.
To move us forward as a society that relies the information and the research that relies. On the acknowledgement of race and gender and sexual identity and gender identity to be valid.
As long as we, we are kept from doing that work. We will have continued issues regarded to health.
Economic stability. How Education. And any other place where we find huge in this country huge disparities.
And that's. The legacy. Of SFA. Versus Harvard.
If you thought it was just about and an elite school. Thank you, Ken. And I won't even get into the fact that Justice Gorsuch says that.
We, he would take the reasoning of SFA. To apply to workplaces too. So that is the movement that's next.
That's already happening. So I'm gonna close, but because I want to talk. Really, about something a little more positive.
And, and I see the person who's helping me out with the, with the, no, no, no more, go back.
I didn't see this. It's already said I've had enough of all the bad news.
Maybe if I move the slide ahead, she will talk about some good news. Maybe if I move the slide ahead, she will talk about some good news.
I think that in fact we are. At a moment, as I said from the beginning, where we can not only interrogate FFA, but we could also.
Propose different ways of thinking about the meaning of equality. And that is why then this slide.
And that comes from the slide idea of. Complete equality. Comes from Justice Thurgood Marshall.
Now. Justice, Justice Brandeis, for example, for homeless university's name is well known for his application of social science to his theory of equality under law.
Justin Marshall was well known as a gifted storyteller. But it wasn't just storytelling offered as, amusement.
It was storytelling offered as insight into the lived experiences of any quality, its insight into the lived experiences of inequality, both past and present.
As a practicing attorney in the courtroom, his stories created an emotional connection that gave listeners, judges, and jurors deeper understanding of the clients experiences.
And it helped. The deciders, the jurors and the judges. It helped them to understand which direction the law should take for those individual parties.
As a justice on the Supreme Court, Justice Marshall drew upon those lived experiences to inform theories about equality.
And to define the protections of the fourteenth amendment and civil rights laws. Of 19 sixties and then and 7 days.
In different ways, both Brandeis and Marshall's idea have contributed. To the courts understanding of the fourteenth amendment particular equality under the law.
Just this partial practice of storytelling. Telling it to. His practice of storytelling to illustrate inequality continued during his time on the court, not just when he was.
And representing clients. But when it was a Supreme Court justice, when he passed away in 1,993, Justice Sandra Day O'connor wrote.
That listening to Thurgood Marshall talk about the social stigmas and lost opportunities suffered by black children and state imposed segregated school deepened her awareness of race-based disparities and reminded her that judges as safeguarders of the Constitution must constantly strive to narrow the gap between the ideal of equal justice and the reality of social inequalities.
Narrowing the gap. Between the ideal. And the reality of people's lived experiences with inequality.
For marshal complete equality requires us to bring together considerations of lived experiences. And democratic principles. And build them into a theory.
Of equal protection under the law. It will not be the colorblind theory. That SFA adopted.
Complete equality requires us to recognize. That racism is a prevailing factor condition in our society. That even the words in the Constitution do not in fact.
In a sense, give the proper coverage. But only if they are identified and they are defined in a way that takes into account.
The ongoing discrimination that exists in this country. Will the Constitution ever live up to its promise of equality, even the limited equality under the law.
As justice on Minnesota. MAYOR suggests equal protection, epistemology requires us to be open and candid about racism.
And not pretend that we can be colorblind. About racism. In a society where white nationalism is on the rise.
Where hate crimes are on the rise. So.
One of the and this is the sort of the last flaw of the SFFA reasoning. And it has to do with what I believe was a misrepresentation of Brown versus Board of Education, starting with the idea that Brown was Brown versus the Board of Education, supported the idea that we should all be.
You know, buy to race. We can't ever talk about race. We can't, Identify race because you know, that would be discrimination.
The other part of SFA that I think we should be concerned about is its failure to to acknowledge that inclusion.
Inclusion.
Under the law. Is good. For our good democracy. And that was a major tenant of Brown versus Board of Education.
And it's something that both the conservatives on the court and the liberals on the court agreed to.
That inclusion and inclusive society. Was critical to democratic principles. As a spouse in our founding founding founding document.
Just as Roberts does not talk about that. And I believe in his opinion. At or in the courts opinion in FFA.
But I believe that. That critical element really fills out. What Justice Marshall had in mind. When he talked about complete equality.
Because what it building. Inclusion and as a critical point of our democracy. Gives us an institutional investment.
And inclusion. That was taken away. By the SFA decision. And so, we have the pieces.
Of what we need to have a different understanding of what equal. Equality under the law can mean today.
Just as Marshall has given it. We also have an understanding and it's a grim understanding of what is lost if we do not move in that direction.
So how are we going to get there? No, I am optimistic. Yo, excuse me.
I'm much more hopeful that I am optimistic. But I am actually quite hopeful.
We can, you know, we can talk about all the things that we have lost. But it's time also for us to talk about where we are now.
We despite all of the setbacks, the generations of rank discrimination. All the unconscious bias and all of the institutional bias that we haven't changed.
We are at a better place than we have ever been as a society. And the, and that is showing out, showing up in the polls in 2 ways.
First of all, 70% of those polled say that they believe that the country, quote, needs to do more to increase social justice.
70% of Apollo. So a movement toward social justice. And understanding the lived experience of people.
Really is an order at this time. I don't think it's ever been higher. It certainly wasn't higher when Brown versus the Board of Education was decided.
But you know, that. It's something that we should all. Really be very proud of.
And hold on to as we're doing our work. To improve the world for people who have been disadvantaged.
And will continue to be disadvantaged. Under the new regime. In addition, I think that the moment and then you can change the slide to the slide.
To the next one. I think that the moment is Right for a collaborative effort to counter anti-rights movement.
Communities of people harmed by the legal decisions and anti-rights. Anti-medical treatment and anti-learning policies have shared experiences in shared pain and shared aspirations.
And I am confident that an appreciation of shared meanings of what constitutes equality under the law can unite us.
To reach a shared goal. And move us closer to complete equality. And so what you have in front of you is something else that.
Makes me hopeful. This is a slide, it's taken from social media posts, students at the University of Texas.
What the University of Texas students are doing are organizing. And you see a whole range of organizations. That are getting together.
To change what is happening. In the institution. Now some of you. Were around.
I'm smiling. When there were students protests at your campuses. Many years ago, some of you were there, I won't call out people and say, raise your hand if you were there if you were living during that era.
That is has been effective way for the countries to move forward in the past. Student protest and these students are Convinced that they can change the course.
Of their education but also the course of the state in which they are. Residing. They have decided if you can, you can fairly read the small print.
But what they are saying is that they are willing to put invest their time and effort into changing the narrative.
The University of Texas. And throughout the state. They have put their energy. Into making the the education that they receive.
The one that they entered the school to receive. And that also gives me hope. Not only do we have public sentiment on our side, we have more resources, including the resources of the student.
But resources of people who have lots of money, people who are supporting research, people who are doing research.
Who are who are Bringing together the data that we need to support, support. Our progress toward equality.
We have more brain power because of the last few decades where we have been building that knowledge into our education.
And so even as Graham is I described the situation involving the legislation that is appearing throughout the country. Even though I am grieving because of what I see happening with the Supreme Court.
I remain hopeful. Because we are in a better place. That we were. 30 years ago, Eva.
To boo the needle forward. And, and I would just say at the end, that you might ask.
How in the world that I can be optimistic. And it's true, it's hard.
But I will tell you this, I'm optimistic. Not only do I think that, you know, understand that this is a marathon, but I'm optimistic because I take the long view.
And here's the personal story behind that. My parents were born in 1911 and 1912.
They raised 13 children. The majority of them raised 13 or the children. Were raised during Jim Crow.
And blatant and open. Discrimination against women. There were 7 boys. And 6 girls.
So any discrimination that could be faced. And in our society. Showed up in our household.
However I know that my parents left this world. In a bar better place. That the world was. When they were born.
I take a long view. Of change, of positive change. Because I've seen it happen. In the lives of my siblings.
And in the lives of my parents. So if you think about. Your own parents. Your own grandparents.
And how the world is a fairer and safer place. Because They have lived through some of the worst times that you couldn't, you could have imagined.
If you think about the changes that they were able to see. And sort of project that forward. To what we believe we can do.
For the generation of students. Who are living under. They what I would call oppression. Of these new movements in colleges.
If you think about where you would like them to be. I think. We can all be helpful.
If we think about How life has been changed. For the people that we love. And how it will be changed.
For the young people in our lives. If we keep working at it. Then we can be helpful. But.
We don't get there with with sitting at home. We don't get there with denying that the problem makes us.
We get there. We're working toward that change. Thank you.
And so, yeah, I was about to sit down, but I think we have questions. We have microphones.
Okay. Nobody wants to ask a question.
Okay, well, I will sit down.
Hello and thank you so much for your time. My name is Shelley and I'm an undergraduate student here.
I'm actually graduating in the coming months. Okay. And I was really struck by your lecture, in particular, your position of you know hope but also optimism toward the future and you know I think about our campus community immediately in particular we do have currently a racial minority senator position on our student union.
But you know in the wake and aftermath of the loss of affirmative action now, we are actually experiencing a change in our student constitution where students were actually recently asked if they would be okay with removing these positions because It's no longer, it doesn't have any standing now in terms of like need and responsibility that the institution has.
For us, unfortunately, or fortunately, it did not pass by student vote. But now student union representatives.
See it as the responsibility of the institution to either, you know, protect these positions or to step in and intervene.
In a student-led government structure. So I guess I'm wondering your thoughts on the positions that universities like our own are in where they're not necessarily being.
Told to, you know, repeal the support for marginalized students, but also are now placed in apparently a position where they're liable to be sued.
Because they now have these positions that. Aren't actually right like a quota aren't necessary.
When we go to code. So I guess I'm wondering your thoughts on that. It is.
You know, it is a case about admissions policies. Now in a court or in at a time when the court was really sort of quite constrained.
About decisions. Oh and and they only decided The facts that were before them. And their decisions only, you know, controlled.
The situations that were described in in the cases, then You know, You do, you would have nothing to worry about.
Because this was an admissions case. What has happened now, unfortunately. Is that the sweep of these decisions have been interpreted to go well beyond.
The language in the court. And I think that's where the quote about. The attacks that existing now are not necessarily based in a real interpretation of the law.
But they're based in the willingness to really. Change any kind of effort. To to move forward.
I and to consider race in the history of racism. In our country. Now the other problem is that you have with these campaigns that are anti, right?
Well funded. No effort. I mean, they're Lots of money is being put in.
I From one. I mean, and as much as anything they have created the fear that You're gonna be sued.
And that has a chilling effect. On what people are doing. I for one think that. Most of those claims.
Are not. There's gonna happen. Because you've got to position. On the, student government association.
That looks for minority participation. I don't think that's going to happen, but it can be used as a weapon.
Against you. So the problem really isn't. The law. It's that some people just ideologically want to see those things removed.
It's not because it has to be remote. Or because the law says it has to be removed.
And so what we really need to do in our educational institutions is to have this conversation. In our Cool.
That makes people aware of why those positions are there, why they exist. And what the benefits are.
2 the institution. For having included people. And we can go back really to what, Marshall talked about, which is.
You know, an understanding of the lived experience of being excluded. Or not having representation. In our institutions.
The conversations can be. About something as specific as that, or it can be about. Just what do.
We as a community Consider to be equality. Oh, so I think there's just a lot of work that has to be done.
And I don't think you need, need listen to the loudest voices in the room on this issue.
Because that's not necessarily, it's not necessarily either the law or the prevailing notion in society.
In a society that says. That 70% of the people say we need to pay more attention to social justice.
Oh, I, you know, but I do think that we have, we have to take account for those.
We gotta, we gotta have those conversations. It's I think we're listening to the wrong voices.
The voices of fear and exclusion and rejection of the progress that we have made in the civil rights movement and all the rights movements that have happened since.
And we need to go back. Really to those really fundamental issues of how we can live together as a community.
And do so with respect. For, everyone who is a part of that community.
That's it. No more questions? I thank you all and have a good evening.
Yes, I'm just. Oh, one more question. No?
Alright, well, what I want to do on behalf of, Dean Maria Madison is to thank you all.
First of all, thank the goberman and the Po Cross, Koran family for. Sponsoring tonight to thank you all for attending and most importantly to thank our speaker, Anita Hill for an amazing lecture.
Thank you all.
And now I invite you while there are refreshments in the back of the room that I hope you'll spend some time in.
Let's talk with one another.