TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Ms. Brown Henderson's personal perspective
• Ms. Henderson's bio

E-mail a friend

Tavis: It's a pleasure to welcome Cheryl Brown Henderson to the program tonight. Her father, the Reverend Oliver Brown will forever be etched into the consciousness and history of the U.S. as the lead plaintiff in the historic 'Brown vs. Board of Education' case of 1954.Fifty years later, Cheryl Brown Henderson is the executive director of the Brown Foundation for Educational Equity, Excellence, and Research. Fittingly tonight we find her in Topeka, Kansas. Cheryl, Nice to see you.

Cheryl Brown Henderson: Hey, Tavis. Thank you so much for having me on.

Tavis: I'm delighted to talk to you. I can imagine you guys are really busy leading up to Monday, the 50th anniversary of "Brown v. Board." Tell me specifically what's happening in Topeka around the anniversary.

Cheryl: Well, you know, Topeka has become the epicenter of all the activity, if you could imagine that. I mean, Kansas already was commemorating a lot of anniversaries. So a lot of political figures are coming--President Bush, Senator Kerry, as well as congressional dignitaries, Supreme Court dignitaries. And so our city's really going to be the place to be, if you will, in terms of hearing what people think respectively about "Brown."

Tavis: You know, what's fascinating for me--I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I do want to get your take on this. I was just thinking the other day that if we had spent this kind of energy and concentrated effort on making education work 50 years after "Brown" as we've spent in the last 50 days talking about "Brown," we might have made some progress here.

Cheryl: Oh, you know I agree with that, absolutely, because one of the things I've said as I've been speaking around the country is that wouldn't it be wonderful, like we're having a hearing on Capitol Hill about September 11, wouldn't it be wonderful to be having a hearing on Capitol Hill about public education?

Tavis: You think, though, as my grandmother says, that that's too much like right, that even 50 years after "Brown v. Board," that for whatever reasons, we still don't take educational excellence seriously enough?

Cheryl: You know I agree with that absolutely. But I do think we need to give our educators and our students a chance, you know, to be heard. We talk about achievement gaps. We talk about failing, underfunded schools, but who's talking to the people on the ground?

Tavis: Let me ask you--And I know the story well. But for those who don't know the story, it's always fascinating for me to share this with other people about how your family got to be the lead case. As you well know, there were 5 cases here, but your daddy was the lead plaintiff. Tell me the funny story and, quite frankly, sexist story of how that happened.

Cheryl: OK. Well, the interesting story about "Brown," I think, as Tavis just said, 5 cases in Topeka, ended up being the lead case. "Topeka" however was a class action like all of the other cases. I mean, "Topeka" was organized by the NAACP, a man by the name of McKinley Burnette, and my father was asked to be a part of this like the other plaintiffs, so he ended up being a member of a group of 13 adults who were plaintiffs on the part of their children, a total of 20 children. And dad ended up the lead plaintiff, we think, because of his gender, because alphabetically his name was not first. And as a lot of the myths would have you believe, you know, dad did not initiate this. It was not his idea. Thurgood Marshall was not his personal attorney. All of those things that people have said over the years are not true. So "Brown v. Board," just like the companion cases, was the NAACP's case, conceived of, strategized, recruited, litigated, completely in their camp.

Tavis: But it did put your family out there. No matter how he got to the top of the stack, he was the top of the stack. Tell me, over these 50 years, how being at the top at the heap, so to speak, with regard to "Brown v. Board," has impacted your family?

Cheryl: Right. Well, it's impacted us in amazing ways, because one of the things you learn early on is that you have a responsibility. If you have a legacy like this associated with your family, you have a responsibility to educate the country, you have a responsibility to keep current on what's happening around how this issue has impacted the country, you have a responsibility to make sure--certain you're accessible to people that want to dialogue about this issue. And we bear that legacy very proudly, regardless of how dad got to the top of the stack.

Tavis: Mm-hmm. One of the things I find interesting--And again, I've been trying--I've been talking about this every day on the radio and here on TV a lot, as well, been trying to find issues that have not been raised. It's hard to do at this point in the game, just a few days away from the big celebration. But I think there's not been enough conversation, Cheryl, that you can speak to better than anybody, about how "Brown" 50 years ago actually impacted U.S. foreign policy.

Cheryl: Right. I agree with you. I think it's something the country doesn't think about often enough, that during the "Brown" era, our country was in the midst of the Cold War, and quite frankly, we needed "Brown," because the propaganda machine on the part of the Soviet Union and Communist-leaning countries was busy, and what they were busy doing was pointing out the fact that the United States really didn't speak with authority, because the United States was guilty of human rights abuses at that time. So what "Brown" enabled the country to do was to send a message that this country was beginning to live up to its constitutional promise. But you and I both know--and now with the Justice Department reopening the Emmett Till case--you know, we know that the victory in "Brown," in terms of foreign policy and human rights, was short-lived.

Tavis: Hmm. I wonder there. Let me fast-forward to a contemporary time.

Cheryl: OK.

Tavis: I wonder then what it says about our country, around the world, that in so many areas, despite all that we have done and have accomplished and indeed, 50 years after "Brown," what does it say about America that we still in many educational categories are not at the top of the heap, we aren't the best in math, we aren't the best in science? What does that say about what we've been doing or not doing, as it were, on the international front 50 years later?

Cheryl: Well, you know, to spin it or to coin a phrase, you know good and well we look for scapegoats. We don't look for solutions. And it's not because we haven't known how to educate kids. I think what our country is engaged in principally is making sure that we'll always have a segment of the population that's operating as second-class citizens. Because any time you have schools that are failing and underfunded, any time those schools are populated by students of color, whether they're Hispanic or African American, you know good and well that ensures that as adults, they're not going to be able to be equipped to accomplish and achieve the way others are, and they will remain in that second-class loop, if you will. It's been a continuum. And you have to wonder sometimes, Tavis, if it's not somewhat purposeful. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but you do have to wonder, because we know how to make the system work. We haven't had the will to do it.

Tavis: Well, let's probe that for just a second, 'cause I raised that issue before, again, over the last few weeks talking to a variety of people about "Brown v. Board" 50 years later. What do you make of the fact that we do in fact have the skill, but not the will as Americans? Everybody talks about how education ought to be our priority. You mentioned John Kerry and George Bush earlier. Both of them will tell you in the next few days in Topeka that they want to be the education president. They'll tout their educational agendas. So everybody talks about this. We talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Why is that?

Cheryl: Well, we do, absolutely. I think part of it is this--every politician has to respond to different constituencies. Generally speaking, the constituencies that are the loudest or the ones that have the most influence in terms of resources are not the education constituents, not parent groups. You know, it's not schoolteachers on the ground. And I think that's part of the problem, which is why it would behoove our country to really seriously give some thought to convening a televised hearing on public education. To me, that would send the loudest message about us having the political will to do the right thing, ultimately. And on the heels of "Brown v. Board," I think it would be a masterful stroke for somebody to pull that together.

Tavis: There have been any number of conversations about the fact, number of books written for that matter around this. I helped edit and compile a book. Charles Ogletree, the brilliant Harvard professor has a book out to my point called "All Deliberate Speed." Ogletree argues in this book--and others have made the same argument--that with all due respect to your father and the other plaintiffs, that "Brown" was really sabotaged from the very beginning. As you well know, there were 2 cases, "Brown" one and "Brown" two. That now-infamous phrase, "all deliberate speed," again as you know, came out of 'Brown' two. It was really a nod by the court to Southern segregationists telling them, "take all the time you need," just use deliberate speed to really implement the spirit of what "Brown" is all about. So there are those who argue that 50 years later--50 years ago, "Brown" was sabotaged from the very beginning.

Cheryl: Well, I don't dispute that at all. I agree with it, because looking at "deliberate," it means, you know, extremely slow, and so I think a message was being sent. The other thing we have to look at, too, in terms of "Brown" being sabotaged, it would have also been extremely credible, and it would have moved things along more quickly if the administration in the White House at the time would have simply issued an executive order telling the country that this was a mandate and that it needed to happen immediately. Well, we didn't hear anything from the White House until the people in Little Rock found themselves, you know, on the 6:00 news, embarrassing the country. So I agree with you that "Brown" was sabotaged from day one. I mean, not only did schools close in Arkansas. Schools closed in Virginia for 5 years. That's disgraceful. But it certainly says that the South intended to drag their feet. But the North soon joined them, and now we have a country where we have children with an achievement gap and failing schools and all the rhetoric that we're currently engaged in.

Tavis: And to the rhetoric and problems we have to deal with, you make the point brilliantly that we really shouldn't say, as many people have said, that 50 years later, American schools are re-segregated again. You don't like that word "re-segregated." Tell me why.

Cheryl: No, I don't like that word, because I think that anytime people that engage in statistics start telling us about what's going on, they never give us the history behind it. I want to know percentage-wise, statistically, whatever, how many schools really did integrate. We grew up with the word "integration," not desegregation. So, I think it's just as important to know if we were ever at a point where we can talk about having gone backwards. I contend that we never were at a point of, be it numerically, be it resources, where we could really with any conviction and truth talk about re-segregation.

Tavis: I've only got a few seconds here left, unfortunately. Tell me--I want to end on a high note here. Tell me about what's happening at the Monroe Elementary School in Topeka in the coming days here.

Cheryl: OK. Monroe Elementary School, as maybe the country does or doesn't know, is in fact now the "Brown v. Board" national historic site. It was one of the 4 African American schools segregated for children here in Topeka. That bill was signed in '92, and now it's going to be a visitor center that interprets the "Brown" story in the context of the civil rights movement and in context of the complete African American experience in this country. I would encourage everybody to come out and visit. It's a history lesson extraordinaire. But we recognize that "Brown" is unfinished business, and we tell people at the end of the exhibit to pass it on. The work is not done yet.

Tavis: Well, the work is not done yet, but thanks to your family, the work at least got started 50 years ago. Thank you for coming on the show, Cheryl. Nice to see you.

Cheryl: Thank you, Tavis. OK. Thank you.

Tavis: My pleasure. Up next on this program, actor Blair Underwood and filmmaker Sharon Baker on their new documentary about the "Brown" decision. You stay with us.