The Derrick Bell Reader Quotes

“Today, little has changed. Many poorer whites oppose social reform as “welfare programs for blacks” although, ironically, they have employment, education, and social service needs that differ from those of poor blacks by a margin that, without a racial scorecard, is difficult to measure. Interest”
― Derrick A. Bell, The Derrick Bell Reader

“is necessary to remember that the issue of school segregation and the harm it inflicted on black children did not first come to the Court’s attention in the Brown litigation: blacks had been attacking the validity of these policies for 100 years. Yet, prior to Brown, black claims that segregated public schools were inferior had been met by orders requiring merely that facilities be made equal. What accounted, then, for the sudden shift in 1954 away from the separate but equal doctrine and towards a commitment to desegregation? The decision in Brown to break with the Court’s long-held position on these issues cannot be understood without some consideration of the decision’s value to whites, not simply those concerned about the immorality of racial inequality, but also those whites in policymaking positions able to see the economic and political advances at home and abroad that would follow abandonment of segregation. First, the decision helped to provide immediate credibility to America’s struggle with Communist countries to win the hearts and minds of emerging third world peoples. Advanced by lawyers for both the NAACP and the federal government, this point was not lost on the news media. Time magazine, for example, predicted that the international impact of Brown would prove scarcely less important than its effect on the education of black children: “In many countries, where U.S. prestige and leadership have been damaged by the fact of U.S. segregation, it will come as a timely reassertion of the basic American principle that ‘all men are created equal.’”5”
― Derrick A. Bell, The Derrick Bell Reader

“Consider Lochner v. New York,5 where the Court refused to find that the state’s police powers extended to protecting bakery employees against employers who required them to work in physically unhealthy conditions for more than 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week. Such maximum hour legislation, the Court held, would interfere with the bakers’ inherent freedom to make their own contracts with the employers on the best terms they could negotiate…. For blacks, of course, we can compare Lochner with the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.6 In that case, the Court upheld the state’s police power to segregate blacks in public facilities even though such segregation must, of necessity, interfere with the liberties of facilities’ owners to use their property as they saw fit.”
― Derrick A. Bell, The Derrick Bell Reader

“Bell’s activism did not come at the cost of his writing. A few years later he published two law review articles of startling originality that won him widespread attention in the law school world. The first was “Serving Two Masters: Integration Ideals and Client Interests in School Desegregation Litigation,” published in Yale Law Journal in 1976. Bell had became convinced that the black community did not need—or, in many cases, want—busing, the school desegregation remedy that civil rights lawyers had been pursuing for at least a dozen years. Instead, they wanted better schools. This kind of talk was heresy within the NAACP, which at that time was staunchly committed to enforcing the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education, their great legal breakthrough. Bell sounded what turned out to be one of his signature themes: the conflict of interest inherent in much public interest litigation. American law requires a flesh-and-blood plaintiff, usually an ordinary person, with “standing”—a specific, concrete grievance with a specific actor or defendant. Much public interest litigation, however, is maintained by specialized litigation centers, like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund or the National Organization of Women. These litigators must represent victims of the policies they want to change. The idea is to file a case challenging the unjust policy, determined to take it to the Supreme Court in the hope that it will announce new law. In all this,”
― Derrick A. Bell, The Derrick Bell Reader