Elizabeth Horton Sheff Interview transcript

This item is featured in:

Elizabeth Horton Sheff Oral History

    Legal Defense Fund Oral History Project 

   

  

 

Elizabeth Horton Sheff 

Interviewed by Danita Mason-Hogans 

December 7, 2024 

Hartford, Connecticut 

Length: 01:37:08 

 

   

  

  

Conducted in collaboration with the Southern Oral History Program at University of North 

Carolina at Chapel Hill 

LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 

Inc. 



2 
 

This transcript has been reviewed by Elizabeth Horton Sheff, the Southern Oral History 

Program, and LDF. It has been lightly edited, in consultation with Elizabeth Horton Sheff, for 

readability and clarity. Additions and corrections appear in both brackets and footnotes. If 

viewing corresponding video footage, please refer to this transcript for corrected information.  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



3 
 

[START OF INTERVIEW] 

Danita Mason-Hogans: [00:00:00] I’m Danita Mason-Hogans for the Southern Oral 

History Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It’s December 7, 2024, 

and I’m here with Elizabeth Horton Sheff in Hartford, Connecticut, to conduct an interview 

for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund Oral History Project. Ms. Horton Sheff, you were 

instrumental in the landmark Sheff v. O’Neill lawsuit for equal educational opportunities. I 

want to thank you so much for being here and sharing your experiences today. 

Elizabeth Horton Sheff: [00:00:34] Thank you very much. It is nice to be here with 

you. 

DMH: [00:00:37] Thank you. So, let’s begin by talking about 1952 and growing up in 

Hartford in the Charter Oak community. Would you talk a little bit about your community 

and the neighborhood, your parents? 

EHS: [00:00:54] Well, my mom was a single mom, and she worked very hard to 

shield us from the fact that we were very poor. By which I mean, if there was a pair of shoes 

that I had to have or I would die—I’m still here, right?—I got the shoes. We never 

experienced eviction. Our lights never got shut off. There was always food in the refrigerator. 

And the telephone never got disconnected—a very important ingredient in the lives of four 

girls growing up. Charter Oak Terrace was public housing. It’s been torn down now. In our 

community, I was fortunate enough to live with people of all different racial backgrounds. 

So, I got to know people. And the one thing I attribute to my mother that has helped me over 

the years is that she never said that “Ms. Bansavich is white.” She never said that. She was 

always “Ms. Bansavich.” She never gave a racial tag to people. So, Ms. Bansavich was “Ms. 

Bansavich.” She made the best spaghetti sauce ever. I used to sit on her step, and she would 

let me taste it as it cooked all day. The Baileys lived up on the hill, and they were West 

Indian. The Rocks were Asian. The Riveras were Hispanic. So I grew up with all kinds of 



4 
 

people, and that helped me understand that people are people. My mother, being a single 

mom, she worked a lot. And so, we were left at home. We were never alone. Mr. Bailey was 

the neighborhood father for a lot of us who didn’t have fathers. If Mr. Bailey saw you and 

you were doing something you weren’t supposed to do, Mr. Bailey would let you know, 

“No.” And so all the adults in our community, every one of those adults, looked after every 

child. 

DMH: [00:03:42] Let me ask you, you mentioned a telephone and your siblings. Can 

you talk a little bit about your siblings? 

EHS: [00:03:48] Oh dear, let’s see. I had three siblings—one passed—three sisters. If 

you don’t think that that was a joy growing up in a household of three girls, it was crazy at 

times. I have an older sister, Jeanette, who actually has the same birthday as me. We were 

both born on August 12, two years apart. And then there’s Deborah, which you’ve met here 

today. And then Geraldine, who was under me by two years, she passed. Growing up with my 

sisters, it was typical. We fought, we laughed. Deborah used to wear my clothes and make me 

mad because she used to push the sleeves up, and then you put the sleeves down and they’d 

be all puffed. It was a great childhood. But again, I think the best part of my growing up years 

is that I lived in an integrated community. That means a lot when you stop to think about how 

people think about people. 

DMH: [00:05:04] You also grew up in the church. Could you talk a little bit about the 

church and its influence on your activism? 

EHS: [00:05:15] We’re sitting in my home church. I’ve been a member here all my 

life. And my mother would bring us to church every Sunday, without fail. We went to church 

every Sunday. I grew up here in Warburton Community Congregational United Church of 

Christ. It had an integrated ministry. My mother served as the first Black lay minister here. I 

love coming to church. We had great worship services. We had fellowships. We had special 



5 
 

occasions we would do. We would partner with other United Church of Christ churches to 

pair up families so that we, again, furthered our understanding about the “others.” So, this 

was great. I mean, I have my own problems, or I should say misgivings, about organized 

religion in general—not really a fan. However, I believe that there’s something greater than 

me, to whom I am accountable. I’m a very spiritual person, not necessarily a “church lady.” I 

tease people and tell them, “I’m a Congregationalist.” We go to church for 60 minutes, not 

59, not 61: 60 minutes. But here, church never lasts for 60 minutes here. They go on and on, 

and on and on, and sometimes I just start to itch. Because I feel like the ministry is not in 

these churches. People go to church on Sunday, and they scream, and they shout, and they do 

all these things, and then they go home and not pay attention to their neighbors’ needs. Jesus’ 

ministry was in the street. It wasn’t in the temples. So I work really hard on my ministry in 

the street. And that’s how I feel about Sheff v. O’Neill. It’s a ministry, it’s a calling. I didn’t 

just get up one day and say, “Oh, I have nothing else to do. Let’s sue the state of 

Connecticut.” No, there was a real need, and the need continues today. 

DMH: [00:08:08] The big, huge Brown v. Board of Education happened when you 

were about 2 years old. And by the time you began attending elementary school and middle 

school, the schools in Hartford were integrated. What are your memories of those early years 

and your impressions of your experience, either being fully integrated or still racially 

segregated? 

EHS: [00:08:35] I always attended school with different kinds of people. It was 

different for my baby sisters, Deborah and Geraldine, because by the time they got rolling 

into the public school, K through 12, the community had become more segregated. But for 

me, when I went through school, there were all kinds of people there. However, Danita, I was 

really a loner throughout my entire life. I did my thing. So, I wasn’t into cliques or all of that. 

I was there to learn, and I worked hard to learn all that I could do because it was important to 



6 
 

me to know something about, “What’s the world out there?” I wanted to know, and I made it 

my business to teach myself. I particularly want to note that in my senior year of school, high 

school, Hartford Public High, I was absent quite a bit. And where was I? Well, I would save 

the money that I earned from working a part-time job or my lunch money. I would buy a train 

ticket and go to New York, spend the day in New York. Go down to New York, look around, 

have lunch, come back. I would spend many hours in the courtrooms, in the museums—here, 

the Wadsworth Museum. I learned. I taught myself. I learned early on that there’s a big world 

out there, a welcoming world, outside of the box that most people are in. That’s what I fear 

that our children are chained to now: They’re not incarcerated in a physical cell; the 

incarceration is the cell within their minds. 

DMH: [00:11:08] What were the schools like when your children came up, and did 

they have any experience with racial incidents when they were in school? 

EHS: [00:11:16] Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge. I was a “helicopter 

mom” way back before there was a “helicopter mom.” I would be in those schools almost as 

much as they were because I felt it was my responsibility to ensure that they were getting 

educated. I laid that on the school, but I also wanted to make sure that they weren’t disrupting 

their education. So, that was on them. It didn’t make them happy to see me, but that was a 

personal problem because I was going to stay right there with you and make sure that you 

were doing what you’re supposed to do. Their job was to go to school, and so I made sure 

that they were doing their job. 

DMH: [00:12:09] You were a member in the leadership of the Westbrook Village 

Tenants Association, even before any of the school cases came up. Could you talk a little bit 

about your leadership in that association? 

EHS: [00:12:26] Westbrook Village is public housing in the northwest corner of 

Hartford, over by the University of Hartford. I lived there, raised my children there, and we 



7 
 

had a tenants association. It was our job to promote discussion amongst other residents and to 

address with the Hartford Housing Authority any concerns that residents had. There were a 

few little, minor things like that. But one of the most important accomplishments I could say I 

did as a member of the Westbrook Village Tenants Association was to start the first recycling 

pilot in the city of Hartford. It drives me crazy that people don’t recycle. This is our Earth. 

Do better. We started the first pilot in the city of Hartford. I was able to work with the 

Housing Authority to actually hire Westbrook Village residents to help with this pilot, which 

meant that we had those long sticky things with the clippy clippies, and we would go into the 

recycle bin and take out stuff that wasn’t supposed to be in the recycling bins. We would talk 

with our fellow residents about the need to recycle and how we are damaging our Earth with 

all this packaging and all this plastic and all these cans. I think that’s one of the things. 

DMH: [00:14:26] What year was it when you were doing the recycling? 

EHS: [00:14:30] Oh, jeez, girl, you want to ask me years? I can’t remember 

yesterday. Let’s see, my daughter was born in [19]72, so it must have been the early [19]80s. 

Must have been in the early 19[80s] that we started the recycling pilot. And people know me 

for Sheff v. O’Neill, but I’ve done other things as well. One of the “hit you in the heart” 

matters that I addressed was grandparents raising grandchildren. I served as the Director of 

the Community Renewal Team, Community Services Division. I kept seeing more and more 

and more grandparents raising grandchildren coming in for services. Just to make sure that 

our audience doesn’t get it twisted, it wasn’t always because the parent was on drugs. People 

want to think that. But there were mental health problems, there were financial problems 

where the parent just didn’t have the ability to raise the child, and the grandparents took over. 

I was then on the Hartford City Council, and I worked with the council, the City of Hartford, 

and HUD [the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development], locally and federally, 

to develop a housing area specifically for grandparents raising grandchildren. That’s in North 



8 
 

Hartford. It’s called Generations, and the grandparents who live there have legal custody of 

their [grand]children. Every last one of those units are Section 8-supported, so it’s affordable. 

But the best part of all of that is that I worked with the architects and the grandparents raising 

grandchildren to help design those units. One of the things that I recall quite readily right 

now, and always, is the kitchen and the living room question—the wall in the middle. The 

grandparents said they needed to have a hole in the wall so that they could see into the living 

room and see their grandchildren. It was an experience working to develop, and it’s still 

active today. It’s still there. 

DMH: [00:17:52] That’s wonderful. Let’s talk about the meeting that you attended 

with attorney John Brittain. Would you talk a little bit about that meeting where he invited 

community members to a meeting to talk about quality schools? 

EHS: [00:18:12] You say quality, but it’s quality, integrated schools. I think that it 

needs to be denoted right now that we’re talking about quality, integrated schools. When 

people talk about “quality,” they don’t necessarily talk about integration. And for me, quality 

has to include integration. It has to include the ability to attend school with persons who are 

not like you, to learn from and teach about not only culture, but about commonality of 

humanity.  

But you asked me about the meeting that I attended. Actually, I wasn’t invited to this 

meeting. Barbara Fowler, who was then the President of the Westbrook Village Tenants 

Association—I was Vice President—she was invited to the meeting because she had a 

daughter in Project Concern, which was then—they call it Project Choice now—but it is a 

program where urban students can go to suburban schools. Because here in Connecticut, it is 

unlawful for your child to attend a school outside of his or her town residency. Barbara was 

invited. She had a daughter in Project Concern, now Choice, so she was a little afraid of the 

political ramifications. So, she asked me to go and take notes. And Ms. Danita, I’ve been 



9 
 

taking notes since then. It was that, 1989, how many years ago was that? Okay, 30-

something. John was not the only orchestrator of this case. John is most known, but the actual 

germ of this case came with John’s input and Martha Stone. Martha Stone is the founder of 

the Center for Children’s Advocacy. She was then a lawyer at UConn School of Law, like 

John, and it was them together. I want to say, “Shout-out to Martha,” because Martha is still 

here, still working; John is not. This meeting was a community meeting that was hosted by 

several public interest law organizations: the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the American 

Civil Liberties Union, the National Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. And 

then locally, it was John and Martha from UConn School of Law [and] Wes Horton, a private 

attorney who actually was the filer of Horton v. Meskill, which was the first financing suit 

that spoke to education in the state of Connecticut. Also locally, it was the neighborhood 

Puerto Rican attorneys. So it was a meeting that they invited community people to, to talk 

about the status of education in the City of Hartford.  

The thing that also needs to be noted is that they tried this the year before—so [19]88, 

[19]87, [19]88—but it didn’t take. But in 1989, they gathered us all together. I went, and the 

presentation was eye-opening for me because I had no idea that things were that bad. I really 

didn’t. Like I said, I was in there. My children weren’t experiencing any negative racial 

impact or gaps in their learning, or being unable to read. But during the meeting, the 

presenter noted one statistic that stays with me today, and that was, in 1989, 74% of students 

in Hartford’s eighth grade needed assistance with remedial reading. Let’s just say this plainly: 

74% of the students in Hartford’s eighth grade could not read, 74%. For me, that wasn’t 74% 

of students failing—I see that as the system failing 74% of our kids. Startling, startling. I 

mean, I was really taken aback. How could this be? How could you be in the eighth grade and 

not be able to read? How did you even get to the eighth grade if you can’t read? If you can’t 

read, then there goes your ability to do math, your ability to do science, all of the things that 



10 
 

you would think normally our children are engaged in. Danita, that to me, that shook me to 

my core. It was like, “Oh no, no. Oh, no, no.” 

DMH: [00:24:42] I’m really taken by you saying, oftentimes we term it as “students 

are failing.” But you said that the system failed the students. Could you talk a little bit about 

that? Elaborate on that just a little bit. 

EHS: [00:24:56] Our systems, I think, are designed really to put people in pegs, and 

put people in holes, and put in people in boxes. When it came to that issue in particular, it’s 

like to me, “Okay, school system, you don’t know these kids can’t read? You have no idea 

that they can’t read?” That can’t be true. That just can’t be true. So, if the system has 

knowledge of its failures, why isn’t it doing something about that? And you can’t tell me that 

these folks did not know that our babies could not read. That’s just nonsense. So it’s like, 

“Get a grip. And you’re getting paid to do this, right? This is not a volunteer position.” You 

cannot tell me that these folks did not know that they were just passing these kids along. It 

was like, “Wait a minute, hold up. This is not going to pass this door without being 

addressed.” 

DMH: [00:26:30] I think you mentioned that you used to take Milo, your son, with 

you to some of these meetings. In fact, Milo was the person who wanted to put his name as 

the lead plaintiff on the suit against Governor William O’Neill. What prompted him to make 

that decision? 

EHS: [00:26:55] Well, you know, and it’s true. I’m glad you said that, Ms. Danita. 

Because it was Milo who decided that he wanted to participate. I’m a civil rights activist. I’m 

a social justice activist, so he went with me to all of these meetings. He was there. He stood 

beside me when we did a candlelight vigil for persons affected with HIV/AIDS, way back 

when those out there thought that people who were experiencing that were some kind of 

lepers. He was with me. He used to go to the tenants meetings, marches on Washington. He 



11 
 

was kind of used to it. I think he thought that that’s how every child grew up. He was used to 

that. He was aware of my social justice work. Granted, when we talk today, Milo back then, 

who came to me at the second meeting—I went home and talked to him, and he came with 

me to the second meeting. And I asked him, “Do you want to sign up to be a part of this?” He 

said, “Yes.” Granted, today, when we speak of it, I think he thought it was going to be like 

Judge Judy. [Laughter] Sign up, 60 minutes, decision. All done. Right? As a matter of fact, I 

didn’t think it was going take this. It’s been three-plus decades, and we are still at it. Milo, he 

decided that he wanted to be a part of this case. I didn’t force him. People think I forced him. 

I didn’t force him. I didn’t sign him up without his permission. Ten families, were chosen out 

of those who signed up to be a part of this lawsuit. And we are all of different racial, ethnic 

backgrounds, different socioeconomic backgrounds. But we all believed in one thing, and 

that is the promise of education, the promise of Brown. Out of those 10 families, there were 

second rounds of interviews, and then that’s when I was requested, with Milo, him to be the 

plaintiff, me to be mother plaintiff. And, you know, we’ve been at it ever since. 

DMH: [00:29:49] How did your family and your neighbors, how do they talk about 

the lawsuit? 

EHS: [00:29:55] My family wasn’t extremely overjoyed with our participation. They 

were concerned about political ramifications. They were concerned about possible harm. I did 

receive death threats when we first started this suit—ugly telephone calls and someone 

coming to my house and putting in my mailbox a little teeny tiny note that said, “A good n----

r is a dead n----r.” This is 1989. Here, “up South.” [Laughter] People think that all of the 

woes of racism and Klan stuff, all of that’s down South. Nope. Nope. Nope. Here “up South,” 

I call Connecticut “up South.” Here “up South,” we have our own personal brand of hatred 

because here, we’re very polite. Well, we were until five or six years ago. But, here, people 

are polite. They smile in your face. They may pretend everything is hunky-dory while they be 



12 
 

stabbing you all in the back. For me, me personally, I would prefer what’s down South. You 

don’t like me? Fine. Just say it. I’m good with that. I’m not one of those people who speaks 

rainbows and butterflies. I do not do unicorns, but I do like unicorns. I would prefer you be 

straight with me here.  

My family was a little concerned, but they knew they couldn’t stop me because they 

knew that when I feel an injustice has to be addressed, I’m called to that place. See, I think 

about that, Danita. I wasn’t even invited to the meeting. So, why was I there? Why was I 

there? For me, this work is not a sidebar thing. This is my calling in life. Because I believe 

that every person has something endowed in them, given by something other than them, that 

we’re supposed to recognize, hone, and share. “What’s your gift?” I say to people. Everybody 

has different gifts. For me, this is my calling. Sometimes I don’t like it. Sometimes I just 

don’t. Sometimes I just want to shut down and say, “Okay, I’m done.” You know? But that’s 

not the way it is. You don’t choose where you’re led. You just follow. 

DMH: [00:33:19] What were your neighbors saying about the lawsuit? 

EHS: [00:33:25] Some of them understood it. Some of them didn’t. But I didn’t really 

spend a lot of time on trying to convince those, necessarily, around me in my own circle. We 

spent a lot of time convincing the broader community. So we were out speaking at all kinds 

of—the plaintiffs used to pair up in twos, and we would go out. My partner was Dr. Eugene 

Leach. He is a Professor of History, Emeritus, from Trinity College, and he is white. And he 

lives in West Hartford. And he got much more money than me. We went out together, and we 

talked to people. I spent a lot of time in the community. When you say “neighbors,” I believe 

that “neighbor” goes beyond the person that lives next door. In that context, then people 

would, when we spoke to them about the need—what is behind the push for quality 

integrated education when it comes to talking about social and racial justice, about equal 

educational opportunity? A lot of folks out there, like me, when I first got the lightbulb turned 



13 
 

on, they had no clue that things were that bad because it wasn’t affecting them. It wasn’t 

impacting them. We opened the eyes of a lot of people, and they remain open. Some of those 

folks that I spoke with and spoke to are now a part of the Sheff Movement Coalition, which 

has been active for 20-plus years. It’s a coalition of parents, of community leaders, educators, 

activists, who we meet every third Saturday of every month. We promote the continual 

dialogue of education, of quality integrated education. The conversations are still happening 

with our neighbors. 

DMH: [00:36:10] I definitely want to come back to that because that’s a long time to 

continue this work. 

EHS: [00:36:16] Right, and it’s mostly volunteer. We get a little bit of funding, but 

we use that funding to hire a community organizer. I’m fond of saying, “I’m the only non-

paid CEO in the state of Connecticut.” [Laughter] I do a lot of the coalition administrative 

work along with my co-chair, Jim Boucher. 

DMH: [00:36:45] I want to go back to the case for a second. 

EHS: [00:36:47] Okay. 

DMH: [00:36:49] Because it wasn’t just about race, it was also about poverty and 

access to schools for all children living in the urban areas of Hartford. In 1985, the LDF 

along with, as you stated earlier, the ACLU and Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, attorney 

Wesley Horton, and others filed the Sheff v. O’Neill complaint on behalf of Black, Latinx, 

and white students in Hartford, Connecticut, public schools who were being denied an 

education equal to that of their white counterparts in suburban school districts, due to the 

racial segregation and the economic disparities between Hartford schools and those in nearby 

suburbs. Could you talk a little bit about the attorneys, John Brittain, Phil Tegeler, Wesley 

Horton. And I see that Ted Shaw and others were attorneys in 1996 at the Supreme Court. 



14 
 

Would you talk a little bit about your interactions with the attorneys on the case, and what 

were they like, and how did you and the communities work with them? 

EHS: [00:38:05] We began this case in 1989. And again, this is a plaintiff suit—it’s 

not a class action. There’s a big difference, in that in this plaintiff suit, the attorneys are more 

accountable to the plaintiffs. That’s important to note. When I first started working with 

them, all the attorneys that you named came and went. The attorney that helped me was John 

Charles Boger, Jack Boger. I see he’s a part of the Oral History [Project]. In the beginning 

though, to be honest, I had to help the attorneys understand my value, by which I mean that it 

took them a while to appreciate who I am as a person and what I do. We had to have several 

“come to Jesus” talks about their dismissive nature. But not Jack. I was helped by him to 

bridge that gap, and he helped me bridge that gap with the other attorneys. Ted Shaw came 

later. But my initial encounters with the legal team—I had to make them understand that 

without a plaintiff, you don’t have a case, in that we who live the experience, we have more 

value than they could ever imagine. That you cannot talk about, you know, “ex parte 

communication” and all of this, you know, Latin stuff. Now, I don’t get it. I don’t have the 

Latin words, but I know what you’re talking about because I’m not stupid. I get it. And 

hanging around with you for three-plus decades, I get it. But I think the attorneys, in the 

beginning, had to really get used to me because I’m a forceful woman. I don’t take things 

lying down. And I’ll say to you if I feel that you’re being disrespectful. It took them a minute 

to get used to me, but they rolled around well, as I would say, and began to listen. And I think 

that’s really important when you talk about joining civil rights advocacy with legal advocacy: 

You have to listen to one another. And I’ve made it my point over these three-plus decades to 

make sure that what we’re doing on the ground in our social justice work does not have 

negative ramifications for the case. And I’ve worked real hard to get them to understand that 



15 
 

what you do or propose in the courtroom doesn’t crush what we’re doing in the community or 

how the community feels about it. 

DMH: [00:42:16] What kind of advice or guidance would you give? What did your 

interaction with these attorneys cause you to think about? And [what] advice would you give 

for somebody else who’s entering into this partnership, because the legal case is becoming 

increasingly important? What kind of things would you say, upon your reflection? 

EHS: [00:42:45] Say to whom? 

DMH: [00:42:46] What would you say to attorneys and community members who are 

about to go into a lawsuit? What do you think are important things that they should learn 

from each other—the strengths that the attorneys bring, what are some of the strengths that 

the community brings, and how would you offer that they could bridge that gap? 

EHS: [00:43:09] I think I’ve already answered that question: communication. I think 

that, I know that, for the attorneys, I again would say, you need to listen. When your plaintiff 

tells you something, you need to listen, whether that fits into your rubric thinking as an 

attorney or not. Because I find that sometimes—I tease them all the time. I say, “I don’t know 

what they do to y’all in law school, but y’all completely lose your imagination. You’re so 

used to precedents. ‘It goes like this.’ Not necessarily.” To the attorneys, I would say, “You 

need to listen better, and you need to work more and understand better the people who you 

represent and the communities you represent.” To the community, I would say, “This is not a 

short-term venture. This is not for the foolhardy or the weak in mind. If you’re going to do 

this, and you sign up, you need to sign up for the long haul.” People seem to not remember all 

of the folks who came before us, for the long haul, some of whom gave their lives for us to 

have opportunity today. If we stop, if we sit on our laurels, if we think that everything is good 

and cool, and you don’t have to do anything else, we are damning our children. There’s no 



16 
 

room for, “Oh, it’s not like that anymore.” Yes, it is. It’s just like that. Might have 

metamorphosed into something looking different. Still just like that. 

DMH: [00:45:32] What do you foresee as the role of litigation in the future, given 

these current times? 

EHS: [00:45:43] I think that the only way that systemic change happens is if there’s a 

combination of legal action and community action. That’s the only way that things change. 

The lawyers out there who are public interest lawyers who have interest in serving different 

communities who are marginalized, they need to keep doing their job and they actually need 

to step it up now. For community activists and folks out there who are advocates for the 

marginalized, then it’s time to do a couple of things. One is find your allies. Stop this 

hoarding, I would say, of ideas and action. I know that there’s funding questions that go 

along with what I’m saying, but that’s how they get us. They get us fighting and scrapping 

over two pennies. We’re so busy fighting each other that we don’t know that we’re being 

hoodwinked and bamboozled. I say they like to give us a Happy Meal without the fries. And 

McDonald’s fries, that’s the best thing. That other stuff—but okay, never mind. I’m getting 

off-track here. All right, let me pay attention. I would say to folks in the community, “Stop 

trying to make excuses for not working together. Share your resources, share your talents, 

and then work alongside those public interest lawyers who are ready to take the struggle to 

the court. So struggle in the street, struggle in the court.” 

DMH: [00:47:55] Milo was in the fourth grade when his suit was filed. Do you 

remember anything about that day? What were, the teachers and folks at school, what was 

their response? 

EHS: [00:48:07] I remember, the day before they filed, Milo and I had a 

conversation: “Get ready to do this.” “Yep.” “Get ready do this.” “Yep, okay. I’m good.” 

Back to whatever he was doing, and I went back to whatever I was doing. I remember we had 



17 
 

to take pictures. I ain’t never taken so many pictures in my life. I don’t consider myself a 

photogenic person. Matter of fact, I don’t really like pictures. I’m of Native American 

philosophy that something about taking pictures captures your soul. I know, I do. So, the day 

we took pictures, and then we went home. And then the papers—after they filed at the end of 

the day, which is generally how they do, they wait until close to closing, and then they file—

then the hullabaloo broke out about this case. But it wasn’t really that big a deal to me. It was 

another part of my social justice work. It just happened to be about education. I didn’t think it 

was such a big deal. 

DMH: [00:49:57] Did you notice any difference between the interactions with your 

fellow parents and teachers? 

EHS: [00:50:04] Oh yes. Oh yes. If the teacher supported the philosophy of Sheff, 

Milo could do no wrong—got away with stuff he shouldn’t have gotten away with. If the 

teacher was against the philosophy of Sheff, he couldn’t breathe without getting into trouble. 

So that caused me to have to take a lot more trips to the schoolhouse to see what was actually 

going on. That was in the beginning of the suit, for maybe the first six months after filing. 

After that, it just went back to normal. I think that’s an example of what happens in our 

“microwave mentality” minds: It’s there for a second; 60 seconds later, it’s gone. 

DMH: [00:51:10] In 1995, the judge ruled against the suit and in favor of the State. 

However, in July 1996, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that Hartford schools were, in 

fact, racially, ethnically, and economically isolated in violation of the state’s constitutional 

obligation to provide all schoolchildren with racially integrated and substantially equal 

educational opportunities. The Court further concluded that school districting based on the 

town and city boundary lines is unconstitutional and cited a statute that bound school districts 

by town lines as a key factor in the high concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities in the 

towns and Hartford. The Court ordered the State to immediately remedy the racial isolation 



18 
 

experienced in the schools in the area around the state capital. Describe your interactions with 

the LDF lawyers and the attorneys on this case. I know you said that there was a difference. 

So, what were the LDF attorneys like, and how did you and the community members work 

with them? 

EHS: [00:52:29] Before I answer that question, I do want to touch base about 

something that happened when Judge Harry Hammer ruled against us in the lower court. And 

this is important. This is important. It was Rowland who was governor at the time. I think his 

name is John Rowland. He gave the then-Attorney General of our state, who is now a senator, 

[Richard] Blumenthal—Rowland gave Blumenthal a bottle of champagne, and they showed 

this on TV, how ecstatic they were. A bottle of champagne. My son, Milo, organized—now 

this is back before there was TikTok and Instagram and all of that—they organized, by word 

of mouth, a walkout from Hartford High, Weaver High, and Bulkeley High. This is the kids. 

These are the students. It’s not on social media. We had a walkout, and those kids walked out 

of those three high schools, and we walked to the Capitol building. When we got there, with 

all them little brown children, girl, I mean, the stir was tremendous. They’re not used to 

seeing brown people who aren’t in $200,000 Brooks [Brothers] suits up in there. They’re not 

used to seeing regular folk. I think it’s important that the reaction that came from our youth is 

an acknowledgement that they understood what was going on and how unjust it was. That 

was followed by the religious community, the pastors, coming out and saying, “What is 

this?”  

When I think about the time we spent in the courtroom, all those many weeks—was it 

six or eight weeks of litigation? I’m looking at Judge Hammer, and I’m watching the 

proceedings, because I was there almost every single day. I’m looking at it, and I’m thinking, 

I mean, judges are trained not to show emotion. They’re not supposed to give away. That 

don’t always work, right? That’s only on Judge Judy [television show]. We made such a solid 



19 
 

case that I was stunned when Harry Hammer wrote that decision. And I think, okay, this may 

be my imagination. I have a vivid one. I think that Harry Hammer, who was close to 

retirement at that time, was probably at somebody’s house, or somebody’s cocktail party, or 

somebody’s fundraiser, and somebody said to him, “Harry, you don’t want to get into that.” 

That’s my make-believe. I don’t have any other understanding [of] how he could rule that 

way. He wrote such a bad decision. Because, remember, this is a state-based case. 

Connecticut has in its Constitution the right for public education. Judge Hammer, his decision 

was so poorly written that the Supreme Court invited us to come up to them. When I think 

about that time, I think that’s the day that I saw the childhood light go out in my son. That’s 

really hurtful. There’s a picture of us at the Civil Liberties Union where we waited for the 

court ruling. I saw the light go right out. It was hard then, Ms. Danita. It’s hard now to talk 

about that because something in me blames me for taking that light away. I engaged, you 

know. However, I’m not that nostalgic or think myself of that importance that I don’t know 

that that light would have went out anyway. 

DMH: [00:58:22] Well, the light went out, but the fire set in, right? Because he 

organized. 

EHS: [00:58:27] Yeah, he did. He did, I mean, by word of mouth. There’s a picture of 

us. I have a picture from—I don’t know how the Hartford Courant got ahold of this, but it 

was a picture of me walking with the kids from Weaver High School to the Capitol. Actually, 

I met the mother of one of the youth that walked with us from Weaver at a pizza shop a few 

months back. 

DMH: [00:59:12] In 1998, the Sheff plaintiffs filed a motion for a court order to 

require the State to adhere to the Supreme Court ruling. In the following year, the Supreme 

Court judge ruled that the State of Connecticut had complied with the decision of the 

Connecticut Supreme Court settlements that were reached in 2003 and 2008. I’m wondering 



20 
 

about your interactions with this big gaggle of attorneys that came to help and assist with the 

case. Can you talk a little bit about your relationship with them? 

EHS: [00:59:55] The LDF lawyers are phenomenal. They’ve been phenomenal. 

Again, they have to get used to me, because I’m me. So, I give them that. Most people have 

to get used me. It’s not a personal thing, it’s just who I am. But they’ve been wonderful. I 

would say that, as attorneys, they do have a bit more imagination these days. Deuel [Ross] is 

phenomenal. He’s just a great person. Dennis Parker was there, and he’s now at another 

public interest law organization. They listen. I don’t have to fight them anymore about 

listening to me. So, that’s the good thing about it. I started out going to plaintiff meetings 

with the State. For many years, I would devote not only my time, but my resources, because I 

would take vacation days or personal days to attend these meetings. But they include me on 

the lawyers’ calls, the legal team calls. I’ve been all up in this, man, I’m telling you. They’re 

not getting away too, too far. Because it’s really, really of value for the legal team to 

understand the community realities, and LDF has been excellent on that point. 

DMH: [01:02:02] So, you enjoy the partnership. 

EHS: [01:02:06] Oh yeah. Oh yeah. I find it very interesting. Like I said, I don’t 

know the Latin words, but I get the gist, right? And they have been very supportive in helping 

me understand what all that legal mumbo jumbo is. And then we have Alex [Knopp], who is 

not with the LDF. He’s actually our plaintiff rep. 

DMH: [01:02:42] [Cough] Excuse me, Ms. Horton Sheff. We’re talking about Alex. 

EHS: [01:02:45] Yeah, I know, is it this air in here? Cause I’m getting a little— 

DMH: [01:02:48] I don’t know. It’s fine though. 

EHS: [01:02:54] Alex [Knopp], who was Mayor of Norwich, Connecticut. He’s also 

an attorney, who also we had to have a “come-to-Jesus” talk with. He’s a part of our legal 

team. He represents the Sheff plaintiffs at the Regional School Choice Office meetings. And, 



21 
 

you know, things are still rolling here in Connecticut. From the work we’ve done in the 

courtroom and in the street, we now have what, 42 magnet schools and many, many more 

children enrolled in Choice. We have new schools coming on the line. This is not millions of 

dollars, this is billions of dollars. 

DMH: [01:03:56] Let’s talk about the major agreement in 2020. 

EHS: [01:03:59] Mm-hmm. 

DMH: [01:04:00] The new agreement adds up to 1,052 new magnet school seats for 

kids, including a new middle school, the Riverside Magnet School, and a new pre-

kindergarten class at Hartford. They host a magnet in the Academy of Aerospace and 

Engineering Elementary School. Nearly 600 of these new seats are reserved for students from 

Hartford. Additionally, among other funding, Connecticut is furnishing $1.1 million for 

magnet schools to develop new themes to recruit more diverse student bodies, $800,000 to 

provide academic and social support for the Hartford students participating in the Open 

Choice Program, and an additional $300,000 as incentives for suburbs that agree to accept 

more Hartford students. So today, because of Sheff, over 20,000 suburban and Hartford 

students attend either one of the over 40 magnet schools or a suburban school through the 

Open Choice interdistrict transfer program. Nearly half of Hartford students of color now 

attend racially and economically integrated schools.  

DMH: Would you talk a little bit about the various stages of Sheff v. O’Neill over the 

years? I know you said it stretched out for such a long time, and it was a little bit of a roller 

coaster. What has that been like for you and for Milo as he’s matured? 

EHS: [01:05:43] For me, it’s been ongoing advocacy, both within my legal team and 

in the community. So for me, it’s still ongoing. The 2020 decision, although it relinquished 

court oversight, we still meet with the State of Connecticut because we have in our decision a 

permanent injunction. I learned that term, which means that if the State doesn’t fulfill the 



22 
 

obligation as outlined in the 2020 decision, we can go back into court without having to refile 

a case. We can just open Sheff back up. That’s not usually done. Milo’s out. Milo said he’s 

done. He’s on to other things and his life. He had it rough, Ms. Danita. So, I don’t begrudge 

him that. Spending 20 years of his life, that’s a lot of time—thirty-four [years] for me. But 

he’s with me. He will go with me to speaking engagements. He asked me, did I want him to 

come today? And I told him, “No, me and Dory could do it.”  

It’s still continuous advocacy and struggle because we’re talking about quality 

integrated education, which means that there are nuances other than just sitting children side-

by-side or being in the same building. Just because you’re in the same building doesn’t mean 

you’re integrated. We need to look at things, like make sure that the integration is happening 

so there’s not re-segregation inside of integration. We need to make sure that the school 

climate is positive so that Black and brown children aren’t getting mistreated in the 

schoolhouse. We need to make sure that the academic bar is high. No more children 

graduating from high school that can’t read. We’re done with that. The schools that we’ve 

created—they call them “in the Sheff district,” which sometimes makes me cringe—we 

monitor these things. We monitor these things. And so the point I’m trying to make, Ms. 

Danita, is that in the struggle you have to stay vigilant. You can never take for granted 

anything when it comes to civil human rights, and we shouldn’t. Like I said, we are the 

recipients of people who went before us and worked hard on our behalf. I pay homage to 

them, and I do what I can to make sure that our children’s future is not diminished because I 

didn’t do my job. 

DMH: [01:09:44] So, your fight is not over. 

EHS: [01:09:45] Oh no, girlfriend, please. No. I’ll keep on until I’m not here 

anymore, and then somebody else will have to take up the mantle because it’s going to be 

here. That’s not a fatalistic point of view, that’s a pragmatic point of view. I know that 



23 
 

because I understand human behavior. While I would like for there to be no more war, no 

more famine, no more racism, no more social-economic defaults in our nation, no all of 

that—if I could do all of that, I would get rid of it. But it takes work when you get rid of it to 

maintain it.  

I want to mention something that’s important about what you said about the lawsuit, if 

I may. You talked about the decision noting that school districts and town boundaries being 

coterminous was unconstitutional and promoted racial segregation. I think it’s important to 

note that if you dig through the layers of that, then you will see that Connecticut zoning laws 

for housing is the way that this whole—just say it, Elizabeth—racism is displayed in 

Connecticut. Our original lawsuit talked about housing as well, but we decided to pull that 

part of the lawsuit because up here in Connecticut, we have what’s called—I know you know 

this—NIMBY, “Not In My Backyard.” They practice that real good here in Connecticut 

through zoning. Here in Connecticut, there are many towns who have zoned housing 

residential areas for single-family dwellings only, that they have to be so big on so much 

land. No multi-unit housing. No apartments. If you look at the fallout from that, and you 

overlay the economics on top of it, then you’ll realize that not many people of color can 

afford to live in Glastonbury, or Simsbury, or Farmington, or Avon, where the money is, 

where they have these fabulous zoning laws. When we talk about zoning, then people need to 

realize that to me, as I’ve said since the beginning, since 1989, I’ve been saying that the 

zoning laws in Connecticut equate to the Bantustans in South Africa, where people were 

relegated to certain areas of South Africa based on race. I’ve been saying that since 1989, and 

still say that, and it’s still true. But if we had integrated communities, integrated schools 

would be organic because you’d have children living there, and they’d go together. But in 

Connecticut, if you have a child attending a school in a district that you do not live in because 

you gave your cousin’s address and you get caught, you can go to jail. You can be prosecuted 



24 
 

and go to jail, and it has happened. Families trying to get their children in a better school 

system so that they can build a foundation for a better life, “up South” here in Connecticut, 

your only avenue in this region is Sheff. 

DMH: [01:14:39] I would like to take a moment to have you reflect on how much 

really has changed since Sheff. What do you feel so good about that is different today? I know 

the fight is not over. I really want you to talk about what you feel good about that Sheff has 

accomplished and the difference that it’s made for students. Then I want you to talk about if 

you had your, as we say in the South, druthers, if you had it your way, what would it look like 

if your vision were complete? 

EHS: [01:15:28] I am semi-retired now because me and retirement, that’s not a good 

mix. I can’t see sitting around watching TV or doing yoga. I get the opportunity now to go 

visit and see the schools. I go to ribbon-cuttings and groundbreakings and all of that. But to 

actually see the functioning, the lived experience of the schools and the students, it just 

delights me to no end, girlfriend. Let me tell you, I get too tickled. I work for the Goodwin 

University Magnet School System as their alumni specialist, where I work to gather data. 

Because I got a lot of people telling me, “When my child was in Hartford, they were doing 

this, they were doing that. Now they’re in this school, and they’re doing that.” I got all of 

that. We’re trying to actually document what happens to the students who attend the Sheff 

schools afterwards. This has never been done in the 34 years that we’ve been operating. I like 

to go to the Connecticut River Academy in the afternoon, which Connecticut River Academy 

is a part of the Goodwin Magnet School System, for dismissal time. Girl, it’s like organized 

chaos, right? I mean, it is so beautiful. It is such a beautiful sight to see all of these kids, from 

all colors and all religions, and you can see it. You can see it. And that to me is just a 

blessing. And I think to myself, “Well, I had something to do with this, right?” So yeah, 



25 
 

that’s a blessing. To work with people for two decades and more who are continuing to stay 

dedicated to the mission, that’s been a delight.  

To know that there are 42 schools that wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for Sheff v. 

O’Neill. These schools are gorgeous. We are now in the midst of creating the first technical 

high school on the Goodwin campus. I looked at the schematics for this school. This is 

phenomenal. They’re even going to have a portion of the building where they call it the 

“Mars section,” where our students will be learning how to draft up and create robots like 

they would use on the moon. And when they go on the moon to test their little apparatus, they 

will have to wear spacesuits. So, I mean, come on. It’s like OMG, right? Right! This is like, 

God has blessed me. God has blessed me. And I’m just thankful. I’m just thankful to do what 

I can. 

DMH: [01:19:19] You’ve been doing it, Ms. Horton Sheff. What would you think 

about if everything were ideal? What would that look like to you?  

EHS: [01:19:30] That would mean that all public schools in the state of Connecticut 

would be integrated. That there would be children of all different racial, ethnic backgrounds, 

socioeconomic backgrounds, religious, gender identities, all of that would be in every single 

school. That every single school would have the resources, all of the resources that are 

needed to provide a top-notch education for our students. It would mean that every teacher is 

paid to his or her worth, and that they would perform that reimbursement, so that teachers are 

respected. I think there are two professions that I think are callings. Well, maybe three. The 

third one is maybe iffy. But the two are teachers—because God bless them, being in those 

schools, that’s not an easy job—and the other are firefighters. And okay, so the firefighters is 

because of the red truck thing, but they like the red trucks, girl!  

The parents would be engaged. Every school would have parents who are engaged in 

their children’s education. We’ve gotten away from that. It was hard when I was raising my 



26 
 

kids. Now, parents tend to just send their kids to school. No. You can’t lay all of that on the 

school. You have to be active in your child’s life, in their educational journey. That’s a part 

of who you need to be as a parent. So, parents would be engaged and empowered. Because 

sometimes I speak to parents who say they don’t bother with the school system because of the 

way they’ve been treated. I bet you can understand why I never had that problem. [Laughter] 

No way, there’s no way.  

All of these things make for my vision, or my dream, my “wish it could be.” But I’m 

not the kind of person who looks at the glass half-empty. I’m not the kind of person who has, 

I call it the “Titanic attitude,” you know: “You can’t save them all, so let everybody drown, 

right?” No. No. So I think it’s incumbent about all these different components. Plus, students 

need to do their job. You’re there to go to school. You’re there to learn. You’re not there to 

play on your phone and look at social media. You’re there to learn. You’re there to be a 

contributor to the educational environment of your school. That’s your responsibility. I think 

if people just do the right thing—and we all know what the right thing is. We may not like the 

right thing, but we know what it is. 

DMH: [01:23:48] I’m going to ask you just a few more questions about the LDF, and 

then we’re going to wrap it up with just a few more questions. 

EHS: [01:23:59] Just a few more? [Laughter] 

DMH: [01:24:00] Yeah, just a few more. 

EHS: [01:24:02] How many more? A few more. Okay, go ahead. 

DMH: [01:24:04] I want to talk about your first meetings with the LDF. How did you 

become aware of them, and what were those first impressions? 

EHS: [01:24:15] You mean way back in 1989, or now? Back in 1989. Okay, again, I 

did not know of any organizations at all like the Legal Defense Fund. And so, I was delighted 

to find out that there is an organization of that stature out there working on behalf of the 



27 
 

people. I was excited. And again, I think Jack [Boger] was working at LDF at that time. He 

was wonderful. Over the years, attorneys have come and gone. Again, Martha Stone is the 

only attorney—and Wesley [Horton], who only comes when we go to the Supreme Court—

but Martha is the only attorney who’s been here with me for 34 years. I find that my 

conversations with the attorneys at LDF are very fruitful. I’ve been invited to participate in 

some of their trainings, and I feel that my worth was valued there. I mean, it’s good. 

DMH: [01:25:54] And you’ve helped them with strategy? 

EHS: Yeah. 

DMH: We talked about the value of connecting with the community in that way. Talk 

a little about your connecting with them on strategy. 

EHS: [01:26:14] More so, it is really just sharing with them what I’m hearing in the 

community, what people are telling me they’re experiencing in the community. Specifically, I 

can say that one of the things that the attorneys and the LDF heard really was the concern 

about school climate. This last settlement includes wording and action to make sure that our 

children who are in these schools, who are in Choice and in the Sheff magnet, are 

experiencing no discrimination. So, they heard that. They heard that, and that’s a very good 

sign because it’s in the document. It wasn’t an add-on, it’s an integral part of this last 

settlement. 

DMH: [01:27:41] What do you think the legacy of your interaction with the case 

means in today’s climate, where things are a little bit tenuous when it comes to education and 

people are talking about education way differently than they were in the [19]80s? 

EHS: [01:28:00] Now, that’s two questions for me. Let’s start with the latter part of 

your question. Yeah, folks are talking differently about public education and talking loudly, 

and I would say, misinforming the public. So therefore, it makes it more incumbent upon our 

movement and the voice we bring to the community to continue. We have to point out that 



28 
 

things like the nomination of Betsy DeVos—that’s her name, right?—who is an advocate for 

“choice,” but she’s talking about private choice and not public school choice. People hear the 

term “choice,” and they don’t listen to the details. So, we have to make sure that when they 

talk about vouchers, private school vouchers, that the community understands a couple of 

things. The first is that you may get a voucher, but will the voucher cover the tuition? That’s 

number one. And most private schools don’t provide transportation. So, you got a car to get 

there? Okay. Maybe it’s three things. And the third thing, which is the most important thing, 

is that these private institutions can say they don’t want you. There’s no guarantee. So what 

we’re talking about actually is more siphoning of money off the public school systems, which 

will leave the majority of the children in public school systems that are further in peril. We 

have to keep that conversation going. This legacy thing, again, that makes me squeamish. 

You know what I mean? It’s like people ask me that, “What do you want your legacy to be?” 

And again, I just say, “Oh, Lord, only trying to do what you asked me to do.” But I want 

people to know that I did the best I could. That I tried hard, and I did the best I could. 

DMH: [01:30:59] Speaking of legacy, talk a little bit about SheffMovement.org, 

because y’all are doing some wonderful things. 

EHS: [01:31:07] Right? We have people who have been with us in the Sheff 

Movement Coalition 20-plus years. And we meet, as I said, every third Saturday of the 

month, and we have a website. We have community organizing that we do in the schools 

through our student-based advocacy teams, where we work with students to help them 

organize around an issue that they deem important to their school climate. I want to be clear 

on that, because we’re not going in there and telling them, “You have to organize around 

Sheff v. O’Neill.” We do give them a background and provide some history about Brown, and 

zoning laws, and Sheff. We talk about all of that, about economic injustice, food injustice. We 

talk about all of it. But the crux, the stone of our work in the schools, is to help students find 



29 
 

their voice and make their arguments in support of what they see. I think that’s a key in how 

you develop future leaders, by helping folks find their voice—say it. See it, say it. Our work 

in the community has been—there have been people on the coalition who’ve been there with 

me. James Boucher is my co-chair. He works for Capital Workforce Partners, and he served 

on Hartford City Council with me. That’s where we started the Sheff Movement Coalition. 

We’ve branched out from there, and we continue to work. We are organizing for the 

upcoming general assembly here in Connecticut. Our last coalition meeting, we had people 

come to talk to us about what the national landscape is looking like, and we’re organizing for 

that. We’re not going to wait until we get hit in the face. We’re organizing now, and that’s 

the importance of what is necessary when we talk about continuing the struggle for justice 

and peace. 

DMH: [01:34:05] Is there anything that we didn’t cover that you think is important to 

say? 

EHS: [01:34:11] Oh dear, let me see. We covered a lot. You know that? Wow. I don’t 

know if it’s something that we didn’t cover, or it’s more of a call to action: We’re facing 

some very difficult days ahead. I know that there’s some residual emotions left in our 

communities. I’m not just talking about people of color—when I say community, I’m talking 

about everybody. Little bit of despair out there. I post morning messages every morning on 

my Facebook page. That’s a crazy platform, by the way. [Laughter] But I’ve placed morning 

messages to the world. And a couple days back, there was a comment that said that they 

hadn’t been paying attention since the election because they’re just so devastated. No, no, no. 

All right, do your cry and get up. It’s time now to—it’s done. It’s done! This is it. So get your 

head out of the sand or—I would say out of another place, but it probably wouldn’t be proper 

for this video. [Laughter] Hey, you know what I’m talking about. Stop. Stop whining. Stop 

crying. Stop pointing the fingers. It’s time to roll now. Get ready to roll. I would ask that 



30 
 

those of us who pursue justice and peace—who believe in the human spirit, who have 

confidence that there’s a greater power, people who know better, who just want to see a 

brighter world, a greater world for our kids, who understand that we have a role and a 

responsibility to make it so—I’m asking you all to get up, stand up, do something. 

DMH: [01:37:03] That was perfect. Thank you. 

EHS: [01:37:06] You’re welcome.  

[END OF INTERVIEW]