National Black Network-(NBN)- Interviews Jack Greenberg on "Black Issues and the Black Press"
Press Release
July 18, 1981

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Loose Pages. National Black Network-(NBN)- Interviews Jack Greenberg on "Black Issues and the Black Press", 1981. d55b89d8-bd92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/f30becd3-3c2b-43f8-ac09-843a2559b824/national-black-network-nbn-interviews-jack-greenberg-on-black-issues-and-the-black-press. Accessed July 09, 2025.
Copied!
9 2 d NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC efense fund = 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * (212) 586-8397 ' For Immediate Release CONTACT: St Clair Clement Director, Public Affairs/ Public Relations e (212) 586-8397 Ext. 465 NATIONAL BLACK NETWORK-(NBN)- INTERVIEWS JACK GREENBERG DIRECTOR-COUNSEL NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. ON “BLACK ISSUES AND THE BLACK PRESS” A 30 Minute Recorded Radio Broadcast (Aired 7/18-19/81 on 96 affiliated NBN station across the United States.) On duly 17th, Jack Greenberg - Director / Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. was interviewed by NBN news reporters Pat Prescott and Chris Moore. Joe Brown d the discussion Questions asked of Mr. Greenberg covered the spectmm of civil rights issues as they currently affect black Americans, with reference to a detailed analysis of President Reagan's civil rights policies. - more - Contributions are deductible Jor U.S. income tax purposes The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LOF has had for over 20 years @ separate Board, program, staff, office and budget. NAACP LDF The following excerpts from Mr. Greenberg's appearance on "BLACK ISSUES & THE BLACK PRESS" have been edited and prepared from the interview. VOTING RIGHTS € Question: Early in 1981 the NAACP Legal Defense Fund sent out a release that sort of painted a picture of gloom and doom for black Americans under the Reagan administration. Are things going according to the way the Legal Defense Fund saw Mr. Reagan's administration? Mr. Greenberg: Well, I'll tell you what's been happening. There has been a slowdown in civil rights enforcement. There has been a public commitment to dismantle, or at least severely reduce, enforcement of the Federal Contract Compliance provisions. There has been a cut- back in bringing civil rights cases. I think part of the danger of the situation we are in now relates to the Voting Rights Act. It could be the most important thing we are dealing with now, and so we all are struggling to preserve it. Therefore, very little attention is being given to employment and housing and education, because we don't have that many people, and they can't be everywhere at once. In the meantime, NAACP LDF those important areas are slowly slipping into conditions of non-enforcement. Question: Why is the question of expanding the enforce- ment provision of the Voting Rights Act such a controversial issue? On the Surface it would seem that to expand enforcement to include all 50 states would simply expand the area that would be protected by the provision. Well it really wouldn't. The fact is, there is only a relatively small number of states - that is, the deep southern states - where blacks were not permitted to vote at all; and a few other parts of the country where there has been a history of discrimination in voting, where it's important to have the Act apply. If it were to apply to all 50 states, then the enforcement would become so cumbersome and so expensive that you really couldn't focus on the parts of the country that really matter. Question: To what extent do you feel that this is a symbolic issue? Mr. G I think it is a very important symbolic issue to both sides. I think blacks and other Americans who care a lot about equality in voting view it as the most important civil rights issue there is Question: Mr. Greenberg: NAACP LDF at the moment. Don't forget, until 1965 blacks hardly voted at all, and as a consequence of that there were all the other deprivations; housing, employment, public facilities, access to public office, and so forth. So it's ‘very symbolic to black people and right-thinking whites. On the other hand, it's very symbolic to racists. The one thing they would like to do is to get blacks out of the business of voting. Can you offer any sort of scenario as to what failure: to extend the Act would mean to black Americans? First of all it would mean that from the highest level of government - from the Congress and from the administration - there is an open avowal that equality has gone too far, that this country doesn't care about it and all the related aspects of it-- that is, how people live, and how they raise their children, and how they function in society. After all, voting is the hallmark of citizenship; and the essence of racial segregation is the denial that blacks are citizens. Now, if this country were to say that on the one issue that involves an affirmation or denial of citizen- ship, it denies it-- that would essentially be Question: Mr. Greenberg: NAACP LDF telling blacks and whites and the rest of the world that the country has really gone back 20 years! AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Mr. Greenberg, as far as the issue of affirmative action is concerned, have you been able to decipher in what direction the Reagan administration is going? Oh I think they've said they are opposed to affirm- ative action. They are quite clear about it. A number of their public officials have said so. Certainly all their official philosophers and idealogues who write and speak about the subject have said so. On the other hand, they may be limited as to what they can do about it. Some of the affirmative action is embodied in court decisions. A great deal of affirmative action is voluntary on the part of corporations and universities. There are indeed people within the administration who have been relatively quiet about it, who do not share the professed view of opposing affirmative action, who are not even against it, or who favor it or are quietly working for it. So I think that, while affirmative action is in for a tough fight, we'll hold on to most of it. Question: Mr. Greenberg: Question: NAACP LDF I believe I saw some place that the Legal Defense Fund recommended to the Reagan administration that they leave the affirmative action programs alone, because this is the one situation in the country that seems to be working. Is that correct? That's right. If one looks at the overall situation of minorities in America,there is a very discouraging outlook for a very large part of the black population. The black median income is 60% of the white median income. Black unemployment is double white unemployment; and there are many other economic indicators of the same sort. But at the same time, one finds that in businesses and in universities and in the professions, the number of blacks and other minorities has increased in recent years. In large part that's because of affirmative action programs, which are slowly beginning to give black Americans a foothold in’the middle class-- or perhaps I should say a toehold. If one were to abolish these programs, or restrict them severely, then the main thing black Americans have going for them would be very seriously impaired. THE CURRENT STRUGGLE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS Given the attitudes attributed to the Reagan administration, and also the conservative attitudes, is your job now more one of preserving civil rights Mr. Greenbe Question: laws? Are we beyond the day now where you could actually go out and look for new legislation? Are we more or less on hold? I think a very large part of our job is preserving what we have -- preserving a friamework from which we can build in the future. But we're not just sitting on our hands. We are going to try to establish some principles and forge ahead, and I think we will be able to. Don't forget, we've been at this business for forty years. In the time I've been at the Legal Defense Fund, we've been through the Eisenhower and Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, and Carter administrations, and now we're into the Reagan administration. In all of these we made progress, and there is no reason to believe that we will not make progress now. But it's going to be hard, and it's going to be limited. When you talk about fighting now, it seems that your job appeared to be easier, say, during the sixties. At least you had some help from other civil rights organizations, and there seemed to be a more broad- based coalition of liberal groups. Is your job more difficult now? Do you find that you have friends in carrying out the fight? ta Payee Shee Us i 2 Ae we Mr. Greenberg: ESE SS LL ASL SE Question: NAACP LDF Oh yes, we have a great many friends in carrying out this fight. Whatever the view of the country was in the election, public opinion polls show that many of the issues we stand for are supported by a majority of the American ease And we now hav more financial support than we had, let's say, ten years ago. When I started working for the Legal Defense Fund, we were the only ones in the country doing what we are doing. And then we went through periods in which there were many others, and there are still many others working with us -- other public interest organizations, private law firms, private groups, individual supporters who send small contributions in the mail, many friends. It's been noted that since Mr. Reagan took office, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has filed five civil rights law suits on discrimin- ation issues. That compares with 17 suits filed in the first six months of the Carter administration, and even 24 in the first six months of the Nixon administration during his first term. Do you see this as a reluctance to litigate on the part of the Justice Department -- a reluctance inspired perhaps by the President? Question: Mr fr. Greenberg: NAACP LDF I don't think the numbers alone tell anything. For example, I don't think Nixon's filing 24 cases indicated a vigorous commitment to civil rights. Yet it was more cases than were filed « in the Carter administration, where there was indeed such a commitment. However, numbers coupled with public statements about what an administration's policies are do tell you some- thing. And I think the small number of cases under the Reagan administration coupled with negative views on interfering with the free hand business has in dealing with its employees, and being against busing, being against inter-district integration, being against the movement toward integrating higher education -- I think that tells you something. LITIGATION FOR THE: FUTURE The Supreme Court recently handed down a number of decisions. Were there any among them to which the Legal Defense Fund is paying closest attention? We had three cases up in the Court this year, and I'm happy to say we've won them all by astonishing 9-0 votes in each case. Three shutouts -- that's pretty good, even for us! We won one case which NAACP LDF put an end to a practice in Texas of having psychiatrists interview defendants in capital cases about whether they were competent to stand trial. Then, when the case was over and if the defendant were going to be sentenced, the same psychiatrist would come in and testify that "I interviewed that fellow, and I can tell you he's an unremitting sociopath and will kill and kill again, and he should be put to death." Well, Texas had done that in about 30 cases and because one of them was invalidated, the rest will fall by the wayside as a result. We had another case in which a judge would not enter an affirmative action decree, because it was agreed upon by the parties. He said he didn't believe in that sort of thing! The Court said, in effect, that he couldn' refuse to enter the decree; he's going to have to enter it. The other case involved a rule adopted by many courts which forbids lawyers trying a class action to talk to members of the class, on the theory that they're stirring up litigation -- sort of ambulance chasing. Well, that just made it impossible for us to try those cases effectively. If we were bringing a case on behalf of black workers in a plant, for example, and we couldn't talk to them, we couldn't prepare our case. We won that one 9-0, also. Question: Question: Green| erg: a a a St Nasty LOE So those three cases we have followed with care, and they had good outcomes. Referring to the current legislative filibuster against the anti-busing amendment that's been proposed by Jesse Helms and J. Bennett Johnstone -- should that amendment be passed, how would that affect legal recourses, as far as discrimination is concerned? I think that amendment would be unconstitutional if it were passed, and I think the courts would knock it out. But the tragic thing is that it would take several years to do it, and during that time we would be fighting the amendment instead of fighting about getting something done in the country. With the present climate in the country, what are some of the main areas that the Legal Defense Fund will be concentrating on? Well, employment discrimination has been our most important area for years, and we will continue to focus on that, with an emphasis on affirmative action cases. Segregation and discrimination in black higher education remains one of our high priorities. Capital punishment, which is the most inhumane as well as the most racist of punishments, is one that we will continue to attack. Prisoners' rights is a very important area; and housing. se Lhe A an Me ig aXe BS gi T+ pe oo Question: Greenberg: Mr. NAACP _ LDF PUBLIC AFFATRS We have more and more cases involving discrimination in health care now, in part because some of the other agencies in the country which have been federally funded are going out of business, and we are taking over their cases. Looking at Washington now, and the effort to dilute much of the strength of the federal government, which most black Americans have felt was a last recourse --have the courts now become pretty much the last refuge for black Americans? Are they more important than ever before? I wouldn't say they are more important than ever before, but they are very important -- extraordinaril important, because the court is one place you can go and, under a constitutional principle or a legal principle, demand your rights and get an answer. You could go to Congress, and they could filibuster forever, or bury it in the committee, or compromise it away. There are many things legislatures can do that courts can't do, and so the fact that you have a right to go to court doesn’t mean you have an opportunity to solve all of the country's problems. But in the courts, if you have a right, you probably can get it enforced -- if you are well represented. HHTREE EE