Our Struggle for a Fair Justice System is Deeply Rooted in the
American Struggle. Will You Join Us?
“The ultimate measure of
a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where
he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Throughout our nation’s history, progressive change has come about
in large part because activists have worked outside of official channels to
create a climate that is more conducive to that change.
Frederick Douglas once observed
that “The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all
concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle.
. . . If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor
freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up
the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean
without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or
it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be
a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never
will. "
This is a principle as old as the American Republic.
For example, it was in the Treaty of Paris that King George III of
Great Britain formally acknowledged the existence of the United States as free,
sovereign and independent, but few today would attribute this accomplishment
solely to the efforts of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and the other diplomats
who directly negotiated the Treaty. Rather, it generally accepted that Britain
would never have even come to the negotiating table without the “agitation” of people like Patrick Henry and
Thomas Paine (which some of their contemporaries viewed as outrageous),
together with the valor of those who risked their lives at Lexington, Concord,
Saratoga and Yorktown (which some of their contemporaries viewed as extreme).
From another era, we have the story of Sidney Hillman, who served
for a time as head of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union. After helping Franklin Roosevelt get elected
in the Presidential campaign of 1932, Hillman is said to have gone to the White
House and presented an ambitious agenda of progressive reforms for the new
President to adopt. President Roosevelt
supposedly replied: “Sidney, I agree with everything in your proposal. It is
all exactly right. Now you just go back
home and make me do it.” Following the
President’s admonition, Hillman proceeded to “make” the President embrace many
of his recommendations through a campaign of what Frederick Douglas would have
described as “agitation.”
Years later, Martin Luther King, Jr. is said to have had a similar
conversation with President Lyndon Johnson.
In response to Dr. King’s call for voting rights legislation and for the
appointment of more African American officials, President Johnson is said to
have challenged Dr. King to essentially “make me do it”. It is doubtful that many
of the progressive initiatives sponsored by President Johnson could have been
achieved without “agitation” on the part of advocates such as Dr. King and
others.
In more recent times, the Plaintiffs in Brooks v. State Board of Elections played
a role similar to that of Sidney Hillman and Martin Luther King. They saw that those who were charged with
administering justice in the State of Georgia in the 1990s were not
representative of the communities that they served, and not representative of the
populations whose lives they influenced. With little thought for their own
personal needs, they “agitated” through the courts to make Georgia’s justice
system more representative, with some measure of success.
More than 30 years after the Brooks litigation, the goal of a
representative judiciary remains an elusive one, and progress toward that goal
appears to have stalled. There are
numerous communities throughout the State of Georgia where persons of color
constitute a majority of the population, but in which there have never been any
judges of color. Meanwhile, appointing
authorities too often appear to have embraced a single-minded focus on filling
judicial vacancies only with people who look like they look and think like they
think. We are headed toward a closed, stagnant and inbred system in which the
quality of justice will inevitably decline.
How are we to reverse this
disastrous trend? Only by concerted action on the part of those of us who truly
care about the quality of justice.
But concerted action begins with
individual resolve. It only takes one person at a time. One person can decide
that, sometimes, there are some things in life that are bigger than himself/herself
or his/her career. One person can
resolve not to give in to apathy, discouragement, distrust, or disappointment. One
person can decide that “I’m too busy to fight for this cause” is not an
acceptable answer. Each person who stands stand silent, because others are uncomfortable,
risks condemning future generations to a judiciary that is not representative
of their communities or responsive to their interests.
We are on the precipice of change
in our country and in our State. Our populations are becoming more and more
diverse and, consequently, more and more open to the reality that they can use
their votes to counteract the damage that some of our politicians are doing
through the appointment process. In order to take advantage of these
developments, it will be necessary for each of us to be that one person, working with others of like mind, fighting
for justice, willing to commit himself or herself to speaking up and speaking
out about why our courts need to be representative and accountable to the
communities they serve. This is, after
all, a major element of the “more perfect union” that we all profess to seek.
This is a moral issue, for which
we must all stand up in unison.
