Today, a memorial service was held for civil rights pioneer Dorothy Height. Laura Murphy, Director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, reflects upon Dr. Height's activism.
The passing of Dr. Dorothy Height was a huge loss to the nation, particularly to American women. She inspired me and so many women leaders because she embraced and nurtured her sisters and daughters in the movement. I lost a role model and a mentor who, whenever we met, always clasped my hand in hers, looked me in the eyes and said, "Carry on."
She had a determination to stand her ground as a leader for over 70 years throughout the entire modern day civil rights movement which is sadly, to this day, a deeply male-dominated sphere. It is striking how Dr. Height outlasted so many men who were the civil rights leaders of the moment. It was her extraordinary combination of skills and attributes that were hardwired into her being: a tremendous memory for names, dates and events, flawless command of the English language, a unique speaking voice, an elegant style of dressing, her height, her steady temperament and unwavering good manners. Dr. Height was the embodiment of a dominant yet subtle form of grace.
Dr. Height's quick mind could out-maneuver compatriots and adversaries. She was the tortoise and not the hare in the race. She stood steadfast with a regal bearing and a twinkle in her eye while the guys rushed to grab the microphone, and effectively chided them without humiliation when they forgot that women are the backbone of the most durable black institutions — whether it is the church, the voter registration efforts, the sororities, , , or her own — groups with longevity and real staying power. Our mothers and sisters licked the envelopes, went door to door, registered the voters, went to the polls, fed the leaders and trained the kids to keep the movement going. Dr. Height never forgot about us.
Dr. Height often demonstrated her remarkable skill as the "clean-up" speaker. The men in the civil rights movement often had her speak last (so as to not to miss the elusive TV cameras) and when she did, she packed a powerful punch by putting the moment in historical context and reminding us to stay resolved to keep the pressure on. Unlike some leaders, when she spoke, she never burned a bridge with a vicious attack or an off-color remark, she rarely budged when men tried to shunt her aside, and she understood that whenever possible she should lift up the good that Black America had to offer — especially its women.
The female icons of the civil rights movement are a vanishing species in our collective consciousness: the late Rep. Shirley Chisholm, Fannie Lou Hamer, Coretta Scott King, Myrlie Evers, C. Delores Tucker, Rep. Barbara Jordan and Althea Simmons, the first female head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Washington Bureau. Fortunately, we have women with great tenure in the civil rights movement in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Foremost among them is Rep. Maxine Waters, the CBC Chair Rep. Barbara Lee and Eleanor Homes Norton, but few know that there are 10 other black women in the Black Caucus. Black women leaders who have decades in the movement are not sought after by the media outlets, consulted for their social justice expertise and experience by think tanks, invited by those putting together congressional hearings, or even consulted by the Obama White House nearly as much as they should be. And let's not forget about the women that Dr. Height personally mentored or inspired including former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman, Barbara Arnwine, Elaine Jones, Melanie Campbell, Julienne Malveaux and countless women who are rising stars in advocacy and academia. If you don't have their names in your contact information, or know who they are, you should.
Thank goodness there will be much made of the passing of Dr. Height with services at the National Cathedral and with press editorials and statements from the White House and former U.S. presidents and national and world leaders. I will be pleasantly surprised if women are the dominant voices. Dr. Height may get her due in her passing, but what about the one thing that Dr. Height worked so hard to achieve? What about her work to lift women, especially black women into leadership roles? For those of us who knew her and loved her, the best thing that we can do is to is grab the hand of a young woman, especially those who are committed to social justice issues, look them in the eye and say, "Carry on!"
Cross-posted to and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.