In the spring of 1968, parents living in the predominantly Black and Puerto Rican neighborhood of Brownsville submitted demands to the New York City Central Board of Education. Disillusioned and frustrated with the quality of education given to their children attending the district’s still largely segregated public schools, parents requested the right to hire and fire school administrators and teachers, to access and control school funds, and purchase their own books and supplies. In essence, parents were demanding community school control, or school decentralization. The effort proved successful when the Central Board approved a pilot program or “experiment” in school community control featuring a local community-run school board. However, their demands also kicked off a year-long battle between parents in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville neighborhood and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), who waged a city-wide teachers strike after the community-controlled school board fired 19 union teachers for unsatisfactory performance. While the strike impacted the entire city, eight schools in Ocean Hill-Brownsville remained open with classes taught by 300 replacement teachers hired by the community over the summer. The curriculum taught in these “freedom schools” was markedly more progressive and focused on teaching Black history and Black pride.
In July of 1968, Herbert Hill sat down with Dorothy Jones, a former education consultant for the NYC Commission on Human Rights and– at the time of the interview–a fellow at the Metropolitan Applied Research Council (MARC) run by famed psychologist Dr. Kenneth Clark. The interview was one of 31 oral histories collected by Hill alongside his colleagues Jim Keeney, Roberta McBride and Norman McCrae. Between 1967 and 1970, the researchers set out documenting Black labor struggles through 1:1 interviews with Black unionists who were garment workers, automobile workers, Pullman porters and teachers. In 2020, transcripts of these oral histories were made available by Wayne State University’s Walter P. Reuther Library, Archives of Labor and Urban Affairs.
Hill’s interview with Jones focuses largely on her perceptions of the UFT and her evaluation of how they stymied efforts at school decentralization. While at the time of the interview the full impact of the Ocean Hill Brownsville contest had yet to bear out, the latter portion of the interview touched on Jones’ recollections of what led to parent disillusionment with the school board, and her feelings on breaking from UFT in support of “freedom schools.”
“Strike breaking” in this way marked a significant departure from her previous support of UFT strikes.
It’s necessary to consider the time at which Hill and Jones’ conversation takes place in order to understand the flow of the conversation. The discussion is clearly shared between two people who have a knowledge of the New York City public school landscape and are offering recollections of events that had only very recently occurred. Jones’ recollections are shaped by an understanding that much of what they are discussing is still unfolding in real time. Early on in their conversation, perhaps to establish rapport or settle into a natural flow, Hill and Jones discuss a lot of organizations and leaders of local associations without providing context. Only after Jones shares her thoughts or opinions does Hill circle back and ask her to, for instance, provide the full name of an organization when an acronym might have been used earlier. It’s clear that Hill knows what Jones has been referring to but wants to offer clarity for future listeners or readers. Additionally, in moments where Jones provides a lengthy answer to Hill’s question, he follows up by synthesizing what she just said, reiterating the key points or takeaways, and asking Jones to confirm if that’s an accurate paraphrasing.
Perhaps because the interview exists within a larger series about Black labor history, Hill’s interviews read as being more purpose-driven than an oral history that allows its interviewee to meander and move in the direction that they so choose. Hill’s questions are clearly guided towards a specific end and in instances where Jones veers off on a small tangent, Hill will redirect or circle back by saying “I don’t want to lose the thread” Similarly, before he poses a question he will at times give a signal to the significance of the information he wants to glean, telling Jones, “this is a very important thing.”
I don’t think that this is inherently unethical; however, it is clear that Hill and Jones are of similar opinion on the role of UFT and its president, Al Shankar. Thus, sometimes Hill makes assertions about the union and asks Jones if she agrees as opposed to posing neutral questions and enabling Jones to answer for herself. However, I wonder if conducting the interview in more of an objective manner could have eroded Jones’ sense of trust in Hill especially when the subject matter is so contentious and still bears weight in the moment in which the interview was taking place.