Arthur Griffin

A member of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools board since 1988, Arthur Griffin’s memory goes back many decades before that, to his years growing up in the 50s and 60s in Charlotte. Love him or hate him – and there are plenty in Charlotte who fit both categories – no one doubts that Griffin is a major political force in this town, and that his memories of growing up in a segregated Charlotte inform his rhetoric and his decisions today. We sat down with Arthur Griffin just days before a three-judge panel of the Federal Appeals Court overturned Judge Robert Potter’s decision. We asked him about that case, and about other controversies facing both him and the school board.

Warren Smith: Since you’re on the school board, and you deal with people who deal with grades every day, how would you grade yourself as chairman and how would you grade the board?

Arthur Griffin: I would give myself a B. I’m above average, but not superior. I would give the school board a B. They’re above average. When you look at the issues we’ve had to deal with, we’ve done an above average job.

WS: Would it surprise you to discover that many citizens do not think you deserve that grade?

AG: I think the citizens would give us that grade if they got our spiel. They get the spiel from the local papers, and the papers pick up the things that are more controversial. For example, for the past 20 years, we’ve been talking about equity, but for the past three years we’ve done something about it. The other thing we’ve done is that we’ve created an environment in which the superintendent can do his work. They’re arresting people at school board meetings in Greensboro. In Dallas, they have had the police department there breaking up fights among school board members.

When you look at the school board and what it has done in terms of creating an environment for people to do its work, I’d give us a B. If we were as bad as I sometimes read about in the papers, Eric Smith would be long gone. Superintendents don’t stay around urban districts when school boards are dysfunctional.

WS: I hope you’ll forgive me for saying this, but that assessment sounds like the old saying: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." Comparing yourself to school board that get into fist fights is not setting a very high standard for your behavior.

AG: Then compare us to Charlotte of 20 years ago. Compare us to Charlotte of 10 years ago. Compare us to the school board of 8 years ago. The only contentious thing we get involved with is school desegregation. If school desegregation hadn’t been an issue, we wouldn’t be having this current dialog. In terms of acquisition of resources, and the continuing demand for high student achievement. We’ve made progress.

You forget something. I have served on this school board since 1988. It is easy for me to compare the school board of today with the school board of 5 years ago, or 8 years ago, when some people say everything was hunky-dory.

WS: I understand that, but if we haven’t achieved equity by now, then why not? And if we have, then why continue with forced busing?

AG: Because when the school board said we needed $100-million to fix up schools, we got $25-million. When you go back to the growth periods, beginning in 1983 or so. Allenbrook and Lincoln Heights all needed repairs. Did we get the money? No. We got the money to build new schools. It was not mismanagement or negligence. And it was not a partisan issue. In those days, everyone was a Democrat.

But the school board asked for the money. Didn’t get the money. That continued until 1996, when we went to district representation. The cries became louder for change, and the district representation allowed for those voices to be heard. So we started on a track to balance the capital needs.

And you asked about desegregation. I grew up in Charlotte, and I went to all-black everything. My parents didn’t cry for me to go to school and sit next to Warren Smith. They said, simply give me the supplies. There was no cry to sit next to Warren Smith. But year after year, the same scenario occurred, and we got only a little bit of money. But year after year the Board of County Commissioners would fund the school board not quite enough to take care of those little black schools that the little black kids went to. And politically, it was always the same: We’re doing the best we can do.

So subsequently, there were lawsuits. And it took from 1965, when the first lawsuit was filed, to 1974, to resolve this. Nine years. But from 1965 to 69 the community was on notice, but they still did not correct the inequities. One thing led to another. It was appealed to the Supreme Court, and from 71 to 74 there were all kinds of pupil assignment plans. Things didn’t settle down until 1974.

What this school board is trying to do is finally say, "We haven’t fulfilled our promise that was made 35 years ago, when I was in school." Last year, Garringer’s chemistry lab looked just like my old high school’s chemistry lab. We have finally tried to correct that.

WS: I appreciate that some schools are probably better equipped than others. But didn’t the court – Judge Potter’s ruling -- ultimately disagree with what you said. Yes, there are inequities, but they’re not race-based inequities.

AG: Well, I have to abide by the law, but I didn’t agree with this court, and that is why we appealed. The same process is in place today as in 1969. It was appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.

WS: Which is where you’re ultimately going to end up?

AG: I don’t know where we’re going to end up. I take it one decision at a time. I work for a law firm. I never know how judges are going to rule. But even Judge Potter acknowledged that there were inequities. Even John Lassiter said there were long-standing inequities. And, of course, you do know Judge Potter’s history, don’t you?

WS: Sure. It’s a very honorable history. A history of standing by the law rather than submit to revisionist interpretations of the law. So when you ask if I know Judge Potter’s history, that’s the history I know. Do you know a different history?

AG: There is no revisionism when it comes to the Constitution, in terms of equal protection. I’m just telling you what the facts are in Charlotte. I went to an all-black school. I know.

WS: Jim Puckett, among others, has said that the scenario you just painted is to a certain extent a straw man in this respect: even conservatives on the school board, Puckett included, would agree to build new schools in predominantly black, inner city areas, if they would be neighborhood schools. In other words, if the issue truly is about resources to black neighborhoods, that issue is dead. That is not the issue today. Puckett and others are saying, "OK, let’s fund new inner-city schools." The implication is that you are making political hay out of playing race politics.

AG: That is a lie. I don’t play race politics. This is home for me. I didn’t move to Charlotte and become somebody. My whole history is here.

What you have just articulated is a fear game. Mr. Puckett never voted for increased funding for either capital or operational spending. He has always had questions about accountability.

WS: Well, then, let me ask you directly: if schools are built in inner city, predominantly black areas, are you willing for them to be neighborhood schools?

AG: I will comply with the court’s order. But make your hypothetical complete. If you eliminate all the vestiges of a dual system, am I willing to have neighborhood schools? You can have whatever pupil assignment plan the citizens want. Whatever. If they want students to go to school on the moon, that’s fine with me. As long as all the vestiges of a dual system are eliminated.

Let me say this again. The majority of the members of the school board put together a plan and went to court to eliminate the vestiges of a dual system. It is easy to focus on bricks and mortar, but the issues are beyond bricks and mortar. It’s about making sure that the distribution of great teachers and great programs are throughout the system.

WS: I understand that, but at some point you have to ask and answer the question: What would that look like? In other words, when you say "eliminate the vestiges," what does that mean? There is a growing sense in this community that no matter how far we go, it will never be far enough, and the reason it will never be enough is because there are some politicians – you among them – who do not really want this matter resolved. This conflict is a political asset.

AG: We have talked about specifics. Distribution of teachers with advanced degrees, distribution of programs. We put together a plan in 1999 that specifically says what gets us to unitary status.

But the media doesn’t report that. The media is part of the problem. For example, we haven’t had a new assignment plan since 1997, even though there has been explosive growth in the area. Yet the message the media sends out is that we’re moving students every year. Pupil assignment is unstable. That’s the message the media is sending out, but that is not a fact.

WS: But it is also a fact that some students do move every year.

AG: Absolutely. If we have to open up a new school.

WS: To change the subject. You were involved in a very controversial fund-raiser a couple of months ago. Bill James said that if he had done something like this at Calvary Church, I’d be indicted. Pat McCrory said he thought it was flat wrong to do what you did. People have been calling for you to disclose what was given. So far, you have said that you do not feel a need to do that. Why not?

AG: I don’t have one dime from any soul.

WS: So you didn’t receive any money?

AG: I did not receive one damn penny. I haven’t received one damn penny.

WS: So if someone said that at the event itself they gave you money, you would say…

AG: I would say it is not true. So I am waiting for folk to do that. OK. I did get a couple of dollars from my mother and my wife. Folks did not walk up to me and say, here’s a check. I wasn’t in the church with my cup out. It wasn’t that type of event.

Now, my wife did get a pot, without a plant in it. It was a nice gift. I also got a book, but no cash. They did collect money for a program that had people’s names. As far as I know, the people who made contributions had their names in a program. The funds are still with the "Friends of Arthur Griffin" as far as I know. I don’t have a clue. I asked them not to do it. These are old-line folk. Sara Stevenson. Anna Hood. Sara Coleman. Retired educators.

WS: So they were just getting together to express appreciation to you for your work in the community.

AG: That’s all it was.

WS: But surely you can understand why people think this is untoward.

AG: Sure. But there’s no conspiracy. My life’s an open book. I don’t think people have a right to say I’m doing anything crooked. If this was Chicago and my name was Daley, you’d have a reason to be suspicious.

There was something in "The Leader" just today. Bill James was quoted as saying that Arthur Griffin didn’t want to deal with privatization because of all the jobs that were going to minorities. And people believe that crap. There is no foundation for that.

Bill James and Jim Puckett have the capacity to convince you with their oratory that things are real when they’re not real. I challenge you, The Charlotte World, to get the facts. I’m not afraid of debate.

People are also trying to turn this into partisan debate. I grew up in a Charlotte that was Democratic, but it was very conservative. This is not about conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. Black people have been conservative. My home life has been that way. I’m just trying to build a great school system that serves the needs of all children and not just some.

WS: Great schools for all children? Then why not experiment with vouchers and tax credits? You’re opposed to them?

AG: Absolutely opposed to vouchers. And tax credits if it takes a slice out of the pizza that could go to public schools.

WS: What if it doesn’t?

AG: How could that be?

WS: By taking kids out of the public schools but leaving most of the resources in. For example, it takes about $5500 to educate a student in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. What if we took the kid out but left two-thirds of the money in?

AG: Why not leave three-thirds of the money in? You’re looking at one child. I’m looking at the entire system.

WS: But why wouldn’t the effect on the system be net-positive if we eliminated the $5500 cost and still have the system most – but not all -- of the money?

AG: You don’t understand. We’re already underfunded.

WS: But this would increase the funding for the kids who are left in the system.

AG: Could be. But the studies I have read say it would take funding away from the public schools. I’m opposed to that.

All this talk about competition is high-minded. But the playing field is not truly level. Where do I-85 and I-77 cross? You say you believe in communities, neighborhood schools, and all that. But what do you think happened to the African-American community when those interstates were built? Public policy destroyed these African-American communities. It may take public policy to get us back to where we were.

Government isn’t always bad. Government sometimes has to be used to level the playing field. You talk about competition, a meritocracy. I believe in fairness. I believe in competition. I believe in freedom. I carried a rifle in Vietnam. But let’s level the playing field first.