BOND: We were also talking just a moment ago, and I don't want to spend too much time on this, on the stature of those men, particularly that you just mentioned, and women like Connie Motley, and what appears to be an absence of similar kinds of figures today, and we were reflecting on whether it's a reflection on us and our age or what it is. Do we have comparable figures today?

CHAMBERS: We probably do, but not in the same vein that we remember them from times back. And it may be that the demands on people today are quite different. We, in our younger years, were fighting race discrimination, segregation, in fact. Today we are looking at something much more complex. And the leaders we have I think have to approach the problems differently. And we don't really see the kind of leadership we saw with the Connie Motley or Thurgood or Jack Greenberg, or Leon Higginbotham, because they are operating in a different mode. And I like to think that we have some leaders today who are doing some great things. I think of Vernon Jordan as a leader who does some great things. I know a number of people in business who are doing some great things. A number of leading educators who are doing some great things. But their approaches are different than the ones that we knew back in the 1950s and '60s.

BOND: Well, I wonder, for an example, I am the son of a man who was an academic and involved in higher education. And when I was, I guess, in my twenties, I knew the names of many of the presidents of the historically black colleges, probably because of my father's association with them. Today with the exception of you I know almost none of the names of these people. And I wonder if it is because — why is that so? Why don't these figures, these current day figures stand out in the same way that the past figures seemed to me as a young man?

CHAMBERS: Well, that's true. I mean, I know most of the presidents of HBCUs. But that's because of where I am today. But I think that you probably don't know the white college presidents either.

BOND: No.

CHAMBERS: And so I don't know that it's a lot different in that respect. We have some good educators today. Not the Benny Mays or the Mordecai Johnsons. But they are doing great jobs in their own way. And they are not the kind of public figures that one would see with the Benny Mays or a Mordecai Johnson. And I wouldn't discount that leadership as extremely important for African Americans today.

BOND: Now, in being one of this tiny number of students, of black students, and being at the top of your class, and being on the Law Review, already people must be saying, "Watch that young man, he's a leader now, and he's going to be a leader in the future." Did you ever think of yourself as a leader? A leader academically or a leader in any broader sense?

CHAMBERS: Not really. I didn't really think about it. And quite honestly don't even think about it today. Then I was interested in getting an education. I wanted to make sure that I was as prepared as anyone else. And that I would be able to do the job that I had chosen effectively. I wanted to be able to demonstrate that I could measure up to anybody. And so I worked hard. And I didn't really think about leadership or whatever role I would play as a leader in that respect.

BOND: But in the sense you are the leading scholar in the school, or among the leading scholars in the school, and by virtue of being a member of this tiny minority in the school, a leader in that sense too. So you must have known that others are looking to you for some kind of leadership.

CHAMBERS: Well, I knew that I had the best grades in the school. I knew that I was getting involved in some activities that others were not getting involved in. But, again, I never thought about it as a leader. And it didn't really come to my attention at that time. So there was so much more that we had to do. Getting out of that law school, getting by the bar, which was a chore in itself, and then getting out to practice, because we didn't have that many blacks practicing law in North Carolina. And so those were the areas that I was concentrating on more than anything else.

BOND: Did you ever have the feeling during this early period in your life, both college, the master's degree, then law school, then a subsequent master's degree, that "other people are watching me," that in any way "I am a representative of others, I've got to do well in order to demonstrate to them that it can be done"?

CHAMBERS: I thought of that only with respect to my father and mother, who insisted that I go out and do well. And they made those comparisons. I didn't really think about it in terms of others looking at me or toward me for any kind of leadership role or any kind of example. Again, with your upbringing you are taught to study hard, do the right thing, and you will be able to succeed. And so that's the philosophy that I was following at the time.

BOND: But you must have, or maybe not, but I'd guess you must have thought that, fairly or not, other people, white people, would look at you, and if you fail you are representing the failure of the race, fairly or not. Was that ever part of the calculation?

CHAMBERS: Sure. That's true. I knew that. I went to law school and I was immediately drafted in the service. And I always attributed that to the fact that I was going to a white law school.

BOND: Oh really?

CHAMBERS: And we worked out an arrangement where I could go into reserves. And I went into the reserves. And then in my community there was concern about my going to this white school. A lot of other white kids weren't able to go to that school, get into the law school. And there was some resentment in that respect. But overall, I think — Iook at it as kind of a learning opportunity for me and for a number of the people there in the community.

BOND: Now what about in the black community? If there is resentment in the white community that little Johnny Johnson down the street should have gone to Chapel Hill and instead Chambers is going, in the black community there must have been sort of opposite prideful reaction.

CHAMBERS: Well, I think there was some of that. There were some people who were quite pleased that we were going, because I think a lot of people felt that getting out and practicing law would provide some opportunity — I'm talking about a lot of black people — opportunities for them as well. They were experiencing the same kinds of problems that my father had experienced.

BOND: Sure.

CHAMBERS: We still had an all-white court and a white system of justice. And the black people in my hometown were experiencing this every day. And anything that looked like it was bringing some change to that system was welcomed.

BOND: I wonder if on the occasions when you come home while in law school did people bombard you with legal questions? "What about this? What about that?"

CHAMBERS: I don't — I don't recall that. My father ran a garage. And growing up I worked in the garage. And the questions that I was bombarded with at that time were like: "What do I need to do with this carburetor or generator or — ? not, "What are my legal rights?"

BOND: Can you still answer those questions today?

CHAMBERS: They change cars so much today that I don't know — I don't think they have a generator anymore.

BOND: Now one thing that has characterized, or seems to have characterized your career, is a kind of coolness, a little reserve, as opposed to a flamboyance that one associates with other — is this conscious or is it simply just you?

CHAMBERS: I think that it's some of both. You know, I watched Jack Greenberg operate. I watched Jim Nabrit operate. And I compared them with Thurgood Marshall. And I thought that what Jack was doing or his approach was a way of having greater effect on a judge or on a jury than the flamboyance that I saw among a lot of attorneys. And I calculated approaches that tried to achieve those kinds of results. And so I — I can tell you, people keep telling me that I talked too softly or I do things that people can't hear or understand or whatever. But that's — it's not something intentionally done in that respect. It's just a habit that I've grown into that I continue to do. But if I'm in court, or even in a public arena and trying to influence people, I do try to come across less flamboyant than —

BOND: That's a deliberate choice, because the quieter person is paid more attention than the louder person, in my experience, in a speaking mode.

Let me ask you again about leadership and your own leadership. Undeniably you are a leader. By virtue of the work that you've done over the past several years, by the positions you have held and do now held, you are someone who is listened to and to whom others look for guidance and direction. Now, it's generally thought that people come to leadership positions in three distinct ways, that sometimes overlap, that movements throw up leaders. That movements boil and rumble, and bam! someone emerges out of the movement and becomes a leadership figure. Or that events happen to just tumble the right way at a certain moment in time and some figure emerges who's a leader. And then the third way is that leadership figures themselves create these events. Now can you associate yourself with one of those three notions? Or has your life been a combination?

CHAMBERS: Well, accepting the premise that I may be a leader and accepting the premise that —

BOND: No, you have to accept the premise. You have to accept the premise.

CHAMBERS: And accepting one of those three approaches for leadership, I would think that I became a leader through changes or developments in society of a moment that produced a person in this position. I really haven't calculated anything. And I wouldn't be interested in doing that. I think that there was a need to fill a void. I mentioned, I keep talking about black people – my father particularly – needing lawyers, and I could fill that role. And I — I did. And I will continue with that kind of objective. And there I think that that's more just the moment producing a person who one might call a leader.

BOND: You know, some of this speculation is only speculation. What if? What if that hadn't happened? What if this had happened? But I wonder if you can reflect on the path that you might have taken had this incident with your father involved his health and the failure of a doctor to come forward to treat him? Might you then have said, "Gee, I'll become a doctor"?

CHAMBERS: That might have — well, I understand. That might have been true. There was a need for more black physicians in my community. And, in fact, we didn't have one. And I don't think that we have one in my home town even yet. But it was just perhaps fortuitous that it was the law that necessitated some kind of movement at that time. And I was able to do something about it. My brother did go into medicine and, I think, helped to fill a void at that moment. But my commitment was in law.

BOND: Are you likely, or could you imagine yourself finding yourself in a court room situation where your personality would have to shift radically, where you might pound the podium, where you might raise your voice, where you might adopt a different style?

CHAMBERS: Me, personally, I think that it would be a little hard to do. I was in the Supreme Court I guess about eight or nine years ago. And the court asked me a question that I thought was so improper that I was about to pound and rough 'em and thought differently about the way that things ought to be handled. There are occasions when you really would like to do something else, but I think that I am so ingrained with the approach that I have followed over the years that I would be hard put to...

BOND: Let me ask you about a different aspect of the approach that you followed over the years that it strikes me looking back over your career that you have always had this commitment to diversity, always had this commitment to integration, and even today as chancellor are committed to improving the diversity at this historically black college. Why did you come to this position in the first place? And why have you remained so steadfast in it over time?

CHAMBERS: I firmly believe that we are a world that is diverse and the only way that we are going to effect change and provide opportunities for all people is through diversity. And we got to bring all the people together to deal with it. We, in the early stages of my life, taught primarily about black and white people. We were separate. And the only way that you could improve opportunities for black people was to bring people together and give people an opportunity to speak, to work, to do what they needed to do as a combined group. Now we have many more ethnic groups, races, and all, involved in and you really have to do more in bringing people together with that. And you got to be much more diverse. Additionally, I saw that diversity produced a much more substantive approach to problems. There is nothing like sitting down and talking and hearing different views and being sensitive of the views that other groups might present. Is it better to have a public education system? Do all ethnic groups want to have a public education system? Can we develop a dual system in the sense that one is public and one is private that would be equally effective? And you need to hear from all the people. And sometimes different groups bring ideas that will help to advance a cause that one group wouldn't think about.

BOND: So in some respects both your brother and yourself feel this need that's got to be filled and choose yourselves to fill it. Now the need — those particular needs aren't anywhere near as great today as they were then. What needs and in fact what movements are throwing people up or drawing people in today? What challenges do people feel today that you didn't feel in your time and place?

CHAMBERS: Well, first I think I probably felt a lot of these needs, but I thought at the moment there were some that were just greater. Even today there is a need for more lawyers. I know a lot of people would differ with it. We do have a number of lawyers. But I am talking about lawyers in the mold of Charlie Houston who — and Thurgood Marshall — [who] look at an injustice and try to figure out how the law can be used to help to correct it. Law is there. There is a need for more African Americans in science. It's appalling – to see the role that science can play in improving opportunities for all people. To think that we are talking about the developments today with the human genomics. We can determine through the cells what problems are caused by x or y and how we can deal with it. And to think that we don't have that many black people involved. And to know that the research that is going on in those areas today largely ignore the particular problems that black people bring to the forefront. If we're going to be out determining how to address illnesses and we know that black people have different illnesses or bring different problems to the table, and then to know that we don't have anyone concentrating that much in that area. We desperately need to get more black scientists out and involved.

I don't want to digress on it, but I remember when we were talking about environmental equity, and we looked around the country – I was in with the Legal Defense Fund – to find a black scientist. We found one person, in California, who was inundated and couldn't address the problems that we had. We had — one area that we were concentrating on then was the exposure of black children to lead poisoning and the devastating effect that was having. And we knew that we had the dumping of hazardous waste in black areas. Not a black person could be found who would be able to provide that kind of expertise. And even today there is a real problem with it. So that is an area that I think is crying out for black people. We hear people talking about the digital divide. Well, there's a terrible problem. I think we graduated like three people with a Ph.D. in math. That's horrible. And that is a growing and crucial area in this country. So there is a need for getting more African Americans involved in science and math.

BOND: What's the challenge there? I don't mean the structural challenges, the scholarship money, the early training. Are there other challenges to getting young people to say, "Gee, I want to be a mathematician, I want to be a computer specialist, I want to be a scientist?" What's the challenge to getting people to make the choices as you made them as a youngster to become a lawyer?

CHAMBERS: I think the challenge is getting people to change their ways of thinking about their role. My parents taught me that I ought to be a teacher. So even studying history while talking about going to law school, they insisted that I take education. So I got a teaching degree. We haven't thought — most black people don't know that much about science, about math, or certainly about computers. And so they aren't teaching their children about them. That's changing some. But it's a cultural issue that we really have to work on to change. And there are some efforts underway to do just that. And we have to do more to ensure that we get more kids in.

BOND: Again, back to leadership. In your present position as a chancellor, you are trying to take your institution and to move it in certain directions towards science for an example. Now is this job made more difficult or easy because of the absence of or presence of a general feeling in North Carolina, let's say, or in the country generally, that there aren't enough black scientists? Or are you having to convince people of the need and then say "Here we are, we are going to fulfill it"? That is, are you coming out of a movement, a demand? Are you articulating the demand of a movement? Or are you setting a demand?

CHAMBERS: You know, I think there is some of both. I know when we developed a biomedical research facility, I was amazed with the kind of support we were able to get from industries in the Research Triangle area telling them that we needed to train more black scientists. We needed to focus more on medical research in areas that would affect black people and poor people. They all agreed. They responded with financial contributions, with advice on how we ought to proceed with doing this and doing that. We are now trying to develop a genomics or bioinformatic center. And we are telling people there is a need for doing or getting more blacks involved in training the area, and they agree. And they are providing assistance with that as well. So I think that we have to move to encourage people to provide this kind of support they know we need in order to get these programs started. But I see them responding, believing as we do that there are too few black scientists and they want to do what they can to help.

BOND: Would it be fair to say then that you are both leading and following, following a general societal recognition that there is a need and leading toward getting that need fulfilled?

CHAMBERS: I would think so. I would agree with that and think it's absolutely necessary. What's great is that the general population appreciates the need for fulfilling these gaps and the people are willing to provide their assistance to help them.

BOND: And in your own life when in-- is it '65?--your car is bombed, your home is dynamited? I mean, this has to be a challenge. This is a challenge to your leadership. These are people saying "this is serious business, we are going to do something, we can do something worse than this" -- if you could imagine anything worse. I mean, that's a real challenge to your leadership, and must have — how did it affect you?

CHAMBERS: Not, quite honestly, not very much. I wasn't deterred, and I expected from your experiences and the experiences of many other civil rights activists, I knew that there was always a danger that somebody would do something horrible. And so I didn't — that was a risk that took and decided to take and proceeded. I didn't really get that uptight about some of the activities. I did try to find out frequently who was doing what.

BOND: But then seven years later your father's auto shop and your own law office burned down. I mean, this had to be devastating for him and for you.

CHAMBERS: Well, it was devastating for him. But for me, again, it was the same feeling that these are things that one will likely experience in trying to effect change. And —

BOND: But he's an innocent in this regard — your father?

CHAMBERS: Yeah, he is innocent in the sense that he wasn't the lawyer that was doing all this. But he was the father and supporter of the effort underway. And I think that he anticipated that some of these things would occur. So he didn't stop working or try to encourage me to stop working. And it continued. The question that you pose, though, about leadership and following and developing a movement, even about Martin Luther King and the movement in the latter part of his life, I thought there were some efforts already underway that he joined.

BOND: Yes, indeed.

CHAMBERS: So it's a good question. But whatever I think that a good leader knows what particular movements are worth pursuing and how best to bring his or her people along to get them involved with the particular issue.

BOND: In another vein, if this was truly a raceless society you would be thought of as an education leader who's trying to take this institution and make it into a better institution than it has been. But because we are not that kind of society you're a black leader and your previous career as head of the Legal Defense Fund even more made you a black leader. Now how can you, or do you, distinguish in your own mind between leadership of and promotion of initiatives which help the progress of black people and those which help the larger society become a better society? Are these always the same thing?

CHAMBERS: Well, one would hope that promoting opportunities for minorities would always be advantageous to the larger society. And in that instance, I think it sort of depends on the way that people think and what they think about. In my opinion, though, it does help the larger society. When we can bring more people into decision making, can solicit their ideas and thoughts about matters, and can encourage their participation, it is all in my opinion beneficial to the larger group. I listened to your question about being classified as a black leader or a black educator. That is quite true and I don't know in this society if we will ever get to the point anytime soon where working to help improve education opportunities for a certain group would allow you to be classified as an educator or leader of American interests.

BOND: In a slightly connected vein, do you think you have a different style of leadership or perhaps a different style of presentation when you are dealing with a group that's all white, when you are dealing with a group that's all black, and when you are dealing with a group that is composed of lots of different people?

CHAMBERS: Well, in one sense I think that I would be guilty of that. Particularly when I really want to get a group to support a particular idea and I am trying to pull together the best approach for achieving that objective. When I am not that concerned and I am more concerned with pointing out the inequities of practices, I wouldn't care, and I would tell people, whatever their race or gender, that there was a problem that we really ought to address. You know, I think that all of us have to appreciate that what I say as a black person in a black environment may not be convincing to a group of Hispanics, whatever I'm talking about. And it may not be true or acceptable to a group of Asians and all that. And one then really has to figure out the best way to present an issue for the culture of the people with whom one is talking. And so, it may require that one say something differently.

BOND: Is there a universal style and language? And if there is, is that desirable or are these separate approaches going to be with us and are perfectly reasonable for many, many years to come?

CHAMBERS: I don't know about the latter – perfectly reasonable – but I certainly expect it. One day, I believe, we will get to the point where we can talk with and deal with people of all races and nationalities without regard to their particular language. But I don't know of any universal language today.

BOND: But shouldn't there be? Should we be striving for a universality of presentation? Universality of argument?

CHAMBERS: One would hope that we are doing that. But, you know, I watch the argument now about English-only approaches. I know that a number of non English-speaking people are very much offended by that practice. If English were to be a universal language, it could help ease communication. But it wouldn't necessarily mean that folk who are not English-speaking people would be that happy with that approach. I think what we are fighting now is a prejudice that is very deep within all of us. And we all have to keep working to educate people and helping to encourage people to learn to respect everyone else and to appreciate that what I may be saying or you may be saying, whatever language, is designed to really provide opportunities for them.

BOND: But in the United States both black and white people speak English and can understand each other generally when they are talking across racial lines. But there're admittedly different styles one might employ, you might employ if you are speaking to the all-black Links [Inc.] and another style you might employ if you are speaking to the all-white Rotary Club. Do you think if the Rotary Club people saw you talking to the Links they might think, "Ooh, that's not the same guy we saw who spoke to us last week," and vice versa? Would it be jarring for these audiences?

CHAMBERS: Well, you pit the Links and the Rotary.

BOND: Yeah, maybe that's not –

CHAMBERS: What I would talk to the Links about would not necessarily be the same thing that I would talk to the Rotary about. But the language used or the approach would likely be –

BOND: Let's say the Rotary and the Prince Hall Masons.

CHAMBERS: Yeah. Well, well, the approach would likely for those groups be the same. I think that with the Prince Hall Masons that you're dealing with a group that is knowledgeable about a number of things and will understand positions that one may be advancing. And the Rotary would also be knowledgeable about positions. So one can basically say what one would like to say without fear of antagonizing a lot of people in that respect.

BOND: Well, the Rotary might not be – they might be receptive, but they might not be initially sympathetic. You might have a greater convincing job to do with the Rotary.

CHAMBERS: That's a different question. And you are right. Whether whatever one is saying is going to convince anybody. But I would imagine, from what I know about Prince Hall and the Rotary, that the groups I know would be receptive to an approach that was basically the same.

BOND: I want to go back to something we had talked about a short while ago, and that is what kind of strategies do you use, do you employ in speaking to different groups of people, not necessarily racially different, but just different? For example, in your position you've to talk to legislators. I am guessing that is one strategy. You've got to talk to alumni. I am guessing that's – How do you address these different groups?

CHAMBERS: Well, the legislators, we generally appeal for them to provide support for a fledgling HBCU, that has in our case been neglected over the years and that is at the threshold of really developing some programs, etc. I always took the approach, I never wanted, didn't think that I would actually want it, that North Carolina Central was built as a counterpart to the University of North Carolina. And we at Central should not rest until we have the exact equivalent. Well, obviously that has ruffled a lot of feathers. But people have appreciated the need for doing a lot more than they have been doing. When they look at it from that historical perspective with the alumni, we talk about loyalty to an institution and how it has progressed and where we think it is going and why we need their support in order to get where we are moving. Showing that we have been able to do some things with their help and then talking about some other things that we can do.

BOND: Well, what you are describing is a different approach based on the demand or request that you are making of these different groups of people. What about altering your approach depending on who they are? Not so much as because of what they can offer you, but just because of who they are? Legislators are politicians. Alumni are a wide variety of different kinds of people. Potential contributors are yet a third – business people in the Triangle area. Do you devise a different strategy, not only based on what you are requesting, or – but just based on who they are?

CHAMBERS: Yeah. Well, I guess one should say generally. Because the different groups would be more responsive depending on the approach. I was talking about Central as compared to Chapel Hill because it is one approach. It helps those who are allocating resources to appreciate that there are funds needed in order to make some improvement for alumni. It helps them to know that they are in a position to give and that what they give can be extremely beneficial to the group. For the business community it – you know, I guess I got this from Vernon Jordan, it helps for them to appreciate that whatever they are giving or the fact that they are giving can be beneficial to their company or to them and that it's not just a one-way street in terms of the benefits. So one does frequently employ different approaches depending on the group.

BOND: And these approaches don't have to be or can – I don't want to say can be contradictory, because that's not quite it. But you can approach the legislators in one way that you wouldn't dream of using with the other group. And I guess it depends on who the groups are, what the groups are, and what the need is.

CHAMBERS: It does. And the other thing that I should point out is that legislatures are changing. The number of blacks in the legislature today is interesting and it forces one to sort of change the approach that one might have or otherwise have had with the legislature, because blacks in the legislature will look at issues in one way that one has to anticipate in the approach that one is making. So we have, I have, used slightly different approaches in going to different constituencies. And I think that it is necessary because their interests are different. And some of those approaches have been modified or have to be modified because the constituency or the nature of the constituencies themselves is changing.

BOND: Yes, as you say the legislature changes, has changed over time. It's gotten more black members. In many ways, more small "d" democratic today than would have been true thirty years ago. So your approach must change to this.

BOND: Now, how does leadership change over this period? What are the demands on black leadership today as opposed to twenty, thirty, forty years ago? When you were at the Legal Defense Fund how was, if at all, how was the demand on your leadership different from the demand on Thurgood Marshall and then Jack Greenberg?

CHAMBERS: Well, I think as time passes leaders have to become much more diplomatic and less dictatorial.

BOND: Do you mean with their outside constituency or with the inside constituency?

CHAMBERS: With the inside, and somewhat with the outside as well. Thurgood could generally sort of make a decision and direct that it be implemented. Jack did a lot of that as well. But Jack had to negotiate more. I had to negotiate a lot. And I think that Elaine has to negotiate a lot. And employees, our people are much more at ease in raising questions about leadership.

BOND: Is that in part a reflection of the employer/employee relationship change over time? Or is it something else? That is, are the people who work for Thurgood Marshall in a different relationship with Thurgood Marshall than the people who work for Elaine Jones are with Elaine Jones?

CHAMBERS: I can't really answer that. I don't think that there is that much. I think the people themselves have changed. And we revered Thurgood. If he said that chalk was white, chalk was white. We didn't care to question that. If he said that the justice would do better if approached this way, then the justice would do better if approached this way. Jack didn't take that much hands-on in doing things. But he would say this is the approach that we are going to make and that was the approach that we were going to make. And he also would line up his votes on a board of directors to ensure that that happened. I had to go negotiate a lot more with everybody. And I know Elaine has to as well. So those are –

BOND: Well, what was the change between Greenberg's tenure and yours? Why did this increase –

CHAMBERS: It was a matter of degree. Jack became Director Counsel at a point when a lot of black people thought that civil rights organizations ought to be led by black people. And he did a fantastic job in holding the organization together and moving it ahead and focusing mostly on issues because we were right in the midst of the civil rights demonstrations and others. And people had to look at those issues more so than "leadership". But even so he still had to negotiate where he was going. I followed Jack and people had gotten to the point where they wouldn't mind questioning certain leadership decisions. And they did it even more so when I was there. And so that – and Elaine comes along and –

BOND: And is a woman –

CHAMBERS: And is a woman. And so they do question. And so you have to be a bit more diplomatic with the way you operate.

BOND: I just had a thought and don't want to talk about this a long time, but is it fair to say that Jack Greenberg was a black leader?

CHAMBERS: I would think that he was. As much so as any black leader I've seen. And I watched Jack operate and I know that he was as involved in directing that organization and bringing people along as anybody that I've seen. I've seen him work with the black leaders of that era, including Martin King and Whitney Young, among others. And they respected him as a "leader" in that respect. So I would think so.

BOND: So, at least in this instance, racial leadership is not dependent on your race. It's dependent on what you do and how well you do it.

CHAMBERS: Yeah.

BOND: Do you remember where you were and what you were thinking when you heard about the '54 Brown decision?

CHAMBERS: I was in high school in Montgomery County. And we paused in a class and all of us rejoiced.

BOND: A teacher made an announcement?

CHAMBERS: A teacher made an announcement. And we were all extremely happy, because we understood the decision freed all black people.

BOND: You understood that?

CHAMBERS: That's what the teacher was telling us.

BOND: Okay. Did you understand then that this was something that would happen like that, or when would it happen?

CHAMBERS: I think all of us did. I think, I know at my school we thought this was something that would be immediate. That the court had directed that there would be no more forced segregation. But we didn't really step back and think about what that would mean. We were in our little school. White students were across town in their little school. We didn't think about whether it meant that our school would be closed and we would be shipped there or vice versa. All we knew was that the court had said no more discrimination.

BOND: So you thought about it, if I can, in an abstract way, rather than in a concrete way. It was something wonderful and good, but it was abstract, not real. When did it become more real?

CHAMBERS: In terms of timing, in North Carolina, you know, we started with the Pearsall plan and the opposition to integration and the efforts by the then governor to ban implementation of Brown among others. We, in those debates, which began I guess shortly after the decision, appreciated that it was much more to implementing that decision than we had originally thought. And so we saw three or four years – or even more in some instances – that we had a decision out there that we thought was going to free us. And yet, a lot of barriers that would make it impossible for that to happen. So if you are looking for a time period, I would guess that, gee, it would have been '54 to '62 or '63.

BOND: Now, were these governor's actions in delaying tactics? Did you think of them as they are contemporarily happening as simply delays or as barriers that could not be overcome?

CHAMBERS: Well, I viewed them as barriers that – I guess we always had some faith that things would eventually be removed. But we knew that they would be there for a long time and we had to continue to fight to get them removed.

BOND: So you were always optimistic. Cautiously optimistic?

CHAMBERS: Cautiously optimistic.

BOND: Ever completely despondent?

CHAMBERS: No. Not in the sense that we thought that it would never happen. We were despondent in the fact that our leadership had taken this kind of position and would bar us and other black children from getting a better education.

BOND: So now we are fifty years past, almost fifty years past. Looking back – disappointed?

CHAMBERS: Yes, I'm disappointed. I'm just as disappointed with that as I am with the fact that we still are wrestling with the issue of race. I have talked with a number of people about how they felt in '54 with the decision. And I don't think that I'm unusual or that our class members were unusual. I watched, I read Bob Carter's comments. Thurgood's comments. Jack's. There was this real dilemma of how do you enforce that decision. And I think that Thurgood and Bob thought that it would happen immediately, that would be some edict that you must now integrate the schools. Integrate them how wasn't clear. And I don't think anyone thought that it would be that long in achieving "integration," however it was defined. Even today I am not certain if people have agreement on what Brown meant in the sense of how you or whether you integrate the schools.

But there was this hope that it meant that black people would now have a chance to do whatever they wanted to do in order to improve conditions in life. We have gone through these struggles. It has been frustrating and really disappointing and bitter. And looking back I don't think that black people are just angry with everybody else because of it. They realize that it's part of the American system. But they are disappointed that they really have to go through this kind of process. On the other hand, in today's milieu people like to assume that we are now free, that we have removed all the barriers. And all the segregated schools are now integrated. And that is another frustrating problem for us to address.

BOND: I wonder if in some ways, Swann, the Swann case in which you are intimately involved, 100 times more so than Brown – which has to be an abstract to you in North Carolina – if the Swann case is up and down – that is, achieving this great Supreme Court victory and then years later having seen it chipped and chipped and chipped away – if that doesn't lead if not to some kind of cynicism, at least to some kind of disappointment?

CHAMBERS: Well, you know, I – first of all, Swann has not been completely reversed. We had a decision that said that "You stop doing the bussing whatever assignments based on race." And I doubt seriously if that is going to be the final disposition of that case. There is a lot of opposition in the community to it. So much so that I think that even if it became the final word, the board would insist on something else. Because one thing that has grown out of Swann is that people appreciate the advantages of an integrated school system. And they will insist on that kind of system whatever the court may be talking about. But I also think that the court will appreciate the need for diversity in education and would likely modify that decision as well.

BOND: You are awfully optimistic about that.

CHAMBERS: I'm optimistic. I was really impressed with the way black and white people supported that decision and supported integration of the Charlotte schools. Obviously there was some opposition by both black and whites. But the vast majority of them really thought it was better, far better to have integrated schools than what we had had previously. And I think the vast majority would like to keep that.

BOND: Well, you know, it's one thing to have community support for this ideal and another thing to convince the Supreme Court of this ideal. Are you equally as optimistic?

CHAMBERS: Yes. Yes, I am. You know I watch the Court with this anti-affirmative action approach and unfortunately I don't think the Court has really thought about what it's saying. And I think that we have begun already to see some retrenchment or modification in what the Court has been doing. A Court saying that you can't use race? You've got to be crazy. And if you can use race, then you can begin doing a lot of the things that we were doing previously. I watched with the university systems talking about more affirmative action practices in higher ed. And then as you begin to eliminate a number of black students, no university can afford to have an all-white student body, particularly in those state supported. And I don't think that any private university would want to have an all-white student body. And if you can't have, then you really got to think about race and attracting other students. And they are doing it.

You know, this Texas thing about the top ten percent of a high school class is just a substitute for affirmative action. California moving to something similar, is again a substitute. And so you are going to have to have race as a factor. And I think the Court is going to appreciate that and will likely modify. And I don't care – now I know that there are some people who are going to point to the Supreme Court and not want to see Brown implemented and would likely reverse Brown if they could. But I think that the good people on the Court, the good will people, would want to see the country advance and would want to see us maintain some diversity in the school system.

BOND: As I started to explore whether or not we are going to have a majority of good will people, but that is something at the moment which is just unknown.