Since 1954 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” facilities were unconstitutional, Black Americans have believed that our legal system, however deliberate and erratic, was the bulwark against racial inequality. For most of the 60 years since I heard Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speak in 1965, I have taken as an article of faith his promise that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

For most of my life, I have been proud to be an American and, to this day, Ray Charles’ rendition of America the Beautiful still brings tears to my eyes. My faith often wavered, but I believed that most Americans also wanted a society that was diverse, equitable and inclusive and one that recognized the dignity and worth of every person.

Sadly, at least 77 million Americans do not share that belief. This analysis of the last 10 years, and especially the breadth and speed of events the last 100+ days, have shaken my faith to the core. I now question whether American democracy can weather the existential threat of this moment and deliver on its promise of universal equality.

My American history

I am a 79 year-old Black man who attended racially-segregated schools in Jefferson County, Alabama, during the early years of the modern Civil Rights Movement.

Growing up in a small town near Birmingham, I witnessed hooded Ku Klux Klansmen riding through our neighborhood at night shouting racist threats and brandishing shotguns. I have vivid recollections of the horrifying news of the brutal murders of Emmett Till, Viola Liuzzo, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, and the terror that they caused throughout our community. I remember my rage at the news that Freedom Riders were beaten by racist mobs in bus stations around the state, and that their bus was firebombed in Anniston.

My mother prohibited us from participating in those demonstrations in Birmingham where Bull Connor directed high-powered water hoses at and sicced vicious police dogs on Black students who were demonstrating, because she feared losing her job as a public school teacher. I remember being distraught and angry over the bombing deaths in a Birmingham church of four young Black girls named Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley, whose only offense was that they were attending Sunday School. I remember my pride at the courage of young Black people walking through racist mobs to integrate racially-segregated schools and universities or being beaten for demanding to be served at all-White lunch counters.

I attended a small, all-Black college, Talladega, which was founded in 1867 to honor the memory of the 1839 mutiny of 53 Africans on the slave ship, The Amistad. Every day we walked past and were inspired by the world famous murals on display there depicting the courage of Joseph Cinque and the other Africans who commandeered the ship in an effort to gain their freedom.

As a college freshman, in 1965, I heard Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Stokely Carmichael speak in Selma, and participated in the march to Montgomery where angry White mobs shouted threats and racist slurs at us. I remember, as if it were yesterday, that night in April of 1968, when Dr. King was assassinated. Rose, who has been my wife for 56 years, and I were crying and trying to console each other. She then said, “I don’t want to bring a child into a world filled with such hate.”

I was admitted to Temple University Law School as a 1968 beneficiary of one of the earliest Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs in America funded by the Council on Legal Education (CLEO), founded to give Black and other underrepresented minorities an opportunity to obtain a legal education. When our CLEO scholarship checks arrived, the dean of Temple Law posted a notice on a public bulletin board that included the names of each Black student stating that our checks had arrived.

As one of 12 Black students in the school, I was a founder of the Black Law Students Association. In my third year, we led demonstrations that resulted in the resignation of the dean, the appointment of the faculty member who recruited me as the new dean, the hiring of the first Black law professors at the school, and the admission of 50 Black and Hispanic students. During our demonstrations, the former Dean stated, in the presence of the only Black secretary at the school: “I never should have let niggers in here.”

After graduating, I directed Temple’s diversity program before attending Yale Law School where I received an LL.M. degree. (One of my classmates was Clarence Thomas.) I returned to the Temple Law faculty, where I taught for 30 years, then was appointed Dean — at the time the youngest, first Black and only Temple Law graduate to have served as dean.

When the university-wide dean selection committee recommended me for the position, the University President, who was the faculty member who recruited me, was reluctant to appoint me, claiming, “They are not ready for a Black dean downtown.” He offered me a position as vice president of urban affairs at the university if I withdrew as a dean candidate. When I rejected his offer, he waited four months to announce my appointment.

The last 10 years — a relatively brief span in a 250 year history — have been a stress test of American democracy’s resiliency.

When I attended the press conference to announce my appointment, I discovered that it was a joint press conference that was also an announcement that Bruce Arians was being hired as the head football coach. When Bill Cosby, who was also invited to the press conference, walked into the room, he joked: “You must be the coach.” As Dean, my salary was 75 percent of the previous Dean’s salary. Throughout my term, I never received a salary increase. As Dean, I discovered that the student files of the Black students in my class were stamped “Admitted Under Special Terms and Conditions”. Six months before my contract was to expire, the President fired me, stating that, “all deans serve at the pleasure of the president.”

As an attorney, I practiced in my own firm for several years, and I was a partner in two large, White Philadelphia law firms, where I served on their diversity committees. I also wrote and successfully defended, in federal court, Philadelphia’s set-aside ordinance that sought to give minority- and women-owned business access to the City’s contracting opportunities. In later years, I served on two mayoral commissions that encouraged the hiring of minorities and women in the Philadelphia Police Department and in Philadelphia area building construction unions.

As a law student, I learned that the rule of law was the one concept that distinguished a democracy from an autocracy, that legal decisions were binding, and that courts were entitled to deference and respect. As a law professor I taught those ideas to thousands of law students. I also taught them that the fundamental principles of American democracy were widely shared, and their objectives, achievable.

Until Trump’s election in 2024, we naïvely presumed that these principles were sacrosanct and would endure. But what are the consequences if a lawless President, his minions and his party, openly violate, simply ignore or refuse to honor these foundational principles and the law?

America’s two Constitutions

The foundational principles of American democracy are based on the Declaration of Independence and what are actually two different constitutions, drafted by different White men, at different historical periods, to achieve different political objectives. The White men who drafted and adopted these documents were wealthy and educated, and were either merchants or landowners, or both. Most of these men were slave owners or benefitted from the traffic in human bondage. Of the 56 White men who signed the Declaration of Independence, 40 owned slaves. When the first Constitution was adopted in 1787, 25 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, the “Founding Fathers”, owned slaves. Of the 14 presidents elected after the first Constitution was adopted, 12 enslaved Africans; eight of them owned slaves while in office.

After the Revolution, White men needed a document that would define how they would govern themselves and other men in their class as an independent nation. The nation that they envisioned included “equality” for them, but not for the women, slaves, indentured servants and Indigenous people who lived among them. Their newly independent country was undoubtedly diverse but by design far from equitable or inclusive, socially or politically. In fact, there were 720,000 slaves in the 13 colonies that rebelled. When Thomas Jefferson, himself the owner of 100 slaves, submitted a draft of the Declaration of Independence that included language condemning England’s participation in the slave trade, the other signers deleted it. Jefferson’s blatant hypocrisy is perhaps the earliest recorded example of gaslighting on the issue of race in America.

The first Constitution consisted of seven Articles, establishing the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches which would act as checks and balances on each others’ power. The individual or civil rights provisions of the first Constitution are found in the first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791. These Amendments guaranteed the following individual rights that are under assault by Trump and the right:

• • 1st Amendment: right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly
  • 5th Amendment: right to due process
  • 6th Amendment: right to counsel.

The First Constitution contained two provisions that were designed to protect slavery and perpetuate inequality: the three-fifths Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause.

The second Constitution, adopted after the end of the Civil War in 1865, consisted of several amendments which were primarily intended to protect the civil rights of the newly freed slaves. They included

• • 13th Amendment outlawing slavery
  • 14th Amendment granting equal protection of the laws, due process of law to all persons regardless of race, birthright citizenship
  • 15th Amendment granting the vote to Black men
  • 19th Amendment granting voting rights to women

The conflict between the racial hypocrisy of the first Constitution and the narrow meaning of equality, and the egalitarian principles of the second have never been resolved and have been persistent undercurrents in our political fabric since America, in 1865, set out on its second journey of reconciliation and towards a “more perfect Union.”

Abraham Lincoln was able to win the war because of his eloquence, willingness to wage a war of attrition and, significantly, the issuance of a type of executive order — the Emancipation Proclamation. At the end of the war, Congress and the states adopted several amendments to the Constitution, and Congress passed several civil rights statutes ostensibly to protect the newly freed slaves. White Southerners were unrepentant and vowed that the Confederacy would “rise again,” and those beliefs would ultimately prevail.

Donald Trump’s elections vindicate that view.

Trump’s existential threat to American democracy is very different from the 1861 insurrection for several reasons, the most important of which is that this insurrection is fomented and led by the President of the United States, wielding the enormous resources of the federal government, especially executive orders, and access to enormous sums of money. Trump’s actions are unconstitutional violations of the foundational principles of American democracy. In his first 100 days, Trump has implemented a well-financed, well-organized, multi-pronged strategy to dismantle the core foundational principles of American democracy.

The demonization of diversity, equity and inclusion

The demonization of diversity, equity and inclusion is the most insidious, divisive and effective tactic employed by Trump and the right to win elections. The civil rights laws passed to protect Black people are now being used as a cudgel to attack universities, law firms, institutions and corporations over their efforts to implement the goals of these laws, and as a pretext for Trump’s campaign of retribution.

The words diversity, equity and inclusion are the contemporary expressions of the concept of “equality” and advocate solutions to several moral and legal quandaries that have plagued American democracy from its inception. That is, who in our society is considered to be an American? Are all Americans truly equal, with what rights, preserved through which means? Diversity, equity and inclusion is the result of the long and arduous 250-year struggle for a more just and equitable United States, which celebrates and cherishes the dignity and worth of all citizens and the people seeking citizenship.

The core ideals of equality can be traced back to the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed that “all men are created equal.” However, as we have seen, that original conception only applied to White men and was belied by institutionalized inequality. That conception of equality prevailed from 1776 to 1865 and was supplanted for barely a decade by the Civil War and Reconstruction. Supporters of this narrow conception were defeated, and their structured inequality was dismantled, but they never truly surrendered.

Americans are not powerless, and we must not despair, but summon the courage and resolve that sustained Black people during our darkest moments.

From the end of Reconstruction in 1877 to 1965, this original conception prevailed after the Southern states systematically enacted “Jim Crow” laws that eroded the civil rights of Black people. They instituted a rigid system of racial segregation that amounted to de facto slavery, and reinforced it with vicious beatings, rapes, arson, lynchings and riots. Many White people in the Northern states, although never owning slaves, sympathized with Southern Whites, shared their conception of equality, and benefited economically from the slave based economy. Before, during and after the Civil War, these states were racially segregated in fact and rigidly maintained it with force and violence.

Our contemporary conceptions of equality are rooted in the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, various civil rights statutes and the 19th Amendment of the Second Constitution. While this broader notion of equality was promised as early as 1865, it would take 100 years, mass demonstrations by Black people, court decisions, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other legislation and executive orders for it to become a contingent reality, grudgingly accepted by many Americans. These competing and unreconciled conceptions of racial equality have been a determinative factor in the outcomes of political elections at every level of government, since 1865. For most of American history candidates for political office from both parties exploited this issue to get elected.

In the past 60 years, the concept has been called equal opportunity, equality of access, affirmative action, set asides, and now diversity, equity and inclusion. The right argued that these concepts were divisive; anti-meritocratic, resulting in the advancement of unqualified people; amounted to reverse discrimination against White people, especially men; unfair racial preference; that their freedom of hate speech was being suppressed by a culture of political correctness, woke or cancel culture; that so-called critical race theory presented a false portrayal of America’s racial history; and that all efforts to mitigate discrimination violated civil rights laws.

The executive orders

Executive orders and memoranda direct that executive officials take certain actions to execute the president’s policy agenda. They are not laws and are not binding on persons outside of the executive branch. They are also temporary and can be rescinded by the next president. They don’t require Congressional approval and typically are not reviewable by a court unless they infringe upon Constitutional rights or violate federal legislation.

Nevertheless, because a president’s power to issue these orders is unfettered, and their impact immediate, they can cause devastating and irreparable harm to the persons or institutions affected by them. Every President since Lincoln has issued numerous executive orders during their terms, especially during times of crisis and when they were in the national interests. No other president has used them as Trump has, as instruments of retribution or to undermine the civil rights of American citizens.

No other president has used executive orders as Trump has, as instruments of retribution or to undermine the civil rights of American citizens.

In his first 100 days, Trump issued 142 executive orders, 37 memoranda and 39 proclamations that have targeted a wide swath of individuals, organizations, institutions, universities, law firms and corporations. The most common subjects of these documents are border security, the dismantling of 70 years of progress in civil rights, and the weaponization of the federal government for retribution. Trump’s executive orders are designed to completely dismantle the federal framework of prior executive orders that reinforced civil rights laws, claiming that they were unconstitutional. On the first day, he rescinded every executive order that President Biden issued that related to diversity, equity and inclusion. On his second day, he rescinded every civil rights executive order issued by every other Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson issued E.O. 11246 in 1965.

In an effort to sanitize America’s history of racial discrimination and violence, Trump issued an executive order that targeted and threatened the funding of the Smithsonian Institution and its National Museum of African American History and Culture and American Women’s History Museum. His Defense Secretary has purged all books of racial justice from the libraries in the nation’s military academies.

Weaponization and retribution, via executive order

In a shameless display of hypocrisy, Trump’s second executive order, issued his first day in office, is a textbook example of gaslighting and intellectual dishonesty. It is entitled “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government.” This order weaponized his administration and directed its officers to use the considerable resources of the federal government to identify, punish and silence a large number of his enemies and critics.

Even without a written directive, Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi, several of his United States Attorneys and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have publicly stated their intention to investigate and prosecute other political opponents and critics of Trump. The Secret Service is investigating a former FBI director because of a posting on a social media platform. And, Trump’s “border czar” has publicly stated that he intends to arrest governors, mayors and judges who defy Trump’s efforts to deport undocumented immigrants. In fact, Trump’s administration recently arrested a Wisconsin judge and the Newark, NJ Mayor Ras Baraka.

Trump issued executive orders that targeted some of the largest firms in the United States because existing or former partners at these firms either served as prosecutors or attorneys in federal and state cases involving Trump’s multiple violations of federal and state law and his impeachments; prosecuted the 1,600 insurrectionists that he pardoned; or represented his opponents in political campaigns.

Several of the firms capitulated and agreed to donate $1 billion in legal services to Trump. It addition to surrender by those targeted by Trump, hundreds of law firms, corporations, institutions and universities that were not targets have proactively terminated their DEI programs altogether, fired or reassigned employees who staffed those offices, removed all references to the concept from their websites and other materials, and rebranded any remaining inclusion efforts.

Fortunately, several of these targets chose to fight instead. More than 220 lawsuits have been filed around the country in the last 100 days challenging Trump’s illegal executive orders and actions, and several universities have signed a “mutual defense” pact. Unfortunately, given the glacial pace of litigation and various appeals in the federal courts, by the time Trump is held accountable, much of the damage done will be irreparable — that assumes that Trump obeys court orders, which he has failed to do so thus far.

The principles at risk

The foundation principles threatened by Trump are:

• Balance of powers: creating a government agency, empowering it to spend federal funds to hire employees, violating Civil Service regulations by terminating employees, and terminating previously appropriated funding without congressional action or authorization.

• The rule of law: pardoning the January 6th insurrectionists and threatening to pay them reparations; refusing to comply with court orders; punishing law firms for representing clients and causes that he opposes; personal attacks on judges and the judicial system.

• 5th Amendment, guaranteeing due process of law: extorting and punishing perceived enemies; deporting legal immigrants; barring individuals and law firms and their clients from federal facilities, revoking their security clearances, and terminating their contracts. Trump has also threatened to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

• Freedom of speech: threatening to punish and withhold federal funds from universities because of: what professors teach; students who advocate positions that he opposes; and universities’ promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion. Also demanding that corporations, museums and cultural institutions delete all references to DEI from their websites and terminate all programs that promote DEI, while requiring the removal of certain Black authors from libraries in military academies.

• Press freedom: personally threatening and waging frivolous lawsuits against media organizations and individuals; demeaning and personally attacking media personnel and barring news organizations from press conferences and federal buildings; closing the Voice of America and threatening to defund National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Stations.

• Freedom of religion and the Establishment Clause: moving to designate Christianity as the national religion.

• Equal protection of the laws: Working to grant legal immunity to police officers who violate the rights of citizens.

• Right to counsel: punishing clients who oppose his policies by punishing the law firms that represent them.

• The Emoluments Clause: renting his properties, accepting gifts and seeking business opportunities for himself, family members and friends from foreign governments, including Trump’s announced intention to accept a “gift” of a $400 million airplane from Qatar to replace Air Force One.

The good news

As I examined the overwhelming evidence of America slipping into the darkness of fascism, I desperately wanted to find reasons to believe that our democracy had not failed just yet. And I did, but not just from the spontaneous mass demonstrations around the country, performative acts and speeches by Democrats, or ineffectual court orders.

Surprisingly, I found some reason to be optimistic in the 271 words Lincoln delivered in 1863, in the midst of this nation’s last existential struggle for survival. At Gettysburg, he described America as a “…. new nation conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived can long endure.” In the 162 years since that speech was delivered, America has survived wars, a Depression, and worldwide pandemics. It has survived decades of political upheaval, mass demonstrations, social justice movements, riots and lynchings to make liberty and equality diverse, equitable and inclusive.

While the current political landscape seems apocalyptic, there are some reasons for optimism. The last 10 years — a relatively brief span in a 250 year history — have been a stress test of American democracy’s resiliency. I hope that the fundamentals of American democracy are strong, and that this era will pass. Americans are not powerless, and we must not despair, but summon the courage and resolve that sustained Black people during our darkest moments. We should all continue to speak out, refuse to concede defeat, vigorously defend our foundational principles, demonstrate, raise money, file lawsuits and work to retake the Congress and the presidency.

The good news from this analysis is that time is on American democracy’s side. Most Americans did not vote for Trump, nor do they support his actions. His approval ratings are among the lowest of any president in modern times. The great news is that Trump, a vindictive narcissist, is 79 years old, in poor health, and experiencing cognitive decline.

Once an effective communicator, now his unscripted statements and interviews are long, rambling and incoherent. Trumpism is an unsustainable cult with no heir apparent. The right will soon lose its soulless proxy. However, much of the harm that he is inflicting on millions of Americans, and our social contract is immediate and irreparable. The stench and damage that he has caused to America and its standing in the world will linger and take years, if not decades, for our country to fully recover.

MORE CARL SINGLEY FOR THE PHILADELPHIA CITIZEN