National
Slain Civil Rights Activist to Receive Posthumous Degree

Memorial to Viola Fauver Gregg Liuzzo in Lowndes County, Alabama. (Carol M. Highsmith/public domain)
Corey Williams, ASSOCIATED PRESS
DETROIT (AP) — For 24 years, a stone marker has stood along U.S. 80 in Alabama’s Lowndes County, near the spot where Viola Gregg Liuzzo was fatally shot by Klansmen while shuttling demonstrators after the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights march.
But in Liuzzo’s hometown of Detroit, such public recognition is scarce. A wooden marker bearing her name sits on a fence beside a small neighborhood playfield; Last year, an exhibit in Lansing included Liuzzo among Michigan women who contributed significantly to civil rights.
That will change on April 10. Liuzzo’s former school, Wayne State University, plans to award her an honorary doctor of laws degree. It’s the first posthumous honorary degree in the 145-year-old school’s history. Wayne State also will dedicate a tree or green space for Liuzzo.
Liuzzo’s five children have been invited to the ceremony. Liuzzo’s husband, Anthony Liuzzo Sr., died in 1978.
“I cried,” Liuzzo’s daughter, Mary Liuzzo Lilleboe, said of her reaction to Wayne State’s decision. “It’s the highest honor an educational institution can bestow on someone. It’s the honor that’s being paid to her. She’s a civil rights giant.”
Kim Trent, a member of Wayne State’s Board of Governors, initially broached the idea a decade ago as president of Wayne State’s black alumni organization. The school declined, citing its policy of not awarding posthumous degrees, Trent said.
“The truth of the matter is that Viola is worthy because she is deceased,” Trent said. “She is a civil rights martyr. I understood there was something more important at stake.”
Trent was elected to the same board in 2012, and recently took another run at recognition for Liuzzo. They passed the recommendation in February.
“My colleagues were like, ‘Sure, we should do this,'” Trent said.
Liuzzo was a nursing student at Wayne State when she joined the civil rights movement. At the time of her death, the white, 39-year-old mother also was a member of Detroit’s branch of the NAACP.
From her home, Liuzzo watched televised news reports of demonstrators being beaten by police in Selma on March 7, 1965, during the first attempt to march to Montgomery, a day that became known as “Bloody Sunday.”
That march was followed two days later by another, abbreviated demonstration led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Rev. James Reeb, a white Unitarian minister from Boston, was severely beaten that night and later died. An all-white jury acquitted three white men of murder charges in Reeb’s death.
Just over two weeks after Reeb’s death, Liuzzo too was dead, struck in the head by shots fired from a passing car. Her black passenger, 19-year-old Leroy Moton, was wounded but survived by pretending to be dead. Four Ku Klux Klan members were arrested, and an all-white, all-male jury acquitted three of them of murder. Those same three were later convicted of federal charges in Liuzzo’s death. The fourth assailant was granted immunity and placed in the federal witness protection program.
Lilleboe said she was 17 when her mother quietly drove to Alabama the weekend before the third attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery, planned for March 25.
“If she saw wrong and she couldn’t right it, she took action,” said Lilleboe. “She always told us the story that she was treated badly because she was poor, but the ‘little black kids were treated worse.'”
Liuzzo didn’t reveal where she was going until well after she left, because she didn’t want her husband to stop her, Lilleboe said. She did, however, contact her family regularly by phone.
“She called and she was rather jubilant because the march had made it,” Lilleboe recalled. “She was coming home. My brothers picked up little pretend signs and started marching around singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’
“About midnight, dad got a phone call and they said ‘your wife … there has been an accident.’ We knew she had been murdered.”
Law professor Peter Hammer, director of the Damon J. Keith Center for Civil Rights at Wayne State, said non-blacks who fought to dismantle Jim Crow segregation “were subject to the same vitriol” aimed at blacks, “and in some respects — even more so.”
“For a white woman to cross the line took even more courage and was probably subject to more hatred,” Hammer said. Also, he said, there is a tendency, in telling civil rights history, to sideline roles played by women of all races.
The Alabama marker honoring Liuzzo was erected by the Women of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1991. At the Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery, Liuzzo is the only white woman honored among the martyrs.
After Liuzzo’s death, her family endured a cross burning and hate mail at their Detroit home. Her children were harassed at school. Liuzzo’s husband hired armed guards for protection. A smear campaign, engineered by the FBI, hinted that Liuzzo used drugs and had illicit relationships with black men.
Liuzzo’s family filed a $2 million negligence claim against the federal government in 1977, saying the FBI knew ahead of time that Liuzzo’s killers planned to commit violence and did nothing to stop them.
The government refused to negotiate that claim. The family filed a lawsuit that went to non-jury trial in federal court in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 1983, and was dismissed.
“What’s nice about what’s taking place now is that nobody is remembering the lies,” Hammer said. “People are remembering her life and courage.”
Lilleboe, who now lives in Oregon, is proud of her mother’s enduring legacy. She has traveled to Selma for “Bloody Sunday” commemorations for the past 11 years, including the 50th anniversary earlier this month.
“They embraced me with their whole hearts … because I’m my mother’s daughter,” Lilleboe said. “When I see the difference in their eyes I am so proud of my mother.”
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
###
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
Activism
Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media
Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.
The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.
In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.”
Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.
“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.
Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.
“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
AI Is Reshaping Black Healthcare: Promise, Peril, and the Push for Improved Results in California
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Barbara Lee Accepts Victory With “Responsibility, Humility and Love”
-
Activism4 weeks ago
ESSAY: Technology and Medicine, a Primary Care Point of View
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Faces Around the Bay: Author Karen Lewis Took the ‘Detour to Straight Street’
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Newsom Fights Back as AmeriCorps Shutdown Threatens Vital Services in Black Communities
-
Arts and Culture4 weeks ago
BOOK REVIEW: Love, Rita: An American Story of Sisterhood, Joy, Loss, and Legacy
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
The RESISTANCE – FREEDOM NOW
-
Alameda County4 weeks ago
OUSD Supt. Chief Kyla Johnson-Trammell to Step Down on July 1