Oral History Interview with Deborah Dandridge

Deborah Dandridge

ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW WITH

DEBORAH DANDRIDGE

TOPEKA, KANSAS

FEBRUARY 26, 2020

INTERVIEWED BY RACHAEL BLEDSAW

AUDIO FILE #BRVB022620 – DEBORAH DANDRIDGE

DOWNLOAD TRANSCRIPT (.docx 198kb)

EDITORIAL NOTE

This document is a rendering of the oral history interview as transcribed by the interviewer from the audio recording. Although significant effort was made to provide a verbatim transcription, for easier reading of the transcript, verbal pauses, repetitions of words, and encouraging words from the interviewer were omitted. In addition, Ms. Dandridge, who reviewed the original draft of this transcript, was given the opportunity to make minor modifications to the verbatim transcript of this interview. For the original interview, please refer to the audio file.

ABSTRACT

Deborah Dandridge, archivist for the University of Kansas and member of the Brown Foundation, discusses her involvement with the Brown v Board site. She recounts the details of the development of interpretive materials for the site from its start as a traveling exhibit from Harpers Ferry to the development of interpretation on the actual site. She gives a personal account of her experience after the dissolution of the NPS-Brown Foundation partnership.

Additionally, she gives first-hand insight of the impact of the Brown v Board decision in her personal life, as well as offering a direct perspective into the wider impact of the Brown v Board site’s presence on Topeka’s intellectual force and its standing within the history of Civil Rights.

PERSONS MENTIONED

Katie Armitage, Steve Adams, Cheryl Brown Henderson, Bob Dole, Joan [Wilson], Mamie Williams, Rachael Franklin-Weekly, Joe Douglas, Linda Brown, Leola Brown Montgomery (Ms. Montgomery), Oliver Brown.

Deborah Dandridge, 2020

ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW WITH

DEBORAH DANDRIDGE

Interviewer: This oral history interview is for the Administrative History of Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site in Topeka, Kansas. The interviewer is Rachael Bledsaw, with Outside the Box, on behalf of the Midwest Regional Office of the National Park Service. Interviewed today is Deborah Dandridge, archivist in the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas and was a member of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site General Management Plan team. The date is February 26, 2020. This interview takes place at the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas.

Ms. Dandridge, as you may know, the purpose of an Administrative History is to document the development of a unit of the National Park System, both physically and administratively. Oral histories are one way to get that information that might not be otherwise available from documentary evidence. We try to get as much information as we can from as many different perspectives as possible in order to craft a robust narrative for the development of – I’m sorry, of the developmental history of the park. This will be used by future park administrators to inform their decisions as they navigate future developments. However, I should inform you that not all the information we gather will be included in the final Administrative History. That depends on how the information advances understanding of park development. But we do appreciate that you are giving your time to share your experiences of the development of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site to further this project. Alright?

So, to begin: Could you state your full name and spell your last name for the transcript?

Dandridge: Okay. My full name is Deborah Dandridge and D-E-B-O-R-A-H, and my surname is Dandridge, D-A-N-D-R-I-D-G-E.

Interviewer: Thank you. Let’s start with your involvement with the Brown Foundation and then move on to your involvement with the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site. Could you describe your initial involvement with the Brown Foundation?

Dandridge: Yes, I can, and understand that it was decades ago, so my memory and my age may function here in a slightly different way [than] other people will remember it. But I became a part of the – part – a part of the Brown Foundation around ‘91/’92 when I started working – I started working on a project that was funded by the Hallmark family. It was a – it was a funding area. And what they were doing was providing an exhibit that focused on African American experience in education in

Kansas. And so that’s how I become involved, and it was really coming from the Kansas Humanities Grant. And so they needed – you know how they – all these grants need scholars to be on it – and so, what we were doing – and I had another partner who was also involved in it, Katie Armitage, and she and I – she – Katie had a very strong academic background in education, and it’s particularly the history of it in Kansas. And mine was focused on, you know, African American experience with our African American experience collections. And I think what we discovered was, we were coming at it at a different angle. And I found it interesting how, suddenly, I’m understanding that what we’ve acquired in our collections are indeed a part of my own personal experiences. So, she and I tried to, you know, highlight things and create an exhibit that is still going on and is still a major travelling exhibit for the Brown Foundation all over the country. It is just amazing, because it offers you an inside view of what the experiences have been. So that’s how I began. And then I was persuaded to serve on the Board, and you know that would – you know how all the boards want to use everybody – and it’s a non-paying Board. So – you know, so that’s how I got involved.

And so then, proceeding from there, as the partnership with the Brown Foundation and the – and NPS continued, it was – we had to be involved in a lot of creating projects, you know, outreach projects. Because the park, the site itself, had not opened. And – but we – you know, to keep it active, to keep it going, and that was in our responsibility. So, I got involved in a lot of their activities and whatever support there was. And then – and – if my memory is correct, around – because Mom was still living - around 2000, they started, you know, going to Harpers Ferry, and we started talking about developing the exhibits that were going to be open in the site. So, I was active in all of those, and that was a good experience. My mother taught at the African American college there at – in Harpers Ferry -- and I can’t think what the name of it is – and so, I would tell her about it. It was just before she passed. And she just thought, “Well, how wonderful!” because it was out there – you know, it – she liked the isolated –she was an artist. And she taught English, but that’s what she loved. So, I enjoyed – so that’s how we were a part of it, and I guess we went through – I’m trying to remember who the first park person was. He was African American, and then we’ve had several, you know, up to that point, and then it was, finally, Steve. I forget Steve’s last name, who I worked with – we worked with very closely in developing the exhibits.

Interviewer: Steve Adams?

Dandridge: Steve Adams, yes. Steve. And so, Steve was – and Steve was, you know, very supportive in anything we had to do. And it was frantic; you know, it was demanding. The Foundation continued to also have their own programming yearly for the seminars, so we had, you know, getting ready for that and other outreach within the community to demonstrate, you know, the park is coming up, and continuing the tradition of the Brown Foundation talking about the case and the plaintiffs in the case.

Interviewer: Okay, well, how did you specifically get involved – how, specifically, the Brown Foundation became involved with this park?

Dandridge: Because I did this project, and so they asked me to join. Interviewer: Okay, so you were on the Board of the Brown Foundation? Dandridge: Yes, ma’am.

Interviewer: And then?

Dandridge: After this project was completed. It was, like, ‘91 or ‘92.

Interviewer: And so, were you involved in all of the connection between the Brown Foundation and the Brown v. Board of Education –?

Dandridge: Site? Yes, you know, because we were all in the formative stages, but not financially or anything like that. But it’s more, you know, in doing their outreach programming, their educational programming. And we – you know, we engaged in providing guidance for the future Park Rangers on telling the story, both locally and nationally. So, we did that sort of thing. So that’s where I – my involvement was.

Interviewer: Okay. You mentioned your research in the - when you got started with the Brown Foundation, but was there something specific in your background that prepared you well for working with the National Park Service and the Brown Foundation on development of the park?

Dandridge: Not any skills in park ranging! But I was a member of – I attended one of the African American schools that was assigned. And I attended it starting in ’51, and I graduated from it in ‘57, ‘58. So, although the decision came down, my parents had made the – had made the decision that I would continue to go to Washington School. Although Parkdale, one of the schools, you know – it was free at 1955.

Anybody could go within your neighborhood. Although Parkdale was only three houses down, I continued to walk to Washington School, so, I mean, I came – I guess I brought a personal experience – a personal perspective on it.

Interviewer: Okay. Thank you. What were your first impressions of the Brown v. Board National Historic Site?

Dandridge: You know, it was – it was a source of pride to find that Topeka is getting a national acknowledgement for its role, its leadership role, in this. You know, it was not an easy one, in the discussions – and I came on board much later, – but Cheryl and them all knew this. The other plaintiffs in the other areas who really suffered a great deal, and, although, you know, the lead plaintiff was from Kansas, we didn’t suffer what they did. And so those challenges came, and why should it be in Topeka? But Cheryl and it – Cheryl and the park - and the Brown Foundation were the ones who brought the park here. They navigated with our lead congressman, Dole – Senator Dole – and, you know, Cheryl was Republican, and Cheryl had been involved – I’m talking about Cheryl, aren’t I? And – but, I knew this because I knew her – because, you know, we all came from the same community. And she was networking with a lot of groups, particularly coming out of the Department of Labor, you know, the Women’s Bureau. And, you know, that’s when the Women’s Movement was kind of getting on, and the U.S. was getting on board with a lot of things. And she had networked. So, she had become quite familiar with the Washington scene, and how to negotiate, and how to approve, and Dole was very supportive of getting this site established. So, you know, that – Dole and Cheryl are the ones that got it, you know, confirmed. And I think the general public was, “Great, if you can do it!” you know. And the man who acquired – had acquired the building beforehand was willing to support the efforts, so.

Interviewer: Okay. You attended the Interpretive Themes Workshop in 1993. What were your expectations?

Dandridge: In my memory of – (laughter) Oh, I think we did – it was – it was a good discussion, because I remember – where – what – was that the one where, you know, one – the attorney, the defense attorney for Kansas, he was there? Because I think, you know, he’s a - he was a KU law school –

Interviewer: I think he was. I think he was.

Dandridge: Uh-huh, he was there. I mean, it was very nice, and there were other people I didn’t – had not met before who were involved in some of the other cases. It was very good. And I think we came out with – and I’m trying to – we came out with some major things that we wanted. And my push would always be for telling the story from the African American experience and making sure the general story about “everything’s hunky-dory and simple” was not – was not a part of that. And that, you know, segregation and exclusion was, you know, a long time. That theme, we wanted to make sure: this wasn’t an exception. School segregation was not an exception to the rule in which race relations functioned for the U.S. from 1619 onward, you know. And I wanted to make sure that – and I remember (laughs) when we were at the – at the – you know, we were setting up the exhibits at Harpers Ferry, and so, finally, they said, “Well, if you’re going to include all this in here, where are we going to put this?” And so, what they did do was – which I was surprised, you know – they put this whole chronology – I don’t know whether that’s still on the wall or not – but in their rooms. This - all of these kinds of things. And so, you know, and it was my wanting the detail. And we – I worked hard on that. just making sure – you know, just making my contributions to make sure they were, you know, historically accurate and was being – placing the emphasis that we wanted.

Interviewer: So, you wanted details with a focus on the African American experience? Dandridge: Experience, right! And telling that story from that perspective.

Interviewer: Did – were your expectations fulfilled?

Dandridge: Yeah! I think so! I thought – I thought the exhibits came out well, and far more creative – because we had – than I thought, you know, what I do I know? But the filmmaker, who is now on faculty here, he did this creative thing of, you know, “Passing the Baton.” I don’t know whether you’ve ever seen that one. You all haven’t been at the park, have you?

Interviewer: We were actually there just yesterday!

Dandridge: Didn’t have time. But, you know, there was just creative ways of reaching the goal, the ultimate goal of equality and opportunity.

Interviewer: And so, did you find the Interpretive Themes Workshop to be a useful exercise?

Dandridge: Yes, it was! It really forced me to begin thinking of things. And we had – you know, we had lawyers, we had community activists there, you know – it came from a different perspective and that sort of thing, you know. Yeah, I thought it was very enriching. I enjoyed it. I mean, that’s what my memory – I come away with, you know.

Interviewer: And you feel that the interpretive themes that you developed during that workshop were then –?

Dandridge: Were in the exhibits. Were in the - were being displayed in the exhibits. And, you know, the diversity on how the African American experience relates to other people of color and to gender and to other issues, too. And I’m sure they’ve expanded it, you know, as things go on.

Interviewer: Was there anything that you hoped to accomplish in that workshop that didn’t get accomplished?

Dandridge: Well, we needed more time, you know that. But I don’t know whether that would have helped. Yeah, it was good. I – seems like it was a one day, wasn’t it? It could have been longer. And it could have, probably – I don’t know about – when you – I don’t know how the strategy is, but, you know, it could have focused on some things – which it did do. I mean, they had outlines of things, as I recall. But I think getting all voices at the table were important, and I think they did a pretty good job of that. And, you know, the Foundation identified a lot of the people and just getting through – and there – you know, there were various park reps there, too, as I recall. So – and you know, it’s – you know, I have to constantly have this battle. You know, the academy deals with subject matter differently. And when you’re in a research library, you know, that’s our first customer. And so, I think that the public – you know, you have whole different perspectives of things you want to emphasis. So, it depends on your audience, and I think, sometimes, that – you know, we had to keep coming back, “Who is our audience?” you know, “for this,” and I think that was one of the things.

Interviewer: Alright. You were also part of the General Management Team between 1994 and 1996.

Dandridge: Would you – okay.

Interviewer: How did you happen to be chosen for that team?

Dandridge: Again, I was on the Brown Foundation, so I was I was a Brown Foundation representative. That – and I think that was the reason, you know, and I was from the community, so I’m sure that fulfilled something. You know, ‘cause I – you know, I was a I’m a lifelong Topekan, so.

Interviewer: So, the General Management Plan is the plan for how they’re going to manage the site overall. And it’s generally formulated at the beginning of –

Dandridge: Right, and –

Interviewer: – getting the site up and running.

Dandridge: Yeah, and I – you know, I probably didn’t pay attention. But whatever – you know, whatever it involved – what did it involve? Tell me.

Interviewer: Well, they talk about how they’re going to – they talk about how they’re going to attract visitors; they talk about where they’re going to put the (unintelligible).

Dandridge: Oh yeah! Yeah! And that’s when your audience – And that’s when the audience – right, mmm-hmmm, yeah! And that’s when the audience said – and they asked us, “Who did you think – you know, who, among African Americans, was going to be your largest constituency? Who within that group?” And we had discussed that, and kind of catering to all of that. So, all those things are – I mean, the typical things, I think, that planners for exhibits and historical institutions do.

Interviewer: So generally, they come up with three plans, three alternatives for a management plan, and then the team talks over the three plans and decides that to do, which one they want to pursue. Usually, one of the plans is no action, which is mothball the building and put a sign in front of it.

Dandridge: Well that didn’t happen! (Laughs)

Interviewer: And then there are plans that involve lesser involvement with the park service, then more involvement by the park service, and then total control by the park service. So, do you recall those three options?

Dandridge: Right! We were partners with the park, and our assignment was – because we had separate funding from Congress – our assignment was to ensure that the park’s outreach and activities – outreach and activities within the – within the park were being maintained. That was the Brown Foundation’s responsibilities as a partner.

Interviewer: Okay, so that was one of your expectations for the – Dandridge: Yes! We expected to continue doing that, right.

Interviewer: And what was your preferred alternative for the final General – you mentioned that you expected it to continue, was that your preferred alternative, that the Brown Foundation and –?

Dandridge: Yes! Because we were from the community. You’ve got the – you have the plaintiff’s names, you know, there. I mean it was, you know, of course. Yeah, definitely. Would not have expected anything else.

Interviewer: And I know – I know this will be reaching back a little bit, but tell me what you can, and we’ll go – we’ll go from there. Was there anything in the final preferred alternative that you really wished was not there?

Dandridge: No, I can’t, remember, to be honest with you.

Interviewer: Okay. That’s fine. Can you describe how the final plan was determined and what compromises had to be made?

Dandridge: Those negotiations were explained at our Foundation meetings, but I must admit, [gestures that it isn’t in her memory] you know, and it didn’t – it didn’t engender any issues that I recall, and I’ll be honest with you. And we always worked closely with the superintendent, and I’m sure there’s conflict, because anytime you try to collaborate, there are issues, you know – different institutions, we all know that, but not anything definite. But there were expectations. We were – we were charged with continuing to produce products for them and engage in that.

Interviewer: And those products, were they interpretive, or –?

Dandridge: Right, they were outreach projects. They were – you know, they did – what – one of the things I remember – what is it – being kind – what is that video? Oh gosh, I can’t even remember the name of it. But we did, you know, what it means to be equal, or something, being kind to each other. And then, you know, they did a lot of games and other things. And the Brown Quarterly produced a lot of things and – that featured the park and history of the – of NPS and its relationship with African Americans, you know, during the Jim Crow era.

Interviewer: Are these brochures or something?

Dandridge: Yeah – no. They’re – the Brown Foundation – Brown Quarterly was a – what do you call it – a bulletin. And we distributed them to all the schools and so forth, when they asked for it, and that sort of thing. And so, that would provide information about the African American experience but really focusing on Brown v. Board and its – and its legacy in a variety of different ways. We have issues on First Nations; we have issues on Latinx; we had issues on a lot of, you know, different groups. So –

Interviewer: And did you distribute these directly to the schools?

Dandridge: Uh-huh. To the schools and to anybody. And it – and it was also a part of the distribution of the park, the park site, when it opened. And they would, you know – I think, you know, they would have them available for them, but, you know, I – it wasn’t for purchase.

Interviewer: Okay. I did want to ask about the games.

Dandridge: Oh, you’re going to have to ask Cheryl about that. I mean, I thought it was interesting, but, you know, it’s the different ages. And I think it – I don’t think it ever went to high school level. I think it was – I think it was in elementary. But, you know, Cheryl is an educator, so she knew all these devices of things, and so, I’m sorry, I don’t – and there were other educators on our Board, you know. They were all involved in it. I didn’t get into any of that.

Interviewer: That’s all right. How do you think the public perceived the park when it was first established?

Dandridge: I think the Topeka public was pretty proud, I think. And there was tension – not everybody was happy, black and white, because there were issues with it – with the decision and what -- and its impact. But I think it was pretty good. I think it was well done. And I think, when the park opened officially – 2004, yeah – you know, the city did a great deal to try to improve the neighborhood. And it may have been just a façade, but it helped, you know. It did help. And so, I think, you know, it brought back things. Unfortunately, you know, it comes at a time when so much of the neighborhood [had] been destroyed. And there were buildings that were gone, and that whole area – because I think there was an early study on what the neighborhood looked like, you know, during the time it – during the twentieth century that it - that the school was operating. And so, I think there were a lot of things that were gone. So that was nice, but I’m not sure that was publicized. I’m not sure that was – you know, and that was an opportunity, to me, to have that incorporated into the curriculum in the Topeka schools, if not otherwise. But, you know that – anyway, so.

Interviewer: The tension around the neighborhood, did that have anything to do with the want – the desire to include Sumner? Or was that – or were that – was that a separate issue?

Dandridge: Yeah. Sumner’s way over on the other side. Yeah, I mean – and, by the time the park was opening, the people living in the neighborhood didn’t even know anything about it, you know, You know, you’re not living – you’re living in a neighborhood that was predominantly white, except when you got on the other street that I’m totally forgetting, right behind it. And so, it becomes – oh, Quincy – and Quincy – that block on Quincy to 17th was predominantly black, and they had black businesses there, and, of course, that’s the street that Mamie Williams and some of the other major instructors were on. So, that is – that was there, and so, it was kind of – you know, that didn’t exist anymore, and, you know, the businesses on Quincy didn’t exist – don’t exist anymore. So. And, you know, I really don’t know – I’m – I don’t know how the people responded. But those were people that weren’t there before, a whole different ball game.

Interviewer: Do you think that perception has changed, over time? Dandridge: About the neighborhood?

Interviewer: No, about the park – the park. Dandridge: The public perception of the park? Interviewer: The public perception, has that changed?

Dandridge: I think so. I don’t know. It’s changed for me because, when we divorced ourselves –we were forced to divorce ourselves from the – from the park, I think, it created a serious clash. Not only for the Foundation, but for the families and a lot of confusion within the community. And so, I think that was an issue that probably won’t go away.

Interviewer: Okay. In 1994, Rachael Franklin-Weekly –

Dandridge: Yeah, that’s who I was trying to think – because she did the neighborhood study, I think. Didn’t she?

Interviewer: She was hired to provide the first written Historic Resource Study for the park. Dandridge: Yeah, that – yeah, that –

Interviewer: Were you – were you involved in that effort as well?

Dandridge: No, she really did that on her own. I mean, she did her, you know, research at the state – you know what I meant, her typical research. She did it. I don’t – I wasn’t involved. I mean, she asked questions, but I don’t remember what they were.

Interviewer: Okay. Did you have an opinion of the results that she came up with?

Dandridge: Well, you know, it was an architectural thing. It wasn’t a historical thing, and again, that’s my perspective. I don’t know what the intent of those neighborhood things is.

Interviewer: That is – that is the intent of a historic resource –

Dandridge: Right. And that’s a whole different sort of thing. And again, she didn’t have people there to talk to because they were all dead or gone! You know what I mean? You know, that – so that – that’s the issue. So, she did, you know, whatever.

Interviewer: All right. The University of Kansas at Lawrence is one of the important partners for Brown v. Board. What was your involvement?

Dandridge: Okay, now that was not really a partnership. What do you call it? We had started a – what do you call it when you – just an ally? What is it when you have a –

Interviewer: Did you have a Memorandum of Understanding? Dandridge: Yep! Memorandum of Understanding that was never signed. Interviewer: Oh! Never signed?

Dandridge: Nuh-huh

Interviewer: Interesting. So, you were an informal partner?

Dandridge: Yeah, right. We were informal. We tried to negotiate it. And –. Interviewer: When was this?

Dandridge: Heck. It was probably after ’95. It was in the late ‘90s. You know, ‘95 to 2000. And it was really – I think it may have been formalized one year – one or two years, but it was not formalized, because of, you know, it was not actively pursued by a certain segment of the Region. And so, we went to the Region – you know, the head of Region, and they said, “Let it go”, so, you know, we –and we – oh, and I supported – and the way in which we supported it was through the Brown Foundation. And we supported their outreach activities and that sort of thing.

Interviewer: And how does that partnership function now? Does it – does – what does U of K do for the park or vice versa? You mentioned it ended in 2000, but –

Dandridge: Yeah, we don’t do anything! You know, we aren’t consulted with anything. I mean, they come and do the research. We know we fulfill our responsibilities if they’re researching things; and that sort of thing, but we’re not involved.

Interviewer: You don’t have an office over there anymore, or any of that?

Dandridge: Oh, the Foundation. I never had an office over there. The Foundation had the office over there. And when the decision was made, when Cheryl became Superintendent of the – of the park, that’s when the tension began. And, as a result of it, we were being told that the money, which used to be in – separate from the park, but we put it in the park because of the negotiation requirement, you know, every other year or every year. And when that happened, then the park had absolute control, and so they made the decision that we need to leave the park, and Cheryl’s office was shut down – the Foundation’s office was shut down, and so we were excluded. And it was a very public event. There were charges made that we had misused the funds – and knowing that to get federal funds, you had to prove things first, and then it’s reviewed, and that was very – it was a slanderous thing. It was very – it was devastating and – because the government had the clout, and the Foundation certainly didn’t have the legal clout to challenge that – and we tried to do it, but the slandering continued, particularly in the newspaper – innuendo and investigation by – what are the various lawyers in the – you know, we had investigating – we were talking about them. I had some of their investigators who were not lawyers call me on the phone here and try to intimidate me. So, it was a – it was an ugly experience. (laughter) And – you’re looking at me. And this part – and then we soon discovered that this is not the first – we’re not the only ones. And we soon discovered there were other park relations that had issues. In California, the people who were – preservation, you know, environmentalist, they’ve had problems with them. And First Nation groups have had trouble with them and continue to have legal issues with them. So, you know, again, partnerships are rough. And when one groups comes in and expects to have absolute control, that’s – you know, that becomes quite an issue. And, you know, you have to give up something. And, in my experience as an archivist, I have trouble, because, you know, KU is a predominantly white university that has a real exclusionary – although they were always open to African Americans, you know, they were – they have bad experiences. So, they – you know, so I’m under the pressure of being – of having just the typical, “You have to donate everything to us. That’s it,” you know, “We have absolute control,” to negotiate some middle ground, and that was something that was, you know – and you –I just learned that, you know, partnering with other organizations and institutions, you gotta give ground, and that was not being done. And it was after Steve left that a lot of this happened the – you know – and, again, Steve was a seasoned leader and knew how to navigate this craziness. And there were others, I think, in the Region who – in the Regional Office – not the leaders, but the Regional Office, who were very ugly. Ugly to me in the beginning. And – when they were trying to negotiate to the – this Memorandum of Understanding. And the person, whose name I’m forgetting, you know, she refused – you know, I – she was told to negotiate with me, and she refused to do it, so.

Interviewer: Hmm. (Long pause) Okay. Well, let’s move on to something more –. Dandridge: (Laughs) You all didn’t know this?! You knew this!

Interviewer: Not in detail, no. We – no, we knew that the park – the park and the Brown Foundation had parted ways.

Dandridge: Were forced to part ways. And, you know, Cheryl wasn’t going to – and, you know, because she came to the Foundation to see if we would just be there – you know, we would be outside and just do whatever. You know, that was not going to happen because we had been really full, almost equal, partners, you know, and that wasn’t – it wasn’t worth it. And they were taking the money because it – now it was in their budget.

Interviewer: Okay. What would you say were the biggest challenges to achieving your goal for partnering with Brown v. Board of Education? I think we have covered some of this. Yeah, I think we have touched on quite a few.

Dandridge: Yeah, and it can be very good because, you know, when you get an institution – an institution that’s in the community, getting the community support is very important. And, you know, the Foundation did a lot of programming. We did a lot of public programming for the park as well. And so, we brought in major speakers, you know – national speakers that, you know, wouldn’t come to To- puke-a otherwise, you know, how – that kind. And so, you know, so that was the other thing. And I noticed that – you know, that hasn’t happened – and whatever the reasons are, that has declined. And I think their main target are the schools nearby, which is fine, I mean, but –

Interviewer: [Let’s] go to [question] ten. Dandridge: Yeah, go to ten! Let it go! Let it go!

Interviewer: Well, you’ve covered some of the next question. You’ve covered that next question very well – very well. We’ll go to the next one. Alright, so, can you talk about how the park’s interpretive programming has changed over the years, from your perspective? From what it was when you first did the Interpretive Theme – has it changed?

Dandridge: I don’t know. It’s changed in that, I don’t think – just the few times I’ve been there since we parted, I don’t know whether the guides, you know – the – what am I saying?

Interviewer: Rangers?

Dandridge: Rangers! Have all been well informed. And that was one of the things the Foundation did, was make sure, you know, they gave them the information, particularly locally and nationally. Just the basic information. They would go through training, and I’m not sure they –

Interviewer: So, the Brown Foundation conducted training for the Rangers on the story?

Dandridge: Yeah, uh-huh, right. And it was the Foundation and the park together doing the training. And that was – that disappeared. And, you know, it was just that, when I went there one time – they were – you know, they were providing the national story, which is often the Southern story about school segregation – had nothing to do with Kansas and really nothing to do with Delaware and not anything to do with D.C! You know, it was a – it – I was surprised. And they were – you know, they made –

Interviewer: It was focused on South Carolina? Was that what –?

Dandridge: Yeah. Right. And then, you know, they said that blacks couldn’t go to Topeka High School, and I thought, “Oh my God!” you know. And it really declined.

Interviewer: That was not true, right?

Dandridge: Yes, ma’am. That was not true! And I know Joan had done a lot of things. You know, she did Mamie Williams, you know, one of the enacting things, and that sort of thing, but I don’t – I don’t know. Now, Joan was not involved in any of this.

Interviewer: Joan?

Dandridge: I think she’s still there. She’s one of the Rangers. Oh – she is something bigger than a Ranger. I forget. But she had been there quite some – quite some time. But these are the young people that are meeting the visitors. And I, you know – and I went recently with a program from KU that was involved with the park, and it – I was – it’s just a different – it’s – and I –

Interviewer: Do you think they’ve gotten away from focusing on Brown v. Board and more to focusing on the national Civil Rights story?

Dandridge: Yeah, and I understand. Yeah, and I understand trying to get people in the door. I understand that, too. And I think what they’re not highlighting is, what many of them found, I – you know, just reading the newspaper, and people were surprised! They thought it was going to be like a museum, just a reenactment – you know, revitalizing what Monroe used to look like without telling the story in different ways, and – which they did. And, I think that, (long pause) you know, you just need people committed to the cause. And, you know, I think we happened to come in at the tail end, when you – everybody from the ground up to the supervisors were committed. And I think that’s what it really, really, requires. And –

Interviewer: Were you there when – before they converted the kindergarten classroom back to a kindergarten classroom? I assume you were. That was their first – their first iteration of the kindergarten classroom – as a display area, and then they put desks back in there and made it –

Dandridge: Yeah, I don’t think – Yeah. Nah, we weren’t there by then. I think, when that formalized, I think, [unintelligible - whispered] no one asked me! Yeah, the kindergarten thing. And that is really a local memory, and that’s interesting. It’s not a national memory – you know what I mean, it wouldn’t – but that’s a local memory. And I think – now that’s a good point you bring up, because I have a feeling, locally, people thought it would be just the Monroe School experience, and we couldn’t do this! This is - we’re telling the national story! And so, I think that was one of the things that pushed it from the – but we had sessions, you know. We had – we had Joe Douglas and a lot of them, you know, coming in for programs, telling their personal experiences in the segregated schools. And so, we had - we did a lot of that, so. But, you know, the sense of ownership – this is a national site, and it is representing not just Topeka but across the nation, so.

Interviewer: Okay. So, you’ve mentioned, and one has been brought up, but the facility has changed since 1993. Do you think it has improved?

Dandridge: Yeah, because in 1993 it was – you know, it was nothing! Yeah, right! So, by 2004, you know, they had done a great deal. And, always, our problem was space. And that’s why we pushed not to have a permanent archives on site. And I don’t think there was any opposition to that, because they needed the space. And, you know, it’s a small building. And so, I’m thinking that was kind of what they – what was your question again? See, I’m getting old!

Interviewer: How it has it improved. How has it improved?

Dandridge: Yeah! And so, you know, and I noticed there were offices – the last time I was there, the offices were still on the second floor. And there’s still – the NAACP, the local chapter, meets there, free of charge. And that was one thing the Foundation negotiated with the – with the site to make sure that continues. So, I have to admit, I don’t know. I remember the bookstore was at the beginning. I don’t know whether that’s still there. Okay.

Interviewer: As you walk in the front door, it’s right there.

Dandridge: Right. Left or right? To the right. And we played a role in the bookstore and what they were doing. You know, we helped them with that (unintelligible).

Interviewer: Did you help them determine what was going to be in the bookstore?

Dandridge: Yes. Yeah, we did. We did. So, you know and I – and I know that’s farmed out for another group, isn’t it? It isn’t really part of the park. Yeah. So, you know, they’re about the money, so I’m - I don’t know. I don’t know what they’re doing, you know, so.

Interviewer: Are there any areas that you think should or could be improved?

Dandridge: (Long pause) I don’t know whether I can really assess that, because I’m not – you know, my perspective has been so shaped by the horror of this experience – personally, you know – that I don’t know whether I can say that. I think what the park needs to do is to make an apology of – that the charges were not true – because nobody was paid on the Board, no one was doing it. But, you know, we had a paid staff, and so that – I don’t know. It was just – it’s just really interesting.

Interviewer: Okay. Regarding what you have done for Brown v. Board, what are you most proud of that you’ve done?

Dandridge: Involvement in the interpretive – in the interpretation plan for the – for the site itself. I enjoyed that experience. You know, being a part of it. I mean, I didn’t – you know, we were – it was a collective effort, so being a part of that, I really enjoyed that. It forced me to do research, forced me to, you know, kind of look at it, also, not from the academy but from the community point, you know, and how the general public looks at it. It was – it was a good experience for me, personally.

Interviewer: Did you get to review the interpretive plan after Harpers Ferry put it together? Dandridge: Yeah, uh-huh. Yeah, and I was impressed.

Interviewer: Get to go look at their boards and stuff?

Dandridge: Yes. Yeah, I did. I think I did. I did, because we were up in Harpers Ferry at least two or three times. And then we met in other places, too. But sometimes they would come to the site, I remember. And we’d discuss things. So, it was – I thought it was, you know, a very – you know, the collaboration was good, you know.

Interviewer: Was there a particular part of the interpretation that you were really proud of or that really excited you to be involved in?

Dandridge: (Pause)It’s the first room on that side (gestures to the left). That’s where I saw a lot of the junk – the junk, I’m saying! But the things that – I was surprised the way they included it. I thought, you know, the statement in the major auditorium, they took directly from me! And so, I really appreciate –

Interviewer: Oh, really? They quoted you?

Dandridge: Yeah. Well, and then I got it from somewhere else. The American Creed, and so that was a part of it. And they said what to name that area. So, they did it, and, of course, they did the creation with the – with the video and other things. You know, they just built onto it, so.

Interviewer: Okay. Is there anything that I’ve asked you about, or that I haven’t asked you about, that you would like to talk about more?

Dandridge: (Pause) Yes. And I think that the National Park Service’s relationship with local communities really needs work. And I think finding ways to collaborate, I know, are difficult. We’ve had – we’ve had projects working with another institution – horrible! You know, (unintelligible – laughter) quit each other. But I think, you know, you have to – you have to give some. And I think that it has lost a lot of respect and support from people who are involved with the – who are involved in the decision in Topeka, but also South Carolina, and Virginia, and Delaware. And we did a – the Brown Foundation just produced a book – I guess you all know about it. It’s digitized and it’s – you know, it’s available in digital form. But also, you know, for open access. But it’s also – you can get a print form. And it’s [Recovering Untold Stories], and so we did that. And it was a grant that the Foundation got from Walmart – Walmart family, down there. So, we did that.

And that was, like, two or three years. And we met at the Smithsonian the last two years, at the – you know, at the African American Museum. So, we had – we had that. And I think Linda passed right after – yeah, right after – no, we had not quiet finished it by then. So, it’s up, and it’s on our site, if you – [Recovering Untold Stories: An Enduring Legacy of the Brown v. Board of Education Decision].

Interviewer: Did you – you did do – Brown v. Board did an oral history project, right, to –? Dandridge: Right, right! Now that was the one that was funded by – remember, I told you – that was funded by the Kansas – no, that was funded by the Halls Center – by the Hallmark Foundation, right. And that was a grant that was given to the Foundation. And then the materials were handed over to the Kansas State Historical Society! And they processed it. They process it, and it – now, I don’t think it’s fully digitized. The interviews are, but the finding aid is on there. In fact, the person who created that finding aid is now on board here. (Laughs)

Interviewer: In regards to the collaboration, are there any specific details that you would advise?

Dandridge: You know, I’m not – I don’t know. I just think there has to be an understanding. We have to come to some agreement. And not to discredit each other publicly. And, you know, we all going to have fights. I mean, families have fights. But to do that publicly, and to do that – I mean, I think, that’s what – I’m just amazed, and you know, it devastated Ms. Montgomery, you know, the widow of Oliver Brown. I mean, it’s just – it was horrible! So, that’s – you just really have to not let things get that far. I think so. I think so.

Interviewer: All right. Dandridge: Well! Ladies!

Interviewer: Yep! I’m going to go ahead and turn off the recorder.

END OF INTERVIEW