In a poignant twist of judicial fate, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has dealt a significant blow to the last two living survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. Viola Fletcher and Lessie Benningfield Randle, both in their twilight years, have long sought accountability for the catastrophic violence inflicted upon their community. However, their quest for justice faced another setback on September 11, when the court’s seven members collectively decided against rehearing their case. This decision upheld a previous ruling by the district court that dismissed their lawsuit.
The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre remains one of the most tragic and devastating episodes in American history. In a matter of hours, a thriving Black neighborhood, known as Black Wall Street for its economic prosperity and cultural vibrancy, was reduced to ashes. White mobs, driven by racial animus, murdered approximately 300 Black residents and destroyed over 1,000 homes, businesses, schools, and churches. The destruction was not merely physical but deeply symbolic of the systemic racism that plagued and continues to affect Black communities.
Viola Fletcher, now 110, and Lessie Benningfield Randle, at 109, have become the enduring faces of this historical tragedy. They have been engaged in legal battles since 2021, advocating for reparations and official acknowledgment of the massacre’s lasting impact. Their lawsuit sought to hold the city of Tulsa accountable, alleging that the city had not only failed to address the wrongs of the past but had also capitalized on the historical legacy of Black Wall Street for its own gain. This includes revenue from the Greenwood Rising History Center, which attorneys argue should be redirected into a compensation fund for victims and their descendants.
Damario Solomon-Simmons, the attorney representing Fletcher and Randle, had hoped that a rehearing could reignite the pursuit of justice. His motion for a rehearing was driven by the hope that the U.S. Department of Justice might step in under the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which allows for the reopening of cold cases related to violent crimes against Black individuals committed before 1970.
Solomon-Simmons also highlighted a promise made by President Joe Biden, who had pledged support for the survivors and their descendants. Despite Biden’s assurances and a public statement of solidarity, the survivors remain disillusioned as their legal avenues seem to be exhausted. Solomon-Simmons has called upon the President to fulfill his commitment, not just for Fletcher and Randle but for the broader Black community that continues to seek justice and reconciliation.
For Fletcher and Randle, the legal fight has been more than a quest for financial compensation; it has been a struggle to ensure that the memory of the massacre and its impact are not forgotten. Fletcher has spoken publicly about the trauma she experienced, recounting the terror of witnessing the destruction of her community. “It just stays with me, you know, just the fear,” she told CNN in April. Her testimony underscores the persistent emotional and psychological scars left by the massacre.
As this legal chapter closes, it is crucial to reflect on the broader implications. The dismissal of the lawsuit does not erase the historical facts or the ongoing consequences of the massacre. It raises fundamental questions about how societies reckon with past atrocities and the role of legal systems in addressing historical injustices. The struggle of Fletcher and Randle highlights the need for continued dialogue, not only about reparations but also about how we remember and learn from our collective history.
While the legal path for these survivors appears blocked, their efforts have spurred important conversations about justice and historical memory. As we move forward, it is essential to support meaningful reparations and to honor the resilience of those who continue to fight for recognition and reconciliation. The quest for justice may take many forms, and while legal battles are one avenue, the broader societal commitment to understanding and addressing historical wrongs remains equally critical.