Defending Love Claire Barber and Kate Doherty Senior Division Performance Process Paper Word Count: 494 1 Our National History Day topic is centered around the Loving vs. Virginia court case which abolished anti-miscegenation laws throughout the United States. We chose this topic because of its proximity to where we live with Claire living on the border between Bowling Green and Caroline County and Kate living in downtown Fredericksburg both close to the Lovings’ residence in Caroline County. We feel honored to locally have such a monumental case. We began our research at the University of Mary Washington’s Simpson Library. We were able to find law books that discussed the changes in the law during this time. Additionally, we saw how many people wrote first-hand accounts of the discrimination that those in interracial marriages faced before and after the ruling. It was really fun finding different means of collecting information as well, including an interview with the Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney for the city of Fredericksburg. At first, we were disappointed that the UMW library did not have the physical Free Lance-Star newspapers for the year of 1967, but we were informed that they had been converted to microfilm, which was challenging for us. As two teenagers who had never even heard of microfilm and it took trial and error to learn how to load the machine and in the end, use it. To gain more insight into the personal aspects of the case, we tried to get in contact with Bernard Cohen, one of the original lawyers on the Lovings’ case, who still lives in Fredericksburg. This led us to a woman named Adele Uphaus who is a reporter with our local newspaper, the Free Lance-Star and has published a number of articles about Mr. Cohen. She said that because of his health we could not interview him, but in turn, she recommended we talk to Philip Hirschkop, another lawyer on the case who still practices law in Northern Virginia. After an hour-long conversation with him, we both felt like we knew Mr. Hirschkop and the case on a deeper level. This impacted our medium for the project moving forward. We were going back and forth on whether we wanted to do a website or a performance. We already had experience making websites, so we wanted to try something new. We both really enjoy performing in our school’s musicals and wanted to show history in a new light. By choosing this medium, it allowed us to share the emotional aspects that went into being a part of this case outside of the cinema portrayals of the Lovings. It gave us the ability to showcase how eloquent and passionate Philip Hirschkop was when speaking to us about this case as well. The Loving vs. Virginia case broke barriers because it transformed the way the public responded to relationships between people of mixed races. It took time for society to accept it, but without the help of Mr. Hirschkop and Mr. Cohen, it would not have been legalized so soon and so famously. 2 Claire Barber Kate Doherty National History Day 2020 Senior Division Fredericksburg Academy Defending Love Picture of the Set and Props 3 Props: Two coffee cups Stack of files labeled with “Loving” Constitutional Law books Rotary phone Two pens Period table Period Waterford pineapple lamp Two period chairs Setting: A small wooden and white lacquer conference table is in the center of the stage. Along either side, there are two wooden chairs. The table has a few file folders strewn about along with period law books. At each place setting sits a yellow legal pad, metal pen, and coffee cup. The characters sip from the cups periodically throughout the scene. In the center of the table, there is a phone that is to be used later on in the scene. Behind the phone there is a pineapple lamp with the light turned on. Actors: Claire Barber - Philip Hirschkop and Narrator (via recording) Kate Doherty - Bernard Cohen and Mrs. Mildred Loving (via recording) [ Bernard Cohen is seated in a chair on stage left. He is frozen in a stance in which he appears to be writing notes on the yellow legal pad on the table in front of him. Philip Hirschkop is off stage right.] NARRATOR In 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving were married in the District of Columbia because their interracial marriage was illegal in the state of Virginia where they were from. After their nuptials, the couple made their home in Caroline County, VA. They lived peacefully until one night while the Lovings were sleeping, police entered their home and arrested them. They were then tried and sentenced to not being allowed to return to Virginia together for 25 years. [ The scene unfreezes. Philip enters into the scene miming a door opening. Bernard stands to greet him and shakes hands and mouths greetings. The interaction ends with them both seated on their respective sides of the table continuing to mouth a conversation while jotting down notes and drinking from their white cups. The narrator continues...] This brings us to June 11th, 1967. Philip Hirschkop and Bernard Cohen, the Lovings’ defense attorneys, have convened to discuss the proceedings of the case and inform the couple about the trial and its path to the Supreme Court of the United States. Philip Hirschkop was brought into 4 the proceedings after the case turned from being a federal case to a civil case. Eventually, the two young lawyers saw the case all the way through to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Loving vs. Virginia case broke barriers by abolishing anti-miscegenation laws and creating social change throughout the United States of America which could not have been possible without the determination of these two young lawyers. PHILIP [ Leaning back in his chair slightly and tapping the pen on the legal pad. ] We really have a case here. It’s been pretty procedural so far, but now that we’re going to the Supreme Court, this action is really starting to make some noise. BERNARD I didn’t think we would be able to appeal all of the way to the Supreme Court. Especially with how it started, being a federal case and all. PHILIP True, we were never supposed to get this far. It was intended to just be a reduction of sentence. Not to mention Naim vs. Naim, a similar case, was dismissed ten years ago. I’m actually surprised that the ACLU let us stay on the job considering how young we are. BERNARD [ Leaning elbows on the table and angling body inward. ] Well, this certainly isn’t a clean case, they broke the law by coming back to Virginia before their twenty-five-year sentence was up. [ Tapping pen to temple as if remembering something.] By the way, we have to send off the letter requesting your presence in the Supreme court. You have not been out of law school for the required amount of years. I want you to deliver the opening statement because you are more seasoned in civil law. PHILIP Oh, thank you. [ Philip excitedly stands with the legal pad and pen in his hand, showing his age. ] We should bring up the lack of due process and the equal protection clause. [ Small laugh. ] We are almost lucky that our first judge was racist because it helps to solidify our argument. What was it he said? [ Tapping pen to paper as if searching for the quote. ] "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause 5 for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." [ Philip sits confidently. ] This could be a great example of the racially fueled bias that we have already faced and may continue to face in courts that are supposed to be impartial. [ Jots this down on paper. ] BERNARD That’s really good. This will be the first time that you have had a major case like this that will progress to the Supreme Court. [ Leaning back in the chair, arms and legs crossed.] I suppose you are happy you signed onto this case? With it escalating and all? PHILIP I don’t know. [ Beat.] The first time I ever met Mr. and Mrs. Loving I instantly felt the urge to help them. The moment I exchanged my first words with Mildred, I could tell she was just a wonderful human being. From the way she interacted with her kids to the quiet strength she has possessed throughout this whole process. [ Beat.] They valued their family so much that they would rather break the law than move somewhere where their marriage is legal and have to leave their family behind. It makes me want to work even harder because these good people don’t deserve to go to the penitentiary for five years without a fight. [ Phone rings. Bernard nods to Philip signaling he can take the call. Bernard picks up the phone. ] BERNARD Hello? MRS. LOVING [ Recording plays. ] Hi Mr. Cohen, this is Mildred, Mildred Loving. [ Beat.] I was wondering about the changes in our case and how it is moving along? BERNARD Hi Mrs. Loving. 6 [ Said loudly while nodding to Philip to indicate who is on the phone. ] Yes, Mr. Hirschkop and I are actually discussing your case right now. We are going to appeal with the use of due process and the equal protection clause to support your case and hopefully get the court to provide you closure and justice for both of your hardships.