Scott met segregation by asserting demands for accountability.
Hollywood career over, Scott married Adam Clayton Powell Jr., prominent pastor, historic freshman Congressman, and activist, in 1945, making “the most sensational black couple in America.” [1] Scott heeded his suggestion to play for concerts instead of nightclubs.
When touring, they tested a respected hall’s ban on Black performers, intended to discourage Black audiences. Controversy ensued when Scott’s concert was canceled upon realizing she was Black.
“President Truman condemned the Daughters of the American Revolution today for refusing to permit the use of the organization’s Memorial Constitution Hall to Hazel Scott, Negro pianist, and in a letter to her husband, Representative Adam Clayton Powell Jr. of New York compared their policy to that of Nazis. . . . Mrs. Truman ‘deplored’ the action of the D.A.R. but in her letter to Mr. Powell she rejected his suggestion that she absent herself from a tea given by the organization this afternoon. . . . When Representative Powell had received the letter from President Truman he sent him the following note: ‘ . . . I would like to point out that although the D.A.R. is a private enterprise, Constitution Hall is a public institution in as much as it is tax exempt. Can we as a nation exempt from taxation the property of people who claim to be charitable, religious or philanthropic and they use that property against the interests of American people?’” [3]
While initial efforts to end the DAR’s ban and tax exemption failed, Scott spurred significant protest within DAR and from civil rights groups.
“Hazel Scott . . . has canceled her scheduled appearance at the dinner of the National Press Club in honor of President Truman next Tuesday.
. . . Miss Scott . . . wired that ‘two precedents’ hindered her from appearing:
‘1. The fact that the National Press Club excludes Negro Journalists even though they are members of the American Newspaper Guild, whose membership consists of both white and Negro correspondents.
‘2. As you know, the Negro journalists have been excluded from the press galleries of the House and Senate.
‘I trust that the day will come soon when qualified journalists of my race will be accepted without distinction.’” [5]
“Hazel Scott . . . refused to appear . . . before a segregated audience and her concert was canceled.
‘What justification can any one [sic] have who comes to hear me and then objects to sitting next to another Negro,’ the pianist told a reporter for the Austin American.
Miss Scott was billed to appear at . . . the University of Texas. The show . . . was a sellout with 7,000 seats sold. Money was being refunded.” [6]
“In her contract, she would not play before in front of a segregated audience. . . The idea that any performer would insist on having that arrangement challenged . . . was unusual. . . .
What amazed me was the ferocity of some of the resistance. . . . They would call the police, in Texas, they called the Texas Rangers, that . . . ‘how dare she challenge this.’” [8]
As one of the first to boycott segregated audiences, Scott’s actions amplified nationwide and grassroots anti-segregation efforts that loosened segregation policies at each institution Scott protested within a decade.
“On February 11, 1949 defendants were operating a restaurant which catered to the public, in Pasco, Washington. At about 1:30 P.M. on that day plaintiff . . . Hazel Scott, in company with another lady of the Negro race, entered the restaurant, seated herself at the lunch counter . . . and requested that she and her companion be served food and drink. Defendants refused to serve them for the sole express reason that they were Negroes. The refusal was in the presence and hearing of others and it caused Mrs. Powell to suffer shame, humiliation and mental distress for which plaintiffs seek recovery of damages.” [9]
The Trial
Scott cited Washington’s Civil Rights Statute, only the fifth person to do so, for treatment unassociated with the north.
“[A] waitress at the restaurant claimed Scott . . . had shouted . . . and ‘demanded service out of turn.’ . . .
. . . a surprise rebuttal witness . . . thought that Scott ‘conducted herself in a lady-like manner and did not shout or tap people on the shoulder, use profanity, or threaten to tear apart the waitress.’ [10]
Scott won the suit and $250 that she donated to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, giving legal precedent and momentum to local organizations that resulted in new laws against discrimination.
