The conversation about invisible leadership is one that is so important to remember as one studies history, and more specifically in the context of our reading and podcast, the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s and 70s. As Bezio discussed in the podcast episode, the Civil Rights Movement did not happen because MLK single handedly spoke so well that it changed the minds of all racist white people. The movement happened because of the people. We are lucky that unlike the Elizabethan era of England we actually have documentation from the so called “common people.” We don’t have to make assumptions about the real emotions, opinions, and actions people were taking during the Civil Rights Movement. We know that black churches became a central organizational point to all parts of the movement. We can understand how communities came together to pay bails or to find rides during bus boycotts. Because of historical documentation, we know the myth that MLK did all the work on his own is not true. He was important, but he was important because he had a huge group of people ready to take his words into action right alongside him.
In the city of Richmond, invisible leadership sprung up in the fight to ensure equal voting rights policy. As Bezio discussed, sometimes the most effective forms of change are through court cases. This article outlined the importance of the Courts’ decisions throughout the struggle to maintain equal voting rights in Richmond. Each individual that brought a case to court to fight for what was legal showed up as an invisible leader. Going to court and defending yourself does not look the same as making a speech to a big crowd, rallying potential voters, or any of the other images that come to mind when we picture a “leader” fighting for change. But that’s the point of invisible leadership. Many times, it does not match the stereotypical images we automatically come up with even if the lawyer in court or the black women in the church basement really are the leaders we should be imagining. Hayter does a great job in bringing to light a story full of invisible leaders. She works to argue that the change made at the Richmond city level impacted the national voting rights movement. By making this argument, she allows for different faces and names to be brought to light when it comes to the success of the Civil Rights Movement. Diversifying the history we are constantly told is a really important thing and actually learning about people like Oliver Hill, Claudette Colvin, and Curtis J. Holt brings to light a more complex and truthful history.
I also noticed that Hayter did a really great job of including invisible leaders in his writing. I think it’s interesting that invisible leadership is something I’d never been taught until taking leadership classes at UR, but it is such an important element to our history. For example, I would have probably never learned about Claudette Colvin if it weren’t for my leadership education. Not that Claudette needed the spotlight, but it’s important for us to understand that Rosa Parks was not the first black woman to protest where she sat on a bus.
I also noticed the impact of Hayter’s article. Voting at the local level is necessary for making a difference at the national level. This applies to invisible leadership as sometimes people don’t realize the difference their work will do on a small scale. I think we are seeing this type of leadership in present day at Richmond. Especially with everything going on around campus.