The Man Who Could Get You in the Room
February 24, 2026
No Comments
If you want to understand how the United States learned—slowly, violently, and never in a straight line—to treat equality as something more than a slogan, you end up tracing a set of ideas that look strangely modern: that discrimination is not one thing at a time; that the law can be taught to recognize patterns; that a Constitution written by flawed people can be forced, through argument and pressure, to honor its own stated principles. Those ideas are now so widely circulated that they can sound inevitable, like the country was always headed there.
Pauli Murray is a reminder that none of it was inevitable.
Murray’s influence is everywhere and, for much of the last half-century, their name was nowhere. A legal scholar and strategist whose research helped shape the litigation campaign against segregation, a feminist thinker who supplied critical intellectual ammunition for the argument that sex discrimination is a constitutional wrong, and an Episcopal priest whose vocation carried the same insistence on human dignity into the rituals of American religion, Murray lived a life that refuses neat classification. In the public record, Murray is often introduced through a list—lawyer, activist, poet, priest—because no single label holds. But the list can also flatten what is most startling about their story: Murray did not simply participate in the defining movements of the 20th century; they helped write the grammar those movements used to persuade courts, presidents, and the public that the country had to change.
That grammar has a signature phrase. “Jane Crow,” the term Murray coined to describe sex discrimination as a structural system analogous to Jim Crow, is more than a clever coinage; it is an analytical bridge, an argument that the American legal system could not claim to oppose racial caste while tolerating gender caste. It is also, in retrospect, a clue to Murray’s distinctive moral sensibility: a refusal to let the country split a human being into separate categories and then assign rights accordingly.
In recent years Murray’s visibility has increased—through scholarship, through a documentary that made a case for their centrality, through institutions bearing their name, and through a growing public appetite for stories that acknowledge the people movements left behind. But Murray’s story is not just a corrective to omission. It is a challenge to how Americans imagine progress: as a parade of singular heroes rather than a dense ecology of thinkers, organizers, litigators, and writers, many of whom were pushed to the margins by the very movements they strengthened.
To write about Pauli Murray with any fidelity is to confront a basic fact about American memory: we tend to celebrate outcomes and neglect infrastructure. Murray built infrastructure—legal arguments, research compendia, conceptual frameworks—and infrastructure rarely becomes myth. Yet it is precisely infrastructure that allows a society to change without having to reinvent itself each generation. Murray’s life shows what it costs, personally and professionally, to serve as that kind of architect.
Durham’s lessons: Inheritance, violence, and the making of an argumentative child
Anna Pauline Murray was born in Baltimore in 1910, but the moral world that shaped them was largely Durham, North Carolina—a city where Black life was constrained by segregation and sustained by community networks strong enough to produce schools, churches, and a civic identity under pressure. Murray was raised by relatives after early family tragedy, and this early experience of instability—paired with the strictures of Jim Crow—helped produce a temperament that would become central to their public work: a habit of refusing the terms as given.
In the story Americans tell about civil rights, the South often functions as a stage for confrontation—lunch counters, buses, courthouses—and less as a classroom where a young mind might learn, in intimate ways, what law and custom do to a person. Durham offered both. It offered the daily humiliations of enforced racial hierarchy and also the countervailing fact of Black achievement that segregation could not erase: educated relatives, church life, and the unglamorous competence required to build a life inside a system designed to deny your worth. The tension between those realities—constraint and capability—becomes a throughline in Murray’s thinking. If Black communities could build so much under pressure, what was the country’s excuse for refusing full citizenship?
That question matured into a style of activism that was not primarily performative. Murray was a writer by temperament: someone who believed that the right formulation, the right brief, the right letter, could force institutions to confront their own contradictions. The legal historian’s temptation is to treat this as mere technique. But it was also a personal necessity. Murray’s life would be marked by repeated encounters with gatekeeping—on the basis of race, on the basis of sex, and, in more complicated and painful ways, on the basis of gender nonconformity and sexuality. Those encounters trained Murray to argue not only against injustice but against the evasions that allow injustice to persist: delay, bureaucratic indifference, polite dismissal.
Murray’s early ambitions were academic. In the late 1930s, they sought admission to the University of North Carolina and were rejected because of race. Rather than accept the refusal privately, Murray publicized it—writing letters that widened the circle of accountability and pressed the contradiction at the center of American democracy: the state’s public institutions were financed by Black taxpayers but closed to Black students.
The incident is often noted as prelude. It deserves to be treated as a blueprint. Murray understood early that institutions fear exposure more than argument. They also understood that public language—letters, statements, petitions—could recruit allies and shame opponents. This is the same instinct that later fueled Murray’s correspondence with Eleanor Roosevelt, a relationship that began not as friendship but as pressure: a young Black activist insisting that the First Lady’s conscience needed to become policy.
The bus, the arrest, and the discovery of noncompliance as method
Civil rights history often begins the bus story with Montgomery in 1955. Murray was thinking about buses earlier.
In 1940, Murray and a friend were arrested after refusing to comply with segregation rules on interstate travel in Virginia—an episode that prefigured later direct-action tactics and highlighted how ordinary travel could become a constitutional question. What made Murray’s confrontation distinctive was not only the act of defiance but the interpretive work around it. Murray did not simply experience segregation as indignity; they translated it into legal injury, something the state could be made to answer for.
This translation is the core of Murray’s significance. Many activists could identify injustice; fewer could make it legible to courts. Murray was building that skill in real time, shaped by organizations and networks that connected labor activism, civil rights strategy, and legal defense. The result was a political sensibility that resisted narrowness. Murray did not see race equality as separate from labor rights, gender equality, or, later, broader “human rights.” This breadth would make Murray invaluable—and, at times, inconvenient to movements that preferred simpler narratives.
Howard Law and the invention of “Jane Crow”
Howard University School of Law was, by the early 1940s, a training ground for a generation of Black lawyers determined to dismantle segregation through litigation. Murray arrived there as the only woman in their class and graduated at the top.
But the achievement sits beside an injury that would become an idea. Murray’s exclusion and belittlement in male-dominated legal culture sharpened their critique of sexism within progressive spaces. The same society that could articulate racial justice still treated women as auxiliary. Murray named this system “Jane Crow,” insisting that sex discrimination was not an interpersonal inconvenience but an organized regime—parallel to Jim Crow in function, if not identical in form.
The phrase mattered because it changed the burden of proof. Instead of having to argue each instance of sexism as a special case, Murray could present discrimination as structure, patterned and systemic. The concept also carried a political warning: movements that refused to confront “Jane Crow” were reproducing hierarchy while claiming liberation.
Murray’s insistence on connecting systems would later become a hallmark of contemporary frameworks like intersectionality, but Murray was making the argument decades earlier, in a vocabulary shaped by the legal categories available at the time. What Murray offered was not a slogan but an analytic tool: a way to show that race and sex discrimination were mutually reinforcing, especially for Black women, who often bore the compounded effects while being denied leadership or visibility.
The “bible” of civil-rights law: Building a litigation arsenal
In 1950 Murray published States’ Laws on Race and Color, a comprehensive compendium of segregation statutes and racial restrictions across the country. In the ecosystem of civil rights litigation, such a book is not glamorous. It is foundational.
The National Museum of African American History and Culture emphasizes Murray’s role in shaping the legal reasoning that attacked segregation, including the development of arguments that helped undermine Plessy v. Ferguson’s “separate but equal” doctrine. The New Yorker’s profile of Murray describes how ideas once dismissed as too radical later became central to landmark victories, and how Murray’s legal theories fed strategies used by the NAACP’s litigators.
The Washington Post, in a more recent exploration of Murray’s legacy, notes that Thurgood Marshall used Murray’s scholarship and strategy in the Brown v. Board of Education era and later generations drew on their work in gender-discrimination litigation. Whether one focuses on the compendium itself or on Murray’s broader intellectual influence, the story is the same: Murray supplied tools that others used to win.
This raises an uncomfortable question about credit. Movements rely on a division of labor: some people take the street; some people take the microphone; some people take the courtroom; some people take the library. The division can become a hierarchy. Murray’s work was frequently treated as support rather than leadership, even when it shaped strategy at the highest level. In part, this is because support work is easier to appropriate. A research compendium can be cited without centering the person who made it. An argument can be adopted without inviting its author into the spotlight. Murray’s career is a case study in how intellectual labor—especially by Black women and gender-nonconforming people—can be absorbed into institutional victories without producing institutional power for the laborer.
Eleanor Roosevelt: Correspondence as leverage and the politics of moral intimacy
Murray’s relationship with Eleanor Roosevelt has become one of the more publicly legible parts of their story, in part because it offers narrative texture: letters, friendship, access to power. But to treat it as charming is to miss its political purpose.
The Atlantic, in discussing scholarship on Murray and Roosevelt’s relationship, notes that Murray’s first protest letter to the White House in 1938 began a decades-long correspondence—one that was confrontational, intimate, and ultimately influential. This was not social climbing; it was political insistence. Murray pressed Roosevelt to speak and act against lynching and segregation, demanding that the moral authority of the First Lady become more than sentiment.
Here Murray’s method becomes clearer. Murray understood that American liberalism often prefers sympathy to structural change. Roosevelt could empathize; Murray demanded policy. The relationship, then, was a microcosm of Murray’s broader role in American reform: they brought pressure to bear on people whose values were incomplete in practice, insisting that personal goodness was not enough if institutions remained intact.
Murray’s letters also reveal something about their temperament: a willingness to risk being disliked. Activists often cultivate coalition through diplomacy; Murray could be diplomatic but was not built for deference. This made Murray both effective and, at times, isolating. The same quality that allowed them to challenge presidents and legal doctrines could strain relationships within movements where compromise and messaging discipline were prized.
From civil rights to women’s rights: Murray’s arguments move across movements
By the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was reaching a national crescendo. Yet Murray was already criticizing the movement’s gender politics. The Root, reprinting commentary by legal historian Kenneth W. Mack, underscores Murray’s role in pushing civil rights language beyond race to include women’s rights and, ultimately, broader human rights.
This was not merely ideological. Murray saw, in the practical operations of movements, how women were asked to labor without recognition. The March on Washington in 1963 became one of the clearest examples: an iconic moment of American moral theater that also reflected entrenched sexism in movement leadership. Murray’s critique was pointed, and it exposed a dynamic that still recurs in social movements: the demand for unity can become a tool to silence internal dissent, especially from those already marginalized.
Word In Black, in a broader discussion of Black women’s roles in the movement, highlights how women like Murray helped refine the legal arguments that led to landmark civil rights achievements, even when historical accounts sidelined them. Murray’s life embodies that tension: central to the work, peripheral in the memory.
The concept of “Jane Crow” traveled well because it offered a way to translate lived experience into legal doctrine. Murray pushed the idea that sex discrimination should be treated as a constitutional problem in the same way race discrimination was—an argument that required courts to see patterns of subordination rather than isolated “differences” between men and women.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the afterlife of Murray’s legal theory
One measure of Murray’s influence is how often their work appears, quietly, in the scaffolding of later legal victories.
The Washington Post reports that Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited Murray as an honorary co-author on a brief connected to the first Supreme Court ruling finding gender-based discrimination unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment—an explicit acknowledgment that Murray’s earlier work laid groundwork for arguments that would later prevail. The symbolic act matters: it is rare in legal culture for later advocates to credit the intellectual labor that made their success possible, especially when that labor was performed by someone excluded from the centers of prestige.
Murray’s influence here is not simply about one case. It is about the migration of a theory: that sex discrimination is a form of arbitrary classification analogous to racial discrimination, and that equal protection doctrine could be trained to recognize that analogy. This is, effectively, “Jane Crow” translated into constitutional argument.
Murray also co-founded the National Organization for Women, a fact often mentioned as credential but better understood as evidence of Murray’s insistence that law and movement-building had to work in tandem. Litigation without organizing can become technocratic; organizing without legal theory can be stalled by courts. Murray worked both sides of the equation.
The question of identity: How to speak about Pauli Murray honestly
Any contemporary account of Murray must navigate a difficult terrain: how to describe their gender and sexuality in a way that is historically grounded and ethically respectful.
Multiple sources characterize Murray as gender nonconforming and note that their life did not fit prevailing norms, including relationships with women and an enduring struggle over gendered self-understanding. Some institutions, such as the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, explicitly use “they” language in contemporary remembrance, framing Murray as “perceived as a woman” and emphasizing both Murray’s priesthood and their sainthood within the church’s calendar.
What can be said with confidence is that Murray experienced their identity as a site of conflict with social expectations and institutional gatekeeping. That conflict was not incidental to their activism; it shaped their sensitivity to how the law fragments people into categories and then distributes dignity unevenly. Murray’s own writing includes language that reflects the limited terms available at the time and the medicalization of gender variance—an archive that can be painful to read now, precisely because it shows the costs of living without social recognition.
The Atlantic, in reflecting on trans history and the deeper roots of contemporary struggles, places Murray within a longer lineage of queer and trans-aligned activism, insisting that these histories predate the more familiar milestones of late-20th-century LGBTQ politics. This framing is not about retroactive labeling for its own sake; it is about acknowledging how the boundaries of “normal” have always been policed, and how people like Murray built freedom arguments while themselves living under those boundaries.
For journalists, the obligation is twofold: not to impose a simplistic modern category on a complex historical life, and not to erase the complexity because it is inconvenient. Murray’s story deserves a careful sentence rather than a careless label: they were a person who challenged the gender norms of their time, whose intimate life and self-conception did not conform to the binaries that governed law and society, and whose work anticipated the modern insistence that human rights cannot be parceled out to only the most socially legible citizens.
The turn to theology: Priesthood as a continuation of civil rights
In the popular imagination, a midlife turn from law to religion can look like retreat. For Murray, it was continuity.
Murray became one of the first generation of women ordained as Episcopal priests and is widely recognized as the first Black woman ordained in the Episcopal Church in the United States. The symbolism of this shift is often emphasized: that Murray administered Eucharist in a church connected to their family history, binding personal lineage to institutional transformation. But the deeper point is that Murray’s priesthood carried the same argument Murray made in law: that dignity is not discretionary.
Religious institutions, like legal ones, rely on categories—who may lead, who may speak, who counts as fully human. Murray had spent decades confronting the state’s categories. The church offered a new field of struggle, with similar structures of exclusion. Murray’s ordination was both personal vocation and institutional intervention, an embodied argument that authority must expand or lose legitimacy.
The Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina’s remembrance frames Murray as a figure of “racial reckoning, justice and healing,” linking their priesthood to ongoing moral work. This is a useful corrective: Murray should not be treated as a civil rights figure who later became religious. Murray was a moral thinker whose legal work and religious work were different dialects of the same language.
Memory, monuments, and the politics of naming
In the last decade, Murray’s name has moved into public space in ways that signal both recognition and the ongoing politics of remembrance.
Yale named a residential college after Murray, a high-prestige institutional marker that effectively declares Murray’s significance to the formation of American public life. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has highlighted sites connected to Murray, and Ebony has included the Pauli Murray House in coverage of historic places tied to African American history and preservation. In Durham, the Pauli Murray Center has emerged as a place where public history and present-tense struggle meet, preserving Murray’s childhood home and interpreting their life for new audiences.
That interpretive work is not neutral. The Washington Post’s travel feature on the Pauli Murray Center emphasizes Murray’s gender nonconformity and the breadth of their legacy, presenting the site as both preservation and education. The Guardian, reviewing the documentary and asking why Murray is not a household name, treats Murray’s obscurity as itself a scandal—evidence of how thoroughly America has filtered its pantheon.
Even the controversies of public memory point back to Murray’s relevance. Institutions periodically struggle over how to present LGBTQ history in public-facing materials, a struggle that can affect how figures like Murray are framed. When that framing narrows, Murray’s life becomes a battleground over whether American history can tell the truth about the people who changed it.
Why Murray matters now: Democracy’s hidden engineers
Pauli Murray’s life is sometimes presented as a story of belated recognition: the overlooked genius finally getting their due. That is true, but incomplete.
Murray matters because their work clarifies a recurring dilemma in American democracy. The country depends on people who can translate moral claims into institutional language—into statutes, briefs, doctrines, and frameworks that courts and bureaucracies cannot easily ignore. But it often refuses to reward those translators with visibility or power, particularly when they do not fit the nation’s preferred image of leadership.
Murray also matters because they challenge the idea that movements progress by consensus. Murray was often early, sometimes isolatingly so. They insisted on naming sexism inside civil rights circles and racism inside feminist circles. They linked struggles in ways that complicated message discipline. In doing so, they modeled a kind of integrity that movements need but do not always welcome: the refusal to trade one group’s liberation for another’s silence.
The phrase “Jane Crow” remains one of the most compact expressions of that integrity. It insists that equality cannot be partitioned. It insists that the law must be made to see what society prefers to keep blurry. And it insists that the people most affected by overlapping systems of discrimination are often the ones asked to wait for justice in installments.
Murray refused installments.
More great stories
John Biggers’s America Was a Shotgun House, a Mother’s Hands, a Vast Geometry
February 24, 2026
No Comments
Where History Checked In
February 24, 2026
No Comments