Lunch counter sculpture to honor Civil Rights Activist Clara Luper in the heart of downtown
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — The life and legacy of Clara Shepard Luper will be on full display in the heart of downtown.
A monument is being made in her honor to commemorate the Katz Drug Store sit-in, which was one of the first lunch counter sit-ins in America.
The Katz Drug Store Sit-In was led by Clara Luper, a high school history teacher, and the NAACP Youth Council.
100 of the best books by Black Americans
Mrs. Luper was born in Okfuskee County in 1923. She was a mother, educator, and mentor to young adults.
She was a beacon of strength, courage, and change.
Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt felt the city needed a permanent tribute to Luper.
'America has always had some serious flaws since its very founding. But also baked into its governing documents, had the the tools to fix those and address those flaws so people like Clara Luper can utilize those tools,' said Mayor Holt.
Black-owned barbershop thrives for 50 years as community hub
Mrs. Luper's daughter, Marilyn Luper-Hildreth remembers her mother as a dreamer.
'Mom would say, I want you to go places I've never been, and I want you to dream dreams I have never dreamed.'
'She believed that we could achieve anything that we wanted to achieve,' she said.
In 1958, Clara Luper led a group of 13 students, including her daughter Marilyn and her son Calvin, to conduct a sit-in at the Katz Drug Store in downtown Oklahoma City, demanding they be served in a climate plagued with segregation.
Mayor David Holt believes the 'sit-in' tactic was one of the most important tactics of the civil rights movement throughout the 1960s.
'We need these stories to be told in the places where we all congregate, and obviously downtown is sort of our shared neighborhood for all the people of Oklahoma City,' Mayor Holt said.
How trailblazing Black police captain paved the way for change
The bronze monument being made in her honor will consist of life-size sculptures and be placed where the Katz Drug Store stood on Robinson Avenue and Main Street.
John Kennedy is one of the co-chairs for the plaza, now six years in the making.
'It's a story that we really have overlooked. We haven't really told this story and talked about the success right here in Oklahoma City,' said Kennedy.
Members of the committee for the project selected sculptors out of Brooklyn, New York, to create the monument.
Local sculptor LaQuincey Reed worked on the project as well.
Mrs. Luper-Hildreth said they have a target date for completion in May, with the unveiling to follow.
'They're going to tell a story about a place called Oklahoma City that changed the course of human history. And I'm so glad that the young people in this area, led by my mom, had the nerve enough to do it,' said Mrs. Luper-Hildreth.
Members on the committee are: Joyce Jackson, Joyce Henderson, Sam Presti, David Rainbolt, Misty Doney, Leonard Benton, Steve Lackmeyer, Bill Lance, Collin Fleck, John Michhael Williams, Marilyn Luper-Hildreth, Rev. Lee Cooper, and John Kennedy.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
American Politics Only Pretends to Work
There is a pervasive feeling—rising up from the precarious working poor, through the illusory middle class, and now even brushing the edges of the elite—that something in America is broken. The carefully curated illusions of American life, which held just enough weight to seem real for much of my millennial lifetime, are beginning to collapse. These illusions were constructed in the shadow of post-Reagan neoliberalism, just as the rot began to eat away at the gains of the postwar economy. Poverty and racism have always made liberty and justice feel like empty promises for many, but for protected classes, the illusion could endure. So much so that by the time I reached college—coinciding with the first term of Barack Obama—it was fashionable to declare that we had entered a post-racial America. Now those delusions lie bloodied in the street. We have seen law-abiding citizens snatched off the street, a billionaire oligarch turned loose to deconstruct the civil service. Meanwhile, that chasm between those with more than enough and those with nothing keeps widening. If there was an 'Obama legacy,' then it's mostly vanished. The optics of progress have failed to mask its absence. On May 16, Maryland Governor Wes Moore—a Democrat, a Rhodes scholar, and the only Black governor in the country—sent a letter to the president of the Maryland State Senate, vetoing a bill passed by the state legislature that would have created a reparations commission to study the economic and social case for compensating Black Marylanders for the enduring harms of slavery and its legacy. The headlines suggested betrayal. 'Maryland Governor Vetoes Reparations Bill,' read The New York Times' headline. 'Gov. Moore vetoes bill creating a state commission to study reparations,' wrote The Baltimore Banner. But the governor's letter tells a more nuanced story. 'I strongly believe now is not the time for another study,' Moore wrote. 'Now is the time for continued action that delivers results for the people we serve.' The sentiment that a substantial body of research exists bears out. The evidence is already there. The impacts of slavery, redlining, racial violence, and economic exclusion have been documented in study after study by universities, think tanks, and government agencies alike. The racial wealth gap in America—which is a topic that does not want for robust news coverage or analysis—remains staggering: The average white family holds nearly 10 times the wealth of the average Black family. In cities like Baltimore and all across the country, formerly redlined neighborhoods remain poorer, sicker, and less resourced than their white counterparts. Economist Sandy Darity, the Brookings Institution, and the Federal Reserve have all produced rigorous economic models showing the effects of slavery and other racist programs on Black wealth and showing how reparative programs could substantially narrow these disparities—even lengthening the lives of Black Americans. Echoing these findings, The California Reparations Report proposed direct cash payments and broad institutional reforms—ranging from guaranteed access to health care and housing to tax-exempt status for reparations payments—as essential components of a comprehensive state-level strategy to repair the enduring economic and social harms of slavery and its afterlives. But here's the rub: The bill that Moore spiked was never actually about discovering new facts to lay alongside the vast mountain of already-obtained knowledge. Rather, it's a quintessentially American ritual. A performance of forward motion that, in reality, preserves the status quo: activity masquerading as achievement. We are not waiting for more data. We are waiting for the willpower of political elites to catch up to the facts we have already gathered about the state of the world. We are hoping that we might create a force strong enough to dissolve the lucrative web of mutual dependence that exists between politicians, their funders, and their funding recipients—an arrangement that allows the few to profit from the entrenched policies that impoverish the many. For much of my lifetime, the nation, like our tech devices, has operated like a machine engineered for planned obsolescence: appearing functional on the surface but designed to slowly degrade beneath the hood. Our dissatisfaction is tempered by the allure of a shiny new upgrade that promises new features each campaign cycle. Like our top-grossing movies, election cycles are reboots and franchises. That includes our politics. Our institutions don't just fail; they are built to delay, to degrade, to defer. We pretend they work, and when they don't, we hold another hearing, commission another report, launch another study, believe another is hardly the first to challenge these neglectful impulses. More than a decade ago, The Atlantic published Ta-Nehisi Coates's landmark essay 'The Case for Reparations.' It was not merely a manifesto but a meticulous historical excavation—from redlining in Chicago to the GI Bill's racist exclusions—that laid out in irrefutable detail how government policy, not just private prejudice, created Black disadvantage. It forced a national conversation. But again, the response was mostly talk. On June 1, however, Tulsa Mayor Monroe Nichols—who once opposed reparations—announced a historic local plan for survivors and descendants of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. The city would fund direct payments and long-term support programs. It is a rare instance where moral clarity translated into material commitment. But Tulsa is the exception, not the rule. This policy of forever kicking the can down the road in the name of respecting some phantasmal process is not unique to reparations. The same pattern plays out across the political spectrum: Universal basic income pilots have consistently shown that giving people money reduces poverty, homelessness, and even mental illness—yet most federal assistance remains conditional and insufficient. Restorative justice programs show lower recidivism than punitive sentences—particularly for youth—yet U.S. incarceration rates have remained the highest in the world since 2002. The information is known. The solutions exist. They are simply not acted upon. The political class often blames this inertia on partisan gridlock. But that too is an illusion—one as fragile as it is convenient. The apparent opposition between parties masks a deeper consensus: Both benefit from a system that rewards performative conflict over substantive change, ensuring that donor interests and institutional power remain undisturbed regardless of which party holds office. What has not changed since the 1990s is the sheer number of Americans who do not vote at all. In 1992, Joan Didion wrote in The New York Review that political apathy was a misdiagnosis: the real condition was disenchantment, a loss of faith that the system could deliver anything meaningful. And while raw turnout numbers have rebounded from the dismal 1990s, it remains the case that disaffection is a constant presence. I saw it firsthand while teaching an introductory sociology class in Washington, D.C., in the autumn of 2024. As expected in a presidential election year, every discussion of social issues circled back to politics. My students, who represented the population of their majority-Black, working-class university, were thoughtful and interested but wary. One student offered the familiar argument: that nonvoters had only themselves to blame; they are uninformed and unengaged. But an older Black woman in the class cut in. She worked with unhoused Washingtonians who, she said, don't see much difference between life under either party. And how could they? Their material circumstances have not changed. In 2024, the Democratic Party—once the party of labor—ran its campaign flanked by billionaires and Bush-era Republicans. While Donald Trump performed populism in a McDonald's, Kamala Harris held fundraisers with Mark Cuban and the Cheneys. Campaigns are fought on vibes and not policy. While Kamala Harris had a 'Brat Summer,' Trump, a Manhattan-made real estate developer, played to rural crowds. Their policy disagreements and, especially, their pro-war consensus on foreign policy and neoliberal economics are rarely discussed. One party cosplays populism, and the other cosplays credibility. All that has shifted since the '90s is which party plays which role. What has changed since the Clinton era is not political substance but political spectacle. Social media has democratized access to information and sharpened our ability to see the rupture between what is promised and what is real. There is now a generation fluent in disillusionment. The Democratic National Committee itself has become a case study in illusion maintenance: from undermining Bernie Sanders as the leading candidate in 2020 to burying debates, to pretending Joe Biden's cognitive decline is a fabrication rather than a crisis of leadership. When David Hogg—a Parkland school shooting survivor and one of five DNC vice chairs—challenged the party's refusal to reckon with younger, more progressive voters and threatened to primary incumbents, he wasn't breaking ranks; he was breaking the fourth wall. And now his sentence may be ousting. My generation has watched the lives promised to us slip away based on a political consensus we were not alive to agree upon, conceived by a club we've not been invited to join. While a cycle of progress and backlash has emerged on some social issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, neoliberal financial policies embraced by both major parties have left millennials unable to buy houses, afford kids, or even buy groceries without financing them through buy-now-pay-later apps like Klarna—which is now facing losses and pausing its IPO in part because we can't pay them back. Meanwhile, policies supporting deregulation of financial markets, tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, and austerity measures have persisted throughout our lifetimes. These are the policies that political elites keep recycling as 'solutions' to our problems; meanwhile, these strategies only further widen income inequality and economic insecurity. Banking deregulation under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 paved the way for risky financial practices that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Similarly, trade agreements like NAFTA, which went into effect in 1994, prioritized corporate interests over labor protections, resulting in job losses and stagnant wages for American workers. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate, by bipartisan acclamation, passed an industry-friendly crypto deregulation bill, the direct fruits of crypto donors drowning Washington in slush money. This is a deeply entrenched way of doing business, one that reflects a larger failure to adapt to changing economic realities and contribute to ongoing challenges faced by younger generations. We should think of Governor Moore's veto like this: He didn't reject reparations; he rejected this whole charade. And the culture is catching up. Even our consumer habits reflect the growing revolt against disposability. Across the country, citizens are fighting for 'right to repair' laws, demanding that tech companies let people fix their own devices rather than forcing them to buy replacements. Behind that demand is a deeper yearning—for durability, for agency, for something built to last. We should want the same from our politics. But our civic infrastructure is designed more for optics than policy action. Commissioned research is a dress rehearsal for a play that will never debut. A 25-hour 'filibuster' that blocked no bill is marketing for Senator Cory Booker's new book. Every moral breakthrough is deferred until the next election cycle. We have outsourced moral courage to process. Governor Moore's veto was a rare political moment that acknowledged what so many Americans now suspect: We are not in need of more evidence or rhetoric—we are in need of political will and action. We know how to fix what's broken. The question is whether we still have the courage to stop pretending and pick up the tools to repair it.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
One in 5 Arkansas kids live in poverty, and it could get worse, advocates say
Budget cuts at the federal level are likely to harm child well-being in Arkansas, making changes at the state level more necessary, advocates warn. Why it matters: Arkansas again ranked No. 45 in a recent report on overall child well-being, and advocates worry that federal cuts to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other programs will reverse some of the modest progress the state has made, nonprofit Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families (AACF) staff told reporters. What they're saying:"We are not making the same level of investment in basic needs and in critical programming as other states that have moved up that list," AACF executive director Keesa Smith said. The big picture: About 21% of children lived in poverty in Arkansas in 2023, compared with 16% nationally, according to the report. That's 144,000 kids in the state. States that have seen their poverty rates drop have state-level earned income tax credits, child tax credits or both, AACF economic policy director Pete Gess said. Arkansas has neither. Rural areas also struggle to bring in gainful employment opportunities that pull people out of poverty. Zoom out: Poverty affects many of the other areas contributing to child well-being, AACF race equity director Maricella Garcia said. And 43% of Black children live in poverty, compared with 19% of Hispanic/Latino children and 15% of non-Hispanic white children. She expressed concern that cutting SNAP dollars would cause grocery stores in rural areas to close, further affecting some of the most vulnerable. How it works: The report takes into account 16 indicators, four each across four overarching categories: economic well-being, health, education, and family and community. Health includes indicators like obesity rates and uninsured children, for example. Education takes into account factors like fourth-graders not proficient in reading and 3- and 4-year-olds not in school. Zoom in: Arkansas' teen birth rate has steadily declined over the past several years, but it remains nearly twice the national rate at 24 births per 1,000 females ages 15-19.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
I Am Beyond Thrilled That Corporations Are Defunding Pride. No, Not for the Reason You Think.
This is part of Slate's Pride 2025 package on how America is celebrating queerness during one of the most challenging years on record. I have never seen a group of gays as mad as the ones I met at Washington Pride in 2017. That year, I took part in a protest action that halted the annual parade. A hundred or more of us split into groups to block the passage of three separate marching contingents: the D.C. police department, for perpetrating violence against Black people; Lockheed Martin, for manufacturing weapons of war; and Wells Fargo, for lending money to the Dakota Access Pipeline. The thrust of the protest was simple. There isn't anything inherently queer or trans about these morally objectionable institutions, and they don't improve the lots of LGBTQ+ people in any meaningful way. Why should they get a place of honor at our party? My group filed into the street to block the Lockheed Martin delegation just as their float turned a corner on the parade route. We didn't know in advance what the Lockheed float would look like, and when I saw it, I gasped. Motoring down the street to thumping disco beats and applause from revelers in tutus and jockstraps were two large to-scale models of Lockheed products, a warplane and a drone. This tasteless, macabre display was great for the protest, I figured. There could not be a more vivid illustration of the discord between a celebration of human rights and a purveyor of instruments of death. I guess I thought the Pridegoers would greet us as liberators. That wasn't how it played out. While plenty of spectators cheered us on, many more brimmed with anger. They yelled and cried and spit at us. Trash and cups full of alcohol rained down on us from the apartment balconies above. One man positioned his face an inch from mine and screamed, 'You ruined Pride!' I've given that man a lot of thought in the years since. He was probably talking about the parade as a whole, which was delayed and rerouted by our blockades, and not about our infringement of his right to clap for Lockheed Martin in particular. But to me, they were one and the same, because the D.C. Pride parade was bloated with soulless corporate activations. So while I felt genuine guilt for raining on that man's Pride parade, his words drove home just how differently we saw Pride. If I could ruin his Pride just by pressing pause on an hourslong commercial for goods and services, what did Pride mean to him? This year, as companies pull their sponsorships from major metropolitan Prides in deference to the rising anti-LGBTQ+ movement, the time is ripe to reconsider what Pride has become and what we want it to be. For decades, heavy corporate involvement in Pride events has been a given—welcomed by many, ignored by some, protested by a few. If this year's trend continues, Pride as we know it will drastically change. And that would be a good thing: Even if corporations come crawling back once President Pete Buttigieg clinches the White House in 2028, big-city Pride organizers should rebuff them, in favor of the homegrown celebrations of LGBTQ+ culture and resistance we all deserve. The slowdown of corporate Pride began a few years ago, when right-wing advocates pressured the likes of Target, Starbucks, and Budweiser to back off their LGBTQ+ marketing campaigns. Companies started doing fewer thirsty Pride stunts, like redesigning their social media avatars in rainbow for the month of June. This year, the exodus ramped up. In one survey of 49 executives at Fortune 1000 companies, nearly 40 percent said their businesses planned to dial back their engagement with Pride month this year, either internally or externally. Only 9 percent said the same last year. Pride event sponsorships are a major part of the drop-off. In cities across the country, companies that once gave tens of thousands of dollars or more to individual Pride celebrations have now declined to contribute. San Francisco said goodbye to Anheuser-Busch and Comcast. New York is missing Citi and PepsiCo. D.C. is getting no love from Booz Allen Hamilton, Deloitte, Visa, or Mastercard. These are just a few examples among many, which add up to a multimillion-dollar slump in Pride event funding nationwide. A spokesperson for the United States Association of Prides told reporter Nico Lang that donations to some smaller Prides have dropped 70 to 90 percent. Pride organizers are bemoaning the loss, suggesting they may need to drastically downsize next year's celebrations. It's often said that the first Pride was a riot, because Pride celebrations started out to commemorate the June 1969 Stonewall uprising. But Pride soon became a business proposition. In the late 1970s, less than a decade after Stonewall, activists in San Francisco were already launching an effort to take over what was then called Gay Freedom Day and make it more political, because they that believed local business owners had turned it into a glorified bar crawl. But corporate Pride as we know it today is a more recent invention. Major Prides now rely on big-ticket sponsorships to execute events on a scale and level of professionalism that the first organizers could have never imagined. Today's Prides often comprise a city's largest and most elaborate parade, a festival with multiple stages, a weekend packed with parties, and sophisticated marketing and logistics support. These things cost a lot of money, and corporate sponsors foot the bill in exchange for advertising. We get a bigger party. They get to make nice with potential queer employees and build goodwill among a demographic with robust spending power. Many Pridegoers see this as a fair trade. For some, it feels like even more than that. It's flattering, in a way, to see mainstream brands—the popular clique of American capitalism—beg for our business with rainbow logos and pro-gay slogans. (I still respect the $5 gift card Chipotle gave me at one Pride, which read 'Homo Estás' above a rainbow burrito, essentially outing me when I used it.) If you came of age when gay sex was criminalized and certain professions were unavailable to out queers, seeing big-name brands don your colors for a week could make you feel as if you'd made it, as if you're a fully integrated part of the American project. It could even feel healing to get a nod of recognition from the businesses that take our money and employ our friends. At the very least, it felt like progress. And it was, in a sense. Companies are risk-averse, so they follow the zeitgeist, reflecting changing public views on homosexuality and other social issues. When they adopted corporate Pride, it was likely because their risk-benefit analyses told them that they'd earn more by embracing gays than by ignoring them. That's why they're pulling out of Pride now, to curry favor with Donald Trump and appease a general public that is growing more hostile to LGBTQ+ rights. But the equating of corporate involvement with progress is a trap, because it lends a false sense of permanence to political changes that can be fleeting. If we expected our comrades at Anheuser-Busch and Comcast to have our backs when the going got rough, even if only to keep our business, we were sorely mistaken. 'We need our business allies,' argued a 2022 Washington Blade op-ed in defense of corporate Pride, illustrated with a photo of the Amazon float in the D.C. Pride parade. Two years later, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos quashed the Washington Post's endorsement of Kamala Harris, contorted the paper's opinion section to favor Trump, and got a front-row seat to the president's inauguration, to which Amazon donated $1 million. Business ally indeed. That's not the only pitfall to inviting corporations to our parties. Celebrating them alongside LGBTQ+ activists, nonprofits, and advocacy groups runs the risk of 'pinkwashing,' or papering over major misdeeds with feel-good gestures of support for LGBTQ+ people. (In 2017, as Facebook facilitated a genocide in Myanmar, it released a rainbow Pride 'reaction'—but only in cities deemed to be queer-friendly—then showed off at Prides all June.) And, though it might sound petty, company Pride contingents simply don't feel as if they belong. Credit card companies and consulting firms are culturally and aesthetically irrelevant to Pride events, because they do not pertain to the actual subject matter of Pride: the art, history, sex, politics, and social bonds of queer life. The proliferation of corporations at Pride has opened the door to another entity that has watered down Pride's purpose: straight people. Every Pride, at parades across the country, thousands of queer people who suffer actual trans- and homophobia line the streets to applaud marching cohorts of heterosexual, cisgender people, who do not. Why? Because companies often encourage self-appointed allies to join their queer colleagues in the parade. I've heard of straight people spearheading their companies' Pride floats. Crowds of queer people cheering for rainbow-clad straight people on a day meant to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community—it's as dissonant as sending a model of a drone down the parade route, and it's a sign of how far Pride has drifted from its origins as a show of queer visibility and power. We compromise our self-worth when we lavish praise on straight people and corporations on the one weekend of the year that's ours, simply because they don't profess to hate us. The upshot is that, today, Prides have become too big to fail. Inflated by corporate dollars, they have conditioned urban gays to expect massive, polished productions with celebrity guests and sponsor-branded freebies. Anything less will feel like a letdown—like a 'ruined' Pride. But what Pride is today is not the only thing it can be. Some cities are already reimagining their fundraising models. Cincinnati Pride opted this year to forgo sponsorships from companies that canceled their DEI programs, making up the difference with a wildly successful crowdfunding campaign. Pride organizers in Springfield, Missouri, are courting donations from local independent businesses, like a cannabis dispensary, a boutique hotel, and an 'at-home pet euthanasia service.' In small towns and cities in conservative areas, where new Pride events are springing up and thriving, volunteers make do with ragtag fundraisers, mom-and-pop sponsorships, and right-sized ambitions. The corporate exodus that has sent Pride organizers scrambling for alternative funding sources could be a blessing in disguise, paving the way for more meaningful celebrations. Instead of a four-hour parade for multinational companies, we could have a two-hour parade for community groups, queer businesses, and the local gay baton-twirling club. Instead of spending tens of thousands of Booz Allen Hamilton dollars to hire a heterosexual A-list musical performer for a generic outdoor concert, we could focus on local queer bands, comedians, and DJs. It's time to take better advantage of untapped community spending power: I'd gladly pay $25 to enter a sliding-scale Pride festival if it meant others could attend for free, the drag artists got paid, and Raytheon got no advertising space. Queers in big cities are already hosting massive events with minimal operating costs and no sponsors. They're called Dyke Marches, and they run on volunteer labor, community fundraising, and a lot of nerve. At the annual New York City march, with no permit for their event, marshals block traffic by linking arms across intersections for nearly 2 miles. Tens of thousands of people march the route—waving signs, playing music, running into friends and future friends, exes and future exes. There are children, and there are leather harnesses, and no one cares that they're in the same place. The spectacle—a sea of blissed-out queers blazing down Fifth Avenue, seizing control of the street without anyone's permission—embodies the purest essence of Pride. None of it has been sold off to advertisers. If I had to pinpoint the purpose of Pride, it would be not a specific event or political ambition but a feeling. You find it in those transcendent Pride moments when you're surrounded by a mix of loved ones and strangers, sensing that everyone around you is linked by a mutual history, touching the possibility of a future that gives our freest, most joyous selves adequate space to grow. There are those of us who get that feeling on a sweaty dance floor, at a lesbian photography showcase, or watching young trans people take giddy selfies in their favorite outfits. Others get it at big-budget parades and concerts. But I'm willing to bet that if you stripped away all the commercial elements of Pride, the parade and concert people would still be able to capture that feeling. A more modest, homespun celebration would give us everything we need without commodifying our movement for the benefit of fair-weather friends. There is a long legacy of trans and queer people making unimaginably beautiful, world-changing things from whatever scraps they could get their hands on. It's time we claimed it.
