Lynched at 18, College Student's Legacy Lives On as Nephew Accepts His Degree 95 Years Later: 'Martyr of Justice'
In June 1930, Dennis Hubert, a sophomore divinity school student, was killed in a racially motivated attack at a playground
Almost 100 years later, his nephew, Imam Plemon El-Amin, gratefully accepted his honorary posthumous bachelor's degree
'People are conscious of his life, which means he's still alive," El-Amin said
Nearly a century after an 18-year-old Black college student was lynched at a Georgia playground, his nephew has accepted his honorary posthumous bachelor's degree.
Dennis Hubert, a sophomore divinity school student, received the posthumous degree from Morehouse College, a historically Black college in Atlanta, on Sunday, May 18, CNN and FOX affiliate WAGA reported. His nephew, Imam Plemon El-Amin, whom he never got the chance to meet, gladly accepted Hubert's Bachelor of Arts degree in religion.
During the graduation ceremony, David Thomas, the university's president, described Hubert as a 'son of Morehouse, a martyr of justice, and what history now sees as the Trayvon Martin of the 1930s in Atlanta,' according to CNN. The college and El-Amin did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's requests for comment.
For El-Amin, now 75, the moment was important to his family and resonated with a common sentiment in Islam: a person who dies leaves nothing behind except for their good deeds, knowledge and loved ones who pray for them.
'Many prayers were said in his name,' El-Amin told the outlet about the ceremony. 'Many people remembered him and were informed about his life and his legacy, and so the knowledge was there, as well as the charity of him sacrificing his life so that we would be more conscious of the value of young life and the value of human life, but also the value of justice.'
On June 15, 1930, Hubert had spent the day at his mother's and grandmother's houses before going to the playground of Crogman School, a segregated school for Black children. He was in the area for less than 15 minutes before seven white men came up to the college student and accused him of insulting a white woman, according to the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI). They began attacking him, despite Hubert saying he knew nothing about their allegations.
'What do you want of me? I have done nothing,' a witness recalled the young man saying.
'Without investigation, police involvement, or trial, one of the white men held a gun to the back of Dennis Hubert's head and shot him at point blank range in front of at least two dozen witnesses,' wrote the nonprofit organization, which was founded by lawyer Bryan Stevenson to end mass incarceration and fight against racial injustice.
The fatal attack was part of a wave of racially motivated killings during that era in the United States, especially in the south. There were more than 4,000 lynchings in the south between 1877 and 1950, the EJI reported.
After Hubert's death, which reverberated through the county because his family was so well known, the seven men were arrested — an unusual occurrence at the time. Two days after the men were denied bail, the home of Hubert's father, a beloved pastor, was intentionally burned to the ground, and a Baptist church that was attempting to raise money for the rebuilding and support the men's prosecution was tear-gassed.
'A few days later Dennis's cousin, Rev. Charles R. Hubert, narrowly escaped an attempted murder,' the EJI wrote, adding that the chapel for Morehouse sister college, Spelman College, 'was attacked by night riders who threw stones and shattered the Chapel's lamps.'
Despite the witnesses who saw Dennis's murder, the seven men involved were acquitted and were convicted of lesser offenses.
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
'One defendant received 12-15 years imprisonment for voluntary manslaughter, while the defendant who confessed to firing the fatal shot received a sentence of just two years,' according to the nonprofit.
Almost a century after the Hubert family was terrorized — and lost a promising son — they are grateful he is finally recognized.
'Ninety-five years later, people are conscious of his life, which means he's still alive,' El-Amin said, according to CNN, 'though not here with us physically or in body, but his life, his will, and he is providing inspiration for those of us left behind.'
Read the original article on People

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
We shall not continue as a free country if we continue to submit to radical Islamists
It shows in what strange times we live that it is the chairman of Reform, of all parties, who resigns over the question of banning the burka. Surely his party is the likeliest to favour a ban or – at least – to be able to contain internal disagreements on the subject. Probably Reform's chairman, Zia Yusuf, had other reasons to go. He is not the first person to find it challenging to work closely with Nigel Farage. In a spooky way, Reform tends to act as a mini-Maga, mirroring Trumpery in its highs and lows. Over there, Donald Trump and Elon Musk explode with a cosmic bang; over here, Farage and Yusuf then go off with a smaller pop. For this reason, I suspect that when Maga falters, as it eventually will, so will Reform. Nevertheless, Mr Yusuf is a Muslim. Partly for that reason, he was a recruitment coup for the supposedly 'Islamophobic' Reform. On Thursday, he said his party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin, had been 'dumb', at Prime Minister's Questions, to call for a burka ban; then he resigned. Let me take two other recent examples of where attitudes to Islam raise knotty problems. On Monday, Hamit Coskun, an atheist Turk, was found guilty of a 'religiously aggravated public order offence' and fined. He had burnt a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. In an article in this week's Spectator, Mr Coskun says he was protesting about President Erdogan of Turkey changing his country from a firmly secular state to 'a base for radical Islamists while trying to create a sharia regime'. The magistrate, however, decided otherwise. Mr Coskun had been 'motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the [Muslim] religion', he said, and so he was a criminal. My other example comes from events outside Parliament on Wednesday. A noisy mob of anti-Israel demonstrators blocked, insulted and intimidated MPs and peers trying to enter. The protesters proudly announced that they were drawing a red line round the premises, as if they had that right. A disabled peer I know who travels by wheelchair, found it frightening to get through the crowd, though he determinedly persisted. He complained to a police officer, and got the airy reply, 'It's free speech, isn't it?' It indicates the sense of vulnerability such situations arouse that the peer asks me not to print his name. Another peer, Lord Moynihan, was surrounded near the Tube station entrance by black-clad youths who subjected him to an involuntary interview, which they filmed, including the question: 'Do you condemn the massacres of Gazans?' 'I do indeed condemn the terrible shootings by Hamas of their own people,' he bravely answered. It was noticeable – and has happened before – that when there are Gaza marches the police and the parliamentary authorities are lax about ensuring legislators can enter freely and protesters are kept at a distance. They seem not to acknowledge the vital difference between free speech and threatening behaviour. Obviously, the greatest passion behind the Gaza marches comes from Muslims (though the secular hard-Left is also involved). Have the police made a covert bargain with the march organisers? The fear of being called 'Islamophobic' seems to disable the police's judgment. They do not properly enforce public order or protect the right of MPs, peers or staff, to reach their place of work unimpeded. Nor do they protect the right of ordinary citizens to enter Parliament without fear. They act as if the 'right to protest' allows parliamentary democracy to be made subject to a picket line. Yesterday, with many other peers, I signed a letter to the Lord Speaker, organised by Lord Walney. One of our points was that, on top of normal public-order legislation, there are at least four other laws which specifically protect Parliament from such attacks. Why are these not enforced, we asked, and why do the parliamentary authorities not take a stronger line to insist that they should be? One of the attractions of Britain to immigrants is that we are a free country, treasuring free speech. In many cases, immigrants enhance our freedom. Now that immigration is on such a vast scale, however, we suffer because many immigrants do not come from freedom-loving cultures. To the extent that immigrants can be grouped by religion, by far our largest group are Muslims. For complex political, economic and cultural reasons, Islam is in global ferment. In that ferment, freedom is often scorned, except the freedom to advance interpretations of Islam, often the most extreme ones. Such Islamists have punitive, sometimes violent attitudes to promoting their version of their faith. At worst, this takes the form of terrorism. The words 'Allahu Akbar!' ('God is great!') have become the war-cry of an imminent explosion or attack. Even without actual violence, Islamism often involves naked anti-Semitism and unreasoning hatred of Israel. Militant Islam also tries to assert its power against the sort of freedoms which the rest of us (including, do not forget, many Muslims) cherish. Examples include forcing women and girls to cover their heads and even their faces, prohibitions on school swimming or singing, protests against being served by women in the public services and the banning of certain books and films. A leading Islamist demand is for a blasphemy law, although its supporters use other words to describe it. Most Muslims are highly sensitive to any perceived insult to their prophet, Mohammed, or to the Koran. Because they regard the Koran as 'the unmediated word of God', some take the view that disrespect to the physical object, the book of his word, is a direct attack on him, and therefore must be avenged. Belief in the sacredness of religious scriptures should be respected by non-believers, but it must not be defended by law, no matter how much transgressions may offend Muslims. It is unpleasant and foolish to burn the Koran in public, just as it was – which often happened in Britain until quite recently – to burn effigies of the Pope. But the only conceivable justification for banning would be in special incidents – burning a Koran in front of worshippers entering a mosque, for example – which would amount to an incitement to violence. The offence here should not be because the act was 'religiously aggravated'. A modern country should not adjudicate between the sincerity, truth or competing ardour of different religious claims. All it can judge is that some things in some places breach civil peace. In all the cases cited above, you can see politicians and public authorities tiptoeing round the subject. Surefootedness is certainly better than clodhopping where religion is concerned. But there is a growing, justified fear that we shall not continue as a free country if we defer to the angriest Muslim voices. Two concepts need to be faced down. The first is the idea of 'Islamophobia', to which this Government wants to give legal shape. The word 'phobia' suggests psychological abnormality, yet surely people are entitled to be frightened of any religion, especially of Christianity and Islam, which aims for conversion and claims universal truth. Such fears may be misplaced, but they are not criminal. The other concept embedded in public policy, thanks to the Equality Act, is that of 'protected characteristics' – one's religion, sex, sexuality, age, disability, race etc. These are intended to defend people against persecution, but in practice they drive us into warring categories. The only protected characteristic anyone should need is to be a British citizen. That unites. Everything else divides. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

3 hours ago
Former DC police officer sentenced to 18 months for lying about leaking info to Proud Boys leader
WASHINGTON -- A retired police officer was sentenced on Friday to serve 18 months behind bars for lying to authorities about leaking confidential information to the Proud Boys extremist group's former top leader, who was under investigation for burning a Black Lives Matter banner in the nation's capital. Shane Lamond was a lieutenant for the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., when he fed information about its banner burning investigation to then-Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio. Last December, after a trial without a jury, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, D.C., convicted Lamond of one count of obstructing justice and three counts of making false statements. Tarrio attended Lamond's sentencing and later called for Trump to pardon Lamond. 'I ask that the Justice Department and the President of the United States step in and correct the injustice that I just witnessed inside this courtroom," Tarrio said outside the courthouse after the sentencing. Prosecutors recommended a four-year prison sentence for Lamond. 'Because Lamond knew what he did was wrong, he lied to cover it up — not just to the Federal Agents who questioned his actions, but to this Court," they wrote. "This is an egregious obstruction of justice and a betrayal of the work of his colleagues at MPD.' Lamond's lawyers argued that a prison sentence isn't warranted. "Mr. Lamond gained nothing from his communications with Mr. Tarrio and only sought, albeit in a sloppy and ineffective way, to gain information and intelligence that would help stop the violent protesters coming to D.C. in late 2020, early 2021," they wrote. Tarrio pleaded guilty to burning the banner stolen from a historic Black church in downtown Washington in December 2020. He was arrested two days before dozens of Proud Boys members stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Tarrio wasn't at the Capitol that day, but a jury convicted him of orchestrating a violent plot to keep President Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the 2020 election. Lamond testified at his bench trial that he never provided Tarrio with sensitive police information. Tarrio, who testified as a witness for Lamond's defense, said he did not confess to Lamond about burning the banner and did not receive any confidential information from him. But the judge did not find either man's testimony to be credible. Jackson said the evidence indicated that Lamond was not using Tarrio as a source after the Dec. 12, 2020, banner burning. 'It was the other way around,' she said. Lamond, of Colonial Beach, Virginia, retired in May 2023 after 23 years of service to the police department. Lamond, who met Tarrio in 2019, had supervised the intelligence branch of the police department's Homeland Security Bureau. He was responsible for monitoring groups like the Proud Boys when they came to Washington. Prosecutors said Lamond tipped off Tarrio that a warrant for his arrest had been signed. They pointed to messages that suggest Lamond provided Tarrio with real-time updates on the police investigation. Lamond's indictment says he and Tarrio exchanged messages about the Jan. 6 riot and discussed whether Proud Boys members were in danger of being charged in the attack. 'Of course I can't say it officially, but personally I support you all and don't want to see your group's name and reputation dragged through the mud,' Lamond wrote. Lamond said he was upset that a prosecutor labeled him as a Proud Boys 'sympathizer' who acted as a 'double agent' for the group after Tarrio burned a stolen Black Lives Matter banner in December 2020. 'I don't support the Proud Boys, and I'm not a Proud Boys sympathizer,' Lamond testified. Lamond said he considered Tarrio to be a source, not a friend. But he said he tried to build a friendly rapport with the group leader to gain his trust.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia launches one of war's largest air attacks days after Ukraine's bomber raid
Russia launched a barrage of drones and ballistic missiles across broad swaths of Ukraine early Friday, killing at least six people and injuring dozens of others, days after Kyiv launched a daring raid on Moscow's fleet of strategic bombers. For residents of Kyiv, the night's soundtrack was familiar: the shrieking whir of drones, air raid sirens and large explosions overhead – whether from air defenses successfully downing missiles, or projectiles puncturing the capital. Three firefighters were killed in Kyiv, two civilians were killed in Lutsk, and another person was killed in Chernihiv, according to the Ukrainian State Emergency Service. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia had used more than 400 drones and 40 missiles in the overnight attack, putting it among the war's largest. He said Moscow's attack injured 80 and targeted 'almost all' of Ukraine, listing nine regions, from Lviv in the west to Sumy in the northeast. Although Russia has pummeled Ukraine almost daily over three years of full-scale war, Ukrainians had been bracing for retaliation since Sunday, when Kyiv launched an audacious operation that struck more than a third of Russia's strategic cruise missile carriers. In a call with his US counterpart Donald Trump on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow would have to respond to Kyiv's assault. Speaking aboard Air Force One on Friday, Trump told reporters Ukraine 'gave Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night.' Russia's Ministry of Defense said its strikes were in response to what it called Kyiv's 'terrorist acts.' It was not immediately clear if the attack was the extent of Russia's pledged retaliation, or if Putin intends to escalate further. After the embarrassment of Kyiv's operation, there was a chorus of bellicose calls from pro-Kremlin pundits for a severe – potentially nuclear – response. Although Ukrainians had been buoyed last weekend by the news of Kyiv's successful operation, many were wary of how Russia might strike back. But after Friday's strikes, Kyiv residents told CNN they supported Ukraine's strikes against the aircraft Moscow has used to bomb Ukraine for more than three years. 'It didn't break us at all. The morale is as high as it was. We strongly believe in our armed forces,' said Olha, a 39-year-old from the capital who did not wish to give her last name. She said the apparent 'retaliation' from Russia was not so different to countless other nights of the war. 'Maybe (this was the retaliation), but maybe the retaliation is yet to come. Either way, it doesn't change our attitude towards the enemy or towards our country.' Meanwhile, Ukraine's general staff on Friday said it launched overnight strikes on two Russian airfields, where it said Moscow had concentrated many of the aircraft that had not been damaged in Kyiv's 'Spiderweb' operation last weekend. Ukraine stressed that the operation, which blindsided the Kremlin, had targeted the planes that Russia uses to launch missile strikes on Ukrainian cities and kill civilians. After Russia's large-scale attack Friday, Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said Moscow had 'responded' to its destroyed aircraft by once again 'attacking civilians in Ukraine.' As daylight broke, images from Kyiv showed flames rising over apartment buildings and firefighting crews at work, with residents picking through the debris of damaged apartments. Several cars parked in the streets below were covered with shards of glass and slabs of masonry torn from the walls of residential buildings. Ukraine's air force said Russia's barrage comprised 407 drones, six ballistic missiles, 38 cruise missiles and an anti-radar missile. Of those 452 projectiles, the air force said it had downed 406, including 32 of the cruise missiles and four of the ballistic missiles. The other two ballistic missiles did not reach their targets, it added. The strikes also hit Chernihiv, near the border with Belarus, which was rocked by 14 explosions from drones and ballistic missiles, including cruise missiles and Iskander-M missiles, local officials said. Five others were wounded in strikes in the northwestern city of Lutsk, near the border with Poland. Footage geolocated by CNN showed at least four missiles slamming into the city, kicking up fiery explosions on impact. The Russian Ministry of Defense said it had also intercepted and destroyed 174 Ukrainian drones from Thursday evening to early Friday morning and had destroyed three Ukrainian Neptune-MD guided missiles over the Black Sea. All week, Ukrainians have been bracing for Russia's retaliation to last weekend's drone attack, which struck 34% of Moscow's nuclear-capable bombers stationed at airfields as far away as Siberia. On Tuesday, Ukraine also launched an attack on the Kerch Bridge, the only direct connection point between Russia and the annexed Crimean Peninsula, with 1,100 kilograms of explosives that had been planted underwater. After Trump's call with Putin on Wednesday, the US president said his Russian counterpart had told him that Moscow would have to respond to Ukraine's assaults. Trump's account of the call gave no indication that he had urged Putin to temper his response, to the dismay of many in Ukraine. 'When Putin mentioned he is going to avenge or deliver a new strike against Ukraine, we know what it means. It's about civilians,' Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksandr Merezhko told CNN earlier this week. 'And President Trump didn't say, 'Vladimir, stop.'' Despite Trump's support for recent peace talks in Istanbul between Ukraine and Russia, on Thursday he signaled that he may be adopting a more hands-off approach, likening the war to a brawl between children. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump said in the Oval Office, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz looked on silently. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.'