Retired shop owner earns degree to honor victims of the Orangeburg Massacre
But instead, the 79-year-old retired shop owner has spent the last six years poring over textbooks and dragging himself to class at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, relentless in his pursuit of a college education.
"I just stepped on the accelerator and didn't stop," Riddick told CBS News. "…I was determined to complete what I started."
To understand why it mattered so, we need to go back to 1968, when protests against segregation were erupting across the country.
One of the deadliest protests occurred at South Carolina State University, where three unarmed Black students were shot and killed by police in what became known as the Orangeburg Massacre. The three killed were Henry Smith, Samuel Hammond Jr. and Delano Middleton. Smith and Hammond were students at SCSU, and Middleton was a high school senior whose mother worked at the university.
More than two dozen protesters were also wounded.
Nine South Carolina Highway patrolmen, all White, were indicted on federal charges in the shooting, but were all acquitted.
Linwood Riddick had never heard of the Orangeburg Massacre until a few years ago when he stumbled on a campus memorial. He says he knew right then what he had to do.
"I said, you know, I'm coming here…because I want to put my contributions to their sacrifice,' Riddick said. "And when I get my degree, it's going to be in their name."
"In his mind, he was completing their mission," SCSU President Alexander Conyers told CBS News of Riddick. "...He started here in 2019 with zero credits, you know, driving from Summerville every day, which is almost an hour to class and back home."
That patience and persistence earned him a bachelor's degree in music industry. And earlier this month, he walked across the stage to a standing ovation.
But the more important walk was yet to come, one done alone and without any pomp or circumstance to the Orangeburg Massacre memorial.
With that, Riddick's mission was complete. And although it started as a symbolic gesture, Conyers says it'll have a very real impact.
"Mr. Riddick has brought this back to the forefront for this university, for this community, for this state — to remind us of our solemn duty to never forget."
Here's how much Qatar's plane gifted to Trump administration will cost to retrofit
Biggest takeaways from RFK Jr.'s MAHA report
What is Trump's message to the European Union amid new tariff threats
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump addresses pardon decision for Sean 'Diddy' Combs, but questions remain
President Donald Trump is breaking his silence on pardoning Sean "Diddy" Combs for the first time since he was acquitted of the most serious charges in a federal sex-crimes trial last month. In an interview that aired Friday, Aug. 1 on Newsmax with host Rob Finnerty, Trump discussed the possibility of presidential pardons for convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, Combs and former Rep. George Santos. After Finnerty asked, "Sean 'Diddy' Combs. Would you consider pardoning him?" Trump responded: "Well he was essentially, I guess sort of, half-innocent. I don't know what they do, he's still in jail or something. He was celebrating a victory but I guess it wasn't as good of a victory." Trump 'should not pardon' Sean 'Diddy' 'Diddy' Combs, Megyn Kelly says On July 2, jurors found Combs not guilty of racketeering and sex trafficking ex-girlfriends Casandra "Cassie" Ventura Fine and a woman known as "Jane" in his sweeping trial that nearly lasted two months. He was convicted July 2 on two of the five counts against him for transporting those same women for prostitution, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years per count. During the interview, Trump said "probably..." before pausing and revealing to Finnerty, "You know, I was very friendly with him, I got along with him great, seemed like a nice guy. I didn't know him well, but when I ran for office he was very hostile." The Newsmax host noted then that "he said some not so nice things about you, sir." "Yeah, and it's hard. You know, like you, we're human beings and we don't like to have things cloud our judgement, right?" the president continued. "But when you knew someone and you were fine and then you run for office and he made some terrible statements… so I don't know... it makes it more difficult to do." Then, Trump replied, "I'd say so," when Finnerty clarified by asking if it was "more likely a no for (pardoning) Combs?" In the interview, Trump was seemingly referencing Combs' expletive-filled 2017 comments in The Daily Beast, essentially saying that "(Black people) don't really" care about Trump. "The tomfoolery that's going on in D.C., that's just regular everyday business to Black folks," Combs told the left-leaning outlet in-part, adding later in the interview that he had to "keep it focused on that self-love that we need to give our race." Trump first weighed in on the possibility of pardoning Combs on May 30 in the Oval Office. "Nobody's asked" about a pardon, the president said. "But I know people are thinking about it. I know they're thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking." Trump added, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He really liked me a lot." Despite last month's verdict, Combs' legal saga continues. On Wednesday, July 31, lawyers for Combs requested his acquittal, or a new trial altogether, in court documents reviewed by USA TODAY. A day earlier, conservative host Megyn Kelly urged Trump against potentially pardoning Combs. Kelly said in an X post on July 30 that "Trump should not pardon Diddy" because "he doesn't deserve it." "He's a Trump hater. He's a woman abuser. MAGA is already upset over elites seeming to cover for each other. This would not help. GOP struggling w/young female voters, most of whom will HATE a Diddy pardon," Kelly wrote. Contributing: Taijuan Moorman
NBC Sports
3 hours ago
- NBC Sports
Tony Buzbee responds to Shannon Sharpe's claim that he targets Black men
Anyone who has been following the NFL since 2021 knows the name Tony Buzbee. He arrived on the scene as the lawyer representing the first plaintiff who sued then-Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson for misconduct during massage-therapy sessions. Eventually, Buzbee represented more than 20 plaintiffs against Watson. Most recently, Buzbee settled a lawsuit on behalf of a woman who claimed that Hall of Fame tight end Shannon Sharpe committed sexual assault. After the lawsuit was filed in April, Sharpe attacked Buzbee personally, claiming among other things that he 'targets Black men.' In a new Esquire profile, Buzbee responded to that claim. 'I didn't wake up one morning and say, 'I want to sue Shannon Sharpe.' He has no relevance in my life,' Buzbee said, via Sean Keeley of 'I actually think he's very entertaining when he yells and screams and talks about sports that he's not involved in. But if I think it's a legitimate case, then I pursue it. And I think this is worth my time.' Buzbee's business model, if he's doing it properly (and the results would suggest he is), doesn't discriminate. He told Esquire that he receives as a fee roughly 40 percent of any recovery his clients get. That's how the American civil justice system works. Individuals who have grievances and who can't afford to pay lawyers by the hour hire them based on a contingency fee. This creates a strong business incentive for those lawyers to take good cases, not weak ones. The question of whether a case is worth pursuing has three prongs: clarity of liability, amount of damages, and the ability to collect on a settlement or verdict. Beyond that, nothing else should matter. And given that Sharpe's lawyer immediately admitted that at least $10 million was offered to settle the case before it was filed and that the case was eventually settled without Sharpe ever responding to the civil complaint, chances are that Buzbee walked away from the Sharpe case with at least $4 million in fees. That's how it works. Find strong cases, pursue strong cases, settle or try strong cases. Buzbee did that after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, generating more than $500 million for more than 10 thousand clients who pursued claims against BP. 'I guess a bunch of old white men could say I'm targeting them, and a bunch of multinational corporations could say I'm targeting them as well,' Buzbee said. 'I guess you could say I was targeting BP. . . . Well, I probably was targeting BP.' That's how it works. For anyone who represents individuals on a contingency fee. For Buzbee, the Watson case made him a go-to choice for anyone with valid claims against current or former NFL players. Without the Watson cases, there's a good chance the plaintiff in the Sharpe case wouldn't have known Buzbee's name. That also explains Buzbee's publicity-driven style. At a time when plenty of lawyers advertise their services with gigantic billboards and goofy TV commercials, the best advertisement remains free advertisement from news coverage. Buzbee knows that. His business thrives on that. And there's no reason to pursue a weak case simply to harass someone. That said, a case that seemed strong can turn out to be weak, if the lawyer mistakenly believed a client whose story didn't hold up under scrutiny. That's what may have happened in Buzbee's misadventures with Jay-Z, which resulted in the plaintiff acknowledging inconsistencies in the story she was telling about allegations of rape when she was 13 and the case eventually being dismissed without a settlement. The Esquire profile contains this curious statement: 'Buzbee later withdrew from the case because he has not been admitted to practice law in the Southern District of New York.' The presence of that assertion in the final product, frankly, shows that whoever wrote and/or edited the story has no idea how the legal system works. Lawyers licensed in one jurisdiction routinely seek and receive what's known as pro hac vice (Latin, 'for this occasion') admission in other jurisdictions in a specific case. As long as a local lawyer who is licensed to practice in that court is personally involved in the case, pro hac vice admission is routinely granted. Actually, that's how Buzbee pursued Sharpe. The primary lawyer on the complaint filed in Las Vegas was Nevada lawyer Micah D. Nash. Buzbee's name appears on the document below Nash's, with this designation: 'Pro Hac [Vice] Forthcoming.' This doesn't mean Buzbee was targeting Jay-Z because of his race. The more plausible explanation is that Buzbee took on a case that ended up being far weaker than he thought it was, so he found a way to retreat. Of course, he's now facing a lawsuit from Jay-Z claiming that the lawsuit sparked $190 million in business losses. Unfortunately for Buzbee, he's got the money that would make him a target for a lawyer who represents plaintiffs on a contingency fee. That's the primary motivation in this specific form of legal practice. It's good business to take strong cases with significant damages against defendants who have money. The personal characteristics of the defendants do not matter. All that matters is: (1) did they do something they shouldn't have done?; (2) did those actions cause tangible and significant harm?; and (3) can they easily write a check to make things right?
Time Business News
6 hours ago
- Time Business News
ITUC's New Report Spotights Prison Slavery in the United States
In a chilling revelation that has reignited national debate, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) has released a new report exposing the systemic use of prison labor in the United States — a practice the organization likens to modern-day slavery. The report, titled 'Prison Labor in the United States: The Business of Punishment' , details how incarcerated individuals are being exploited under forced labor conditions, often for pennies an hour, with little to no choice in the matter. The United States is home to less than 5% of the world's population — yet it holds nearly 25% of the world's prison population. With over 1.2 million people currently serving time in state and federal prisons, the U.S. correctional system has long been criticized for its mass incarceration rates. But what the ITUC's report brings into sharper focus is how that system is being monetized through what many call 'prison slavery.' The report outlines how incarcerated workers are often compelled to work in unsafe conditions, without proper training or labor rights, for shockingly low wages — sometimes as low as $0.13 an hour. In some states, prisoners aren't paid at all. Refusing to work can result in punishments such as solitary confinement, loss of visitation rights, or denial of parole eligibility. At the center of this issue lies a clause in the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the amendment abolished slavery in 1865, it included a significant exception: slavery and involuntary servitude are still legal as punishment for a crime. 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.' This clause has paved the way for what critics describe as a legalized form of slavery inside America's prisons — disproportionately affecting Black and brown communities. According to the Sentencing Project, Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of white Americans. The ITUC's findings suggest a complex web of beneficiaries — including private corporations, state governments, and correctional institutions. Prison labor is often used to manufacture everything from furniture to military equipment, and to provide services such as food preparation, laundry, and even customer service for government agencies. Some of the corporations linked to prison labor — either directly or indirectly — include major household names. While many of these companies have stated that they are unaware of or do not directly manage prison labor programs, the opacity of the supply chain often leaves room for unethical practices to go unchecked. Beyond the economics, the human cost of this system is enormous. Incarcerated individuals working in these conditions often lack basic labor protections: no right to unionize, no worker's compensation if injured, and no pathway to upward mobility. These jobs rarely provide the kind of training or education that would help with rehabilitation or re-entry into society after release. Furthermore, the emotional toll is immense. Many inmates describe their labor as coercive and dehumanizing, where the daily routine mimics slavery more than rehabilitation. Families of prisoners have also spoken out, saying their loved ones are being punished twice — once by incarceration, and again through exploitative work. The ITUC is not alone in sounding the alarm. Human rights organizations, lawmakers, and advocacy groups have been pushing for reform — calling for the removal of the 13th Amendment's exception clause and the implementation of fair labor standards within the prison system. States like California and Colorado have already taken steps to address these issues. In 2020, Colorado voters approved a ballot measure that removed the exception for slavery from the state constitution. In California, a similar measure failed to pass in 2022, but the push continues. Representative Nikema Williams of Georgia and Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon have introduced federal legislation — the Abolition Amendment — which seeks to end the 13th Amendment loophole. While support is growing, the road to constitutional change remains steep and politically charged. The ITUC's report serves as a critical reminder that reforming America's criminal justice system isn't just about reducing prison populations — it's also about protecting human rights within prison walls. Ending exploitative prison labor will require more than just public outcry. It demands legislative action, corporate accountability, and a cultural shift in how we view incarceration. Rehabilitation, not exploitation, must be the cornerstone of any just and humane correctional system. Until then, the voices of those inside — working against their will for next to nothing — will continue to echo the old abolitionist cry: 'Am I not a man and a brother?' TIME BUSINESS NEWS
