At a moment of political polarization, funding uncertainty, and limited public understanding of environmental justice, Charles Lee delivered a clear message at the Law School: meaningful change remains possible—and often begins with small groups.

“Small groups can make a big difference,” Lee said, reflecting on lessons from nearly five decades at the forefront of the environmental justice (EJ) movement.

Lee visited the Law School on April 9 for an illuminating conversation moderated by Mark Templeton, clinical professor of law and director of the Abrams Environmental Law Clinic, on the history, challenges, and future of the EJ movement. The discussion, which included a lively Q&A with the audience, drew students, faculty, and local advocates to examine how environmental justice has evolved from a grassroots concern into a framework shaping law and policy.

Addressing current obstacles, Lee urged advocates to remain creative and persistent, showcasing examples from local communities that leveraged small grants into large-scale change.

The event was part of the Frizzell Family Learning Speaker Series, organized annually by the Committee on Environment, Geography and Organization (CEGU) in UChicago’s Division of Social Sciences. 

Lauded as “the original game changer” of environmental justice, Lee has shaped national policy and grassroots advocacy for decades. He is the principal author of the 1987 landmark study Toxic Wastes and Race, the first report to systematically document the disproportionate location of hazardous waste sites in communities of color, using mapping and empirical data to make environmental racism visible. He also organized the historic 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit and helped spearhead the emergence of federal EJ policy.

Most recently, until his retirement in early 2025, Lee was the senior policy advisor in the Office of Environmental Justice at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where he served in many capacities for more than 25 years.

Throughout the talk, Lee spoke about the power of grassroots action and the generational scope of environmental justice—stressing that the future of the movement rests in community-driven efforts.

“Toxic Wastes and Race was written not by a large government agency or a well-resourced university, but a small advocacy organization,” he said, noting this as an especially important lesson in today’s politically challenging climate.

Offering some advice, Lee highlighted the need to cultivate new generations of leaders, since the origins of the movement are community-based, and build on public support and education around EJ issues—as recent polls have found that EJ issues poll extremely high, but that the concept is poorly understood. He also emphasized the importance of scaling up, especially as it relates to creating cumulative impact mapping tools.

Lee’s own path to the field was shaped by his experience immigrating from Taiwan as a young boy in the 1960s and 70s. “It was the time of the Vietnam war,” he said. “For Asian Americans, it was a very difficult time to find our place here.”

He was greatly influenced by the civil rights leaders of the era, who moved him to become interested in issues of race, poverty, and environmental conditions. A pivotal moment came when he witnessed protests in Warren County, North Carolina—widely regarded as a catalyst for the EJ movement—over a proposed landfill in the heavily African American community. This illuminated for him the connection between civil rights and the environment. 

On why he eventually found his way to the EPA, Lee said he wanted to develop a model and approach for addressing these issues for the benefit of the communities that were affected by them. 

“One thing I want to lift out is my work to help develop a collaborative approach to addressing environmental justice,” said Lee. 

Templeton asked Lee what the EPA’s initial response was to his landmark report, Toxic Wastes and Race. 

“Their response was: we deal with issues of technology, not sociology,” said Lee.

But Lee pointed out that this reaction critically unveiled an institutional blind spot—one that environmental justice efforts have sought to address by integrating social, economic, and environmental analysis. 

Advances in data and technology have made that integration more feasible. Lee noted that while the original Toxic Wastes maps were drawn by hand, today’s geographic information systems allow for layered, cumulative analysis of environmental harms. Such tools, he argued, are essential for capturing the lived experiences of affected communities—which can help inform policy decisions.

“If you look at environmental impacts one pollutant at a time,” he said, “it’s insufficient.”

Templeton pressed Lee on what distinguishes an environmental justice approach from more traditional environmental law strategies.

“If I, as an environmental attorney,” Templeton said, “want to focus on where the biggest pollution problems are, shouldn’t I just go to where there are the most polluters—which will happen to be where the EJ communities are? Why does it matter to look at and address the problems through an EJ lens?”

Lee explained that the EJ lens helps address systemic and long-term disparities, not just acute problems. 

“It helps us address the kind of questions that will be in front of us for generations,” he said. “The climate crisis is existential. The idea of incredible disparity in wealth is existential.”

Finally, Lee offered some advice for young people seeking to incorporate environmental concerns into their work. He told students not to underestimate that small actions can make a big difference, that it’s critical to take stock of the many more tools available today thanks to modern technology, and that although EJ issues are intensifying, “the most creative solutions can emerge in the most difficult of times.”

The event concluded with a robust Q&A from the audience on topics that ranged from the role of different levels of government to addressing EJ challenges, to how EJ can be brought to the forefront of political discussions, to how to center community voices in technical and bureaucratic processes, which can often be confusing and complex. 

Lee’s overarching message throughout was to advocate for co-governance models and holistic, systemic approaches—and for anyone committed to the EJ movement to adopt a generational perspective to create real, lasting change.