The Demise of Brown
The Supreme Court is finally set of look at whether certain portions of the landmark case of Brown vs. The Board of Education-Topeka, Kansas should be overturned or at least its meaning modified. The 1954 Brown decision came at a pivotal time in US race relations. Everywhere across the US in the first half of the twentieth century, evidence of the previous 1896 landmark case of Plessy vs. Ferguson could be seen: separate water fountains, separate eateries, separate restrooms, and separate schools. Signs clearly marked the areas as colored only. Plessy laid out the idea that blacks and whites could have separate facilities as long as they were equal. This test of equality was never applied since having separate services turned out to be only separate and not equal.
Fifty-eight years later black students in various states challenged the inequality found in the Plessy case. These students wanted to attend their neighborhood white schools, but could not due to laws which made such attendance illegal. The Supreme Court rightfully overturned the wrongly decided Plessy with the Brown decision. In fact Chief Justice Earl Warren writing for the majority of the court had to say about the separate but equal provision in the case.
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. (snip)
We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As I stated earlier, the Brown case was correct since separate but equal facilities were inherently unequal. What followed after Brown v. Board of Education was an attempt to re-do the injustices of the past. The justices held that segregation was wrong, but what followed was the whole sale busing of students from black schools to white schools and white students to white schools as states and cities across the nation attempted to correct past injustices. Parents who once moved into neighborhoods based on the quality of the schools no longer had the luxury of sending their children to the school down the street. States and lower courts turned the Brown ruling into an abomination as school kids were sometimes bused several miles from their homes to attend schools in the name of diversity.
From this one case other atrocities came into existence, all stemmed from Brown and all were inaugurated with the intended purpose of righting past wrongs. Among the most notable of this redresses was the practice of institutional racism, otherwise known as Affirmative Action.
Finally the high court can once again right wrongs by undoing the worst part of Brown—busing. If this case is overturned or at least redefined, the justices will show that the wrong implementation of a good decision can make the entire decision wrong as well.
Interestingly enough, it is the Los Angeles Times who boils this controversial issue down to once single question.
State-enforced segregation laws are long gone, but for school officials today, a key question remains: Did the historic decision commit them to a policy of seeking integrated schools, or did it tell them not to assign students to a school based on their race?
Even a cursory reading of the majority opinion should answer that question. The justices did not like separate schools based on race. In their arguments, lawyers on both sides of the issue will be using the landmark Brown case in trying to score points with the Supreme Court Justices. Unlike the earlier court decision, this time it is Brown in reverse. White parents of school children are asking the court to rule that their children are being discriminated against based solely on the color of their skin. Chief Justice Earl Warren in his decision reasoned that very same point in Brown—“To separate them [school children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”
Justice Warren was right in every way. To give an advantage or disadvantage to one race based on the color of one’s skin is wrong, whether the subject is busing or affirmative action. With the additions of Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the High Court, the Brown decision may very well be redefined allowing parents of whatever color to send their children to the neighborhood schools. And rightfully so. Racism is wrong, even institutional racism.
Martin Luther King’s dream has been achieved in many respects. Kids of every color attend school together, eat together, and play together. People of every color work together and play together. But King’s dream of a color blind society has been replaced with one focused on race more than ever before. Racial preferences are used to give an unfair advantage to one group over another all in the name of diversity. This is just another term for racism. Racial preferences make the color of one’s skin the dominate issue. Instead of binding us together, preferences are making all of us more sensitive to race and are a source of animosity and tension instead of healing. The Supreme Court with this one ruling could send a message once and for all saying: racism is wrong, even if it is done for the right reasons.
Posts
