History, even negative, or bad history, needs to be remembered, and not destroyed.
The Lib podcast will be returning soon for season 2. For now, enjoy the written word.
If you mention separate but equal, most people would point out that segregation is against the law. Period. Today that is supposedly true, but it hasn't always been that way. In fact the doctrine of Separate but Equal has its roots in a time when it was the government enforcing it on the public, with businesses fighting it. During my Civil Liberties Class this past semester, we studied two Supreme Court precedents that are linked together, as the second canceled the first.
To understand how to move forward, one needs to know from whence they have come. History teaches us that. Of course, history is subjective, and as many say, is written by the victors. In 1984, George Orwell wrote that there were whole groups of people dedicated to doing nothing but rewriting history so that it matched with the current theme. They also narrowed the language, and worked very hard to craft a certain message. As we see mobs and rioting today destroying symbols of the past, we should well remember Orwell's warning on this. It started with the Confederacy, well, let me backtrack, it started with Ten Commandment monuments, as symbols of religion, irrespective of the foundation of western law that they were. But it moved to those racist symbols of the Confederacy. It quickly moved like wildfire to anything else that was considered representative of America. Just like that. By deleting history, or rewriting history, a whole new narrative can be set up. Thus this discussion.
The landmark case that established the principle of separate but equal was Plessy v Ferguson 163 US 597 (1896). The case revolved around a black man sitting in the Whites only car on a train that was segregated by state law. As he was only 7/8ths Caucasian, he was considered black under Louisiana state law. The case stands out as the railroad filed a brief supporting the overturning of the law. This is contrary to what most people think about the South of that era, as it was and is perceived that businesses chose to be racist, and the laws just accommodated them. Of course, it was in the railroad's interest to eliminate the law, as the law required them to add at least one extra passenger car, depending on the route, and the added expense that goes along with it. The case was an Equal Protection challenge on the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled that so long as the law mandated equal facilities, segregation was legal. While for us today this seems a racist view, or even a white supremacist view, the key factor is that for something to live up to the test of Plessy, the facilities provided must be equal. After nearly 125 years since that ruling, can we look at schools that have been desegregated and state with a straight face that they are equal? It is true that those schools are no longer racially divided, by law, but frequently they are divided by economic class, which disproportionately affects minorities. Because the protections guaranteed by Plessy no longer apply. Why?
The second landmark case, which ended separate but equal, was Brown v Topeka Board of Education 347 US 483 (1954). This case was a trend setter, or rather a precedent breaker, as it was built on a situation where separate but equal was applied as much as possible. It was over a black girl whose parents lived in a predominantly white neighborhood, but could not attend the neighborhood school. The schools at that time were segregated, and so she had to go across town to the black school to attend. What was not at question in the case was the quality of education received by the girl in her school, it was simply the segregation issue. The Supreme Court was more than ready to take this on, as the Warren Court would become notorious for its judicial activism through the years, and this case was no exception. The school board was doing its job, at least in regard to these schools, and that is where the case should have ended. However, (and rightly so, segregation is ugly business), the Court opted to end it right there, with a statement essentially saying that separate CANNOT be equal, and as such, struck down segregated schools.
What happened next was a mess that only government could make. As Nobel Prize winner Dr. Milton Friedman stated:
"If you put the Federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand."
The debacle that became desegregation over the years, which in many ways was just the opposite of segregation at the point of a gun, meaning simply that kids were forced at times, at the rhetorical point of the gun, to be transported to a different school, away from neighborhood friends. All during this time, those that had the resources moved out of the inner cities into suburban school districts, essentially desegregating themselves, leaving the poorest and most vulnerable behind in schools that were decaying, dispirited teachers, and students that were often apathetic or worse towards their education.
Too often we equate the situation we see in inner cities today when we hear about failing schools in the news with those same old racial overtones of Plessy, or how we have stepped back from Brown. Which is understandable considering the state of historical and civic education today. We remember the past so we don't repeat the bad things, but have the good as a point of reference. Brown wasn't about equality of education, or program, it was about having a separate system for two "races". When people throw the term separate but equal into the ring to explain some disparity, we need to ensure that that is the proper usage, as frequently there are other factors involved.
But when faced with a situation where separate but equal is the proper term, it needs to be corrected. Because while I disagree with the court using Brown as a vehicle to create law out of new cloth, they were correct when they said that separate could not, and cannot, be equal.
If you mention separate but equal, most people would point out that segregation is against the law. Period. Today that is supposedly true, but it hasn't always been that way. In fact the doctrine of Separate but Equal has its roots in a time when it was the government enforcing it on the public, with businesses fighting it. During my Civil Liberties Class this past semester, we studied two Supreme Court precedents that are linked together, as the second canceled the first.
To understand how to move forward, one needs to know from whence they have come. History teaches us that. Of course, history is subjective, and as many say, is written by the victors. In 1984, George Orwell wrote that there were whole groups of people dedicated to doing nothing but rewriting history so that it matched with the current theme. They also narrowed the language, and worked very hard to craft a certain message. As we see mobs and rioting today destroying symbols of the past, we should well remember Orwell's warning on this. It started with the Confederacy, well, let me backtrack, it started with Ten Commandment monuments, as symbols of religion, irrespective of the foundation of western law that they were. But it moved to those racist symbols of the Confederacy. It quickly moved like wildfire to anything else that was considered representative of America. Just like that. By deleting history, or rewriting history, a whole new narrative can be set up. Thus this discussion.
The landmark case that established the principle of separate but equal was Plessy v Ferguson 163 US 597 (1896). The case revolved around a black man sitting in the Whites only car on a train that was segregated by state law. As he was only 7/8ths Caucasian, he was considered black under Louisiana state law. The case stands out as the railroad filed a brief supporting the overturning of the law. This is contrary to what most people think about the South of that era, as it was and is perceived that businesses chose to be racist, and the laws just accommodated them. Of course, it was in the railroad's interest to eliminate the law, as the law required them to add at least one extra passenger car, depending on the route, and the added expense that goes along with it. The case was an Equal Protection challenge on the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled that so long as the law mandated equal facilities, segregation was legal. While for us today this seems a racist view, or even a white supremacist view, the key factor is that for something to live up to the test of Plessy, the facilities provided must be equal. After nearly 125 years since that ruling, can we look at schools that have been desegregated and state with a straight face that they are equal? It is true that those schools are no longer racially divided, by law, but frequently they are divided by economic class, which disproportionately affects minorities. Because the protections guaranteed by Plessy no longer apply. Why?
The second landmark case, which ended separate but equal, was Brown v Topeka Board of Education 347 US 483 (1954). This case was a trend setter, or rather a precedent breaker, as it was built on a situation where separate but equal was applied as much as possible. It was over a black girl whose parents lived in a predominantly white neighborhood, but could not attend the neighborhood school. The schools at that time were segregated, and so she had to go across town to the black school to attend. What was not at question in the case was the quality of education received by the girl in her school, it was simply the segregation issue. The Supreme Court was more than ready to take this on, as the Warren Court would become notorious for its judicial activism through the years, and this case was no exception. The school board was doing its job, at least in regard to these schools, and that is where the case should have ended. However, (and rightly so, segregation is ugly business), the Court opted to end it right there, with a statement essentially saying that separate CANNOT be equal, and as such, struck down segregated schools.
What happened next was a mess that only government could make. As Nobel Prize winner Dr. Milton Friedman stated:
"If you put the Federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand."
The debacle that became desegregation over the years, which in many ways was just the opposite of segregation at the point of a gun, meaning simply that kids were forced at times, at the rhetorical point of the gun, to be transported to a different school, away from neighborhood friends. All during this time, those that had the resources moved out of the inner cities into suburban school districts, essentially desegregating themselves, leaving the poorest and most vulnerable behind in schools that were decaying, dispirited teachers, and students that were often apathetic or worse towards their education.
Too often we equate the situation we see in inner cities today when we hear about failing schools in the news with those same old racial overtones of Plessy, or how we have stepped back from Brown. Which is understandable considering the state of historical and civic education today. We remember the past so we don't repeat the bad things, but have the good as a point of reference. Brown wasn't about equality of education, or program, it was about having a separate system for two "races". When people throw the term separate but equal into the ring to explain some disparity, we need to ensure that that is the proper usage, as frequently there are other factors involved.
But when faced with a situation where separate but equal is the proper term, it needs to be corrected. Because while I disagree with the court using Brown as a vehicle to create law out of new cloth, they were correct when they said that separate could not, and cannot, be equal.
Comments
Post a Comment