Board of Regents v. Bakke

    Today in court we heard the very hard-fought case Board of Regents v. Bakke, where Alan Bakke, a white man, on equal protection grounds challenged the quota system of the University of California Medical School that reserved 16 out of 100 seats of each entering class for "qualified" minorities. 

    The University's legal team brought many strong arguments in their favor. They pointed at the fact that many other universities are also installing affirmative action programs in an effort to redress a long history of minorities being wrongfully excluded from their respective institutions; going so far as to claim that "affirmative action isn't just a policy, but a promise." They made it clear that race is only one aspect taken into account in the selection process and argued that their approach actually aligns with the equal protection clause and passes the strict scrutiny test established by the Supreme Court. They claimed that their goal to redress past racial discrimination and to foster a diverse student body qualified as a "compelling state interest." They cited the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as being very similar to their affirmative action program, as they were are both based upon a system that have discrimination built in to them and try to counter act that and that both do not intend to put any group at a disadvantage but to recognize unfair discrimination and level the playing field. Next came their economic argument, reminding the court that the national economy is hurt after the war and it would be foolish to keep the economy separate when uniting it could fix it must faster. Not only that, but education and medicine affect the nation's economy the most! Since diversity benefits both fields,  removing it not only damages said fields but the national economy as well. Concluding with a strong legal argument, they clarified that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was not for treating everyone the same but to bring equal opportunity to all. Not only that, but the program passes both the "compelling interest" and "narrowly-tailored" parts of the strict scrutiny test.

    Bakke's team retaliated with equally strong arguments. They opened their argument with their main idea; the14th amendment's whole purpose was to eliminate discrimination by race and its not fair to replace one discrimination for another, which is what this program does. The Equal Protection Clause was meant to encourage judgement based on neutral metrics, which in this case would be grades and test scores. The University shouldn't lower its standards in order to meet a rigid racial quota and shouldn't just hand over someone else's opportunity to someone less-deserving. They also proposed a very questionable suggestion... that these minorities should just go to HBCU's because "it's better to be with your people." I found that argument very Plessy-like and disregarded it as a weak point.

    The judge understandably came to a very hard decision, as they were great points on both sides. He ultimately followed the historical version of this case and ruled for Bakke, reasoning that the goal of the University's affirmative action program was fine but the execution of it as a rigid racial quota violated the 14th amendment. He suggested that race just be taken into account when reviewing applicants, rather than the sole determining factor for admission, which I am in agreement with.

EOTO #3 Reaction

   

    The period of American History before the Civil Rights movement was characterized by white supremacist violence and terror brought on by the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan. The catalyst of this era of terror and bloodshed was ironically a seemingly harmless movie called Birth of a Nation. Though you would think a movie to be harmless, its portrayals of African Americans as monsters who only wanted to prey on white women and the KKK as righteous heroes meant to save the country led to the incredibly problematic resurgence of the KKK. The NAACP tried to sue the film for defamation of African Americans, but unfortunately, they failed. This new second coming of the Klan target of terror was much more widespread than the original. They terrorized not only African Americans, but Jews, immigrants, catholics, and labor unions. Following the film, the number of lynchings in the country, especially in the North, regrettably skyrocketed. A particularly harrowing instance was that of the Omaha Courthouse Lynching, in which a white terrorist mob forcefully took Will Brown, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman, from a courthouse jail, stripped him of his clothes, hung him on a lamppost, and then shot his lifeless body.

    Another staple of this era were sundown towns. I had heard of the term before, considering I lived near former sundown town Chevy Chase, Maryland, but I didn't know the history behind them. There goal was to keep their towns all-white and discourage black people from wanting to become residents. Now how does one distinguish between a visitor and a resident of a town? Simple, residents sleep there and guests don't! So, they constantly threatened black people to not let the sun set while they were still in town. I had no idea that this practice was actually a badge of honor for these towns. In an advertisement for Edmond, Oklahoma, the mayor bragged about the fact that they had "no negroes" in their town and used it as a selling point for potential residents.

    The country's landscape at this time was so dangerous for African Americans that a man named Victor Hugo Green published the Negro Motorist Green Book in 1936. The book was a guide y for African Americans on navigating the country during segregation. It provided safe travel options for those who owned cars; giving advice on how to avoid sundown towns or specific locations that had a tendency to cause problems for black people. It became a symbol of resistance against racial inequality and was even called "the bible for black travel during Jim Crow."

 

Plessy v. Ferguson Reaction

    Today in Court we heard the controversial case of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which a black man, barely distinguishable from a white man, challenged a Louisiana statute on 14th Amendment "equal protection" grounds calling for segregated train cars after he was forcibly removed for sitting in the whites-only car. Both sides had some particularly strong arguments.

    Plessy's team brought very strong arguments. They recentered the case, making clear that the question before the court wasn't whether or not history is moving away from segregation but whether they would decide to move with it. Emphasizing that history was clearly moving towards equality, citing the 13th amendment as precedent. They made sure to appeal to the Court's moral compass, asking why we have any right to judge another for something they could not even choose, such as their skin color; calling into question the absurdity and hypocrisy of punishing a man who was only 1/8 African American when they would not do the same for a man who was only 1/8 Caucasian! Arguably their strongest point, segregation is a huge financial burden on the country's economy! Tax payers have to pay double the amount for amenities/infrastructure and eliminating the need to pay for two separate systems would allow different federal expenditure, strengthening the country economically. De jure segregation also forces African Americans to be cut off from society and stunts their and the country's cultural growth, citing New York as a example of how integration benefits and diversifies the country's culture through dialogue and art. Wrapping up their argument with a strong argument from law, they claimed that the separate car law was based solely on race and the Constitution is color blind. The country was founded on the concept of personal liberty! The government should not be able to infringe on a man's right as personal sitting where he desires.

    Ferguson's team also came with some pretty compelling arguments. At the outset, they also recentered the case to being about upholding the state's authority to protect public order and reflect the public's will. They beseeched the Court to think critically about what type of precedent could stem from this decision, one they believed to be a dangerous precedent of striking down state actions all across the country and endangering the very idea of federalism the government was founded on. They offered a strong economic counterargument to Plessy's team using the success of the Black community in Galveston, Texas, often referred to as "the Wallstreet of the South," as an example of Black economic success separate from the White economy. Furthermore, integration could actually cause racial tensions that make customers uncomfortable and damage the economy even more than funding two separate school systems, so integration is too costly for what it's worth. They made clear that segregation has been at the bedrock of our country's society for so long that turning it on its head so abruptly would cause more harm than good. Finally, their argument from law somewhat followed the same line of logic as their opponents... the Constitution is colorblind. Therefore, as long as the facilities and services provided to both communities were equal, there is no problem with them being separate. They concluded their argument clarifying that the 14th amendment called for an end to discrimination, not integration. Called for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

    Though all that should really matter in the courtroom is the law, I found both sides' economic arguments the most interesting. I never had thought about how taxing sustaining segregation must have been for the country and I hadn't heard a lot about huge pockets of Black wealth being generated in the country during such trying times for African Americans. The judge brought the decision down to only the 14th Amendment. A state reg that forces the separation of African Americans and Whites in state cars does not seem inherently bad on paper, "but the state is not being as neutral as it would like us to believe. Any child could see the disparity between the two cars." He decided to reject Louisiana's claim that they were making them equal and ruled in Plessy's favor. I agree with his decision for the same reasons and I'm glad he did not follow the actual historical ruling that established the horrid "Separate but Equal" doctrine for almost 60 years.

Reconstruction: America After the Civil War

    

    Reconstruction is a period of American history I feel is largely glossed over in our country's educational system. Our collective consciousness usually goes from the end of Slavery straight to Jim Crow, but not many know that there was long period of potential prosperity and great opportunity for African Americans within those two milestones. In fact, there were many Black congressmen and women during this period.

    The Reconstruction Era was the process of the country trying to come to terms with the consequences of the Civil War; namely the abundance of newly freed men and women within their country now. The biggest question needing answering was "Who was a citizen? and what defines one?" The main conflict in the era derives from the difference in how the North and South viewed the end of the War: Grant thought that their military victory symbolized a victory for their ideals as well, but Lee believed the North simply had more manpower than them and confessed no wrong. As a result, the two halves of the country talked right past each other during their supposed peace treaty. Hence why, there was such a vitriolic reply from the South once the federal government took action to benefit African Americans.

    The federal government's first act of business was to establish a federal agency known as the Freedmen's Bureau to provide land for the newly freed men. They planned to make good on their promise of 40-acres and a mule, but Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who Frederick Douglass declared "not a friend of the black man," used the land to softly restore the South. This documentary finally taught me what people currently mean by "reparations" for African Americans. I always thought it was about wanting compensation for having to endure slavery but its more concrete than that. It's about a debt owed by the country; a federal promise they failed to keep and still owe the descendants of formerly enslaved African Americans. In the Reconstruction era, we see a story as old as time within this country's history; African Americans experience a brief moment of potential prosperity and opportunity... only to have it stripped away from them by the system that supposed to protect them.

EOTO #4: Little Rock Nine + James Meridith

 

    In 1954, the Supreme Court declared a verdict that would dramatically alter the country's educational system forever. In the Brown v. Board decision, the Supreme Court overturned their "Separate but Equal" doctrine prescribed in Plessy v. Ferguson and declared that separating children in public school on the basis of race was unconstitutional. This decision reverberated throughout the country, sparking outrage in some, fear in others, and hope in many. Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas would become the first battleground for the war on segregation. Fought by nine high school kids: Melba Pattillo, Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Minnijean Brown, Terrence Roberts, Carlotta Walls, Jefferson Thomas, Gloria Ray, and Thelma Mothershed. These nine soldiers became etched in history as the Little Rock Nine.

    Integration was far from easy however. On the first day of classes, Arkansas Governor Orval Eugene Faubus stationed about 270 soldiers from the Arkansas National Guard to block the school's entrance and prevent the nine's entry. This blatant protest to integration and federal power led to President Eisenhower having a meeting with the Governor and Little Rock's mayor for 18 days to try and achieve a
compromise. Eisenhower federalized the National Guard, sending the elite 101st Airborne Division to the school to ensure the safety of the nine students.

    The Nine didn't just face legal barriers but a plethora of physical ones as well. In Melba Pattillo's memoir, Warriors Don't Cry, she recounts all the violent assault and abuse she had to endure from her White counterparts during her short tenure at Central High. Everything from relatively tame pranks like spraying ink on her dress, to straight up attempted murder, like when she had a stick of dynamite tossed at her in the stairwell. Or when someone threw acid into her eyes, almost losing her vision if it weren't for a soldier from the 101st. The constant verbal and physical abuse caused immense mental strain, making her depressed; she even went so far as to consider taking her own life. Fortunately, thanks to their resilience, the country moved one giant step closer toward protecting the Civil Rights of its people.

  Following in their footsteps comes James Meredith, a civil rights activist that became the first African-American to attend the University of Mississippi. In 1961, Meredith sued the University for refusing his enrollment soley on the basis of race. In Meredith v. Fair, the district court refuted his claim and argued that he simply didn't meet the requirements to enter Ole Miss, though they somehow also admitted that the entrance requirements did deny Black applicants their equal protection rights. They required 5 Ole Miss alumni to endorse an incoming student, but since no previous students had ever been Black, Meredith was out of luck. He took the case to the Supreme Court, won, and was finally able to attend Ole Miss. But much like his predecessors, he wasn't received kindly. There were large campus riots on his first day that resulted in two deaths, prompting Meredith to require close supervision and protection by federal marshals during his time at Ole Miss.

    The fight for educational integration in this country was not easy. It involved plenty of one-sided violence and abuse, but it fortunately paved the way for the diverse education system of the country today.

Brown v. Board of Education Mock Trial

    Your Honor, do you recall the Biblical exodus from Egypt? Do you remember how Moses specifically delivered the Israelites from slavery in Egypt into salvation? That's right, he split the Red Sea. And just like how Moses split the Red Sea to lead to salvation, we should split our school systems to lead to the salvation of our country. The Bible provides plenty of evidence for how different the Negro is from the White man. In Genesis 9:20-27, we see God's perspective on the Negro. In this story, we see the initiation of the Curse of Ham, which was the Lord divinely rendering the Negro to its rightful place as the subservient race. Additionally, the apostle Paul exhorts servants in his letter to Titus, to be well-pleasing and not argumentative. Your honor, these Negroes in Topeka hadn't been complaining about their schooling and were actually right in the Good Lord's eyes... until some good-for-nothing Whites planted the idea in their heads that the White schools were vastly superior to theirs. Even if they were, that's as it should be considering we are not the race divinely designed to be subservient. Integration disrupts the divine order instituted by God, and Your Honor, I believe you're a God-fearing man. You understand what danger you can find yourself in by going against God's order.

    We understand and follow this divine order in many aspects of our life and it's good. For example, our faithful practice of anti-miscegenation. I won't speak on this topic for long, as I believe my colleague will go into more depth, but marriage is a divine institution, gifted to us directly from God. Given to the first of us all, Adam and Eve, in the garden of Eden as the very bedrock of human society. We understand that this divine union should not go against the divine order and we don't allow for interracial marriage. Why should we then violate divine order in the case of our public schools? Is education not also at the bedrock of society? Especially when those being directly affected are our own children! Jesus himself said in the book of Matthew "What God has joined together, let not man separate." The same applies to the inverse. "What God has separated, let not man join together."

        Many claim that integration would actually be us "loving our neighbor" , but I'd argue that those who support integration don't truly love the Negro as they say they do. There are already countless lynchings that occur around the country due to White outrage at the government forcefully moving the Negroes from their place in society. And there can be no doubt that the same would happen if integration is achieved. These Whites who say that they support integration are using the Negroes as expendable pawns in order to achieve what ever wicked agendas they desire. If they truly cared for the Negro they would maintain the status quo. When we are separate, there is relative peace among the races. If we were to integrate schools, we have no idea how far parents will be willing to go to protect their children, resulting in a kind of violence against the Negro we have yet to witness.

    Your Honor, if you fear God, you will oppose integration and if you care for the wellbeing of the Negro or the public, you will also oppose integration. Thank you.

    

   

In the Heat of the Night

    In the Heat of the Night is a mystery drama and crime thriller starring Sydney Poitier, one of the most influential Black actors of this time. It follows the story of a Black detective from Philadelphia, who is tasked with working with the local police department in solving a murder case involving the death of a wealthy businessman who planned on building a factory. The story takes place in the small town of Sparta, Mississippi, a town chock-full of poverty, racism, and bigotry, which is ironically how Vergil Tibbs even got involved with the case, as the slow-witted officer Sam Wood(played by Warren Oates), arrests him as a suspect simply because he didn't believe a Black man could have more than $100 in his wallet. His relationship with police chief Bill Gillespie(played by Rod Steiger) and the residents of Sparta paint an apt picture of the horrors of the South during the Civil Rights Era, yet also tells a beautiful and engaging story of cooperation and understanding. 

    In none of Vergil's initial introductions with any native residents of Sparta is he greeted with any form of respect. He is immediately looked down upon, until either, he pulls out his police badge, or sheriff Gillespie assures them that he is working for him. Interestingly, the only exception to this pattern was Eric Endicott(played by Larry Gates), a wealthy plantation owner and prime suspect for the murder of Colbert, as he was very vocal of his opposition to his factory. When Endicott meets Tibbs, he doesn't appear to look at him with any scorn, but rather offers him a drink and talks to him about flowers. This isn't due to respect for Tibbs, however, which is made clear through his statement about a specific flower which he believed "needed to be cultivated, just like the Negro race." Endicott greeted Tibbs with no hostility initially simply because he saw him as no more than a pet or one of the plant he grows in his greenhouse. 

    Once Tibbs accuses Endicott of the murder, he slaps him and is shocked when Tibbs retaliates. He says "There was a time when I could have had you shot," and begins to cry when everyone leaves the room. This scene is perfect in depicting the social climate of America at the time, a time where racist whites, like Endicott, have to grasp with the reality that the world as they knew it was slipping away and they were rightfully losing their power over the lives and actions of African Americans. 

This scene also is an important development in the relationship between Tibbs and Gillespie. Throughout the film, Gillespie tries to assert his perceived racial superiority to Tibbs, yet constantly lashes out at him due to feeling inferior to him. He subconsciously believes that Tibbs is better than him and tries to put whoever he can behind bars to prove that he didn't need his help. Following the Endicott incident however, Tibbs claims he "can drag Endicott off of his hill" if given just two more days and Gillespie smiles saying "Oh, so you really are no different from us, huh?" Though this would be a seemingly good realization to have for a racist White man, the film frames it as a moral failing on Tibbs' part. I find this contrast in perception very interesting to watch. Whereas Gillespie now sees Tibbs' outburst as proof that he's also like the working-class who want to drag down the wealthy from their perch, Tibbs views it as a failure in his duty to find the truth and sinking to the moral plane of the local police who don't care about the truth and only want a convict.

    Tibbs only has one interaction with a Black person in the film, and its Mama Caleba(played by Beah Richards), who runs an illegal abortion clinic and their conversation also provides great insight to the social climate of the time period. Mama Caleba is confused as to why Tibbs would have chosen to be a police officer claiming that "they will chew you up and spit you out." Tibbs knows that the murderer is whoever is paying for Delores Purdy's abortion and he threatens her with jail time, saying"there's white time in jail and colored time in jail: the worst kind of time you can do is colored time." Mama Caleba talks about how her business's success had gotten her out of poverty and how she is now used to better, making Tibbs promise not to take it away before she offers any information, which he obliges. 

    Their short conversation displays not only the psychology of a community who had been mistreated horribly by the systems designed to protect them, but also the solidarity within it for those who found ways out of the pit they were placed in.

    Overall the film is very entertaining. Not only for its plot, but also the peek it gives the audience into the social climate during the Civil Rights Era.