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.