Brown v. Board's Mixed Legacy

In most history textbooks in the United States, we read about how Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark case that overturned Plessy and ruled that separate facilities were inherently unequal (separate but equal is wrong). However, I thought it was interesting how Harris provided a different perspective on the case, explaining how although it removed de jure segregation, it completely failed to address de facto segregation. By emphasizing how the case eliminated school segregation, it gave people the idea that the problem was solved. This in turn gave rise to a new form of white privilege, where substantial inequality and material inequalities became normalized. Even today, we often read or hear arguments where people believe racial discrimination is no longer an issue because of the Reconstruction Amendments and cases like Brown v. Board. It is common for people to misinterpret proper allocation of resources in the presence of racial oppression as reverse discrimination. As Harris stated, “acknowledging Black identity does not involve the systematic subordination of whites, nor does it even set up a danger of doing so. Affirmative action is based on principles of antisubordination, not principles of Black superiority” (1785). 

Furthermore, Harris also criticizes Brown II for calling for Brown I to be implemented “with all deliberate speed,” rather than immediately. The situation called for immediate action, with students like the Little Rock Nine facing daily physical and verbal attacks, yet the Court did not rule with decisiveness when lives were clearly at stake. This brings me to my next point, as demonstrated by this quote: 


“It is unacceptable for the Court to ignore the infringement or violation of a constitutionally protected right because of concerns about the proper institutional role of the judiciary” (1753).


When doing the reading, I also found it interesting how much emphasis we place on institutional roles/originalism/following tradition. I definitely agree with Harris that although it is a valid concern for the judiciary to be too involved, in cases that are morally wrong it is unfair for people to cite precedent and refuse to address inequalities.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the
Read more