Posted on 03/31/2018 7:58:00 AM PDT by LouieFisk
As the nation commemorates the life of Linda Brown Thompson – the public face of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case – Brown is being celebrated as a heroic young girl from Topeka who “brought a case that ended segregation in public schools in America.” But the story behind the historic Supreme Court case, as I plan to show in my forthcoming book, “Blacks Against Brown: The Black Anti-Integration Movement in Topeka, Kansas, 1941-1954,” is much more complex than the highly inaccurate but often-repeated tale about the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconversation.com ...
The landmark Brown v. Board of Education case
1) was an unconstitutional decision since the feds are constitutionally limited to the power of ONLY OVERTURNING STATE SEGREGATION LAWS. The feds have NO say-so in forcing private segregation or forcing integration.
2) DID NOT constitutionally become national law - it only affected the parties of the case and any other cases with the same questions of law and fact. The Constitution limits national lawmaking to Congress and ONLY Congress.
You don’t know what I think of linda brown. I think little of headline writers who don’t use their heads.
Comments after the article are interesting. Thanks.
The interesting thing here to me is the background, with which I wasn’t really familiar. The black people of Topeka had no (or very little) interest in integration - it was pushed on them by the NAACP.
“Comments after the article are interesting. Thanks.”
—
Yeah, I expect the writer will get some grief over this, especially with her being a black female Associate Professsor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Oregon.
The Warren Court did not have nine votes to overturn segregation as a general matter. It may not have had a majority to do so. The court did NOT overturn Plessy v. Ferguson in 1954, I'm not sure it has been overturned as of 2018 (although it is moot if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is Constitutional).
The court ordered schools integrated because of "recent discoveries in psychological research" which supposedly proved that schools without whites were "inherently inferior" because they created a psychological stigma for students who went to them.
The plaintiffs in the case that originated in SC and was merged with the Brown lawsuit were not interested in integration either. All they wanted was gas for their school buses (which the parents had purchased together) which was denied by the local school board.
If you think you’re right please get in that line over there....Snicker. Snicker.
Nothing unconstitutional about it. All it did was wipe out the obscenity that was decided by a dem laden court called Plessy v. Ferguson
IF you knew your history you would know that there were states that separate but equal was already outlawed and other states it was never practiced. The dem south controlled by KKK members and fellow sympathizers were the ones practicing this nonsense
There was a second case in which that happened
Plessy is the plight that lost causers and KKK sympathizers slapped this country with. The animus the dems showed then and now is evident
The congress writes statutory law. Courts can and do make common law.
“The court ordered schools integrated because of “recent discoveries in psychological research” which supposedly proved that schools without whites were “inherently inferior” because they created a psychological stigma for students who went to them. “
What BS! I doubt very much that private Asian schools in the US feel any psychological stigma. And what a racist position to take that blacks cannot learn unless they’re surrounded by whites?
The psychological stigma of segregated black schools comes from their poor performance as a result of significantly lower AVERAGE IQ. That stigma was only made worse with integration since it highlighted the differences in academic performance even more!
The “Bell Curve” provides pretty much all the explanations regarding the racial realities we see.
All I know is that our schools have done nothing but get better since Brown v. Board of Education.
Are you being sarcastic?
Yes. Very.
I once saw a TV show, where an older black man said, that he got a better education in the segregated schools of the Jim Crow south, than students get today in our inner city schools.
What really gets me, is that some cities, such as Washington, spend among the highest amounts per capita on education, yet produce some of the worst results.
So often, activist types say we just aren’t spending enough on troubled schools, yet when you see that some troubled school systems are actually spending much more than other school systems, it makes you wonder what’s really going on here.
I had heard that the NAACP targeted Topeka specifically because their schools for blacks were equal.
They didn’t want to sue school districts in places where black schools were clearly substandard, because they thought a Court ruling in such places would simply mandate that more be spent on black schools, while leaving legally segregated schools intact.
It’s all based on a lie: that lie is equality. National standards won’d solve this. All the vouchers in the world won’t solve this. Disbanding the NEA won’t solve this. It’s all falling apart right before our eyes. We might slow it down with policies that are somewhat acceptable in the current year, but only slow it down.
You’ve got at least two big constitutional problems with this case.
1) the decision is unconstitutional - the feds cannot constitutionally order integration nor can it constitutionally denounce “discrimination” (the freedom to choose) - thus the decision should be ignored, nullified and voided, and
2) even if it was a constitutionally- based decision, it would NOT be national law but would be constitutionally effective only against the parties of the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.