Context
Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark case in the 1950's that became a landmark for civil rights activists across the United States. The basis of the argument was founded on the question of whether or not it was constitutional to segregate schools, one of the many echos of Jim Crow laws, set off by Plessy v Ferguson. (See Ourdocuments.gov)
PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT
The Plaintiff's lawyers began by making the case that, keeping lines of race does not help the future of the nation for either race. For, when a nation is divided, and one side continuously is forced to stumble, both feel the impact. This was pushed on by the basic observation that schools of black and white were not of equal quality. Of course, this raises the issue of whether or not a law can stand on the grounds of, "separate but equal", yet in practice is just divided and incomparable.
The economic argument surrounding the plaintiff, was that; however divided in location, no nation's economy is truly separate. As stated above, the whole of the U.S.A. will be hurt by bad schools, preventing proper functioning of people in society.
Arbitrary and capricious. The big bad and ugly phrase of law is the cornerstone to this argument. How can a nation function with such a law that is both impracticable and merely based on an emotional whim from white citizens, whom would rather their child go to an all-white school?
DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENT
The practical argument seen in the Defendant's lawyers was based around natural trends. Black churches are preferred by black people, and white colleagues preferred by white workers; therefore schools would likely be no different.
I extended this argument to a financial one as well, that being we should not hold each group accountable for the other's financial situation. Read my character's full oration below; however in summary, as races in this era tended to have wildly different financial state's, a mixing of the two general identities would not show an accurate reflection in their respective schooling.
They were certain to mention how such a division supports a slow era and process of cultural diffusion, and appealed to the courts sense of Judicial restraint on this state-by-state law. As in general, courts prefer slow as opposed to rapid change.
The most powerful argument, was that Plessy v. Ferguson already set precedent, and the court should "stare decisis". In other words, consistency is important to the court; therefore increasing their legitimacy over time, in which they must "stand by the ruling" of previous cases.
My Oral Assignment
Ladies and gentlemen of the court, your honor… What we are faced with today is a simple matter of emotions rising up to strike down a established and logical law.
We see from history, that the localization of people, be it religious, economic, or racial is the bedrock from which strong democracy is built. We tend to find that, when posed with the choice of integration or homogeneity, people enjoy the uniformity that comes with a given social identity (Ashford, B., Mael, F., 1989). In layman's terms- people like to stay within their own group, as they feel more confident in themselves and those around them.
So why do we not make the logical step to relate this to financial wealth and identity?
Is it not logical that a middle-class family should go to school with other middle class families, or a lower income family with those in their same situation?
We see through statistics, that black families tend to be in the lower side of economic well being, compared to their white counterparts (Guiner, L., 2004). And the integration of these vastly different groups would undoubtedly be a strain on either.
Let me explain, if we were to take one hundred students, half wealthy, half not, both would end up worse off than before. The 50 wealthy students, through their parent’s tax money, would have less of an effect on their school system, because a majority of their money would go to covering the expenses of the less fortunate 50. They, in turn, would not see an accurate reflection in their facilities, faculty etc. in relation to their spent tax dollar.
Monetary investment, and its effect on education
Inversely, the poor 50 students would now be expected to compete on an economic level that would be unfair to their ability. They won’t be able to contend. Where the wealthy students can pay for tutors, books and after school programs that will boost their grade, it would be considered an achievement for these poor black students to get food on the table.
It is for these, and other unforeseen factors, that the impracticability of school desegregation is made clear. Who are we to deny the versatility of schools, whom have been conducted professionally, for the better part of our nation’s history? For is it not through this versatility, and ability to accurately uphold the needs of citizens, that our nation prospers? Will we allow our emotional response to dictate over our logic?
We should see no other option, but to uphold this law.
Bibliography
Blake E. Ashforth and Fred Mael, et al. “Social Identity Theory and the Organization.” Academy of Management Review, 1 Jan. 1989, journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999.
Lani Guinier, From Racial Liberalism to Racial Literacy: Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Divergence Dilemma, Journal of American History, Volume 91, Issue 1, June 2004, Pages 92–118, https://doi.org/10.2307/3659616
Comments
Post a Comment