Dr King & AA

[VinnyMyCousin]

By definition, creation of a critical mass of a minority group is permitted by AA. The policy does not look at the effects of admitting a single Black or Hispanic or Vietnamese person, but rather admitting such a number so that the interests of diversity are served.  One of the pedagogical interests of classroom diversity is so that people have exposure to different ethnicities in a meaningful sense - not just one person of an ethnic group.  This is the problem with tokenizing.  It presumes that one person is able to represent a whole group.  AA, however, ensures that there is a large enough group of people for a "representative sample", so to speak.  Try again.

You're so smart, mobell. But single or "critical mass", the inherent visualization of people as subunits of their respective racial categories instead of as individuals remains the same. Instead of having a sample of individuals, we have a crayon box of samples of "black", "white", "red" and "purple". I'm also done with this thread. But it's been fun. Good night.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

By definition, creation of a critical mass of a minority group is permitted by AA. The policy does not look at the effects of admitting a single Black or Hispanic or Vietnamese person, but rather admitting such a number so that the interests of diversity are served.  One of the pedagogical interests of classroom diversity is so that people have exposure to different ethnicities in a meaningful sense - not just one person of an ethnic group.  This is the problem with tokenizing.  It presumes that one person is able to represent a whole group.  AA, however, ensures that there is a large enough group of people for a "representative sample", so to speak.  Try again.

You're so smart, mobell. But single or "critical mass", the inherent visualization of people as subunits of their respective racial categories instead of as individuals remains the same. Instead of having a sample of individuals, we have a crayon box of samples of "black", "white", "red" and "purple". I'm also done with this thread. But it's been fun. Good night.

leaving so sooon? 

but you haven't responded to my post yet, i 'm actually curious to hear what your take is on the idea of black community

[DOWNY]

I wonder if MLK ever blazed the chronic. I would have liked to smoke with him.

[amelus]

1) Then what is a "token black"?
A "token black" is the one black representative to a board, in an organization, or other places where White folks feel the need for "diversity", but don't want to really interrupt the status quo.  In Thomas' case, he is the token Black for the Supreme Court.

by token black you mean like obama for white liberals right?

[theo]

1) Then what is a "token black"?
A "token black" is the one black representative to a board, in an organization, or other places where White folks feel the need for "diversity", but don't want to really interrupt the status quo.  In Thomas' case, he is the token Black for the Supreme Court.

by token black you mean like obama for white liberals right?

If Barak took Bin Laden as his wife, you'd have Osama Obama.

[VinnyMyCousin]

leaving so sooon? 

but you haven't responded to my post yet, i 'm actually curious to hear what your take is on the idea of black community

Sorry Sands...had to take a little break (My g/f think's I'm getting a little LSD-obsessed). Anyway, I did enjoy your post. I do understand your embracing a sense of black community, esp. w/ regards to it being a historical necessity for survival . However, I think the standard you apply to Thomas (i.e.,not being one "who dedicates themselves to the betterment of the Black Community") is a little unfair. Not trying to turn this into a discussion about strict constructionism v. "interrupting the status quo" (the latter of which mobell seems to think is the job of a SCOTUS justice [despite the fact that in this country, we have a LEGISLATIVE branch to do the "interrupting" that is distinct from the JUDICIAL branch]), but again, Thomas is an interpreter of the legal tradition at the highest court in the U.S. I think an assessment of his performance in this role using the litmus of whether or not he's actively working for the betterment of the black community is a tribalistic one at best. I like to think he's working for the betterment of America as a whole, putting his own background aside. Should Scalia be working for the betterment of the Italian-American community or Justice Ginsberg for the Jewish community? But as always, I enjoy your thoughts on this board.

At some point, segregation in schools would have been abolished right?  But when?  Who was going to step forward and make the argument?  Clarence Thomas? Let's not hold our breath.

Regarding your bringing up Brown, etc. that's a can of worms. You ask when segregation in schools would have been abolished?  A lot of recent scholarship has begun to indicate that Brown was not necessary to bring about desegregation.  Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton write that

A July 1944 survey of college students found that 68 percent agreed "our postwar policy   should be to end discrimination against the Negro in schools, colleges, and universities." Georgia's progressive governor, Ellis G. Arnall, accomplished the repeal of the poll tax in 1945 and thereby knocked down a barrier to black voting. Jackie Robinson broke the color line in baseball in 1947, and black entertainers such as Lena Horne found increased access to Hollywood and Broadway.  In response to the Truman civil rights committee's report, ordinary people, such as citizens of Montclair, New Jersey, took community inventories to expose and challenge local segregation.  The Red Cross eliminated the racial designation of blood donors in 1950.  Oklahoma high school students ignored traditional prejudices and elected a seventeen-year-old black to lead the state's Hi-Y clubs in January 1952.

Michael Klarman, Professor of History and Law at U.VA, in How Brown Changed Race Relations: The Backlash Thesis from the Journal of American History, also provides evidence that such trends indicated desegregation was on its way out without Brown.  He cites the cases of blacks in the 1940s who won local political offices, often with substantial white support. He refers to polling data showing increasingly favorable Southern attitudes toward integrated transportation facilities and other forms of deseg. Despite the fact that historians, legal scholars, political scientists, sociologists, and informed journalists continue to assume that Brown inspired the civil rights movement, he produces a wealth of evidence to suggest that the seeds of desegregation were sown quite a bit earlier, and that "Brown was not necessary as an impetus to challenge the racial status quo".

Whether you agree or not, the article is a fascinating read and in case you're curious:

How Brown Changed Race Relations: The Backlash Thesis
Michael J. Klarman
The Journal of American History, Vol. 81, No. 1. (Jun., 1994), pp. 81-118.

[psr13]

PSR is back.  Poor thing.

Sorry for having my own opinion. Wait a minute, I'm not sorry. I don't think I'm a poor thing. I think you can't deal with people who have differing views from you.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Regarding your bringing up Brown, etc. that's a can of worms. You ask when segregation in schools would have been abolished?  A lot of recent scholarship has begun to indicate that Brown was not necessary to bring about desegregation.  Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton write that

A July 1944 survey of college students found that 68 percent agreed "our postwar policy   should be to end discrimination against the Negro in schools, colleges, and universities." Georgia's progressive governor, Ellis G. Arnall, accomplished the repeal of the poll tax in 1945 and thereby knocked down a barrier to black voting. Jackie Robinson broke the color line in baseball in 1947, and black entertainers such as Lena Horne found increased access to Hollywood and Broadway.  In response to the Truman civil rights committee's report, ordinary people, such as citizens of Montclair, New Jersey, took community inventories to expose and challenge local segregation.  The Red Cross eliminated the racial designation of blood donors in 1950.  Oklahoma high school students ignored traditional prejudices and elected a seventeen-year-old black to lead the state's Hi-Y clubs in January 1952.

Michael Klarman, Professor of History and Law at U.VA, in How Brown Changed Race Relations: The Backlash Thesis from the Journal of American History, also provides evidence that such trends indicated desegregation was on its way out without Brown.  He cites the cases of blacks in the 1940s who won local political offices, often with substantial white support. He refers to polling data showing increasingly favorable Southern attitudes toward integrated transportation facilities and other forms of deseg. Despite the fact that historians, legal scholars, political scientists, sociologists, and informed journalists continue to assume that Brown inspired the civil rights movement, he produces a wealth of evidence to suggest that the seeds of desegregation were sown quite a bit earlier, and that "Brown was not necessary as an impetus to challenge the racial status quo".

Whether you agree or not, the article is a fascinating read and in case you're curious:

How Brown Changed Race Relations: The Backlash Thesis
Michael J. Klarman
The Journal of American History, Vol. 81, No. 1. (Jun., 1994), pp. 81-118.

Vinny,

In the infamous words of Lil' John...

WHAT?

Segregation was on its way out without Brown?  I hope you don't actually believe that.  Can we possibly be looking at the same book of American History?   Are you aware of the status of segregation in 1954?  Are you aware of its strong existence over a decade later?  Segregation was NOT on its way out without Brown.  Oh no, my friend.  Segregation was not on its way out at all.  In fact it was force fed to many states with government troups and US tanks.

I'm going to ignore that a statement like "Brown was unnecessary", which is an insult to civil rights activists and the noble accomplishments of so many intelligent minds, is what you intended because I honestly don't think that's what you meant.

Jacky Robinson's accomplishment was no cake walk.  He was not exactly welcomed into Baseball.  Lena Horne was an icon at that time, kind of like a Beyonce or an Oprah Winfrey. The fact that a celebrity like that, who much like Jordan, Oprah, and other Black celbrities who are not viewed as "black" was just then being allowed into certain doors she had never been in before is a statement in and of itself.

If you are aware of Brown v. Board, then I'm assuming that you are also aware of Brown v. Board II, the second case decided a year later in 1955.  349 U.S. 294 (1955).  You see, Brown v. Board declared that separate but equal school education was unconstitutional.  However, many states, primarily in the south, wanted to hold on to segregation.  Thus, the Supreme Court revisited with Brown II which made a declaration that segregation should begin "with deliberate speed."  Which meant, the Supreme Court wanted to be realistic about forcing states to integrate, but didn't want to set a universal time deadline for all, but rather left it up to the individual states to integrate on their own time schedule with the understanding that it was a top priority and should not be postponed or ignored.

But your assertion greatly ignores the facts of history surrounding this case.  There was MASSIVE RESISTANCE to desegregation.  MASSIVE RESISTANCE to Brown and Brown II. Many states questioned whether they had to follow Brown and tried to file for "nullifications" or "interpositions" which would allow the states to distinguish Brown's effect on their state in hopes that they could keep segregation.  The Federal court struck down many of these pleas in the various districts.  Many southern members of congress during that time signed a "Southern Manifesto" that attempted to claim that Brown was unconstitutional and that their states should be free to ignore the Brown decision and keep segregation and Jim Crow laws.

This is also when Georgia, in protest, redesigned its state flag to reincorporate the Confederate Battle flag.  Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and a few other states enacted state statutes that MANDATED school segregation.  Most of them were struck down at the federal level, again, by the various federal district courts which upheld the decision of their Supreme Court in Brown.  One case made its way back up the Supreme Court which we don't often hear about, Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) where the Supreme Court ordered Little Rock, Arkansas to DEsegregate.  For other examples of resistance to segregation see also:
NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963)
Griffin v. Prince Edward County School Board, 377 U.S. 218 (1964)

So you see, segregation was NOT on its way out naturally, by any means.  It was a consistent battle.  Even in 1964, 10 years after the original Brown case, less than 1% of Black children in the deep south attended schools with white students.  Many schools, even a decade later, did not want to integrate.  Practically each school disctrict had to be sued in a separate action between the years of 1954 and 1969.  If these lawsuits had not happened, if Brown had not been decided when it was, if nobody had cared to make the initial argument to the Supreme Court in '54, then none of these things would have happened on their own.  Something had to spark change.  Change was not naturally occuring as you would suggest.  Change was forced, change was resisted, and often times, unfortunately change was met with violent opposition for both Blacks and Whites who no longer wanted to see State supported segregation.

Finally in Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (1963) the Supreme Court said it had had just about enough of this force feeding business.  The court stated "[the decision in] Brown never contemplated that the concept of 'deliberate speed' would countenance indefinite delay in elimination of racial barriers in schools."  By this point, it had just gotten blatently rediculous.  You had a situation where the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision and certain States were simply not following it.  Some refused to follow it.  Making them follow it was no easy task, and it took time, and most importantly it took repetition on the part of civil rights leaders and the federal government to create such a change.  Trust and beleive, it was not going to happen naturally in its own free time.  Justice Black even wrote: "there has been entirely too much deliberation and not enough speed...the time for mere 'deliberate speed' has run out." Griffin v. Prince Edward County School Board, 377 US 218.

In order to make its voice heard once and for all, congress decided to enact what you are probably familiar with in 1964 when it passed the Civil Rights Act, in hopes to accelerate the process of integration.  This was all a follow up of Brown v. Board, which had laid the ground work for the Civil Rights Act.

So to say that Brown v. Board was unneccessary cannot be further from the truth.

Gotta roll, late for Class,
Sands

[One Step Ahead]

Sands, come now, we are talking "all deliberate speed"---maybe by 2000 we would have seen a few voluntary segregation plans scheduled to take place...eventually

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

scheduled by 2000?  sure, why not? that's fast enough right?