Here we go again...

[Ben Kenobi]

You may argue that this set the stage, but Warren was quite careful to keep referring to this as JUST dealing with schools.

Not my analysis, Imran. Plenty of other folks who say the exact same thing that I am saying here.

Either I was bright enough to come up with it all on my lonesome, or I actually read books that talked about the subject.

My point is just this, do you contest that Brown vs the Board of Education repudiated the central tenet of Plessy vs Ferguson? Yes or no?

You are a lawyer, it's not a hard question.

[Kuciwalker]

Ben's credentials are that he's bat**** crazy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My point is just this, do you contest that Brown vs the Board of Education repudiated the central tenet of Plessy vs Ferguson? Yes or no?

Yes for schools.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes for schools.

Did you skip the part where the court argued unanimously that segregation was wrong not because it was only done in schools, but because so long as they had separate facilities, that they could not guarantee they were equal?

If so, that would contradict your statement that the ruling was only intended to regulate segregation found in schools.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben's credentials are that he's bat**** crazy.

Such erudition. Did you come up with that all on your own?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Did you skip the part where the court argued unanimously that segregation was wrong not because it was only done in schools, but because so long as they had separate facilities, that they could not guarantee they were equal?

If so, that would contradict your statement that the ruling was only intended to regulate segregation found in schools.

Seperate EDUCATION FACILITIES are not equal, Ben.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." [347 U.S. 483, 494] Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [******] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." 10

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. 11 Any language [347 U.S. 483, 495] in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 12

Try again.

[Ben Kenobi]

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Inherently. That's a very important word Imran. It means not only is segregation wrong, but that it cannot be made right. If the decision applied only to the schools, then they would have said, segregation in the case of education is wrong because of the unique characteristics of education.

But they don't. They say it is inherently wrong, which means the fault does not lie in the where, but in the action in itself.

"existing as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Inherently. That's a very important word Imran. It means not only is segregation wrong, but that it cannot be made right.

[q=decision]Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.[/q]

Try again.

If the decision applied only to the schools, then they would have said, segregation in the case of education is wrong because of the unique characteristics of education.

[q=decision]In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession."[/q]

[q=decision]egregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [******] the educational and mental development of negro children [/q]

Try again.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

1) Thank you Imran. How nice to spend a lovely day with the wife and come back to see the answers I would have given already provided. Well done, sir.

2) Yes, Boynton, not Boyton. I'm not a lawyer, and yet I was able to recall off the top of my head that there had been a separate case involving transportation, that it had been decided in 1960, 5 years after the bus boycott, and I got the name right within one letter. You're really going to call me out on that, Ben? You, who lack both erudition and basic reasoning skills, are seeking to score points over a spelling error? Even by the standards of internet discourse, that's pathetic.

3) You do not want to play the credentials card with me, little boy, but since you insist: 3 degrees in American Studies, one from an Ivy League school, the other two from a Big Ten university that awarded me a full-ride fellowship from day one.

4) I'm not pissing all over other posters for the sake of doing so. By any reasonable measure, I'm one of the most respectful posters here -- no Arrian or Wittlich, to be sure, but respectful nevertheless. I am pointing out that, once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Imran's addressed the substance of your astounding ignorance. I'm done here.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Lesson learned. All people with guns on campus are evil stalkers, and you should rat on them to get their guns confiscated.

The only people allowed guns on campus should be professors, and then only to shoot students who haven't done their assigned readings.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

First non-sports thread I've read in a year or so. People still not listening to each other, just trying to pick everything everyone says apart, throwing insults at strangers, and no one is the better for it.

Good to see OT hasn't matured. We grown men need a place to unleash our anonymous juvenile rantings.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
First non-sports thread I've read in a year or so. People still not listening to each other, just trying to pick everything everyone says apart, throwing insults at strangers, and no one is the better for it.

Good to see OT hasn't matured. We grown men need a place to unleash our anonymous juvenile rantings.

You are so full of it.

[Ben Kenobi]

The only people allowed guns on campus should be professors, and then only to shoot students who haven't done their assigned readings.

Don't you mean the ones who blather on in class and haven't done the assigned readings?

You'd be a hero.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Don't you mean the ones who blather on in class and haven't done the assigned reading.

Don't you know that in our age of consumer rights, that it is immoral to be prejudiced against students that don't do any work? I wonder how some of these people manage to get jobs. The commerce students are the worst. Some of them are functionally illiterate.

[Ben Kenobi]

2) Yes, Boynton, not Boyton. I'm not a lawyer, and yet I was able to recall off the top of my head that there had been a separate case involving transportation, that it had been decided in 1960, 5 years after the bus boycott, and I got the name right within one letter. You're really going to call me out on that, Ben?

Yes I am. The case doesn't strengthen your argument. If you were familiar with it you would have spelled it correctly. How hard is it if you are going to cite a case to look it up?

Boynton vs Virginia had nothing to do with the bus boycotts in Alabama, the plaintiff, if you read, wasn't even arguing discrimination on the bus itself, but rather in a restaurant near one of the bus stops. The dissent actually was spot on. The restaurant had no affiliation with the bus line whatsoever, and so the case could not have involved interstate commerce.

Black goes on to say that it really doesn't matter the particulars of this case, and goes on to say that segregation on busses is bad, and on all interstate carriers should be banned immediately. It's the right conclusion, but the conclusion had little to do with the plaintiff.

You, who lack both erudition and basic reasoning skills, are seeking to score points over a spelling error? Even by the standards of internet discourse, that's pathetic.

It's not a spelling error, so much as a fundamental unfamiliarity with the case. Again, if you knew what you were talking about you'd have gotten the case spelled correctly.

3) You do not want to play the credentials card with me, little boy, but since you insist: 3 degrees in American Studies, one from an Ivy League school, the other two from a Big Ten university that awarded me a full-ride fellowship from day one.

American studies?

That's about as rigorous as women's studies.

Get off your high horse and stop pissing on other posters please. You are the only one who's playing the credentials game. I didn't ask for yours until you started pissing on mine.

Surely someone who is truly educated recognises that credentials are irrelevant to the pursuit of truth. An opinion is correct, not because of the schooling you've done, but because it is right.

4) I'm not pissing all over other posters for the sake of doing so.

You have been pissing on me, and you just did so again.

By any reasonable measure, I'm one of the most respectful posters here -- no Arrian or Wittlich, to be sure, but respectful nevertheless.

At the moment, you are being an ass, and I've called you on that. If you'd like to retain your reputation as a respectful poster, I suggest you retract your statements that I am 'unable to reason,' and 'ignorant'. That would be much appreciated.

I am pointing out that, once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

How so? None of your statements has contradicted what I've said other then by insulting me. Surely someone with a good education can do better then that.

Imran's addressed the substance of your astounding ignorance. I'm done here.

Thank god.

Now we can have a respectful and productive discussion.

Ta ta for now.