Let’s pick up where we started 32 weeks ago.

You, faithful reader of this column, may recall that in three columns, we reviewed the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court opinion taking race-based college and university admissions off the table.

The court’s opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina is a ringing reaffirmation of–to borrow a phrase from the Fourteenth Amendment–“the equal protection of the laws.”

≤ ≤ ≤

May 17 is the 70th anniversary of another ringing reaffirmation of the equal protection of the law.

That opinion — Brown v. Board of Education, which then-Associate Justice Robert Jackson joined — is the topic of a discussion led by this columnist at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Fenton History Center, 67 Washington St., Jamestown.

The discussion, called “Brown v. Board of Education at 70,” is free and open to the public, will last about an hour, and is part of the 2024 Fenton History Center Lecture Series.

≤ ≤ ≤

Brown is one of those Supreme Court opinions whose names and holdings Americans most recognize.

Here’s the essence of the opinion, with parentheses in the original. We’ll number these seven paragraphs just to make reviewing them easier.

1. “(M)inors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

2. “The doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, involving not education but transportation.

3. “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.

4. “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.

5. “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 (retard) 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.

6. “Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

7. “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.”

≤ ≤ ≤

Please notice that Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7–including the holdings in Paragraphs 3, 6, and 7–are right on target. The Brown holdings are exactly right.

Now please re-read Paragraphs 4 and 5 and assume that each statement is true, which it undoubtedly is in many cases, and ask yourself this: Are any of these statements, alone or taken together, a reason–a reason, mind you–that racially segregated public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause?

To put it another way: If any statements in Paragraph 4 or 5, alone or taken together, were false, would racially segregated public schools still violate the Equal Protection Clause? Suppose, for example, that somehow racially segregated schools didn’t generate feelings of inferiority, or didn’t denote racial inferiority. Would you still conclude such schools violate the Equal Protection Clause?

You know the answer: Absolutely, positively, certainly yes.

Indeed, none of the statements in Paragraph 4 or 5, either alone or taken together, can be a reason that racially segregated public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Instead, the reason–to use constitutional-law language developed well after Brown–is that racially segregating public schools isn’t narrowly tailored to any compelling government interest. That’s not even a close call. It isn’t even close to being a close call.

Next week we’ll pick up where we left off today. Meanwhile, Dr. Randy Elf joins the Fenton History Center in welcoming the community at 7 p.m. Wednesday.

(c) 2024 BY RANDY ELF