Bell Supported “Separate but Equal”
Lee Stranahan touched on this point, citing Derrick Bell’s book as evidence. But I think it’s worth elaboration, in light of a 2004 article I stumbled across today (and I’m sure I’m not the first). Derrick Bell explicitly believed that Brown v. Board of Education was decided incorrectly — and that the U.S. Supreme Court should have upheld Plessy v. Ferguson‘s “separate but equal” standard . . . and given more teeth to the “equal” part.
“From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners’ arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson,” Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a “separate but equal” standard for blacks and whites. While acknowledging the deep injustices done to black children in segregated schools, Bell argued the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored “equal” part of the “separate but equal” doctrine.
I went back and forth with Tommy Christopher about this tonight on Twitter. Christopher has not only maintained that Bell was not “radical” — he also maintains that no conservative can honestly believe that, and that anyone who pretends to is engaged in a cynical racist-based “smear” of a dead man who can’t defend himself.
I tried and tried to get Christopher to acknowledge that Bell believed the High Court should have rejected Brown and adopted the Plessy standard, while giving teeth to the “equal” part of “separate but equal.” Time and time again, I closely paraphrased or even quoted Bell’s opinions on the case, and Christopher continually refused to acknowledge that Bell (admittedly in the light of the aftermath of Brown) actually said that the High Court should have upheld Plessy. (He would acknowledge that Bell believed it would have led to better results, but when I would directly put the question to him whether Bell believed the Court should have maintained the separate but equal doctrine, he would refuse to give a straight answer.)
(I am almost certain that Tommy will say I am mischaracterizing the exchange, since he constantly accuses me of mischaracterizing everything he says. My response is: read the tweets for yourself and decide for yourself.)
Granted, I understand why Tommy was seemingly reluctant to admit Bell’s views. Because to do so is to admit that they are radical — and Tommy has very self-righteously mocked the notion that anyone could consider Bell’s views radical. But they are. It is radical to say we should have “separate but equal” in this country. It is radical to say Plessy v. Ferguson should have been upheld.
And when we call it “radical” we are not lying or being cynical or racist. We are speaking the truth.
I call on Tommy Christopher to acknowledge Bell’s views on this issue are radical.
And here is what I’m really getting at: when he doesn’t, I call on you guys to notice . . . and to remember.
UPDATE: Here is one example from my exchange with Tommy:
I asked:
Can we agree Bell said the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored “equal” part of “separate but equal”?
While acknowledging the deep injustices done to black children in segregated schools, Bell argued the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored “equal” part of the “separate but equal” doctrine.
And Tommy’s response:
@Patterico 2. No, he believed that “true sep. but equal” might have been *better than* the results of Brown.
So, I took a quote straight from the article, asked Tommy if he would agree it was true, and he would not.
See what I mean?
Seriously: supporting “separate but equal” is a radical idea.
Can I get an amen?
Can you imagine if a conservative supported separate but equal? How do you think that person would be treated by Tommy Christopher? Would that view be blandly viewed as non-radical? Would Tommy tie himself into knots to avoid admitting how radical such a view is?
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/13/2012 @ 8:38 pmNo question you would be called a racist/loon/radical nutter. People like Tommy would call for your blog to be boycotted and for you to be fired from your job.
Nice take down of Tommy on Twitter btw.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/13/2012 @ 8:42 pmHeavens to Betsy! Can you imagine if such a thing were ever to happen?!
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/13/2012 @ 8:48 pmTommy Christopher has a Soledad mentality about the truth I think.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/13/2012 @ 8:49 pmYeah, but Bell is not a conservative and he’s tied to Obama, therefore he gets da hall pass!
I think Breitbart once said that they don’t see us as humans. Beyond depressing.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/13/2012 @ 8:57 pmTommy Christopher, gets too easily confused by small shiny objects, there aren’t enough tentacles
narciso (87e966) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:00 pmfor the face palms he gives himself.
__________________________________________
Bell argued the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored “equal” part of the “separate but equal” doctrine.
He probably had in mind something similar to what was imposed on the following school district—by a notorious federal judge. Except with perhaps less emphasis on moving bodies around various schools, but no less emphasis on throwing money at a problem.
Mark (31bbb6) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:01 pmYes, Bell favored segregation with enormous teeth.
In other words, an enormously intrusive and complicated government that makes sure both sides of the segregated society are truly equal… in God knows how many respects.
And what happens to Hispanics? Are they people of color or are they white? Maybe when they graduate to victimhood they get their own little society?
It’s not only radical, it’s just plain dumb.
Martin Luther King was right: it’s not about the color of your skin. Get over it.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:06 pmIf I may make a blunt observation, Patterico—Tommy Christopher has no professional credibility. Is there not any other reasonably honest and intellectually competent left-leaning person with whom you can dialogue if you wish to explore these issues on line? Trying to convince Tommy Christopher of, well, anything seems like a terrible waste of time and besides who cares what he thinks. I’m sure I speak for many when I say that the lack of ethics and journalistic rigor shown by Mr. Christopher during Weinergate was more than enough to last a lifetime. You are smarter than he is and also have integrity. Why on earth do you even still bother with him?
elissa (f22181) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:13 pmAmen, elissa.
The man vouched, staking his reputation, on the story of people who did not even exist.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:22 pmThat’s sort of the point I was going for, then again it really is Dan Abrams who runs Mediaite, correct, and I lost respect for him, when he refused
narciso (87e966) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:23 pmto wrangle Keefums
Dang that John Wilkes Boots (or whatever) for killin’ Lincoln before he could could conquer Mexico and move all the darkies there.
nk (dec503) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:29 pmMy memory is rather hazy, having last read Brown v Board of Education about thirty years ago–but wasn’t one of the major reasons SCOTUS came to its decision was that it felt the equal part of separate but equal could never be adequately enforced?
That would sort of put paid to Bell’s argument at the starting gate, I think.
JBS (e1eed2) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:31 pmMr. President Lincoln was far too engaged with the tricky problems posed by the vampire menace to conquer Mexico is my understanding*
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:32 pmThere are obviously people who still think he has integrity. Not all of them are crazed leftists. For example, John Sexton, formerly of Verum Serum, now of Breitbart.com, seemed to hold out hope that Christopher would be intellectually honest about this.
If my discussions with him illustrate that he won’t be . . . then that accomplishes some purpose. And if I get him to backtrack, so much the better.
Because I’m right, it’s heads I win, tails I win. Either he admits he was wrong (good) or he doesn’t (proving lack of credibility: also good).
It’s about the media. As I noted last night, it was very liberating to realize I don’t care about changing these people’s minds. When they are intransigent, especially when I am right, it is glorious . . . for the example it constitutes to onlookers.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:37 pmUPDATE: Here is one example from my exchange with Tommy:
I asked:
My source:
And Tommy’s response:
So, I took a quote straight from the article, asked Tommy if he would agree it was true, and he would not.
See what I mean?
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:43 pmDoes he still, because facts don’t seem to be in Tommy’s purview, intellectual honesty, would dictate he would acknowledge these ideas are problematic, but then there would be consequences to such a course of action
narciso (87e966) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:44 pmI likes my separate but equal to be the true kind
accept no substitutions
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:46 pmYou know, if you think about it, Bell was only following a traditional leftist thought pattern.
In other words, he was saying that separate but equal education would have been OK if the equal part assured that the children could be educated in way that codified the distressed class opinion.
Which may not be necessarily bad. Historically, minorities in the U.S. have not fared well, but we have made great progress that I think we all agree should continue.
However, separating people because of race or religion or other factors goes against the American view — and conservative view — that all people are equal and should have the same opportunities.
Nontheless, you can see this kind of weird logic in other leftist dogma.
For example, PETA wants to protect animals. There’s nothing wrong with that. However and eventually, some lefties get to the logical point that animals are the same as humans with the same rights. Then some really go off the deep end and you have the ones that think all non-human life is sacred and the only solution is the eradication of our species.
In the case of feminism, you start out with a noble cause of equality for women and you end up with some people who think that all interaction between men and women constitutes rape.
Others spike trees, or start fires, or waste their time in tents in major cities, or decide marrying pets and buildings is OK, or produce films of slide shows about weird science, or think government fiat can make markets.
There’s not anything necessarily wrong with any of those in a micro-sense, but if you start convincing enough people that your lefty, magical logic actually works, then you get a society that can no longer function.
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:57 pmGoogle search “derrickbellvideos”
There is over an hour of footage of Bell talking Brown vs Board, but the person owning the youtube channel has made the videos private.
I wonder who that person is.
Auntie Fraud (2f38aa) — 3/13/2012 @ 9:59 pmOT (kind of). You like fights, Patterico, but it’s crept into the best comment section on the internet, yours, and half the time we’re sniping at one another. Why cain’t we jist talk, like in this hillbilly place http://www.saysuncle.com/ ?
And I ain’t talking to Patterico, I’m talking to who you know who you are.
nk (dec503) — 3/13/2012 @ 10:14 pmImagine the sorry state of this country today if Bell had gotten his way.
Pristine water fountains for each separated race. Police enforcing a bar on my drinking from the colored fountain (I guess… who knows who is a person of color these days). Kids graduating high school with friends with the same heritage… meeting their first black peers at work as adults.
Why some would be so cynical as to prefer this in 1954… I get that. I’d resent the hell out of America if I were black in 1954. But in 1994 or 2006? It’s time to give America credit.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/13/2012 @ 10:15 pmin America it makes no difference if you’re black or white, if you’re a boy or a girl is my understanding
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/13/2012 @ 10:22 pmI guess Bell disagreed with being put in the back of the bus, but was OK with being forced onto the left side and forcing whites onto the right.
Mainly I’m sorry he never realized this race stuff was a cruel joke.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/13/2012 @ 10:28 pmSomeone has to remind me who Tommy Christopher is.
Seriously, though, what is so “radical” about disagreeing with a unanimous Supreme Court decision?
OK, maybe that last question wasn’t so serious.
JVW (4d72aa) — 3/13/2012 @ 10:31 pmIf Derrick Bell is not proof that black people are monkeys who learned how to shave ….
No, I am not a racist. Well, ok, maybe I am. Maybe I could just be just clumsilly just thinking.
Knew I shuld not have skipped today’s Thinking Anonymous meeting.
nk (dec503) — 3/13/2012 @ 10:36 pmAnd it is important to note that this is crude racial discrimination. Separate cannot be equal.
First, it was a fairy tale to pretend that the courts *could* ever enforce anything like true equality. Separate schools ensured that the white majorities could screw over the minority children without problem.
And then who exactly gets separated into what school? For instance, what school does Barrack Obama go to? He has one black parent, one white parent.
And it means that every child labeled as black, Asian, etc. are denied the chance to interact with white people, to get to know them, to form bonds that would help them through the rest of their lives. And the ones labeled white are denied the opportunity to get to know those minorities. Both groups are suffering the ill effects of that discrimination.
And let us ask some other rude questions. If there was no brown, would there have ever been a loving v. Virginia? For those who are not legal geeks (or whom merely forgot), that is the case where the court held that the states could not ban interracial marriage.
Now full disclosure I am a direct beneficiary of that ruling in the sense that I live in Virginia and I could not have married my wife under this law. But regardless of my bias, I think I am right to say that it is discrimination to the harm of minorities to ban interacial marriage. For instance, back then white people were somewhere around 80% of the population. So a white person looking for mates among white people has 80% of the population to choose from. A black person would have something like 10% of the population. And the Hispanics, Asians, etc. even less. So for lack of selection alone–pretending that every person is interchangeable—that is a discrimination. But of course people are not interchangeable. If you are a white guy and you are in love with a woman who happens to be Asian, it is no comfort that you still have 80% of the population to choose from, because that is no choice at all in your mind.
Not to mention that there was more riding on the docket that day than just racial discrimination. If the racial equality movement did not succeed, then the gender equality movement wouldn’t have, the disability equality movement wouldn’t have, or pretty much anything. So indeed even if a reaffirmation of Plessy would have been good for straight, able-bodied, black MEN, it might still have stank for the majority of black PEOPLE.
In short, Bell is an a$$. And I wouldn’t worry about Tommy Christopher.
(Btw, my name still links to where i read Bell’s story the Space Traders)
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 3/13/2012 @ 10:37 pmReporter: “Mr Vice President, would you like to comment on Soledad –”
Icy (192e4b) — 3/14/2012 @ 4:27 amSloe Joe: “Look, we gave them some money and they failed. Okay? Businesses sometimes fail, but the need to develop alternative forms of energy remains a pressing problem for this nation!”
Some dude on Stranahan’s radio show linked this.
http://ziefbrief.typepad.com/ziefbrief/2008/07/there-has-been.html
Obama taught this stuff in 1996-2003.
Noodles (3681c4) — 3/14/2012 @ 4:57 amSeparate but equal is fine as long as it is fully funded.
JD (d246fe) — 3/14/2012 @ 5:46 amTommy has proved through past action that he thinks himself well-motivated (and he may well be) but his discernment is weak, and vulnerable to his biases and assumptions.
Looking at Bell in the light most favorable in this instance requires Tommy to shade the truth, only possible exclude the rest of Bell’s writing, actions, connections, scholarship, and so forth.
Bell thought integration destructive. I’m not sure he even wanted “equal”, frankly, though he’s probably right that ending the disparity in schools (crumbling buildings, tattered textbooks, inferior teachers) might have been less traumatic and even more effective than busing and division from community, at least in hindsight. My doubts about the “equal” part remain, however.
He thought black people would always work out to be second (or worse) banana if asked to conform to “white” concepts of virtue and excellence, as if white ways were inimical to a “true” and natural state of blackness.
face it, he was a nasty racist. He thought blacks and whites were very different and ought to be different and ought to keep to one another.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:29 am1. What did Lincoln say about arguing with someone who denied that 2+2=4?
2. As well, sounds like T.C. is a lot like Bill (Slick Willy) Clinton and is trying to define what the word “is” means.
john b (705b79) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:38 amProfessor Bell (with whom I studied at NYU) is in the news inasmuch as his views are the same as Obama’s views. And they’re not; certainly not point-for-point.
So even if you can demonstrate that Bell supported “separate but equal”, I don’t think that alone makes someone a “radical”, and it impugns Obama not one iota.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:13 amDear Knuckle Dragging Conservatives & Assorted Tea Party Racists –
We dont have to explain any contradiction to you on this or any other issue because there ARE no contradictions.
Whatever we say, whenever we say it, is true at that moment. And if you dare to challenge us, you are totally racist and its quite all right for us and our friends in the media and the White House to hurl profane hateful invective at you every time you stick your head above ground. We call this Speaking Truth to Evil.
Mind you, at no time are you allowed to use any of the same language towards us. Ever. Not that you would because youre all so stupid and racist and you hate children women and clean air, but hey…
We care more than you do , and we FEEL for things and people more than you do. Duh. So if we change our answer on any given subject depending on how it affects President
ObamaAwesome , than this is what we’ll do and you need to stfu about it.Please get this into your thick bible-clinging skulls full of BushJesus mush.
Insincerely yours because youre all such poopy-pants’,
99.999% of Libs in American Media, Academe and Politics
Mike D (6f2ada) — 3/14/2012 @ 1:30 pmKman studied with Professor Bell at NYU?
Color me SHOCKA!!!
Icy (192e4b) — 3/14/2012 @ 1:45 pmI think this indicates you hold a very unusual opinion. I suspect many liberals did not think this of Strom Thurmond’s view that segregation for the good of blacks too is acceptable.
And since I view Bell as a radical, he goes into a pool of a large number of radicals Obama affiliated with.
This is helpful in interpreting whether the decisions Obama has made were really intended to reach a radical transformation of this country, and I think voters need to consider whether this is something they should have four more years of.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/14/2012 @ 2:03 pmFour more years! clap clap clap!
Four more years! clap clap clap!
Somehow I don’t think that rallying cry is going to be very persuasive to the average voter of either party, Dustin
elissa (97540a) — 3/14/2012 @ 2:12 pmI would hope not, Elissa!
I criticized Bush and I’m sure I’ll criticize the next president too, but this country can’t afford four more years of Obama.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/14/2012 @ 2:23 pm“I don’t think that alone makes someone a “radical”, and it impugns Obama not one iota.”
Kman – I get it. You are saying Obama is more radical than Bell. Thanks.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/14/2012 @ 3:10 pm“Whatever we say, whenever we say it, is true at that moment.”
Mike D – Critical Theory makes the truth like stem cells, it can be whatever you want it to be.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/14/2012 @ 3:13 pmHas anyone noticed that all of the links to the older Breitbart site are broken?
DizzyMissL (355042) — 3/14/2012 @ 3:15 pmOh DEAR DEAR!!! But Opie Von Stalin Hussein Obama is HALF BLACK HALF WHITE.
Separate but equal INDEEEEED!!!!
Gus (36e9a7) — 3/14/2012 @ 3:56 pmKman is a racist.
JD (d246fe) — 3/14/2012 @ 4:06 pmThey are doing a live blog of Space Traders here;
http://minx.cc/?post=327501
narciso (b483e4) — 3/14/2012 @ 4:31 pmPatterico, I think you’re ignoring the start of the quote:
“From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners’ arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson,”
This seems to qualify the rest of the statement as being specific to education, and not a general endorsement of the policy. I think the rest of the article supports this interpretation because it talks at length about how integration failed in educating black children.
It reads to me as if Bell’s point was that the educational needs of black children weren’t served by desegregation because it changed the onus from “Educate black children” to “Integrate schools.”
That said, you may be right about his position. He seems to feel that integration and the civil rights movement let the US government off the hook for years of discrimination and that the continued disparities are going unaddressed because of it.
But if that is his view, it’s somewhat more complicated than you’re making it out in this post. Of course it’s also possible that he would have supported a vigorous movement to integrate schools AND to educate black children.
Based on this, I don’t think TC’s tweet is clearly wrong. It seems like a valid interpretation of the article. I do think the word “might” is incorrect though. Based on the article Bell seems pretty certain that integration has failed to sufficiently reduce the “Racial disparities, wide and widening in every measure of well-being” between blacks and whites. To use his words. Depending on how charitable I felt like being I could accept some uncertainty in bells statement is assumed because this is hypothetical.
time123 (aa4765) — 3/14/2012 @ 5:29 pmExcept that’s not the only quote in the article. Have you read it? It also says:
I kept asking: didn’t Bell say this is what the court SHOULD HAVE done? Tommy kept denying that, and saying Bell was just claiming Brown‘s results were suboptimal. Well, Bell did say that — but he ALSO said that the Court SHOULD HAVE upheld separate but equal.
He just did.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/14/2012 @ 5:34 pmI didn’t catch the title of the post. It states
Black children might have been better off without Brown v. Board, Bell says
If we assume that whoever wrote the title was correct about Bell’s views than I think TC’s tweet is OK.
Of course this means that the person who wrote the article left out a key quote.
time123 (aa4765) — 3/14/2012 @ 5:35 pmIt’s a really stupid argument, because it took some years for brown to be implemented, that was a reason
narciso (b483e4) — 3/14/2012 @ 5:38 pmto stick with Plessy, a worse decision than Dred Scott, because in the latter case, the Civil War hadn’t happened yet, Does that mean he approved of
the bantustans in South Africa, I would tend to doubt it.
I’m reading it like this.
Bell Thought:
To improve the education of black children the courts should have focused on their education and not their integration. This is true because focusing on their integration has not resulted in enough improvement in education.
That seems to be the point of the article as a whole.
I think you’re reading it like this.
Bell Thought:
“The courts should not have ended Separate but equal.”
I don’t want to put words into your mouth so I’ll leave it at that.
time123 (aa4765) — 3/14/2012 @ 5:43 pmTo add, I’m not trying to end the conversation. I just don’t want to make assumptions.
time123 (aa4765) — 3/14/2012 @ 5:44 pmtime123,
True or false:
Based on the article, it appears that Bell believed the Brown court should have upheld Plessy and the separate but equal standard — focusing on enforcing the “equal” part of that standard.
Bell’s opinion was given with the benefit of hindsight, in that he believed the outcome of Brown did not benefit blacks as much as had been intended.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:03 pmIf you are honest, you will say “true.”
If you are Tommy, you will say “False. Bell believed the results of Brown were bad. Asked and answered, counselor. Don’t lawyer my answers and don’t tweet me when I’m watching the teevee.”
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:04 pmI love the rhetorical gymnastics Leftists will go through to explain away inconvenient positions fellow Leftists have taken.
JD (d246fe) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:08 pmSeparate but equal was preferable, as long as it was fully funded.
JD (d246fe) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:12 pmPatterico,
True, with 1 addition. Based on the article Bell was only talking about educational outcomes.
IANAL, and I think I’m pretty normal in that for me Brown is shorthand for all desegragation. If that’s not the case and Brown ONLY applies to education I thinks it’s worth being redundant to avoid confusion.
time123 (6dd049) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:26 pmalso, if the 2nd part of the quote is accurate “Asked and answered, counselor. Don’t lawyer my answers and don’t tweet me when I’m watching the teevee.”
He’s kind of being a jerk.
time123 (6dd049) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:27 pmWhat percentage of complexion qualifies one to inclusion/exclusion? Why don’t we segregate on a continuum with blonde hair blue eyed’s on one coast, and suntanned recent Zambian immigrants on the other … with more of your yellowish Asian tones as you head toward the Canadian border, and your Hispanic corn-eating hot Latina types toward the Mexican border.
You’ll find me making a great circle around and through the country, but mostly on the southern border.
Oh lay.
Random (38d59c) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:31 pm‘In May 1954, as civil rights advocates celebrated the Brown decision, Du Bois, then 86 years old, noted that “no such decision would have been possible without the world pressure of communism…”‘
Just in anybody thinks lefties were any smarter in the old days.
Idiots then…idiots now.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:41 pmI don’t even know what that means. You sound evasive like Tommy. Fact: Bell said the Court should have upheld Plessy. There may have been reasons he reached that conclusion, but reach that conclusion he did.
And it seems like you won’t admit it.
Is this Tommy’s sock puppet?
(Kidding.)
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:46 pmThat is a fairly accurate paraphrase of several of his tweets combined. You are welcome to check the actual conversation if you wish. It’s available on the Internet, so I’m told.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:47 pmPatterico,
Not trying to be evasive, just clear on what I mean. I agree that according to the article bell thought that black children’s education would have been better if the courts had focused on equal rather than ending seperate.
I don’t think the article shows bell was opposed to desegragation in other areas. I don’t think the article shows he supported seperate hotels and lunch counters for example. It’s possible that he did. But given that the article makes very clear why he supports it in this case I can’t conlclude it’s his general opinion.
time123 (6dd049) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:56 pmYou are not trying to be evasive, but you are accomplishing it admirably nonetheless.
1. Did Bell offer an opinion on what the Court should have done in Brown?
2. If so, what was that opinion?
Can you give direct answers to those two questions?
They are not trick questions.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:59 pmOh good Allah
JD (d246fe) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:59 pmAlso, not as interested in your twitter drama as in debating the bell article. Not judging you. Twitter Drama is a valid lifestyle choice. Like farmville and being Sweedish. 😉
Kidding aside, I’d problably have to read a bunch of tweets to figure out if he’s being mean, or if you just have that sort of back and forth with eachother.
time123 (6dd049) — 3/14/2012 @ 6:59 pmOh good Allah
I know.
This is how I felt today, a little.
Except that Tommy was not just evasive but also totally and unbearably obnoxious about it.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:00 pmAlso, not as interested in your twitter drama as in debating the bell article.
You also seem not as interested in answering my questions as in evading them.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:01 pm‘Bell Supported “Separate but Equal”‘
Nah, he supported special (favorable) treatment for blacks, in order (according to his looney tune world view) to cancel out the intrinsic, and irreparable racism of Whitey.
IOW, he was just anither dipwad racist, which I guess is why he’s liked by guys in the Democrat Party, institutionalized racism being one of their proud traditions.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:02 pmI’ll state Bells opinion on this as simply as I can.
Based on the educational outcomes of black children Brown was the wrong decision.
time123 (6dd049) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:03 pmGood to know!
1. Did Bell offer an opinion on what the Court should have done in Brown?
2. If so, what was that opinion?
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:06 pmIf it was fully funded, segregation was just hunky dory.
JD (d246fe) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:07 pmThe courts should have focused on improving educational outcomes. e.g. Focused on the equality of the educational performance of black children.
time123 (6dd049) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:08 pmBy issuing what legal ruling? In Bell’s opinion.
The correct answer is not hard for an honest person to give.
But very difficult for a slippery and evasive person.
Now is your time for choosing!
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:10 pmI’m honestly not trying to be evasive or slippery.
Let me try again.
Based on the educational outcomes of black children Brown was the wrong decision. The courts should have maintained segragation and focused on educating black children.
time123 (6dd049) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:13 pmBells opinion based on the article etc etc.
time123 (6dd049) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:14 pmHow exactly was Bell’s position different than Clinton’s buddy Fulbright?
JD (d246fe) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:17 pm“Based on the educational outcomes of black children Brown was the wrong decision.”
Yeah, except it wasn’t decided on the basis of educational “outcomes”. It was decided on the basis of the 14A.
Public schools which are segregated, on the basis of skin color, by law, deny people equal protection under the law.
Shoot, the SCOTUS actually got something right for a change. People ought to be standing up and cheering their heads off, instead of bitching and moaning. But, there’s always some lefty halfwit, like Derrick Bell, who just can’t be satisfied with doing the right thing, and has to whine about how unfair it all is…when they aren’t showed favoritism.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:34 pmSpelling quibbles aside, I’ll accept that answer as responsive.
Next question: is it radical for someone to maintain that the Supreme Court in Brown should have continued the Plessy v. Ferguson policy of segregation?
I kinda think this one answers itself, but then, Tommy Christopher thinks maintaining segregation is a totally non-radical position, given caveats and context galore.
Patterico (feda6b) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:46 pmFully funded segregation is a good thing.
JD (d246fe) — 3/14/2012 @ 7:48 pmPatterico, Maybe this is why I seem slippery. A short clear answer will be at the bottom.
Your question just moved from talking about education specifically to segregation generally. I don’t think the article covers his opinion about segregation in general. He was a law professor that wrote books about this so it’s probably stated somewhere, but not in this article.
I think it’s important that Bell was talking specifically about education in that article. Not acknowledging that makes him seem further from the mainstream. It may well be accurate, but it’s not supported by that article. He also had very specific, and defensible, reasons for his opinion. This is important for 2 reasons. The first is that he doesn’t seem to have an ideology for his position on brown. He has a desired result; to address the existing disparities between whites and black. So it’s hard to use this to infer a broader position. The second is the typical assumption is that people support segregation out of hate and therefore segregationists are vile. If you’re going to support segregation, you better have a damn good reason because you’re in some awful company.
I don’t know if reading the article makes him seem radical, so much as it makes him seem to be searching for a solution to a real problem. May depend on what you mean by ‘radical’. It’s usually a bad thing to be radical. He clearly felt desegregation wasn’t as important as education for black children, but that isn’t the same thing approving of segregation. I also think it’s important that there isn’t one quote from him in the article saying segregation was bad, only that it also had bad results.
Slippery preamble is out of the way.
“Yes, being willing to continue segregation in order to eliminate the wide and at the time, widening disparities in education between black children and white children is radical.”
time123 (6dd049) — 3/14/2012 @ 8:25 pmFarmVille is only valid as a have-no-lifestyle choice.
Icy (192e4b) — 3/14/2012 @ 8:27 pmAlso, I scanned your post about the twitter stuff with TC, and I’m genuinely sorry if interacting with me is making your day worse. I’m not trying to piss you off. This is interesting and you seem to be talking about it in good faith.
time123 (6dd049) — 3/14/2012 @ 8:27 pmThis is interesting and you seem to be talking about it in good faith.
He does not seem to be doing so. He is doing so.
JD (318f81) — 3/14/2012 @ 8:40 pmSeparate but equal is a nonsensical theory, not much different than secession. A house divided cannot stand.
nk (dec503) — 3/14/2012 @ 8:46 pmtime123:
The only thing that Bell, and pretty much all lefties, are trying to do is to create class distinctions for the purposes of class warfare. The end goal is not a victor. They only want the war for their ends be they monetary or ideology.
If they cared about the end result, they would be fighting against the forces that actually enslave rather than the convenient targets of familiarity.
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/14/2012 @ 8:49 pmtime123:
The only thing that Bell, and pretty much all lefties, are trying to do is to create class distinctions for the purposes of class warfare. The end goal is not a victor. They only want the war for their ends be they monetary or ideology.
If they cared about the end result, they would be fighting against the forces that actually enslave rather than the convenient targets of familiarity.
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/14/2012 @ 8:49 pmMust be more than three years ago, about, when I told my daughter that Obama was not “the first African-American President”, he was the American President.
nk (dec503) — 3/14/2012 @ 8:52 pmIf they cared about the end result, they would be fighting against the forces that actually enslave rather than the convenient targets of familiarity.
Amen. Well said.
JD (318f81) — 3/14/2012 @ 8:54 pmSee, Patterico, see? Ag80 did it, too. Duplicate comment.
Ag80, did you let my brother work on your computer? The root thingamajig or something?
nk (dec503) — 3/14/2012 @ 8:55 pmDang, I said thingamajig, in a discussion about black race relations. My only option is to commit hara kiri. Dang, I said hara kiri. Ok, I’m taking the next rocket out of Earth.
nk (dec503) — 3/14/2012 @ 8:58 pm“I think it’s important that Bell was talking specifically about education in that article. Not acknowledging that makes him seem further from the mainstream.”
time123 – Given that the article was related to Bell’s appearance at Stanford to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision, it makes sense that its focus is on education. Ignoring the body of the rest of Bell’s work, however, risks seriously depriving readers of his views of how the law was structured to serve the interests of the majority in power according to his theories.
In addition, Tommy Xtopher and you are repeadtedly ignoring two almost verbatim quotes from the first paragraph of the article in your responses to Patterico, not to point out any slipperiness or anything.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/14/2012 @ 9:00 pmI have no idea why it double posted. It just did. I blame it on goblins or something. Not that there is anything wrong with goblins.
Usually, when you double-post the magic fairies of the internet tell you so.
JD: Thanks.
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/14/2012 @ 9:04 pmAg80 – Might could be that bloviator thinger getting to your keyboard. Works in mysterious ways. Only cure is to keep commenting and push through it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/14/2012 @ 9:07 pmI tried to turn off the bloviator, but the wichit conflicts with the thingamabobby, so there you go.
I’m thinking about upgrading to the doowhicky.2.
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/14/2012 @ 9:12 pmHere’s the Claremont Institute, Summer 2004, Edward J. Erler on Brown v. Board of Education:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1059/article_detail.asp
(Basically, the decision was right, the reasoning was wrong, and then ignored, they should have referenced Justice Harlan’s dissent. Outlawing any kind of legal distinctions between citizens is original intent, arguments to the contrary are faulty, and even Bork is wrong when he says experience shows separate but equal just doesn’t work out in practice, but it wasn’t obvious in 1868, and since only equal is in the constitution, separate had to go. Justice Thomas has it right when he says in his concurring opinion in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that “social science research…certainly cannot form the basis upon which we decide matters of constitutional principle.” )
The Brown decision, according to Justice Thomas, “did not need to rely upon any psychological or social science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the government cannot discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race.” In fact, reliance on “the theory that black students suffer an unspecified psychological harm from segregation that retards their mental and educational development…not only relies upon questionable social science research rather than constitutional principle, but it also rests on an assumption of black inferiority.”
Sammy Finkelman (9c8ec1) — 3/14/2012 @ 9:32 pmthings what are separate but equal are include hostess twinkies, uggy uggy ugg boots, AA batteries, boobies, and the Clintons
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/14/2012 @ 9:34 pm