We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions



 

Go Home, Ward Connerly: Plessy Rules!
by La Shawn Barber
15 August 2003Ward Connerly

Representative John Dingell won’t tolerate interference from outside troublemakers and “uppity” black folk like Ward Connerly.


Distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and insidious that a state bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not allow them in any public sphere.
--Thurgood Marshall, Brown v. Board of Education, 1954

An angry liberal responded to a recent column I wrote about the Supreme Court’s detestable decision to uphold the University of Michigan law school’s use of racial distinctions in admissions and my stand against it, Counterfeit Equality. He suggested that I study the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment because of my obvious ignorance of the fact that Congress never intended to outlaw the use of race under all circumstances (although I neither wrote nor implied that it did).

Contrary to any ignorance of the amendment’s history, I’ve studied enough of its judicial review to know that the 1896 Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson--the same court that fashioned the “separate but equal” doctrine--has much in common with the Supreme Court today when it comes to the principle of equal justice before the law.

In 1892, Homer Plessy (who was black, according to the “one drop” rule) was convicted of violating the Separate Car Act in Louisiana for sitting in the “White” car. He argued that the Act violated the Thirteenth Amendment and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. In the 7-2 majority opinion upholding Plessy’s conviction, Justice Henry Brown contended that the Fourteenth Amendment could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on skin color because, “Laws permitting, and even requiring, their [blacks and whites] separation, in places where they are liable to be brought into contact, do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other…”

Justice Brown insinuated that Plessy’s assumption that the separation of the races “stamped a badge of inferiority” on the black race was, essentially, in Plessy’s own mind. By pointing out the obvious in the dissenting opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan asserted that the “real meaning” behind the Act was that blacks were inferior to whites and could not be allowed to sit in the same public space. Likewise, the real meaning behind separate admissions standards based on racial distinctions is that whites believe blacks are inferior and will remain so for at least 25 years, according to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

The government-sanctioned doctrine of Jim Crow has made a fierce comeback and is now so embedded that liberals like U.S. Representative John Dingell can regress to the style of a southern racist, circa 1963, demanding to a civil rights soldier, on taxpayers’ stationery, that he “go home and stay there.” Dingell lashed out at Ward Connerly--who successfully led campaigns in California and Washington State to outlaw race preferences in public education and hiring--for organizing a similar campaign in Michigan. Reminiscent of Alabama Governor George “Segregation Forever!” Wallace, Dingell apparently wants to keep his “good” black folk in their place and won’t tolerate interference from outside troublemakers and “uppity” ones like Connerly (I wish I was in Dixie!).

While waiting for the Congressional Black Caucus to admonish Dingell for his racially offensive harangue, I can only imagine their reaction had Jesse Helms wrote those same words to Jesse Jackson. One hundred 24-hour news cycles wouldn’t be enough to cover all the sound bites from the usual publicity-seeking race-baiters.

The same double standard that allows Dingell to remain above reproach thrives under race preferences. Those discriminated against by the policies and those who feel entitled to benefit are divided and classified by race for purposes of public (read: taxpayer-supported) university admissions, a clear violation of the Constitution. Government-sanctioned racial distinctions are abhorrent, and no compelling governmental interest will ever exist in classifying its citizens based on the color of their skin.

The arguments for separate but equal are as duplicitous in 2003 as they were in 1896. The goal for a colorblind society remains unattainable, thanks to five robed legislators masquerading as Supreme Court justices (also a violation of the Constitution). Despite having been overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson is still the law of the land. How repugnant.

Pardon my ignorance.

A freelance writer and former liberal, La Shawn's work has appeared in the Washington Post, Washington Times, and Philadelphia Inquirer, among others.

Email La Shawn Barber

Send this Article to a Friend