The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
On the 125th Anniversary of Plessy v. Ferguson, NY Times Publishes Op-Ed on Justice Harlan
"He did more than anyone since the Continental Army to enshrine dissent as an American tradition and a badge of honor, and showed that history would look positively on those who voice truth in the face of even a seemingly monolithic consensus — something today’s leaders can take to heart."
Peter Canellos has published a new book, titled The Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America's Judicial Hero. I spoke with Peter earlier this year about his project, and was very impressed. Today, on the 125th anniversary of Plessy, Peter wrote an op-ed in the Times about Harlan. Here are a few snippets:
When Harlan died in 1911, Black congregations around the country organized spontaneous memorial services without expecting that a single white person would attend. Three of these all-Black services were in Washington, D.C., culminating in a huge multifaith gathering at the cavernous Metropolitan A.M.E. Church at which Harlan's Plessy dissent was read aloud.
All of this was invisible to the white community. But a few decades later, Thurgood Marshall and his team at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund began scouring the country for plaintiffs willing to challenge segregation laws, knowing that the Ku Klux Klan was on high alert. Harlan's dissent provided the sole beacon of hope that the courage of the Black defendants might someday be rewarded.
"Marshall's legal staff would gather around him at a table in the office to discuss possible new legal theories for attacking segregation," recalled Constance Baker Motley, one of Marshall's top lieutenants. "Marshall would read aloud passages from Harlan's amazing dissent. I do not believe we ever filed a brief in the pre-Brown days in which a portion of that opinion was not quoted." . . .
When Thurgood Marshall died in 1993, Judge Motley wrote movingly of how Marshall himself, as a Supreme Court justice from 1967 to 1991, often was in the minority: "I believe I know what sustained Marshall spiritually during all of those heartbreaking years when the Warren Court decisions were being denuded. Marshall had a 'bible' to which I believe he must have turned during his most depressed episodes. The 'bible' would be known in the legal profession as the first Mr. Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson. … Marshall admired the courage of Harlan more than [that of] any justice who has ever sat on the Supreme Court. Even Chief Justice Warren's forthright and moving decision for the Court in Brown I did not affect Marshall in the same way. Earl Warren was writing for a unanimous Supreme Court. Harlan was a solitary and lonely figure writing for posterity."
I have long admired Justice Harlan's fortitude. He was willing to fight back against popular sentiments, and withstand any backlash from those in his own camp. Fortitude is among the most important attribute a jurist can have.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
While speculation on anyone's part is speculation, it is easy to speculate that were Plessy being decided today the conservatives on the Court would uphold it, and if not, one strongly feels that they would not have voted against school segregation were they on the Court when Brown was being decided.
This is not to say the current conservative justices are biased, bigoted or racist, just that they would have not found segregation unconstitutional even though they might have deplored its presence. If conservative Justices can vote to allow Texas to criminalize homosexual activity and imprison those engaging in it, it is not a stretch to imagine they would find separate but equal constitutional.
Not everything bad is unconstitutional. But maybe it should be and can be, if we adopt living constitutionalism and a system of government wholly by judiciary.
Segregation was both bad and unconstitutional.
I said yesterday that they would find any de jure racial segregation scheme unconstitutional. Any government policy that makes any explicit distinction based on race would be unconstitutional. Brown I would have come out the same way with this Court (although likely with different language). BUT, Brown II (and every subsequent desegregation case) would come out differently. They would not order the remedy of integration, because that requires the Court to take race into account in terms of who goes where. They would leave everything as is and it would only be illegal for schools to deny admission based on race. But, if school districts and schools remain largely segregated simply due to geography (and gerrymandered school districts) that is what it is. I'm not even sure Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, when the county closed all public schools and gave everyone vouchers for private education (which was not practically available to black residents) would have come out the same way, so long as there was no de jure racial discrimination in the statute books.
"gave everyone vouchers for private education (which was not practically available to black residents)"
What I never understood is why some Black church didn't see this as an opportunity to establish something on the model of DC's Dunbar High School -- a segregated but high quality school that provided a *better* education than the White kids were getting.
They had the revenue stream -- the vouchers, presumably in the same amount as what the White kid's vouchers were -- and by 1964 there were qualified people (of all races) interested in the education of Black children. Like Dunbar High, even if all Black, they could have attracted teachers with far better credentials than Bubba....
I look at where we are with the education of Black children (particularly males) nearly 60 years later, and ask exactly what has been gained, and at what price...
I, too, wonder why black people never built themselves better schools, or why poor people don't get better jobs, or why hungry people don't get more food, or why sick people don't get medicine. I mean, surely there are enough people willing to teach, there are lots of jobs available, we waste tons of food every day, and have the best medicine in the world. Why isn't it as simple as just getting those things they need?
Did you miss the part where I mentioned that they had the revenue stream?!?
Like with Dunbar High (funded by Congress) the vouchers were a way to pay for this -- all the cases you mention involve a lack of money to pay for it, but here they had the money...
And it isn't just Dunbar High -- a lot (all?) of the HBCUs were established because, for some reason or another, they had the money to do it. The second Morrill Act helped, even if the states didn't fully fund their share of these new "A&M" colleges, as did some religious organizations -- although I may be confusing those who practiced nondiscrimination (i.e. opening their own institutions to Black students) and founding an explicitly HBCU.
I'm not saying any of this was easy -- nor that there wasn't a bleepload of implicit (and explicit) discrimination. But having the money is way more than half the battle...
Sorry -- Historically Black College or University -- HBCU, usually used in the plural sense of HBCUs.
Here's a list of the Land Grant ones: https://www.aplu.org/members/councils/1890-universities/council-of-1890s-institutions.html
The AME church has five affiliated with it, and there are more.
Some have merged and some have closed, while others (e.g. Univ of DC) have real problems with retention and graduation rates. Like the Negro Baseball League, they were hurt by integration, but during segregation were putting out graduates on par with the best of anyone else. (Remember the Tuskegee Airmen?)
During segregation, there were all-Black law schools -- Thurgood Marshall graduated from the Howard University School of Law in 1933.
My point being that when they had the money, people of good will (not all Black, but mostly so) *did* establish educational institutions.
Your whole argument revolves around the assumption they had the money to do everything they needed to do, and that assumption has no support. I disagree with everything in this statement: "They had the revenue stream — the vouchers, presumably in the same amount as what the White kid’s vouchers were — and by 1964 there were qualified people (of all races) interested in the education of Black children."
1. I don't think they had the revenue stream you think they had.
2. I don't think they received the same voucher benefits that white people did at the time, and I don't know how you can "presume" that in good faith with a straight-face and any historical knowledge.
3. Even if they technically received the same voucher, it likely wasn't sufficient to meet all their needs. If the voucher gives .25 cents for every dollar needed, you can't say they had all the revenue they needed. You give everyone the same token amount, but the white community has no problem supplementing the extra .75 cents needed while the black community can't. Then you say "gee, everyone got the same amount, I don't see the problem here."
4. I don't think the number of qualified people (of all races) was sufficient enough to service the population in need of them.
Then you're holding up the best examples you can find and wondering why everyone can't just do what they did. Why can't all black high schools be Dunbar? Why can't all colleges be Harvard? Having the money is a big part of it; prove to me they had the money though, because I disagree with your entire foundational premise.
They wouldn't have met _Plessy_ standards with different voucher amounts, and the communities couldn't have subsidized anyone.
And, surprise, there were poor White parents...
"allow Texas to criminalize homosexual activity and imprison those engaging in it, it is not a stretch to imagine they would find separate but equal constitutional."
....homosexual activity....
The better analogy would be "drug activity" -- they are allowing the state to regulate behavior, which is a far cry from racial discrimination.
Is travelling in a train not an activity? Shopping? Dining? Watching a movie? Using a bathroom? Attending school?
As distinct from what others are doing?
Sodomy is a specific activity -- as is watching a pornographic movie, and there were (at one point) Vice Raids on places showing them.
Traveling on a freight train is a specific activity separate from the activity of being a fare-paying passenger on a passenger train. Likewise, shopping for drugs is an activity distinctly different from shopping in general.
His point is that simply because something is a specific activity doesn't make it something the government can just ban, even under its traditional police powers. Like the state can't ban earing dinner.
"they are allowing the state to regulate behavior, which is a far cry from racial discrimination."
"Regulating behavior" is how racial (and all other) discrimination is enforced. The law didn't say "it's illegal to be black," it said "it's illegal to be black and ride in the white train car." The law didn't say "it's illegal to be homosexual," it said "it's illegal to be homosexual and have sexual intercourse" or "it's illegal to be homosexual and get married."
False go read Gorsuch's book he specifically talks about it.
"were Plessy being decided today the conservatives on the Court would uphold it"
Justice Thomas certainly would, right?
Anti black opinions affected the vast, vast majority of US whites in the 19th century, but of course you would have been different.
If anyone wants to observe "Anti black opinions [that} affected the vast, vast majority of US whites in the 19th century, just head to today's backwater Ohio. Any spot at least 30 miles from Cincinnati, Cleveland, or Columbus should suffice.
This is a silly comment. The politics of 2021 judicial conservatives are totally different than the politics of, say, Herbert Wechsler or even Robert Bork or William Rehnquist.
And even individuals change. Rehnquist surely disliked Miranda back when it was decided, but he wrote the opinion reaffirming it in Dickerson.
Sometimes people are so offended by a social change that they continue to fight it. Roe v. Wade has never really entrenched itself for that reason. But plenty of times, movements and people move on. In 2021, there aren't a lot of right wing legal minds out there who think "gee, the days of racial segregation were really wonderful".
Racial segregation wasn't always opposed by Blacks, either -- they had their own community, their own (often Black) judges, at least on the municipal court level, and their own professionals. NYC's Harlem and Boston's Roxbury were examples of thriving segregated neighborhoods.
Roxbury had a very popular Black dentist because he'd learned how to use ether (recently introduced at Mass General) and none of the White dentists yet knew how -- and he got top dollar from the White Bostonians who went to see him.
What's also not mentioned is that Blacks tended to be Protestant while the immigrants (e.g. Irish) tended to be Catholic, and there was a great deal of hostility between these two faiths all through the 19th & 20th Centuries. They used to fight over which version of the Bible was read in the schools.
*IF* the "equal" had truly existed, and I doubt that it ever would have, I do wonder how things would have turned out.
So, not segregated.
" . . . He was willing to fight back against popular sentiments . . . "
Of course, they didn't have facebook and twitter to fix that.
They had visitors at night with torches and whips.
And as Condi Rice once said, her daddy had a shotgun.
Self help is the sole effective remedy given the condition of the lawyer profession.