It's ironic that people vaunting to become your next president have no clear understanding of the history of one of the most well-known Supreme Court cases in American history--Brown v. Board of Education. Here's a little background:
In Topeka, Kansas, a black third-grader named Linda Brown had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary school was only seven blocks away. Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school, but the principal of the school refused. Brown went to McKinley Burnett, [of the NAACP] and asked for help. The NAACP was eager to assist the Browns, as it had long wanted to challenge segregation in public schools. ... Other black parents joined Brown, and, in 1951, the NAACP requested an injunction that would forbid the segregation of Topeka's public schools.At issue in Brown was the unconstitutionality of government controlling where people went to school based on race. At particular issue was that,
- without regard for race, families should be allowed to send their children to schools that were convenient to their neighborhoods.
- school boards could not provide better school facilities for one particular race over others.
A 5-4 Supreme Court decision (including one black justice) upheld the essence of Brown on Thursday, by specifying that neither could government compel attendance at particular schools in an effort to foster integration.
"Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin," said Roberts, joined by Alito and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He said the districts in this case were also trying to justify "differential treatment on the basis of race."
A correct decision. Pretty simple. But not, somehow for four Supreme Court justices and not for several candidates for President of the United States.
Unfortunately, black voters have overwhelmingly positive opinions of the two presidential candidates who are trying the hardest to destroy black upward mobility in America--Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. During a Thursday night debate at Howard University, it was Hillary who outdid Obama in her incitement of a predominantly black audience to hatred of non-blacks and to blaming non-blacks for the problems they faced.
"If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country," Clinton said to the biggest applause line of the night, bringing the audience to its feet.
It seemed to work, as propaganda replaced reasoned logic in "inspiring" the debate crowd at Howard University.
All the candidates decried the Supreme Court ruling earlier in the day that rejected school diversity plans in Seattle and Louisville, Ky., saying it turned back the promise of integrated schools that the court laid out 53 years ago in its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
Brown did not, nor could it ever, promise integrated schools. What it did promise, and under the Constitution could promise, was that government would not use compulsion on the basis of race to assign children to school attendance.
But people like Hillary and Obama, who decry the Court's decision, subscribe readily (and contribute) to the race-baiting tactics of the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. For them it's really all about power and control.
So for some liberals, Brown wasn't about freedom of choice. It was a confirmation of their deepest inner secret--that they don't care about the children, but rather that they will use any wedge they can find to destroy relations between the various races in America. All as a means to gain greater government control.