The ruling in Brown is essentially that “separate but equal” public services and facilities are impossible in practice. I’m other words, his “point” has been very specifically considered by a past Supreme Court, and explicitly rejected. Educate yourself on history before defending that asshole.
I’m not defending “separate but equal” and I think you’re wrong if you think he is. He’s saying it’s a harm if Black people are prevented from attending Harvard by law. Same goes for any of society’s resources. It’s a matter of locked doors.
What he’s arguing against is the theory that Black children need help from their non-Black peers to succeed in school. He’s correct when he states that this theory is founded in an ideology of racial inferiority. His experience growing up in a family of grinding poverty and rising to the highest court in the country is proof against that. It’s easy to see why he would be deeply offended by any theory which invalidates his accomplishments.
I’m not defending him as a person though. He has some serious issues with conflicts of interest that are deeply undermining the judicial independence of SCOTUS. But the idea that he somehow lucked out and got a free ride through life is preposterous and demonstrably false.
He’s incorrect because it’s not founded in racial inferiority, it’s grounded in unequal access to resources and opportunities.
By denying racist policies being in place to create and maintain inequality he helps ensuring the kids can’t escape racism.
These people are arguing it’s racist to acknowledge reality, centering the logic around denying that their racist policies have any racist outcomes, and accusing the kids of being at fault for circumstances outside their control.
These same people would never agree that nepotism driven preferential access for rich white kids is a sign of “racism of low expectations”, but when the kids are poor they will scream that same argument at the top of their lungs.
The ruling in Brown is essentially that “separate but equal” public services and facilities are impossible in practice. I’m other words, his “point” has been very specifically considered by a past Supreme Court, and explicitly rejected. Educate yourself on history before defending that asshole.
I’m not defending “separate but equal” and I think you’re wrong if you think he is. He’s saying it’s a harm if Black people are prevented from attending Harvard by law. Same goes for any of society’s resources. It’s a matter of locked doors.
What he’s arguing against is the theory that Black children need help from their non-Black peers to succeed in school. He’s correct when he states that this theory is founded in an ideology of racial inferiority. His experience growing up in a family of grinding poverty and rising to the highest court in the country is proof against that. It’s easy to see why he would be deeply offended by any theory which invalidates his accomplishments.
I’m not defending him as a person though. He has some serious issues with conflicts of interest that are deeply undermining the judicial independence of SCOTUS. But the idea that he somehow lucked out and got a free ride through life is preposterous and demonstrably false.
He’s incorrect because it’s not founded in racial inferiority, it’s grounded in unequal access to resources and opportunities.
By denying racist policies being in place to create and maintain inequality he helps ensuring the kids can’t escape racism.
These people are arguing it’s racist to acknowledge reality, centering the logic around denying that their racist policies have any racist outcomes, and accusing the kids of being at fault for circumstances outside their control.
These same people would never agree that nepotism driven preferential access for rich white kids is a sign of “racism of low expectations”, but when the kids are poor they will scream that same argument at the top of their lungs.