Discussion Questions

1. How is the fight for civil rights for disabled persons similar to the fight for civil rights for African Americans? In what ways are they different?

2. One of Thurgood Marshall’s biggest concerns when arguing the Brown case was that the Court would rule that the treatment of African Americans in Topeka was unconstitutional but that not all segregation based on race was unconstitutional. Why was this possible outcome so concerning to Marshall? How might such a decision have significantly complicated future efforts for civil rights?

3. Why was the decision for the NAACP to fight for civil rights in the courts such a controversial decision? Why was it problematic to fight in the courts rather than in the legislatures? What were some of the weaknesses of having to rely on the courts to change the nation’s public policy? What were some of the strengths?

4. Describe the legal reasoning behind the decision in Plessy. The Court is attempting to limit its own power in terms of civil rights, but how and why? How does this approach shift in Brown?

5. Why did the NAACP focus its early legal efforts on desegregating law schools? What did they hope to gain with such a strategy?

6. What was the sociological argument put forward by the NAACP and why was it important? Imagine you were working for the NAACP and trying to prove this argument, what kind of evidence would you look for? Why was this argument central to Marshall’s strategy?

7. The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown suggests both the strengths of the Supreme Court as an institution as well as its weaknesses. In what ways is the Court a strong institution? In what ways is it a weak institution?

8. One of the key tactics of the Civil Rights Movement was the widespread use of civil disobedience. What is meant by civil disobedience? When can it be effective? When can it backfire?

9. What is meant by de jure and de facto discrimination? How are they similar? How are they different? Which one is harder to fight and why?

10. What is affirmative action and why is it a legally complex topic? Why has the Court been more cautious in its rulings on affirmative action than on segregation?

11. What arguments have colleges and universities made to protect affirmative action policies in admissions? Do you find the argument that diversity is a compelling state interest a persuasive one? Why or why not?

12. In the text, Thurgood Marshall is quoted at length about the limits on the success of the civil rights movement. How convincing do you find his argument? Given that his speech was written more than 35 years ago, does it have any contemporary relevance? In what ways did the civil rights movement succeed? In what areas is there still a need for progress?

13. In the text, Frances Harper controversially accuses white women of being selfish in regards to civil rights. Was that statement likely accurate at the time it was written in the mid-1860s? Since the women’s rights movement and the abolition movement both had similar goals, why were these groups not better integrated?

14. Why were the 15th Amendment and the 19th Amendment adopted so far apart (50 years)? What factors prevented these two major expansions of voting rights from combining their causes?

15. Based on the 14th Amendment and the intermediate standard, is it constitutional for the government to draft men but not women? In other words, does the state have a convincing argument for treating men and women differently in terms of military service?

16. What were Black Codes? Jim Crow laws? How were they similar? What are the key differences between the two?

17. Why was the implementation of the Brown decision so difficult? What does it say about the power of the court that the decision could not be implemented quickly?

18. In what ways can the fight for civil rights be seen as a continuation of the conflict between state power and federal power? Why did civil rights advocates in the 1960s generally focus their efforts on the national government? Why did civil rights opponents in the 1960s generally focus their efforts on the state governments? Are there any modern efforts on civil rights where this pattern has been reversed?