To what extent do you think litigating to effect social change – as happened with Brown – is a good idea, better than pursuing social change through other means, such as legislation? Put another way, do you agree with Gerald Rosenberg's claim (on page xxii in Patterson) that Brown "encouraged advocates of racial justice to depend too heavily on the courts and may if anything have delayed the spread of more effective direct action against racial discrimination"? Litigating to effect social change was not the best idea for pursuing social change. This is in part due to the inability of the Supreme Court to oversee its changes, and also the weakness of the language. It took an entire decade before notable effects of Brown were noticed. "The legacy of Brown in Topeka also remained unsettling. In 1994 a federal district court finally approved a new city plan to desegregate the schools." (Patterson 207). After the decade in which schools integrated at their "deliberate speed," changes did come. But for how
This is the end of the preview.
access the rest of the document.
Supreme Court of the United States, Brown v. Board of Education