Final Discussion Blog

For our final meeting as a class, we had a round-table discussion about the subjects we learned about. I was surprised by the length of the discussion; I had assumed it'd be only a little over an hour, but we talked for about two and a half hours.

Our first topic of discussion was about what this era in the present day(in the context of Civil rights) should be called. I ended up changing what I thought it would be called the morning of the discussion, but I settled concretely on the "Public vs. Private" era.

In the private sector, there has been leaps and bounds in civil rights-related activity and support. Companies are actively supporting civil rights activism and speaking out against injustices. While I'm sure this has happened in the past, I can even recall a time in my life when this was less common. Hopefully, this support is genuine and not a veneer.

However, in the public sector, things feel stagnant: even concerning. There's a case in the Supreme Court right now that could allow discrimination against LGBTQ individuals in businesses as long as the business owner claims that their work is a form of art.

It was an interesting discussion, and I'm glad I took this class. While sometimes it did just feel like a refresher, looking at the events that I had learned about before in a more specific context of their effects on individual freedoms in America made it much more engaging and enjoyable.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

For our last movie in class, we watched Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. The film was released in 1967 and was directed and produced by Stanley Kramer, who was
known for creating movies that reflected his views on moral problems in society.

Like Kramer's other movies, the message was extremely straightforward. It's so forward that it could be called blunt, but I don't mean that in a negative way. It's just a product of the film's plot, and it wouldn't be possible to deliver it in any other way.

The film revolves around Joanna and Dr. John Prentice (played by Sidney Poitier!), a young white woman and a renowned black doctor who works for the World Health Organization. Joanna and Dr. Prentice fall in love after he gives a seminar in Hawaii, and Joanna makes Dr. Prentice meet her parents just ten days after they meet.

Joanna also tells her parents of their plans to marry. What's important is that Joanna's father is championed as a journalist with unwavering support for the rights of African Americans and other minorities. However, he and his wife are initially stunned by the fact that their daughter wants to marry a black man.

The movie shows that Joanna's father is not the "enlightened liberal" that his public appearance presents. While some of his concern is for the couple's safety, a scene where he angrily complains about not being able to travel a block without seeing a black man shows that there really is racism within him.

Dr. Prentice's father is also against marriage, but his reasoning is harder to make out. This is probably due to him having less screen time and Kramer wanting to focus on the idea of a false outward appearance presented by American liberals at the time.

In the end, Joanna's father approves of the marriage and convinces Dr. Prentice's father (presumably) through a speech. It was a pretty enjoyable watch, but the plot was not very exciting. I'd call it a "feel-good" movie, it feels good to see Dr. Prentice and Joanna win.

Trial: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

For our class' fourth EOTO, the case chosen to be presented was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). The case had deep implications for the affirmative action system as it is today, as well as the legality of reparations, fair housing acts, and so on.

Allan Bakke was a thirty-five-year-old white male who applied to the University of California Medical School at Davis two times: he was rejected twice. In his first application, it was simply a case of his MCAT scores not being high enough. However, Bakke retook the MCAT and achieved an exemplary score; Bakke reapplied with this score while meeting all other requirements for admission.

Bakke was denied admission once more. At the time, the university had an affirmative action system where sixteen out of one hundred spots in each entering class were reserved for applicants who wished to be considered as "economically and/or educationally disadvantaged" applicants and were minorities. These applicants were considered for admission separately from other applicants.

Bakke sued the university under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming that he was excluded from a federally funded program because of his race. In both years where Bakke applied, there were applicants under the affirmative action program who scored lower than him. The case would make its way to the Supreme Court (For a more complete summarization of the case, view this source for my argument).

A march during the case.

In my oral argument, I spoke in the context of a legal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The basis of my argument was that since there were merely reserved spots for minorities, not a "bonus" to their applications, there was no preferential treatment of minority applicants nor maltreatment of Bakke. 

I also cited the Supreme Court of California's ruling, which stated that the University's intention of combatting minority underrepresentation in the medical community was "sufficiently important to justify petitioner's remedial use of race."

However, this argument would not hold up in the Supreme Court. There were four separate rulings in the case, and the first and fourth ruled for Bakke. The first ruled that Bakke had a right to sue under Title XI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the fourth ruled that the university's system of affirmative action was in violation of the equal protection clause, so Bakke would be admitted.

The reason for the fourth ruling was that the university used a set number of reserved spots to be reserved for minorities. Since it was impossible for a non-minority student to qualify for these spots, it was illegal. However, the Supreme Court's second and third rulings were the most important for the case.

They ruled that using race as a factor for admissions was allowed under the Equal Protection Clause and that the university could continue to do so. However, there could not be a separate admissions pool for minority applicants, everyone had to compete for the same spots: no reservations. Most importantly, the ruling established that race could be counted as a positive factor in order to make up for underrepresented minorities.

This is the system that universities use today as their affirmative action programs, or at least something close to this. Affirmative action does not guarantee spots for minorities in universities but allows the fact that they are a minority to be considered and rewarded.

EOTO 4 Reactions

For our fourth EOTO, the events that the non-trial groups presented were in the post-Civil Rights Acts era. Despite the massive accomplishment of getting the Civil Rights Acts passed, the climate around civil rights was still as turbulent as ever. Progress was being made, but it was evident that much work still had to be done to achieve true equality in America.

An aerial view of the Watts Riots

The decade from 1960 to 1970 was one of the most turbulent decades in the twentieth century. John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, Malcolm X in 1965, and both Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. Violence was commonplace. A case where tensions boiled over and violence broke out en masse were the Watts Riots of 1965.

Marquette Frye, an African-American, was pulled over and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles. His mother showed up at the scene (she lived only a few blocks away), and scolded him. It is unclear how, but a fight broke out between the police and Marquette and his mother, which was witnessed by a crowd. 

After rumors circulated within the community that the police had kicked a pregnant woman (it was likely Marquette's mother that was misinterpreted as such), riots broke out for five days. Ultimately, 34 people were killed, and over 40 million dollars worth of property damage occurred.

However, there were also plenty of positive events in the decade, particularly with enfranchisement. While technically enfranchised, African Americans faced many obstacles in the way of voting. The 24th Amendment, passed in 1964, outlawed the poll tax, which states used to lock out poor African Americans from voting. On top of that, voting literacy tests were outlawed under the Civil Rights Act of 1965. The literacy tests were extremely confusing on purpose and were practically unpassable by anyone, regardless of their level of education (Try a test here).

A section of a voting literacy test

The sixties were some of the most divisive yet uplifting years in America's history. So much progress was made in a decade that was marred with violence, assassinations, and extreme prejudice. It is unlikely that America will ever see a decade like this again.

Whatever Happened to Hazel Scott? Blog

Hazel Scott

In class, we watched Whatever Happened to Hazel Scott. Whatever Happened to Hazel Scott is a short documentary about the career and life of Hazel Scott, who was an extremely successful African American pianist, singer, and actor. However, as the documentary says, she has largely been forgotten.

Born in 1920, she learned piano from her mother, who was a classical pianist. She was said to be a prodigy at the age of three, and she moved from Trinidad to Harlem when she was four. She was also regarded as a prodigy in New York, being admitted to one of the top music schools in the country at eight years old.

Hazel's career got off to a quick start. She was already a popular performer at multiple clubs before finishing high school. It was Hazel's signature style of music that shot her into the spotlight, which was essentially remastering classical pieces into swing music. She was able to buy her own home and was extremely wealthy thanks to her talent.

Hazel was also known for staunch beliefs in civil rights. She would refuse to play in front of a segregated crowd, which normally would have limited her job options. However, with Hazel being so sought-after by crowds, work was never hard to find. When Hazel made her way into Hollywood, she refused to play any kind of subservient role. She wouldn't play a mammy, prostitute, or maid. Hazel Scott would play Hazel Scott, and Hazel Scott only.

However, Hollywood moguls soon grew tired of acquiescing to Hazel, especially after she refused to play in a scene where African American women wore dirty aprons when seeing their husbands off to war. She soon disappeared from Hollywood after that strike, but she was still very successful outside in the music and performing industry. She even hosted and starred in her own television show.

However, she was questioned by Congress during the Red Scare as a suspected communist: a serious blight on any entertainers career. This was enough for Scott to give up on living in America, and she moved to Paris where she had immediate success. By the time she moved back in 1967, swing jazz was no longer the rage, so she enjoyed time with her family and played gigs when she could. She died in 1981.

Klansville, U.S.A. Blog Post

In class, we watched the documentary Klansville, U.S.A., which told the story of the rise and fall of the third Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina. It was an interesting watch; learning about the faces behind one of, if not the most recognizable symbol of racism in America was fascinating.

While not relevant to the third Ku Klux Klan, I was intrigued when the film said that the first Klan did things like pulling pranks on African Americans when it was first founded. Apparently, they were more of just a nuisance; they would dress up pretending to be the ghosts of fallen Confederate soldiers. It quickly turned into a violent and dangerous group, but I was surprised that it wasn't founded to be that way.

By the time the third Klan reappeared in the form of multiple various separate groups, violence was proverbial to the overwhelming majority. Except for Bob Jones, who wanted to run a "civilized" (if you can call it that) Klan in the state of North Carolina. Bob Jones was a poor, rural white man who was deeply troubled by the progress that was being made by African Americans. So, he started a Klan in North Carolina, which was the focus of the documentary.

I knew the Klan made frequent public appearances for the sake of intimidation, protests, and marches, but I didn't know they ran what could be best described as fairs. At Klan "community gatherings", they had music, games and raffles that were major sites of attraction in sleepy rural towns. Jones wanted an appearance of a fraternal organization that could operate without fear of government interference, and it worked for a while.

Grand Dragon Bob Jones

Obviously, a group based on hate could not last like this forever. As Klans in other states grew increasingly violent, and calls for more direct action arose in groups of Jones' Klan, things quickly collapsed. Highly publicized murders and lynchings fully awoke the federal government, which began to finally crack down on Klan activity. Jones and other Klan leaders were embarrassed when they refused to show what they had used money raised by Klan members for.

Bob Jones receded back to who was before the Klan, a man without respect or reputation. The Klan was now a symbol of embarrassment. Again. As it functions today, it's practically a joke used to make fun of uneducated Southerners. It's a physical example of Bob Jones' legacy.