Board of Regents v. Backy Trial Reaction

In the early 1970s Davis Medical School, chartered by the University of California, attempted to increase the diversity of its student body by reserving space for minorities. This initiative lead to the reservation of ten out of one hundred seats for African American students. While such a policy was intended to provide opportunities for historically underrepresented and marginalized groups, many Americans perceived the medical schools admission's strategy as reverse discrimination. In support of their claims, critics argued that the establishment of a racial quota was impartial and juxtaposed merit based admittance. 

Supporters of the universities action rebutted that quotas were a necessary atonement for past sins and were needed to effectively bring the African American community up to speed. Other proponents would argue that research had demonstrated an improved educational experience for all groups; different groups provide different perspectives and come from different backgrounds, leading to intellectual refinement.

In 1978, these viewpoints would come into conflict in the halls of the supreme court with Bakke v. Reagents of the University of California. Alan Bakke was a prospective student at the Davis school of Medicine that was rejected in 1973 and again in 1974. On the basis that his 3.46 grade point average exceeded standards of application, Bakke believed his rejection was due to the racial quota and sued the school. 

The court heard a myriad of arguments on the day of the convention which shed light onto the multifaceted complexity of the issue. The historical argument in favor of the university pointed out that the universities' policies were not about punishing a certain group, but uplifting a suppressed group. It was said that the scars of racism did not vanish with desegregation and that a difference in opportunity persisted. Consequently, it was reasoned that the university had an obligation to take active steps to dismantle any and all race-based disadvantages. 

From a different perspective, it was argued that diversity serves the interests of the community. The defending legal team referenced the Fair Housing Act of 1968 which banned discriminatory housing practices. Through this litigation, it was extrapolated that there was a nation wide movement toward equality and inclusion. Therefore, the university was carrying out its due diligence for the black community. 

To pivot, the defense also incorporated several economic rationalities into its argument. It was claimed that diversity stimulated the quality and was essential to workplace success. By this logic, the defense boldly declared that the removal of a racial quota would be a setback to the American interest. 

In refutation of the previous claims, the plaintiff asserted that discrimination in any form is wrong and that admission should be based on academic ability, not race. Although it was acknowledged that racial quotas provided opportunities for marginalized groups, there was a declaration that these practices undermined their purpose by infringing the rights of an equally important group. Using this logic, Bakke's legal team reasoned that race-based admission policies were unconstitutional and infringed on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. 

From an economic standpoint, it was emphasized that outcomes should be based on merit and not race, especially in the medical field. By this rationale, allowing certain students to matriculate despite poor academic performance could threaten the integrity of professional industry; this dangerous precedent could cause the medical field to regress rather than progress. 

While the plaintiff did not point to any similar or precedent setting legal causes, it established that quota systems were a clear and blatant violation of the fourteenth amendment. It was also pointed out that equal competition and racial consideration could not coexist. 

After hearing the various arguments presented the court ruled that no state shall deny equal protections and therefore race could not influence admissions decisions. When delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Smith exclaimed that Bakke was not to be held responsible for past injuries and should be awarded admittance to the Davis Medical School.

EOTO Reaction (Jim Crow Era)

The Jim Crow era began with the Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896 and lasted for nearly a decade. Unfortunately, this time period was characterized by segregation through laws, disenfranchisement of African Americans, and violence against black citizens.

 One of the most infamous incidence of violence took place in 1898 and is considered the only known successful violent coup in American history. The Wilmington Massacre was carried out by white supremacists that loathed the political and financial successes of the African Americans that inhabited local areas. The attacks were exceedingly violent, leading to the deaths of 60-300 African Americans and injuring many more. 

Consequently, many Black Americans fled the city in fear of their lives and security, violently shifting the demographics of Wilmington for generations. In retrospect, the massacre reinforced white supremacy and reversed black progress throughout the south by inspiring similar acts of violence against the colored population. 

Further stoking the flames of white supremacy was the release of D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation on February 8th, 1915.  The film was widely controversial for its inaccurate representation of history; it focused on the narrative that black people were savages who preyed on their vulnerable white counterparts and asserted that the Klan was necessary to protect the interests of white folks. 

Inspired by the movie, several chapters of the Ku Klux Klan were resurrected, leading to the Second Emergence of the KKK. More violent and widespread than the initial Klan, the Second Klan targeted all minority groups, including the Jewish, Catholic, and other immigrants. One of the more violent methods of the Klan and other supremacist groups was lynching. These were public acts of violence that were used to terrorize and control the African American population. Between 1882 and 1968, over five thousand black people would suffer this awful fate. 

Of those that were lynched, Emmet Till's death was as influential as it was tragic. While visiting family in Mississippi, 14-year-old Till allegedly whistled at Roy Bryant's wife in a general store. Roy and his accomplice J.W. Milam would later drag Till from his Uncle's home and maim him. Mami Till's decision to have an open casket funeral and reveal the brutality enkindled outrage across the nation, kicking off the civil rights era. 

Fortunately, not all developments of this era were negative. Thurgood Marshal was an pioneering lawyer for the NAACP that helped activists win many influential cases, such as Brown V. the Board of Education. Marshal later went on to become first African American supreme court justice. In the high court, Marshal continued to advocate for the protection of marginalized groups and became a symbol for black excellence. 

Additionally, the foundation of the United Negro College Fund by Mary Bethune and Dr. Patterson represented Signiant progress within the black community. With a mission to reduce barriers within education fund advocated for federal education grants and supported many historical black colleges. In all the UNCF reflected broader visions to create equal access to educational opportunities

In closing, the Jim Crow Era was time of heightened racial tension and violence. While certain events directly harmed the black populations. others provided the building blocks for radical change during the Civil Rights Era.

EOTO (Montgomery Bus Boycott and Freedom Rides)

Among the crowd of employed citizens ending their work day, Rosa Parks headed towards the Cleveland Avenue bus stop with hopes of securing a seat for the journey back to her apartment. Upon reaching the station, Mrs. Parks was relieved to find that there were less patrons than normal, allowing her to find a seat at the front of the color only section of the bus. After a long day working as a seamstress at a local department store, she was grateful to have the opportunity to rest.

However, the bus would hardly complete half of its route before the bus driver demanded Parks give up her seat to a white passenger–at this time it was not uncommon for the bus driver to force those in the colored section to stand once the white only portion had filled with passengers. This was likely not Park’s first experience, but on this particular day–December 1st, 1955–she would refuse to comply with the driver’s orders. 

Since Montgomery ordinance allowed bus operators to take action against those who disobeyed their orders, Parks was arrested and incarcerated. As soon as Rosa Parks was able to make a phone call, she reached out to E.D. Nixon, a prominent black leader. Nixon bailed Parks out of jail, believing she would be an ideal plaintiff for a case against segregation due to impeccable character and deep resolve. Consequently, Rosa Parks sued the City of Montgomery under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. 

At the same time, the African American community was outraged by the injustice and blatant discrimination. In response, the Women's Political Council led by Jo Ann Robison disseminated protest literature while Nixon assembled the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) in order to organize a bus boycott. 

Led by a young Martin Luther King Junior, the MIA organized massive car pools and rider pick up locations in order to circumvent the Montgomery bus system. Through MLK’s connection with the church, the organization received money through church donations and used religious assemblies to spread its mission. 

Finding a cause to put their frustration behind, many African Americans eagerly participated in the boycott, hoping to reverse injustice. Despite the personal inconvenience, thousands of Africans took alternative routes, shared rides, and walked to their destination in protest. Since colored riders made up over seventy-five percent of the bus services business, the city was losing 30,000 to 40,000 shares a day. 

As the boycott waned on, Montgomery City Lines began to feel the financial implications of the boycott, causing the city to make attempts to end the boycott. Local police would harass carpoolers, often preventing them from arriving at their destination or levying petty fines. Nonetheless, the boycott continued until Park’s lawsuit reached the supreme court in 1956 where it was determined that segregationally laws in busing service were unconstitutional under the equal protections clause; such a ruling was heavily influenced by the precedent in Brown v. the Board of Education Topeka (1955). 

The success of this boycott was paramount because it demonstrated the power of peaceful protests. At the same time, it established MLK as the leader of the civil rights movement and proved that the Brown decisions struck down the doctrine of separate but equal. While the Montgomery bus boycott and the desegregation of public transportation was a major victory for the African American cause, it was only the start of a decade-long struggle for civil rights. 

In a similar Incident involving bus transportation four years later, a interracial group of civil rights activists sought to test the 1960 Boynton v. Virginia ruling which extended desegregation to all facilities associated with interstate travel. The group, made up of seven African American and six whites, left for New Orleans in a Greyhound bus on May 4, 1961. 

As they traveled, the white riders made it a point to use black facilities while black riders deliberately used white facilities. This behavior challenged segregation and was carried out in protest of the Jim Crow laws that lingered in the South. 

The first incident of violence occurred on May 12 in South Carolina when two of the African American riders were viciously beaten for occupying a whites-only waiting area. However, this violence would appear insignificant as the bus traveled further into the deep south. 

In Atlanta, the group would split between two buses, but continued in the same direction. The first bus into Anniston, Alabama was followed by an angry mob in automobiles. When one of the tires of the bus blew out, the mob firebombed the bus, forcing the activists to flee certain dangers. As they deserted the inflamed bus, the activists were savagely beaten by members of the surrounding mob. 

The second bus was similarly attacked in Birmingham. In both cases, the police response was significantly delayed and collusion was suspected. Although the riders were unable to reach their destination and suffered severe abuse, they were able to spotlight the issue of racial violence which gained international attention.

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in Nashville revitalized the effort and attempted the route once more. Upon their first trials, the members were arrested and deported to Tennessee. Undeterred, the SNCC members would attempt to complete the route, only to be ruthlessly beaten in Alabama. 

After these events, National Guard support was promised by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Still, freedom riders were beaten and arrested consistently, leading President John F. Kennedy to demand the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to enact and execute stricter anti-segregation policies. In September of 1961, the ICC mandated desegregation of interstate bus terminals, upholding the Boynton v. Virginia decision and bringing an end to the freedom rides.