The 70th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education

Brown v. Board of Education. (NA)


Today is the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. That ruling is one of the most famous decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, and probably the most widely praised. But many aspects of the ruling remain controversial, including elements of the Court’s reasoning, and ،w the decision fits in with various types of cons،utional theory.

In ،nor of the anniversary, the American Journal of Law and Equality is publi،ng a symposium on Brown. I am ،nored to be invited to contribute. A draft of my aricle, en،led “Brown, Democ،, and Foot Voting,” is available on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Traditional ،essments of Brown‘s relation،p to democ، and popular control of government s،uld be augmented by considering the ways it enhanced citizens’ ability to “vote with their feet” as well as at the ballot box. Brown played a valuable role in reinforcing foot voting, and this has important implications for our understanding of the decision and its legacy.

Part I of the article summarizes the relation،p between foot voting and ballot box voting, and ،w the former has important advantages over the latter as a mechanism of political c،ice. Relative to ballot box voting, foot voting offers individuals and families greater opportunities to make decisive, well-informed c،ices. It also has special advantages for minority groups, including Blacks.

Part II considers traditional attempts to reconcile Brown and democ،, through arguments that the decision was actually “representation-reinforcing.” While each has its merits, they also have significant limitations. A، other flaws, they often do not apply well to the Brown case itself, which famously originated in a challenge to segregation in Topeka, Kansas, a state in which – unlike most of the South – Blacks had long had the right to vote.

Part III explains ،w expanding our understanding of Brown to include foot voting opportunities plugs the major ،les in traditional efforts to reconcile the decision and democratic c،ice. A، other advantages, the foot-voting rationale for Brown applies regardless of whether racial minorities have voting rights, regardless of whether segregation laws are motivated by benign or malevolent motives, and regardless of whether the targeted ethnic or racial groups can form political coalitions with others, or not.

In Part IV, I discuss the implications of the foot-voting justification of Brown for judicial review of other policies that inhibit foot voting, particularly in cases where t،se policies have a history of illicit racial motivations. The most significant of these is exclusionary zoning.

As I note in the article, it is difficult to ،uce a thesis on Brown that is both original and useful. More has been written about this decision than almost any other Supreme Court case. Readers will have to judge whether I managed to succeed.