Week Two - The Emergence of Civil Rights as A National Issue in the United States
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
Share an idea or two from this week's reading. What was most interesting to you? What was most strange? How does the reading this week fit into issues and discussions we have had in this class?
In Klarman's "The Interwar Period" chapter, I found the exploration of the constitutionality of government inaction to be particularly interesting. By the interwar decades, precedent clearly outlined the Court's jurisdiction concerning a broad range of actions taken by the state. But, as Klarman points out, "the Court had not explored the circumstances under which state inaction could be unconstitutional" (Klarman, 139). It is clear that understanding the legal and socio-political implications of de jure racial discrimination is vital, but to accurately contextualize the legal atmosphere of this era it is necessary to grapple with instances of state inaction (i.e. failure to prosecute lynching).
I was interested in the Goluboff reading that talked about how people originally thought the 13th Amendment would be interpreted. We know this as the amendment that ended slavery, but at the time it was thought that this amendment would be used to guarantee workers access to "the fruits of their labor," as the author puts it. It states that the amendment was in fact not taken in this manner by the courts and was often used to deny people these rights, as shown by the Slaughter-House Cases. Laws were even made after this amendment that actively take away rights that seemed to have been granted by the amendment, and reading this made me think about how surprising it would have been for most of more modern US history for a law to be passed that took away, rather than granting, rights. This made me wonder about the current climate in civil rights and whether it would still be surprising for less progressive laws to be passed in the civil rights arena.
Similar to Campbell, I was most intrigued by the effect (or lack thereof) that the 13th Amendment had on the Jim Crow South. Specifically, blacks in the South often times experienced economic discrimination in the form of peonage and involuntary servitude. According to Goluboff, African-Americans in the 1940s were preferred to experience “social discrimination” than economic discrimination (Goluboff, 128). This was surprising to me because throughout history the most talked about struggles of blacks during these times usually pertain to civil discrimination, but Goluboff is showing that economic decimation was more of an urgent concern of black than moving towards civil rights.
I was also intrigued by the way the 13th amendment was interpreted in United States in particular relation to how lawyers and activists were able to manipulate public understanding in order to showcase their particular viewpoints. Coming out of the African American Activism course, it’s interesting to see the law side of the argument for Civil Rights, particularly in relation to the cases that dealt with lawyers fighting to unionize black workers in order for them to receive the same rights as their white counterparts during the World War II era.
Something that stood out to me in the Goluboff reading was the examination of labor rights in relation to African American rights. Particularly, in the 1930s, lawmakers cared more about labor rights than racial minority rights. In fact, the NLRA was passed giving only a certain kind of laborer rights, excluding agricultural and domestic workers. Since many agricultural and domestic workers were African American, this clearly demonstrated how often black rights were put aside for the benefit of whites. Laws such as these found loopholes into giving some civil rights while depriving others of them.(ie. voter ID laws)
Similar to Emily, I was intrigued by the relationship and pattern between the people and the social movements they created. In his introduction, Goluboff notes that, “Legal change does not begin with the doctrines courts create or even the rhetorical strategies lawyers employ. It begins with the injuries individuals experience. When those individuals complain to lawyers, they invoke the machinery of the law on their behalf” (Goluboff 5). I think this quote accurately captures the essence of all the social movements discussed in the readings. Particularly, labor rights and the struggles that African Americans faced. Goluboff further explores the relationship of the people and the social movements. In his fourth chapter, Goluboff writes, “Thirteenth Amendment cases were ideal candidates not only for improving the lives of southern black agricultural workers but also for improving black morale. In considerable measure, the power of the stories themselves spurred the Department of Justice to action in the involuntary servitude cases” (Goluboff 133-134). This quote further illustrates how crucial grassroots movements are because without the participation of the people, social movements would be nonexistent. This theme is something we discussed in our first class, the importance of the people and organizing as a community.
I was particularly intrigued by the introduction to the Goluboff piece and the possible differences she imagines that could have resulted should our modern understanding of civil rights law have been defined by a case other than Brown v. Board. Her argument that the scope of Brown does not fully encompass the necessary aspects of discrimination to fully reverse the effects of Jim Crow was unfamiliar to me, and I found myself questioning Goluboff’s argument, because while she hopes to reveal “how much of Jim Crow the victory of Brown left unchallenged,” she simultaneously highlights cases that address issues not covered by Brown (13). Why does Brown so heavily overshadow these cases that should be used in tandem to address civil rights violations?
The Interwar Chapter mentioned W.E.B. DuBois and this reminded me of the conflict between DuBois and Booker T. Washington over their ideologies on how blacks should gain more rights. Booker T. Washington received more hate than what I believe was deserved because it seems like his ideology started the organized protests: Klarman said that it was not until the blacks received some economic independence that they were able to partake in boycotts. Further, "black economic advancement helped break the vicious circle of race discrimination, whereby poverty fueled prejudice, which reinforced poverty." I was also astonished by the racial disparities in per capita educational spending which blacks got 70$ less per student than a white student.
What struck me in Goluboff’s introductory chapter to The Lost Promise of Civil Rights is the emphasis that the writer puts on the role of civil rights lawyers as agents of social change. In the chapter, Goluboff questions the nature of the Brown v. Board case as a major precedent in progressive reform for civil rights. This is reminiscent of the Klarman chapter that was assigned last week in which Klarman speculates on the legality surrounding Plessy v. Ferguson and the actors involved in its proceedings. I would be interested to hear these authors engage in dialogue with each other about the influential roles of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board in terms of their implications on the legal system and the appropriateness of their respective places in civil rights history.
I think Goluboff's opening argument, although fragmented, is very timely. Is the civil rights of the citizens really being enforced if we allow for other people to impede on it? In the case of marriage equality, although it is federally allowed, states like Indiana have allowed for private businesses to deny individuals their right to services such as catering, venues, cakes, and etc. How can America create laws to ensure everyone is treated as equals, but not enforce it as such? One can only think of what it would be like today if people were prosecuted for lynchings.
I found it interesting that facially fair and equal policies, especially during the Great Depression, served to further discriminate against black people. Combine this fact with the notion that in order for anyone to protest or boycott they need to be economically stable and have time for leisure (Klarman 101), it made it easy for whites to continue to discriminate against black people. The lack of substantive due process allowed these policies to continue because at the time, it was inconvenient for the courts to take into account motives and results of laws and policies. This allowed the “separate but equal” provisions in cases such as Plessy v Ferguson. What surprised me, like Anna, was the idea that even though substantive due process was introduced to prove the separate but equal provisions unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, Brown v Board should not necessarily be looked at as a total success.
Goluboff's examination of how "civil rights" and "civil liberties" were for a time primarily addressed as labor rights was fascinating to me. It is strange that in the Sanitary Grocery Co. case in 1938, the Supreme Court recognized that racial discrimination against the black picketers was "more unfair and less excusable" than discriminatory crackdowns on organized labor, yet the Court only awarded the case to the picketers because they were able to argue that it was a labor dispute. It was interesting to me how the Cold War produced a more progressive attitude towards the rights of African Americans due to pressures to save face in a sort of moral competition with the Soviet Union.
Going off of what Mackenzie mentioned in the Goluboff reading on discriminating socially and economically, I found it most interesting that in a research study done, African Americans would have rather been discriminated against socially than economically.He states that "African Americans, according to one 1944 study, were most wrought up about economic opportunity and relatively less concerned about social discrimination" (128). Whereas a white man at the time would have prefereed to lower a black's social status rather than economic opportunity. I found it odd that they were on complete opposite spectrums of this idea. While social status in society is important, I feel that it is also not as important as gaining economic opportunities which could raise an individual up the social ladder no matter where they initially started
Something that interested me from the Klarman chapter was the way that progress for African American rights occurred. In my gender and sexuality studies class, we discussed the metaphor of the "waves of feminism", deciding that the metaphor was useful in describing the way that progress happens in America: through peaks of interest in which advancements are made, followed by pushback and regression from more conservative-minded individuals. The metaphor of waves also applies to the push for civil rights for African Americans. For example, Klarman describes how during the Interwar period due to the migration of black people to the north, African Americans had opportunities for employment in industrial work, stronger political influence, and improved education and economic status. However, after World War I when African Americans who had fought in the war began demanding the right to vote, white southerners pushed back, causing a rise of violence against black people perpetuated by the KKK and a loss of the progress that African Americans had established before the war. Progression and regression in waves is interesting and is prominent throughout American history, especially in movements that push America forward, changing the status quo.
What I found interesting in the readings was the mentioning of mob-dominated trials in Klarman and the lack thereof in chapter four of Goluboff’s reading. Of course it would be foolish if Klarman didn’t mention mob-dominated trials while talking about that time period. And while Goluboff can’t shy away from talking about racism and the economic relationships between black and white people of the time, I would definitely love to hear why Goluboff didn’t mention mob-dominated communities in the 1940’s and their impedance towards the work of civil rights.
Anya Tipton When reading Chapter 1 of Golubuff, I couldn't help but draw a parallel between his paragraph on the promises and protections guaranteed to African Americans under the New Deal and the current political climate of the U.S. today. After WWI, the Great Migration led to the mass settlement of blacks in the north, and the New Deal on its surface appeared to be a major stride in the advancement of black civil justice. However, as Golubuff says, black civil rights and political mobility were snubbed by white liberals, who still relied on the support of white southerners. I feel like this paradox takes the form of white neoliberalism today. Whites still hold the majority of political power today, and thus assume a disproportionate amount of responsibility in creating and passing policies that would correct injustices endured by minorities. However, these pieces of legislature rarely have any meaningful impacts, for they operate only on the surface level to create the facade that minority issues are valued just as greatly as other issues. Whereas we need arguably more structural remedies to civil injustices, they are rarely seen, for white liberals likely want to avoid ruffling the feathers of a great fraction of their constituents whose support they depend on.
In the Karman reading for this week, I was repeatedly struck by white politicians and white elites manipulation of circumstances in order to appear facially progressive, inclusive, and for matters of black suffrage, economic advancement, fair representation, equal housing, etc., while having personal interest act as the true motivation for their actions rather than genuine egalitarian motivations. I'm thinking especially of Franklin D. Roosevelt's personal investment in his re-election leading him to resist passing of anti-lynching legislation while also allowing himself to be photographed with black people, likely just for the symbolism value so that he could sway their votes. Additionally, what were the true motivations of the SSC (later the CIC)? After all, they'd push for education of whites regarding black's conditions without actually pushing for new legislation.
Similar to Nick, I also found Klarman's "the Interwar Period," to be a particularly interesting reading. I too found it rather interesting to read about the socio-political context as well as the economic situations facing both governments on the state and national level. Reading about the ways in which those two crucial factors influenced the legal community and the ways in which particular cases involving race were argued was especially insightful. Moreover, I found in analyzing the ways in which the atmospheres surrounding the different decades played in to the ways cases were argued and decided had a very intertwined relationship.
What interested me most in Klarman’s chapter “The Interwar Period” was how he attributed much of the hindrance to societal progression during this time period to the Supreme Court. The manner in which the justices during this era conducted race related litigation was appalling. Klarman discussed how he associated the decline in lynchings with the “quick trials that could be counted on to produce guilty verdicts, death sentences and swift executions” (Klarman 119). The most highly revered interpreters of the law were also some of the largest perpetrators of racial inequity. There is a perception of infallibility when reviewing Supreme Court proceedings and verdicts, but these justices were products of their time and used their position to further oppress and restrict African Americans.
I too was struck by Goluboff's introductory argument, particularly with regards to how "legal change does not begin with the doctrines courts create or even the rhetorical strategies lawyers employ. It begins with the injuries individuals experience (Goluboff 5). It addresses that an evolving legal understanding of civil rights is predicated not simply on workers' willingness to "invoke the machinery of the law on their behalf", but furthermore the complex strategizing of civil rights lawyers as to what cases they would take and when. While the Department of Justice largely observed workers claims through the perspective of labor rights, the NAACP focused on the government's classification and categorization of black workers. The manner in which lawyers at the respective organizations advocated for civil rights differed because of the disparity of lived experience. This was all set to the backdrop of the southern economy in pursuit of revitalization, Jim Crow laws serving to segregate for as long as possible to perpetuate the sentiment that empowered it. This goes back to earlier class discussion about the idea of "practicing discrimination lawfully" and the diverging interests that cause this practice.
When I enrolled in this course, I was very interested in what the civil rights law tradition looked like beyond Brown v. Board. I found this week's reading very interesting, as it provided a comprehensive insight into the profession including and beyond Brown v. Board. I found the origin of the profession in labor rights and law to be very interesting, especially considering how civil rights law evolved since Plessy and into the present.
Share an idea or two from this week's reading. What was most interesting to you? What was most strange? How does the reading this week fit into issues and discussions we have had in this class?
Share an idea or two from this week's reading. What was most interesting to you? What was most strange? How does the reading this week fit into issues and discussions we have had in this class?
In Klarman's "The Interwar Period" chapter, I found the exploration of the constitutionality of government inaction to be particularly interesting. By the interwar decades, precedent clearly outlined the Court's jurisdiction concerning a broad range of actions taken by the state. But, as Klarman points out, "the Court had not explored the circumstances under which state inaction could be unconstitutional" (Klarman, 139). It is clear that understanding the legal and socio-political implications of de jure racial discrimination is vital, but to accurately contextualize the legal atmosphere of this era it is necessary to grapple with instances of state inaction (i.e. failure to prosecute lynching).
ReplyDeleteI was interested in the Goluboff reading that talked about how people originally thought the 13th Amendment would be interpreted. We know this as the amendment that ended slavery, but at the time it was thought that this amendment would be used to guarantee workers access to "the fruits of their labor," as the author puts it. It states that the amendment was in fact not taken in this manner by the courts and was often used to deny people these rights, as shown by the Slaughter-House Cases. Laws were even made after this amendment that actively take away rights that seemed to have been granted by the amendment, and reading this made me think about how surprising it would have been for most of more modern US history for a law to be passed that took away, rather than granting, rights. This made me wonder about the current climate in civil rights and whether it would still be surprising for less progressive laws to be passed in the civil rights arena.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Campbell, I was most intrigued by the effect (or lack thereof) that the 13th Amendment had on the Jim Crow South. Specifically, blacks in the South often times experienced economic discrimination in the form of peonage and involuntary servitude. According to Goluboff, African-Americans in the 1940s were preferred to experience “social discrimination” than economic discrimination (Goluboff, 128). This was surprising to me because throughout history the most talked about struggles of blacks during these times usually pertain to civil discrimination, but Goluboff is showing that economic decimation was more of an urgent concern of black than moving towards civil rights.
ReplyDeleteI was also intrigued by the way the 13th amendment was interpreted in United States in particular relation to how lawyers and activists were able to manipulate public understanding in order to showcase their particular viewpoints. Coming out of the African American Activism course, it’s interesting to see the law side of the argument for Civil Rights, particularly in relation to the cases that dealt with lawyers fighting to unionize black workers in order for them to receive the same rights as their white counterparts during the World War II era.
ReplyDeleteSomething that stood out to me in the Goluboff reading was the examination of labor rights in relation to African American rights. Particularly, in the 1930s, lawmakers cared more about labor rights than racial minority rights. In fact, the NLRA was passed giving only a certain kind of laborer rights, excluding agricultural and domestic workers. Since many agricultural and domestic workers were African American, this clearly demonstrated how often black rights were put aside for the benefit of whites. Laws such as these found loopholes into giving some civil rights while depriving others of them.(ie. voter ID laws)
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Emily, I was intrigued by the relationship and pattern between the people and the social movements they created. In his introduction, Goluboff notes that, “Legal change does not begin with the doctrines courts create or even the rhetorical strategies lawyers employ. It begins with the injuries individuals experience. When those individuals complain to lawyers, they invoke the machinery of the law on their behalf” (Goluboff 5). I think this quote accurately captures the essence of all the social movements discussed in the readings. Particularly, labor rights and the struggles that African Americans faced. Goluboff further explores the relationship of the people and the social movements. In his fourth chapter, Goluboff writes, “Thirteenth Amendment cases were ideal candidates not only for improving the lives of southern black agricultural workers but also for improving black morale. In considerable measure, the power of the stories themselves spurred the Department of Justice to action in the involuntary servitude cases” (Goluboff 133-134). This quote further illustrates how crucial grassroots movements are because without the participation of the people, social movements would be nonexistent. This theme is something we discussed in our first class, the importance of the people and organizing as a community.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly intrigued by the introduction to the Goluboff piece and the possible differences she imagines that could have resulted should our modern understanding of civil rights law have been defined by a case other than Brown v. Board. Her argument that the scope of Brown does not fully encompass the necessary aspects of discrimination to fully reverse the effects of Jim Crow was unfamiliar to me, and I found myself questioning Goluboff’s argument, because while she hopes to reveal “how much of Jim Crow the victory of Brown left unchallenged,” she simultaneously highlights cases that address issues not covered by Brown (13). Why does Brown so heavily overshadow these cases that should be used in tandem to address civil rights violations?
ReplyDeleteThe Interwar Chapter mentioned W.E.B. DuBois and this reminded me of the conflict between DuBois and Booker T. Washington over their ideologies on how blacks should gain more rights. Booker T. Washington received more hate than what I believe was deserved because it seems like his ideology started the organized protests: Klarman said that it was not until the blacks received some economic independence that they were able to partake in boycotts. Further, "black economic advancement helped break the vicious circle of race discrimination, whereby poverty fueled prejudice, which reinforced poverty." I was also astonished by the racial disparities in per capita educational spending which blacks got 70$ less per student than a white student.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me in Goluboff’s introductory chapter to The Lost Promise of Civil Rights is the emphasis that the writer puts on the role of civil rights lawyers as agents of social change. In the chapter, Goluboff questions the nature of the Brown v. Board case as a major precedent in progressive reform for civil rights. This is reminiscent of the Klarman chapter that was assigned last week in which Klarman speculates on the legality surrounding Plessy v. Ferguson and the actors involved in its proceedings. I would be interested to hear these authors engage in dialogue with each other about the influential roles of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board in terms of their implications on the legal system and the appropriateness of their respective places in civil rights history.
ReplyDeleteI think Goluboff's opening argument, although fragmented, is very timely. Is the civil rights of the citizens really being enforced if we allow for other people to impede on it? In the case of marriage equality, although it is federally allowed, states like Indiana have allowed for private businesses to deny individuals their right to services such as catering, venues, cakes, and etc. How can America create laws to ensure everyone is treated as equals, but not enforce it as such? One can only think of what it would be like today if people were prosecuted for lynchings.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI found it interesting that facially fair and equal policies, especially during the Great Depression, served to further discriminate against black people. Combine this fact with the notion that in order for anyone to protest or boycott they need to be economically stable and have time for leisure (Klarman 101), it made it easy for whites to continue to discriminate against black people. The lack of substantive due process allowed these policies to continue because at the time, it was inconvenient for the courts to take into account motives and results of laws and policies. This allowed the “separate but equal” provisions in cases such as Plessy v Ferguson. What surprised me, like Anna, was the idea that even though substantive due process was introduced to prove the separate but equal provisions unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, Brown v Board should not necessarily be looked at as a total success.
ReplyDeleteGoluboff's examination of how "civil rights" and "civil liberties" were for a time primarily addressed as labor rights was fascinating to me. It is strange that in the Sanitary Grocery Co. case in 1938, the Supreme Court recognized that racial discrimination against the black picketers was "more unfair and less excusable" than discriminatory crackdowns on organized labor, yet the Court only awarded the case to the picketers because they were able to argue that it was a labor dispute. It was interesting to me how the Cold War produced a more progressive attitude towards the rights of African Americans due to pressures to save face in a sort of moral competition with the Soviet Union.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what Mackenzie mentioned in the Goluboff reading on discriminating socially and economically, I found it most interesting that in a research study done, African Americans would have rather been discriminated against socially than economically.He states that "African Americans, according to one 1944 study, were most wrought up about economic opportunity and relatively less concerned about social discrimination" (128). Whereas a white man at the time would have prefereed to lower a black's social status rather than economic opportunity. I found it odd that they were on complete opposite spectrums of this idea. While social status in society is important, I feel that it is also not as important as gaining economic opportunities which could raise an individual up the social ladder no matter where they initially started
DeleteSomething that interested me from the Klarman chapter was the way that progress for African American rights occurred. In my gender and sexuality studies class, we discussed the metaphor of the "waves of feminism", deciding that the metaphor was useful in describing the way that progress happens in America: through peaks of interest in which advancements are made, followed by pushback and regression from more conservative-minded individuals. The metaphor of waves also applies to the push for civil rights for African Americans. For example, Klarman describes how during the Interwar period due to the migration of black people to the north, African Americans had opportunities for employment in industrial work, stronger political influence, and improved education and economic status. However, after World War I when African Americans who had fought in the war began demanding the right to vote, white southerners pushed back, causing a rise of violence against black people perpetuated by the KKK and a loss of the progress that African Americans had established before the war. Progression and regression in waves is interesting and is prominent throughout American history, especially in movements that push America forward, changing the status quo.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting in the readings was the mentioning of mob-dominated trials in Klarman and the lack thereof in chapter four of Goluboff’s reading. Of course it would be foolish if Klarman didn’t mention mob-dominated trials while talking about that time period. And while Goluboff can’t shy away from talking about racism and the economic relationships between black and white people of the time, I would definitely love to hear why Goluboff didn’t mention mob-dominated communities in the 1940’s and their impedance towards the work of civil rights.
ReplyDeleteAnya Tipton
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Chapter 1 of Golubuff, I couldn't help but draw a parallel between his paragraph on the promises and protections guaranteed to African Americans under the New Deal and the current political climate of the U.S. today. After WWI, the Great Migration led to the mass settlement of blacks in the north, and the New Deal on its surface appeared to be a major stride in the advancement of black civil justice. However, as Golubuff says, black civil rights and political mobility were snubbed by white liberals, who still relied on the support of white southerners. I feel like this paradox takes the form of white neoliberalism today. Whites still hold the majority of political power today, and thus assume a disproportionate amount of responsibility in creating and passing policies that would correct injustices endured by minorities. However, these pieces of legislature rarely have any meaningful impacts, for they operate only on the surface level to create the facade that minority issues are valued just as greatly as other issues. Whereas we need arguably more structural remedies to civil injustices, they are rarely seen, for white liberals likely want to avoid ruffling the feathers of a great fraction of their constituents whose support they depend on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn the same vein,
DeleteIn the Karman reading for this week, I was repeatedly struck by white politicians and white elites manipulation of circumstances in order to appear facially progressive, inclusive, and for matters of black suffrage, economic advancement, fair representation, equal housing, etc., while having personal interest act as the true motivation for their actions rather than genuine egalitarian motivations. I'm thinking especially of Franklin D. Roosevelt's personal investment in his re-election leading him to resist passing of anti-lynching legislation while also allowing himself to be photographed with black people, likely just for the symbolism value so that he could sway their votes. Additionally, what were the true motivations of the SSC (later the CIC)? After all, they'd push for education of whites regarding black's conditions without actually pushing for new legislation.
Similar to Nick, I also found Klarman's "the Interwar Period," to be a particularly interesting reading. I too found it rather interesting to read about the socio-political context as well as the economic situations facing both governments on the state and national level. Reading about the ways in which those two crucial factors influenced the legal community and the ways in which particular cases involving race were argued was especially insightful. Moreover, I found in analyzing the ways in which the atmospheres surrounding the different decades played in to the ways cases were argued and decided had a very intertwined relationship.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom Blakely Summerhays:
ReplyDeleteWhat interested me most in Klarman’s chapter “The Interwar Period” was how he attributed much of the hindrance to societal progression during this time period to the Supreme Court. The manner in which the justices during this era conducted race related litigation was appalling. Klarman discussed how he associated the decline in lynchings with the “quick trials that could be counted on to produce guilty verdicts, death sentences and swift executions” (Klarman 119). The most highly revered interpreters of the law were also some of the largest perpetrators of racial inequity. There is a perception of infallibility when reviewing Supreme Court proceedings and verdicts, but these justices were products of their time and used their position to further oppress and restrict African Americans.
From Hannah Adams:
ReplyDeleteI too was struck by Goluboff's introductory argument, particularly with regards to how "legal change does not begin with the doctrines courts create or even the rhetorical strategies lawyers employ. It begins with the injuries individuals experience (Goluboff 5). It addresses that an evolving legal understanding of civil rights is predicated not simply on workers' willingness to "invoke the machinery of the law on their behalf", but furthermore the complex strategizing of civil rights lawyers as to what cases they would take and when. While the Department of Justice largely observed workers claims through the perspective of labor rights, the NAACP focused on the government's classification and categorization of black workers. The manner in which lawyers at the respective organizations advocated for civil rights differed because of the disparity of lived experience. This was all set to the backdrop of the southern economy in pursuit of revitalization, Jim Crow laws serving to segregate for as long as possible to perpetuate the sentiment that empowered it. This goes back to earlier class discussion about the idea of "practicing discrimination lawfully" and the diverging interests that cause this practice.
When I enrolled in this course, I was very interested in what the civil rights law tradition looked like beyond Brown v. Board. I found this week's reading very interesting, as it provided a comprehensive insight into the profession including and beyond Brown v. Board. I found the origin of the profession in labor rights and law to be very interesting, especially considering how civil rights law evolved since Plessy and into the present.
ReplyDelete