The Green caldron - University Library

December, 1958 3
An Evaluation of Two Positions
Marshall Dapin
Rhetoric 102, Theme 4
A. THE CASE FOR SEGREGATION
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines segregation as a "separ-
ation from others or from the general mass or main body." The recent con-
troversy over segregation has been based on the fact that Negroes have been
separated from whites, especially in educational institutions. Many people
have condemned this separation, presenting various legal, moral, and psycho-
logical reasons ; and these same people have also presented evidence to prove
that desegregation is both workable and beneficial. The first part of this
essay is being written to show that the "integrationists" are wrong in condemning
segregation, and to support the contention that desegregation is
neither workable nor beneficial.
The first disagreement in the segregation controversy concerns the legality
of segregation. Many people favoring integration cite the 1954 Supreme
Court decision ordering desegregation as evidence that segregation is illegal.
But in 1896 the Supreme Court made another ruling on segregation in the
case of Plessy versus Ferguson. The specific issue was whether Louisiana
was justified in passing a statute creating separate but equal accommodations
for white and Negro passengers on railroads. The Court decided that since
mixed cars involved a commingling of the races, separate but equal transpor-
tation was legal. The decision meant, in effect, that although the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed the political equality of the races,
the Amendment did not guarantee social equality. Basically, the 1954 decision
favoring school integration called for "a commingling of the races," or social
equality, as well as political or legal equality.
Some people include social equality under the term political equality. Even
if this were true, the political equality guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amend-
ment is not, in reality, constitutional. When the Amendment was passed in
1868, the formerly seceded states were run by Northern "carpetbaggers" or
by the military authorities, so that when these Southern states accepted the
Amendment, it was Northerners who were approving the Amendment. Since
an amendment needs the approval of three-fourths of the states to pass and
since the seceded states totaled eleven out of thirty-seven in the United States
when the xA.mendment was passed, it is unlikely that the Amendment would
have passed if these states had been allowed to vote as they wished—against
it.
A third reason why segregation is not illegal is that the Tenth Amendment
guarantees to states all powers not delegated to the federal government. Edu-