Andrew James, MD, JD, College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Texas Southern University, 3100 Cleburne Avenue, Nabrit Science Bldg., Room 202, Houston, TX 77004, 713-313-7265, James_AB@TSU.edu and Donald K. Hill, JD, LLM, College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Texas SOutehrn University, 3100 Cleburne, Houston, TX 77004.

Social Separation in America: The Failure of Brown v. The Board and its Public Health Implications

When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced the decision in Brown v. The Board of Education, he did not declare the end of segregation in America. What he said was that “ separate but equal” had no place in American education. However, the declaration was widely interpreted as the death knell for American apartheid. Unfortunately, while the nation moved slowly (all deliberate speed) toward the actual elimination of de jure segregation in those states which had enacted such laws, and even later, and to a lesser degree, defacto segregation, the actually of social separation has remained a lingering and growing cancer in American society. This phenomenon is as much a public health problem as it is a social problem. To understand how this comes about, it is necessary to linguistically distinguish the differences between what we have historically characterized as segregation (de juve analor defacto) and what will be described as social separation. In order to do this, this paper will briefly describe the evolution of “social separation” in the case of Roberts v. City of Boston (1849) to “separate but equal” in Plessey v. Ferguson (1895) to renunciation of the doctrine in the Brown decisions (1954-55). We will explore how the Brown doctrine has changed, at least linguistically, over the last fifty years from an assault against legal separation to on of accepting voluntary social separation which, in effect is, a return to, at least, a bastard-form of Plessey, or a regeneration of Roberts.

Learning Objectives: Social Separation in America

The Failure of Brown v. The Board and its Public Health Implications Donald K. Hill, J.D., LLM and Andrew B. James, DrPH, J.D., LLM When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced the decision in Brown v. The Board of Education, he did not declare the end of segregation in America. What he said was that “ separate but equal” had no place in American education. However, the declaration was widely interpreted as the death knell for American apartheid. Unfortunately, while the nation moved slowly (all deliberate speed) toward the actual elimination of de jure segregation in those states which had enacted such laws, and even later, and to a lesser degree, defacto segregation, the actually of social separation has remained a lingering and growing cancer in American society. This phenomenon is as much a public health problem as it is a social problem. To understand how this comes about, it is necessary to linguistically distinguish the differences between what we have historically characterized as segregation (de juve analor defacto) and what will be described as social separation. In order to do this, this paper will briefly describe the evolution of “social separation” in the case of Roberts v. City of Boston (184
• to “separate but equal” in Plessey v. Ferguson (189
• to renunciation of the doctrine in the Brown decisions (1954-55). We will explore how the Brown doctrine has changed, at least linguistically, over the last fifty years from an assault against legal separation to on of accepting voluntary social separation which, in effect is, a return to, at least, a bastard-form of Plessey, or a regeneration of Roberts. The public health implications flows from the proposition that social separation, whether by law or through other circumstances results in social isolation at the most crucial point in a young persons learning stage; which in turn, reinforces negative social inferences and attitudes and resultant behavior toward other races. It tends to reinforce racism within whites as an assumption of cultural superiority and an intense sense of societal paranoia within blacks that are socially isolated. This is supported by the conclusion and recommendations in the Institute of Medicine report on Health Disparities in the Black Community. This paper will also examine the failure of the education policy inclusive of Health Institutes to deal effectively with this social phenomenon. It characterizes this policy as focusing on structural integration rather than the definitive value goal that integration goals achieve; more over, while black/white student ratios are important in creating a racial balance, there was no rationale basis for determining what that ratio should be. The question facing the nation today is whether integration is still a liable social/educational objective; or whether we should capsulate to “natural” social forces which some say will force the return or one-race schools, especially in large urban areas. How should we plan for the impact that will affect schools of Medicare, Allied Health, Nursing, Health Administration and other institutions whose goal is to protect, and preserve the country’s health.

Keywords: Ethnic Minorities,

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.