<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Oliver L. Brown, Pioneer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/16/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/16/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/</link>
	<description>A Mormon Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:16:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevinf</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/16/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79704</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kevinf]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:58:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79704</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In late 2003, NPR did a series of in depth reports on the Brown v. Board of Education decision, focusing on Thurgood Marshall, and his role in arguing the case before the Supreme Court.  The link is http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1535826.

If I recall correctly, the plaintiff&#039;s attorneys worked long and hard specifically with the hopes of getting a unanimous decision.  They felt that anything less would not carry the moral authority needed to truly end segregation.  I also recall that the choice of using a case from Kansas as the lead case was also felt to be more likely to get the desired outcome than a case from the highly segregated south.

Thanks for this thread.  It&#039;s a reminder of not only how far we have come, but that all the work of obtaining the promise of 2 NE 26:33 where &quot;all are equal&quot;, both male and female, black and white, bond and free is not yet behind us.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In late 2003, NPR did a series of in depth reports on the Brown v. Board of Education decision, focusing on Thurgood Marshall, and his role in arguing the case before the Supreme Court.  The link is <a href="http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1535826" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1535826</a>.</p>
<p>If I recall correctly, the plaintiff&#8217;s attorneys worked long and hard specifically with the hopes of getting a unanimous decision.  They felt that anything less would not carry the moral authority needed to truly end segregation.  I also recall that the choice of using a case from Kansas as the lead case was also felt to be more likely to get the desired outcome than a case from the highly segregated south.</p>
<p>Thanks for this thread.  It&#8217;s a reminder of not only how far we have come, but that all the work of obtaining the promise of 2 NE 26:33 where &#8220;all are equal&#8221;, both male and female, black and white, bond and free is not yet behind us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MCQ</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/16/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79703</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MCQ]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Feb 2007 04:17:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79703</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I also believe it is fair to say that unanimous opinions in landmark cases are rare.  It was especially important in Brown I (There was a later Brown case referred to as Brown II) because Brown I reversed the 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (decided 8-1) which upheld the &quot;seperate but equal&quot; doctrine, allowing states to continue the Jim Crow laws which mandated seperate facilities for black citizens.

Brown I was actually a consolidation of several cases involving the same issue.  The genius of the opinion was its recognition of the fact (it seems obvious now but it was against the weight of precedent then) that &quot;seperate but equal&quot; contains an inherent contradiction.  The District Court in the Brown case (the first court to hear the case) actually ruled that the black school at issue in the case was substantially equal in all factual particulars, which was not true of the black schools in the other cases consolidated later at the Supreme Court level.  The Supreme Court had the vision to recognize that this fact was not important, and ruled that mandated separation was unacceptable under the Fourteenth Amendment regardless of factual equality in facilities.  This was truly a great moment in legal history, despite the fact that much work and additional legal battles were necessary to complete the desegregation of public schools.  Brown I was the turn of the tide in the courtrooms of the country against Plessy and its progeny.

I do have to quibble a little with singling out Oliver Brown for commendation.  He was chosen as the first named plaintiff principally because he was a man, rather than a woman as were most of the other plaintiffs, with an intact family, rather than being a single parent.  These factors were  considered a PR plus, and so he was chosen to be the first named on that basis.  The other plaintiffs were equally courageous and all deserve commendation no less than Rosa Parks and others who risked much in the fight for civil rights in America.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also believe it is fair to say that unanimous opinions in landmark cases are rare.  It was especially important in Brown I (There was a later Brown case referred to as Brown II) because Brown I reversed the 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (decided 8-1) which upheld the &#8220;seperate but equal&#8221; doctrine, allowing states to continue the Jim Crow laws which mandated seperate facilities for black citizens.</p>
<p>Brown I was actually a consolidation of several cases involving the same issue.  The genius of the opinion was its recognition of the fact (it seems obvious now but it was against the weight of precedent then) that &#8220;seperate but equal&#8221; contains an inherent contradiction.  The District Court in the Brown case (the first court to hear the case) actually ruled that the black school at issue in the case was substantially equal in all factual particulars, which was not true of the black schools in the other cases consolidated later at the Supreme Court level.  The Supreme Court had the vision to recognize that this fact was not important, and ruled that mandated separation was unacceptable under the Fourteenth Amendment regardless of factual equality in facilities.  This was truly a great moment in legal history, despite the fact that much work and additional legal battles were necessary to complete the desegregation of public schools.  Brown I was the turn of the tide in the courtrooms of the country against Plessy and its progeny.</p>
<p>I do have to quibble a little with singling out Oliver Brown for commendation.  He was chosen as the first named plaintiff principally because he was a man, rather than a woman as were most of the other plaintiffs, with an intact family, rather than being a single parent.  These factors were  considered a PR plus, and so he was chosen to be the first named on that basis.  The other plaintiffs were equally courageous and all deserve commendation no less than Rosa Parks and others who risked much in the fight for civil rights in America.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keri</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/16/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79702</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keri]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:12:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79702</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From what I understand (and I welcome the input of others who are better informed on this topic), unanimous opinions are fairly common for routine or non-controversial cases. However, it&#039;s quite rare for a controversial or landmark case to be unanimous. What is even more spectacular about &lt;em&gt;Brown &lt;/em&gt;is that not only was it unanimous in the result, but the actual opinion was unanimous, with no separate concurring opinions.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From what I understand (and I welcome the input of others who are better informed on this topic), unanimous opinions are fairly common for routine or non-controversial cases. However, it&#8217;s quite rare for a controversial or landmark case to be unanimous. What is even more spectacular about <em>Brown </em>is that not only was it unanimous in the result, but the actual opinion was unanimous, with no separate concurring opinions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark IV</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/16/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79701</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark IV]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:51:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79701</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Keri, how often does the Court reach a unanimous opinion?  My impression is that 9-0 is rare.  Is that correct?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keri, how often does the Court reach a unanimous opinion?  My impression is that 9-0 is rare.  Is that correct?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keri</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/16/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79700</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keri]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79700</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My law school study of this case was superficial, as well. However, as an undergraduate in political science, we went into it a bit. The main thing I remember is that the Chief Justice Warren worked really hard to get a unanimous opinion. He felt that it would be more powerful that way. (Unanimous in that everyone signs onto the same opinion, not just the same result.) The opinion was deliberately kept short and understandable so that the average person could read it, and it was printed in its entirety in the newspapers.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My law school study of this case was superficial, as well. However, as an undergraduate in political science, we went into it a bit. The main thing I remember is that the Chief Justice Warren worked really hard to get a unanimous opinion. He felt that it would be more powerful that way. (Unanimous in that everyone signs onto the same opinion, not just the same result.) The opinion was deliberately kept short and understandable so that the average person could read it, and it was printed in its entirety in the newspapers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J. Stapley</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/16/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79699</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[J. Stapley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:20:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79699</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amen!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amen!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Barney</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/16/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79698</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kevin Barney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:17:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79698</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for this interesting background to the famous decision.  That really puts some flesh on the bones.  (I&#039;m afraid my law school study of this case was relatively superficial, so I can&#039;t answer your question about the detailed background.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this interesting background to the famous decision.  That really puts some flesh on the bones.  (I&#8217;m afraid my law school study of this case was relatively superficial, so I can&#8217;t answer your question about the detailed background.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Proud Daughter of Eve</title>
		<link>http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/16/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79697</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Proud Daughter of Eve]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/02/oliver-l-brown-pioneer/#comment-79697</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How clearly you illustrated that story!  Thank you for sharing it.  I have one more person to add to my student&#039;s &quot;We Are Valiant&quot; sign.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How clearly you illustrated that story!  Thank you for sharing it.  I have one more person to add to my student&#8217;s &#8220;We Are Valiant&#8221; sign.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

