Law Professors Reflect on Brown v. Board of Education

phoebewilliamsThe United States Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education is without question one of the most significant cases in modern constitutional law.  It was also a defining event in the lives of a generation of American law teachers.  Vanderbilt University Press has recently published Law Touched Our Hearts: A Generation Remembers Brown v. Board of Education (2009). The book, edited by Professors Mildred Robinson and Richard Bonnie of the University of Virginia, contains forty essays, each written by a law professor who discusses the way that his or her life was affected by the Brown decision.

The forty contributors vary considerably by gender, race, and ethnicity.  A majority, but only a majority, grew up in states where legally segregated schools existed at the time of the Brown decision.  Some are old enough to have remembered the day that the decision was handed down; others were born after it was already the law of the land.  But all, to one extent or another, believe that their personal and professional lives have been profoundly shaped by the Brown decision.

I read Law Touched Our Hearts with great interest.

Although I am too young to remember the actual announcing of the Brown decision — it was handed down two weeks before my second birthday — it was clearly a defining event in my life.  In 1956, my family moved from Giles County, Virginia, where I was born, to White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia.  Two years earlier, after an attempt to integrate the White Sulphur schools in response to Brown, the town and nation witnessed the first post-Brown, anti-integration riot in the United States which led the county school board to cancel the integration experiment after only one week.  In 1956, integration occurred a second time, this time as the result of a federal court order.  My mother started teaching at White Sulphur Elementary that fall, and when I started school there two years later the fate of integrated education seemed anything but certain.  In 1959, we moved back to Virginia where the schools were completely segregated, and I experienced integration a second time in 1964, when Giles County decided to voluntarily close its black schools and incorporate the entire black and white population into a single school system.  (Incredibly, Giles County was the first county in Virginia to do this.)

I was also interested in Law Touched Our Hearts because eight of the contributors are good friends of mine.  I can say, though, without fear of contradiction, that the most moving and most poignant essay in the entire collection is the one written by my Marquette colleague Phoebe Williams.  Phoebe’s essay, titled “Segregation in Memphis,” tells the story of her experiences as an 8-year old school child in segregated Memphis schools when the Brown decision was handed down.  Although the Brown edict was to be adopted with “all deliberate speed,” the “promises of Brown,” as Phoebe puts it “remained unrealized” in Memphis.  There had been no school integration in Memphis when Phoebe graduated from high school in 1963, and there would be none for years to come.  Her first experience with integrated education came when she enrolled at Marquette as an undergraduate.

Phoebe’s essay wonderfully captured the spirit of optimism that arose with the handing down of the Brown decision, as well as the disappointment that accompanied the failure of southern states to live up to its mandates.

I was already familiar with much of Phoebe’s account because of an appearance she made several years ago in a class on the History of the Civil Rights Movement that I was teaching in the College of Arts and Sciences.  I invited Phoebe to come speak to the class about her experiences growing in the era of segregation.  The students in the class were riveted by her presentation, even though most were northerners and had been born more than two decades after the Brown decision.  Many students later told me that Phoebe’s presentation was the highlight of the class.

I strongly recommend Law Touched Our Hearts to anyone interested in the history of civil rights in the United States, but I insist that anyone with any sort of Marquette connection should read Phoebe Williams’ contribution to the collection (pp. 123-134).

Continue ReadingLaw Professors Reflect on Brown v. Board of Education

Random Criminal Punishment?

diceTalk about thinking outside the box.  Since at least the time of Cesare Beccaria, generations of criminal-justice reformers have dedicated themselves to rationalizing our systems of policing and punishment: weeding out archaic laws, professionalizing the police function, bringing ever more sophisticated science to bear in the detection of crime, humanizing the administration of punishment, and so forth.  But now University of Chicago Law Professor Bernard Harcourt tells us we have been traveling down a dead-end road for the past two hundred years: what criminal justice needs is not rationality, but randomization.  Or so Harcourt argues in a provocative new paper on SSRN, “Randomization in Criminal Justice: A Criminal Law Conversation.”

Should police focus their resources on the inner-city or the suburbs?  Flip a coin, Harcourt suggests.  What maximum prison term should the legislature prescribe for a given offense?  Try drawing a number out of a hat.  Did the defendant really intend to cause the victim’s death?  Get out the tarot cards.

Harcourt’s paper appears in the new book Criminal Law Conversations, along with critical commentary written by law professors Alon Harel (Hebrew University), Ken Levy (L.S.U.), Alice Ristroph (Seton Hall), and some guy named Michael O’Hear.  The SSRN version includes the four responses plus Harcourt’s reply.  The abstract appears after the jump. 

Continue ReadingRandom Criminal Punishment?

Grossman on Governance

wall-streetNadelle Grossman has two new corporate law papers on SSRN.  The first, entitled “Turning a Short-Term Fling into a Long-Term Commitment: Board Duties in a New Era,” deals with the timely topic of corporate leaders making strategic decisions based on short-term profits without regard to long-term risk.  As a solution, she proposes changes in the legal duties owed by corporate directors.  Here is the abstract:

Corporate boards face significant pressure to make decisions that maximize profits in the short run. That pressure comes in part from executives who are financially rewarded for short-term profits despite the long-term risks associated with those profit-making activities. The current financial crisis, where executives at AIG and numerous other institutions ignored the long-term risks associated with their mortgage-backed securities investments, arose largely because those executives were compensated for the short-term profits generated by those investments despite their longer-term risks. Pressure on boards for short-term profits also comes from activist investors who seek to make quick money off of trading in stocks whose prices overly reflect short-term firm values.

Yet this excessive focus on producing short-term profits runs counter to the interests of non-short-termist investors and other corporate constituents, as well as our economy and society as a whole, in creating corporate enterprises that are profitable on an enduring basis. Once again, the current financial crisis provides a lens through which we can see the distressing impact — both to individual businesses as well as to the entire U.S community — of an excessive focus on short-term profits.

I propose a solution to address this problem of short-termism. Under my proposal, directors would be required to make decisions that are in the long-term best interest of stockholders and the corporation under their fiduciary duties. I explain in the article why I propose fixing the short-termism problem through fiduciary duties as well as how, practically, my proposal would be implemented.

This paper is forthcoming in the Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Continue ReadingGrossman on Governance