Last week, we were privileged to hear Professor Michael Klarman speak on “Why Brown v. Board of Education Was a Hard Case.”  This was one of the most enjoyable and interesting talks I have heard in a long time.  I highly recommend it, and you can click here to get the webcast.  My guess is that this would still be as funny and insightful on the audio.   There were two particular points that he made in reviewing the history of the case that linked to conflict resolution theory that I want to highlight here.

First, Klarman noted that, contrary to typical practice, the justices facing the Brown decision did not take a straw poll at their first conference discussing the case.  In fact, as he notes, by his count, there would have been only four votes to overturn Plessy at the beginning and nothing near the unanimity that the Court presented in its decision the following year.  What was the import of not taking this poll?  As Klarman notes, this allowed the justices to change their mind and to preserve fluidity in their thinking.  In other words, the justices did not lock themselves into an opening position that then they would feel necessary to defend throughout the discussions. 

The impact of publicly locking yourself in to an opening position is problematic, as we know.