SEPARATE BUT EQUAL? Here’s Why Black Harvard Students Are Holding Their Own Graduation Ceremony.

“This is an opportunity to celebrate Harvard’s Black excellence and Black brilliance,” Michael Huggins, a soon-to-become Masters graduate from Harvard’s Kennedy School, told The Root. “It’s an event where we can see each other and our parents and family can see us as a collective, whole group. A community.”

“This is not about segregation,” He added. “It’s about fellowship and building a community. This is a chance to reaffirm for each other that we enter the work world with a network of supporters standing with us. We are all partners.”

Just not fellowship or community with anyone of a different color.

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL? President-Free Correspondents’ Dinner May be ‘Healthiest Thing,’ Says CNN Reporter Don Lemon. ‘He wants to talk to his crowd. Good for him. Go for it.’

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS A-OKAY, IF YOU’RE GAY!: It would make a snazzy t-shirt slogan. And sadly, it’s true: The University of Oklahoma has announced plans to provide a separate but equal student lounge for LGBT+++++ students. Apparently, the university’s decision was prompted by a request from an LGBT student organization, which actually wants to be segregated from the rest of the student body:

Human relations sophomore David Martin is excited about the study room because it will allow students to hang out in a comfortable place without judgement or bullying. LGBTQ students will be able to comfortably socialize and be with their significant other without fear, he said.

“It goes back to having a safe haven … having a safe place will help students be themselves, and provide the opportunity to reduce harassment,” Martin said.

So let’s get this straight (pun intended): Instead of working to ensure that LGBT students aren’t harassed and treated equally, the University of Oklahoma–a public university subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment–thinks it’s better to offer a segregated “safe space” for LGBT students? Seriously?

How about a taxpayer-funded “safe space” for conservatives, or pro-life students, or even (gasp!) white men? Would the University of Oklahoma think such spaces would be important to furthering its mission of inclusion and diversity, too? Yeah, we know the answer. Oh well, it will make an interesting lawsuit.

SOMETIMES I SHOW MY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS THE FILM SEPARATE BUT EQUAL, ABOUT THE BROWN CASE. It’s really, really good, and it’s available on YouTube now. Here’s part one, and here’s part two. The film’s pretty closely based on Richard Kluger’s Simple Justice, an oral history of the Brown case. I heard some of these stories — the bedroom-key joke, for example — direct from Charlie Black when I was in law school.

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL? SAME-SEX PUBLIC SCHOOLING:  U.S. Senators Barbara Mikulski and Kay Bailey Hutchison have an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, arguing the merits of same-sex public school classrooms and schools.  True, segregation by gender in public schools seems to be motivated by a desire to improve test scores and minimize hormonal distractions that impede learning.  But is this consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, or is the concept of “separate but equal” equally pernicious when applied to gender, as it is to race?  In the words of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

It’s an interesting legal question, not yet decided by the Supremes:  Can government segregate based on gender if such segregation is “benign” in purpose?

OBAMA, GAY MARRIAGE, AND “SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.”

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL AT HARVARD: “In the old days, Harvard would have laughed if some Catholic or evangelical mother urged ‘girls-only’ campus workouts in the name of modesty. Today, Harvard happily implements Sharia swim times in the name of Mohammed.”

The Saudis think they’re buying Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. Actually they’re just accelerating their marginalization. Meanwhile, GWU Prof. John Banzhaf emails that this is almost certainly illegal:

In 1998 a female weight lifter in Boston was awarded $5000 when she was denied admission to a male-only section of a gym which had a separate gym area for women. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination made the ruling despite arguments that separate weight-lifting areas were necessary to prevent “sexual harassment,” and a finding that it did in fact tend to reduce sexual harassment. [Hassan and DiCenso v. City of Boston, et al., 20 MDLR 83]

Just a year earlier Superior Court Judge Burnes ruled that a “women only” health club violates Massachusetts’ public accommodation statute by refusing to admit men, and could not justify its policy on privacy grounds. [Foster v. Back Bay Spas, d/b/a/ Healthworks Fitness Center, Suffolk Superior Court No. 96-7060 (1997).]

Although the legislature responded by exempting some health clubs which are established solely for use by one gender, that exemption does not appear to apply here because the gym is used by both genders together during most times of the day, and because Harvard receives public funds.

I had wondered about that very thing myself. “Given Harvard’s stellar law school, it’s surprising that it would take this action in the face of such clear precedent,” says Banzhaf. “It would be even more surprising if one or more male students didn’t take them to court over such a clear violation as my law students have so often.”

UPDATE: Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, and The University of Texas.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Eugene Volokh thinks that Banzhaf may be wrong.

MATTHEW CONTINETTI: Trump’s New New Majority: How to reward the new members of Trump’s coalition.

Related: Trump has a Republican problem: The public wants a winner. FJB and Republican senators are losers.

Plus: How the Republican Party could win the Black vote for a generation. “It has been 70 years this month since Brown v. Board of Education ended official separate but equal schools. Democrats are proud of that achievement. What they won’t tell you is that two-thirds of Black kids still go to flailing segregated schools presided over by Democratic mayors who have no clue how to fix them and unions that see their role as job protectors for teachers more than advocates for children.”

THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OPINION IS OUT. From the summary:

Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice. Pp. 39–40.

UPDATE – also from the opinion:

Most troubling of all is what the dissent must make these omissions to defend: a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin. While the dissent would certainly not permit university programs that discriminated against black and Latino applicants, it is perfectly willing to let the programs here continue. In its view, this Court is supposed to tell state actors when they have picked the right races to benefit. Separate but equal is “inherently unequal,” said Brown. 347 U. S., at 495 (emphasis added). It depends, says the dissent.

Ouch. Also: “But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissenting opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.)”

R.I.P. SIDNEY POITIER.

He played Thurgood Marshall in the vastly underrated docudrama Separate but Equal, which miffed my old lawprof Charles Black a bit — he was jealous that Thurgood got Poitier to play him, while for Charlie Black they cast an actor who looked just like him. Charlie didn’t live to see Thurgood played by Chadwick Boseman in Marshall, which would have just rubbed salt in the wound. . .

DISPATCHES FROM THE PARTY OF MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERANCE FOR DIVERSITY. ‘White liberals are a scourge:’ New Austin residents are apparently turning to police to tackle the ‘toxic display of masculinity’ that is black and Latino car clubs.

Meanwhile, other Austin Democrats are returning to their “separate but equal” roots: Austin City Officials Planning to Build Segregated ‘Black Embassy.’ “While Democrat city officials in Texas’ capital city are claiming to move past racist policies like segregation, they are creating a separate city services facility for citizens with brown or black skin color.”

DON SURBER: Sidney Poitier: Enemy of the People. “The problem with Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? is it stars Sidney Poitier. He’s too white.”

Back in the early ’90s, ABC did a — really good — docudrama on the Brown case called Separate But Equal. It closely tracks Richard Kluger’s Simple Justice, an oral history of the case done while the major figures were still alive. My old lawprof and mentor Charles Black (who wrote the brief with Thurgood Marshall in the case) was still alive then, and we talked about it on the phone after we’d watched it. Charlie’s comment: “They got Sidney Poitier to play Thurgood, and then they got some S.O.B. that looked just like me.” I show the film in class sometimes, as its treatment of the legal issues is shockingly good for a movie, much less a TV movie.

The DVD is $59.99 on Amazon, which is a lot more than I remember. I wonder if that’s in anticipation of Poitier being cancelled as insufficiently black. It would be hilarious, except that mass hysteria on the part of people running all our major institutions isn’t actually funny. “Liberals now make the same argument the Ku Klux Klan did in denying the civil war was about slavery. Demoting Poitier to Stepin Fetchit status should serve as a warning not just to Will Smith and Obama, but to all black people. You may not be next, but you are on the list.”

Related: Study Finds Book Burners Always Stop With Just A Few Fringe Books, So There’s Nothing To Worry About.

UPDATE: And the price keeps rising! I think when I bought it a few years ago it was $14.99. (Bumped).

I WOULDN’T JUDGE. FOR ALL I KNOW THEY ARE FINED THROUGH THE NOSE IF THEY DON’T WEAR THE D*MN THING:  Paladin’s AMERICAN GOMORRAH ™ “City of Sheep” Edition.

Here in Colorado, I can’t go shopping without one, and I’m never sure if some place will let me go in with the visor. I’ve also been told that the fact I become dangerously asthmatic after wearing a mask means I should stay home and “order in.”

Separate but equal. Apparently that whole ADA act, that forced stores and public establishments to install ramps and change their bathroom setups? Yeah. It doesn’t mean anything when democrats and their paid media want to get a good panic on.

I HOPE HE STICKS AROUND LONG ENOUGH FOR A TRUMP CALL-OUT AT THE STATE OF THE UNION: Virginia governor clings to office, ignoring calls to resign.

Meanwhile, from the comments to this post:

“Ralph Northam Joke Book”

Who was Governor Northam’s favorite actor?

John Wilkes Booth

What does Northam call a maternity ward?

A morgue

What’s Northam’s favorite movie?

Partial Birth of a Nation

What’s his second favorite movie?

13 Years a Slave

What’s his favorite Clint Eastwood movie?

Hang ‘Em High

What was Northam’s least favorite movie?

Gettysburg

What kind of maternity card does Northam send new mothers?

A sympathy card

What’s the Governor’s personal motto?

“If at first you don’t Secede, try try again”

What’s the average life expectancy in Northam’s state?

Nine months

What’s Northam’s favorite Virginia auto dealer?

Coon’s ford

Who will Northam pick to head Virginia’s infant services?

Dr. Jack Kevorkian

What’s the Governor’s least favorite car?

a Lincoln continental

What’s Northam’s favorite part of any city?

the Hood

How does Northam describe his welfare system, and a maternity ward?

“From cradle to grave”

What’s the Governor’s preferred method of public transportation?

The Underground Railroad

Who was Northam’s favorite President?

Jefferson Davis

What are Northam’s favorite books?

the Clan of the cave bear

Confederacy of Dunces

What is Gov. Northam’s favorite bird?

Jim Crow

Who are Northam’s favorite aristocrats?

The Dukes of Hazzard, and David Duke

Who are Northam’s least favorite aristocrats?

Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Prince

What was Northam voted as in his college yearbook?

Most likely to Secede

Who is Northam’s favorite general, and his usual response to an accusation?

Stonewall

What are Northam’s chances of remaining Governor?

Gone with the Wind

How does Ralph Northam describe the sides of an isosceles triangle?

Separate But Equal

Heh.

THE KIDS ARE ALT-RIGHT: Angela Nagle’s Kill All Normies Explores Alt-Right’s Roots & Rise:

Nagle has many arch observations. This right wing learns quickly from the online Left and imitates or parodies its tactics. The movement’s transgressive performances are a way of effecting its “final detachment from any egalitarian philosophy of the left or Christian morality of the right.” And its commitment to itself as a vanguard means it has rejected Buckleyite conservatives’ belief that “the masses were their naturally traditionalist allies.” (“If one imagines where Milo would line up politically in terms of the infamous William F. Buckley v. Gore Vidal televised presidential debates of 1968,” Nagle writes at one point, “It would probably be closer to that of Vidal, whose libertinism and mischievous gay rhetorical style was so abhorrent to Buckley.”)

Kill All Normies is just as sharp, and perhaps twice as cutting, when it observes the young online Left. At points, Nagle dances close to suggesting that the Left brought this on itself: “After crying wolf throughout these years, calling everyone from saccharine pop stars to Justin Trudeau a ‘white supremacist’ and everyone who wasn’t With Her a sexist, the real wolf eventually arrived.”

Even as they pose as owning the moral high ground, the left runs around shouting “white privilege” at everyone from college students to Hollywood and Sillicon Valley moguls, while calling its own middle class supporters “bitter,” because “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” It increasingly believes (once again) in separate but equal education. Last year, multiple leftwing sources offered cheers and guffaws in response to the North Koreans’ slow-motion murder of Otto Warmbier because, as Comedy Central host Larry Wilmore told his audience last year, “You’ve got to read the fine print on your American frat bro warranty. It says, ‘Frat Bro Privilege not valid in totalitarian dystopias” – or as Steve Green summed up the left’s tone regarding Warmbier, “White men deserve whatever happens to them, because justice.” More recently, CNN employees alternately hold up a severed head of the president and threaten to dox his supporters.

Naturally, like Claude Rains in Casablanca, leftists are shocked – shocked! – that some on the right have begun imitating their tone and tactics. As Kurt Schlichter warned them, the left isn’t enjoying living under the rules, and morality, they created.

R.I.P. BILL COLEMAN:

A lifelong Republican, Mr. Coleman was as comfortable in the boardrooms of powerful corporations — PepsiCo, IBM, Chase Manhattan Bank — as he was in the halls of government. He was the second African-American to serve in a White House cabinet, heading the Department of Transportation.

Mr. Coleman found success on the heels of a brilliant academic career, but he did so in the face of bigotry — what he called “the more subtle brand of Yankee racism” — from which his middle-class upbringing in Philadelphia did not shield him. In one episode, his high school disbanded its all-white swimming team rather than let him join it.

Those experiences would inform his efforts in three major civil rights cases before the United States Supreme Court.

In one, Mr. Coleman, recruited by Thurgood Marshall, was an author of the legal briefs that successfully pressed the court to outlaw segregation in public schools in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Ten years later, he argued a case that led to a Supreme Court decision establishing the constitutionality of racially mixed sexual relations and cohabitation. And in 1982, he argued that segregated private schools should be barred from receiving federal tax exemptions. The court agreed.

Coleman is well-played by Jeffrey Wright in the under-appreciated docudrama on Brown, Separate But Equal. I show that in class sometimes, despite the time it consumes, because it’s that rarity, a legal movie that accurately describes the law, and legal strategizing. The casting of Sidney Poitier as Thurgood Marshall is its biggest departure from reality: When it came out, I talked to my old lawprof Charlie Black on the phone, who complained “They got Sidney Poitier to play Thurgood, and then they found some SOB that looks just like me!”