I had an idea last night: what if the Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education had ruled that "separate but equal" was allowed... provided it WAS equal? If states could maintain segregated schools, but only if the black schools had the same funding, etc.? How might that have changed American society?
Actual Separate But Equal
- Thread starter Meshakhad
- Start date
I think eventually you would see America split apart. I've often wondered about this, if Segregation was something else, Separation perhaps. No idea about PODs, but i can see a country that is divided. Perhaps get rid of Tulsa. On a long enough timeline though, i doubt democracy could function over two different populations
That's what Plessy v Ferguson already said and was the law on the books.
It didn't stop separate but equal from becoming separate and unequal in practice since the entire point was to keep the black population under the proverbial yoke.
You'd have the whites abandoning the public school system for "private" schools that operate on charters and are funded by public grants while the blacks are left in the public system and starved of funding. And right there you've recreated segregation. This actually happened in parts of the South IOTL after Brown.
jahenders
Banned
I think you COULD have had a few states decide to make that work rather than integrate. In order to appease the Feds, they'd have some group that would compare white/black education funding and highlight disparities that have to be addressed. That could go on for a period of time, but:
1) There would always be chicanery (and charges thereof) as far as the accuracy of the funding numbers
2) It would be prohibitively expensive since you'd have a lot of duplication of effort. Taxes would keep going up and/or quality would go down (probably both).
3) Since many/most states to local funding for education, the equality would be very small scale (property taxes at the country/city/district level). You'd still have rich towns (mostly white) getting lots more money for their schools than poor towns (mostly black). So, you'd eventually have more court cases rule THAT unconstitutional.
All that aside, if a state(s) did maintain separate systems for years, you'd eventually see budgetary pressure to consolidate for savings. The taxpayers would mandate it.
1) There would always be chicanery (and charges thereof) as far as the accuracy of the funding numbers
2) It would be prohibitively expensive since you'd have a lot of duplication of effort. Taxes would keep going up and/or quality would go down (probably both).
3) Since many/most states to local funding for education, the equality would be very small scale (property taxes at the country/city/district level). You'd still have rich towns (mostly white) getting lots more money for their schools than poor towns (mostly black). So, you'd eventually have more court cases rule THAT unconstitutional.
All that aside, if a state(s) did maintain separate systems for years, you'd eventually see budgetary pressure to consolidate for savings. The taxpayers would mandate it.
Agreed that it would be hard to get past the theory and into practice.
Even if they really do honestly try to give both sides the same treatment it will be pretty tough to manage to get it exactly balanced.
What you really need is for it to be bottom up rather than top down. Both sides seeing it as more important that they are seperate than they have exact equality.
How come?
A total division like segregation...hard to think of anything close there.
But in lots of countries today you do get communities such as orthodox Jews who by choice live a very separate life with their own schools, shops, etc... and they tend to have pretty comparable standards of living.
Even if they really do honestly try to give both sides the same treatment it will be pretty tough to manage to get it exactly balanced.
What you really need is for it to be bottom up rather than top down. Both sides seeing it as more important that they are seperate than they have exact equality.
How come?
A total division like segregation...hard to think of anything close there.
But in lots of countries today you do get communities such as orthodox Jews who by choice live a very separate life with their own schools, shops, etc... and they tend to have pretty comparable standards of living.
I could see even more segregation for example in State of X
Lives: 10 million whites and 5 million "coloured"
So seats in house are distributed by 2 to 1
So would have White districts and "coloured "districts in same state.
These district would overlap..
I am not advocating this but it might have been model.
Only problem would in Supreme court wherein such rule would be problematic due to White or Coloured goven
or picking some one not simphatateic to other race.
And off-course Governor must be only one, but maybe Governor Lieutenant should have been the other. Similar rule is in Lebanon but we know how this ended up..
To
1) Even definition of fair is in debate.
Suppose their is 25% Flat tax and the it is distributed acording to number of people by race, This if blacks are poorer would help them since more redistribution would help them. But if such tax is to be distributed only in "Race" it would help whites.
Some combination of two could be in place to like 1/2 to shared pot and second half from race pot.
Their could even be race based income tax!
So race A votes for higher taxes that race B for "public good"
So wealthy members of class A shift to Class B , and B accepts them because money does not smell.
And then take case of Jews and Asians. They would petition them selfs for special race due to fact that their share of finance would be closer to them.
To
1) Even definition of fair is in debate.
Suppose their is 25% Flat tax and the it is distributed acording to number of people by race, This if blacks are poorer would help them since more redistribution would help them. But if such tax is to be distributed only in "Race" it would help whites.
Some combination of two could be in place to like 1/2 to shared pot and second half from race pot.
Their could even be race based income tax!
So race A votes for higher taxes that race B for "public good"
So wealthy members of class A shift to Class B , and B accepts them because money does not smell.
And then take case of Jews and Asians. They would petition them selfs for special race due to fact that their share of finance would be closer to them.
Race based income tax would be unconstitutional, political suicide for any politician who votes for it and set civil rights back further then in OTL.
Yeah, separate but equal is a fig leaf: if there was true equality then the purpose of separation disintegrates.