Trial #2 Reaction

Today, the court was filled with my peers defending the side of the Board of Regents and the side of Bakke in the case of Board of Regents v. Bakke. The case is about the University of California's medical school setting a limit of only admitting ten African American students. In this case, Mr. Bakke was one of the most qualified applicants, however he was not accepted because of his skin color. This is a 14th Amendment case discussing the Equal Protection Clause. 

First, the side of the Board of Regents spoke and made their arguments. They wanted the jury to look at this case as a whole regarding race rather than specifically about Mr. Bakke, noting that race is only one factor in someone getting accepted into a university. Additionally, they argued that their approach to selecting students aligns with the Equal Protection Clause and passes the strict scrutiny test put in place by the Supreme Court. They also discussed how other universities currently have affirmative action policies, such as Clemson. 

Then, Mr. Bakke's side went to the stand. They made various good points, including that Mr. Bakke was an excellent student. He had scored outstandingly high on his medical exams and maintained a 3.5 GPA. Pointing out that race shouldn't be a determining factor in getting into medical school. Instead, they should look at the facts about the student's educational standing. Furthermore, the lawyers for Bakke said that excluding one group does not empower another, since the opposing argument claimed that since there are historically black universities African Americans were not being "left out" of the opportunity to an education. The economic argument was also brought up, stating that allowing black individuals into medical school would increase the number of people in the workforce, ultimately leading to economic growth. 

In the end, the Judge decided to rule in favor of creating a new policy, saying that someone's race would just be one part of being admitted into a university. This decision wasn't a win for either party but instead a compromise between both sides. 

EOTO #2 Reaction

Today, I listened to my peers speak about the negatives and positives of the Reconstruction Era in America. Both sides handled their topics well and were able to teach others the main points of their topic. All the speeches were interesting and engaging, and they taught me new information I had never learned before regarding the Reconstruction Era. 

The first group to speak discussed the negative events that took place during Reconstruction. Firstly, they talked about the Wilmington Massacre of 1898, where white supremacists targeted black-owned businesses and households, intending to destroy them and dismantle the biracial government. Sadly, between sixty and three hundred black citizens died due to this horrific event. Also, this was the only known violent overthrow of an elected government. Additionally, "sundown towns" were discussed. These were towns that banned non-white individuals from entering after dark. This led to many lynchings and cruel acts toward African Americans. Emmit Till, who was brutally killed due to lynchings regarding false accusations, was mentioned. 

Although many negatives were presented, the second group informed us of all of the positives during reconstruction. One was Executive Order 9981 signed by the president during that time, Harry Truman. This order mandated the desegregation of the United States military, helping to move society along in a progressive manner. Prior to this being signed into law blacks were assigned to positions as cooks or laborers. We learned about Porgy and Bess, the first African American opera. Prompting a push for desegregation and for the end of white actors portraying black characters. The opera revolves around a disabled man who helps a woman move on from her toxic relationship. 

These historical events taught in class gave me greater knowledge about the Reconstruction Era, providing both positive and negative events. They highlighted how far we have come as a country since this time.

EOTO Civil Rights Era: Martin Luther King Jr. Assassination

When we think of the Civil Rights Era, Martin Luther King Jr. naturally comes to mind. He played a pivotal role in the Civil Rights movement. King was born on January 15th, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia. He was raised in a middle-class family, where his Father and Grandfather were both Baptist preachers, and both parents were college-educated. This sparked King's interest in the Church and led him to go to Morehouse College and then to Seminary school in Chester, Pennsylvania. 

In December of 1955, following the Montgomery Bus Boycotts involving Rosa Parks refusing to give her seat up to a white passenger, people supporting the movement formed the Montgomery Improvement Association and decided that King would be their leader. This was because he was young and had a good reputation around the town, where people respected him. After that movement was successful, he went on to organize The Southern Christian Leadership Conference. With this group, he traveled around the country, giving powerful speeches on race-related issues and bringing out others to speak as well. King focused a lot on ensuring that nonviolent resistance was how this movement was fighting back against the racism occurring on a daily basis. Throughout the years, MLK gave powerful speeches such as the famous "I Have a Dream speech," and he even went to jail for a period of time while advocating for the lunch counter sit-ins. He felt strongly about his beliefs and helped to move the nation along to a desegregated society. Sadly, this positive momentum didn't last forever.

On April 4th, 1968, at exactly 6:05 pm in Memphis, Tennessee, Martin Luther King Jr was shot. He was standing on a balcony outside his room on the second floor at the Lorraine Motel. He was pronounced dead in St. Joesphs Hospital at 7:05 pm. His death caused violent outbreaks to occur across the nation, with more than forty deaths and extensive damage done. James Earl Ray was the man who was found guilty of murdering King and was ultimately sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison. The current president at the time, Lyndon B. Johnson, called for a national day of mourning following the assassination, where public museums, libraries, businesses, and schools were closed. 

A march in Memphis just a few days later was held to honor King and support sanitation workers that he had be scheduled to speak to days earlier. His funeral service was held in Atlanta where many prominent figures attended and over 100,000 mourners followed behind King's coffin. A recording of King was played at his funeral where he said, "I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King Jr, tried to give his life serving others." King was eventually laid to rest at South-View Cemetery and later moved to Ebenezer Church. MLK is if not the most one of the most notable Civil Rights Era figures he dedicated his life to a cause he truly believed in, that unfortunately took his life too soon. 

In the Heat of the Night Reflection

In the Heat of the Night  released in 1967 following a murder mystery in a small southern town is a wonderful film that shows life during the Jim Crow era. The movie follows the main character Virgil Tibbs, played by Sydney Poititer and is centered around the mysterious murder of a wealthy businessman named Philip Colbert.

In the beginning, Virgil Tibbs is the main suspect in the case. He is then put into jail by Police Chief Bill Gillespie. However, it is revealed that Tibbs is not the murderer and is set free. Eventually, he begins working with the local police department to solve the murder since he is a detective from Philadelphia. It was very uncommon for there to be black officers or detectives, especially in the South, creating many questions about his ability to perform his job. 

As the movie progresses, Virgil Tibbs and Officer Gillespie form a bond even though they are in the Jim Crow South, where a friendship like theirs is highly unlikely. At the beginning they didn't see eye to eye and Gillespie was cruel towards Tibbs, however he realises how good of a detective Tibbs is and how he is more knowledgeable than him despite his prior beliefs that black men are not as good as white men. 

One turning point in their relationship is when they go to speak with Mr. Endicott. When talking to him, Tibbs accuses Endicott of murdering Philip Colbert. Endicott slaps Tibbs out of anger and Tibbs retaliates, shocking everyone around them. Gillespie views Tibbs's anger and retaliation toward Endicott as a way that proves that Tibbs is just a man part of the middle class who doesn't want to put up with wealthy white racists aligning Tibbs and Gillespie's beliefs. This event further strengthens their bond and symbolizes how society should unite despite race and realize the similarities that bring them together. 

In conclusion, I really enjoyed watching In the Heat of the Night and would even watch the film again. I think the movie did a great job of showing what life was like in the Jim Crow South for black people. Which, was interesting since they were no longer enslaved but still being treated horribly by whites around them. 

Brown v. Board Mock Trial

We are gathered here today in this courtroom to dispute the case of Brown V. Board. A case that takes place in 1950s America. Some may not think that this was a progressive time for black Americans. However, it was, and many positive events occurred. Why would we side with the board and segregate public schools based on race? When we as a society are moving forward and taking productive steps toward an equal society between white and black citizens where everyone is treated fairly, no matter the color of their skin. 

One of the positive movements for black citizens during this time we can look to is the desegregation of the military. This occurred when the Selective Service and Training Act became law on September 16th, 1940, which included two antidiscrimination clauses allowing black men to enlist and prohibited discrimination in the military. Following this law, Benjamin O. Davis Jr. became the first African Ameican General in the United States Airforce. If we can integrate the military and allow all to fight for this great country we call our home, then why can't we also allow that same group of people to gain an education with their white peers? Aren't we stripping them of something that should be their right? 

We have also begun to change sports by integrating black and white athletes. In 1950, Earl Lyod became the first African American basketball player in the NBA. Athena Gibson became the first Black female athlete to desegregate tennis and golf. She even went on to compete at Wimbledon. Also, in 1908, Jack Johnson became the first Black heavyweight boxing champion of the world, representing the United States of America. Finally, how can we forget Jackie Robinson and how he became the first Black baseball player to play in the American major leagues during the 20th century. He broke the decades-old what some would refer to as the "color line" or "color barrier," which excluded players of African descent from participating in the Major Leagues and Minor leagues.

Look at James Weldon Johnson and what he has been able to do by being provided with an education. I acknowledge that he did go to a segregated High School in Flordia until the eighth grade and then to Atlanta University, which was also segregated. However, he has been able to become an author, professor, lawyer, newspaper founder, and songwriter, all because he gained an education. This is something that can be made more accessible to black people if we end this segregation within our schools.

How is it that nearly ninety years after the abolishment of slavery, we are still fighting for the rights of our own citizens just because of their race? This community has done so much to better America by fighting for our country, representing us on world stages, and uplifting their voices that have been silenced for too long. All they ask, more specifically, all Brown asks for is the right to an education with their fellow Americans. We have come so far as a society; we can not go backward, which is precisely what would happen, your honor, if you were to side with Board today. I urge you to think of the disservice you would be doing to the Black community in this country. Don't they deserve more? 

Mock Trial Reaction: Plessy v. Ferguson

The court was filled with individuals listening to the arguments from the defendants and plaintiffs regarding the Plessy v Ferguson case. Both side's arguments were strong and filled with evidence in favor of their side. I thoroughly enjoyed the mock trial as a whole and felt that it ran smoothly. 

Starting with the side in favor of Plessy, they touched on many reasons as to why he shouldn't have been thrown off the train car by police or fined. The religious argument stood out to me. Paige specifically took excerpts from the Bible that each person is made uniquely by God. Therefore, why should white people be held in such high regard while black individuals are treated so poorly, like in this case, Plessy? Also, they took into account how Plessy was only one-eighth African American, meaning he only had one black grandparent in his lineage. Additionally, they brought it to the judge's and jury's attention that segregation is costing our country an immense amount of money due to the fact that they must purchase double of everything. 

However, the opposing side also crafted a strong argument. The economic argument was quite interesting and argued many solid points. Some of these included having a "black wall street" boosts the economy, having integrated businesses that may scare off customers, segregating people makes it easier for businesses to produce products certain groups want, etc. The mention of segregated education systems was also a key point, discussing how it is pointless to have white and black children in the same schools since black kids won't be able to keep up. 

Overall, I enjoyed listening to all the arguments presented. I believe many of my peers did an amazing job at arguing their side in an effective manner. In the end, the judge ruled in favor of Plessy, determining that he should not have to pay the fine. 

EOTO Reconstruction Era: Civil Rights Act of 1875

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was first introduced in 1870 by Charles Sumner, an abolitionist and radical Republican Senator from Massachusetts. He was one of the few white male politicians of his time who dedicated his career to supporting the abolition of slavery and advocating for black rights. This bill gave all citizens access to public accommodations such as theaters, restaurants, hotels, and forms of transportation regardless of skin color. Also, it frobade excluding any person from jury service based on their race and required all lawsuits brought under the Civil Rights Act to be tried in federal, not state courts. 

The Civil Rights act specifically stated, "That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude." This shows how the ultimate goal of this act was to protect all United States citizen's, civil and legal rights post Civil War and slavery.

As expected many if not all the Southerners in the Senate did not approve of the bill, this caused great debate in the Senate. Hours were spent arguing with one another and even became heated at times when either side reused to back down and disregard their beliefs. These arguments were centered around whether Congress had the constitutional right to decide who the juries selected for state courts could be made up of. After many disputes and conversations among the Sentators, those who supported the bill agreed t drop one thing from it. They had decided to eliminate the portion that prohibited segregation in public schools, which would later go on to change the course of history. 

Sumner thought that the Civil Rights Act would be the most outstanding achievement of Reconstruction. He stated, "Very few measures of equal importance have ever been presented." Sumner wholeheartedly believed in his bill and that it would be extremely pivotal in U.S. history. Unfortunately, Sumner did not live to see what happened to his bill. In March 1874 he unexpectedly died due to a heart attack att only sixty-three years old. On his death bed Sumner said to his friend Frederick Douglass, "Don't let the bill fail, you must take care of my civil rights bill." Luicily Douglass made sure Sumner's legacy lived on in American history and with The Civil Rights Act of 1875. 

The bill was brought to the floor for a vote in February 1875 and was eventually passed on February 27th that same year, with a vote of thirty-eight to twenty-six. With the majority of votes in favor of the bill coming from the Republican party. Soon the bill became law on March 1, 1875 and was the first public accommodation law to ever be passed in the United States.