Judge Marshall Goes to Smith College on Wednesday Seeking Lesbian Support
Judge Margaret Marshall will be going to the home of lesbians in Massachusetts, Smith College, this Wednesday May 12, to obtain support for herself by delivering an address at the Law Day celebration at the Northampton Courthouse.
Marshall will continue portraying herself as a civil rights activist who is seeking to do for homosexuals what she did for blacks in her native South Africa and for all women in the U.S. She will be telling lesbians she needs help in her attempt to avoid being removed from the court by the angry, distraught citizens.
Although festivities in the Courthouse begin at 8:30 a.m., Marshall will not speak until 12:15 p.m., after being introduced by the lesbian mayor, Mary Clare Higgins.
The annual Gay Pride March was held in the city last Saturday with two all-women motorcycle groups from Boston and New York and the Freedom Trail Band from Boston.
Brown v. Board of Education Hurt Blacks
Although the case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, will be praised to the sky by Marshall and a panel of Smith scholars who will precede her, that case actually hurt black people, according to the book, “Freedom Will Conquer Racism,” by Atty. J. Edward Pawlick.
The U.S. Supreme Court skipped right over “freedom” in that case and went to the opposite extreme, says Pawlick. Integration was not only allowed; it was now required, under the Brown opinion. There was still no choice. There was no freedom. If a Chinese person in Boston, for example, wished to live with other Chinese people in Chinatown he was essentially violating the law (at least in spirit and often in fact) by living with other Chinese.
The Italians were violating the law by living in the North End, the Irish in South Boston and the Jews in Brookline. This became apparent when the federal courts began to require that children of these people be bussed around the city to achieve integration. The citizen no longer had a choice. There were many citizens who wished to integrate with other races; there were others who did not. But the choice was removed. Whereas the judges in the Supreme Court had wrongly said in 1896 that it was legal to prohibit the mingling of the races; now it had suddenly changed. Everyone was required to integrate.
As far as the Constitution was concerned, we had skipped right over a color-blind society where a citizen could do what he or she chose to do.
One liberal commentator gleefully said of the court’s decision: “When the Supreme Court ordered desegregation, it...also exposed the more savory doctrine of color blindness to reexamination and exposed its weaknesses.”
The new doctrine of forcible integration was even more evident in the Supreme Court’s second Brown decision the following year. It held that black students who suffered from segregation had no individual rights to desegregated education apart from the rights of the rest of their race. A black student could be delayed in pushing for his rights if progress was being made in the legal status of blacks as a group.
This decision had bad results. “This reluctance [by the Supreme Court] to declare and enforce a strict color-blind constitutional rule not only delayed the desegregation of southern schools for over a decade, but helped make possible the application of color-conscious remedies in education, voting and employment after 1965,” noted one commentator.