Question

What was the argument made by Thurgood Marshall in the Brown case, and why do you think it was more persuasive than John W. Davis’s argument? Support your opinion with details from the reading.
Lawyers from the NAACP argued the case before the Supreme Court. They were led by Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the nation’s first African American Supreme Court justice. Marshall had already won most of the cases he had taken to the Supreme Court for the NAACP. John W. Davis represented the states. Davis had argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other lawyer at that time.

In his argument before the Supreme Court, Marshall said that segregated schools could never be “equal.” The simple act of separating people, he argued, suggested that one group was seen as better than the other.

Davis responded that education was a local issue. Each state, he said, should be allowed to decide for itself whether to segregate its schools. The Constitution did not prevent the separation of blacks and whites as long as states provided equal facilities for each group.

Answer 1

Thurgood Marshall's argument in the Brown v. Board of Education case focused on the inherent inequality of segregated schools. He contended that segregation itself was a symbol of inferiority, suggesting that one group—whites—was superior to the other—blacks. Marshall emphasized that separate educational facilities could never achieve true equality, as segregation created a psychological impact on African American students, instilling feelings of inferiority that would affect their educational development and self-worth.

In contrast, John W. Davis's argument centered on states' rights and the idea that education was best decided at the local level. He maintained that as long as states provided equal facilities for both black and white students, there was no violation of the Constitution. This line of reasoning, while traditionally robust in legal contexts, was less compelling in the face of growing social consciousness regarding civil rights and moral obligations.

Marshall's argument was more persuasive for several reasons:

1. **Moral Authority**: Marshall appealed to a broader sense of justice and morality, arguing that segregation itself was unjust and detrimental to the social fabric of the nation. His message resonated in a post-World War II context where the U.S. was beginning to grapple with its principles of equality and liberty.

2. **Psychological Evidence**: Unlike Davis, who relied heavily on the legal framework of states' rights, Marshall brought in social science evidence, notably the psychological studies demonstrating the detrimental effects of segregation on black children’s self-esteem and development. This added an empirical foundation to his argument that segregation was inherently unequal.

3. **Vision for Change**: Marshall framed his vision of integrated schools as a means to foster equality and unity in American society, whereas Davis's argument defended the status quo. The societal push for civil rights was gaining momentum, and arguments advocating for change and progress were increasingly appealing to the justices.

Overall, Marshall's argument combined moral reasoning with empirical evidence, aligning with the evolving sentiments in American society that favored equality. His focus on the damaging effects of segregation made a compelling case for the need to overturn established precedents, positioning his argument as not just legally sound but also morally necessary in the pursuit of justice.