time of Plessy v. Ferguson , this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
The glaring omission in the Brown opinion is that Warren did not cite Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion from Plessy . Warren could have written that Brown overruled Plessy strictly on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, thereby validating Harlan's argument that the Constitution is colorblind. Instead, with its decision in Brown , the USSC still refused to support the Fourteenth Amendment based on a strict reading of its language.
Warren's court was certainly correct in overturning the Plessy decision. His broad, liberal justification, however, laid the groundwork for future court rulings and laws that viewed citizens not as equal individuals, but as members of various racial groups in need of special protections.
Indeed, Congress passed a number of landmark laws in the years following the Brown decision that addressed many of the inequities and discriminations racial minorities faced. The Civil Rights Act of 1957, passed during the Eisenhower administration, established the Civil Rights Section of the U.S. Justice Department and allowed federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against individuals who interfered with others' voting rights.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed during President Lyndon Johnson's administration, prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, in employment, and created the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. The act made it illegal to compel racial segregation in schools, housing, or in hiring practices.
The act not only opened many doors for Blacks and other racial minorities, it also provided the impetus for the feminist movement and later programs such as affirmative action. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was of course controversial at the time of its passage, and many Southern Democrats in Congress opposed it. Its passage, however, brought the nation closer to the Founders' vision of "equal protection of the laws" for all citizens.
Unfortunately, President Johnson was not content with legislation that, to him, merely made discriminatory practices illegal and sought to treat all citizens equally regardless of race or ethnicity. In his 1965 commencement address at Howard University, Johnson permanently muddied the waters of race relations and treatment of racial minorities by the courts, the law, and government and private institutions. In the section of his remarks titled "Freedom Is Not Enough," President Johnson stated,
It is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates. This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result. To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough.
President Johnson went on to say, "Perhaps most important--its influence radiating to every part of life--is the breakdown of the Negro family structure. For this, most of all, White America must accept responsibility."
With his speech to Howard University, and the affirmative action and quota laws that were subsequently passed, Blacks were no longer viewed as individuals in the eyes of federal and state courts, nor in the eyes of Congress, nor in the eyes of the White Democrat elites, nor in the eyes of the soon-to-emerge, self-appointed Black leaders.
The question central to an examination of the opinions in Plessy and Brown , of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964, and of President Johnson's Howard University commencement speech is "Do Constitutional rights and guarantees