Last week we watched three of the six episodes of the PBS series Eyes on the Prize. Today, we''ll watch episode four, No Easy Walk,, and begin our discussion of the two letters, the Letter from Eight Clergymen and the Letter from Birmingham Jail. What won't yet have seen the film regarding the March on Washington. We'll watch the whole episode "No Easy Walk" on Thursday or Friday. In terms of discussion, today I'd like to have us focus on two things. We'll concern ourselves with the Letter of the clergymen, and especially on the larger context in which the letter was written. Both these letters were what we might call "Public Letters"--published in newspapers so that the public at large could hear the views of those on both sides of the segregation issue. I've located another interesting letter, which I'd like to have you read: The clergymen actually wrote two letters, not just one. The document at the other end of this link contains the first letter, written in January before Dr. Martin Luther King came to Birmingham, and the second letter, written while he was there. It is the second letter to which he responded with the Letter from Birmingham Jail. Compare the first letter and the second. Do you notice a change in the audience, or what the Clergymen wanted people to consider? Does this have any effect on your opinions about the Clergymen? What do you think? (The document at the end of the link contains all three letters, which should simplify your ability to compare them with each other).
Second, I want to have you put yourselves into the video. The principal protesters were your ages, what must it have been like to live in that world--and try to think of it from the perspectives of young people of both races.
Download, read, AND mark up, from the Core Canon
Two more cases before the Supreme Court will complete this section of our work for the semester. Though the March on Washington had happened four years earlier, Virginia still refused to let persons of different races marry each other. Anti-miscegenation laws were still on the books in many southern states. Loving v. Virginia declared these unconstitutional. Judge Earl Warren was still Chief Justice.
was decided June 15 or 2015, and required states recognize marriages between consenting adults regardless of gender.
As you read Loving v. Virginia, look for indications that the court is following precedents set in Brown v. Board of Education, and also note that it responds to what we have seen was the greatest fear of segregationists--that children would meet in school, see equality in children of different races and marry, Note the rational by which Virginia attempted to "sneak" around the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Note as well, the date(s) of some of the references they cite. How does the Supreme Court argue that what the Virginia Court had done was unconstitutional? Add your thoughts in sticky notes and put the document in your dropbox.
James Obergfell's case is quite controversial. The court decided in a split decision, and three judges wrote dissenting decisions , even as they signed each other's decision in dissent. There is a lot of legalese in these decisions, and I don't expect you to memorize it. What I would like to have you do is write Four sticky notes before you put it in the dropbox. Each of the sticky notes should summarize your understanding of Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion, and the three Dissenting Opinions of Justices Roberts (beginning p. 38), Scalia (beginning p. 72), and Thomas (beginning p. 82). Indicate which argument(s) you find convincing and/or unconvincing. In a final sticky note, why do you think there were Three dissenting opinions. Do they differ from each other in any significant way?
