Separate but equal?
For many years, racial segregation was legal in the United States under the "separate but equal" doctrine upheld by the Supreme Court in the notorious 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. In many places, white Americans and black Americans were not allowed to ride in the same railway cars, drink from the same water fountains, attend the same schools, etc. The theory was that as long as equal facilities were provided for both groups, it was not unconstitutional to keep the groups apart. In reality, the facilities provided for black Americans were often far from equal to those provided for their white fellow citizens. In the 1950s, the Supreme Court finally rejected the "separate but equal" doctrine, ruling that racially segregated facilities were inherently unequal and thus impermissible under the Constitution's promise of "equal protection" for all citizens.
Interesting question, and of course, answers must be hypothetical.Can separate be equal? That wasn’t the reality with Plessy v. Ferguson, which resulted in grossly inferior services to blacks. Inequality and the attendant consequences are unavoidable with legal segregation. The black population is too small to enforce either the spirit or the letter of such a law.If it were possible to magically create separate but equal facilities, I expect that the majority of black people would take advantage of them. Why wouldn’t they? Because they want to continue the fulfilling, positive relationships they’ve enjoyed with whites thus far?Black people fought for integration because they wanted a shot at the multiple advantages enjoyed by whites; in fact, by virtually anyone who isn’t black.Tell blacks that they can have the best housing, schools and jobs minus the white folks, and get out of the way of the stampede.