There have been many attempts to look at the decision in Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka and claim it was erroneous in some respect.
One of the most often used is the social policy' argument. Some
constitutional scholars believe that the Supreme Court went too far in the
decision, far beyond deciding the single issue involved. That issue
concerned the need for an African American little girl to go to a black
school that required of her a dangerous walk through a rail yard rather
than a pleasant walk to a closer school that was all white.
It is easy to argue that any decision of any reasonably lofty court in
the land makes social policy decisions without benefit of election.
Indeed, even lowly courtsâ€"city courts in small townsâ€"make social policy
decisions by virtue of the need to interpret the law when passing judgment
or imposing sentences. A judge in a small town in New York State, for
example, gives everyone convicted in his court the lightest possible
sentence, 60 days plus two years of parole. Why' Because he knows the
career criminals will violate their parole, and then it's an automatic five
years up the river, no appeal, no questions asked. (Personal knowledge via
In effect, that judge is making social policy. Therefore, criticism
of the unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka on the
grounds that it made social policy is relatively ludicrous. If it is all
right for small courts in small towns to make social policy by engineering
its use of statutory punishments, then assuredly it would be even more
acceptable when the arguably wisest judicial minds sitting on the bench in
the United States do the same thing.
If the Court did make social policyâ€"as arguably it didâ€"there is every
reason to believe that the society was ready for the policy being made.
The...