Brown v. Board 60th / Social Media & Free Speech

free speech and social media how do you balance freedom of expression and professional responsibility in the age of twitter and facebook i'm kenny macintyre and today on k pr preserve will look at regulating free speech in the age of social media later this hour we'll also mark the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the quote separate but equal facilities with a landmark us supreme court decision in brown vs board of education of topeka but first the kansas board of regents this week revised their controversial social media policy that policy allows state university used to discipline or even fire a faculty and staff or improper use of social media this week's provision follows months of criticism of the policy the region's adopted in december in response to a tweet by university of kansas professor david god denouncing the national rifle association as kbr is statehouse reporter stephen koranda reports the new changes don't go

far enough for some university employees board of regents chairman fred logan points out that the policy now includes language specifically say that the border values free speech and academic freedom and that those must be considered when looking at a possible violation of the rules this will be the strongest and most explicit statements support of academic freedom that appears anywhere in our policy manual but the board left in the ability to discipline employees which drew dozens of opponents like philip nel a distinguished professor of english at kansas state university he says higher education research and teaching need to be free to include debate and argument about all topics discussing ideas sometimes controversial ideas and trying to find out which ones are better and we figure out which ones are better someone is harmonious process of argument violations of the social media rules include concrete examples like comments that incites

violence or disclose private student information also included as a more broad smile asian comments deemed not to be in the best interest of the university i'm stephen koranda at the kansas statehouse and j mcintyre and today on kbr present will look at some of the legal issues behind regulating social media on march twenty fifth two thousand fourteen the key you'll come and hosted a panel discussion data and democracy what is free speech in the age of social media this event was co sponsored by the quays school of journalism and the provost office university of kansas chancellor bernadette wray little gave these opening remarks the ability to freely discuss and debate ideas even controversial ones is vital not only to the light to university but also to the life of the democracy and some ways social media has done more to the celts a free speech than any invention since the invention of the printing press anyone can

share his or her ideas instantly and with no mediation anyone can respond to those ideas instantly and with no mediation how is this changing our democracy does social media present a challenge not found in other forms of expression after all ideas have changed societies and created controversies for our human history socrates was tried and sentenced to death for his ideas when the easiest way to share something socially was to go and speak in the warren martin luther king didn't post my five pieces on facebook he posted them on a church door and his ideas were then share a growl europe within months something that was considered a blinding pace of communication for the time thanks to the latest technology and the printing press and in the modern era tv and radio have quickly convey ideas and controversy for

decades where do the changes caused by social media fall in the history of free debate and discussion is social media fundamentally somehow different from all these things that have gone before who is responsible for the consequences of social media good or bad who's responsible for the message and what should our response be as a university as a society and as a democracy chancellor gray little gave the opening remarks at the march twenty fifth two thousand fourteen panel discussion data and democracy what is free speech in the age of social media this event was co sponsored by the k u cummins the school of journalism and the probe us office it was moderated by did know always type a retired us judge for the tenth circuit court of appeals and former university of kansas law professor time now serves as the dean of pepperdine law school in malibu

california i congratulate you and i'm proud of you as i always am for raising the issue isn't so need to be discussed openly freely without repercussions and thinking about all of the legal and policy and personnel implications of that topic at hand i would do that terrible disservice to my undergraduate american studies faculty us to at least of whom are here tonight they were very young man if i did not propose these remarks along the same lines as the chancellor's remarks in the founding period of this nation it would have been impossible to get a rabbi constitution whip out a bill of rights and in that bill of rights it is no coincidence that the first amendment stands and stoller position as one of the beacons to a free people to a

place where you make your own decisions and the people are sovereign that first amendment and the debates that occurred both around the constitution and iran develop rights point us to tonight's topic because even in that day of that teetering new republic even in that day everyone knew that the right to freely speak the right to a free press was essential to our public that has lasted now well over two centuries the right to free speech and to really debate as we will do tonight has been unmasked continued to be a monument to our ability to serve in that marketplace of ideas to say

we not only believe in government we believe in a democratic and sovereign people who speak to publish who practice their religion you do all the things that the first amendment protects for him bill of rights is something i think we don't often think about is the protection against government it is them at a menorah terrian way of curbing government power and excess that's why the bill of rights was so important today alone there were well over a hundred million tweets there you can go on and on with the explosion of what's happened in our outlets for free expression that it must still be a marketplace of ideas it must still be resoundingly says it must still be the right to dissent on the things that have kept a strong

for these many many decades we have come through the tests of world wars of all kinds of social unrest of court decisions we didn't like and we have not taken to the streets we have expressed ourselves freely we have resorted to the courts we have negotiated arbitrated mediated done all the things well congratulations decay you for tonight taking on a topic that will be the topic for this nation and i suspect for the world for years to come but if we begin all think about all these implications and about this backdrop of democracy and what it means to have the first amendment i think would do a lot better in the us today now reis tie is currently the dean of pepperdine law school in malibu california sea moderated the panel data and

democracy what is free speech in the age of social media on march twenty fifth two thousand fourteen steve mcallister is a distinguished professor at the university of kansas school of law and currently serves as solicitor general of kansas was so you can't avoid saying these controversies and issues over the use of social media are just less than two weeks ago the chronicle higher education had a front page story about a professor who sent an e mail to her class a godsend around and she was in big trouble pretty fast for something she had said about that tea partiers another example less than a week ago the front page of new york times was talking about anonymous web sites that allow people to post things without identifying themselves on these issues are all around us and it seems to me that some of the challenges here for me thinking of that from an academic perspective the university setting or a school setting i'll throw one thing social media blurs the lines between when you're in the classroom and when

you're not in the classroom i have blurs the lines between what is personal or private communication in a sense as opposed to official or unlike his profits oral communication the other factor here i think is the quickness of the dissemination in a matter of seconds things go around the world and the durability its there are you think of the old as the professor mehta common in class shortly thereafter nobody could remember exactly what he or she said the professor brahma couldn't remember what they said but once it's tweeted or captured in social media it's there and people know exactly what was said in that gets shared widely and i do think the anonymity as it is a problem and some setting that doesn't avoid all settings but anonymity online and social media can be a serious challenge and there's lots of benefits obviously that's why the state has developed so rapidly and so widespread i'm on one of those but i would highlight there are some real risks of not regulating are paying attention to what goes on with social media i saw a story in the maritime domain of it's true

but it linked one website with anonymous comments to nine teenage suicides within a year or so and there is some serious effects here as well as reputational harm two institutions to individuals invasions of privacy things i'm sure will get into tonight one way to think of this is is maybe there are three choices here is a constitutional law a person which is what i am primarily a lion is do we try to adapt an existing traditional doctrines to meet this new world in this new technology or do we try to develop basically new jurisprudence new law because this is something i'm like what we've had in the past and maybe as so different we just start over and create different roles or a similar those up then i'm also an economist by training who what's in this is to stay out of the business government shouldn't be trying to regulate what goes on in you take a hands off approach although give you a

little bit of background the city you understand cause it usually one important question here for talking about the first amendment we have to be talking about public institutions so the private institution is not a governmental actor it may violate other rights of employees or students by how it treats them but it would not be a first amendment claim unless it's a public institution so that's an important and that would apply to employers and generals private employers not going to violate first to memorize public employers may that's a function of the constitution and what it implies to hot there's another question here and i don't think in the know enough to speak to the very end up they're intelligently with a question what his speech the first amendment protects speech an expressive conduct but there actually is some case law i think for example if a light on facebook is actually to be considered speech say an employee unlike someone that really makes the employer mandate is

a speech that is protected or is it not really counter speech so there may be issues about what's actually speaks a lot of times it's quite obvious another cause to joe barton is there some kinds of speech that simply aren't entitled to protection and they're there fairly narrow in general but incitements to violence trying to get a mob to go attack stronghold would be within the realm of unprotected speech fighting words which is a doctrine the court has recognized for almost eighty years nobody really knows what to do with it and the case in which to recognize the words today seemed pretty tame but the notion that you're in somebody's space and saying things that are inside possibly violent reaction obscenity child pornography those are things that obviously there are just off limits constitution and true threats are not protected so if you're actually threatening to kill the president don't expect that to be protected by the first amendment is not

for certain deceiving be able to obtain financial benefit would not be protected defamation invasion of privacy which of the game he's probably going to talk more about that there are certain core doctrines that could apply here i also i think disclosure of confidential information as well within the room the doctor was you can't just go around sharing that kind of information or a lot of academic information without permission or without falling proper protocols also has moved to remember more remarks i'm rarely government employee situations their meeting comes to actual doctrines that could be applied here their cases about students how we can talk about those their cases about public employees which a k you would include all of the faculty and staff members and without getting too deep into the weeds the court has wrestled with this territory recognizing that employers need some control over what their employees

say and do even the government needs that to function efficiently and properly and fulfill its purposes but at the same time employers are still also private citizen they do have speech rights and the court has adopted for over forty years something that is a sort of balancing test as a tree because they've been consistently employed and every time it's avoid the justices disagree about whether speech is protected or not i'm sure you would do what the notion is if those it'll employ speeding on a matter of public concern but doing so as a private citizen and you made it into a weighing of whether that the government employer really has a strong enough interest to punish dismiss the moat do something to the employee out what complicates the doctrine as more recent decision which says if it's work related speech it's not protected at all it's a case called are setting where

an assistant district attorney was complaining about the way they were handling a case and he opposes the handling of the case via melissa do their base losses and misleading information in an affidavit they used to get a search warrant he can watch and they demoted him reassigned him he says first amendment violation you're punishing me for speaking out about this bad behavior that was going on in the office and the court said no this is work related the only reason you were speaking about this is because it was part of your job and basically there is no first amendment protection for that now in portland ore so that that is a key case in the academic setting because it reserves the issue of does that kind of rule work related speech not being protected apply in a university setting so in fact i want to just read you very briefly the year the majority of these cities

the dissidents suggested by saying work related speeches not protected this will destroy academic freedom and the majority of the court said there is some argument that expressions related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction and what its additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this court's customer employee's speech jurisprudence but they don't address it in that place because it was the dna it was not an overseas sales of leave that for another day so that's actually an open question of the supreme court well there are couple lower federal courts have said that religious people should not apply in the university setting but is that even taking the supreme court's reservation of the issue they're emphasizing very carefully if they're thinking about academic freedom is part of first amendment protection they're focused on scholarship and class for so i think it would be wrong to think that even if the work related rule doesn't apply that academic freedom necessarily protect anything a family member

chooses to say in any circumstance i don't think the supreme court will rule that far there are examples of cases where people said things in the court's balance whether it does or does not receive first amendment protection one that i think is kind of interesting as a woman and a law enforcement office but she was a clerical boy heard about the assassination attempt on president reagan kind of joking about it with another member of the office staff and she said well if they go for him again i hope they get him and that was reported back to the chief on gore's loss or didn't like that have a statement in the next two one of her good for her but the supreme court said that one was actually protected even though quite offensive perhaps an obnoxious it was protected although the core was careful to say she made a comment to co workers not wasn't something she publicized and one of things they get into these days is to what extent does the speech interfere with the operations of the government and so you can have it wasn't

doing things that simply disrupt the work environment so much and the court said that's it we're going to protect which are saying under the first amendment so there's a lot more to talk about here but i think i'll stop there and move on down the ballot we can come back to any or other issues steve mcallister is a distinguished professor at the university of kansas school of law and currently serves as solicitor general of kansas if you're just joining us today is keep your prisons features a panel discussion from a march twenty fifth two thousand fourteen event sponsored by the comments at the university of kansas it's called data and democracy what is free speech in the age of social media any died at pg said the school of law at tulane university her first book focused on academic freedom she is currently working on a second book entitled the first amendment bubble how privacy and pop are artsy threaten a free press so i want to start by asking how many of you are familiar with the website gawker

so for those of you who aren't on gawker is a web site that says that it publishes on tomorrow's news today and so it is basically gossip web site and it publishes a number of three pushed beyond below articles i guess is it's a good way to say and how many you're familiar with a website called the dirty raise your hand if you are ok that's an even more push the antelope website i'm on that website and the owner of the website it invites people to either send the images are generally young women who are somewhat scantily clad and then i he comments on their bodies and then other people comment as well i am so i am and it's like it's called the dirty and he calls his his followers his readers the dirty army i and r i was like those two examples because

both all those those websites had me first amendment arguments fairly recently that anything push beyond the local arm of the first amendment and i want to get into a little bit about why courts are pushing back against websites like i'm like that's so her has argued very recently that he has the right to publish anything it wants to as long as it is true about a celebrity on the dirt he has said that he is the place for free expression it is the marketplace of ideas today's marketplace of ideas where people can talk about leaders celebrities friends and whatnot you might think that's sort of the idea of the first amendment you would inject it very push the antelope are sponsors from websites like that you have there are cases right now i'm against book that those websites first amendment

based cases one of them has been killed by the professional wrestler hulk hogan eye and what gawker da was gawker published or on its website after sex tape featuring hulk hogan artfully nude i answer art surreptitiously recorded on top again i said get out after web site please take it down either website refused on citing first amendment our news worthiness arguments on a dirty bomb publishes various saunders a lot lawsuit i'm continuing against the dirty right now involving one of these women alma who was our featured on the website but the one i wanna talk about taking has more relevance here to a college there was a young woman who knows the nhl was taken a photograph was taken of her i think at a fraternity party she was passed out and she had thrown up and he was laying in her apartment and also she curated all over herself

and somebody took her image sent it to the dirty on and there were various comments on ben left by people on the naming her and saying things like boy i hope she is we'll be embarrassed and suffers emotional harm on from this so what this is is a real clash between the first amendment freedom of expression that's the argument that got her arman and that the dirty argue verses on our rights to not be detained to not have a privacy invaded and to not suffer some sort of emotional distress and his panel i think this is what at least to an extent of what is happening today in social media who might be responsible for the things that they publish on the internet not to give you an example so just yesterday in my class and i teach an undergraduate class introduction to us was that this might feel like progress and somewhat routinely

example the young woman who was featured was the image with an a on the internet for all to say and who might be responsible for that silk roses who might be liable and they answered more maybe the website known or maybe the person who took the picture and i said well how about the people who left comments afterward and one woman said well no because the first amendment protects those comments and as we've heard already tonight that young woman is absolutely wrong chords find a liability for om such comments are when they're on the bear left on the internet armed by people and even people who i'm trying to cloak themselves with anonymity so let me tell you bout that tore situation arm on to start the first is these are areas in which courts are

finding liability for information posted on the internet the first is the defamation defamation is a reputational harm if you post something that in fact is false about someone that harms their reputation courts are finding liability for information published on the internet now way and otherwise also intentional infliction of emotional distress each you publish things that harm others emotionally the first amendment is not necessarily going to protect you if you push beyond the look too far by harassing someone or otherwise and then also privacy a privacy is an area that tom i didn't really fully understand even when i worked as a journalist and that is that's an area in which i people who post even truthful information can in fact be liable as long as the information is in fact private and if we would all fine publication of offensive and if it's not newsworthy so ironically just a few years ago

a kansas court was deciding a publication a product that's case an internet in publication a product that's generally you meet you reveal the information to more than just a couple people so in many jurisdictions you need to reveal it to ten people or more the kansas court suggested that it was changing it's a definition for publication a product that's and it was limiting publication to fewer than ten people suggesting that perhaps publication a product that could be to just two people despite the fact that publicity was required and the court said that the reason why it was because of what is happening on the internet so that it is responding in this way creating the potential for more liability because the problems it sees i'm on the internet there's a mother i'm pretty biking

deason examples from the internet the first is a liability for a facebook post he may not think that you know what is what could liability i believe might happen there somebody posted someone else's information that she had been the victim of our child sex abuse and the court found a valid claim for publication a product that's despite the fact that the publisher was just an everyday person there have been there's been a liability decide at it against people who are sent around images of an accident scene by email so i'm so they sent images by email of a really horrendous fatal accident scene are making jokes about it i and the family of the victim were able to see was able to sue then i'm as successfully for that also an ohio the state of ohio has recently accepted accord known as false light that is a tort it's been rejected

by many jurisdictions because it is so similar to defamation false light is different from defamation though because as long as the information that's revealed is offensive you can win a fall slightly doesn't have to be reputation harming so a number of courts have rejected as it is being too close to defamation the state of ohio the supreme court we're accepted it because it's you felt that something needed to happen because of what was happening on the internet you are probably know about many of these websites in addition to the ones that i've mentioned already juicy campus was around a number of years ago dc campus encourage people to poke usually students to post information about other students on campus who was on for example are a prostitute who had a sexually transmitted disease and et cetera there's a great website it was last time i looked at all the college hall of shame i can which encourages on our

college students to post images of their roommates and others who passed out bumper parties and look ridiculous it or revenge porn porn websites of course and many others that are designed i think to embarrass or humiliate so what are people doing this i think people are doing this because they really think that they are going to be anonymous on the internet and they used to be so right when the internet was starting courts were much more responsive to the idea that anonymous speech should be protected but now what's happening is the courts are saying you know what as long as hugh plaintiffs can prove that you have a defamation claim you lead a decent defamation claim as long as you have a decent publication about attacks claimed we're going to force the internet service provider or the website to reveal who you are so suddenly anonymity is going away the other thing i think is happening is that i

think that we all think that the first amendment is extremely broad and very protective and i think we learn this in our classes on that when we learned about supreme court your jurisprudence the supreme court has many times watching the speech i and elizabeth did the quotes that we remember most and the trouble is at least today is a lot of stuff happening below in the lower courts that you're actually changing or at least having an impact are on that glorious language that celebrated on free speech and on an otherwise i'm so why are our people or why are our plaintiffs were wronged going after the poster and not the website for example let me tell you really interesting thing that i think could be changed i could make things better on the internet and otherwise are there something called the communications decency act the communications decency act was created at the birth of the internet to

protect an internet service providers like a oh well from being liable for post posted on ale well with others and so today if a website calls itself for example my ex dot com or you know on an embarrassing photos dot com those sorts of websites as long as they are not the ones actually publishing the boat into the website they are not reliable for the information that is posted and so the argument is that the dirty for example and this is beneath this has been bombed the the website owners' argument he is not liable himself for the information it's posted on his website by others now sports is a little bit of the change in the law aw they're coming perhaps but that's one reason why people will sue the posters and instead of the

website i answered and of course of the poster mom who obama argues odd on bet on who was the one who who causes the harm so i'm so am i worried about this yes absolutely am worried about this i am i worried about it because i worried that courts are going too far in the other direction perhaps are by pushing against these sorts of websites but i'm also reread conscious of the very real harm our that is happening on the internet today and so i think at some point seven the supreme court is going to have to decide exactly where we draw that line and i can tell you that reading the tea leaves in reading these fairly recent supreme court cases that have gone in favor of media i see the court potentially deciding that in fact media is not as protected but the speech that poem that we that we speak every day is not going to be as protected arm as it once was thanks amy guided teaches at the tulane university's school of law and is an internationally recognized

color on free speech and the media her upcoming book is called the first amendment bubble how privacy and tupper it threaten a free press professor gardner was one of the panelists at daycare and democracy what is free speech in the age of social media this event was sponsored by the university of kansas comments and co sponsored by the k u school of journalism and the provost office it was recorded march twenty fifth two thousand fourteen by the k u school of journalism which provided the audio of this event i'm kay macintyre you're listening to k pr presents on kansas public radio this weekend marks the sixtieth anniversary of the landmark supreme court case brown vs board of education of topeka that decision overturned plessy vs ferguson and brought an end to quote separate but equal facilities and legalized

segregation so i'm leigh alexander is the director of the langston hughes center at the university of kansas and teaches african and african american studies at you portions of the following interview were previously aired on k pierre presents on april six two thousand fourteen nice to see again john great to see you to do think you for doing this take us back to nineteen fifty four or better yet take us back to eighty ninety six when the us supreme court laid down the foundation for legalize segregation sure in in at ninety six the supreme court made a decision in what we call plessy versus ferguson i would stay today ruled that the in transportation the plus a case deals with transportation does the trains that is that as long as the facilities were equal say irrigation was ok that it did not violate of the equal protection clause and that but we have to do to explain

that as we have tried to go back a little bit further and we have to understand what got us that there are to put the first in at seventy five the us congress passed a rule the first civil rights act law which said that you could not segregate in places a public accommodation what happened since eighteen seventy is it been and to pass a law on to do exactly that i was being pushed by charles sumner lot of massachusetts and the pickup in each time and he brought that wallop was he was not only twice talking about places of a public accommodation so hotels restaurants transportation except or he was also talking about education they could not segregate in education year and education was the one that no one wanted to touch and would not come back to audience look at being denied in congress is only five thousand of that and congress decided that they were going to pass it for the old man if you will and that they were going to get this bill through congress arm as kind of his last lasting

legacy and what they did was they stripped the education piece out of it and they passed the civil rights activist and seventy five which says you cannot segregated and plays the public and private accommodation now that becomes a lot of land man but immediately our individual states individuals business owners accept or begin to discriminate on their own bases including right here in the city kansas i very quickly in the eye and at seventy six the many bird she tried to go to a hotel in hiawatha kansas is denied access to the hotel i'm hans sues the the owner of the hotel that case continues to climb up the ladder in the the courts and all three reaches the supreme court in eating a three oh with four other cases throughout the country challenging that said that civil rights act and deciding whether or not public and private place of accommodation can discriminate and eighty three the supreme court says yes you can discriminate against people and places a public admission that

that civil rights activities and five overstepped its bounds is unconstitutional by the fourteenth amendment meet to equal protection clause does not give you safe haven harm in those in that realm and that becomes the law the land and so in at ninety six when they make a decision in plessy vs ferguson what they're actually doing is they're confirming the decision making at three and adding to that the the separate but equal cause and saying that places as long as the facilities or are equal then you can discriminate in those in places of public accommodation and what that does is actually sets the precedent then for the nation because of course very simplistic way the difference between plus e and the difference between from the ward nineteen fifty four is transportation education but what you have a precedent set in arm transportation then people can take it the next step ok it's in transportation committee

and in restaurants and hotels can be an education except when that becomes the law the line take us back then to the nineteen fifties and lay some groundwork for it in terms of what schools looked like and what was happening in the civil rights community as far as trying to attack some of those problems ciara do know is as a good historian i would have to go back a little bit more and explain that well what happens is really the end was he makes it begins to make a challenge beginning in the nineteen thirties on coming out of the denver city comes and their own or the way i was right to describe it they become the organization that we know today in the nineteen thirties and nineteen twenty nine they had won a major damn battle against the nomination of a judge named judge parker who was coming out of the carolinas the nominee to the supreme court and he was not what we call the day just a blinking what's process and i could not believe it is going to put in this position and it was he tried to stop his vote and basically went out and tried to show their power in their with their vote on that they would give speeches on the issue to try to

block him on his nomination you know we see all this on television today are played out but this is a rare thing in nineteen twenty nine that they're doing this and then going out stumping to speak out against him telling the people in various states if you vote for his nomination we're going to eliminate you in the next election to vote against you and take you out out of out of office and that actually happens again here in kansas i'm roy wilkins of love a newspaper writer new newspaper writer at the la he can say call what would become a leader in the new city a major lead in an obesity in years years to come and has just moved down from minneapolis to kansas city it goes around kansas and gives talks against judge parker in fact he goes to wichita has three thousand people come to his talk and listen to him talk against judge parker and so that new twist he realizes really do block the nomination that they have on that has a muscle are the other thing that happens in the thirties is they they then decided they can no longer have armed lawyers on

an ad hoc basis they want to hire their own legal team and greater own legal team and they make this move along in the early nineteen thirties that solidified in nineteen thirty five when they create the legal defense fund inc which is a separate the connected organization within the city and they hire or charles hamilton houston of howard university to run this organization this is legal team are and houston brings in a number of people including the famous thurgood marshall who is a steven hicks says at the time and when he and he does this he comes up with a two prong strategy of attacking segregation he wants to focus on education and what he what he wants to do is he wants to focus on two different levels want us to focus on the professional schools law schools education except for and then he wants to focus on equalization of primary schools arm and so they go with that innocent equalization basis it's to make sure that everyone has equal access as both equal pay equal facilities except for and so that's his

strategy that he comes out of the thirties and the forties with it begins didn't pay dividends very quickly on in nineteen thirty eight for the game versus canada which actually comes out of missouri arm is a challenge to the university of missouri for not letting and after american into their law school art and again ironically for the kansas listeners what he'd what the missouri says is that you know we don't have facilities for after americans but you can come to the university of kansas and will pay for your computer's dave kansas right to send you over there with what they will accept after americans but the suit goes forward are actually laid off when the supreme court rules that you have to create an in state institution institution that will provide a legal education or professional education for the synced this individual and all individuals have the beginning of a national level of this this fight another thing that was going to do was a good you know a little room with the game versus canada they're going to continue to push other cases father alton going to to push for the

victories and we get the next one the road have is in nineteen forty eight we it's a tool verses the border regions of oklahoma and says very similar case where oklahoma's denying access to settle into the professional schools and they come back in and see that you can you must provide the educations with really confirming the case about a decade before it was fitting for his candor and what you have then in two years later he had two more cases armed us what versus painter or sweatt versus painter people go back and forth on how i described that which is it the university of texas on they do not bailouts went into their school but they do not give him equal facilities are they what they do is they sequester him in a small room a lawn and say that he can you know he's in our school with a given three basement rooms where he will take classes he'll have access to a few faculty members by himself by himself in the hunt a few acts of

access to a few professors who's willing to teach teach him and then he'll have access to a small winery kangaroo the entire labor and of course the supreme court have this this is where this is not equal there's a separate but this is not equal and so then you have again with university of oklahoma and in nineteen fifty eight have from mclaren oliver says the us to oklahoma and what they do they learn from this what case and you can see how people learning institutions are learning that then also trying different things looked at by learning you mean trying to get a rally around has actually so they they they allow mclaren into the school on but what they do for him is they set him first outside the classroom so the door is jarred open and mclaren cds set outside the classroom from everyone else who's sequestered in some way you know in the hall and he's expected to listen to the entire lecture class discussion except for on not really participate in a class discussion begins hear it and that's

their response to you know he's known for its normal the bottom line is he's he's in he's outside the classroom they also give him a private section of the library so he has access to the entire labour present a private section and they give most sequestered space in the cafeteria and again the supreme court his way second this is not armed eagle in any way shape or form so when they lose the case the interesting thing with me wherein as they don't allow him into the classroom but they put a seat in the back of the room that has the word colored on it oh which is his seed every time as my classroom but no one else will select seat caress the time but now has full access to the question was there was feces these cases in games victory they know they have their professional schools and they've got the supreme court to set that precedent on equalization what is equalization me these are professional schools what happens when you turned that legal attention to what's happening in the k through twelve level is exactly what they do they look it in the in the in the k through twelve what they're

looking at is teacher salaries equalization of schools right arm an equal access to the time of schools and things like that so what they do is is slowly they're also building up those cases right in the region but once they got the supreme court to make a decision to present the professional schools they know they can use that and that equalization argument and throw it back down on the wars so at that moment is really when you have the what we call brown v board come together om and they say okay we've won the profession schools nordstrom same argument and use that same argument or elements of that are back on the supreme court and say if your essay about the professional schools and have to say about the primary school and so what they do is they bring in a number of cases again very similar to that each new three case words it's not just brown the drama of war versus topeka it is five cases from around the country that are brought in together and you have one from you know the district of columbia topeka delaware south carolina and virginia are the

five cases and what's unique about topeka on is a few ever take the time to drive around to pick and look at the schools if you go to them or owns mineral school which is now the national park and around the board it's a beautiful school it's a beautiful structure all those schools it looked exactly the same that were built and designed by the same architect and so unlike other locations it's not about facilities so they were equal facilities for facilities but what it is and make it very simplistic what it is is about location that someone has to travel to that school or they don't have equal access if you will to the schools they have to go to an all black school singing be not in their neighborhood so rather than go one block or two blocks the neighborhood they may have to go miles to the school that is serving after americans use it may look exactly the same as the school it's two blocks from now so some sixty years later was brown versus board of education a success or not brown v board was a success on on some level swimming be a story all within say

yes and no i mean i like to be great in any of my answers because there are there is success or failure does it change the way schools are develop for a period time absolutely it's also going to it's going to bring clothes that the calm as two of my colleagues junger in charlie hill arguing in their work it does close the graduation gap at least through the nineteen eighties but what we have today is maybe not the same thing because in the nineties and the two thousands we've had changes in practice and will and wall where we have we have become in many areas re segregated there are some areas in the united states are more segregated today than they were in nineteen fifty four there are places we have more segregation in northern cities that we have in southern cities of time at times in that graduation gap is becoming farther and farther apart asked so you know

so yes in the semi short term sly long term however want to fight the fight between fifty four in the eighties and their successes and i think to day work were trending downward again and ends and possibly suffering how you know we always you know we always have the slogans to help from politicians no child left behind or that but i think we are leaving children behind and we're leaving education systems behind by ar de facto practices of segregation and education so what kind of challenges that the civil rights movement faced six years later in two thousand fourteen where do they go from here my name is that they endured so scared after historian where we should go our usual response is my job but what i think we should go with i think it was he made a mistake i think they should've continued on some levels there equalization fight over are the psychological aspect of the brown v board case that in a brown v board case just very

quickly is that one of the key components of that that argument was that it was psychologically damaging to the students to be separated arm and you're going you're creating some discrepancies in education and someone's wellbeing by that turn to simplify that are going on and they they take that wine rather than equalization line and i think it should have been a dual focus more more and by leaving the legalization behind our work were now still suffering because without equal schools om throughout the country on we are leaving children behind so i think that we should argue again for university should again to begin to think about arguing for equalization mom and you know say you know this this model of integration maybe didn't work i am and so we need to invest we need to equalize education again and bring schools are up to snuff out to be an equal to each other and how they're being children are being

taught in the schools what funds are being brought to the school it's on and we will look at the stresses of the districts are okay but statewide they're not and again we can take that are beyond race how we can look in rule communities and see you know kansas is very familiar with that team what's going on between in johnson county and a garden city writes own there's very different aspects to education and in the ways students are taught and these the funds that go to those schools and we should we should drastically begin to rethink the way we're looking at that sean you teach african and african american studies to college students what is your average college student how familiar are they with brown versus board of education in and what's the message do you try to teach to them if they're not familiar with a case for great question i'm still is for the most part don't know a lot about brown v board

it's amazing you know the old joke is always this date myself here but if the old joke goes is that students you know it as a professor you get older you should stay the same age i mean in houston to between eighteen and twenty two new does get older older and older and that's certainly happening the state we're getting farther farther with instance knowing what the civil rights movement mean it's just they don't even know you know and speaking of a current events they don't know what the cold war was like they don't know the reagan camp you know and and again whatever you think of the person's political beliefs you know they had this tense today's real political consciousness of conscience is a politics and hand and social behavior is the bush administration the second bush administration armed and so that's that's who are scary as a historian on some people say it's perfectly fine but as a historian as scary because we we've got to teach them a lot in and they've also grown up in a society where they believe they are in a more integrated community than anyone else in the history of united

states and they are and they've been around after americans latinos asian americans there's no question about that but again women when they go home are literally around the rights to in school system in social life they may be integrated buttonhole my friends and things like that they may be very segregated but in their minds have been talk of things they've been integrated it was in the same music watch the same film all of that so that when they think of brown v board in simply this old historical thing that happened has no effect on me and what we try to get them to understand one is that this is a historical legacy it has on ramifications for for us even today i am and house how education just way i've just spoke about art but we also didn't understand that you know especially if you're in cannes as you would understand the the efficiencies of a brown v board that you know it's not just an attack on schools for being syria

because in the while blacks and they were giving them ill facilities that we have unique thing explain here in kansas is that ok let's look at this board this mineral school what's it look like him and say that it's not just that they live they went to school a shack are headed to classes in school bus it's different levels and what is that me and in the state of kansas what is that mean that we're often told as they come to college they've been told over and over again that segregation is a southern phenomenon that racism was a southern phenomenon but topeka is one of those cases and what is it mean that you know to peak is one of those one of those cases in run the war was a mean the hiawatha is one of those cases in the original decision on segregation eighty three by the supreme court that means that segregation racism the struggles between race in america is not a southern phenomena it hasn't it has reached beyond arm b the the old confederate states as they say it comes in to kansas in kansas is more important to break down that that example kansas is the place that we like to hold up the

the memory of john brown we fought over you know over slavery in evolution some people like to say this is where the civil war began and i'm also hold up that thing and six and ross a land of of topeka brown v board weren't the land of segregation because the only reason that probably aboard a curse is considered a snickers and in kansas so we get them to understand in an trouble the understanding of what race means in america again that's professor sohn leigh alexander he teaches african and african american studies at the university of kansas and is the director of play hughes langston hughes center this weekend marked the sixtieth anniversary of the landmark brown versus the board of education of topeka ks the us supreme court's decision in that case brought an end to legalize segregation and the doctrine of separate but equal a number of events took place this weekend to mark the sixtieth anniversary including a twitter reenactment of the decision two hours of summer elementary school in topeka and a speech at the topeka expo center friday night by

first lady michelle obama here in lawrence watkins library at the university of kansas is currently hosting an exhibit about brown vs board of education that exhibit will remain on display at watkins library until september first i'm kay mcintyre kbr present is a production of kansas public radio at the university of kansas next time of kbr percent next weekend is mom or held a weekend for many people that's three day weekend means a trip to your favorite convenience store whether it's to buy gasoline book called soft drink or a bag of munchies next time i'm kbr presents the man behind one of the most successful convenience store chains in the country chad cordero the president but quick trip the way we got into gasoline this is believe it or not we stop the

gasoline pump on the front sidewalk of civil war in the gasoline business i we had no idea we were done and kate mcintyre do you join me for the next katy are present with quick trips president said about eight o'clock sunday evening on kansas public radio