Washburn Law Journal
Editor's Note
Volume 43, No. 2 (Winter 2004)
This year we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Education. Washburn University is especially proud of the role of its law school graduates in both the initial proceedings and the United States Supreme Court case. John J. Scott '47, Charles S. Scott '48, and Charles E. Bledsoe represented the plaintiffs in the pleading and pretrial proceedings. They were from the Topeka firm of Scott, Scott and Scott, founded by Washburn law graduate Elisha Scott '16. Although Mr. Bledsoe did not graduate from Washburn, he completed forty-eight hours and most likely combined his law school hours with reading in a law office in order to qualify to take the bar exam in 1937. Lester M. Goodell '25 and George M. Brewster '29 represented the defendant, Topeka Board of Education, during the early stages of the case. District Judge Delmas C. Hill '29 served as one of the federal judges on the three judge panel that heard the original petition. In the United States Supreme Court case, John Scott continued as one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. Attorney General Harold Fatzer '33 and Assistant Attorney General Paul E. Wilson '40 represented Kansas. Peter F. Caldwell '33 assisted the Kansas Attorney General's Office in preparing the briefs and oral arguments after the Topeka Board of Education, which had retained him as counsel, decided not to file a brief or be present for oral arguments. When Brown was reheard in 1953, a recent Washburn law graduate, Charles McCarter '53, joined the Kansas Attorney General's office and assisted in the preparation for the hearing. We salute these Washburn graduates whose accomplishments demonstrate the significant, even monumental, impact that the work of any lawyer can have on society. The potential is there in each of us.
On November 1, 2003, Washburn University School of Law held a symposium to explore the Brown decision and its consequences. In this issue of the Washburn Law Journal, the symposium presenters share their lectures. Professor Ronald C. Griffin, who coordinated the symposium, had a vision to create a discussion that centered on varying perspectives of Brown's legacy. In Brown v. Board of Education: An Irish Perspective: "The Better Angels of Our Nature," Professor Raymond J. Friel, School of Law University of Limerick, Ireland, shares his views of the parallels between Irish jurisprudence and Brown from an international perspective and from the perspective of a culture that differs markedly from the United States in its homogeneity.
We next present University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor Linda Greene's article The Constitution and Racial Equality After Gratz and Grutter. Through her work, we can see the progression from Brown's desegregation legal victory to the current day affirmative action legal battles that represent ongoing efforts to realize the equality promised in our Constitution.
The next article is written by Professor Donald Laverdure from Michigan State University--DCL College of Law, who introduces a Native American perspective into the dialogue. In A Historical Braid of Inequality: An Indigenous Perspective of Brown v. Board of Education, Professor Laverdure proposes a partnership of African-American and indigenous peoples' interests to achieve the common goal of lasting equality.
Our own Professor William Rich explores how the challenge to the dominant culture's interpretation of the Constitution led to Brown in his article Brown, Dominance, and Diversity. He critiques the development of the neutrality standard used in equal protection analyses and reminds us that the Constitution needs to be interpreted from more than just the perspective of the dominant group in power.
In our final article, Dr. Ronald Walters, Professor, University of Maryland College Park, writes from the perspective of a historian in "The Association Is for the Direct Attack": The Militant Context of the NAACP Challenge to Plessy. Dr. Walters reviews the political setting and other factors that created the context for the NAACP to aggressively pursue its challenge to racism, including the legal challenge to segregation in Brown.
We turn next to some personal reflections. Professor Ronald Griffin offers an essay titled Jubliee. His perspective as an African-American educator is reflected in this piece that portrays his personal and philosophical views. The final presentation from the symposium is a speech presented by Ambassador Delano Lewis, Personal Perspective: A Native Kansan and African-American Relates the Impact of Brown v. Board of Education on His Educational and Professional Journey. His title speaks for itself. Ambassador Lewis provides the perspective of a man who was educated in segregated schools but later found opportunities open to him because of the Brown decision.
The journal is also pleased to publish the inspirational remarks presented by the Honorable Carol A. Beier, justice on the Kansas Supreme Court, at the annual Law Journal, Moot Court, and Trial Advocacy awards banquet in April 2003. This speech is titled Risk and Responsibility: The Contours of Civic Courage. To an audience of law students preparing to join the legal profession, Justice Beier points out that in law school we develop not only legal abilities but also leadership skills that we should use to better society.
To complete this issue, we have five student pieces. Steve Crossland contributes to the Brown theme through a note that reviews the decision's legal aftermath in three Brown companion cases in Brown's Companions: Briggs, Belton, and Davis. Scott Grosskreutz analyzes the impact of the California three strikes law in his comment Strike Three: Even Though California's Three Strikes Law Strikes Out Andrade, There Are No Winners in This Game. Next, Edward Robinson reviews the expanding jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act in Redefining Jurisdictional Limits in the Clean Water Act: "Tributary" Acquires New Meaning with Help from Chevron and Seminole Rock Deference. Brian Sommer explores a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the bankruptcy code provision that bars the discharge of any debts acquired by fraud in his comment Interpreting 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code: Substantive Law Approach Versus Policy-Based Arguments. Finally, in his comment, Ryan Vincent addresses the problems encountered when a guardian is allowed to change an incompetent senior citizen's domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes in As America Ages: Changing the Domicile of the Incompetent Challenges Diversity Jurisdiction.
