On Education after Group 3 Presentation

What is lost in teaching this “master narrative” of the movement are Supreme Court decisions prior to Brown; precedence was set by prior decisions, confirming that state institutions and authority were guilty of breaching the constitution. A simple argument proved to be effective for black leadership to win cases. It was known as the Margold strategy, and its efficacy vanishes in the teaching of the master narrative of the movement. Cases and decisions prior to Brown reveal elements of the Margold strategy; Thurgood Marshall’s arguments in court coupled with the writs of certiorari prove its significance. The Margold strategy best equipped African-Americans to utilize the court system as an element of engagement, in order to advance in their struggle towards equal rights.  

A matriculation back to 1936, 18 years prior to the Warren Court’s paramount, unanimous decision, provides crucial context in understanding the Margold strategy. Pearson v. Murray is the first case in which the strategy is deployed. In January of 1935, Donald Gaines Murray applied to the University of Maryland’s law school. Solely rejected because of his race, the state of Maryland promised an opportunity to study law for Gaines, albeit the law school would be located out-of state. The NAACP found Murray’s right to equal consideration under the law was violated, because of Maryland’s decision to not create a separate, equal institution for black law students. Thurgood Marshall represented Gaines at the United States Supreme Court, claiming Gaines:

“Met the standards for admission to the law school in all other respects, but was denied admission on the sole ground of his color…although the law school of the university is maintained for white students only, there is no separate law school maintained for colored students…if equal treatment has not been provided, the remedy must be found in the opening of a school for negroes, and not in their admission to this particular school attended by whites”.

Marshall’s argument illustrates the Margold strategy. He argued to the court that Murray’s academic profile was sufficient for admission; his test scores, along with any other requirement held within Maryland’s law school application, was met by Murray. Thus any argument cultivated on the grounds that Murray did not fit the school’s academic profile is quickly thrown out. Marshall continues to craft his assertions around the Margold strategy. He acknowledges the legitimacy of a separate, equal law school for whites, but, rather simply, continued to addresses the overwhelmingly issue: the absence of a separate law school for prospective black students in the state of Maryland.

He argued to the court that Murray’s academic profile was sufficient for admission; his test scores, along with any other requirement held within Maryland’s law school application, was met by Murray. Thus any argument cultivated on the grounds that Murray did not fit the school’s academic profile is quickly thrown out. Marshall continues to craft his assertions around the Margold strategy. He acknowledges the legitimacy of a separate, equal law school for whites, but, rather simply, continued to addresses the overwhelmingly issue: the absence of a separate law school for prospective black students in the state of Maryland.

The absence of a black law school in Maryland is Marshall’s most crucial point. It is undeniably simple and powerfully effective. Had such an institution existed, the case itself likely vanishes. Because Maryland did not act in accordance to Plessy and created a separate, black law school, Marshall may continue to mount his case. He resumes, acknowledging a simple cure to Mr. Murray’s violated rights exists. The cure is found on the grounds that Maryland will open a separate, equal law school for African Americans, in order to act in bounds of the constitution. Is it possible to enact such policy at the local level today?