Abstract

Most education and legal scholarship overlook gendered-race themes in pre-Brown v. Board of Education desegregation higher education cases that remain relevant to examining post-Brown race-conscious admissions cases. The author engaged critical race feminism to create a counterstory with Ada Lois Sipuel Fisher, a U.S. Supreme Court plaintiff in conversation with two fictitious Black women, Geneva Crenshaw, a civil rights attorney, and Nia Lytle, a tenure-track assistant professor of higher education. During a fictionalized one-day oral argument presented with dialogue composed from texts of actual race-conscious admission cases, the Black women react to and critique the societal and legal logic used by organizations and individuals who recruited the white women plaintiffs in those cases. The counterstory illustrates how civil rights discourse was coopted to advance white supremacist grievances. The conclusion calls on those invested in racial equity to reframe the discourse of institutional legal strategies to advance race-conscious admissions.

摘要

大多数教育和法律学术都忽视了布朗诉教育委员会废除种族隔离高等教育案件中的性别种族主题，这些案件仍然与审查布朗之后的案件相关。具有种族意识的招生案例。作者利用批判性的种族女权主义，与美国最高法院原告阿达·洛伊斯·西普尔·费舍尔（Ada Lois Sipuel Fisher）与两名虚构的黑人女性、民权律师日内瓦·克伦肖（Geneva Crenshaw）和高等教育终身教授助理教授尼亚·莱特尔（Nia Lytle）的对话，创造了一个反故事。 。在一场虚构的一日口头辩论中，对话由真实的种族意识入院案件文本组成，黑人女性对在这些案件中招募白人女性原告的组织和个人所使用的社会和法律逻辑做出反应并批评。反面故事说明了民权话语如何被利用来宣扬白人至上主义的不满。