Influence of the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson Decision on Southern Editorial Arguments during the “Massive Resistance” to Integration: Perspective from Alabama

IF 1 Q3 COMMUNICATION
A. Mohamed
{"title":"Influence of the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson Decision on Southern Editorial Arguments during the “Massive Resistance” to Integration: Perspective from Alabama","authors":"A. Mohamed","doi":"10.1080/10646175.2021.1985660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We examine the role of the press in Alabama during the “massive resistance” to the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling of 1954 on school integration, and the extent to which newspaper editorials relied on social and legal rationales for segregation based on the High Court’s earlier Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896. All three of Plessy’s rationales for institutionalizing segregation—states’ rights, a dual system of “social rights” based on race, and the doctrine of “separate but equal”—were widely adopted by the press. This contrasted with the approach of “natural law” preservationists who relied on “pure racial ideology” in fighting integration. A content analysis of Birmingham News editorials from 1960 to 1964 found support for our thesis that “mainstream” segregationist newspapers were more likely to use “pragmatic” rationales based on “constitutional” arguments rather than “natural law” arguments to defend segregation. This approach was seen as more effective in persuading the public outside the South on the merits of the “southern way of life.” Thus, Birmingham News editors consistently supported “political equality” of races to the dismay of staunch segregationist leaders in Alabama such as Governors John Patterson and George Wallace.","PeriodicalId":45915,"journal":{"name":"Howard Journal of Communications","volume":"177 1","pages":"281 - 296"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Howard Journal of Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2021.1985660","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract We examine the role of the press in Alabama during the “massive resistance” to the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling of 1954 on school integration, and the extent to which newspaper editorials relied on social and legal rationales for segregation based on the High Court’s earlier Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896. All three of Plessy’s rationales for institutionalizing segregation—states’ rights, a dual system of “social rights” based on race, and the doctrine of “separate but equal”—were widely adopted by the press. This contrasted with the approach of “natural law” preservationists who relied on “pure racial ideology” in fighting integration. A content analysis of Birmingham News editorials from 1960 to 1964 found support for our thesis that “mainstream” segregationist newspapers were more likely to use “pragmatic” rationales based on “constitutional” arguments rather than “natural law” arguments to defend segregation. This approach was seen as more effective in persuading the public outside the South on the merits of the “southern way of life.” Thus, Birmingham News editors consistently supported “political equality” of races to the dismay of staunch segregationist leaders in Alabama such as Governors John Patterson and George Wallace.
最高法院普莱西诉弗格森案判决对“大规模抵抗”种族融合期间南方社论论点的影响:来自阿拉巴马州的视角
摘要:我们考察了阿拉巴马州新闻界在对1954年最高法院“布朗诉教育委员会”(Brown v. Board of Education)关于学校融合的裁决的“大规模抵抗”中所扮演的角色,以及基于高等法院早前1896年普莱西诉弗格森案(Plessy v. Ferguson)裁决的报纸社论在多大程度上依赖于种族隔离的社会和法律依据。普莱西提出的将种族隔离制度制度化的三个基本原理——国家权利、基于种族的双重“社会权利”体系和“隔离但平等”的原则——都被媒体广泛采纳。这与依靠“纯粹种族意识形态”来对抗种族融合的“自然法”保护主义者的做法形成了鲜明对比。对《伯明翰新闻》1960年至1964年社论的内容分析支持了我们的论点,即“主流”种族隔离主义报纸更有可能使用基于“宪法”论据的“实用主义”理由,而不是基于“自然法”论据来捍卫种族隔离。这种方法被认为在说服南方以外的公众相信“南方生活方式”的优点方面更为有效。因此,《伯明翰新闻》的编辑们一贯支持种族的“政治平等”,这让阿拉巴马州坚定的种族隔离主义领导人,如州长约翰·帕特森和乔治·华莱士感到沮丧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Culture, ethnicity, and gender influence multicultural organizations, mass media portrayals, interpersonal interaction, development campaigns, and rhetoric. Dealing with these issues, The Howard Journal of Communications, is a quarterly that examines ethnicity, gender, and culture as domestic and international communication concerns. No other scholarly journal focuses exclusively on cultural issues in communication research. Moreover, few communication journals employ such a wide variety of methodologies. Since issues of multiculturalism, multiethnicity and gender often call forth messages from persons who otherwise would be silenced, traditional methods of inquiry are supplemented by post-positivist inquiry to give voice to those who otherwise might not be heard.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信