Category Archives: Regulation

Regulation, Regulatory Affairs, Self-regulation, Public Policy, FDA, EFSA, WHO, SEC, Self-regulation, FEMA, Flavor manufacturing

Alzheimer’s Genetic Risk Assessment

CREDIT: NPR article

CREDIT: Bill Gates 11.13.17 Blog Post on Alzheimer’s

FDA Approves Marketing Of Consumer Genetic Tests For Some Conditions

April 7, 20171:40 PM ET
JESSICA BODDY

23andMe is now allowed to market tests that assess genetic risks for 10 health conditions, including Parkinson’s and late-onset Alzheimer’s diseases.
Meredith Rizzo/NPR
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved 23andMe’s personal genetic test for some diseases on Thursday, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and celiac diseases.
The tests assess genetic risk for the conditions but don’t diagnose them, the FDA says. The agency urges consumers to use their results to “help to make decisions about lifestyle choices or to inform discussions with a health care professional,” according to a press release about the decision.
Jeffrey Shuren, the director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote, “it is important that people understand that genetic risk is just one piece of the bigger puzzle, it does not mean they will or won’t ultimately develop a disease.” Other known factors that can play into the development of disease include diet, environment and tobacco use.

SHOTS – HEALTH NEWS
23andMe Bows To FDA’s Demands, Drops Health Claims
The FDA has previously scolded the company for marketing the personal genetic testing kits without the agency’s consent. In 2013, the agency told 23andMe to stop selling its personal genome kits in the United States until they gained FDA approval by proving they were accurate.
The company agreed to work with the FDA, as we reported, and a recent FDA review of peer-reviewed studies found more consistent links between certain gene variants and 10 diseases, the FDA says.
As a result, the FDA is now allowing 23andMe to market tests that assess genetic risks for the following 10 diseases or conditions:
▪ Parkinson’s disease, a nervous system disorder impacting movement 

▪ Late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, a progressive brain disorder that destroys memory and thinking skills 

▪ Celiac disease, a disorder resulting in the inability to digest gluten 

▪ Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, a disorder that raises the risk of lung and liver disease 

▪ Early-onset primary dystonia, a movement disorder involving involuntary muscle contractions and other uncontrolled movements 

▪ Factor XI deficiency, a blood clotting disorder 

▪ Gaucher disease type 1, an organ and tissue disorder 

▪ Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, also known as G6PD, a red blood cell condition 

▪ Hereditary hemochromatosis, an iron overload disorder 

▪ Hereditary thrombophilia, a blood clot disorder 


The company’s $199 Health and Ancestry test is available directly to consumers, without seeing a physician or genetic counselor. Consumers’ DNA is extracted from a saliva sample. After mailing in their sample, people can see their results online.
“This is an important moment for people who want to know their genetic health risks and be more proactive about their health,” said Anne Wojcicki, the CEO and co-founder of 23andMe, in a company press release.
Sharon Terry, the CEO of the Genetic Alliance, a nonprofit organization that advocates for health care for people with genetic disorders, likens it to another consumer test. “Women learn they are pregnant using a test directly marketed to them and buy it off the shelf in a drugstore,” she told NPR. “In 10 years we will marvel that this is an ‘advance’ at all. Imagine pregnancy tests being only available through a doctor!”
Robert Green, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, says people should be able to access genetic information in whatever way is best for them. “Some people really want this [genetic] information on their own, and others want it through their physician,” he said. “Both those channels are legitimate. People should just be aware that this information is complicated.”
But some are still concerned about whether the genes in question actually correspond to a higher risk of disease reliably enough to warrant direct-to-consumer marketing and testing, as opposed to genetic testing with the guidance of a professional.

SHOTS – HEALTH NEWS
Don’t Get Your Kids’ Genes Sequenced Just To Keep Up

SHOTS – HEALTH NEWS
Personalizing Cancer Treatment With Genetic Tests Can Be Tricky
Some health professionals worry that consumers will “take the results and run,” as Mary Freivogel put it. Freivogel, a certified genetic counselor and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, added that genetics are just “one piece to the story when it comes to developing a disease.”
Freivogel said speaking with a genetic counselor before getting tested for disease is important. “Direct-to-consumer testing takes away a pre-test conversation,” she said, where counselors can help patients think about questions like: “What do you want to know? What are you going to do with this information? Is it something you’re prepared to know, or is it going to just make you anxious?”
And it isn’t clear what consumers should do with their newly calculated disease risk, especially for conditions like Alzheimer’s for which there isn’t a cure or even a course of action to prevent the disease.
What’s more, having the genes is not the same as having the diseases the genes are associated with. A person may have genes that are associated with Alzheimer’s, for example, but that doesn’t mean he or she will ever get the disease. Conversely, some people develop Alzheimer’s without the identified risk genes.
The Alzheimer’s Association does not recommend routine genetic testing for the disease in the general population because it can’t “productively guide medical treatment.”
A genetic test result for Alzheimer’s is “not going to provide useful information even if you’re at an increased risk,” said Keith Fargo, director of scientific programs at the Alzheimer’s Association. “It’s not like there’s a drug you can take right now [to prevent the disease] or a lifestyle change you can make that you shouldn’t make anyway,” such as exercising and eating right to keep your brain healthy.
John Lehr, the CEO of the Parkinson’s Foundation, says personal genetic tests can help identify risk for Parkinson’s disease. But, he wrote in a statement following the FDA’s announcement, the foundation recommends “that people who are interested in testing first seek guidance from their doctors and from genetic counselors to understand what the process may mean for them and their families.”

Dianne Dillon-Ridgley

Karen first met Dianne through the Women’s Network for a Sustainable Future (WNSF).

As I got to know Dianne more, I realized that there were many stories: facets of her experience and interests that make her life very complex, but also very interesting.

I came to realize that she believes that her myriad interests are really one interest: justice.

If I were to try to summarize her interests, I might do it this way:

Sustainability (including Energy, Environment, Environmental Health)
Civil Rights
Women’s Rights

Her story includes many close relatives that were are part of the Thurgood Marshall precedent cases that led up to Brown v Board of Education. That ruling, in 1954, overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896), which held that segregation was legal, so long as facilities were “separate but equal”. The court ruled that segregation violated the Fourteenth Amendment (“no State shall … deny to any person … the equal protection of the laws”).

Her organizational affiliations:

Interface
Howard University (alumnus)
Women’s Network for a Sustainable Future (WNSF)
Green Mountain Energy
Auburn University
River Network
Center for International Environmental Law
National Wildlife Federation
University of Indiana (School for Public Environmental Administration)
Zero Population Growth

Her full biography is below:
Ms. Dianne Dillon-Ridgley serves as an Adjunct Lecturer of University of Indiana School for Public Environmental Administration. Since 1997, Ms. Dillon-Ridgley has represented the World Young Women’s Christian Association at U.N. headquarters. From 1995 to 1998, Ms. Dillon-Ridgley served as a Senior Policy Analyst of the Women’s Environment and Development Organization and from 1998 to 1999, Ms. Dillon-Ridgley served as an Executive Director of that organization. From 1994 to 1997, Ms. Dillon-Ridgley served as a National President of Zero Population Growth, the nation’s largest grassroots organization concerned with rapid population growth and the environment. In 1998, Ms. Dillon-Ridgley was elected to the Global Water Partnership (Stockholm) and in 1999 appointed to the Oxford University Commission on Sustainable Consumption (UK). Ms. Dillon-Ridgley serves as the Chairman of Environmental Advisory Board of Green Mountain Energy Company. Ms. Dillon-Ridgley was appointed by President Clinton to the President’s U.S. Council on Sustainable Development in 1994 and served as Co-Chair of the Council’s International and Population/Consumption Task Forces until the Council’s dissolution in June 1999. Ms. Dillon-Ridgley serves as a Member of Environmental Advisory Board of Green Mountain Energy Company. Ms. Dillon-Ridgley serves as a trustee of River Network, the Center for International Environmental Law, the Natural Step-US and Population Connection. She serves as Director of National Wildlife Federation, Inc. She also serves as a trustee of the International Board of Auburn University’s School of Human Sciences and also serves as a Member of the Editorial Advisory Board for Aspen Law and Business’ Fair Housing and Fair Lending Publications. Ms. Dillon-Ridgley also serves on the Boards of five nonprofit organizations and one private company. Ms. Dillon-Ridgley served as Director of Interface Inc., since February 1997 until May 12, 2014. Ms. Dillon-Ridgley served as a Director of Green Mountain Energy Company since July, 1999. From 1998 to 1999, Ms. Dillon-Ridgley served as an Interim Executive Director of the Women’s Environment and Development Organization, an international women’s advocacy network for environmental, economic and sustainability issues. Ms. Dillon-Ridgley completed her undergraduate work at Howard University and is state-certified by the Iowa Mediation Service as a mediator specializing in agricultural mediation and public policy negotiation.

===============Notes on Brown vs (Topeka) Board of Education (1954) =====

CREDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

Brown v. Board of Education
(Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al.)

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 9, 1952
Reargued December 8, 1953
Decided May 17, 1954

Citations
347 U.S. 483 (more)
74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180

Prior history
Judgment for defendants, 98 F. Supp. 797 (D. Kan. 1951)
Subsequent history
Judgment on relief, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (Brown II); on remand, 139 F. Supp. 468 (D. Kan. 1955); motion to intervene granted, 84 F.R.D. 383 (D. Kan. 1979); judgment for defendants, 671 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Kan. 1987); reversed, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989); vacated, 503 U.S. 978 (1992) (Brown III); judgment reinstated, 978 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1992); judgment for defendants, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Kan. 1999)

Holding
Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed.NOTE: Fourteenth Amendment says “no State shall … deny to any person … the equal protection of the laws”.

Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton

Case opinions
Majority
Warren, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education (1899)
Berea College v. Kentucky (1908)

Educational segregation in the US prior to Brown
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court’s unanimous (9–0) decision stated that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the Civil Rights Movement,[1] and a model for many future impact litigation cases.[2] However, the decision’s fourteen pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court’s second decision in Brown II, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) only ordered states to desegregate “with all deliberate speed”.

Background
For much of the sixty years preceding the Brown case, race relations in the United States had been dominated by racial segregation. This policy had been endorsed in 1896 by the United States Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that as long as the separate facilities for the separate races were equal, segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment (“no State shall … deny to any person … the equal protection of the laws”).

The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely from the 17 states that required racial segregation to the 16 in which it was prohibited. Brown was influenced by UNESCO’s 1950 Statement, signed by a wide variety of internationally renowned scholars, titled The Race Question.[3] This declaration denounced previous attempts at scientifically justifying racism as well as morally condemning racism. Another work that the Supreme Court cited was Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944).[4] Myrdal had been a signatory of the UNESCO declaration. The research performed by the educational psychologists Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark also influenced the Court’s decision.[5] The Clarks’ “doll test” studies presented substantial arguments to the Supreme Court about how segregation affected black school children’s mental status.[6]

The United States and the Soviet Union were both at the height of the Cold War during this time, and U.S. officials, including Supreme Court Justices, were highly aware of the harm that segregation and racism played on America’s international image. When Justice William O. Douglas traveled to India in 1950, the first question he was asked was, “Why does America tolerate the lynching of Negroes?” Douglas later wrote that he had learned from his travels that “the attitude of the United States toward its colored minorities is a powerful factor in our relations with India.” Chief Justice Earl Warren, nominated to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, echoed Douglas’s concerns in a 1954 speech to the American Bar Association, proclaiming that “Our American system like all others is on trial both at home and abroad, … the extent to which we maintain the spirit of our constitution with its Bill of Rights, will in the long run do more to make it both secure and the object of adulation than the number of hydrogen bombs we stockpile.”[7][8]

In 1951, a class action suit was filed against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs were thirteen Topeka parents on behalf of their 20 children.[9]

The suit called for the school district to reverse its policy of racial segregation. The Topeka Board of Education operated separate elementary schools under an 1879 Kansas law, which permitted (but did not require) districts to maintain separate elementary school facilities for black and white students in 12 communities with populations over 15,000. The plaintiffs had been recruited by the leadership of the Topeka NAACP. Notable among the Topeka NAACP leaders were the chairman McKinley Burnett; Charles Scott, one of three serving as legal counsel for the chapter; and Lucinda Todd.

The named plaintiff, Oliver L. Brown, was a parent, a welder in the shops of the Santa Fe Railroad, an assistant pastor at his local church, and an African American.[10] He was convinced to join the lawsuit by Scott, a childhood friend. Brown’s daughter Linda, a third grader, had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop to ride to Monroe Elementary, her segregated black school one mile (1.6 km) away, while Sumner Elementary, a white school, was seven blocks from her house.[11][12]

As directed by the NAACP leadership, the parents each attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school in the fall of 1951. They were each refused enrollment and directed to the segregated schools. Linda Brown Thompson later recalled the experience in a 2004 PBS documentary:

… well. like I say, we lived in an integrated neighborhood and I had all of these playmates of different nationalities. And so when I found out that day that I might be able to go to their school, I was just thrilled, you know. And I remember walking over to Sumner school with my dad that day and going up the steps of the school and the school looked so big to a smaller child. And I remember going inside and my dad spoke with someone and then he went into the inner office with the principal and they left me out … to sit outside with the secretary. And while he was in the inner office, I could hear voices and hear his voice raised, you know, as the conversation went on. And then he immediately came out of the office, took me by the hand and we walked home from the school. I just couldn’t understand what was happening because I was so sure that I was going to go to school with Mona and Guinevere, Wanda, and all of my playmates.[13]

The case “Oliver Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas” was named after Oliver Brown as a legal strategy to have a man at the head of the roster. The lawyers, and the National Chapter of the NAACP, also felt that having Mr. Brown at the head of the roster would be better received by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The 13 plaintiffs were: Oliver Brown, Darlene Brown, Lena Carper, Sadie Emmanuel, Marguerite Emerson, Shirley Fleming, Zelma Henderson, Shirley Hodison, Maude Lawton, Alma Lewis, Iona Richardson, and Lucinda Todd.[14][15] The last surviving plaintiff, Zelma Henderson, died in Topeka, on May 20, 2008, at age 88.[16][17]

The District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, citing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), which had upheld a state law requiring “separate but equal” segregated facilities for blacks and whites in railway cars.[18] The three-judge District Court panel found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the negro and white schools in Topeka were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers.[19]

Supreme Court review

The case of Brown v. Board of Education as heard before the Supreme Court combined five cases: Brown itself, Briggs v. Elliott (filed in South Carolina), Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (filed in Virginia), Gebhart v. Belton (filed in Delaware), and Bolling v. Sharpe (filed in Washington D.C.).

All were NAACP-sponsored cases. The Davis case, the only case of the five originating from a student protest, began when 16-year-old Barbara Rose Johns organized and led a 450-student walkout of Moton High School.[20] The Gebhart case was the only one where a trial court, affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court, found that discrimination was unlawful; in all the other cases the plaintiffs had lost as the original courts had found discrimination to be lawful.

The Kansas case was unique among the group in that there was no contention of gross inferiority of the segregated schools’ physical plant, curriculum, or staff. The district court found substantial equality as to all such factors. The lower court, in its opinion, noted that, in Topeka, “the physical facilities, the curricula, courses of study, qualification and quality of teachers, as well as other educational facilities in the two sets of schools [were] comparable.”[21] The lower court observed that “colored children in many instances are required to travel much greater distances than they would be required to travel could they attend a white school” but also noted that the school district “transports colored children to and from school free of charge” and that “[n]o such service [was] provided to white children.”[21]

In the Delaware case the district court judge in Gebhart ordered that the black students be admitted to the white high school due to the substantial harm of segregation and the differences that made the separate schools unequal.

The NAACP’s chief counsel, Thurgood Marshall—who was later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967—argued the case before the Supreme Court for the plaintiffs. Assistant attorney general Paul Wilson—later distinguished emeritus professor of law at the University of Kansas—conducted the state’s ambivalent defense in his first appellate argument.
In December 1952, the Justice Department filed a friend of the court brief in the case. The brief was unusual in its heavy emphasis on foreign-policy considerations of the Truman administration in a case ostensibly about domestic issues. Of the seven pages covering “the interest of the United States,” five focused on the way school segregation hurt the United States in the Cold War competition for the friendship and allegiance of non-white peoples in countries then gaining independence from colonial rule. Attorney General James P. McGranery noted that

The existence of discrimination against minority groups in the United States has an adverse effect upon our relations with other countries. Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills.[22]

The brief also quoted a letter by Secretary of State Dean Acheson lamenting that
The United States is under constant attack in the foreign press, over the foreign radio, and in such international bodies as the United Nations because of various practices of discrimination in this country.[23]

British barrister and parliamentarian Anthony Lester has written that “Although the Court’s opinion in Brown made no reference to these considerations of foreign policy, there is no doubt that they significantly influenced the decision.”[23]

Unanimous opinion and consensus building

The members of the U.S. Supreme Court that on May 17, 1954, ruled unanimously that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

In spring 1953, the Court heard the case but was unable to decide the issue and asked to rehear the case in fall 1953, with special attention to whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibited the operation of separate public schools for whites and blacks.[24]

The Court reargued the case at the behest of Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, who used reargument as a stalling tactic, to allow the Court to gather a consensus around a Brown opinion that would outlaw segregation. The justices in support of desegregation spent much effort convincing those who initially intended to dissent to join a unanimous opinion. Although the legal effect would be same for a majority rather than unanimous decision, it was felt that dissent could be used by segregation supporters as a legitimizing counter-argument.

Conference notes and draft decisions illustrate the division of opinions before the decision was issued.[25] Justices Douglas, Black, Burton, and Minton were predisposed to overturn Plessy.[25] Fred M. Vinson noted that Congress had not issued desegregation legislation; Stanley F. Reed discussed incomplete cultural assimilation and states’ rights and was inclined to the view that segregation worked to the benefit of the African-American community; Tom C. Clark wrote that “we had led the states on to think segregation is OK and we should let them work it out.”[25] Felix Frankfurter and Robert H. Jackson disapproved of segregation, but were also opposed to judicial activism and expressed concerns about the proposed decision’s enforceability.[25] Chief Justice Vinson had been a key stumbling block. After Vinson died in September 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice.[25] Warren had supported the integration of Mexican-American students in California school systems following Mendez v. Westminster.[26] However, Eisenhower invited Earl Warren to a White House dinner, where the president told him: “These [southern whites] are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big overgrown Negroes.” Nevertheless, the Justice Department sided with the African American plaintiffs.[27][28][29]

In his reading of the unanimous decision, Justice Warren noted the adverse psychological effects that segregated schools had on African American children.[30]

While all but one justice personally rejected segregation, the judicial restraint faction questioned whether the Constitution gave the Court the power to order its end. The activist faction believed the Fourteenth Amendment did give the necessary authority and were pushing to go ahead. Warren, who held only a recess appointment, held his tongue until the Senate confirmed his appointment.

Warren convened a meeting of the justices, and presented to them the simple argument that the only reason to sustain segregation was an honest belief in the inferiority of Negroes. Warren further submitted that the Court must overrule Plessy to maintain its legitimacy as an institution of liberty, and it must do so unanimously to avoid massive Southern resistance. He began to build a unanimous opinion.

Although most justices were immediately convinced, Warren spent some time after this famous speech convincing everyone to sign onto the opinion. Justices Jackson and Reed finally decided to drop their dissent. The final decision was unanimous. Warren drafted the basic opinion and kept circulating and revising it until he had an opinion endorsed by all the members of the Court.[31] Reed was the last holdout and reportedly cried during the reading of the opinion.[32]

Holding

Reporters who observed the court holding were surprised by two facts. First, the court made a unanimous decision. Prior to the ruling, there were reports that the court members were sharply divided and might not be able to agree. Second, the attendance of Justice Robert H. Jackson who had suffered a mild heart attack and was not expected to return to the bench until early June 1954. “Perhaps to emphasize the unanimity of the court, perhaps from a desire to be present when the history-making verdict was announced, Justice Jackson was in his accustomed seat when the court convened.”[33] Reporters also noted that Dean Acheson, former secretary of state, who had related the case to foreign policy considerations, and Herbert Brownell, the current attorney general, were in the courtroom.[34]

The key holding of the Court was that, even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and unconstitutional. They found that a significant psychological and social disadvantage was given to black children from the nature of segregation itself, drawing on research conducted by Kenneth Clark assisted by June Shagaloff. This aspect was vital because the question was not whether the schools were “equal”, which under Plessy they nominally should have been, but whether the doctrine of separate was constitutional. The justices answered with a strong “no”:

[D]oes segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. …
“Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The effect is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.” …

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Local outcomes

Judgement in the Supreme Court Decision for Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al.

The Topeka junior high schools had been integrated since 1941. Topeka High School was integrated from its inception in 1871 and its sports teams from 1949 on.[35] The Kansas law permitting segregated schools allowed them only “below the high school level”.[36]
Soon after the district court decision, election outcomes and the political climate in Topeka changed. The Board of Education of Topeka began to end segregation in the Topeka elementary schools in August 1953, integrating two attendance districts. All the Topeka elementary schools were changed to neighborhood attendance centers in January 1956, although existing students were allowed to continue attending their prior assigned schools at their option.[37][38][39] Plaintiff Zelma Henderson, in a 2004 interview, recalled that no demonstrations or tumult accompanied desegregation in Topeka’s schools:
“They accepted it,” she said. “It wasn’t too long until they integrated the teachers and principals.”[40]

The Topeka Public Schools administration building is named in honor of McKinley Burnett, NAACP chapter president who organized the case.[citation needed]

Monroe Elementary was designated a U.S. National Historic Site unit of the National Park Service on October 26, 1992.

Social implications
Not everyone accepted the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In Virginia, Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr. organized the Massive Resistance movement that included the closing of schools rather than desegregating them.[41] See, for example, The Southern Manifesto. For more implications of the Brown decision, see Desegregation.

Deep South
Texas Attorney General John Ben Shepperd organized a campaign to generate legal obstacles to implementation of desegregation.[42]

In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out his state’s National Guard to block black students’ entry to Little Rock Central High School. President Dwight Eisenhower responded by deploying elements of the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to Arkansas and by federalizing Arkansas’s National Guard.[43]

Also in 1957, Florida’s response was mixed. Its legislature passed an Interposition Resolution denouncing the decision and declaring it null and void. But Florida Governor LeRoy Collins, though joining in the protest against the court decision, refused to sign it, arguing that the attempt to overturn the ruling must be done by legal methods.
In Mississippi fear of violence prevented any plaintiff from bringing a school desegregation suit for the next nine years.[44] When Medgar Evers sued to desegregate Jackson, Mississippi schools in 1963 White Citizens Council member Byron De La Beckwith murdered him.[45] Two subsequent trials resulted in hung juries. Beckwith was not convicted of the murder until 1994.[46]

In 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace personally blocked the door to Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to prevent the enrollment of two black students. This became the infamous Stand in the Schoolhouse Door[47] where Wallace personally backed his “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” policy that he had stated in his 1963 inaugural address.[48] He moved aside only when confronted by General Henry Graham of the Alabama National Guard, who was ordered by President John F. Kennedy to intervene.
Upland South

In North Carolina, there was often a strategy of nominally accepting Brown, but tacitly resisting it. On May 18, 1954 the Greensboro, North Carolina school board declared that it would abide by the Brown ruling. This was the result of the initiative of D.E. Hudgins Jr, a former Rhodes Scholar and prominent attorney, who chaired the school board. This made Greensboro the first, and for years the only, city in the South, to announce its intent to comply. However, others in the city resisted integration, putting up legal obstacles[how?] to the actual implementation of school desegregation for years afterward, and in 1969, the federal government found the city was not in compliance with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Transition to a fully integrated school system did not begin until 1971, after numerous local lawsuits and both nonviolent and violent demonstrations. Historians have noted the irony that Greensboro, which had heralded itself as such a progressive city, was one of the last holdouts for school desegregation.[49][50]
In Moberly, Missouri, the schools were desegregated, as ordered. However, after 1955, the African-American teachers from the local “negro school” were not retained; this was ascribed to poor performance. They appealed their dismissal in Naomi Brooks et al., Appellants, v. School District of City of Moberly, Missouri, Etc., et al.; but it was upheld, and SCOTUS declined to hear a further appeal.[51][52]

North
Many Northern cities also had de facto segregation policies, which resulted in a vast gulf in educational resources between black and white communities. In Harlem, New York, for example, not a single new school had been built since the turn of the century, nor did a single nursery school exist, even as the Second Great Migration caused overcrowding of existing schools. Existing schools tended to be dilapidated and staffed with inexperienced teachers. Northern officials were in denial of the segregation, but Brown helped stimulate activism among African-American parents like Mae Mallory who, with support of the NAACP, initiated a successful lawsuit against the city and State of New York on Brown’s principles. Mallory and thousands of other parents bolstered the pressure of the lawsuit with a school boycott in 1959. During the boycott, some of the first freedom schools of the period were established. The city responded to the campaign by permitting more open transfers to high-quality, historically-white schools. (New York’s African-American community, and Northern desegregation activists generally, now found themselves contending with the problem of white flight, however.)[53][54]

The intellectual roots of Plessy v. Ferguson, the landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation in 1896 under the doctrine of “separate but equal” were, in part, tied to the scientific racism of the era.[55][56] However, the popular support for the decision was more likely a result of the racist beliefs held by many whites at the time.[57] In deciding Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court rejected the ideas of scientific racists about the need for segregation, especially in schools. The Court buttressed its holding by citing (in footnote 11) social science research about the harms to black children caused by segregated schools.

Both scholarly and popular ideas of hereditarianism played an important role in the attack and backlash that followed the Brown decision.[57] The Mankind Quarterly was founded in 1960, in part in response to the Brown decision.[58][59]
Legal criticism and praise

U.S. circuit judges Robert A. Katzmann, Damon J. Keith, and Sonia Sotomayor at a 2004 exhibit on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thurgood Marshall, and Brown v. Board of Education
William Rehnquist wrote a memo titled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases” when he was a law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson in 1952, during early deliberations that led to the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In his memo, Rehnquist argued: “I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by ‘liberal’ colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.” Rehnquist continued, “To the argument . . . that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minorities are.”[60] Rehnquist also argued for Plessy with other law clerks.[61]
However, during his 1971 confirmation hearings, Rehnquist said, “I believe that the memorandum was prepared by me as a statement of Justice Jackson’s tentative views for his own use.” Justice Jackson had initially planned to join a dissent in Brown.[62] Later, at his 1986 hearings for the slot of Chief Justice, Rehnquist put further distance between himself and the 1952 memo: “The bald statement that Plessy was right and should be reaffirmed, was not an accurate reflection of my own views at the time.”[63] In any event, while serving on the Supreme Court, Rehnquist made no effort to reverse or undermine the Brown decision, and frequently relied upon it as precedent.[64]

Chief Justice Warren’s reasoning was broadly criticized by contemporary legal academics with Judge Learned Hand decrying that the Supreme Court had “assumed the role of a third legislative chamber”[65] and Herbert Wechsler finding Brown impossible to justify based on neutral principles.[66]

Some aspects of the Brown decision are still debated. Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, himself an African American, wrote in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that at the very least, Brown I has been misunderstood by the courts.

Brown I did not say that “racially isolated” schools were inherently inferior; the harm that it identified was tied purely to de jure segregation, not de facto segregation. Indeed, Brown I itself did not need to rely upon any psychological or social-science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race. …

Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior educational resources making blacks “feel” superior to whites sent to lesser schools—would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant …

Given that desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement, there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment. (…) Because of their “distinctive histories and traditions,” black schools can function as the center and symbol of black communities, and provide examples of independent black leadership, success, and achievement.[67]

Some Constitutional originalists, notably Raoul Berger in his influential 1977 book “Government by Judiciary,” make the case that Brown cannot be defended by reference to the original understanding of the 14th Amendment. They support this reading of the 14th amendment by noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 did not ban segregated schools and that the same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment also voted to segregate schools in the District of Columbia. Other originalists, including Michael W. McConnell, a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in his article “Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions,” argue that the Radical Reconstructionists who spearheaded the 14th Amendment were in favor of desegregated southern schools.[68] Evidence supporting this interpretation of the 14th amendment has come from archived Congressional records showing that proposals for federal legislation which would enforce school integration were debated in Congress a few years following the amendment’s ratification.[69]

The case also has attracted some criticism from more liberal authors, including some who say that Chief Justice Warren’s reliance on psychological criteria to find a harm against segregated blacks was unnecessary. For example, Drew S. Days has written:[70] “we have developed criteria for evaluating the constitutionality of racial classifications that do not depend upon findings of psychic harm or social science evidence. They are based rather on the principle that ‘distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,’ Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943). . . .

In his book The Tempting of America (page 82), Robert Bork endorsed the Brown decision as follows:
By 1954, when Brown came up for decision, it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases … The Court’s realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law.

In June 1987, Philip Elman, a civil rights attorney who served as an associate in the Solicitor General’s office during Harry Truman’s term, claimed he and Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter were mostly responsible for the Supreme Court’s decision, and stated that the NAACP’s arguments did not present strong evidence.[71] Elman has been criticized for offering a self-aggrandizing history of the case, omitting important facts, and denigrating the work of civil rights attorneys who had laid the groundwork for the decision over many decades.[72] However, Frankfurter was also known for being one of court’s most outspoken advocates of the judicial restraint philosophy of basing court rulings on existing law rather than personal or political considerations.[73][74] Public officials in the United States today are nearly unanimous in lauding the ruling. In May 2004, the fiftieth anniversary of the ruling, President George W. Bush spoke at the opening of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site, calling Brown “a decision that changed America for the better, and forever.”[75] Most Senators and Representatives issued press releases hailing the ruling.

In an article in Townhall, Thomas Sowell argued that When Chief Justice Earl Warren declared in the landmark 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education that racially separate schools were “inherently unequal,” Dunbar High School was a living refutation of that assumption. And it was within walking distance of the Supreme Court.”[76]

Brown II

In 1955, the Supreme Court considered arguments by the schools requesting relief concerning the task of desegregation. In their decision, which became known as “Brown II”[77] the court delegated the task of carrying out school desegregation to district courts with orders that desegregation occur “with all deliberate speed,” a phrase traceable to Francis Thompson’s poem, The Hound of Heaven.[78]

Supporters of the earlier decision were displeased with this decision. The language “all deliberate speed” was seen by critics as too ambiguous to ensure reasonable haste for compliance with the court’s instruction. Many Southern states and school districts interpreted “Brown II” as legal justification for resisting, delaying, and avoiding significant integration for years—and in some cases for a decade or more—using such tactics as closing down school systems, using state money to finance segregated “private” schools, and “token” integration where a few carefully selected black children were admitted to former white-only schools but the vast majority remained in underfunded, unequal black schools.[79]

For example, based on “Brown II,” the U.S. District Court ruled that Prince Edward County, Virginia did not have to desegregate immediately. When faced with a court order to finally begin desegregation in 1959 the county board of supervisors stopped appropriating money for public schools, which remained closed for five years, from 1959 to 1964.

White students in the county were given assistance to attend white-only “private academies” that were taught by teachers formerly employed by the public school system, while black students had no education at all unless they moved out of the county. But the public schools reopened after the Supreme Court overturned “Brown II” in Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, declaring that “…the time for mere ‘deliberate speed’ has run out,” and that the county must provide a public school system for all children regardless of race.[80]

Brown III

In 1978, Topeka attorneys Richard Jones, Joseph Johnson and Charles Scott, Jr. (son of the original Brown team member), with assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, persuaded Linda Brown Smith—who now had her own children in Topeka schools—to be a plaintiff in reopening Brown. They were concerned that the Topeka Public Schools’ policy of “open enrollment” had led to and would lead to further segregation. They also believed that with a choice of open enrollment, white parents would shift their children to “preferred” schools that would create both predominantly African American and predominantly European American schools within the district. The district court reopened the Brown case after a 25-year hiatus, but denied the plaintiffs’ request finding the schools “unitary”. In 1989, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit on 2–1 vote found that the vestiges of segregation remained with respect to student and staff assignment. In 1993, the Supreme Court denied the appellant School District’s request for certiorari and returned the case to District Court Judge Richard Rodgers for implementation of the Tenth Circuit’s mandate.

After a 1994 plan was approved and a bond issue passed, additional elementary magnet schools were opened and district attendance plans redrawn, which resulted in the Topeka schools meeting court standards of racial balance by 1998. Unified status was eventually granted to Topeka Unified School District No. 501 on July 27, 1999. One of the new magnet schools is named after the Scott family attorneys for their role in the Brown case and civil rights.[81]

Related cases
• Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)—separate but equal for public facilities
• Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education 175 U.S. 528 (1899)—sanctioned de jure segregation of races
• Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927)—separate schools for Chinese pupils from white schoolchildren
• Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)—access to counsel
• Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938)-states that provide a school to white students must provide in-state education to blacks
• Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944)—non-white voters in primary schools
• Hedgepeth and Williams v. Board of Education (1944)-prohibited racial segregation in New Jersey schools.
• Mendez v. Westminster, 64 F. Supp. 544 (1946)—prohibits segregating Mexican American children in California
• Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 332 U.S. 631 (1948)—access to taxpayer state funded law schools
• Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)—restrictive covenants
• Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950)—segregated law schools in Texas
• McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)—prohibits segregation in a public institution of higher learning
• Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954)—the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or Negro.
• Briggs v. Elliott, 347 U.S. 483 (1952) Brown Case #1—Summerton, South Carolina.
• Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337 (1952) Brown Case #2—Prince Edward County, Virginia.
• Gebhart v. Belton, 33 Del. Ch. 144 (1952) Brown Case #3—Claymont, Delaware
• Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) Brown companion case—dealt with the constitutionality of segregation in the District of Columbia, which—as a federal district, not a state—is not subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956) – Montgomery, Alabama bus segregation is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment protections for equal treatment.
• NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)—privacy of NAACP membership lists, and free association of members
• Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) – Federal court enforcement of desegregation
• Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 (1960) – outlawed racial segregation in public transportation
• Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)—held constitutional the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned racial discrimination in public places, particularly in public accommodations even in private property.
• Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) – banned anti-miscegenation laws (race-based restrictions on marriage).
• Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 1218 (1969) – changed Brown’s requirement of desegregation “with all deliberate speed” to one of “desegregation now”
• Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) – established bussing as a solution
• Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S 1215 (1971) – “Brown v. Board of Education was not written for blacks alone”, desegregation of Asian schools in opposition to parents of Asian students
• Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974) – rejected bussing across school district lines.
• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1,[82] 551 U.S. 701, 127 S. Ct. 2738 (2007)—rejected using race as the sole determining factor for assigning students to schools.[83]
• List of United States Supreme Court Cases
* See Case citation for an explanation of these numbers.
See also
• African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)
• Little Rock Nine
• Rubey Mosley Hulen, federal judge who made a similar ruling in an earlier case
• Timeline of the African American Civil Rights Movement
• Ruby Bridges, the first black child to attend an all-white elementary school in the South
References
1 Jump up 
^ Brown v Board of Education Decision ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
2 Jump up 
^ Schuck, P.H. (2006). Meditations of a Militant Moderate: Cool Views on Hot Topics. G – Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-7425-3961-7.
3 Jump up 
^ Harald E.L. Prins. “Toward a World without Evil: Alfred Métraux as UNESCO Anthropologist (1946–1962)”. UNESCO. “As a direct offshoot of the 1948 “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” it sought to dismantle any scientific justification or basis for racism and proclaimed that race was not a biological fact of nature but a dangerous social myth. As a milestone, this critically important declaration contributed to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.’”(in English)
4 Jump up 
^ Myrdal, Gunnar (1944). An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
5 Jump up 
^ “Desegregation to diversity?”. American Psychological Association. 2004. Retrieved May 15, 2008.
6 Jump up 
^ “Kenneth Clark, 90; His Studies Influenced Ban on Segregation – Los Angeles Times”. Los Angeles Times. May 3, 2005. Retrieved October 15, 2010.
7 Jump up 
^ Mary L. Dudziak, “The Global Impact of Brown v. Board of Education” SCOTUS Blog
8 Jump up 
^ Mary L Dudziak “Brown as a Cold War Case” Journal of American History, June 2004 Archived December 7, 2014, at the Wayback Machine.
9 Jump up 
^ Anderson, Legacy of Brown: Many people part of local case, Thirteen parents representing 20 children signed up as Topeka plaintiffs, The Topeka Capital-Journal (Sunday, May 9, 2004).
10 Jump up 
^ Black, White, and Brown, PBS NewsHour (May 12, 2004).
11 Jump up 
^ Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka MSN Encarta, archived on October 31, 2009 from the original Archived October 31, 2009, at WebCite
12 Jump up 
^ “Interactive map of locations in Topeka important to the Brown case – Topeka Capital Journal online”. Cjonline.com. October 26, 1992. Retrieved October 15, 2010.
13 Jump up 
^ Black/White & Brown Archived September 10, 2005, at the Wayback Machine., transcript of program produced by KTWU Channel 11 in Topeka, Kansas. Originally aired May 3, 2004.
14 Jump up 
^ Brown Foundation for Educational Equity, Excellence and Research, Myths Versus Truths Archived June 27, 2005, at the Wayback Machine. (revised April 11, 2004)
15 Jump up 
^ Ric Anderson, Legacy of Brown: Many people part of local case, Thirteen parents representing 20 children signed up as Topeka plaintiffs, The Topeka Capital-Journal (Sunday, May 9, 2004).
16 Jump up 
^ Fox, Margalit (May 22, 2008). “Zelma Henderson, Who Aided Desegregation, Dies at 88”. The New York Times. Retrieved May 29, 2008.
17 Jump up 
^ Last surviving Brown v. Board plaintiff dies at 88 The Associated Press, May 21, 2008, archived on May 24, 2008 from the original
18 Jump up 
^ School facilities for Negroes here held comparable, The Topeka State Journal (August 3, 1951)
19 Jump up 
^ Brown v. Board of Education, 98 F. Supp. 797 Archived January 4, 2009, at the Wayback Machine. (August 3, 1951).
20 Jump up 
^ Student Strike at Moton High ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
21 ^ Jump up to: 
a b Brown v. Board of Education, 98 F. Supp. 797, 798 (D. Kan. 1951), rev’d, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
22 Jump up 
^ Aryeh Neier “Brown v. Board of Ed: Key Cold War weapon” Reuters Blog, May 14, 2014
23 ^ Jump up to: 
a b Antonly Lester, “Brown v. Board of Education Overseas” PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY VOL. 148, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2004
24 Jump up 
^ See Smithsonian, “Separate is Not Equal: Brown v. Board of Education Archived June 30, 2015, at the Wayback Machine.
25 ^ Jump up to: 
a b c d e Cass R. Sunstein (May 3, 2004). “Did Brown Matter?”. The New Yorker. Retrieved January 22, 2010.
26 Jump up 
^ George R. Goethals, Georgia Jones Sorenson (2006). The quest for a general theory of leadership. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-84542-541-8.
27 Jump up 
^ Digital History:Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
28 Jump up 
^ The Gang That Always Liked Ike
29 Jump up 
^ Warren, Earl (1977). The Memoirs of Earl Warren. New York: Doubleday & Company. p. 291. ISBN 0385128355.
30 Jump up 
^ Mungazi, D. A. (2001). Journey to the promised land: The African American struggle for development since the Civil War (pp. 46). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group
31 Jump up 
^ Patterson, James T. (2001). Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515632-3.
32 Jump up 
^ Caro, Robert A. (2002). Master of the Senate. Vintage Books. p. 696. ISBN 9780394720951. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
33 Jump up 
^ Huston, Luther A. (18 May 1954). “High Court Bans School Segregation; 9-to-0 Decision Grants Time to Comply”. The New York Times. Retrieved 6 March 2013.
34 Jump up 
^ “AP WAS THERE: Original 1954 Brown v. Board story” Archived December 9, 2014, at the Wayback Machine.
35 Jump up 
^ “Topeka Capital Journal article on integration of THS sports teams”. Cjonline.com. July 10, 2001. Retrieved October 15, 2010.
36 Jump up 
^ “Topeka Capital Journal on line article”. Cjonline.com. February 28, 2002. Retrieved October 15, 2010.
37 Jump up 
^ “Racial bar down for teachers here”, Topeka Daily Capital (January 19, 1956)
38 Jump up 
^ “First step taken to end segregation”, Topeka Daily Capital (September 9, 1953)
39 Jump up 
^ “Little Effect On Topeka” Topeka Capital-Journal (May 18, 1954)
40 Jump up 
^ Erin Adamson, “Breaking barriers: Topekans reflect on role in desegregating nation’s schools” Archived April 27, 2004, at the Wayback Machine., Topeka Capital Journal (May 11, 2003)
41 Jump up 
^ “Massive Resistance” to Integration ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
42 Jump up 
^ Howell, Mark C., John Ben Shepperd, Attorney General of the State of Texas: His Role in the Continuation of Segregation in Texas, 1953-1957, Master’s Thesis, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Odessa, Texas, July 2003.
43 Jump up 
^ The Little Rock Nine ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
44 Jump up 
^ Michael Klarman, The Supreme Court, 2012 Term – Comment: Windsor and Brown: Marriage Equality and Racial Equality 127 Harv. L. Rev. 127, 153 (2013).
45 Jump up 
^ Id. citing Karlman, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality at 352-354 (2004).
46 Jump up 
^ De La Beckwith v. State, 707 So. 2d 547 (Miss. 1997).
47 Jump up 
^ Standing In the Schoolhouse Door ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
48 Jump up 
^ The American Experience; George Wallace: Settin’ the Woods on Fire; Wallace Quotes, Public Broadcasting Service, pbs.org, 2000. Retrieved February 6, 2007.
49 Jump up 
^ Desegregation and Integration of Greensboro’s Public Schools, 1954-1974
50 Jump up 
^ “Summary of ‘Civilities and Civil Rights’: by William H. Chafe” George Mason University website
51 Jump up 
^ http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/267/733/393864/
52 Jump up 
^ http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/13-miss-buchanans-period-of-adjustment
53 Jump up 
^ Melissa F. Weiner, Power, Protest, and the Public Schools: Jewish and African American Struggles in New York City (Rutgers University Press, 2010) p. 51-66
54 Jump up 
^ Adina Back “Exposing the Whole Segregation Myth: The Harlem Nine and New York City Schools” in Freedom north: Black freedom struggles outside the South, 1940-1980, Jeanne Theoharis, Komozi Woodard, eds.(Palgrave Macmillan, 2003) p. 65-91
55 Jump up 
^ Austin Sarat (1997). Race, Law, and Culture: Reflections on Brown v. Board of Education. Oxford University Press. p. 55. ISBN 978-0-19-510622-0. “What lay behind Plessy v. Ferguson? There were, perhaps, some important intellectual roots; this was the era of scientific racism.”
56 Jump up 
^ Charles A. Lofgren (1988). The Plessy Case. Oxford University Press. p. 184. ISBN 978-0-19-505684-6. “But he [ Henry Billings Brown ] at minimum established popular sentiment and practice, along with legal and scientific testimony on race, as a link in his train of reasoning.”
57 ^ Jump up to: 
a b Race, Law, and Culture: Reflections on Brown v. Board of Education By Austin Sarat. Page 55 and 59. 1997. ISBN 0-19-510622-9
58 Jump up 
^ Schaffer, Gavin (2007). “”‘Scientific’ Racism Again?”: Reginald Gates, the Mankind Quarterly and the Question of “Race” in Science after the Second World War”. Journal of American Studies. 41 (2): 253–278. doi:10.1017/S0021875807003477.
59 Jump up 
^ Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case Against Brown v. Board of Education. By John P. Jackson. ISBN 0-8147-4271-8 Page 148
60 Jump up 
^ William Rehnquist, “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases” Archived June 15, 2007, at the Wayback Machine., S. Hrg. 99-1067, Hearings Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist to be Chief Justice of the United States (July 29, 30, 31, and August 1, 1986).
61 Jump up 
^ Peter S. Canellos,Memos may not hold Roberts’s opinions, The Boston Globe, August 23, 2005. Here is what Rehnquist said in 1986 about his conversations with other clerks about Plessy: I thought Plessy had been wrongly decided at the time, that it was not a good interpretation of the equal protection clause to say that when you segregate people by race, there is no denial of equal protection. But Plessy had been on the books for 60 years; Congress had never acted, and the same Congress that had promulgated the 14th Amendment had required segregation in the District schools. . . . I saw factors on both sides. . . . I did not agree then, and I certainly do not agree now, with the statement that Plessy against Ferguson is right and should be reaffirmed. I had ideas on both sides, and I do not think I ever really finally settled in my own mind on that. . . . [A]round the lunch table I am sure I defended it. . . . I thought there were good arguments to be made in support of it.

S. Hrg. 99-1067, Hearings Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist to be Chief Justice of the United States (July 29, 30, 31, and August 1, 1986).
62 Jump up 
^ Justice William O. Douglas wrote: “In the original conference there were only four who voted that segregation in the public schools was unconstitutional. Those four were Black, Burton, Minton, and myself.” See Bernard Schwartz, Decision: How the Supreme Court Decides Cases, page 96 (Oxford 1996). Likewise, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote: “I have no doubt that if the segregation cases had reached decision last term, there would have been four dissenters—Vinson, Reed, Jackson, and Clark.” Id. Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary had a different view, calling Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to “smear the reputation of a great justice.” See Alan Dershowitz, Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist, Huffington Post, September 5, 2005. Retrieved March 15, 2007. See also Felix Frankfurter on the death of Justice Vinson.
63 Jump up 
^ Adam Liptak, The Memo That Rehnquist Wrote and Had to Disown, NY Times (September 11, 2005)
64 Jump up 
^ Cases where Justice Rehnquist has cited Brown v. Board of Education in support of a proposition Archived June 15, 2007, at the Wayback Machine., S. Hrg. 99-1067, Hearings Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist to be Chief Justice of the United States (July 29, 30, 31, and August 1, 1986). Also see Jeffery Rosen, Rehnquist the Great?, Atlantic Monthly (April 2005): “Rehnquist ultimately embraced the Warren Court’s Brown decision, and after he joined the Court he made no attempt to dismantle the civil-rights revolution, as political opponents feared he would”.
65 Jump up 
^ Michael Klarman, The Supreme Court, 2012 Term – Comment: Windsor and Brown: Marriage Equality and Racial Equality, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 127, 142 (2013) citing Learned Hand, The Bill of Rights at 55 (Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecture, 1958).
66 Jump up 
^ Id., Pamela Karlan, “What Can Brown Do For You: Neutral Principles and the Struggle Over the Equal Protection Clause, 58 DUKE L.J. 1049 (2008) citing Herbert Wechsler, Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law, 73 HARV. L. REV. 1 (Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecture, 1959).
67 Jump up 
^ Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring).
68 Jump up 
^ McConnell, Michael W. (May 1995). “Originalism and the desegregation decisions”. Virginia Law Review. The Virginia Law Review Association via JSTOR. 81 (4): 947–1140. JSTOR 1073539. doi:10.2307/1073539.
• Response to McConnell: Klarman, Michael J. (October 1995). “Response: Brown, originalism, and constitutional theory: a response to Professor Mcconnell”. Virginia Law Review. The Virginia Law Review Association via JSTOR. 81 (7): 1881–1936. JSTOR 1073643. doi:10.2307/1073643.
• Response to Klarman: McConnell, Michael W. (October 1995). “Reply: The originalist justification for Brown: a reply to Professor Klarman”. Virginia Law Review. The Virginia Law Review Association via JSTOR. 81 (7): 1937–1955. JSTOR 1073644. doi:10.2307/1073644.
69 



70 Jump up 
^ Adam Liptak (November 9, 2009). “From 19th-Century View, Desegregation Is a Test”. New York Times. Retrieved June 4, 2013.
71 Jump up 
^ Days, III, Drew S. (2001), “Days, J., concurring”, in Balkan, Jack; Ackerman, Bruce A., What ‘Brown v. Board of Education’ should have said, New York: New York University Press, p. 97, ISBN 9780814798904. Preview.
72 Jump up 
^ Harvard Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 8 (June 1987), pp. 1938–1948
73 Jump up 
^ See, e.g., Randall Kennedy. “A Reply to Philip Elman.” Harvard Law Review 100 (1987):1938–1948.
74 Jump up 
^ A Justice for All, by Kim Isaac Eisler, page 11; ISBN 0-671-76787-9
75 Jump up 
^ “Supreme Court History: Expanding civil rights, biographies of the robes: Felix Frankfurter”. pbs.org/wnet. Educational Broadcasting Corp., PBS.
76 Jump up 
^ Remarks by the President at Grand Opening of the Brown v Board of Education National Historic Site, Topeka, Kansas (May 17, 2004)
77 Jump up 
^ Thomas Sowell (October 4, 2016). “Dunbar High School After 100 Years”. townhall.com.
78 Jump up 
^ Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
79 Jump up 
^ Jim Chen, Poetic Justice, 29 Cardozo Law Review (2007)
80 Jump up 
^ The “Brown II,” “All Deliberate Speed” Decision ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
81 Jump up 
^ Smith, Bob (1965). They Closed Their Schools. University of North Carolina Press.
82 Jump up 
^ Topeka Public Schools Desegregation History: “The Naming of Scott Computer Technology Magnet” Archived October 1, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.
83 Jump up 
^ “FindLaw | Cases and Codes”. Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. Retrieved October 15, 2010.
84 Jump up 
^ For analysis of this decision, see also Joel K. Goldstein, “Not Hearing History: A Critique of Chief Justice Roberts’s Reinterpretation of Brown,” 69 Ohio St. L.J. 791 (2008)
Further reading
• Keppel, Ben. Brown v. Board and the Transformation of American Culture (LSU Press, 2016). xiv, 225 pp.
• Kluger, Richard (1975). Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’s Struggle for Equality. New York: Knopf. ISBN 9780394472898.
External video
Booknotes interview with Charles Ogletree on All Deliberate Speed, May 9, 2004, C-SPAN
• Ogletree, Charles J., Jr. (2004). All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half Century of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393058970.
• Patterson, James T., and William W. Freehling. Brown v. Board of Education: A civil rights milestone and its troubled legacy (Oxford University Press, 2001).
• Tushnet, Mark V. (2008). “”Our decision does not end but begins the struggle over segregation” Brown v. Board of Education, 1954: Justice Robert H. Jackson”. In Tushnet, Mark V. I dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 133–150. ISBN 9780807000366. Preview.
External links

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (347 U.S. 483)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Brown v. Board of Education.
• Case Brief for Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka at Lawnix.com
• Case information and transcripts on The Curiae Project
• Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site (US Park Service)
• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (full text with hyperlinks to cited material)
• A copy of Florida’s 1957 Interposition Resolution in Response to the Brown decision, with Gov. Collin’s handwritten rejection of it. Made available for public use by the State Archives of Florida.
• U.S. District Court of Kansas: Records of Brown v. Board of Education, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library
• Online documents relating to Brown vs. Board of Education, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library
• Documents from the district court, including the original complaint and trial transcript, at the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
• 60th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education curated by Michigan State University’s Diversity of Excellence through Artistic Expression
• Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights Digital Library.
• “Supreme Court Landmark Case Brown v. Board of Education” from C-SPAN’s Landmark Cases: 12 Historic Supreme Court Decisions
[hide]
• v t e

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968)

Notable
events
(timeline)

1954–1959
• • • • • Brown v. Board of Education Bolling v. Sharpe Briggs v. Elliott Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County Gebhart v. Belton Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company Emmett Till Montgomery bus boycott Browder v. Gayle Tallahassee bus boycott Mansfield school desegregation 1957 Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom “Give Us the Ballot” Royal Ice Cream Sit-in Little Rock Nine National Guard blockade Civil Rights Act of 1957 Kissing Case Biloxi Wade-Ins

1960–1963
• • • • • Greensboro sit-ins Nashville sit-ins Sit-in movement Civil Rights Act of 1960 Gomillion v. Lightfoot Boynton v. Virginia Rock Hill sit-ins Robert F. Kennedy’s Law Day Address Freedom Rides attacks Garner v. Louisiana Albany Movement University of Chicago sit-ins “Second Emancipation Proclamation” Meredith enrollment, Ole Miss riot “Segregation now, segregation forever” Stand in the Schoolhouse Door 1963 Birmingham campaign Letter from Birmingham Jail Children’s Crusade Birmingham riot 16th Street Baptist Church bombing John F. Kennedy’s Report to the American People on Civil Rights March on Washington “I Have a Dream” St. Augustine movement

1964–1968
• • • • Twenty-fourth Amendment Bloody Tuesday Freedom Summer workers’ murders Civil Rights Act of 1964 1965 Selma to Montgomery marches “How Long, Not Long” Voting Rights Act of 1965 Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections March Against Fear White House Conference on Civil Rights Chicago Freedom Movement/Chicago open housing movement Memphis Sanitation Strike King assassination funeral riots Poor People’s Campaign Civil Rights Act of 1968 Green v. County School Board of New Kent County
Activist
groups
• • Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights Atlanta Student Movement Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) Committee on Appeal for Human Rights Council for United Civil Rights Leadership Dallas County Voters League Deacons for Defense and Justice Georgia Council on Human Relations Highlander Folk School Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Montgomery Improvement Association Nashville Student Movement NAACP Youth Council Northern Student Movement National Council of Negro Women National Urban League Operation Breadbasket Regional Council of Negro Leadership Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) Southern Regional Council Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) The Freedom Singers Wednesdays in Mississippi Women’s Political Council

Activists
• Ralph Abernathy Victoria Gray Adams Zev Aelony Mathew Ahmann William G. Anderson Gwendolyn Armstrong Arnold Aronson Ella Baker Marion Barry Daisy Bates Harry Belafonte James Bevel Claude Black Gloria Blackwell Randolph Blackwell Unita Blackwell Ezell Blair Jr. Joanne Bland Julian Bond Joseph E. Boone William Holmes Borders Amelia Boynton Raylawni Branch Ruby Bridges Aurelia Browder H. Rap Brown Guy Carawan Stokely Carmichael Johnnie Carr James Chaney J. L. Chestnut Colia Lafayette Clark Ramsey Clark Septima Clark Xernona Clayton Eldridge Cleaver Kathleen Neal Cleaver Charles E. Cobb Jr. Annie Lee Cooper Dorothy Cotton Claudette Colvin Vernon Dahmer Jonathan Daniels Joseph DeLaine Dave Dennis Annie Devine Patricia Stephens Due Charles Evers Medgar Evers Myrlie Evers-Williams Chuck Fager James Farmer Walter E. Fauntroy James Forman Marie Foster Golden Frinks Andrew Goodman Fred Gray Jack Greenberg Dick Gregory Lawrence Guyot Prathia Hall Fannie Lou Hamer William E. Harbour Vincent Harding Dorothy Height Lola Hendricks Aaron Henry Oliver Hill Donald L. Hollowell James Hood Myles Horton Zilphia Horton T. R. M. Howard Ruby Hurley Jesse Jackson Jimmie Lee Jackson Richie Jean Jackson T. J. Jemison Esau Jenkins Barbara Rose Johns Vernon Johns Frank Minis Johnson Clarence Jones Matthew Jones Vernon Jordan Tom Kahn Clyde Kennard A. D. King C.B. King Coretta Scott King Martin Luther King Jr. Martin Luther King Sr. Bernard Lafayette James Lawson Bernard Lee Sanford R. Leigh Jim Letherer Stanley Levison John Lewis Viola Liuzzo Z. Alexander Looby Joseph Lowery Clara Luper Malcolm X Mae Mallory Vivian Malone Thurgood Marshall Benjamin Mays Franklin McCain Charles McDew Ralph McGill Floyd McKissick Joseph McNeil James Meredith William Ming Jack Minnis Amzie Moore Douglas E. Moore William Lewis Moore Irene Morgan Bob Moses William Moyer Elijah Muhammad Diane Nash Charles Neblett Edgar Nixon Jack O’Dell James Orange Rosa Parks James Peck Charles Person Homer Plessy Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Fay Bellamy Powell Al Raby Lincoln Ragsdale A. Philip Randolph George Raymond Jr. Bernice Johnson Reagon Cordell Reagon James Reeb Frederick D. Reese Gloria Richardson David Richmond Bernice Robinson Jo Ann Robinson Bayard Rustin Bernie Sanders Michael Schwerner Cleveland Sellers Charles Sherrod Alexander D. Shimkin Fred Shuttlesworth Modjeska Monteith Simkins Glenn E. Smiley A. Maceo Smith Kelly Miller Smith Mary Louise Smith Maxine Smith Ruby Doris Smith-Robinson Charles Kenzie Steele Hank Thomas Dorothy Tillman A. P. Tureaud Hartman Turnbow Albert Turner C. T. Vivian Wyatt Tee Walker Hollis Watkins Walter Francis White Roy Wilkins Hosea Williams Kale Williams Robert F. Williams Andrew Young Whitney Young Sammy Younge Jr. James Zwerg

Influences
• • • Nonviolence Padayatra Sermon on the Mount Mohandas K. Gandhi Ahimsa Satyagraha The Kingdom of God is Within You Frederick Douglass W. E. B. Du Bois
Related
• • • • • Jim Crow laws Plessy v. Ferguson Separate but equal Buchanan v. Warley Hocutt v. Wilson Sweatt v. Painter Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States Katzenbach v. McClung Loving v. Virginia Fifth Circuit Four Brown Chapel Holt Street Baptist Church Edmund Pettus Bridge March on Washington Movement African-American churches attacked Journey of Reconciliation Freedom Songs “Kumbaya” “Keep Your Eyes on the Prize” “Oh, Freedom” “This Little Light of Mine” “We Shall Not Be Moved” “We Shall Overcome” Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence” Watts riots Voter Education Project 1960s counterculture In popular culture King Memorial Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument Freedom Riders National Monument Civil Rights Memorial

Noted
historians

• Taylor Branch Clayborne Carson John Dittmer Michael Eric Dyson Chuck Fager Adam Fairclough David Garrow David Halberstam Vincent Harding Steven F. Lawson Doug McAdam Diane McWhorter Charles M. Payne Timothy Tyson Akinyele Umoja Movement photographers
[hide]

This page was last edited on 17 October 2017, at 07:10.

Smuggling, Capitalism and the Law of Unintended Consequences

To me, this article seems to be about the border wall with Mexico, but it instead is about 1) the law of unintended consequences, and 2) the nature of capitalism.

The law of unintended consequences can never be underestimated; nor can the ability of capitalism to bring out the creativity of entrepreneurs and organizations when there is big money to be made.

A few notes:

“But rather than stopping smuggling, the barriers have just pushed it farther into the desert, deeper into the ground, into more sophisticated secret compartments in cars and into the drug cartels’ hands.”

“A majority of Americans now favor marijuana legalization, which is hitting the pockets of Mexican smugglers and will do so even more when California starts issuing licenses to sell recreational cannabis next year.”

The price of smuggling any given drug will rise proportionate to the difficulty of smuggling.

52 legal crossings
Nogales (Mexico) and Nogales (US) and the dense homes on border

Tricks:
Coyotes (small drug smugglers)
Donkeys (the people who actually carry the drugs)
“Clavos” Secret compartments whose sophistication grows
Trains (a principal means of smuggling)
“Trampolines” (gigantic catapults that hurl the drugs over any wall)
Tunnel and new technologies (216 discovered since 1990)

===============
CREDIT: New York Times Article: mexican-drug-smugglers-to-trump-thanks!

Mexican Drug Smugglers to Trump: Thanks!

Ioan Grillo
MAY 5, 2017

NOGALES, Mexico — Crouched in the spiky terrain near this border city, a veteran smuggler known as Flaco points to the steel border fence and describes how he has taken drugs and people into the United States for more than three decades. His smuggling techniques include everything from throwing drugs over in gigantic catapults to hiding them in the engine cars of freight trains to making side tunnels off the cross-border sewage system.

When asked whether the border wall promised by President Trump will stop smugglers, he smiles. “This is never going to stop, neither the narco trafficking nor the illegals,” he says. “There will be more tunnels. More holes. If it doesn’t go over, it will go under.”

What will change? The fees that criminal networks charge to transport people and contraband across the border. Every time the wall goes up, so do smuggling profits.

The first time Flaco took people over the line was in 1984, when he was 15; he showed them a hole torn in a wire fence on the edge of Nogales for a tip of 50 cents. Today, many migrants pay smugglers as much as $5,000 to head north without papers, trekking for days through the Sonoran Desert. Most of that money goes to drug cartels that have taken over the profitable business.

“From 50 cents to $5,000,” Flaco says. “As the prices went up, the mafia, which is the Sinaloa cartel, took over everything here, drugs and people smuggling.” Sinaloa dominates Nogales and other parts of northwest Mexico, while rivals, including the Juarez, Gulf and Zetas cartels, control other sections of the border. Flaco finished a five-year prison sentence here for drug trafficking in 2009 and has continued to smuggle since.

His comments underline a problem that has frustrated successive American governments and is likely to haunt President Trump, even if the wall becomes more than a rallying cry and he finally gets the billions of dollars needed to fund it. Strengthening defenses does not stop smuggling. It only makes it more expensive, which inadvertently gives more money to criminal networks.

The cartels have taken advantage of this to build a multibillion industry, and they protect it with brutal violence that destabilizes Mexico and forces thousands of Mexicans to head north seeking asylum.

Stretching almost 2,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, the border has proved treacherous to block. It traverses a sparsely populated desert, patches of soft earth that are easy to tunnel through, and the mammoth Rio Grande, which floods its banks, making fencing difficult.

And it contains 52 legal crossing points, where millions of people, cars, trucks and trains enter the United States every week.

President Trump’s idea of a wall is not new. Chunks of walls, fencing and anti-car spikes have been erected periodically, particularly in 1990 and 2006. On April 30, Congress reached a deal to fund the federal budget through September that failed to approve any money for extending the barriers as President Trump has promised. However, it did allocate several hundred million dollars for repairing existing infrastructure, and the White House has said it will use this to replace some fencing with a more solid wall.

But rather than stopping smuggling, the barriers have just pushed it: farther into the desert, deeper into the ground, into more sophisticated secret compartments in cars and into the drug cartels’ hands.
It is particularly concerning how cartels have taken over the human smuggling business. Known as coyotes, these smugglers used to work independently, or in small groups. Now they have to work for the cartel, which takes a huge cut of the profits, Flaco says. If migrants try to cross the border without paying, they risk getting beaten or murdered.

The number of people detained without papers on the southern border has dropped markedly in the first months of the Trump administration, with fewer than 17,000 apprehended in March, the lowest since 2000. But this has nothing to do with the yet-to-be-built new wall. The president’s anti-immigrant rhetoric could be a deterrent — signaling that tweets can have a bigger effect than bricks. However, this may not last, and there is no sign of drug seizures going down.

Flaco grew up in a Nogales slum called Buenos Aires, which has produced generations of smugglers. The residents refer to the people who carry over backpacks full of drugs as burros, or donkeys. “When I first heard about this, I thought they used real donkeys to carry the marijuana,” Flaco says. “Then I realized, we were the donkeys.”

He was paid $500 for his first trip as a donkey when he was in high school, encouraging him to drop out for what seemed like easy money.
The fences haven’t stopped the burros, who use either ropes or their bare hands to scale them. This was captured in extraordinary footage from a Mexican TV crew, showing smugglers climbing into California. But solid walls offer no solution, as they can also be scaled and they make it harder for border patrol agents to spot what smugglers are up to on the Mexican side.

Flaco quickly graduated to building secret compartments in cars. Called clavos, they are fixed into gas tanks, on dashboards, on roofs. The cars, known by customs agents as trap cars, then drive right through the ports of entry. In fact, while most marijuana is caught in the desert, harder drugs such as heroin are far more likely to go over the bridge.
When customs agents learned to look for the switches that opened the secret compartments, smugglers figured out how to do without them. Some new trap cars can be opened only with complex procedures, such as when the driver is in the seat, all doors are closed, the defroster is turned on and a special card is swiped.

Equally sophisticated engineering goes into the tunnels that turn the border into a block of Swiss cheese. Between 1990 and 2016, 224 tunnels were discovered, some with air vents, rails and electric lights. While the drug lord Joaquin Guzman, known as El Chapo, became infamous for using them, Flaco says they are as old as the border itself and began as natural underground rivers.

Tunnels are particularly popular in Nogales, where Mexican federal agents regularly seize houses near the border for having them. Flaco even shows me a filled-in passage that started inside a graveyard tomb. “It’s because Nogales is one of the few border towns that is urbanized right up to the line,” explains Mayor David Cuauhtémoc Galindo. “There are houses that are on both sides of the border at a very short distance,” making it easy to tunnel from one to the other.

Nogales is also connected to its neighbor across the border in Arizona, also called Nogales, by a common drainage system. It cannot be blocked, because the ground slopes downward from Mexico to the United States. Police officers took me into the drainage system and showed me several smuggling tunnels that had been burrowed off it. They had been filled in with concrete, but the officers warned that smugglers could be lurking around to make new ones and that I should hit the ground if we ran into any.

Back above ground, catapults are one of the most spectacular smuggling methods. “We call them trampolines,” Flaco says. “They have a spring that is like a tripod, and two or three people operate them.” Border patrol agents captured one that had been attached to the fence near the city of Douglas, Ariz., in February and showed photos of what looked like a medieval siege weapon.

Freight trains also cross the border, on their way from southern Mexico up to Canada. While agents inspect them, it’s impossible to search all the carriages, which are packed with cargo from cars to canned chilies. Flaco says the train workers are often paid off by the smugglers. He was once caught with a load of marijuana on a train in Arizona, but he managed to persuade police that he was a train worker and did only a month in jail.
While marijuana does less harm, the smugglers also bring heroin, crack cocaine and crystal meth to America, which kill many. Calls to wage war on drugs can be emotionally appealing. The way President Trump linked his promises of a wall to drug problems in rural America was most likely a factor in his victory.

But four decades after Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs,” despite trillions of dollars spent on agents, soldiers and barriers, drugs are still easy to buy all across America.

President Trump has taken power at a turning point in the drug policy debate. A majority of Americans now favor marijuana legalization, which is hitting the pockets of Mexican smugglers and will do so even more when California starts issuing licenses to sell recreational cannabis next year. President Trump has also called for more treatment for drug addicts. He would be wise to make that, and not the wall, a cornerstone of his drug policy.

Reducing the finances of drug cartels could reduce some of the violence, and the number of people fleeing north to escape it. But to really tackle the issue of human smuggling, the United States must provide a path to papers for the millions of undocumented workers already in the country, and then make sure businesses hire only workers with papers in the future. So long as illegal immigrants can make a living in the United States, smugglers will make a fortune leading them there.

Stopping the demand for the smugglers’ services actually hits them in their pockets. Otherwise, they will just keep getting richer as the bricks get higher.

Ioan Grillo is the author of “Gangster Warlords: Drug Dollars, Killing Fields and the New Politics of Latin America” and a contributing opinion writer.

UHVDC and China

Credit: Economist Article about UHVDC and China

A greener grid
China’s embrace of a new electricity-transmission technology holds lessons for others
The case for high-voltage direct-current connectors
Jan 14th 2017

YOU cannot negotiate with nature. From the offshore wind farms of the North Sea to the solar panels glittering in the Atacama desert, renewable energy is often generated in places far from the cities and industrial centres that consume it. To boost renewables and drive down carbon-dioxide emissions, a way must be found to send energy over long distances efficiently.

The technology already exists (see article). Most electricity is transmitted today as alternating current (AC), which works well over short and medium distances. But transmission over long distances requires very high voltages, which can be tricky for AC systems. Ultra-high-voltage direct-current (UHVDC) connectors are better suited to such spans. These high-capacity links not only make the grid greener, but also make it more stable by balancing supply. The same UHVDC links that send power from distant hydroelectric plants, say, can be run in reverse when their output is not needed, pumping water back above the turbines.

Boosters of UHVDC lines envisage a supergrid capable of moving energy around the planet. That is wildly premature. But one country has grasped the potential of these high-capacity links. State Grid, China’s state-owned electricity utility, is halfway through a plan to spend $88bn on UHVDC lines between 2009 and 2020. It wants 23 lines in operation by 2030.

That China has gone furthest in this direction is no surprise. From railways to cities, China’s appetite for big infrastructure projects is legendary (see article). China’s deepest wells of renewable energy are remote—think of the sun-baked Gobi desert, the windswept plains of Xinjiang and the mountain ranges of Tibet where rivers drop precipitously. Concerns over pollution give the government an additional incentive to locate coal-fired plants away from population centres. But its embrace of the technology holds two big lessons for others. The first is a demonstration effect. China shows that UHVDC lines can be built on a massive scale. The largest, already under construction, will have the capacity to power Greater London almost three times over, and will span more than 3,000km.

The second lesson concerns the co-ordination problems that come with long-distance transmission. UHVDCs are as much about balancing interests as grids. The costs of construction are hefty. Utilities that already sell electricity at high prices are unlikely to welcome competition from suppliers of renewable energy; consumers in renewables-rich areas who buy electricity at low prices may balk at the idea of paying more because power is being exported elsewhere. Reconciling such interests is easier the fewer the utilities involved—and in China, State Grid has a monopoly.

That suggests it will be simpler for some countries than others to follow China’s lead. Developing economies that lack an established electricity infrastructure have an advantage. Solar farms on Africa’s plains and hydroplants on its powerful rivers can use UHVDC lines to get energy to growing cities. India has two lines on the drawing-board, and should have more.

Things are more complicated in the rich world. Europe’s utilities work pretty well together but a cross-border UHVDC grid will require a harmonised regulatory framework. America is the biggest anomaly. It is a continental-sized economy with the wherewithal to finance UHVDCs. It is also horribly fragmented. There are 3,000 utilities, each focused on supplying power to its own customers. Consumers a few states away are not a priority, no matter how much sense it might make to send them electricity. A scheme to connect the three regional grids in America is stuck. The only way that America will create a green national grid will be if the federal government throws its weight behind it.

Live wire
Building a UHVDC network does not solve every energy problem. Security of supply remains an issue, even within national borders: any attacker who wants to disrupt the electricity supply to China’s east coast will soon have a 3,000km-long cable to strike. Other routes to a cleaner grid are possible, such as distributed solar power and battery storage. But to bring about a zero-carbon grid, UHVDC lines will play a role. China has its foot on the gas. Others should follow.
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “A greener grid”

Batteries Update

New York Times article on big batteriesP

Notes from the article: Susan Kennedy is the former state utility regulator knows a lot about this. She now runs and energy stored start up.

AES has the contract. This is one of three major installations in Southern California.

This one is 130 miles south east of Aliso Canyon, the site of the major gas leak in 2015.

The second is installation is in Escondido, California, 30 miles north of San Diego. It will be the largest of its kind in the world.

The third is being built by Tesla – for southern California Edison – near Chino, California.

AES has two executives that drove the project since 12 2006. Chris Shelton and John Zahurancik. Their inspiration came from a purse festers paper the predicted the future dominated by electric cars. When Park, they could be connected to the grid so that their batteries could act as storage devices to help balance electricity demand.

They are buying the batteries that they are installing from manufacturers like Samsung, LG, and Panasonic.

California Grid

Path 26

CREDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_26
CREDIT: http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/infrastructure/3part_southern.html
CREDIT: http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/
CREDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_15

In winter, the Pacific Northwest needs power for heat – and must import it from So Cal.
In summer, the Pacific Northwest has excess power – and exports it to So Cal.

“Paths” are the major transmission lines that form the “grid” – which connect geographic areas covered by utilities.

Of interest here are the “paths” that transmit power north and south in California. These path make the importing and exporting of power possible.

These paths were built in the 1970s and 1980s in order to provide California and the Southwest with excess hydropower from the Pacific Northwest without actually having to construct any new power plants.

During the cold Pacific Northwest winters, power is sent north due to heater use. This transfer reverses in the hot, dry summers, when many people in the South run air conditioners.[11] In order to do this the maximum south-to-north transmission capacity is 5,400 MW for most parts,[8] but between Los Banos substation and Gates substation, there were only two 500 kV lines.

The capacity at this electricity bottleneck was only 3,900 MW, and this was identified in the 1990s as a trouble spot, but no one acted upon it.[2] This bottleneck was one of the leading causes of the California electricity crisis in 2000-2001. To remedy this problem, WAPA along with several utilities built a third 500 kV line between these two substations to eliminate this transmission constraint and raise the maximum south-to-north transmission capacity to 5,400 MW.[2] The project was completed under budget and on time on December 21, 2004.[12] California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger attended the commissioning ceremony at California-ISO’s control center in Folsom.[12]

Path 26 is three 500 kV lines with 3,700 MW capacity North to South and 3,000 MW capacity south to north. Itl inks PG&E (north) to SCE (south).

Path 26 forms Southern California Edison’s (SCE) intertie (link) with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to the north. Since PG&E’s power grid and SCE’s grid both have interconnections to elsewhere, in the Pacific Northwest (PG&E) and the Southwestern United States (SCE), Path 26 is a southern extension of Path 15 and Path 66, and a crucial link between the two regions’ grids.[3]

The path consists of three transmission lines, Midway–Vincent No. 1, Midway–Vincent No. 2 and Midway–Whirlwind. Midway–Whirlwind was part of what was called Midway–Vincent No. 3 before Whirlwind was built, as part of the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project.

The three Path 26 500 kV lines can transmit 3,700 MW of electrical power north to south. The capacity for south to north power transmission is 3,000 MW.[3]

Path 26 – Vincent to Midway[edit]
The Path, starting from the south, starts at the large Vincent substation close to State Route 14 and Soledad Pass near Acton east of the Santa Clarita Valley. The same Vincent substation is linked to Path 46 and Path 61 via two SCE 500 kV lines that head southeast to Lugo substation. As for these SCE 500 kV wires, like Path 15 to the north, the three 500 kV wires are never built together for the entire length of the route. Straight from the substation, all three lines head north-northwest. The westernmost SCE 500 kV line splits away and runs west of the other two SCE 500 kV lines.[2]
After crossing State Route 14, two 500 kV wires built by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADW&P) join the eastern two SCE 500 kV wires. Some point west of Palmdale, one line (SCE) continues northwest and the other three (one SCE, two LADW&P) head west. The lone SCE line continuing northwest (with 230 kV lines) runs close to the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, famed for its California Poppy flowers. The one SCE line that ran west of the other two SCE lines (now separated) re-joins the single SCE 500 kV running west with the two LADW&P lines. The four 500 kV lines run together for some distance until, at some point in the mountains, the two SCE lines continue to head west and the two LADW&P lines turn southwest and head for Sylmar in the San Fernando Valley (close to the Sylmar Converter Station southern terminus of the Pacific Intertie HVDC line). The two SCE lines heading west meet up with Interstate 5 on the arid foothills of the Sierra Pelona Mountains to the east of Pyramid Lake. The lines parallel I-5 crossing Tejon Pass (running on the eastern foothills of Frazier Mountain) and run out of sight for a while as they cross the high woodlands of the northern San Emigdio Mountains at their highest point at around 5,350 ft (1,630 m).[2][5]
As for the third line, north of Lancaster and State Route 138, it runs through a remote, roadless area of the Tehachapi Mountains with two 230 kV lines. Although it runs across sparse to dense oak woodlands at around 5,300 ft (1,615 m),[5] it is not easy to spot it on Google Earth since its right of way is not as clear cut as Path 15 and Path 66 to the north. Due to this, the line is not readily seen again until it crosses State Route 184 as a PG&E power line. Somewhere to the east of State Route 184, in the mountains, the line changes from SCE towers to PG&E towers.[2][6][7] By the time the all three lines are visible to Interstate 5, they roughly parallel each other until all three lines, two SCE and one PG&E, terminate at the massive Midway substation in Buttonwillow in the San Joaquin Valley.[8] Two pairs of PG&E 500 kV lines heading north and southwest (separated), form Path 15.[2]
Connecting wires to Path 46 – Vincent to Lugo[edit]
Adjacent to the Path 26 wires, two other SCE 500 kV also begin in Vincent substation. The two 500 kV power lines head northeast from Vincent to meet up with LADW&P’s two other 500 kV wires from Rinaldi and then all four lines head east in the Antelope Valley along the northern foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Another LADW&P line from Toluca joins the four-line transmission corridor, resulting in a large path of five power lines. However, one LADW&P splits off from the other four lines and heads southeast. Soon after, the SCE lines split away from the remaining two LADW&P lines and head southeast as well. They cross the lone LADW&P line that split away and Interstate 15 as they head to the Lugo substation northeast of Cajon Pass. The lines terminate at Lugo, where one SCE Path 61 500 kV line, two SCE Path 46 500 kV lines, and three other SCE 500 kV lines end.[2][9][10]

Path 16

Path 15 is an 84-mile (135 km) portion[1] of the north-south power transmission corridor in California, U.S. It forms a part of the Pacific AC Intertie and the California-Oregon Transmission Project.

Path 15, along with the Pacific DC Intertie running far to the east, forms an important transmission interconnection with the hydroelectric plants to the north and the fossil fuel plants to the south. Most of the three AC 500 kV lines were built by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) south of Tesla substation.

Path 15 consists of three lines at 500 kV and four lines at 230 kV. The 500 kV lines connect Los Banos to Gates and Los Banos to Midway. All four 230 kV lines have Gates at one end with the other ends at Panoche, Gregg, and McCall.[2]

There are only two connecting PG&E lines north of Tracy substation that connect Path 15 to Path 66 at the Round Mountain substation. The third line between Los Banos and Gates substation, south of Tracy, is operated by the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), a division of the United States Department of Energy. This line was constructed away from the other two lines and is often out of sight. Most of the time the lines are in California’s Sierra foothills and the Central Valley, but there are some PG&E lines that come from power plants along the shores of the Pacific Ocean and cross the California Coast Ranges and connect with the intertie. The Diablo Canyon Power Plant and the Moss Landing Power Plant are two examples.[3][4]

The Vaca-Dixon substation (38°24′8.33″N 121°55′14.75″W) was the world’s largest substation at the time of its inauguration in 1922.[6]

“Direct Primary Care”

Its pretty clear that a coalition of “direct primary care” providers is pushing Congress to recognize subscription services as a service reimbursable under Medicare.

I believe they are differentiating themselves from “concierge” care, for political reasons. The coalition says concierge care is $2000-$5000, instead of under $2000. One of the main advocates for direct primary care says that it does not seek third party reimbursement, while concierge services might.

“The Primary Care Enhancement Act of 2016” has been brought to the Ways and Means Committee, where is was referred in September, 2016 to the Health Sub-Committee.

Sponsor: Rep. Paulsen, Erik [R-MN-3] (Introduced 09/13/2016)
Committees: House – Ways and Means
Latest Action: 09/19/2016 Referred to the Subcommittee on Health. (All Actions)

===============
Direct primary care could get a big boost next year. Under the federal health care law, these practices will be able to operate in state-based health insurance exchanges. However, insurers on exchanges must offer a basic benefits package that includes hospital, drug and other coverage, so direct primary care practices will likely team up with other health plans.
If you’re considering a direct primary care practice, get a list of provided services and talk with a physician in the practice. Also, some practices that are similar to concierge care may accept insurance but charge a monthly fee for extra services. For options in your area, visit the Web site of the Direct Primary Care Coalition (www.dpcare.org).

======================
The Primary Care Enhancement Act of 2016  proposes to amend the tax code so consumers can use their health savings accounts (HSAs) to pay physicians in direct primary care (DPC), bypassing insurance. H.R. 6015 would also enable Medicare enrollees to pay for direct primary care using Medicare funds, rather than pay out of pocket.

======================
http://www.dpcare.org

Senators Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have introduced bipartisan legislation which clarifies that DPC is a medical service for the purposes of the tax code regarding Health Savings Accounts. The bill also creates a new payment pathway for DPC as an alternative payment model (APM) in Medicare. “Co-sponsors are important. They show Senate leaders that there is widespread support for the legislation,” said Sen. Cassidy when he addressed the DPCC Fly-in Sept. 24. We need your help today to ensure that S.1989 moves forward.  Please contact your Senators and urge them to co-sponsor the Primary Care Enhancement Act today.

On the Move in the States with DPC
16 States Move to Clear Regulatory Hurdles for DPC 
Legislation  defines DPC outside of Insurance.
 
As of June, 2016, 16 states have adopted Direct Primary Care legislation which defines DPC as a medical service outside the scope of state insurance regulation. 
 
The DPCC has developed model legislation to help guide legislators and their staffs on the best way to accomplish  this important reform. Click here to see the model bill.
States With DPC Laws:

• Washington – 48-150 RCW
• Utah – UT 31A-4-106.5
• Oregon – ORS 735.500
• West Virginia – WV-16-2J-1
• Arizona – AZ 20-123
• Louisiana – LA Act 867
• Michigan – PA-0522-14
• Mississippi – SB 2687
• Idaho – SB 1062
• Oklahoma – SB 560
• Missouri – HB 769
• Kansas – HB 2225
• Texas – HB 1945
• Nebraska – Leg. Bill 817
• Tennessee – SB 2443
• Wyoming – SF0049

Current as of June, 2016

=============
Direct Primary Care is an innovative alternative payment model in primary care model embraced by patients, physicians, employers, payers and policymakers across the United States.The defining element of DPC is an enduring and trusting relationship between a patient and his or her primary care provider. In DPC unwanted fee-for-service incentives are replaced with a simple flat monthly fee. This empowers the doctor-patient relationship and is the key to achieving superior health outcomes, lower costs and an enhanced patient experience.
=============
http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/bill-could-allow-health-saving-account-use-dpc

Direct primary care physicians charge patients a monthly fee for care and access to a package of services rather than by fee-for-service or insurance. The subscription model can grant patients increased access to doctors, discounted drugs and laboratory services. 
According to Meigs, the proposed law will allow people with high deductible plans to use their HSA to pay for primary care, given that people with high deductible insurance plans can use their insurance for catastrophic coverage and hospitalizations, and cost-effectively tap their HSAs for primary care.  

============

Direct primary care and concierge medicine: They’re not the same

Direct primary care and concierge medicine: They’re not the same
SAMIR QAMAR, MD | PHYSICIAN | AUGUST 24, 2014
Samir Qamar
Direct primary care (DPC) and concierge medicine are rapidly growing models of primary care. Though the terms are used interchangeably, both are not the same. Such liberal use of terms, many times by even those within the industry, confuses those who are attempting to understand how these primary care models operate. As former concierge physician for the Pebble Beach Resorts, and subsequent founder of one of the nation’s largest direct primary care companies, I have attempted to differentiate the two based on extensive personal knowledge and experience.

First, concierge medicine. Born in the mid 1990s, this practice design was first created by wealthy individuals who were willing to “bypass” the woes of the current fee-for-service system by paying a subscription to access select primary care physicians. This access consists of same-day appointments, round-the-clock cell phone coverage, email and telemedicine service, and sometimes, as in my previous practice, house calls. Although some high-end practices charge as much as $30,000 a month, most charge an average monthly fee of $200.
In return, to allow such unrestricted access, physicians limit their patient panels to several hundred patients at most, a significant drop from the typical 2,500-plus panel size most doctors are used to. Many concierge doctors also bill insurance or Medicare for actual medical visits, as the monthly “access fee” is only for “non-covered” services. This results in two subscriptions paid by patients — the concierge medicine fee, and the insurance premium. Importantly, a few concierge practices do not bill insurance for medical visits, as the monthly fees cover both access and primary care visits.
Direct primary care started in the mid 2000s, and was created as an insurance-free model to serve a new patient population: the uninsured. In DPC, patients, and now their employers, are also charged a monthly fee, but the fee can be as low as $50 per month and there is typically no third-party payer involvement. Consumers pay physician entities directly (hence, direct primary care), and because the insurance “middle man” is removed from the equation, all the overhead associated with claims, coding, claim refiling, write-offs, billing staff, and claims-centric EMR systems disappears.

Patient panels can be as high as 1,500 patients per doctor, and there is typically no physician cell phone access or house call service. Similar to higher-priced concierge practices, DPC practices also allow for longer patient visits and telemedicine. The most important characteristic of DPC practices, however, is that insurance claims are not filed for medical visits.

Direct primary care’s definition, therefore, is any primary care practice model that is directly reimbursed by the consumer for both access and primary medical care, and which does not accept or bill third party payers.
Confusion arises from similarities that exist in both models, such as decreased patient panels, monthly subscriptions, and longer visits. There is added confusion when a DPC physician offers house calls or email access, typical of concierge practices. Confusion is maximized when a physician is by definition practicing direct primary care, yet calls the practice a “concierge practice.” Similarly, a concierge practice may decide to abstain from participating in third party payer systems, and thus would also be a DPC practice.
The distinction is important because direct primary care is explicitly mentioned in the Affordable Care Act, while concierge medicine is not. Several state laws have also recognized direct primary care as medical practice models, and non-insurance entities. In addition, the term “concierge medicine” causes visceral reactions in select social and medical circles, drawing criticism such as elitism and exacerbation of physician shortage.
Adslot’s refresh function: googletag.pubads().refresh([gptadslots[1]])

In summary, not all direct primary care practices are concierge practices, and not all concierge practices are direct primary care practices. The terms are not synonymous, and even the basic fundamentals of either model do not overlap. The key to differentiation is whether or not a third party payer is involved. If not, then the model is a direct pay, or direct primary care model, no matter what the fees.
Samir Qamar is CEO, MedLion and president, MedWand. He can be reached on Twitter @Samir_Qamar.

Corridors

This idea of corridors has occurred to me over the last few months. I know of no references for the way of thinking that I will try to describe here. I am sure these references exist, but I do not know where they are.

Applications of Corridors
Corridors have application in law, and its sister concept of regulation; in design, and its subset applications of architecture, landscape architecture, interior design, and fine arts, such as drama, art, music, and dance; in policy, and its subset applications of corporate policy, or global, national, regional, and local policy (bodies of legislation and accompanying case law and precedent is a broad variant on this idea); in education, when schools ask students to specify a major, to join a department, or to specialize in a field; and in careers, when individuals define their own professional corridors, e.g. in engineering, software design, medicine, law, business, etc.

The Core Idea of Corridors
The core idea is this: productivity is a function of well-designed corridors. Design a corridor that is too narrow, and productivity is stifled. Design a corridor too wide, and productivity suffers from too many permutations and combinations of possibilities.

If any given project is vague, then the progress of the project managers is limited as they attempt to find a path forward that makes sense. Once found, a clear path forward leads to progress in leaps and bounds. If the path forward is not found, among a myriad of possibilities, then project teams flounder and are frustrated.

Corridors in Law
A law is a corridor hammered out by the legislative body. Designed well, a law specifies the corridor by which activity is “legal”. And conversely, a law specifies which activity is “illegal”. Along with the idea of illegal comes the the sanctions applied to those unfortunate enough to be caught doing something illegal.

Corridors in Regulation: the Sister Concept to Corridors in Law
A regulation reflects the desire of a law-making body to avoid making the law itself too narrow (where the language of the law effectively gets into counter-productive micro-management). It reflects the delegation of authority from the law-making body to an agency. The agency is charged with coming up with “regulations’ that define the tactics of the law. Done well, regulations always remain within the corridors outlined in the law. They reflect the intention of the law, and are an executional element of the law. Done poorly, regulation stray beyond the corridors outlined in the law, and can serve to confuse the public and frustrate the law-makers.

An example of Corridors in Law and Regulation: Social Security
FDR is known for making Social Security the law of the land. The US Congress, in adopting Social Security, effectively defined a corridor for aging in the US. From its adoption forward, older citizens who qualify for Social Security are entitled to a “safety net” of income. Because Congress recognized that this entitlement would require dynamic adjustment over time, it authorized the Social Security Administration to publish regulations that would tactically implement, and to adjust over time, the intentions of the law.

Corridors in Design
Creatives focus. The really great ones define corridors for their work. The corridors are broad enough to be highly motivating to the creative – who yearns for freedom of thought and expression. At the same time, they are narrow enough to allow the creative to be highly productive, by applying and reapplying their creative concepts within a relatively narrow scope.

An example of Corridors in Design: Steve Jobs and Apple
An example is Steve Jobs and Apple – a brilliant example of choosing a corridor for creativity and productivity. Apple defined the personal computer as their corridor – with stunning success. As they achieved preeminence in this field, Apple was able to see a larger corridor, which the world now sees as the ipod, iPad, iPhone, and – now – the iWatch. Are these new consumer appliances different than a “personal computer” – the corridor of the original vision? I would argue that they are not different: they are applications of the personal computer corridor, brilliantly subsuming appliances from other corridors into the corridor of personal computing.

Corridors in Policy
I mentioned that policy is an area where the notion of properly chosen, well-defined corridors can lead to high productivity. Corporate, Global, National, Regional, and Local Policy-Makers must constantly struggle to define corridors within which citizens and institutions within their sphere of influence must operate.

Urban Policy as an Example of Corridors in Policy
Take urban policy as an example. Urban design policies found in comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. These plans and regulations reflect policies about where a given city wants to grow. How much growth should be in industrial, commercial, and residential ? Where are the geographies slated for each? Where does mixed-use fit? What procedures allow for changes over time?

Corridors in Education
Education is probably the most classical application of the example of a “corridor”. It is impossible to know everything. So educators attempt to guide students in narrowing their field of study. An undergraduate education might well define “liberal arts” or “engineering” as a corridor of study. A graduate program might define “public administration” or “mechanical engineering” as a corridor. Unfortunately, however, there are far too many examples of students getting lost in a corridor as large as “liberal arts”. Out of frustration parents and students alike may well force a narrower corridor. Chosen well, such a narrower corridor, e.g. history, can focus the mind and increase productivity and creativity. At the same time, there are far too many examples of those who define an educational corridor that is too narrow, e.g. automotive mechanics.

Example of Corridors in Education
90%+ of US students follow a corridor path that is well-known. They might, for example, take liberal arts as an undergraduate, and major in a science, social science, language, or fine arts. But US students may well have the sites set on graduate school, and so they stay very broad in undergraduate courses so they do not limit their choices in graduate school. A law or medicine graduate student does well to stay broad in undergraduate classes. The medicine corridor in graduate school would naturally expect more science course. The law corridor in graduate school would be inclined to expect high proficiency in writing and communication and analysis as an undergraduate.

Corridors in Careers
What is my career path? Virtually everyone struggles with this question. It is a corridor question and brings with it the same perils of other corridor choices. Choose a corridor that is too narrow, e.g. cost accounting, and the person runs a real risk that opportunities will rapidly fall outside the chosen corridor. The result will be career confusion, as job choices can be endless, and dead-end job choices are everywhere. At the same time, choose a career corridor that is too broad, e.g. systems design, and the person runs a real risk that no employers trusts that the applicant is qualified for a specific job that is available.

Example of Corridors in Careers
Sales is a reasonably common example of a career corridor filled with endless possibilities, and yet it is very specific in the eyes of an employer. “Show me proof that you can sell”, they might say. And with that proof, they may well not care if they have proof that the person can sell a specific widget or software or product or service.