One of the bleakest moral episodes in American history after slavery was segregation. But, as Americans are wont to do, they put a legal spin on what separate but equal might mean: which, of course, was neither separate nor equal.
The following is a quote from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the Decision Plessey v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) which legalized segregation. "If he be a white man and assigned to a colored coach, he may have his action for damages against the company for being deprived of his so-called property.
Upon the other hand, if he be a colored man and be so assigned, he has been deprived of no property, since he is not lawfully entitled to the reputation of being a white man." Provide answers to these three questions:
Considering private property rights and the market from chapter 3 in your text, what property rights was the Supreme Court trying to give 'whiteness?'
How would the courts need to justify each of the three arguments for property: utility, autonomy, and fairness for 'whiteness' to be a kind of property?
What arguments before the court would you make against attributing property rights to 'whiteness'?