> In 1976, Bell said he came to the same conclusion in an article titled Serving Two Masters, which stated, "Our clients' aims for better schooling for their ch

> In 1976, Bell said he came to the same conclusion in an article titled Serving Two Masters, which stated, "Our clients' aims for better schooling for their children no longer meshed with integrationist ideals. Civil rights lawyers were misguided in requiring racial balance of each school's student population as the measure of compliance and the guarantee of effective schooling. In short, while the rhetoric of integration promised much, court orders to ensure that black youngsters received the education they needed to progress would have achieved much more." https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.ht... You're really keen to broaden writing about this single moment in history to apply it to all instances of racial segregation in the US. All he says is that given the choice between racial balance in schools as the target for the supreme court, and effective schooling as the target - he says that he believes the former failed where the latter might have succeeded. That's not "I support segregation" as your binary suggests - that's "desegregation didn't achieve equality, and we had another path available that might have gotten us farther". Nowhere in that is "and we should never desegregate" or "bring back separate water fountains".