fbpx
Articles

Sixty years later: A reflection on Brown v. Board of Education

/
May 22, 2014

Friday was the 60th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision by the United Sates Supreme Court. Unfortunately, much of evangelicalism has failed to honor this anniversary, missing an opportunity to bear witness to human dignity and the gospel.

In Brown, the Supreme Court unanimously declared that “separate but equal” (i.e., segregationist) policies, particularly in public education, violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Ratified following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause declares that a state “may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Yet, in the infamous decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, the Supreme Court determined that segregation, even the segregation of a caste-like system, did not violate the U.S. Constitution. In Plessy, the Court ruled that separate could be equal under the requirements of the 14th Amendment. Plessy’s legal reasoning is highly flawed, as is its understanding of the legal-social dynamic. But worst of all, it validated and authorized Jim Crow and the invidious discrimination of the early twentieth century.

The Court’s unanimous decision in Brown declared that Plessy’s view of the Constitution was wrong. To use the language of Brown, separate but equal cannot be equal for it breeds inferiority. We Christians should celebrate this ruling. Brown affirmed the dignity of humanity—that all people are created in God’s image. It rejected racial castes, and it understood the societal good that integration brought. Even more, the outcome in Brown is clearly and strictly constitutional, fulfilling the purpose of the 14th Amendment.  

As Christians, we have a duty to remember and celebrate Brown. On May 17, 1954, our highest Court rejected racism for dignity. It rejected caste for equality. It rejected a deeply flawed, fallen reality for a closer representation of God’s Kingdom. Though institutionalized racism did not end with Brown, the victory—racial equality—was announced.

As evangelicals, we should mark the Brown anniversary with a time of reflection. The sad reality is that slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow have deep ties to southern evangelicalism. Many of our evangelical forbearers promoted segregation with both their Bibles and their politics. To be sure, many evangelicals, particularly in certain northern cities, were leaders in the abolition movement dating to the 18th century. Yet to many more, racism was a sin of commission and omission.

As a 21st century evangelical, this truth grieves me, and admitting it is painful. The easy option is to move forward, to gloss over, to forget. However our witness is more powerful if we use the past to teach—teach of the corrupting nature of sin, the importance of confession, the majesty of God’s grace, and the beauty of restoration. The anniversary of Brown gives us this opportunity to reaffirm the dignity of mankind and the realness of the gospel. When we fail to celebrate events like this, we miss these opportunities, and we open ourselves up to be criticized again for the awful mistakes of the past.

As a legal decision, the rationale of Brown is not ideal, with its emphasis on social science data and contemporary standards. I would have preferred a clear ruling based on the original purpose of the 14th Amendment, as Justice Harlan outlined in his famous dissent in Plessy. More than 50 years before Brown, Harlan rightly argued that the 14th Amendment clearly establishes that laws cannot make any distinctions based on race. This son of a Kentucky slaveholder proclaimed:

In the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no cast here. Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.

Nevertheless, quibbles with the Court’s rationale in Brown must not keep us from celebrating the outcome. 

The Brown decision is also not the panacea as it is often described. It would take more than a decade for the deep South to begin integrating, largely following involvement by the President and the U.S. Congress. Yet, Brown mattered and still matters. The decision provided the constitutional weight to encourage federal action. It propelled the Civil Rights movement, and it gave voice to nascent legal and political arguments. And today Brown stands as a symbol of a prominent victory in the war on racism in America.

I celebrate Brown v. Board of Education for what it means for America; I cherish it for what it can teach us about God. As evangelicals, we should not let such an opportunity pass.

Andy Lewis

Andy Lewis is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Cincinnati. He researches the intersection of politics, religion, and law in America, with an expertise in Evangelicals and politics, church-state relations, conservative legal activism, and rights politics. His research engages with the themes of representation and American constitutionalism, … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24