Bunk is a shared home for the web's most interesting thinking about American history. Take a moment to read about How Bunk Works. You can find the entire article that each excerpt on Bunk is drawn from by looking for the “View on…” button below that excerpt.

This linked excerpt summarizes and quotes the views of Kenneth Mack, a professor at Harvard Law School, on the Plessy v. Ferguson case. One of Mack’s key points is that the Supreme Court’s ruling not only validated the legality of racial segregation, as long as segregated spaces were “separate but equal,” but also strongly indicated that segregation laws were effectively “neutral.” After reading the excerpt and reviewing the text of the Plessy decision, write down, discuss, or simply think about answers to the following questions:

• If you were asked to make the argument that racial segregation laws were not neutral in intent, what would be your key points? What counter arguments might you encounter?
• If you were asked to make the argument that racial segregation laws were not neutral in effect, what would be your key points? What counter arguments might you encounter?
• Which of these two arguments do you find most compelling?