EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR. BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, Jr.rnASSISTANT EDITORrnChristine HaynesrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O.j. Brown, Katherine Dalton,rnSamuel Francis, George Garrett,rnE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, Jacob Neusner,rnJohn Shelton Reed, Momcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICAI’ION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnCOMPOSITION MANAGERrnAnita FedorarnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Main Street. Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnFor information on advertising in Chronicles,rnplease call Rochelle Erank at (815) 964-5811.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,rnS:indusky,OII 44870.rnCopyright © 1994 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChromcks (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthlv for $28 per ear by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,rnIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol. 18, No. 9 SL-ptcmbcr 1994rnPrinted in tin.-1 ‘nitcd Stakb of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Segregationrnand EducationrnI enjoyed Samuel Francis’s lucid analysisrnof the 1954 Supreme Court decision,rnBrown v. Board of Education (“FortyrnYears After,” May 1994), but I take exceptionrnto his argument that “the onlyrnfeasible moral defense of the Brown decisionrntoday is not that it replaced forcernwith freedom, but that it replaced onernkind of free but morally inferior conductrn(segregation) with unfree but morallyrnsuperior conduct (integration).”rnThis argument can be dismissed outrnof hand for the same reason cited by Mr.rnFrancis in the very next sentence: becausernsuch a defense is “preposterous.”rnIt relies upon the fallacious propositionrnthat coerced racial integration or equalityrnof outcome (substitute anv civil rightsrncatch phrase) is a more morally attractiverncondition than voluntary racial segregationrnor equality of opportunity, regardlessrnof the immorality of the means necessaryrnfor the realization of such arncondition. Even if one were to cast therndecision in the most elementary moralrnframework by asking whether the rulernwill do more good than harm, orrnwhether it will serve to help more peoplernthan it portends to injure, moral philosophyrnof any school is insufficient torndemonstrate that Brown is itself moral,rnlet alone more acceptable than its conversern—the freedom to dissociate. Consideringrnhe concludes correctly thatrnthere is no reasonable defense of thernBrown decision today, I am inclined tornwonder what prompted Mr. Francis tornmention such a defense in the first place,rnleast of all in possession of the modifierrn”feasible.”rn—Jeffrey M. KanernGahanna, OHrnDr. FrancisrnReplies:rnAfter a good deal of verbosity, Mr. Kanernat length uncovers the meaning of whatrnI said in the first place—a feasible defensern(i.e., a defense capable of beingrndone, “do-able,” as we say in Washington)rnmay also be a preposterous defense.rnI did not say a “logically valid,” “morallyrncompelling,” or “factually sound” defense,rnbut a “feasible” defense. I know ofrnno other word (except perhaps “possible,”rnwhich is too broad for my meaning)rnto convey what I wanted to convey,rnwhich Mr. Kane and most everyone elsernunderstood anyhow. Since I rejectedrnthis “feasible defense” as “preposterous”rnin the next sentence and offered thernsame reasoning for this rejection thatrnMr. Kane offers, and since Mr. Kanernacknowledges that I rejected it for thatrnreason, I cannot understand why hernbothered to write a letter at all, or forrnthat matter why I am bothering tornrespond to it.rnLETrnUSrnKNOWrnBEFORErnYOU GO!rnTo assure uninterrupted delivery ofrnCHRONICLES please notify us in advance.rnSend change of address on thisrnform with the mailing label from yourrnlatest issue of CHRONICLES to:rnSubscription DepartmentrnCHRONICLESrnP.O. Box 800rnMount Morris, Illinois 61054rnMrnOrnVrnIrn’N.rnGrn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn