Although I’m sure Maltz is not a supporter of racial segregation in schools, he is right in pointing out that is an extremely liberal, even questionable conclusion to draw directly from the Constitution. On of Maltz’s major conclusions in the Brown and Tee-Hit-Ton article is that a comparison of the two cases makes it clear that the decisions of the Supreme Court are heavily influenced by popular ideology, and while Brown is a favorable outcome of this systematic issue, the flipside to this flexibility is the potential for the law of the land to reflect commonly held racial prejudices, as in Tee-Hit-Ton v. U.S..
In the Brown v. Board of Education decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren (also Chief Justice for Tee-Hit-Ton) wrote “To separate blacks from others of similar age and qualification solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.” While I strongly agree with this statement, many other situations of societally-permitted discrimination come to mind that have not been spoken on. I think one that is relevant is the continued use of Indian racial stereotypes as mascots for professional and school mascots. I would say that the use of a racist caricature and an offensive slur as the brands of nationally-broadcasted and widely-supported sports teams poses the same problem of “generating a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community,” particularly for young people belonging to the targeted groups. Simultaneously, these mascots are indicative that a huge number of Americans—collectively with a lot of power—are still supportive of or at least complicit in these stereotypes. While analytically, under the logic of the Brown decision, the mascots shouldn’t be allowed, it is in part because of them that the predominant attitude in the U.S. is so prejudiced that they are still permitted.