Correlation In The Civil Rights Movement
Correlation and Causation in the Civil Rights Movement
The Court’s Casual Influence on the Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights movement was a collaborative effort towards equal rights for African Americans. Some scholars argue that the court had direct, causal influence, while some argue that the court had little impact in the passage of the Cvil Rights Act. Expanding on Gerald N. Rosenberg and Michael Klarman’s arguments, I argue that Rosenberg’s analysis of the Supreme Court’s action in the Civil Rights movement was most accurate. In examining both authors arguments, I conclude that due to the lack of evidence of links of influence, the court had little casual effect in the Civil Rights movement. Rosenberg implies that the passage of time directly relates to the extent of casual influence the court has. He asserts that, “the more time that elapses between the order and the action, the more tenuous is the causal …show more content…
This violence was televised and led to the emotional response of white northerners, that had an influence on the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Rosenberg disputes Klarman’s claim by arguing that links of influence must be specified. Rosenberg claims that if there is to be a legitimate link between events, “one needs to be told that court decision A influenced president B to win legislation C that improved civil rights” (Rosenberg 2008,109). I would endorse this claim due to the fact that correlation does not equal causation. The only way the court could have directly caused an event is if the actors involved explicitly stated that there was an influence. If the president specifically stated that action was taken due to Brown, or "if the president’s actions changed in such a way to conform with the court” (Rosenberg 2008, pg. 109), only then would that be valid evidence to substantiate the links of
The Court’s Casual Influence on the Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights movement was a collaborative effort towards equal rights for African Americans. Some scholars argue that the court had direct, causal influence, while some argue that the court had little impact in the passage of the Cvil Rights Act. Expanding on Gerald N. Rosenberg and Michael Klarman’s arguments, I argue that Rosenberg’s analysis of the Supreme Court’s action in the Civil Rights movement was most accurate. In examining both authors arguments, I conclude that due to the lack of evidence of links of influence, the court had little casual effect in the Civil Rights movement. Rosenberg implies that the passage of time directly relates to the extent of casual influence the court has. He asserts that, “the more time that elapses between the order and the action, the more tenuous is the causal …show more content…
This violence was televised and led to the emotional response of white northerners, that had an influence on the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Rosenberg disputes Klarman’s claim by arguing that links of influence must be specified. Rosenberg claims that if there is to be a legitimate link between events, “one needs to be told that court decision A influenced president B to win legislation C that improved civil rights” (Rosenberg 2008,109). I would endorse this claim due to the fact that correlation does not equal causation. The only way the court could have directly caused an event is if the actors involved explicitly stated that there was an influence. If the president specifically stated that action was taken due to Brown, or "if the president’s actions changed in such a way to conform with the court” (Rosenberg 2008, pg. 109), only then would that be valid evidence to substantiate the links of