The Nature of Man Civic Issues




All elements of our state of nature, at least according to Hobbes. On the opposite side of the spectrum resides Aquinas, arguing for a more benevolent view of man. Either way, they were both legendary philosophers; they just happened to have two very different views on mankind. Nonetheless, the debates they raise all rely on a very explicit quandary: what are men inclined to: good or evil?

First of all, it is imperative to note that Hobbes does not have a summum bonum – a greater good. The idea of a greater good generally shapes the outlook of any person on life and the purpose of it. Therefore, prior to divulging into the inner thoughts of Hobbes, it can already be discerned that he views mankind negatively. If there is no greater good then facilitating your fellow man is futile.

Hobbes delivers innumerable examples of this reasoning in Leviathan. He states that, “where [there is] no law, [there is] no injustice” (Hobbes, “Leviathan”). By this reasoning, Hobbes develops his “State of Nature” theory. Simply stated, the theory suggests a hypothetical society where there are no laws or government. This world is, unsurprisingly, corrupt and evil.

However, there is salvation from this inert state of destruction: the Social Contract. Hobbes proposes that the only reason man does not digress into this state and accepts a social contract is a fear of death, the desires of a “commodious living,” and a “hope of industry to obtain them” (the desires aforementioned) (“Leviathan”).

Some people believed that Hobbes ideas were insane, so he called them out. He wrote, “Let him therefore consider with himselfe, when taking a journey, he armes himselfe… he locks his chests; and this when he knows there bee Lawes… what opinion he has of his fellow subjects …Does he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions, as I do by my words” (Hobbes, “Leviathan”).

In other words, if we take precautions against our fellow man, even though there are laws that serve as deterrents, we too believe in Hobbes’ pessimistic view of man’s habit. However, Hobbes is not alone in his reasoning. Hobbes’ theories transcended generations, even inspiring one of our founding fathers James Madison.

In Federalist #51, he states, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary” (Madison, “Federalist 51”). In layman’s terms, Madison believed that men were not angels, that man is fallible.

Overall, it is indisputable that Hobbes’ possessed a despondent perspective on humanity.

On the other hand, Aquinas had a brighter view of mankind. He wrote that, “Because in man there is first of all an inclination to good in accordance with the nature which he has in common with all substances” (Aquinas 165). Interestingly enough, Aquinas also believed in a special exemption for virtuous people from law.

He prescribes, “Wherefore in this sense the good are not subject to the law, but only the wicked” (Aquinas 175). I heartily dissent from Aquinas’ position on this matter.

The main flaw in his argument lies in the fact that who is to determine the definition of a “good” man? Is “good” a measure of ethical quality or utility?

Nonetheless, it is limpid that Aquinas believes in the good of mankind.

In conclusion, the musings of both Hobbes and Aquinas have validity. Regardless, I believe that mankind is not inherently good or evil. Throughout history, humanity has committed amazing acts of benevolence and horrendous acts of evil. To describe human nature as explicitly good or evil is a misnomer, for humanity is too diverse to be limited to either or.

Works Cited

Aquinas, Thomas. (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 16 February 2017. <http://www.sophia->.

Hobbes, Thomas. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 February 2017. <


Madison, James. “The Federalist No. 51.” The Federalist #51. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 February 2017.


Civic Issues Prompt #2

Mental Health on College Campuses:

More and more students need mental health services. But colleges struggle to keep up

Mental health is a severe problem on college campuses; this is evident. The above articles corroborate my sentiment.

I find the first article to be very interesting. The idea of using rental dogs to relieve stress is pretty cool. I would definitely invest in renting a dog from the local humane society to help myself, as well as the shelter. This is all taken from the caption of the photo at the top of the article.

Now, the actual content of the article also fascinates me. The lead sentence is such a common occurrence in the current times, ” a campus seemingly full of young, healthy college kids — Benjamin Johnson didn’t see a lot of serious physical emergencies.” This leads to the concerning fact: the decreasing quality of our mental health is the silent disease. It is filled with stigma and many times the deliberation of how to solve the problem is pushed to the sides.

Another quote from this article really resonated with me, “Seeing firsthand mental health crises and feeling pretty powerless to do anything about it.” This attests to the problem of mental health. How can we solve a problem that we feel powerless to?

Also, the article has certain graphics that may prove helpful in creating my group’s pamphlet.

Another interesting point the article makes is the fact that there is a more diverse group of students on today’s campuses compared to in the past. Therefore, the psychological services on campus need to diversify to meet the current needs. So a question that could be posed to assist in the deliberative process is: How will the increasingly diverse student body on college campuses affect our response to the mental health crisis?

Now, the second article has a very stunning photo at the very beginning. The photo utilizes bookbags to depict the more than 1,000 college students who commit suicide every year.

The second article, a New York Times piece, also accounts the mental health story of an international student. This is an interesting perspective, as confronting a mental health crisis, as well as culture shock, can lead to an even harder time overcoming the underlying issues.

In the body paragraphs, the piece focuses on different studies on the mental health of college students. For example, the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute found that a record of 11.9% of students in 2016 felt “frequently” depressed” Moreover, the Institute also found, for the first time, that 47% of students felt that their mental state was above average as compared to their classmates.

A more interesting report, conducted by the Center for Collegiate Mental Health at Penn State, discovered that upwards of 26% of college students had purposely injured themselves (e.g. cutting, etc.) in the 2015-2016 academic year. Even more shocking, the suicide attempt rate increased to 33.2% from 23.8% from 2011 to 2016.

This article, as well as the previous one, also mentioned the increasingly diverse student body on college campuses. There are more students with older parents. There are more international students. There are more students of color. There are more LGBT+ students. There are more problems than ever and the outdated systems of dealing with mental health are not keeping up. In an everchanging world, these systems have remained static.

Adding on to the mental toll of college is the astronomical price of tuition. Students who attend college on scholarships feel the intense pressure to attain good grades to even stay in college. This affects both academic scholars and athletes here on scholarships.

According to the New York Times article, four colleges, Duke, Davidson, Johnson C. Smith University, and Furman, are pairing together to study the mental health of the class of 2018. Utilizing a$ 3.4 million budget, the colleges will follow their respective students from freshman to senior year. The project will ask volunteers about their family background, eating habits, physical activity rates, and much more to gain a sense of how different variables affect the mental health of college students.

Another promising study is the UCLA Depression Grand Challenge. this study will analyze 100,000 people to discover the causes of depression. The research team will analyze students, staff, and faculty members.

Overall, from analyzing the two above articles, I propose two questions to assist in the deliberation of the mental health topic:

  1. How does the increasingly diverse student body on college campuses affect the way we must solve the mental health crisis?
  2. How can we as a university end the stigma around mental health issues?







Conversation One

Well, it is the most wonderful time of year. February.

The month of darkness, despair, and depression.

It is cold, dreary, and if it was any longer than 28 days we would all die.

However, for my grandpa it is a wonderful time to reflect on his life. Because on February 25th, 1948 he was born. And, after all, everyone loves their birthday. He is happy because this upcoming February 25th he is turning seventy. He always jokes that he is getting so old, un viejo, an old man. His favorite part of his upcoming birthday is me coming home. You see the end of February is a popular birth week for my family.

My mom was born on February 21st.

My sister was born on February 24th.

And my grandpa was born on February 25th.

Due to all these wonderful people being born on these days, I am going home after our Deliberation Nation project. Which is super annoying because I just want to be able to enjoy the week, but, alas, I will be stressed. Thanks Curry.

Anyways, we will be having a surprise party for him organized by my older sister. I believe that it will be happening at my house. The last time I talked to him he had no idea.

I do not know what to buy him so if you have any ideas leave a comment.


Civic Issues Prompt 1

Today, as in any other day, undocumented immigration is in the headlines. DACA, the State of the Union Address, and seemingly every-other tweet from a certain account speak to the controversy that is undocumented immigration. In today’s civic issues post, we will be discussing the comment section under the linked article (above).

An interesting point that I am going to focus on is the question posed by Gastil under Disagreement and Persuasion in Chapter 2: If conversations are so often among like-minded persons, can the really be deliberative? The premise is if we only talk to people that are like-minded we miss out on constructive critique. We do not have to defend our positions; and, as a result, our knowledge of the subject may fail or falter once confronted with dissuading evidence. In this way, we discover that deliberations and debate, even within a public forum such as a comment thread under a news article, can prove to be a source of intense discussion that can sway the masses, or even you.

The first comment sets the tone for the rest of the thread. “aleatico” writes with a matter-of-fact tone that is not open to deliberation. This type of tone is not conducive for deliberation, as no other person can possibly change the opinion stated. “chiefwiley” then responds to “aleatico” in the same manner. Surprisingly, both commenters are civil. However, both are also so cemented in their beliefs on undocumented immigration that this small-scale deliberation or debate will not broaden either’s understanding.

Another concerning comment was by “proudprogressive”. They said, “So…how long do you figure it will take Rump to get the death camps up and running again?” This is terribly alarmist, describing an extreme as a vain attempt to evoke emotion, the logical fallacy of argumentum ad passiones. Their comment does not add any useful information to the discussion forum because they do not utilize facts. Their comment is intended to start an argument, not host a deliberation.

There are hundreds of more comments under the article that could possibly host a deliberation. However, I will not read 316 comments to determine something that is more than likely possible.

Overall, this article discusses a topic that is more conducive to a debate rather than a deliberation. The immigration discussion has two very distinct sides, with various fringe positions off of it.


Constitutional Interpretation

Whether the Constitution is living or dead is a question that has perplexed legal minds since the ratification. Perpetuating this quandary is Ronald Dworkin, writer of “Taking Rights Seriously”. In his prose, he compares and contrasts the two schools of thought designated “judicial activism” and “judicial restraint”.

First, Dworkin notes that judicial activism must meet certain requirements. He writes, “Only if such moral rights exist in some sense can activism be justified as a program based on something beyond the judge’s personal preferences” (Dworkin 8). Complementing his reasoning are the ideas of the Warren Court. No other Court in the history of the United States was so progressive in terms of racial equality. Handing down the precedents set in cases such as Baker v. Carr and Brown v. Board of Education, the Warren Court established just what judicial activism is. It relied in a “living” interpretation of the Constitution. However, they were not without their critics, as is evident by the likes of Governor George Wallace and others asking for the impeachment of Chief Justice Warren. They dissented by stating those “moral rights” undoubtedly exist for African Americans as laid out in the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. It states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property…” (Staff, LII).

Secondly, a key point of the judicial activism perspective is the belief that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. At its center, the dogma of a living Constitution is not a revolt against the integrity of the original document but instead keeping the document applicable to the modern-day struggles of the 21st Century in order to avoid curbing the rights of citizens. However, Dworkin warns that “Judicial activism runs the risks of tyranny.” He is not alone in this fear. It is a legitimate concern that nine people in the United States hold the power to manipulate the words of our most sanctified document to fit an agenda: whether it be a good or bad one.

This is where the argument of judicial restraint comes into play.

Dworkin poses that judicial restraint is somewhat irresponsible in a democracy. He references Learned Hand, who said, “It is wrong to suppose, that claims about moral rights express anything more than the speakers’ preferences” (9). In other words, it would be wrong, tyrannical in fact, to allow the minds of Justices to determine what morals are, as morals are defined explicitly by the mind of the beholder.

How can a person conclude what moral rights exist, let alone persist that another’s morals are, in fact, immoral?

Furthermore, proponents of judicial restraint propose that the judiciary is taking the place of the legislature when deciding cases via a living Constitution. Dworkin muses, “it [The Supreme Court] is usurping the place of the legislature, for the job of the legislature, representing the majority, is to decide whose preferences shall govern” (9). However, a fault in this argument occurs since the beliefs of the majority can become oppressive. If the “tyranny of the majority” determines that one race of people is, contrary to the rhetoric of the Constitution, subjugated below another, then does the Court not have the moral and legal duty to “usurp the place of the legislature”?

In the end, the argument between the two schools of Constitutional theory will continue to be fought between mysterious figures in black cloaks, wielding a pen in one hand and the Constitution in another. Arguably, the Constitution is both alive and dead. Without judicial activism, race relations in this union would still be stuck in 1860. On the other hand, without judicial restraint, the Supreme Court would violate the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution.

Either way, the Constitution will persist whether or not her interpreters reach a consensus.


Dworkin, Ronald. “Taking Rights Seriously.” (1977): n. pag. Pennsylvania State University.

Web. 25 January 2017.

Staff, LII. “14th Amendment.” LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., 12 Nov. 2009. Web. 25

January 2017. <>.

Conversations with José – An Introduction

My passion blog for this semester will be based on conversations I have with one of the wisest men I know: my grandfather (abuelito, papo, etc.).

José Antonio Hernández de Gómez was born in February of 1948. He was born in the rough and tough neighborhood of Spanish Harlem, colloquially known as El Barrio (the neighborhood). Eventually, he and his family would move across the Harlem River to the Southside Bronx. The same place where Jennifer Lopez is from for reference. During his entire upbringing, he and his family would take trips to Puerto Rico to visit family in the pueblos of Trujillo Alto and Río Piedras. He recalls climbing trees in the tropical climate of the island with his sisters and picking fruit right of the trees.

Eventually, he would graduate from high school and join the navy in 1964. Now, as many of you know, the United States engaged in a little conflict known as the Vietnam War during this time. In fact, he volunteered to be among the first troops in Vietnam but was deferred to a ship bound for Europe. Instead of fighting in the jungles of SouthEast Asia, he visited the fjords of Norway, the bars of Germany, and the vineyards of Italy.

After his service, he lived in Washington D.C. during the chaotic year of 1968. He remembers the city burning after the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy like it was yesterday. The next year, 1969, my father was born in the nation’s capital.

A few short years later, José moved with my father to Carolina, Puerto Rico. There they enjoyed everything that the poverty-stricken island had to offer. The bombings of the independent movement and abuses of power by the federal government caused my family to flee, yet again, the homeland. This has led to my grandfather’s disdain for the likes of Oscar Lopez Rivera and others tied to the independent movement for the island. My grandfather wants statehood for the island, and if you ask any Puerto Rican, they will have an opinion on the subject.

Back in the mainland, my father went to 1st grade speaking no English and was subsequently held back. My grandfather would struggle with alcoholism during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. This would leave my father to my bisabuelos, Eusebio Hernandez y Flores and Justa Gomez de Perez.

My grandfather would eventually break his addiction with the help of a rehabilitation church called Peniel, which is where my parents left (as there is also a congregation that is not in the rehab program).

After a long story of chaotic family relations between the 1990’s until 2010, I reconnected with my grandfather after he moved back to Pennsylvania from North Carolina. I love him dearly and do not remember his mistakes that other family members recall with fervor.

Since 2010, my abuelito has instilled knowledge into me that I could not find elsewhere. Therefore, this Passion blog is dedicated to him, a man that has been through a lot, and can make a mean domino partner.

No Taxation Without Representation

After the French and Indian War, the British Empire was close to bankruptcy. As such, the Parliament hoped to raise revenue for the government by imposing taxes on goods in the Colonies. As anyone with a basic understanding of United States history can recall, the colonies despised this action.

The rally call for revolution soon spread around the fledgling conglomerate of insurgent states like wildfire, a slogan coined by James Otis in 1761, that would change the world forever:


This is ironic for a plethora of reasons.

in the modern-day United States, this belief of having a voice in the government on whether you should be taxed has fallen by the wayside, at least, for very specific parts of the population.

First, those working under the age of 18 in the United States pay taxes, but they can not vote in elections. This is a fundamental abuse of power, and it is a tad bit hypocritical on the part of the United States government, a government that prides itself on “liberty and justice for all.”

Another principle held within our present social contract in this country is the idea of “Consent of the Governed.” First mused about by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government, “Consent of the Governed” ensures the blessings of liberty remain secure for ourselves and our posterity. Furthermore, in Section 140, John Locke mentions:

For if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?

Thus, Locke defines the extents of the power of the government within the scope of the social contract that the people have entered and agreed to. However, working people under the age of 18 have had no such opportunity to agree or disagree to this social contract by being denied the right to vote. With their voices silent, these people have been subjected to the overreaching-hand of a government that does not represent them or their ideas.

A man all too used to this narrative, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had something to say about the government passing laws without the consent of the people. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, he stated, “A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.” In other words, it is possible to conclude that the tax code is unfair to people working under the age of 18, as they had no part in creating the law.

Understanding that taxing people without giving them a voice in the legislative branch is paramount to understand that this same reasoning can be extended to the citizens of Guam and Puerto Rico.

As per the tax code, Puerto Ricans, “pay Social Security, Medicare, import, export and commodity taxes. Their federal tax bills add up to more than $3 billion a year.” Yet, even in 2018, the inhabitants of the island are forbidden from raising concerns in the federal government as they can not vote for Senators, Representatives, or the President. The same predicament affects the people of Guam; who have the highest percentage of enlisted citizens as compared to their population. Interestingly enough, both Guamanians and Puerto Ricans can be drafted during times of war. This means these people have to go along with the whim of a men or women who they had no chance of voting for.


In the end, the same democratic principals that served as the catalyst for the Revolutionary War have been forgotten. The same principals of freedom and equality before the law are null and void in the cases of those working under the age of 18, the residents of Guam, and Puerto Ricans. The United States preaches “consent of the governed” across the world, resulting in wars in Korea and Vietnam, but denies this fundamental right to so many of her citizens.

This is not a democracy.

This is tyranny.


  2. 2.


RCL #10 HofPC Concept Contracts

The History of Capital Punishment

HofPC Concept Contract for Nebraska Hernandez, Roan Lynch, Mark Ma, Ninad Mahajan, Andrew Pei, and Billy Young


Topic: The controversy surrounding capital punishment and the use of the death penalty in the United States.


An examination of the moral, social, and economic implications of the death penalty in the United States. Analyzes the extensive history of capital punishment and torture as well as their psychological effects on civilizations and mentalities. As a society, should we keep the death penalty? How much is a life worth?


Research, Roles, and Responsibilities:

Nebraska: The ancient history of torture and capital punishment as a means of interrogation. Nebraska will research whether the original intentions of the death penalty have changed. He will also examine public outcry to these methods prior to the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Nebraska is responsible for helping to create the storyboard of the video.


Roan: Modern, recent tactics of torture and capital punishment as used by police authorities and the government. Roan will also research whether the original intentions of the death penalty have changed. He is responsible for analyzing the current, present-day controversy and debate over the U.S. death penalty. Roan is also responsible for helping to create the storyboard of the video.


Mark: Potential rationales and justifications for the use of torture, capital punishment, and the death penalty. Mark will act as the mediator between both sides of the controversy, researching the reasons for each side feels the way it does. Mark is also responsible for researching individual stories and case studies of the death penalty, diving into the lives of prisoners and their families who may be directly affected by the death penalty. Mark is responsible for editing the video and adding appropriate graphics and visual aids.


Andrew: The economic effects of the death penalty. Andrew will analyze the fiscal impact of using capital punishment throughout history, and most important, in the last decade. Andrew will research the financial costs of death row and the prison system as a whole. He will then compare the costs of the death penalty with alternatives researched and analyzed by Ninad. Andrew is responsible for providing narration and related audio services for the video.


Ninad: Potential alternatives to the death penalty. Ninad is responsible for researching probable solutions and proposed alternatives to capital punishment, spanning hundreds of years of history. Ninad’s research is important because it will add or diminish credibility to the arguments for using the death penalty. Ninad is also responsible for editing the video and adding finishing touches.


Billy: The moral and ethical ramifications of using the death penalty, as well as how the use of torture and capital punishment may violate intrinsic human rights. Billy will explore the philosophy behind the death penalty as well as examine the underlying mentalities surrounding its purpose. He is responsible for explaining the psychological and philosophical effects of the death penalty spanning decades of its use. Billy will argue whether or not the rationales and justifications researched by Mark are supported by the death penalty’s moral implications. Billy is responsible for providing narration with Andrew and editing the video using Adobe Premiere Pro.



Nebraska Hernandez

Roan Lynch

Mark Ma

Ninad Mahajan

Andrew Pei

The Final Decision…Passion Blog #5

The Court is back in session.

You may be seated.

Over the course of the past few months, many different Supreme Court cases have been presented to you in order to  prove whether or not the Court is as just as it seems to be.

So, let’s review:

In Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court decided that certain undesirable people can be forcibly sterilized as it pertains to the public’s interest.

In Imbler v. Pachtman, the Supreme Court upheld judicial immunity, perpetuating its own tyrannical powers and betraying the idea of “no one is above the law.”

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court established the infamous precedent of “separate but equal.” A sentiment that allowed racism to flourish until the 1960’s.

In Virginia v. Loving, the Supreme Court finally allowed interracial couples to marry, after continuously upholding bans against it.

Provided with these facts we can conclude that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is guilty of injustice against the people of the United States.

To understand the reasons behind this corruption we must analyze the formation of the Court. The justices serve a life term in good standing. This solidifies the idea of “Tyranny of the Majority”, first explained by Toqueville. In the Court, if a simple majority (5) believes in a certain ideology, they will shape policy for a generation.

Nevertheless, we must give credit where credit is due. Without the Supreme Court, the integration of schools would not have occurred (Brown v. Board of Education). Without the Supreme Court, one man, one vote would not be an ideal (Baker v. Carr). Without the Supreme Court, the first amendment would be in shambles (West Virginia v. Barnett, Texas v. Johnson, New York Times v. United States of America). Without the Supreme Court, same-sex marriage would still be banned (Obergefell v. Hodges).

Perhaps, at the end of the day, the Supreme Court has made great progress in the name of equality and justice.

But WE THE PEOPLE must decide whether or not the benefits outweigh the risk.

It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that reform is long overdue.

A court that runs rampant, wielding judicial review, which is not mentioned in the Constitution but established by Marbury v. Madison, poses a danger to United States citizens’ unalienable rights.

During the current political climate the Supreme Court has fallen to the wayside. After Gorsuch’s recent appointment, the Court has once again faded from the headlines, as it always does.

But, we can’t let this happen.

For an institution that operates in the dark, away from the investigative light of the media, acts with absolute power.

And as we know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, after the past few months, I ask you to make your decision as all Americans must. After reviewing the facts, after analyzing the cases, does the Supreme Court act on your behalf?

Does the Supreme Court still serve its intended purpose?

My answer: no.

The case is closed on the Court: guilty as charged.

Sentenced: reform.

Case dismissed.

15 Nov. 2017


RCL #9 TED Scripts (Draft)

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down a ban on interracial marriage in the famous Loving v. Virginia case. This case set the precedent and reinforced the idea that everyone has a right to marry whomever they desire.

The County Judge Leon M. Bazile, of which the Loving case originated,  stated:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his [arrangement] there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix (Bazile 1).

Obviously, we have advanced in thought since then.

Within the TED talk tell an anecdote from the book, Marriage Across the Color Line by Clotye M. Larsson. Chose either “A Mississippi Story” from page 117 or “Prosecution in New York” from page 120.

Both stories deal with the prosecution of interracial couples in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The stories will provide an interesting first-hand account of how far society has developed since then.

Besides anecdotal evidence, employing statistics would strengthen the analysis of the paradigm shift of interracial marriage. According to multiple sources, the acceptance of interracial relationships has risen dramatically over the years. Likewise, the partaking in interracial marriages has increased exponentially compared to half a century ago.

Include these sources for statistics:

An interesting idea that could be brought up is the fetishization of interracial babies begot from interracial marriages. Even if interracial marriages are accepted, stereotypes still exist around the beauty of “mixed babies.”

Overall, the United States is progressing in many different sectors of cultural and civic life; interracial marriage just happens to be one of those sectors. In the past, interracial marriage threatened the security of “white supremacy.” Why? Because if desegregation was not bad enough, sexual relations between different races exposed the populace to the realities of life: love unbounded by hate.




Skip to toolbar