RSS Feeds
Tensions in the Racial Integration of Health Care, Then and Now
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
•Type with double-spacing
•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
TO THE EDITOR:
I read with interest the recent article by Reynolds [1] on the role of the federal courts in desegregating health care. The article refers to the U.S. Supreme Court as having decided, by denying a writ of certiorari in Simkins, to desegregate health care facilities. In fact, what the article details is a 1963 “decision” made by a federal appellate court (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit), after which the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to consider the case further (denying certiorari). A denial of certiorari lets a lower-court decision stand by inertia. A decision on certiorari, formally speaking, is an act of “judicial discretion” [2], and decisions to deny or grant certiorari are not an expression of either agreement or disagreement with the merits of the decision of the lower appellate court.
The distinction is more than a legalistic one. The Supreme Court had indeed made a major step in 1954 when it declared unanimously in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas that segregated public schools were unconstitutional; however, it did not at that time call for immediate school desegregation, nor did it initially articulate the position that segregation was out-lawed in all state activity [3]. It was not until 1967 that the Supreme Court made clear, for example, that a state ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional [4]. This gradual approach by the Supreme Court left an important role for others in the judiciary and legislative bodies. The Simkins case discussed in Reynolds's article illustrates the important role that the federal courts throughout the South played in shaping, consolidating, and reinforcing the push toward racial equality, both before and after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v Board of Education [5].
Neil J. Nusbaum, JD, MD
Tulane University School of Medicine; New Orleans, LA 70112
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
•Type with double-spacing
•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
- Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians
