Get answer

1) introduce your reader to the form-first/norm-first distinction between formal and substantive equality; 2) introduce your reader to the basic facts behind Brown v. Board of Education (no need to go into the specifics of the four different cases); 3) identify the legal issue at the heart of the case according to the Supreme Court’s opinion; (Note: there are a lot of different possible interpretations; try to stick as close as possible to what’s explicitly given in the text of the opinion.) 4) identify the legal issue at the heart of the case according to Wechsler; 5) explain Wechsler’s criticism of Brown; 6) explain how Wechsler’s criticism of Brown can be interpreted as an instance of form-first formal equality reasoning; 7) motivate the idea that 6) is an objection to Wechsler’s criticism; and 8) do one of the following: a) answer the objection on Wechsler’s behalf; or b) explain why you think the objection can’t be answered on Wechsler’s behalf. Steps 7) & 8) involve thinking hard about what norm-first substantive equality theorists find objectionable about form-first formal equality theorists. It should be something more than the claim that they just happen to have different views about what the real substance of equality is (though it’s fine if this claim is part of your analysis). Also see the notes above in Prompt Option 1 regarding avoiding procedural legal points and focusing on the norms/values/principles you think are or should be embodied in the law.