FROM POSITIVE “RECONSTRUCTION” TO NEGATIVE “REDEMPTION”

 

When it comes to racism and civil rights in America, hard fought victories have often taken a turn for the worse.  This backsliding has produced policies that hamper the equal rights of African Americans. In 2026, the pattern has been repeated, this time initiated by the Supreme Court.

First, some background on Reconstruction followed by the period known as “Southern Redemption.” Redemption erased much of the civil rights progress achieved after the Civil War.

Britannica summarizes the Reconstruction era (1865–1877) as groundbreaking because “it redefined U.S. citizenship, rebuilt the fractured Union after the Civil War, and attempted to create an interracial democracy. Reconstruction permanently transformed the Constitution and the federal government's role in protecting civil rights.”

 

The National Endowment for The Humanities tells us that, “by 1873, many white Southerners were calling for ‘Redemption’ – the return of white supremacy and the removal of rights for Blacks – and the end of Reconstruction. This political pressure to return to the old order was often backed up by mob and paramilitary violence… The South slipped back toward many of the patterns of the antebellum era.”

 

The Jim Crow era in the South did not formally end until the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 (making segregation in public schools unconstitutional), the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Together, these legal and legislative victories enforced the 14th and 15th Amendments, stripping state and local governments of the legal authority to enforce segregation. For the first time since 1865, the federal government renewed its dedication to Reconstruction.

The Civil Rights Act outlawed racial segregation in public accommodations (like theaters, restaurants, and hotels). It also banned employment discrimination based on race.

The Voting Rights Act struck down discriminatory voting practices—such as literacy tests and poll taxes. These practices had historically been used to disenfranchise Black citizens. Section 2 of the Act permitted individuals to sue states for practices like drawing up unfair voting districts.

On April 29, 2026 in Louisiana v. Callais, the six Republican-appointed members to the Supreme Court rewrote the Voting Rights Act to eliminate protections it has long secured for minority voters. The opinion makes it almost impossible for minorities to challenge racially discriminatory voting maps.

To understand the history of complicated constitutional issues and the importance of Supreme Court rulings, my “go-to” source is often David Cole. Cole is a prominent legal scholar, author, and former National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). His works primarily focus on constitutional law, civil liberties, and criminal justice. Cole writes often for the New Yorker and The New York Review of Books.

In a recent article in the latter publication, Cole argues that “the Supreme Court’s decision dealt a fatal blow to the Voting Rights Act.” He believes that the court “adopted reasoning that Congress rejected more than forty years ago.” The title of his article is The Second Redemption.

Cole gives us an excellent example of what the Voting Rights Act was intended to avoid. “Imagine a state in which 20 percent of voters are Black and there are ten congressional seats. If the legislature divides the pie so that Black voters make up 20 percent of the voters in each district, none of the candidates preferred by black voters would make it to Congress. White voters would effectively choose 100 percent of the delegation.”

Cole is especially distressed because Congress had no role in crippling this landmark legislation. There was no debate to determine whether these voting rights should be repealed. In fact, Congress has reauthorized the Act four times since its passage and only expanded, not narrowed its scope.

The recent Supreme Court decision, authored by Justice Alito, all but killed Reconstruction for a second time and supported a second Southern Redemption. One third of Louisiana’s population is African American. Under the 2022 redistricting map, following the census, they were only able to elect one sixth of the state’s congressional delegation. A federal court found that the plaintiffs had a right to create a second Black-majority district, and the state complied.

Justice Alito effectively overturned the interpretation the Supreme Court has given the Voting Rights Act in nearly a dozen precedential decisions over forty years. He has set up a new “test” in striking down the second African American friendly voting district. Cole believes that “no one will be able to satisfy the test.” According to Cole, our Supreme Court majority apparently believes “Congress would be a better place with no Black representation from the south, even from states with substantial Black populations.”

What have been the ramifications of the Alito decision? Already, four Southern States are rushing to redraw their maps to eliminate districts with Black majorities before this year’s midterm elections. More will no doubt do so before the 2028 presidential election.

Cole points out that “In the past, the Court has regularly declined to grant last minute voting rights relief. It did not want to create uncertainty too close to election day. But now the majority seems remarkably willing to cause late-breaking confusion.”

Cole concludes “the future is bleak for both minority voters and for democracy itself. The United States going forward will become even more polarized than it is today.”

When it comes to civil rights in America, the battle is far from over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TIME TO BE MORE REASONABLE AND LESS RATIONAL

 

There may be a simple,but ultimately satisfying way of reconciling our deeply held opinions and those annoying opinions of others with whom we disagree. This commentary will explore the use of a positive approach for holding a discussion involving partisan political views. It will provide a method for seeing through the vitriol of tribal politics that are constantly fed by social media’s confirmation bias. To help save our sanity, our relationships, and perhaps even to save our democratic constitutional republic, it is time to be more reasonable and less rational.

In everyday speech we use the words reasonable and rational as though they are closely related or at least pointing in the same direction. In fact, the two words are opposites in many respects. Once we consider the different meanings that are presented by a machine learning chat box, psychologists, and philosophers, we can use the two concepts to measure how we think about our own opinions and the opinions of others.

Google’s Gemini chat box describes reasonable as “The Fair Mediator.” The definition is “Being open minded, flexible, and taking into account the nuances of a situation.” The focus is on “ensuring fairness for all parties.” Its characteristics include “empathy, flexibility, and being sensible.”

On the other hand, Gemini terms rational as “The Logical Optimizer.” The definition is ‘adhering to logical consistency and facts.” The focus is on “prioritizing self-interest and finding the absolute correct answer.” It is characterized by being “cold, detached, structured, and consistent.”

Gemini concludes that “rationality can be cold and unethical while reasonableness forces us to consider the human, moral, and ethical dimensions of a situation. Reasonableness is crucial in social, legal, and everyday human context where rigidity can lead to unfair outcomes.”

Now that the machines have weighed in, what do human researchers tell us about the differences between being rational and reasonable? While investigating this question, studies involving the “dictator’s game” (DG) came up repeatedly among behavioral psychologists.  The classic DG is a task in which one party, the dictator, is provided with a monetary endowment. The dictator is asked to divide this endowment between himself and a passive recipient who has no role in the decision making. The DG thus reflects an assessment of altruistic versus selfish behavior in a hierarchical social interaction.

Should the dictator keep all the money (rational) or share the windfall (reasonable)? Many different variations of the DG have been studied in many different settings.  In one example, when money is earned through personal effort, the dictator feels less obligated to share it. However, if the money is obtained by chance, the expectation of fairness increases.

The psychologist Susi Ferrarello Ph.D. writes in Psychology Today, that “Being reasonable requires a flexible midpoint between rational thoughts and emotions.” She suggests that being reasonable is often more conducive to navigating complex social worlds than being strictly rational, as it balances personal goals with human, emotional, and social factors.

A relatively new interdisciplinary field of study called “wisdom science” focuses on sound judgment and decision making. It examines how people are guided in making decisions when rational and reasonable standards are considered. A study published in Science Advances presented findings from a systematic attempt to compare and understand rationality and reasonableness.

The studies demonstrated that most people understand rational decisions as “preference-maximizing” and reasonable decisions as “balancing one’s preferences with social norms such as fairness.” The study found that this insight has implications for the way people behave as well as how they evaluate the behavior of others. The research also showed that people would rather have a dedicated “rational person” represent their side in economic and social disputes, However, these same individuals responded more favorably to a more understanding “reasonable person” representing the other side in such disputes.

In today’s political environment, those on the left and the right often hold shared contempt for compromise. Those in the middle that call for reasonableness are labeled political cowards or worse. A new book by a well-respected philosopher decides that reasonableness is exactly what we need.

Krista Lawlor, a professor at Stanford University makes her case in Being Reasonable: The Case for a Misunderstood Virtue. The book explores what it means to be reasonable and why it matters for the well-being of our society. Lawlor concludes that “a reasonable person must be rational enough to figure out what is valuable and thoughtful enough to care about what other people find valuable.” She concludes that by taking command over our emotions, and by interacting attentively with others, we can live up to the standards set by our democratic, pluralistic society and the rule of law.

This is a short book that carries a big punch. Lawlor’s ideas amount to a defense of the reasonable habits that make common life in a democratic, diverse community possible. Those of us that think the only rational alternative to being a victim is to victimize others, have missed important possibilities. Lawlor believes that compromise is not capitulation. It is at a minimum, social survival and may lead to progress.

Lawlor finds that reasonable people “assume responsibility for their judgments and grant others standing to challenge them.” As we enter a highly charged election season, this is an approach worth considering.