As the author of the book, To Kill a Mockingbird, the story on which the triumphant and memorable Hollywood movie of the same name was based, Harper Lee is an important writer. In that now well known story humble southern lawyer Atticus Finch defends a black man accused of serious crime in the deep South in the years before desegregation had begun to succeed. The character is often considered a hero in the cause of racial justice. For that reason alone her new book, Go Set a Watchman, would make the national news. Even more newsworthy is that Atticus Finch is back with startling new details of his character.
On the inside of the jacket of the book, in the "blurb," it says "Written in the mid 1950's ..." where it probably means "Set in the mid 1950's." : The copyright says 2015. A reader might never guess it was written in 2015 though. There is nothing in the book that ties the story to modern times. It could be a very accurate picture in every detail of the 1950's, but it doesn't address the issues as they have definitely changed over the years. It is after all a book set in the 1950s.
Before the United States Supreme Court ruling in 1954 that ended segregation of public schools, the argument "separate but equal" was used to justify segregation. Because the court did not agree that equality of opportunity was possible that way, desegregation rather was ordered instead. There is little argument today that indeed drastic measures were necessary to ensure equal opportunity in the culture prevalent in the South at that time.
That was then. Today there are far more blacks with considerable success in education, and in the economic and social status that can be achieved with a good education. The notion that today an all black school would necessarily be inferior is not as true as it might have been in 1954. There are new opportunities.
Of course there is a reason they're called "universities." They take a comprehensive approach to knowledge. Even today with all the new opportunities available to blacks, the best education is still likely one that studies cultures other than the one in the place and the time of a particular student, whatever culture that might be. School is a place where a variety of cultures should be studied.
There are private endeavors though. Dining, sports, other entertainments, and religion need not and often do not serve every preference. Rather, they usually serve a particular segment of society. It doesn't mean they are in opposition. The people who make Italian food don't mind if you eat Mexican or Chinese or any other style. Each of the restaurants might even have some accommodations for people who prefer something else.
The issues today concern whether that is acceptable. Should every private endeavor be made as "universal" as the schools are? Is there anything wrong with having "black" churches, music, cuisine or sports? Do such activities threaten the "equality" the government is supposed to maintain? Is the notion of "separate but equal" as unrealistic as it was in 1954?
It appears that football appeals to whites and blacks about the same. Few other nongovernmental activities do. Tennis and baseball might appeal more to whites. Basketball might appeal more to blacks. Ping pong, cricket, soccer, ice skating and other sports might appeal more to some nationalities than others. Several books and movies and much music will appeal to specific segments of society and for definite purposes. That does not mean those are in any opposition to other books, movies, or music. It merely means that there is a specific audience. It means there are more choices and the freedom to choose them.
Is it necessary for the government to eliminate all cultural diversity? Should government ensure that there be Mah Jong tiles that represent black people? Should government force white men to jump, play basketball, under penalty of law?
In 1954 it appeared that blacks would not succeed in the culture prevalent in the South till then. Is that still true? Or did desegregation perhaps actually work? Is that job done?
The concept of "freedom" that the government is supposed to maintain gets misunderstood. In their frenzy to ensure "freedom" some people have promoted a government that takes all personal choices away. It might be an "equality" of sorts, but it takes away the choices.
You might recall Donald Sterling then owner of the Los Angeles Clippers was severely penalized for comments considered to be "racist." Yet it is still neither illegal nor unethical to select a specific audience for nongovernmental activities. Basketball is not a governmental activity. There is nothing wrong with attending or participating in a sport with more whites, or more blacks or more of any other particular segment of society. Otherwise tennis and baseball would be forced to make changes. If they want basketball to be equally appealing to whites and blacks, they might have to turn it into football. The reason football appeals about the same to whites and blacks might not have anything to do with anyone's efforts. It could have just turned out that way. Donald Sterling might have been a racist in ways we will never know, but the effort to eliminate the cultural differences apparent in many activities is no solution.
Harper Lee's book Go Set a Watchman is set in the mid 1950s. It might have been written then as well for all the evidence. It does not address the issues as they have developed over the years. If there were a school of all blacks, with books authored by blacks and taught by black teachers and black professors, would it necessarily be inferior to other schools? Would it be necessary for anyone to be bussed to another school in order to obtain equal opportunity? In many parts of the country probably not. Some areas however might still lack that black success.
It might serve to consider whether the role of government is to ensure the "equality" of sameness without choices or the "equality of opportunity" to be the same or different as each one freely chooses.
Perhaps there will be a third book about the issues as they have developed these days.