Question

\laws permitting, and even requiring, racial separation in places where the races are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. the most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, which has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of states where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced. ... we think the enforced separation of the races, as applied to the internal commerce of the state, neither abridges the privileges or immunities of the colored man, deprives him of his property without due process of law, nor denies him the equal protection of the laws within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment...\ —plessy v. ferguson, supreme court of the united states (163 u.s. 537), may 18, 1896 the supreme court decision cited in the text declared that ○ minorities could not be denied equal rights. ○ racial segregation was not unconstitutional. ○ rules to keep african americans from voting were not constitutional. ○ schools could only educate african americans separately.

Explanation:

The text from Plessy v. Ferguson discusses racial separation laws. It states that such laws (like separate schools) do not imply racial inferiority and are within state legislative power. It also claims that enforced racial separation (in state internal commerce) does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment (no abridging of privileges, no deprivation of property without due process, and no denial of equal protection). This implies that racial segregation was considered constitutional (not unconstitutional) under this decision.

Answer:

racial segregation was not unconstitutional.