Question

read the quotation from the majority of judges in the plessy v ferguson court case, and the opinion of the one dissent, or disagreement. then answer the question.

opinion of the majority of judges:
the argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. we cannot accept this proposition. if the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other’s merits, and a voluntary consent.

select whether each statement describes the viewpoint of the majority or the dissent.
the laws are not written to overcome social prejudice, and do not need to change because that was never their original intent ✓
the segregation laws were set up to exclude black people from riding in cars designated for white people, not the other way around ✓
for two races to feel equal they must willingly appreciate each other’s value ✓
done

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each statement against the majority opinion:

Statement 1:

"The laws are not written to overcome social prejudice, and do not need to change because that was never their original intent"
The majority opinion assumes social prejudices are not overcome by legislation (implying laws don’t aim to fix prejudice). So this matches the majority.

Statement 2:

"The segregation laws were set up to exclude black people from riding in cars designated for white people, not the other way around"
The majority’s reasoning focuses on "enforced commingling" and social equality via "natural affinities," not exclusion. The dissent (likely) would argue segregation is exclusionary, but the majority’s view here is misaligned. Wait, re - check: The majority’s opinion is about social equality needing mutual appreciation, not exclusion. However, the phrasing here is about the intent of segregation laws. The majority’s stance on laws not being for overcoming prejudice (so their intent isn’t to exclude in a way that needs changing) – no, this is confusing. Wait, the majority’s opinion says "equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling" – so segregation laws (like Plessy’s) were about separation, but the majority thought laws can’t force social equality. The statement "segregation laws were set up to exclude black people..." – the majority’s view is that laws aren’t for overcoming prejudice (so their intent isn’t to exclude in a way that’s wrong, but to maintain separation). But actually, the dissent (Justice Harlan) argued segregation was exclusionary. However, the first part of the majority’s opinion: "The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation..." (they reject this, saying equality needs mutual appreciation). The statement "laws are not written to overcome social prejudice..." matches the majority. The second statement: "segregation laws were set up to exclude black people..." – the majority’s view is that segregation laws (like separate cars) are about "separate but equal," not exclusion. So this is more likely the dissent (since the dissent would say segregation is exclusionary). Wait, the original Plessy v. Ferguson majority upheld "separate but equal," saying segregation didn’t imply inferiority. The dissent said it was a badge of inferiority. So:

• "The laws are not written to overcome social prejudice..." → Majority (they say laws can’t fix prejudice, so no need to change).
• "The segregation laws were set up to exclude black people..." → Dissent (since majority said segregation was separate, not exclusionary; dissent said it was exclusionary).
• "For two races to feel equal they must willingly appreciate each other’s value" → Majority (matches their "mutual appreciation" quote).

Final Answers (assuming the checkmarks are to be filled):

1. The laws are not written to overcome social prejudice... → Majority
2. The segregation laws were set up to exclude black people... → Dissent
3. For two races to feel equal they must willingly appreciate each other’s value → Majority

(Note: If the task is to label each blank with "Majority" or "Dissent", the above are the correct assignments based on the Plessy v. Ferguson majority and dissent opinions.)

Answer:

To solve this, we analyze each statement against the majority opinion:

Statement 1:

"The laws are not written to overcome social prejudice, and do not need to change because that was never their original intent"
The majority opinion assumes social prejudices are not overcome by legislation (implying laws don’t aim to fix prejudice). So this matches the majority.

Statement 2:

"The segregation laws were set up to exclude black people from riding in cars designated for white people, not the other way around"
The majority’s reasoning focuses on "enforced commingling" and social equality via "natural affinities," not exclusion. The dissent (likely) would argue segregation is exclusionary, but the majority’s view here is misaligned. Wait, re - check: The majority’s opinion is about social equality needing mutual appreciation, not exclusion. However, the phrasing here is about the intent of segregation laws. The majority’s stance on laws not being for overcoming prejudice (so their intent isn’t to exclude in a way that needs changing) – no, this is confusing. Wait, the majority’s opinion says "equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling" – so segregation laws (like Plessy’s) were about separation, but the majority thought laws can’t force social equality. The statement "segregation laws were set up to exclude black people..." – the majority’s view is that laws aren’t for overcoming prejudice (so their intent isn’t to exclude in a way that’s wrong, but to maintain separation). But actually, the dissent (Justice Harlan) argued segregation was exclusionary. However, the first part of the majority’s opinion: "The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation..." (they reject this, saying equality needs mutual appreciation). The statement "laws are not written to overcome social prejudice..." matches the majority. The second statement: "segregation laws were set up to exclude black people..." – the majority’s view is that segregation laws (like separate cars) are about "separate but equal," not exclusion. So this is more likely the dissent (since the dissent would say segregation is exclusionary). Wait, the original Plessy v. Ferguson majority upheld "separate but equal," saying segregation didn’t imply inferiority. The dissent said it was a badge of inferiority. So:

• "The laws are not written to overcome social prejudice..." → Majority (they say laws can’t fix prejudice, so no need to change).
• "The segregation laws were set up to exclude black people..." → Dissent (since majority said segregation was separate, not exclusionary; dissent said it was exclusionary).
• "For two races to feel equal they must willingly appreciate each other’s value" → Majority (matches their "mutual appreciation" quote).

Final Answers (assuming the checkmarks are to be filled):

1. The laws are not written to overcome social prejudice... → Majority
2. The segregation laws were set up to exclude black people... → Dissent
3. For two races to feel equal they must willingly appreciate each other’s value → Majority

(Note: If the task is to label each blank with "Majority" or "Dissent", the above are the correct assignments based on the Plessy v. Ferguson majority and dissent opinions.)