He was arguing against desegregation on racist grounds. His conclusion follows from the premise, meaning you only agree with his policy objectives on segregation if you believe the biological pseudoscience that blacks were inferior.
Listen, if you want to completely hijack this thread to debate about the 1960's- let's do it!
I already made my argument about Coronavirus and it would be boring to keep repeating "yeah but what about the classical scholars, tho?".
So anyways.
If you are a white Southern family in 1960's Mississippi- integrating the schools might objectively make your kid's school a more dangerous place. I mean if your kid's school is all white, middle-class kids and you mix them in with a bunch of AA's bussed in from the slums- it might objectively lead to problems.
I don't think 1960's Southern parents were necessarily evil people because they didn't want to send their kids to integrated schools and I don't think it was cool for the government to force it on them. Many back then were talking about having a voluntary option of letting the parents send their kids to nonintegrated schools and giving the parents a choice. I think it might have been good to give the parents a choice.
Honestly, my thoughts are like this: the 1960's movement of forcing integration on people who didn't want it..... I don't think that movement had the best interests of blacks, whites or of children at heart but had a Communist agenda......
look at what George Wallace said
the man had a point and I agree with his views on there being a Communist connection.... Putnam also asserts that the movement plays into the hands of the reds...
I also think MLK was either a Commie or a Communist sympathizer, I dislike him, I think he was a sinister guy and I don't think he was a hero
if you want to accuse me of being interested in the history of the 1960's then I am guilty as charged