We gradually came to realize that equal protection really had to say that we can't discriminate in school attendance, and then beyond school attendance into many other fields.
Is this a rhetorical device?
It has to be retorical, because the premise is not true. The equal protection amendment was first applied to juries, then to transportation, then to voting rights, and some 80 years after it was inacted was it applied to school attendence. Then the conclusion is wrong: The equal protection clause applies only to government, not anything else. What has happened is that the Civil Rights act (passed under the commerce clause) extended the "equality" of races to many other fields, outside the bounds of just government bodies.
Yes, it is retoric.
thanks, what type of rhetorical is this?
No, this statement does not appear to be a rhetorical device. It seems to be a statement about the evolution and understanding of the principle of equal protection in relation to discrimination in various domains beyond school attendance.
If you are uncertain about the use of rhetorical devices in a text, it is helpful to look for specific characteristics that commonly indicate the use of rhetorical devices. These characteristics can include the use of persuasive language, exaggerated statements, repetition for emphasis, and intentional use of figurative language. By analyzing the specific elements and context of the text, you can determine if it employs any rhetorical devices.