Brown v. Board of Education | Wikipedia audio article


Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347
U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court
ruled that American state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional,
even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. Handed down on May 17, 1954,
the Court’s unanimous (9–0) decision stated that “separate educational facilities are
inherently unequal,” and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, the decision’s 14 pages did not spell out
any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court’s second decision
in Brown II (349 U.S. 294 (1955)) only ordered states to desegregate “with all deliberate
speed”. The decision came out of a case from Topeka,
Kansas, where the public elementary schools had been segregated by race since the late
19th century. In 1951, the Topeka public school district refused to enroll the daughter of
local black resident Oliver Brown at the school closest to their home, instead requiring her
to ride a bus to a segregated black elementary school further away. The Browns and twelve
other local black families in similar situations then filed a class action lawsuit in U.S.
federal court against the Topeka Board of Education, alleging that its segregation policy
was unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas rendered a verdict against the Browns, relying on the precedent of the Supreme Court’s
1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the Court had ruled that racial segregation
was not in itself a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause if the
facilities in question were otherwise equal, a doctrine that had come to be known as “separate
but equal”. The Browns, then represented by NAACP chief counsel Thurgood Marshall, appealed
to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Court’s decision in Brown partially overruled Plessy v. Ferguson by declaring that the “separate
but equal” notion was unconstitutional for American public schools and educational facilities.
It paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the Civil Rights Movement,
and a model for many future impact litigation cases. In the American South, especially the
“Deep South”, where racial segregation was deeply entrenched, the reaction to Brown among
most white people was “noisy and stubborn”. Many Southern governmental and political leaders
embraced a plan known as “Massive Resistance”, created by Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd,
in order to frustrate attempts to force them to de-segregate their school systems. Four
years later, in the case of Cooper v. Aaron, the Court reaffirmed its ruling in Brown,
and explicitly stated that state officials and legislators had no power to nullify its
ruling.==Background==For much of the sixty years preceding the
Brown case, race relations in the United States had been dominated by racial segregation.
This policy had been endorsed in 1896 by the United States Supreme Court case of Plessy
v. Ferguson, which held that as long as the separate facilities for the separate races
were equal, segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment (“no State shall … deny
to any person … the equal protection of the laws”).The plaintiffs in Brown asserted
that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal
treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations,
services, and treatment for black Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely
from the 17 states that required racial segregation to the 16 in which it was prohibited. Brown
was influenced by UNESCO’s 1950 Statement, signed by a wide variety of internationally
renowned scholars, titled The Race Question. This declaration denounced previous attempts
at scientifically justifying racism as well as morally condemning racism. Another work
that the Supreme Court cited was Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and
Modern Democracy (1944). Myrdal had been a signatory of the UNESCO declaration.
The United States and the Soviet Union were both at the height of the Cold War during
this time, and U.S. officials, including Supreme Court Justices, were highly aware of the harm
that segregation and racism played on America’s international image. When Justice William
O. Douglas traveled to India in 1950, the first question he was asked was, “Why does
America tolerate the lynching of Negroes?” Douglas later wrote that he had learned from
his travels that “the attitude of the United States toward its colored minorities is a
powerful factor in our relations with India.” Chief Justice Earl Warren, nominated to the
Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, echoed Douglas’s concerns in a 1954 speech to the
American Bar Association, proclaiming that “Our American system like all others is on
trial both at home and abroad, … the extent to which we maintain the spirit of our constitution
with its Bill of Rights, will in the long run do more to make it both secure and the
object of adulation than the number of hydrogen bombs we stockpile.”==
District court case=====
Filing and arguments===In 1951, a class action suit was filed against
the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas in the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs were thirteen Topeka parents on behalf of
their 20 children.The suit called for the school district to reverse its policy of racial
segregation. The Topeka Board of Education operated separate elementary schools due to
a 1879 Kansas law, which permitted (but did not require) districts to maintain separate
elementary school facilities for black and white students in 12 communities with populations
over 15,000. The plaintiffs had been recruited by the leadership of the Topeka NAACP. Notable
among the Topeka NAACP leaders were the chairman McKinley Burnett; Charles Scott, one of three
serving as legal counsel for the chapter; and Lucinda Todd.
The named plaintiff, Oliver Brown, was a parent, a welder in the shops of the Santa Fe Railroad,
an assistant pastor at his local church, and an African American. He was convinced to join
the lawsuit by Scott, a childhood friend. Brown’s daughter Linda Carol Brown, a third
grader, had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop to ride to Monroe Elementary, her
segregated black school one mile (1.6 km) away, while Sumner Elementary, a white school,
was seven blocks from her house.As directed by the NAACP leadership, the parents each
attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school in the fall of
1951. They were each refused enrollment and directed to the segregated schools.
The case “Oliver Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas” was named
after Oliver Brown as a legal strategy to have a man at the head of the roster. The
lawyers, and the National Chapter of the NAACP, also felt that having Mr. Brown at the head
of the roster would be better received by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The 13 plaintiffs
were: Oliver Brown, Darlene Brown, Lena Carper, Sadie Emmanuel, Marguerite Emerson, Shirley
Fleming, Zelma Henderson, Shirley Hodison, Maude Lawton, Alma Lewis, Iona Richardson,
and Lucinda Todd. The last surviving plaintiff, Zelma Henderson, died in Topeka, on May 20,
2008, at age 88.The District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, citing the
U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), which had
upheld a state law requiring “separate but equal” segregated facilities for blacks and
whites in railway cars. The three-judge District Court panel found that segregation in public
education has a detrimental effect on negro children, but denied relief on the ground
that the negro and white schools in Topeka were substantially equal with respect to buildings,
transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers.==Supreme Court arguments==
The case of Brown v. Board of Education as heard before the Supreme Court combined five
cases: Brown itself, Briggs v. Elliott (filed in South Carolina), Davis v. County School
Board of Prince Edward County (filed in Virginia), Gebhart v. Belton (filed in Delaware), and
Bolling v. Sharpe (filed in Washington, D.C.). All were NAACP-sponsored cases. The Davis
case, the only case of the five originating from a student protest, began when 16-year-old
Barbara Rose Johns organized and led a 450-student walkout of Moton High School. The Gebhart
case was the only one where a trial court, affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court, found
that discrimination was unlawful; in all the other cases the plaintiffs had lost as the
original courts had found discrimination to be lawful.
The Kansas case was unique among the group in that there was no contention of gross inferiority
of the segregated schools’ physical plant, curriculum, or staff. The district court found
substantial equality as to all such factors. The lower court, in its opinion, noted that,
in Topeka, “the physical facilities, the curricula, courses of study, qualification and quality
of teachers, as well as other educational facilities in the two sets of schools [were]
comparable.” The lower court observed that “colored children in many instances are required
to travel much greater distances than they would be required to travel could they attend
a white school” but also noted that the school district “transports colored children to and
from school free of charge” and that “no such service [was] provided to white children.”In
the Delaware case the district court judge in Gebhart ordered that the black students
be admitted to the white high school due to the substantial harm of segregation and the
differences that made the separate schools unequal.
The NAACP’s chief counsel, Thurgood Marshall—who was later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1967—argued the case before the Supreme Court for the plaintiffs. Assistant attorney
general Paul Wilson—later distinguished emeritus professor of law at the University
of Kansas—conducted the state’s ambivalent defense in his first appellate argument.
In December 1952, the Justice Department filed a friend of the court brief in the case. The
brief was unusual in its heavy emphasis on foreign-policy considerations of the Truman
administration in a case ostensibly about domestic issues. Of the seven pages covering
“the interest of the United States,” five focused on the way school segregation hurt
the United States in the Cold War competition for the friendship and allegiance of non-white
peoples in countries then gaining independence from colonial rule. Attorney General James
P. McGranery noted that The existence of discrimination against minority
groups in the United States has an adverse effect upon our relations with other countries.
Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills.
The brief also quoted a letter by Secretary of State Dean Acheson lamenting that The United States is under constant attack
in the foreign press, over the foreign radio, and in such international bodies as the United
Nations because of various practices of discrimination in this country.
British barrister and parliamentarian Anthony Lester has written that “Although the Court’s
opinion in Brown made no reference to these considerations of foreign policy, there is
no doubt that they significantly influenced the decision.”===
Consensus building===In spring 1953, the Court heard the case but
was unable to decide the issue and asked to rehear the case in fall 1953, with special
attention to whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibited the operation
of separate public schools for whites and blacks.The Court reargued the case at the
behest of Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, who used reargument as a stalling tactic,
to allow the Court to gather a consensus around a Brown opinion that would outlaw segregation.
The justices in support of desegregation spent much effort convincing those who initially
intended to dissent to join a unanimous opinion. Although the legal effect would be same for
a majority rather than unanimous decision, it was felt that dissent could be used by
segregation supporters as a legitimizing counter-argument. Conference notes and draft decisions illustrate
the division of opinions before the decision was issued. Justices Douglas, Black, Burton,
and Minton were predisposed to overturn Plessy. Fred M. Vinson noted that Congress had not
issued desegregation legislation; Stanley F. Reed discussed incomplete cultural assimilation
and states’ rights and was inclined to the view that segregation worked to the benefit
of the African-American community; Tom C. Clark wrote that “we had led the states on
to think segregation is OK and we should let them work it out.” Felix Frankfurter and Robert
H. Jackson disapproved of segregation, but were also opposed to judicial activism and
expressed concerns about the proposed decision’s enforceability. Chief Justice Vinson had been
a key stumbling block. After Vinson died in September 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower
appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice. Warren had supported the integration of Mexican-American
students in California school systems following Mendez v. Westminster. However, Eisenhower
invited Earl Warren to a White House dinner, where the president told him: “These [southern
whites] are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls
are not required to sit in school alongside some big overgrown Negroes.” Nevertheless,
the Justice Department sided with the African American plaintiffs.While all but one justice
personally rejected segregation, the judicial restraint faction questioned whether the Constitution
gave the Court the power to order its end. The activist faction believed the Fourteenth
Amendment did give the necessary authority and were pushing to go ahead. Warren, who
held only a recess appointment, held his tongue until the Senate confirmed his appointment.
Warren convened a meeting of the justices, and presented to them the simple argument
that the only reason to sustain segregation was an honest belief in the inferiority of
Negroes. Warren further submitted that the Court must overrule Plessy to maintain its
legitimacy as an institution of liberty, and it must do so unanimously to avoid massive
Southern resistance. He began to build a unanimous opinion. Although most justices were immediately
convinced, Warren spent some time after this famous speech convincing everyone to sign
onto the opinion. Justice Jackson dropped his concurrence and Reed finally decided to
drop his dissent. The final decision was unanimous. Warren drafted the basic opinion and kept
circulating and revising it until he had an opinion endorsed by all the members of the
Court. Reed was the last holdout and reportedly cried during the reading of the opinion.==Decision==On May 17, 1954, the Court issued a unanimous
9–0 decision in favor of the Brown family and the other plaintiffs. The decision consists
of a single opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, which all the justices joined.The
Court’s opinion began by noting that it had attempted to find an answer to the question
of whether the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to abolish segregation in public education
by hearing a second round of oral arguments from the parties’ lawyers specifically on
the historical sources relating to its drafting and ratification, but to no avail.
Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress,
ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial segregation, and the views
of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation
convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the
problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The Court also stated that using historical
information on the original scope of the Fourteenth Amendment’s application to public education
was difficult because of intervening societal and governmental changes. It noted that in
1868, when the Amendment was adopted, public schools were uncommon in the American South.
White children whose families could afford schooling usually attended private schools,
and the education of black children was “almost nonexistent”, to the point that in some Southern
states any education of black people had actually been forbidden by law. The Court contrasted
this with the situation in 1954: “Today, education is perhaps the most important function of
our local and state governments.” It concluded that, in making its ruling, the Court would
have to “consider public education in light of its full development and its present place
in American life throughout the Nation.”The Court did not address the issues regarding
the many instances in which the segregated educational facilities for black children
in the cases were inferior in quality to those for white children, probably because some
of the school districts involved had made improvements to their black schools to “equalize”
them with the quality of the white schools. This prevented the Court from finding a violation
of the Equal Protection Clause in “measurable inequalities” between all white and black
schools, and instead required it to look to the effects of segregation itself. Thus, the
Court framed the case around the more general question of whether the principle of “separate
but equal” was constitutional when applied to public education:
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools
solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors
may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? In answer, the Court ruled that it did. It
held that state-mandated segregation, even if implemented in schools of otherwise equal
quality, is inherently unequal: “To separate [black children] from others of similar age
and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as
to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely
to ever be undone.” The Court supported this conclusion with citations—in a footnote,
not the main text of the opinion—to a number of psychology studies that purported to show
that segregating black children made them feel inferior and interfered with their learning.
These studies included those of Kenneth and Mamie Clark, whose experiments in the 1940s
had suggested that black children from segregated environments preferred white dolls over black
dolls. The Court then concluded its relatively short
opinion by declaring that segregated public education was inherently unequal, violated
the Equal Protection Clause, and therefore was unconstitutional: We conclude that in the field of public education
the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are
inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated
for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of,
deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did not close with an order to implement
the remedy of integrating the schools of the various jurisdictions, but instead requested
the parties to re-appear before the Court the following Term in order to hold arguments
on the issue. This became the case known as Brown II, described below.==Reaction and aftermath==
Although Americans generally cheered the Court’s decision in Brown, most white citizens in
the American South decried it, and progress on integrating American schools moved slowly.
Many Southern white Americans viewed Brown v. Board of Education as “a day of catastrophe
— a Black Monday — a day something like Pearl Harbor”. The American political historian
Robert G. McCloskey wrote: The reaction of the white South to this judicial
onslaught on its institutions was noisy and stubborn. Certain “border states,” which
had formerly maintained segregated school systems, did integrate, and others permitted
the token admission of a few Negro students to schools that had once been racially unmixed.
However, the Deep South made no moves to obey the judicial command, and in some districts
there can be no doubt that the Desegregation decision hardened resistance to integration
proposals. In Virginia, Senator Harry F. Byrd organized
the Massive Resistance movement that included the closing of schools rather than desegregating
them.===Deep South===
Texas Attorney General John Ben Shepperd organized a campaign to generate legal obstacles to
implementation of desegregation.In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out his state’s
National Guard to block black students’ entry to Little Rock Central High School. President
Dwight Eisenhower responded by deploying elements of the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell,
Kentucky, to Arkansas and by federalizing Arkansas’s National Guard.Also in 1957, Florida’s
response was mixed. Its legislature passed an Interposition Resolution denouncing the
decision and declaring it null and void. But Florida Governor LeRoy Collins, though joining
in the protest against the court decision, refused to sign it, arguing that the attempt
to overturn the ruling must be done by legal methods.
In Mississippi fear of violence prevented any plaintiff from bringing a school desegregation
suit for the next nine years. When Medgar Evers sued to desegregate Jackson, Mississippi
schools in 1963 White Citizens Council member Byron De La Beckwith murdered him. Two subsequent
trials resulted in hung juries. Beckwith was not convicted of the murder until 1994.In
1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace personally blocked the door to Foster Auditorium at the
University of Alabama to prevent the enrollment of two black students. This became the infamous
Stand in the Schoolhouse Door where Wallace personally backed his “segregation now, segregation
tomorrow, segregation forever” policy that he had stated in his 1963 inaugural address.
He moved aside only when confronted by General Henry Graham of the Alabama National Guard,
who was ordered by President John F. Kennedy to intervene.
Native American communities were also heavily impacted by segregation laws with native children
also being prohibited from attending white institutions. Native American children considered
light-complexioned were allowed to ride school buses to previously all white schools, while
dark-skinned Native children from the same band were still barred from riding the same
buses. Tribal leaders, learned about Dr. King’s desegregation campaign in Birmingham, Alabama,
contacted him for assistance. King promptly responded to the tribal leaders and through
his intervention the problem was quickly resolved.===Upland South===
In North Carolina, there was often a strategy of nominally accepting Brown, but tacitly
resisting it. On May 18, 1954 the Greensboro, North Carolina school board declared that
it would abide by the Brown ruling. This was the result of the initiative of D. E. Hudgins
Jr., a former Rhodes Scholar and prominent attorney, who chaired the school board. This
made Greensboro the first, and for years the only, city in the South, to announce its intent
to comply. However, others in the city resisted integration, putting up legal obstacles to
the actual implementation of school desegregation for years afterward, and in 1969, the federal
government found the city was not in compliance with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Transition
to a fully integrated school system did not begin until 1971, after numerous local lawsuits
and both nonviolent and violent demonstrations. Historians have noted the irony that Greensboro,
which had heralded itself as such a progressive city, was one of the last holdouts for school
desegregation.In Moberly, Missouri, the schools were desegregated, as ordered. However, after
1955, the African-American teachers from the local “negro school” were not retained; this
was ascribed to poor performance. They appealed their dismissal in Naomi Brooks et al., Appellants,
v. School District of City of Moberly, Missouri, Etc., et al.; but it was upheld, and SCOTUS
declined to hear a further appeal.Virginia had one of the companion cases in Brown, involving
the Prince Edward County schools. Significant opposition to the Brown verdict included U.S.
senator Harry F. Byrd, who led the Byrd Organization and promised a strategy of Massive Resistance.
Governor Thomas Stanley, a member of the Byrd Organization, appointed the Gray Commission,
32 Democrats led by state senator Garland Gray, to study the issue and make recommendations.
The commission recommended giving localities “broad discretion” in meeting the new judicial
requirements. However, in 1956, a special session of the Virginia legislature adopted
a legislative package which allowed the governor to simply close all schools under desegregation
orders from federal courts. In early 1958, newly elected Governor James Lindsay Almond
Jr. closed public schools in Charlottesville, Norfolk, and Warren County rather than comply
with desegregation orders, leaving 10,000 children without schools despite efforts of
various parent groups. However, he reconsidered when on the Lee-Jackson state holiday, both
the Virginia Supreme Court ruled the closures violated the state constitution, and a panel
of federal judges ruled they violated the U.S. Constitution. In early February 1959,
both the Arlington County (also subject to a NAACP lawsuit, and which had lost its elected
school board pursuant to other parts of the Stanley Plan) and Norfolk schools desegregated
peacefully. Soon all counties reopened and integrated with the exception of Prince Edward
County. That took the extreme step of choosing not to appropriate any funding for its school
system, thus forcing all its public schools to close, although Prince Edward County provided
tuition grants for all students, regardless of their race, to use for private, nonsectarian
education. Since no private schools existed for blacks within the county, black children
in the county either had to leave the county to receive any education between 1959 to 1963,
or received no education. All private schools in the region remained racially segregated.
This lasted until 1964, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Prince Edward County’s decision
to provide tuition grants for private schools that only admitted whites violated the equal
protection clause of the 14th amendment, in the case of Griffin v. County School Board
of Prince Edward County.===North===
Many Northern cities also had de facto segregation policies, which resulted in a vast gulf in
educational resources between black and white communities. In Harlem, New York, for example,
not a single new school had been built since the turn of the century, nor did a single
nursery school exist, even as the Second Great Migration caused overcrowding of existing
schools. Existing schools tended to be dilapidated and staffed with inexperienced teachers. Northern
officials were in denial of the segregation, but Brown helped stimulate activism among
African-American parents like Mae Mallory who, with support of the NAACP, initiated
a successful lawsuit against the city and State of New York on Brown’s principles. Mallory
and thousands of other parents bolstered the pressure of the lawsuit with a school boycott
in 1959. During the boycott, some of the first freedom schools of the period were established.
The city responded to the campaign by permitting more open transfers to high-quality, historically-white
schools. (New York’s African-American community, and Northern desegregation activists generally,
now found themselves contending with the problem of white flight, however.)===
Topeka===The Topeka junior high schools had been integrated
since 1941. Topeka High School was integrated from its inception in 1871 and its sports
teams from 1949 on. The Kansas law permitting segregated schools allowed them only “below
the high school level”.Soon after the district court decision, election outcomes and the
political climate in Topeka changed. The Board of Education of Topeka began to end segregation
in the Topeka elementary schools in August 1953, integrating two attendance districts.
All the Topeka elementary schools were changed to neighborhood attendance centers in January
1956, although existing students were allowed to continue attending their prior assigned
schools at their option. Plaintiff Zelma Henderson, in a 2004 interview, recalled that no demonstrations
or tumult accompanied desegregation in Topeka’s schools: “They accepted it,” she said. “It wasn’t too
long until they integrated the teachers and principals.”
The Topeka Public Schools administration building is named in honor of McKinley Burnett, NAACP
chapter president who organized the case.Monroe Elementary was designated a U.S. National
Historic Site unit of the National Park Service on October 26, 1992.
The intellectual roots of Plessy v. Ferguson, the landmark United States Supreme Court decision
upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation in 1896 under the doctrine of
“separate but equal” were, in part, tied to the scientific racism of the era. However,
the popular support for the decision was more likely a result of the racist beliefs held
by many whites at the time. In deciding Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court rejected
the ideas of scientific racists about the need for segregation, especially in schools.
The Court buttressed its holding by citing (in footnote 11) social science research about
the harms to black children caused by segregated schools.
Both scholarly and popular ideas of hereditarianism played an important role in the attack and
backlash that followed the Brown decision. The Mankind Quarterly was founded in 1960,
in part in response to the Brown decision.==Legal criticism and praise==William Rehnquist wrote a memo titled “A Random
Thought on the Segregation Cases” when he was a law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson
in 1952, during early deliberations that led to the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
In his memo, Rehnquist argued: “I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian
position, for which I have been excoriated by ‘liberal’ colleagues but I think Plessy
v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.” Rehnquist continued, “To the argument . . . that
a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made
that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine
what the constitutional rights of the minorities are.” Rehnquist also argued for Plessy with
other law clerks.However, during his 1971 confirmation hearings, Rehnquist said, “I
believe that the memorandum was prepared by me as a statement of Justice Jackson’s tentative
views for his own use.” Justice Jackson had initially planned to join a dissent in Brown.
Later, at his 1986 hearings for the slot of Chief Justice, Rehnquist put further distance
between himself and the 1952 memo: “The bald statement that Plessy was right and should
be reaffirmed, was not an accurate reflection of my own views at the time.”
In any event, while serving on the Supreme Court, Rehnquist made no effort to reverse
or undermine the Brown decision, and frequently relied upon it as precedent.Chief Justice
Warren’s reasoning was broadly criticized by contemporary legal academics with Judge
Learned Hand decrying that the Supreme Court had “assumed the role of a third legislative
chamber” and Herbert Wechsler finding Brown impossible to justify based on neutral principles.Some
aspects of the Brown decision are still debated. Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
himself an African American, wrote in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that at the very least,
Brown I has been misunderstood by the courts. Brown I did not say that “racially isolated”
schools were inherently inferior; the harm that it identified was tied purely to de jure
segregation, not de facto segregation. Indeed, Brown I itself did not need to rely upon any
psychological or social-science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental
truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race. …
Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings
of inferiority. Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior
educational resources making blacks “feel” superior to whites sent to lesser schools—would
violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized,
just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury
or benefit is irrelevant … Given that desegregation has not produced
the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement, there is no reason to think that
black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they
are in an integrated environment. (…) Because of their “distinctive histories and traditions,”
black schools can function as the center and symbol of black communities, and provide examples
of independent black leadership, success, and achievement. Some Constitutional originalists, notably
Raoul Berger in his influential 1977 book “Government by Judiciary,” make the case that
Brown cannot be defended by reference to the original understanding of the 14th Amendment.
They support this reading of the 14th Amendment by noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1875
did not ban segregated schools and that the same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment
also voted to segregate schools in the District of Columbia. Other originalists, including
Michael W. McConnell, a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, in his article “Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions,” argue that the Radical
Reconstructionists who spearheaded the 14th Amendment were in favor of desegregated southern
schools. Evidence supporting this interpretation of the 14th Amendment has come from archived
Congressional records showing that proposals for federal legislation which would enforce
school integration were debated in Congress a few years following the amendment’s ratification.In
response to Michael McConnell’s research, Raoul Berger argued that the Congressmen and
Senators who were advocating in favor of school desegregation in the 1870s were trying to
rewrite the 14th Amendment in order to make the 14th Amendment fit their political agenda
and that the actual understanding of the 14th Amendment from 1866 to 1868 (which is when
the 14th Amendment was actually passed and ratified) does, in fact, permit US states
to have segregated schools. Berger criticized McConnell for being unable to find any reference
to school segregation–let alone any reference to a desire to prohibit it–among supporters
of the 14th Amendment in the congressional history of this amendment (specifically in
the recordings of the 39th United States Congress, since that was the US Congress that actually
passed the 14th Amendment) and also criticized McConnell’s view that the 1954 view of “civil
rights” should be decisive in interpreting the 14th Amendment as opposed to the 1866
view of “civil rights.” Berger also argues that McConnell failed to provide any evidence
that the state legislatures who ratified the 14th Amendment understood it at the time as
prohibiting school segregation and that whenever the question of school segregation’s compatibility
with the US Constitution (as opposed to the separate question of school segregation’s
compatibility with US state law and/or US state constitutions, where courts have often
ruled against school segregation) reached the judiciary in the couple of decades after
the passage and ratification of the 14th Amendment (whether in Ohio, Nevada, California, Indiana,
or New York), courts have always affirmed the constitutionality of school segregation–as
did Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas M. Cooley in his 1880 treatise The General
Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America. In addition, Berger argues
that the views of the draftsmen of the 14th Amendment in 1866 are decisive–as opposed
to the views of later readers of the 14th Amendment (including the views of supporters
of the 14th Amendment after this amendment’s passage and ratification due to the fact that
even their views and beliefs can change over time–like with Nevada U.S. Senator William
Morris Stewart, who initially opposed school desegregation but later changed his mind and
supported it). To back up his view about original intent being decisive, Berger cites–among
other things–an 1871 quote by James A. Garfield to John Bingham where Garfield challenged
Bingham’s recollection of a statement that Bingham previously made in 1866–with Garfield
telling Bingham that he can make but not unmake history.The case also has attracted some criticism
from more liberal authors, including some who say that Chief Justice Warren’s reliance
on psychological criteria to find a harm against segregated blacks was unnecessary. For example,
Drew S. Days has written: “we have developed criteria for evaluating the constitutionality
of racial classifications that do not depend upon findings of psychic harm or social science
evidence. They are based rather on the principle that ‘distinctions between citizens solely
because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions
are founded upon the doctrine of equality,’ Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81
(1943). . . .” In his book The Tempting of America (page
82), Robert Bork endorsed the Brown decision as follows: By 1954, when Brown came up for decision,
it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside
from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as
good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases
… The Court’s realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality
by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no
third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding,
but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually
inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored.
When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed
segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality
before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law. In June 1987, Philip Elman, a civil rights
attorney who served as an associate in the Solicitor General’s office during Harry Truman’s
term, claimed he and Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter were mostly responsible for the
Supreme Court’s decision, and stated that the NAACP’s arguments did not present strong
evidence. Elman has been criticized for offering a self-aggrandizing history of the case, omitting
important facts, and denigrating the work of civil rights attorneys who had laid the
groundwork for the decision over many decades. However, Frankfurter was also known for being
one of court’s most outspoken advocates of the judicial restraint philosophy of basing
court rulings on existing law rather than personal or political considerations. Public
officials in the United States today are nearly unanimous in lauding the ruling. In May 2004,
the fiftieth anniversary of the ruling, President George W. Bush spoke at the opening of the
Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site, calling Brown “a decision that changed
America for the better, and forever.” Most Senators and Representatives issued press
releases hailing the ruling. In a 2016 article in Townhall.com, an outlet
of the Salem Media Group, economist Thomas Sowell argued that when Chief Justice Earl
Warren declared in the landmark 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education that racially
separate schools were “inherently unequal,” Dunbar High School was a living refutation
of that assumption. And it was within walking distance of the Supreme Court.” In Sowell’s
estimation, “Dunbar, which had been accepting outstanding black students from anywhere in
the city, could now accept only students from the rough ghetto neighborhood in which it
was located” as a detrimental consequence of the SCOTUS decision.==Brown II==
In 1955, the Supreme Court considered arguments by the schools requesting relief concerning
the task of desegregation. In their decision, which became known as “Brown II” the court
delegated the task of carrying out school desegregation to district courts with orders
that desegregation occur “with all deliberate speed,” a phrase traceable to Francis Thompson’s
poem, “The Hound of Heaven”.Supporters of the earlier decision were displeased with
this decision. The language “all deliberate speed” was seen by critics as too ambiguous
to ensure reasonable haste for compliance with the court’s instruction. Many Southern
states and school districts interpreted “Brown II” as legal justification for resisting,
delaying, and avoiding significant integration for years—and in some cases for a decade
or more—using such tactics as closing down school systems, using state money to finance
segregated “private” schools, and “token” integration where a few carefully selected
black children were admitted to former white-only schools but the vast majority remained in
underfunded, unequal black schools.For example, based on “Brown II,” the U.S. District Court
ruled that Prince Edward County, Virginia did not have to desegregate immediately. When
faced with a court order to finally begin desegregation in 1959 the county board of
supervisors stopped appropriating money for public schools, which remained closed for
five years, from 1959 to 1964. White students in the county were given assistance
to attend white-only “private academies” that were taught by teachers formerly employed
by the public school system, while black students had no education at all unless they moved
out of the county. But the public schools reopened after the Supreme Court overturned
“Brown II” in Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, declaring that “…the
time for mere ‘deliberate speed’ has run out,” and that the county must provide a public
school system for all children regardless of race.==Brown III==
In 1978, Topeka attorneys Richard Jones, Joseph Johnson and Charles Scott, Jr. (son of the
original Brown team member), with assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, persuaded
Linda Brown Smith—who now had her own children in Topeka schools—to be a plaintiff in reopening
Brown. They were concerned that the Topeka Public Schools’ policy of “open enrollment”
had led to and would lead to further segregation. They also believed that with a choice of open
enrollment, white parents would shift their children to “preferred” schools that would
create both predominantly African American and predominantly European American schools
within the district. The district court reopened the Brown case after a 25-year hiatus, but
denied the plaintiffs’ request finding the schools “unitary”. In 1989, a three-judge
panel of the Tenth Circuit on 2–1 vote found that the vestiges of segregation remained
with respect to student and staff assignment. In 1993, the Supreme Court denied the appellant
School District’s request for certiorari and returned the case to District Court Judge
Richard Rodgers for implementation of the Tenth Circuit’s mandate.
After a 1994 plan was approved and a bond issue passed, additional elementary magnet
schools were opened and district attendance plans redrawn, which resulted in the Topeka
schools meeting court standards of racial balance by 1998. Unified status was eventually
granted to Topeka Unified School District No. 501 on July 27, 1999. One of the new magnet
schools is named after the Scott family attorneys for their role in the Brown case and civil
rights.==Related cases====
Other comments==A PBS film called “Simple Justice” retells
the story of the Brown vs. Board of Education case, beginning with the work of the NAACP’s
Legal Defense Fund’s efforts to combat ‘separate but equal’ in graduate school education and
culminating in the historical 1954 decision. Linda Brown Thompson later recalled the experience
of being refused enrollment: …we lived in an integrated neighborhood
and I had all of these playmates of different nationalities. And so when I found out that
day that I might be able to go to their school, I was just thrilled, you know. And I remember
walking over to Sumner school with my dad that day and going up the steps of the school
and the school looked so big to a smaller child. And I remember going inside and my
dad spoke with someone and then he went into the inner office with the principal and they
left me out … to sit outside with the secretary. And while he was in the inner office, I could
hear voices and hear his voice raised, you know, as the conversation went on. And then
he immediately came out of the office, took me by the hand and we walked home from the
school. I just couldn’t understand what was happening because I was so sure that I was
going to go to school with Mona and Guinevere, Wanda, and all of my playmates.
Linda Brown died on March 25, 2018 at the age of 76.==See also==
Civil rights movement (1896–1954) Little Rock Nine
Rubey Mosley Hulen, federal judge who made a similar ruling in an earlier case
Timeline of the civil rights movement Ruby Bridges, the first black child to attend
an all-white elementary school in the South

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *