Brown v. Board of Education - Revision history

Alanscottwalker: /* Background */ ce

2024-11-05T11:25:28Z

Background: ce

← Previous revision		Revision as of 11:25, 5 November 2024
Line 46:		Line 46:

	==Background==		==Background==
	[[File:Educational separation in the US prior to Brown Map.svg\|right\|thumb\|350px\|Educational segregation in the US prior to ''Brown''. Racial segregation was required throughout the states in the [[Southern United States]] (in red). Kansas where Topeka is located allowed local school districts to enforce segregation (blue).]]		[[File:Educational separation in the US prior to Brown Map.svg\|right\|thumb\|350px\|Educational segregation in the US prior to ''Brown''. Racial segregation was required throughout the states in the [[Southern United States]] (in red). Kansas where Topeka is located allowed a local option for school districts to enforce segregation (blue).]]

	For much of the 60 years preceding the ''Brown'' case, [[race relations]] in the United States had been dominated by [[Racial segregation in the United States\|racial segregation]]. Such state policies had been endorsed by the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|United States Supreme Court]] ruling in ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' (1896), which held that as long as the separate facilities for separate races were equal, state segregation did not violate the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution\|Fourteenth Amendment]]'s Equal Protection Clause ("no State shall ... deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws").<ref>{{Cite web		For much of the 60 years preceding the ''Brown'' case, [[race relations]] in the United States had been dominated by [[Racial segregation in the United States\|racial segregation]]. Such state policies had been endorsed by the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|United States Supreme Court]] ruling in ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' (1896), which held that as long as the separate facilities for separate races were equal, state segregation did not violate the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution\|Fourteenth Amendment]]'s Equal Protection Clause ("no State shall ... deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws").<ref>{{Cite web

Paul2520: unified footnote formats

2024-11-01T04:55:32Z

unified footnote formats

← Previous revision		Revision as of 04:55, 1 November 2024
Line 118:		Line 118:
	\| author1=Gill Robinson Hickman		\| author1=Gill Robinson Hickman
	\| author2=Richard A. Couto		\| author2=Richard A. Couto
	\|isbn=978-1-84542-541-8}}</ref>{{rp\|165}} 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."{{~~notetag~~\|One source gives Eisenhower's quote as saying "big black bucks" instead of "big overgrown Negroes".<ref>{{cite web \|last1=O'Donnell \|first1=Michael \|title=When Eisenhower and Warren Squared Off Over Civil Rights \|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/commander-v-chief/554045/ \|website=The Atlantic \|access-date=30 October 2020 \|date=9 March 2018 \|archive-date=October 31, 2020 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201031235758/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/commander-v-chief/554045/ \|url-status=live }}</ref>}} Nevertheless, the Justice Department sided with the African-American plaintiffs.<ref>{{cite web \|url=http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1120 \|title=Digital History \|website=www.digitalhistory.uh.edu \|access-date=January 9, 2015 \|archive-date=January 10, 2015 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150110013024/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1120 \|url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/upshot/the-gang-that-always-liked-ike.html \|title=The Gang That Always Liked Ike \|first=Michael \|last=Beschloss \|author-link=Michael Beschloss \|newspaper=[[The New York Times]] \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141117022333/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/upshot/the-gang-that-always-liked-ike.html \|archive-date=2014-11-17 \|url-access=subscription \|date=November 15, 2014}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite book \|last=Warren \|first=Earl \|date=1977 \|title=The Memoirs of Earl Warren \|location=New York \|publisher=Doubleday & Company \|page=[https://archive.org/details/memoirsofearlwar0000warr/page/291 291] \|isbn=0385128355 \|url=https://archive.org/details/memoirsofearlwar0000warr/page/291}}</ref>		\|isbn=978-1-84542-541-8}}</ref>{{rp\|165}} 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."{{efn\|One source gives Eisenhower's quote as saying "big black bucks" instead of "big overgrown Negroes".<ref>{{cite web \|last1=O'Donnell \|first1=Michael \|title=When Eisenhower and Warren Squared Off Over Civil Rights \|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/commander-v-chief/554045/ \|website=The Atlantic \|access-date=30 October 2020 \|date=9 March 2018 \|archive-date=October 31, 2020 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201031235758/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/commander-v-chief/554045/ \|url-status=live }}</ref>}} Nevertheless, the Justice Department sided with the African-American plaintiffs.<ref>{{cite web \|url=http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1120 \|title=Digital History \|website=www.digitalhistory.uh.edu \|access-date=January 9, 2015 \|archive-date=January 10, 2015 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150110013024/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1120 \|url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/upshot/the-gang-that-always-liked-ike.html \|title=The Gang That Always Liked Ike \|first=Michael \|last=Beschloss \|author-link=Michael Beschloss \|newspaper=[[The New York Times]] \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141117022333/https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/upshot/the-gang-that-always-liked-ike.html \|archive-date=2014-11-17 \|url-access=subscription \|date=November 15, 2014}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite book \|last=Warren \|first=Earl \|date=1977 \|title=The Memoirs of Earl Warren \|location=New York \|publisher=Doubleday & Company \|page=[https://archive.org/details/memoirsofearlwar0000warr/page/291 291] \|isbn=0385128355 \|url=https://archive.org/details/memoirsofearlwar0000warr/page/291}}</ref>

	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.		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.

White whirlwind: /* Works cited */

2024-10-30T20:23:21Z

Works cited

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:23, 30 October 2024
Line 315:		Line 315:
	* {{cite book \|first1=Robert G. \| last1=McCloskey \| author-link=Robert G. McCloskey \| others=Revised by [[Sanford Levinson]] \| title=The American Supreme Court \| location=Chicago \| publisher=University of Chicago Press \| year=2010 \| edition= 5th \| isbn=978-0-226-55686-4 }}		* {{cite book \|first1=Robert G. \| last1=McCloskey \| author-link=Robert G. McCloskey \| others=Revised by [[Sanford Levinson]] \| title=The American Supreme Court \| location=Chicago \| publisher=University of Chicago Press \| year=2010 \| edition= 5th \| isbn=978-0-226-55686-4 }}
	* {{cite book \|last1=Nowak \|first1=John E. \|last2=Rotunda \|first2=Ronald D. \|title=Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure \|location=Eagan, MN \|publisher=West Thomson/Reuters \|year=2012 \|edition=5th \|oclc=798148265 }}		* {{cite book \|last1=Nowak \|first1=John E. \|last2=Rotunda \|first2=Ronald D. \|title=Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure \|location=Eagan, MN \|publisher=West Thomson/Reuters \|year=2012 \|edition=5th \|oclc=798148265 }}
	* {{cite journal \|last1=Schauer \|first1=Frederick \|title=Generality and Equality \|journal=Law and Philosophy \|date=1997 \|volume=16 \|issue=3 \|pages=279–297 \|doi=10.2307/3504874 \|jstor=3504874 }}		* {{cite journal \|last1=Schauer \|first1=Frederick \|authorlink=Frederick Schauer \|title=Generality and Equality \|journal=Law and Philosophy \|date=1997 \|volume=16 \|issue=3 \|pages=279–297 \|doi=10.2307/3504874 \|jstor=3504874 }}
	{{refend}}		{{refend}}

White whirlwind at 20:21, 30 October 2024

2024-10-30T20:21:54Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:21, 30 October 2024
Line 26:		Line 26:
	}}		}}

	'''''Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka''''', 347 U.S. 483 (1954),<ref>{{ussc\|name=Brown v. Board of Education\|347\|483\|1954}}</ref> was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States\|landmark]] decision of the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] that ruled that [[U.S. state]] laws establishing [[racial segregation]] in [[state school\|public schools]] are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'', which had held that racial segregation laws did not violate the [[U.S. Constitution]] as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that had come to be known as "[[separate but equal]]".{{~~notetag~~\|The Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled ''Plessy v. Ferguson'' in its entirety, although ''Brown'' and a series of later Supreme Court decisions have severely weakened ''Plessy'' to the point that it is usually considered to be ''de facto'' overruled.{{sfnp\|Schauer\|1997\|p=280}}}} The Court's unanimous decision in ''Brown'', and its related cases, paved the way for [[Racial integration\|integration]] and was a major victory of the [[civil rights movement]],<ref>{{Cite web		'''''Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka''''', 347 U.S. 483 (1954),<ref>{{ussc\|name=Brown v. Board of Education\|347\|483\|1954}}</ref> was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States\|landmark]] decision of the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] that ruled that [[U.S. state]] laws establishing [[racial segregation]] in [[state school\|public schools]] are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'',{{efn\|The Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled ''Plessy v. Ferguson'' in its entirety, although ''Brown'' and a series of later Supreme Court decisions have severely weakened ''Plessy'' to the point that it is usually considered to be ''de facto'' overruled.{{sfnp\|Schauer\|1997\|p=280}}}} which had held that racial segregation laws did not violate the [[U.S. Constitution]] as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that had come to be known as "[[separate but equal]]". The Court's unanimous decision in ''Brown'', and its related cases, paved the way for [[Racial integration\|integration]] and was a major victory of the [[civil rights movement]],<ref>{{Cite web
	\|last = Hartford		\|last = Hartford
	\|first = Bruce		\|first = Bruce
Line 302:		Line 302:

	==Notes==		==Notes==
	{{~~notefoot~~}}		{{notelist}}

	==References==		==References==

White whirlwind at 20:20, 30 October 2024

2024-10-30T20:20:02Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:20, 30 October 2024
Line 26:		Line 26:
	}}		}}

	'''''Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka''''', 347 U.S. 483 (1954),<ref>{{ussc\|name=Brown v. Board of Education\|347\|483\|1954}}</ref> was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States\|landmark]] decision of the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] that ruled that [[U.S. state]] laws establishing [[racial segregation]] in [[state school\|public schools]] are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'', which had held that racial segregation laws did not violate the [[U.S. Constitution]] as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that had come to be known as "[[separate but equal]]".{{notetag\|~~Although the~~ Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled ''Plessy v. Ferguson'' in its entirety, ''Brown'' and a series of later Supreme Court decisions have severely weakened ''Plessy'' to the point that it is usually considered to be ''de facto'' overruled.{{sfnp\|Schauer\|1997\|p=280}}}} The Court's unanimous decision in ''Brown'', and its related cases, paved the way for [[Racial integration\|integration]] and was a major victory of the [[civil rights movement]],<ref>{{Cite web		'''''Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka''''', 347 U.S. 483 (1954),<ref>{{ussc\|name=Brown v. Board of Education\|347\|483\|1954}}</ref> was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States\|landmark]] decision of the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] that ruled that [[U.S. state]] laws establishing [[racial segregation]] in [[state school\|public schools]] are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'', which had held that racial segregation laws did not violate the [[U.S. Constitution]] as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that had come to be known as "[[separate but equal]]".{{notetag\|The Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled ''Plessy v. Ferguson'' in its entirety, although ''Brown'' and a series of later Supreme Court decisions have severely weakened ''Plessy'' to the point that it is usually considered to be ''de facto'' overruled.{{sfnp\|Schauer\|1997\|p=280}}}} The Court's unanimous decision in ''Brown'', and its related cases, paved the way for [[Racial integration\|integration]] and was a major victory of the [[civil rights movement]],<ref>{{Cite web
	\|last = Hartford		\|last = Hartford
	\|first = Bruce		\|first = Bruce

White whirlwind at 20:19, 30 October 2024

2024-10-30T20:19:15Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:19, 30 October 2024
Line 26:		Line 26:
	}}		}}

	'''''Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka''''', 347 U.S. 483 (1954),<ref>{{ussc\|name=Brown v. Board of Education\|347\|483\|1954}}</ref> was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States\|landmark]] decision of the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] that ruled that [[U.S. state]] laws establishing [[racial segregation]] in [[state school\|public schools]] are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'', which had held that racial segregation laws did not violate the [[U.S. Constitution]] as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that had come to be known as "[[separate but equal]]".{{notetag\|Although the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled ''Plessy v. Ferguson'' in its entirety, ''Brown'' and a series of later Supreme Court decisions have severely weakened ''Plessy'' to the point that it is usually considered to ~~have been~~ ''de facto'' overruled.{{sfnp\|Schauer\|1997\|p=280}}}} The Court's unanimous decision in ''Brown'', and its related cases, paved the way for [[Racial integration\|integration]] and was a major victory of the [[civil rights movement]],<ref>{{Cite web		'''''Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka''''', 347 U.S. 483 (1954),<ref>{{ussc\|name=Brown v. Board of Education\|347\|483\|1954}}</ref> was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States\|landmark]] decision of the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] that ruled that [[U.S. state]] laws establishing [[racial segregation]] in [[state school\|public schools]] are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'', which had held that racial segregation laws did not violate the [[U.S. Constitution]] as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that had come to be known as "[[separate but equal]]".{{notetag\|Although the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled ''Plessy v. Ferguson'' in its entirety, ''Brown'' and a series of later Supreme Court decisions have severely weakened ''Plessy'' to the point that it is usually considered to be ''de facto'' overruled.{{sfnp\|Schauer\|1997\|p=280}}}} The Court's unanimous decision in ''Brown'', and its related cases, paved the way for [[Racial integration\|integration]] and was a major victory of the [[civil rights movement]],<ref>{{Cite web
	\|last = Hartford		\|last = Hartford
	\|first = Bruce		\|first = Bruce

White whirlwind at 12:32, 29 October 2024

2024-10-29T12:32:25Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 12:32, 29 October 2024
Line 41:		Line 41:
	The case began in 1951 when the public school system in [[Topeka, Kansas]], refused to enroll the daughter of local [[African Americans\|black]] resident [[Oliver Brown (American activist)\|Oliver Brown]] at the school closest to their home, instead requiring her to ride a bus to a segregated black school farther away. The Browns and twelve other local black families in similar situations filed a [[class action\|class-action]] lawsuit in U.S. federal court against the Topeka Board of Education, alleging its segregation policy was unconstitutional. A special three-judge court of the [[United States District Court for the District of Kansas\|U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas]] heard the case and ruled against the Browns, relying on the precedent of ''Plessy'' and its "separate but equal" doctrine. The Browns, represented by [[NAACP]] chief counsel [[Thurgood Marshall]], appealed the ruling directly to the Supreme Court.		The case began in 1951 when the public school system in [[Topeka, Kansas]], refused to enroll the daughter of local [[African Americans\|black]] resident [[Oliver Brown (American activist)\|Oliver Brown]] at the school closest to their home, instead requiring her to ride a bus to a segregated black school farther away. The Browns and twelve other local black families in similar situations filed a [[class action\|class-action]] lawsuit in U.S. federal court against the Topeka Board of Education, alleging its segregation policy was unconstitutional. A special three-judge court of the [[United States District Court for the District of Kansas\|U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas]] heard the case and ruled against the Browns, relying on the precedent of ''Plessy'' and its "separate but equal" doctrine. The Browns, represented by [[NAACP]] chief counsel [[Thurgood Marshall]], appealed the ruling directly to the Supreme Court.

	In May 1954, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision in favor of the Browns. The Court ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and therefore laws that impose them violate the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution\|Fourteenth Amendment]] of the ~~[[United States Constitution\|~~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\|Brown II]]'' (1955) only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".		In May 1954, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision in favor of the Browns. The Court ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and therefore laws that impose them violate the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution\|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\|Brown II]]'' (1955) only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

	In the [[Southern United States]], the reaction to ''Brown'' among most [[white people]] was "noisy and stubborn", especially in the [[Deep South]] where racial segregation was deeply entrenched in society.{{sfnp\|McCloskey\|2010\|p=144}} Many Southern governmental and political leaders embraced a plan known as "[[massive resistance]]", created by 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.		In the [[Southern United States]], the reaction to ''Brown'' among most [[white people]] was "noisy and stubborn", especially in the [[Deep South]] where racial segregation was deeply entrenched in society.{{sfnp\|McCloskey\|2010\|p=144}} Many Southern governmental and political leaders embraced a plan known as "[[massive resistance]]", created by 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.

White whirlwind at 12:31, 29 October 2024

2024-10-29T12:31:08Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 12:31, 29 October 2024
Line 26:		Line 26:
	}}		}}

	'''''Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka''''', 347 U.S. 483 (1954),<ref>{{ussc\|name=Brown v. Board of Education\|347\|483\|1954}}</ref> was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States\|landmark]] decision of the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] ~~ruling~~ that [[U.S. state]] laws establishing [[racial segregation]] in [[state school\|public schools]] are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'', which had held that racial segregation laws did not violate the [[U.S. Constitution]] as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that had come to be known as "[[separate but equal]]".{{notetag\|Although the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled ''Plessy v. Ferguson'' in its entirety, ''Brown'' and a series of later Supreme Court decisions have severely weakened ''Plessy'' to the point that it is usually considered to have been ''de facto'' overruled.{{sfnp\|Schauer\|1997\|p=280}}}} The Court's unanimous decision in ''Brown'', and its related cases, paved the way for [[Racial integration\|integration]] and was a major victory of the [[civil rights movement]],<ref>{{Cite web		'''''Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka''''', 347 U.S. 483 (1954),<ref>{{ussc\|name=Brown v. Board of Education\|347\|483\|1954}}</ref> was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States\|landmark]] decision of the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]] that ruled that [[U.S. state]] laws establishing [[racial segregation]] in [[state school\|public schools]] are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'', which had held that racial segregation laws did not violate the [[U.S. Constitution]] as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that had come to be known as "[[separate but equal]]".{{notetag\|Although the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled ''Plessy v. Ferguson'' in its entirety, ''Brown'' and a series of later Supreme Court decisions have severely weakened ''Plessy'' to the point that it is usually considered to have been ''de facto'' overruled.{{sfnp\|Schauer\|1997\|p=280}}}} The Court's unanimous decision in ''Brown'', and its related cases, paved the way for [[Racial integration\|integration]] and was a major victory of the [[civil rights movement]],<ref>{{Cite web
	\|last = Hartford		\|last = Hartford
	\|first = Bruce		\|first = Bruce

White whirlwind: /* Supreme Court decision */

2024-10-29T12:27:50Z

Supreme Court decision

← Previous revision		Revision as of 12:27, 29 October 2024
Line 135:		Line 135:
	The Court said the question was complicated by the major social and governmental changes that had taken place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It observed that public schools had been uncommon in the American South in the late 1860s. At that time, Southern white children whose families could afford schooling usually attended private schools, while the education of Southern black children was "almost nonexistent", to the point that in some Southern states the education of black people was forbidden by law.<ref>''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 490.</ref> The Court contrasted this with the situation in 1954: "Today, education is perhaps the most important function of our local and state governments."<ref>''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 493.</ref> The Court concluded that, in making its ruling, it would have to "consider public education in light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation."<ref>{{harvp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, p. 764}} (quoting ''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 492–93).</ref>		The Court said the question was complicated by the major social and governmental changes that had taken place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It observed that public schools had been uncommon in the American South in the late 1860s. At that time, Southern white children whose families could afford schooling usually attended private schools, while the education of Southern black children was "almost nonexistent", to the point that in some Southern states the education of black people was forbidden by law.<ref>''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 490.</ref> The Court contrasted this with the situation in 1954: "Today, education is perhaps the most important function of our local and state governments."<ref>''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 493.</ref> The Court concluded that, in making its ruling, it would have to "consider public education in light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation."<ref>{{harvp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, p. 764}} (quoting ''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 492–93).</ref>

	During the segregation era, it was common for black schools to have fewer resources and poorer facilities than white schools despite the equality required by the "separate but equal" doctrine. The ''Brown'' Court did not address this issue, however, probably because some of the school districts involved in the case had improved their black schools in order "equalize" them with the quality of the white schools.{{sfnp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, p. 764}} This prevented the Court from finding a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's [[Equal Protection Clause]] in "measurable inequalities" between all white and black schools and forced the Court to look to the effects of segregation itself.{{sfnp\|Nowak\|Rotunda\|2012\|loc=§ 18.8(d)(ii)(2)}} The Court therefore framed the case around the more general question of whether the principle of "separate but equal" was constitutional when applied to public education.{{sfnp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, pp. 764–65}}		During the segregation era, it was common for black schools to have fewer resources and poorer facilities than white schools despite the equality required by the "separate but equal" doctrine. The ''Brown'' Court did not address this issue, however, probably because some of the school districts involved in the case had improved their black schools in order to "equalize" them with the quality of the white schools.{{sfnp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, p. 764}} This prevented the Court from finding a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's [[Equal Protection Clause]] in "measurable inequalities" between all white and black schools and forced the Court to look to the effects of segregation itself.{{sfnp\|Nowak\|Rotunda\|2012\|loc=§ 18.8(d)(ii)(2)}} The Court therefore framed the case around the more general question of whether the principle of "separate but equal" was constitutional when applied to public education.{{sfnp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, pp. 764–65}}
	{{Blockquote		{{Blockquote
	\|text=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?		\|text=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?

White whirlwind: /* Supreme Court decision */

2024-10-29T12:27:24Z

Supreme Court decision

← Previous revision		Revision as of 12:27, 29 October 2024
Line 135:		Line 135:
	The Court said the question was complicated by the major social and governmental changes that had taken place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It observed that public schools had been uncommon in the American South in the late 1860s. At that time, Southern white children whose families could afford schooling usually attended private schools, while the education of Southern black children was "almost nonexistent", to the point that in some Southern states the education of black people was forbidden by law.<ref>''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 490.</ref> The Court contrasted this with the situation in 1954: "Today, education is perhaps the most important function of our local and state governments."<ref>''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 493.</ref> The Court concluded that, in making its ruling, it would have to "consider public education in light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation."<ref>{{harvp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, p. 764}} (quoting ''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 492–93).</ref>		The Court said the question was complicated by the major social and governmental changes that had taken place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It observed that public schools had been uncommon in the American South in the late 1860s. At that time, Southern white children whose families could afford schooling usually attended private schools, while the education of Southern black children was "almost nonexistent", to the point that in some Southern states the education of black people was forbidden by law.<ref>''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 490.</ref> The Court contrasted this with the situation in 1954: "Today, education is perhaps the most important function of our local and state governments."<ref>''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 493.</ref> The Court concluded that, in making its ruling, it would have to "consider public education in light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation."<ref>{{harvp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, p. 764}} (quoting ''Brown'', 347 U.S. at 492–93).</ref>

	During the segregation era, it was common for black schools to have fewer resources and poorer facilities than white schools despite the equality required by the "separate but equal" doctrine. The ''Brown'' Court did not address this issue, however, probably because some of the school districts involved in the case had ~~made improvements to~~ their black schools to "equalize" them with the quality of the white schools.{{sfnp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, p. 764}} This prevented the Court from finding a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's [[Equal Protection Clause]] in "measurable inequalities" between all white and black schools and forced the Court to look to the effects of segregation itself.{{sfnp\|Nowak\|Rotunda\|2012\|loc=§ 18.8(d)(ii)(2)}} The Court therefore framed the case around the more general question of whether the principle of "separate but equal" was constitutional when applied to public education.{{sfnp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, pp. 764–65}}		During the segregation era, it was common for black schools to have fewer resources and poorer facilities than white schools despite the equality required by the "separate but equal" doctrine. The ''Brown'' Court did not address this issue, however, probably because some of the school districts involved in the case had improved their black schools in order "equalize" them with the quality of the white schools.{{sfnp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, p. 764}} This prevented the Court from finding a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's [[Equal Protection Clause]] in "measurable inequalities" between all white and black schools and forced the Court to look to the effects of segregation itself.{{sfnp\|Nowak\|Rotunda\|2012\|loc=§ 18.8(d)(ii)(2)}} The Court therefore framed the case around the more general question of whether the principle of "separate but equal" was constitutional when applied to public education.{{sfnp\|Chemerinsky\|2019\|loc=§ 9.3.3.1, pp. 764–65}}
	{{Blockquote		{{Blockquote
	\|text=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?		\|text=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?

← Previous revision		Revision as of 12:32, 29 October 2024
Line 41:		Line 41:
	The case began in 1951 when the public school system in [[Topeka, Kansas]], refused to enroll the daughter of local [[African Americans\|black]] resident [[Oliver Brown (American activist)\|Oliver Brown]] at the school closest to their home, instead requiring her to ride a bus to a segregated black school farther away. The Browns and twelve other local black families in similar situations filed a [[class action\|class-action]] lawsuit in U.S. federal court against the Topeka Board of Education, alleging its segregation policy was unconstitutional. A special three-judge court of the [[United States District Court for the District of Kansas\|U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas]] heard the case and ruled against the Browns, relying on the precedent of ''Plessy'' and its "separate but equal" doctrine. The Browns, represented by [[NAACP]] chief counsel [[Thurgood Marshall]], appealed the ruling directly to the Supreme Court.		The case began in 1951 when the public school system in [[Topeka, Kansas]], refused to enroll the daughter of local [[African Americans\|black]] resident [[Oliver Brown (American activist)\|Oliver Brown]] at the school closest to their home, instead requiring her to ride a bus to a segregated black school farther away. The Browns and twelve other local black families in similar situations filed a [[class action\|class-action]] lawsuit in U.S. federal court against the Topeka Board of Education, alleging its segregation policy was unconstitutional. A special three-judge court of the [[United States District Court for the District of Kansas\|U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas]] heard the case and ruled against the Browns, relying on the precedent of ''Plessy'' and its "separate but equal" doctrine. The Browns, represented by [[NAACP]] chief counsel [[Thurgood Marshall]], appealed the ruling directly to the Supreme Court.

	In May 1954, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision in favor of the Browns. The Court ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and therefore laws that impose them violate the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution\|Fourteenth Amendment]] of the ~~[[United States Constitution\|~~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\|Brown II]]'' (1955) only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".		In May 1954, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision in favor of the Browns. The Court ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and therefore laws that impose them violate the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution\|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\|Brown II]]'' (1955) only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

	In the [[Southern United States]], the reaction to ''Brown'' among most [[white people]] was "noisy and stubborn", especially in the [[Deep South]] where racial segregation was deeply entrenched in society.{{sfnp\|McCloskey\|2010\|p=144}} Many Southern governmental and political leaders embraced a plan known as "[[massive resistance]]", created by 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.		In the [[Southern United States]], the reaction to ''Brown'' among most [[white people]] was "noisy and stubborn", especially in the [[Deep South]] where racial segregation was deeply entrenched in society.{{sfnp\|McCloskey\|2010\|p=144}} Many Southern governmental and political leaders embraced a plan known as "[[massive resistance]]", created by 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.