Brown+vs.+Board+of+Education

=Lesson plan: Brown versus Board of Education= //**Objectives:**//
 * read the primary text of Brown versus Board of Education and the Fourteenth Amendment
 * be able to discuss the legal and social outcomes that followed this Supreme Court ruling in the context of what they learn from oral histories
 * analyze political rhetoric
 * discuss the variety of impacts caused by a single federal court ruling
 * critically reflect upon the tendency of historical accounts to simplify, even when the issue remains complex

//**Homework**// Students will interview a grandparent or parent about what they know about integration. Students will ask specific questions about how it may have affected their lives, and what the political and social climate was at the time. Students will write up a short history of the effects of desegregation on their families.

//**Complete:**//
 * Listen to the oral histories.
 * Familiarize yourself with Brown versus Board of Education and the historic events that follow.
 * Familiarize yourself with the biographies of Jesse Helms, Republican Senator from North Carolina, George Wallace, Democratic Governor (and Presidential candidate) from Alabama, and Ruby Bridges, a woman who integrated an elementary school in New Orleans, Louisiana.

//**Brown v. Board of** **Education of Topeka, Kansas**//

Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment — even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors of white and Negro schools may be equal.
 * 1) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education.
 * 2) The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the full development of public education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation.
 * 3) Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
 * 4) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal.

//**Opinion**//
These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.
 * MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN** delivered the opinion of the Court.

In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race.

This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools. The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not “equal” and cannot be made “equal,” and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.

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 most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment’s history with respect to segregated schools is the status of public education at that time. In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences, as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states, and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.

In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. The doctrine of “separate but equal” did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the “separate but equal” doctrine in the field of public education. In Cumming v. County Board of Education 175 U.S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. In more recent cases, all on the graduate school level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to reexamine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.

In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other “tangible” factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education. In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. 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? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on “those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.” In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: “…his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.” Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them 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 ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

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. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question — the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term. The Attorney General of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954.

It is so ordered.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male1 citizens twenty-one years of age2 in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

//**Oral Histories**//

A short excerpt from a 1974 interview between Walter de Vries and Alabama Governor George Wallace. This interview took place at the beginning of Wallace’s third term as governor. Jack Bass, another interviewer, asks Governor Wallace a question about a quote made by an historian, who had written that an Alabama judge named Frank Johnson had more power than the governor and the legislature. George Wallace expresses his views on the federal government and comments on the court orders related to busing children to different schools in Montgomery, Alabama.

media type="file" key="george_wallace.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Transcript
Jack Bass wanted to get your reaction to a point he makes in that book. He contends that in Alabama that Judge Frank Johnson has had more impact on basic government as it applies to people here than you have because of his rulings on reapportionment, on property taxes, on mental health.Governor George WallaceI readily agree that the federal court system has had more impact on everything than the Congress, than the president, than all the governors. Not just governor of Alabama. When one federal judge can strike down in one line what an elected legislature of the people can do, and there’s no recourse because they’re automatically upheld by the circuit court of appeals and the Supreme Court, yes. You’re absolutely right. It didn’t have to be Frank Johnson. It could have been you. Whoever was a federal judge. And they talk about supreme, and the executive branch and the Congressional branch abrogating and making the presidency stronger—why the strongest branch of the government is the judiciary. They even legislate. They even come along and put—even draw up the plan themselves. They don’t pass on the constitutionality of the plan, they go down there and draw it up and put it into law. And they legislate it. You’re right. That’s exactly what Thomas Jefferson said was going to happen someday. And that’s what we oppose. And that’s what I oppose. That’s what people in the country oppose. Busing children all over Montgomery. Seven court orders. Seven straight years. Every time they issue a court order they obey it. Next year that’s not good enough. Another court order. Hundreds of little children go to school this year this school, this school next one, next year go to school here. You’re right. The federal courts have had more impact on the people’s rights and prerogatives than has the legislature of the state and the governor of the state. media type="file" key="jesse_helms.mp3" width="240" height="20"

Transcript
Jack BassYou know, your critics—some of your critics say that when you bring up anti-busing, that in effect it’s arousing traditional Southern racial fears and antagonisms.Jesse HelmsBaloney. They know they’re talking through their hats. It’s nothing Southern about it. They ought to see how the folks in New York feel about it, in the case they’re being bossed—bused. Boss is right too.Jack BassWithout the Southern part, how about their charge that it does arouse racial antagonisms and fears?Jesse HelmsWell, baloney again, because the surveys show that 80—87 percent, isn’t it? 87 percent of the Negro parents polled objected to forced busing. I’ve not had one black to write to me saying that he wanted forced busing for his child. We have had many blacks to write to us saying, “Senator, I didn’t vote for you, but you’re right about this. I prefer my child to walk to school.” media type="file" key="harriet_love.mp3" width="240" height="20"

In this 1998 oral history excerpt, Love speaks about the motivations people had for supporting integration and starts off with an insightful response. She then goes on to describe many more subtle effects of integration such as the challenged to teachers and parental responsibilities.

Transcript
>>> I think what happened with integration for some, I don’t know exactly where it started or how it started. But I think there were some people that felt like this is an opportunity for me to be forgiven for all my sins of treating people and my family had slaves. For others it meant, I can change the world, I can—give me young boys and girls, black and white—I can change them; I can mold them into wonderful people. I think everybody went in there with a set of rules and regulations for themselves. I don’t even know whether it was really said other than getting a better education. I don’t ever really remember anyone ever expounding on why we needed integration other than it was a mandate, a law to do it. It was to get a better education. I think that our teachers—it’s like many things—it was thrown in their laps, and they had to deal with it. >>> And overall looking back, I think they dealt with it very well, considering the training and planning they had for it. Because you’re not trained—you’re trained to teach, period. You’re not trained to integrate people and make them get along and know all of their problems and concerns and things like that. You’re not trained to do that. When you have an all black or an all white situation, it becomes a little bit easier. At least it was years ago. I don’t know how it is now. Years ago, a little bit easier because you could just about look in that classroom and find at least three students that you knew the families. And if you talked to the others, you’d find someone that knew them. It was just, you were given a little bit of information. Now, you’ve got students from all walks of life so where do you begin? If you say this, you offend this one; if you say this, you offend another one. If you say something else, you embrace that group. So I think that there needs to be a re-emphasizing the expectations of teachers in the classroom. I think the people that can do that best are our retirees because they’ve been there. They worked with little or nothing, many of them. >>> When we were in school, we always heard about we got the used books and things of that nature. In some instances, they were used. But that was not something that they harped on in the classroom. We were wanting to learn and they were wanting to teach. Everyone likes a new book, but the main thing was we had the books; we had the tools to do what we needed to do. >>> I think that schools now have all these tools, but they don’t have something in place and that’s that sociology kind of mentality so that they’ll know each group. That’s almost too much for a teacher to grasp in nine months time. You know, you’ve got nine months and you’ve got all. You’ve got Asians. You’ve got Hispanics, African Americans, whites, Greeks; you’ve got everything. You barely can say their names. But I think that’s a little much for teachers right now to have to do all of those things and teach. Whether she knows it or not; whether she teaches no language, she’s still bilingual; or he’s still bilingual because they’ve got to communicate. That’s something that’s causing a lot of frustration among teachers and parents. >>> I think that every parent, they want what’s best for their child. I don’t care what the background is. They want that child treated fairly first of all, and they want to make sure they get in a good education. Well, I know in order for that to happen, there’s a role that I have to play as a parent outside of the classroom. And then there’s a role that I have to play as a parent supporting the classroom. I think that that needs to be conveyed to parents also. Not about getting that report card in May and learning that the child hasn’t done anything the whole year. It’s about being there and giving some of your time when you can. Attending teachers’ meetings, I’ve done it all. And that’s one reason, I worked three to eleven when I first, my children first started school. So I would be there to get them off to school, and my husband would be there to get them in the evening. They saw both of us, and we would do our things together on the weekend and all that, but at least they got a good send off. It wasn’t rushed or pushed. They weren’t frustrated, and I think it takes all of that. I think it takes planning when you have children. You’ve got to plan for their future as well as your own. >>> >>> **Optional resources:** >>> >>> //**Assignments**// >>> 1. Answer the following questions: >>> >>> 2. >>> Next, assess the impact of Brown versus Board of Education as it was felt decades later and described in three oral histories. Two oral histories are Southern politicians known for favoring segregation, George Wallace, and Jesse Helms. The third oral history is a woman living in Charlotte whose children were part of integration in the 1970s. Her name is Harriet Love. Research the people in these oral histories. Since Harriet Love is not someone who is easy to research, you can also research Ruby Bridges instead. Ruby Bridges was the first African American to integrate a New Orleans elementary school in 1960. Though Ruby Bridges and Harriet Love are not necessarily alike, Ruby represents an African American woman who had to struggle against racism at an early age, and like Harriet Love, she is a mother with strong feelings about the role parents should play in education.” >>> >>> Include in your assessment comments taken from your homework assignment. >>> >>> 3. >>> “At the end of her oral history, Harriet Love states, “It takes planning when you have children. You’ve got to plan for their future as well as your own.” The process of desegregation was long, drawn out, and violent. There were many drawbacks and many rewards. Was planning important? Should it have been? If so, what part of government should have taken the lead in the planning, and what kinds of considerations should they have made? Write a one page essay explaining your thoughts on the process of desegration. >>> >>> =**//Grading your work//**= >>> You may work together to research the information. However, each of you will turn in your own work. Your grade will be based on assignments 1-3. Turn your assignments into the Shared drive inbox marked: >>> Desegregation>questions >>> Desegregation> assessment of oral histories (1 page) >>> Desegregation> essay (1-2 double spaced pages. Include references in MLA format that are not posted on this wiki page. Use easybib.com for ease of siting your work.)
 * PBS documentary, [|Eyes on the Prize]
 * PBS documentary, [|George Wallace: Settin’ the Woods on Fire]
 * Tolerance.org’s [|Brown v. Board: Timeline of School Integration in the U.S.]
 * “[|A Class of One],” PBS article on Ruby Bridges
 * 1) How is the Fourteenth Amendment related to Brown versus Board of Education ?
 * 2) What is the distinction between the Plessy versus Ferguson ruling and that considered in Brown versus Board of Education ?
 * 3) Over how many years have cases regarding segregation been brought?
 * 4) What is the central question that the ruling says must be answered?
 * 5) What were the effects of segregation on public education?
 * 6) What were some of the battles that followed this 1954 ruling? How long was the delay between the federal court ruling and when some states obeyed?
 * 7) For those who protested this ruling, what were some complaints? For those who supported this ruling, what were their arguments?