1 / 10

Brown v. Board of Education

Brown v. Board of Education. Decision and Implementation. Making the Decision. Two part decision I – declares that separate but equal doctrine is dead II – how do we implement the process of integration? Chief Justice Earl Warren The Court must speak with one/united voice

Download Presentation

Brown v. Board of Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Brown v. Board of Education Decision and Implementation

  2. Making the Decision • Two part decision • I – declares that separate but equal doctrine is dead • II – how do we implement the process of integration? • Chief Justice Earl Warren • The Court must speak with one/united voice • Principle and Process

  3. Brown - 1954 • Declares that segregation is unconstitutional • Significant ramifications across the country • All justices agreed that on principle that this was inherently unconstitutional • Process to end segregation is tricky • Southern Justices: Hugo Black, Tom Clark, and Stanley Reed • Speed/Scope/Control • Warren’s Decision

  4. Brown - 1955 • Less is more • Struggle over a timetable • Decision is short but to the point: discrimination in any form is unconstitutional • Process is passed off to district courts • Local oversight reduced the refusal to comply • “good faith” and “with all deliberate speed”

  5. “Deliberate Speed” Runs Out • Desegregation was to begin as soon as details could be worked out. • 1968 – Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (Virginia) • Court said “time for mere deliberate speed” has run out • Freedom of Choice Plan • School Boards must eliminate discrimination “root and branch” • Unanimous

  6. Brown in the 1970’s • Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (N.C. – 1971) • Must desegregate as much as possible • Pairing schools – “Remember the Titans” • Redistricting • Busing • Unanimous • The more a district waits, the greater the power of a court to order things done immediately!!!

  7. Keyes v. School District #1 Denver, CO – The Court splits Majority Opinion Dissenting Opinion • De facto and de jure segregation • Justice Brennan – Actions of the state caused the de facto segregation • Showed “intent to segregate” • Justice Douglas – segregation is segregation no matter what you call it!!! So it must be remedied!!! • De jure segregation only • Justice Rehnquist – proof of discrimination was needed for court action not just racial imbalance • Unconstitutional segregation in part of a district did not mean whole district was in violation

  8. Consensus Crumbles • San Antonio v. Rodriguez – 1973 • Edgewood/Alamo Heights – bordering districts with very different economic conditions • Represents a classic “separate but equal” case • Court disagrees – state not denying anything to anyone • Result is a consequence of realities behind economic advantage/disadvantage • Marshall in dissent “this is a retreat from the historic commitment in Brown.”

  9. The Court defines limits • Milliken v. Bradley – 1974 • Desegregation of Detroit – Detroit schools (100+) were more than 90% black • Lower courts authorized a multi-district busing plan to move kids out of the city and other in • Supreme Court disagrees – a line has to be drawn and it should be drawn at the city limits • The state had committed de jure segregation, not the outlying districts, so they shouldn’t be forced to do anything. • Marshall “Giant step backward” “This will allow our metropolitan areas to be divided up into two cities – one white , the other black”

  10. Return to local control – 1990’s • B.O.E Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell • Rehnquist – courts should intervene only long enough to remedy the effects of past segregation…..beyond their power to address re-segregation • DeKalb County, GA • Never achieved complete integration – had made a good faith effort • Re-segregation was due to personal choice, not state action….Must have further proof of state intent • KCMSD - $800 million invested in school improvements • Further funding was so far removed from intent of ending discrimination • Remedy violation but also restore local control

More Related