Brown v. Board of Education

Brown v Board of Education is one of the most famous landmark cases in American court history. Set against the backdrop of the early 1950s, just as the civil rights movement was beginning to heat up, Brown v Board of Education changed the face of American schools in a significant way and set the stage for further more sweeping reforms in other areas, such as worker discrimination and fair labor laws.

The stage for the conditions that led to Brown v Board of Education was a set of laws that rose out of the civil war restoration period called the Jim Crow laws. These laws varied from state to state and existed primarily in the South. These laws created separation of whites from blacks. Some of these laws include that blacks must sit at the back of the bus and relinquish their seat if a white passenger needed, blacks were supposed to drink from separate fountains, eat at separate restaurants, and use separate bathrooms. Often these facilities were not adequate and not as well kept and those designated for whites.

History of the Case

This was the case in the school system as well. These schools were supposed to be equal, but they were not. Linda Brown, a black third grader had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard to attend her black elementary school. A white elementary school was seven blocks away (Cozzens, 1998). Linda's father tried to enroll her in the white school but the principal refused. Linda's father went to McKinely Burnett, director to the Topeka branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The NAACP decided to challenge segregation in public school soon others joined the fight. In 1951, the NAACP filed an injunction that forbid the segregation of Topeka's public schools (Cozzens, 1998).

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas heard the case on June 25-26, 1951. The NAACP argued that segregated schools sent a message that blacks were inferior to whites and this made the ideal that all schools were equal invalid, (Cozzens, 1998) especially in the eyes of the children.

The Board of Education's defense centered around the idea that segregation in schools served a purpose that this prepared black children for the segregation that they would experience for the rest of their lives in other areas. They argued that segregated schools were a minor experience for the children and pointed out several black historical figures such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver who had over come much more than segregated schools to achieve their goals (Cozzens, 1998). The essence of their argument was to belittle the importance of the issue. The judge agreed that segregation of white and colored children affected the black children's self-esteem and would therefore effect their motivation to learn, putting them at a disadvantage (Cozzens, 1998).

The case of Plessy v Ferguson (1868) set the precedent that allowed separate, but equal schools for blacks and whites. This decision had not been overturned by the Supreme Court and the district court did not feel that it had a right to overturn the decision. They commented that they agreed that segregated schools were damaging to black children, but that it had to rule in favor of the Board of Education due to the past precedent in Plessy v. Ferguson (Cozzens, 1998).

Brown and the NAACP appealed to the Supreme Court on October 1, 1951. The court case presented was combined with other similar court cases from South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. The case was heard on December 9, 1952, but failed to reach a decision. The case was re-heard on December 7-8, 1953 and the Court requested that both sides discuss the circumstances which led to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment in 1868 (Cozzens, 1998). This argument did little to help solve the case. The Court's intent on requiring this argument was to determine if the authors of the Fourth Amendment had desegregated schools in mind when they wrote the Amendment. However, this issue was never resolved and they court had to base its decision on whether segregated schools were detrimental to black children (Cozzens, 1998).

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous court:

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...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" (Brown v Board of Education (1954) in Cozzens, 1998).

This ruling reversed the Plessy decision of separate but equal rule for public education. Because this ruling originated in the Supreme Court, it had national implications. This decision required the desegregation of schools across America (Cozzens, 1998). This decision had no immediate effect on segregation in public areas such as restaurants, restrooms, or on buses. The Jim Crow laws were still a prevalent part of the American South. It only effected schools, but it laid the ground work for the abolishment of discrimination in other areas of society as well. It was a landmark victory for the Civil Rights movement.

Reasoning Behind the Decision

The official opinion so Chief Justice Warren can be read in its entirety at www.nps.gov.His primary task was to determine if the separate schools for blacks was unconstitutional. He referred to the landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Justice Warren pointed out in his final opinion that the Plessy v Ferguson case had little to do with the Brown v Board of Education case as the decision was from a society that no longer resembled the society in 1954. He stressed that the Plessy decision was set against post-civil war America and that societal opinions and values had changed considerably since that time. He therefore ruled that the Plessy case could not be used as a valid argument to support this case, as it had little similarity to the circumstances that had led to Brown v Board of Education (Supreme Court, Opinion, Brown v Board of Education, 1954).

Justice Warren made the following comment concerning the relevancy of the Plessy case to the Brown case:

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" (Opinion, Justice Warren, Brown v Board of Education, 1954).

Justice Warren added that at the time of the Plessy decision, most schools were owned and operated by private white citizens. The idea of public schools, supported by taxes was not established as of yet. This made the situation of the decision a very different scenario than the present one involving a public school supported by tax dollars.

In rendering his final decision, Justice Warren referred to the decisions in six previous cases regarding the "separate but equal" doctrine. His commentary on the cases is as follows;

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" (Opinion, Justice Warren, Brown v Board of Education, 1954).

In rendering decisions on cases, judges often refer to previous cases to help them make a decision. This is called "establishing Precedence." By using previously established precedence, judges can maintain consistency in the legal system. In order to be considered precedence, a case must be directly related to the one at hand. As discussed previously, the Plessy case did not establish precedence for the Brown case because the social situations and culture surrounding the case were irrelevant to the current situation. The cases which the Judge chose to compare for established precedence were recent cases regarding the "separate but Equal" clause. This was the key principle behind the opinion expressed by Justice Warren.

Other principle cases were used as background for the case. One of these was Briggs v Elliott U.S. District Court. (1950). This case established that the segregated condition that existed in black schools were significantly detrimental to the psychological welfare of the black students, There was substantial evidence presented in this case to establish that conditions in black schools placed the students at a disadvantage and sometimes even posed a potential hazard to their health. The judge in this case ruled in support of desegregation. This was a very unpopular decision and resulted in negative repercussions for those who filed, argued and ruled on the case.

Bolling v Sharpe (1947) may have provided the judge in the Brown v Board of education with the idea to make provisions regarding the local applicability of the law. In this segregation case the final ruling decided that segregation did not apply in the District of Columbia.

Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (1951) involved a student strike regarding poor school conditions. This strike was the first of its kind and took place at Farmville High School in Virginia. In this strike 450 African-American students from Moton High School participated in a two-week protest. The Moton high school had no gymnasium, no cafeteria, no infirmary, and no teacher's restrooms. The district court initially ruled that it saw no harm done and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court where it was overturned. The Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors refused to appropriate fund and closed the school rather than submit to the court order and integrate their student population.

This case was important to the Brown case as it established that black schools were not equal to white schools. It helped to establish the severity of the situation. This case, in combination with the Briggs v Elliot case helped to demonstrate that not only were the conditions in black schools inhumane, but that it also had an extreme effect on the students.

The history of this case began in 1938 when the NAACP instituted a strategy for challenging segregation in education through the court system (Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938)). This case was regarding a black student's admittance to college and however, it was similar to Brown v Board of Education. There were other cases which were filed under similar promises, Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1948), McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (1950), and Sweatt v. Painter (1950). Sweatt v Painter was the case used to establish the Brown v Board of Education because it led to the conclusion that "separate but equal? Was not practical or workable in modern society.

Difficulties in Implementation

The final ruling of the Brown v Board of Education decision stated that,

Racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional, 347 U.S. 483, 497, and all provisions of federal, state or local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to this principle" (Brown v Board of Education, Syllabus, p. 298).

This is a decisive and fair sounding ruling, if it only weren't for a few problems in implementing it. We must remember that even though the courts had ruled discrimination unconstitutional, these rulings were set against a cultural backdrop, rich in the ideals inherent in the Jim Crow laws. The courts may rule that black and whites are equal, but that does not mean that every person in the country will automatically change their mindset and actions towards blacks. Furthermore, even though this ruling combated predjudice in schools, it did nothing in the general public. A black child may attend a desegregated school, but they still have to sit at the back of the bus on the way home and eat in a different restaurant.

In order to enforce and implement the new school desegregation, the court made the following rulings,

School authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing and solving the varied local school problems. Courts will have to consider whether the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles, which may require solution in fully implementing the governing constitutional principles. Because of their proximity to local conditions and the possible need for further hearings, the courts which originally heard these cases can best perform this judicial appraisal" (Brown v Board of Education, Syllabus, p. 299).

This ruling placed the responsibility of implementing desegregation in the hand of local authorities. We must remember that the civil war had ended close to 90 years prior to this decision, but many of the ideals that characterized Northern and Southern attitudes prevalent during the Civil War still existed in the minds of the populous. Because the local courts had final authority in the implementation of these rulings, it was possible for some to be more strict and speedy in their implementation. While others, particularly those in prominent white Southern districts would be slow to implement these ideals. Southern courts may simply ignore the lack of response by their local school systems.

To add further confusion to this issue they added the following:

In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the courts will be guided by equitable principles -- characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping remedies and a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs" (Brown v Board of Education, Syllabus, p. 300).

It would now seem as if the courts have forgotten all about the discrimination issue that was the reasoning behind this entire issue. The courts are making it clear that the public interest of the community is very important. The decision of the courts at first seemed rigid and a fix to the discrimination problem. Racism was unconstitutional. Now the judge seems to be catering to their own interests, by catering to public opinion and allowing application of the law according to "Local public needs." We must consider that "public needs" in the South were very different than "public needs" in the Northern states. The use of the term "practical flexibility" has been used in many cases as a crutch in school districts that did not wish to comply with the law.

Just in case we have wandered away from the issue of little Linda Brown trudging across the train yard in the snow, the judge adds, "At stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis" (Brown v Board of Education, Syllabus, p. 300). This was the main issue of the case, however in the above rulings, the judge has given local governments an open playing field by pleading for the "local public good" and giving them an out based on the desegregation of their school being an excessive financial burden or impractical in some way. The Judge in the Brown v Board of Education case took a hard line against racism, then softened the impact by creating a set of loopholes.