Board of Education I case was decided unanimously. However, sometimes there are a few justices on the Supreme Court of the United States who do not agree with the majority decision. These justices often write dissenting opinions that express how they disagree with the majority decision.
They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.
In each instance, [p] 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the "separate but equal" doctrine in the field of public education.
County Board of Education, U. Oklahoma State Regents, U. 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.
We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education. In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back towhen the Amendment was adopted, or even towhen Plessy v.Essay about Analysis of the Brown v Board of Education Case - It is imperative to note that the case of Brown v Board of Education is based on a chronological history of the fight towards realization of human rights in the United States.
Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education [Danielle S. Allen] on tranceformingnlp.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
"Don't talk to strangers" is the advice long given to children by parents of all classes and races. Today it has blossomed into a fundamental precept of civic education.
How the federal government abandoned the Brown v. Board of Education decision It’s illegal to run schools designed to keep out black students, but the Department of Justice is letting districts get away with it.
Merits BriefsBrief for Petitioners Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of the State of California and Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaBrief for Respondents Enterta. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (No. 1.) Argued: Argued December 9, In the Kansas case, Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs are Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka.
They brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enjoin enforcement of a Kansas statute. BibMe Free Bibliography & Citation Maker - MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard.