“Brown v. Board of Education”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),^[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that American state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 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 ({{ussc|349|294|1955}}) only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

The case originated with a lawsuit filed by the Brown family, a family of black Americans in Topeka, Kansas, after their local public school refused to enroll their daughter in the school closest to their home, forcing her to ride a bus to a blacks-only school further away. A number of other black families joined the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court later combined their case with several other similar lawsuits from other areas of the United States. At trial, the district court ruled in favor of the school board based on the Supreme Court's precedent in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the Court had ruled that racial segregation was not in itself a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause if the facilities in question were otherwise equal, a doctrine that had come to be known as "separate but equal". The Browns appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

The Court's decision in Brown partially overruled Plessy v. Ferguson by declaring that the "separate but equal" notion was unconstitutional for American public schools and educational facilities.{{notetag|Brown and several subsequent Supreme Court decisions have severely weakened Plessy v. Ferguson to the point that it is generally considered to have been de facto overruled.{{sfnp|Schauer|1997|p=280}}}} It paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the Civil Rights Movement,^[2] and a model for many future impact litigation cases.^[3] In the American South, especially the "Deep South", where racial segregation was deeply entrenched, the reaction to Brown was angry and stubborn.{{sfnp|McCloskey|Levinson|2010|p=144}} Many Southern governmental and political leaders embraced a plan known as "Massive Resistance", created by Virginia 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.

Background

For much of the sixty years preceding the Brown case, race relations in the United States had been dominated by racial segregation. This policy had been endorsed in 1896 by the United States Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that as long as the separate facilities for the separate races were equal, segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment ("no State shall ... deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws").^[4]

The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely from the 17 states that required racial segregation to the 16 in which it was prohibited. Brown was influenced by UNESCO's 1950 Statement, signed by a wide variety of internationally renowned scholars, titled The Race Question.^[5] This declaration denounced previous attempts at scientifically justifying racism as well as morally condemning racism. Another work that the Supreme Court cited was Gunnar Myrdal's The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944).^[6] Myrdal had been a signatory of the UNESCO declaration. The research performed by the educational psychologists Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark also influenced the Court's decision.^[7] The Clarks' "doll test" studies presented substantial arguments to the Supreme Court about how segregation affected black schoolchildren's mental status.^[8]

The United States and the Soviet Union were both at the height of the Cold War during this time, and U.S. officials, including Supreme Court Justices, were highly aware of the harm that segregation and racism played on America's international image. When Justice William O. Douglas traveled to India in 1950, the first question he was asked was, "Why does America tolerate the lynching of Negroes?" Douglas later wrote that he had learned from his travels that "the attitude of the United States toward its colored minorities is a powerful factor in our relations with India." Chief Justice Earl Warren, nominated to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, echoed Douglas's concerns in a 1954 speech to the American Bar Association, proclaiming that "Our American system like all others is on trial both at home and abroad, ... the extent to which we maintain the spirit of our constitution with its Bill of Rights, will in the long run do more to make it both secure and the object of adulation than the number of hydrogen bombs we stockpile."^[9]^[10]

Case

Filing and arguments

In 1951, a class action suit was filed against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs were thirteen Topeka parents on behalf of their 20 children.^[11]

The suit called for the school district to reverse its policy of racial segregation. The Topeka Board of Education operated separate elementary schools under an 1879 Kansas law, which permitted (but did not require) districts to maintain separate elementary school facilities for black and white students in 12 communities with populations over 15,000. The plaintiffs had been recruited by the leadership of the Topeka NAACP. Notable among the Topeka NAACP leaders were the chairman McKinley Burnett; Charles Scott, one of three serving as legal counsel for the chapter; and Lucinda Todd.

The named plaintiff, Oliver L. Brown, was a parent, a welder in the shops of the Santa Fe Railroad, an assistant pastor at his local church, and an African American.^[12] He was convinced to join the lawsuit by Scott, a childhood friend. Brown's daughter Linda Carol Brown, a third grader, had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop to ride to Monroe Elementary, her segregated black school one mile (1.6 km) away, while Sumner Elementary, a white school, was seven blocks from her house.^[13]^[14]

As directed by the NAACP leadership, the parents each attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school in the fall of 1951. They were each refused enrollment and directed to the segregated schools.

The case "Oliver Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas" was named after Oliver Brown as a legal strategy to have a man at the head of the roster. The lawyers, and the National Chapter of the NAACP, also felt that having Mr. Brown at the head of the roster would be better received by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The 13 plaintiffs were: Oliver Brown, Darlene Brown, Lena Carper, Sadie Emmanuel, Marguerite Emerson, Shirley Fleming, Zelma Henderson, Shirley Hodison, Maude Lawton, Alma Lewis, Iona Richardson, and Lucinda Todd.^[15]^[16] The last surviving plaintiff, Zelma Henderson, died in Topeka, on May 20, 2008, at age 88.^[17]^[18]

The District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, citing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson, {{ussc|163|537|1896}}, which had upheld a state law requiring "separate but equal" segregated facilities for blacks and whites in railway cars.^[19] The three-judge District Court panel found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the negro and white schools in Topeka were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers.^[20]

Supreme Court review

The case of Brown v. Board of Education as heard before the Supreme Court combined five cases: Brown itself, Briggs v. Elliott (filed in South Carolina), Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (filed in Virginia), Gebhart v. Belton (filed in Delaware), and Bolling v. Sharpe (filed in Washington, D.C.).

All were NAACP-sponsored cases. The Davis case, the only case of the five originating from a student protest, began when 16-year-old Barbara Rose Johns organized and led a 450-student walkout of Moton High School.^[21] The Gebhart case was the only one where a trial court, affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court, found that discrimination was unlawful; in all the other cases the plaintiffs had lost as the original courts had found discrimination to be lawful.

The Kansas case was unique among the group in that there was no contention of gross inferiority of the segregated schools' physical plant, curriculum, or staff. The district court found substantial equality as to all such factors. The lower court, in its opinion, noted that, in Topeka, "the physical facilities, the curricula, courses of study, qualification and quality of teachers, as well as other educational facilities in the two sets of schools [were] comparable."^[22] The lower court observed that "colored children in many instances are required to travel much greater distances than they would be required to travel could they attend a white school" but also noted that the school district "transports colored children to and from school free of charge" and that "no such service [was] provided to white children."^[22]

In the Delaware case the district court judge in Gebhart ordered that the black students be admitted to the white high school due to the substantial harm of segregation and the differences that made the separate schools unequal.

The NAACP's chief counsel, Thurgood Marshall—who was later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967—argued the case before the Supreme Court for the plaintiffs. Assistant attorney general Paul Wilson—later distinguished emeritus professor of law at the University of Kansas—conducted the state's ambivalent defense in his first appellate argument.

In December 1952, the Justice Department filed a friend of the court brief in the case. The brief was unusual in its heavy emphasis on foreign-policy considerations of the Truman administration in a case ostensibly about domestic issues. Of the seven pages covering "the interest of the United States," five focused on the way school segregation hurt the United States in the Cold War competition for the friendship and allegiance of non-white peoples in countries then gaining independence from colonial rule. Attorney General James P. McGranery noted that

The brief also quoted a letter by Secretary of State Dean Acheson lamenting that

British barrister and parliamentarian Anthony Lester has written that "Although the Court's opinion in Brown made no reference to these considerations of foreign policy, there is no doubt that they significantly influenced the decision."^[24]

Consensus building

In spring 1953, the Court heard the case but was unable to decide the issue and asked to rehear the case in fall 1953, with special attention to whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibited the operation of separate public schools for whites and blacks.^[25]

The Court reargued the case at the behest of Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, who used reargument as a stalling tactic, to allow the Court to gather a consensus around a Brown opinion that would outlaw segregation. The justices in support of desegregation spent much effort convincing those who initially intended to dissent to join a unanimous opinion. Although the legal effect would be same for a majority rather than unanimous decision, it was felt that dissent could be used by segregation supporters as a legitimizing counter-argument.

Conference notes and draft decisions illustrate the division of opinions before the decision was issued.^[26] Justices Douglas, Black, Burton, and Minton were predisposed to overturn Plessy.^[26] Fred M. Vinson noted that Congress had not issued desegregation legislation; Stanley F. Reed discussed incomplete cultural assimilation and states' rights and was inclined to the view that segregation worked to the benefit of the African-American community; Tom C. Clark wrote that "we had led the states on to think segregation is OK and we should let them work it out."^[26] Felix Frankfurter and Robert H. Jackson disapproved of segregation, but were also opposed to judicial activism and expressed concerns about the proposed decision's enforceability.^[26] Chief Justice Vinson had been a key stumbling block. After Vinson died in September 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice.^[26] Warren had supported the integration of Mexican-American students in California school systems following Mendez v. Westminster.^[27] 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." Nevertheless, the Justice Department sided with the African American plaintiffs.^[28]^[29]^[30]

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.

Warren convened a meeting of the justices, and presented to them the simple argument that the only reason to sustain segregation was an honest belief in the inferiority of Negroes. Warren further submitted that the Court must overrule Plessy to maintain its legitimacy as an institution of liberty, and it must do so unanimously to avoid massive Southern resistance. He began to build a unanimous opinion. Although most justices were immediately convinced, Warren spent some time after this famous speech convincing everyone to sign onto the opinion. Justice Jackson dropped his concurrence and Reed finally decided to drop his dissent. The final decision was unanimous. Warren drafted the basic opinion and kept circulating and revising it until he had an opinion endorsed by all the members of the Court.^[31] Reed was the last holdout and reportedly cried during the reading of the opinion.^[32]

Decision

On May 17, 1954, the Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision in favor of the Brown family and the other plaintiffs. The decision consists of a single opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, which all the other justices joined.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=736}} The Court began by noting that it had attempted to find an answer to the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to abolish segregation in public education by hearing a second round of oral arguments from the parties' lawyers specifically on the historical sources relating to its drafting and ratification, but to no avail.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=736}}

The Court also stated that using historical information on the original scope of the Fourteenth Amendment's application to public education was difficult because of intervening societal and governmental changes.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=736}} It noted that in 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, public schools were uncommon in the American South. White children whose families could afford schooling usually attended private schools, and the education of black children was "almost nonexistent"—in some Southern states, any education of black people had actually been forbidden by law.^[33] The Court contrasted this with the situation in 1954: "Today, education is perhaps the most important function of our local and state governments."^[34] It concluded that, in making its ruling, the Court would have to "consider public education in light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation."^[35]

The Court did not address the issues regarding the many instances in which the segregated educational facilities for black children in the cases were inferior in quality to those for white children, probably because some of the school districts involved had made improvements to their black schools to "equalize" them with the quality of the white schools.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=736}} This prevented the Court from finding a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in "measurable inequalities" between all white and black schools, and instead required it to look to the effects of segregation itself.{{sfnp|Nowak|Rotunda|2012|loc=§ 18.8(d)(ii)(2)}} Thus, the Court 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|2015|pp=736–37}}

In answer, the Court ruled that it did.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=737}} It held that state-mandated segregation, even if implemented in schools of otherwise equal quality, is inherently unequal: "To separate [black children] 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 to ever be undone."^[36] The Court supported this conclusion with citations—in a footnote, not the main text of the opinion—to a number of psychological studies that purported to show that segregating black children made them feel inferior and interfered with their learning.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=737}} These studies included those of Kenneth and Mamie Clark, whose experiments suggested that black children from segregated environments preferred white dolls over black dolls.

The Court then concluded its relatively short opinion by declaring that segregated public education was inherently unequal, violated the Equal Protection Clause, and therefore was unconstitutional:

The Court did not close with an order to implement the remedy of integrating the schools of the various jurisdictions, but instead requested the parties to re-appear before the Court the following Term in order to hold arguments on the issue.{{sfnp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=737}} This became the case known as Brown II, described below.

Local outcomes

The Topeka junior high schools had been integrated since 1941. Topeka High School was integrated from its inception in 1871 and its sports teams from 1949 on.^[37] The Kansas law permitting segregated schools allowed them only "below the high school level".^[38]

Soon after the district court decision, election outcomes and the political climate in Topeka changed. The Board of Education of Topeka began to end segregation in the Topeka elementary schools in August 1953, integrating two attendance districts. All the Topeka elementary schools were changed to neighborhood attendance centers in January 1956, although existing students were allowed to continue attending their prior assigned schools at their option.^[39]^[40]^[41] Plaintiff Zelma Henderson, in a 2004 interview, recalled that no demonstrations or tumult accompanied desegregation in Topeka's schools:

The Topeka Public Schools administration building is named in honor of McKinley Burnett, NAACP chapter president who organized the case.{{citation needed|date=May 2014}}

Monroe Elementary was designated a U.S. National Historic Site unit of the National Park Service on October 26, 1992.

Reaction and aftermath

Although many Americans cheered the Court's decision, most Southern whites decried it, and progress on integrating American schools moved slowly. The American political historian Robert G. McCloskey wrote of the South's anger with the decision and its slow effects:

In Virginia, Senator Harry F. Byrd organized the Massive Resistance movement that included the closing of schools rather than desegregating them.^[43]

Deep South

Texas Attorney General John Ben Shepperd organized a campaign to generate legal obstacles to implementation of desegregation.^[44]

In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out his state's National Guard to block black students' entry to Little Rock Central High School. President Dwight Eisenhower responded by deploying elements of the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to Arkansas and by federalizing Arkansas's National Guard.^[45]

Also in 1957, Florida's response was mixed. Its legislature passed an Interposition Resolution denouncing the decision and declaring it null and void. But Florida Governor LeRoy Collins, though joining in the protest against the court decision, refused to sign it, arguing that the attempt to overturn the ruling must be done by legal methods.

In Mississippi fear of violence prevented any plaintiff from bringing a school desegregation suit for the next nine years.^[46] When Medgar Evers sued to desegregate Jackson, Mississippi schools in 1963 White Citizens Council member Byron De La Beckwith murdered him.^[47] Two subsequent trials resulted in hung juries. Beckwith was not convicted of the murder until 1994.^[48]

In 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace personally blocked the door to Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to prevent the enrollment of two black students. This became the infamous Stand in the Schoolhouse Door^[49] where Wallace personally backed his "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" policy that he had stated in his 1963 inaugural address.^[50] He moved aside only when confronted by General Henry Graham of the Alabama National Guard, who was ordered by President John F. Kennedy to intervene.

Upland South

In North Carolina, there was often a strategy of nominally accepting Brown, but tacitly resisting it. On May 18, 1954 the Greensboro, North Carolina school board declared that it would abide by the Brown ruling. This was the result of the initiative of D. E. Hudgins Jr., a former Rhodes Scholar and prominent attorney, who chaired the school board. This made Greensboro the first, and for years the only, city in the South, to announce its intent to comply. However, others in the city resisted integration, putting up legal obstacles{{how|date=March 2015}} to the actual implementation of school desegregation for years afterward, and in 1969, the federal government found the city was not in compliance with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Transition to a fully integrated school system did not begin until 1971, after numerous local lawsuits and both nonviolent and violent demonstrations. Historians have noted the irony that Greensboro, which had heralded itself as such a progressive city, was one of the last holdouts for school desegregation.^[51]^[52]

In Moberly, Missouri, the schools were desegregated, as ordered. However, after 1955, the African-American teachers from the local "negro school" were not retained; this was ascribed to poor performance. They appealed their dismissal in Naomi Brooks et al., Appellants, v. School District of City of Moberly, Missouri, Etc., et al.; but it was upheld, and SCOTUS declined to hear a further appeal.^[53]^[54]

North

Many Northern cities also had de facto segregation policies, which resulted in a vast gulf in educational resources between black and white communities. In Harlem, New York, for example, not a single new school had been built since the turn of the century, nor did a single nursery school exist, even as the Second Great Migration caused overcrowding of existing schools. Existing schools tended to be dilapidated and staffed with inexperienced teachers. Northern officials were in denial of the segregation, but Brown helped stimulate activism among African-American parents like Mae Mallory who, with support of the NAACP, initiated a successful lawsuit against the city and State of New York on Browns principles. Mallory and thousands of other parents bolstered the pressure of the lawsuit with a school boycott in 1959. During the boycott, some of the first freedom schools of the period were established. The city responded to the campaign by permitting more open transfers to high-quality, historically-white schools. (New York's African-American community, and Northern desegregation activists generally, now found themselves contending with the problem of white flight, however.)^[55]^[56]

The intellectual roots of Plessy v. Ferguson, the landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation in 1896 under the doctrine of "separate but equal" were, in part, tied to the scientific racism of the era.^[57]^[58] However, the popular support for the decision was more likely a result of the racist beliefs held by many whites at the time.^[59] In deciding Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court rejected the ideas of scientific racists about the need for segregation, especially in schools. The Court buttressed its holding by citing (in footnote 11) social science research about the harms to black children caused by segregated schools.

Both scholarly and popular ideas of hereditarianism played an important role in the attack and backlash that followed the Brown decision.^[59] The Mankind Quarterly was founded in 1960, in part in response to the Brown decision.^[60]^[61]

Legal criticism and praise

However, during his 1971 confirmation hearings, Rehnquist said, "I believe that the memorandum was prepared by me as a statement of Justice Jackson's tentative views for his own use." Justice Jackson had initially planned to join a dissent in Brown.^[64] Later, at his 1986 hearings for the slot of Chief Justice, Rehnquist put further distance between himself and the 1952 memo: "The bald statement that Plessy was right and should be reaffirmed, was not an accurate reflection of my own views at the time."^[65]

In any event, while serving on the Supreme Court, Rehnquist made no effort to reverse or undermine the Brown decision, and frequently relied upon it as precedent.^[66]

Chief Justice Warren's reasoning was broadly criticized by contemporary legal academics with Judge Learned Hand decrying that the Supreme Court had "assumed the role of a third legislative chamber"^[67] and Herbert Wechsler finding Brown impossible to justify based on neutral principles.^[68]

Some aspects of the Brown decision are still debated. Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, himself an African American, wrote in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that at the very least, Brown I has been misunderstood by the courts.

Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior educational resources making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools—would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant …

Given that desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement, there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment. (…) Because of their "distinctive histories and traditions," black schools can function as the center and symbol of black communities, and provide examples of independent black leadership, success, and achievement.^[69]}}

Some Constitutional originalists, notably Raoul Berger in his influential 1977 book "Government by Judiciary," make the case that Brown cannot be defended by reference to the original understanding of the 14th Amendment. They support this reading of the 14th amendment by noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 did not ban segregated schools and that the same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment also voted to segregate schools in the District of Columbia. Other originalists, including Michael W. McConnell, a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in his article "Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions," argue that the Radical Reconstructionists who spearheaded the 14th Amendment were in favor of desegregated southern schools.^[70] Evidence supporting this interpretation of the 14th amendment has come from archived Congressional records showing that proposals for federal legislation which would enforce school integration were debated in Congress a few years following the amendment's ratification.^[71]

The case also has attracted some criticism from more liberal authors, including some who say that Chief Justice Warren's reliance on psychological criteria to find a harm against segregated blacks was unnecessary. For example, Drew S. Days has written:^[72] "we have developed criteria for evaluating the constitutionality of racial classifications that do not depend upon findings of psychic harm or social science evidence. They are based rather on the principle that 'distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,' Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943). . . ."

In his book The Tempting of America (page 82), Robert Bork endorsed the Brown decision as follows:

In June 1987, Philip Elman, a civil rights attorney who served as an associate in the Solicitor General's office during Harry Truman's term, claimed he and Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter were mostly responsible for the Supreme Court's decision, and stated that the NAACP's arguments did not present strong evidence.^[73] Elman has been criticized for offering a self-aggrandizing history of the case, omitting important facts, and denigrating the work of civil rights attorneys who had laid the groundwork for the decision over many decades.^[74] However, Frankfurter was also known for being one of court's most outspoken advocates of the judicial restraint philosophy of basing court rulings on existing law rather than personal or political considerations.^[75]^[76] Public officials in the United States today are nearly unanimous in lauding the ruling. In May 2004, the fiftieth anniversary of the ruling, President George W. Bush spoke at the opening of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site, calling Brown "a decision that changed America for the better, and forever."^[77] Most Senators and Representatives issued press releases hailing the ruling.

In an article in Townhall, Thomas Sowell argued that When Chief Justice Earl Warren declared in the landmark 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education that racially separate schools were "inherently unequal," Dunbar High School was a living refutation of that assumption. And it was within walking distance of the Supreme Court."^[78]

Brown II

In 1955, the Supreme Court considered arguments by the schools requesting relief concerning the task of desegregation. In their decision, which became known as "Brown II"^[79] the court delegated the task of carrying out school desegregation to district courts with orders that desegregation occur "with all deliberate speed," a phrase traceable to Francis Thompson's poem, "The Hound of Heaven".^[80]

Supporters of the earlier decision were displeased with this decision. The language "all deliberate speed" was seen by critics as too ambiguous to ensure reasonable haste for compliance with the court's instruction. Many Southern states and school districts interpreted "Brown II" as legal justification for resisting, delaying, and avoiding significant integration for years—and in some cases for a decade or more—using such tactics as closing down school systems, using state money to finance segregated "private" schools, and "token" integration where a few carefully selected black children were admitted to former white-only schools but the vast majority remained in underfunded, unequal black schools.^[81]

For example, based on "Brown II," the U.S. District Court ruled that Prince Edward County, Virginia did not have to desegregate immediately. When faced with a court order to finally begin desegregation in 1959 the county board of supervisors stopped appropriating money for public schools, which remained closed for five years, from 1959 to 1964.

White students in the county were given assistance to attend white-only "private academies" that were taught by teachers formerly employed by the public school system, while black students had no education at all unless they moved out of the county. But the public schools reopened after the Supreme Court overturned "Brown II" in Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, declaring that "...the time for mere 'deliberate speed' has run out," and that the county must provide a public school system for all children regardless of race.^[82]

Brown III

In 1978, Topeka attorneys Richard Jones, Joseph Johnson and Charles Scott, Jr. (son of the original Brown team member), with assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, persuaded Linda Brown Smith—who now had her own children in Topeka schools—to be a plaintiff in reopening Brown. They were concerned that the Topeka Public Schools' policy of "open enrollment" had led to and would lead to further segregation. They also believed that with a choice of open enrollment, white parents would shift their children to "preferred" schools that would create both predominantly African American and predominantly European American schools within the district. The district court reopened the Brown case after a 25-year hiatus, but denied the plaintiffs' request finding the schools "unitary". In 1989, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit on 2–1 vote found that the vestiges of segregation remained with respect to student and staff assignment.^[83] In 1993, the Supreme Court denied the appellant School District's request for certiorari and returned the case to District Court Judge Richard Rodgers for implementation of the Tenth Circuit's mandate.

After a 1994 plan was approved and a bond issue passed, additional elementary magnet schools were opened and district attendance plans redrawn, which resulted in the Topeka schools meeting court standards of racial balance by 1998. Unified status was eventually granted to Topeka Unified School District No. 501 on July 27, 1999.^[84] One of the new magnet schools is named after the Scott family attorneys for their role in the Brown case and civil rights.^[85]

Related cases

Other comments

A PBS film called "Simple Justice" retells the story of the Brown vs. Board of Education case, beginning with the work of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund's efforts to combat 'separate but equal' in graduate school education and culminating in the historical 1954 decision.

See also

References

Footnotes

Citations

1. ^{{ussc|name=Brown v. Board of Education|347|483|1954}}.
2. ^Brown v Board of Education Decision ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
3. ^{{cite book | last=Schuck | first=P.H. | title=Meditations of a Militant Moderate: Cool Views on Hot Topics | publisher=Rowman & Littlefield | series=G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series | year=2006 | isbn=978-0-7425-3961-7 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EjD7gt8kvw8C&pg=PA104 | page=104}}
4. ^Cottrol, Robert J. 2006. "Brown v. Board of Education". American Federalism: An Encyclopedia.
5. ^{{cite web | url=http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=30431&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html | title= Toward a World without Evil: Alfred Métraux as UNESCO Anthropologist (1946–1962) | author=Harald E.L. Prins | publisher=UNESCO | quote=As a direct offshoot of the 1948 "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," it sought to dismantle any scientific justification or basis for racism and proclaimed that race was not a biological fact of nature but a dangerous social myth. As a milestone, this critically important declaration contributed to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.' }}{{en icon}}
6. ^{{Cite book|authorlink=Gunnar Myrdal |first=Gunnar |last=Myrdal |title=The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy |year=1944 |publisher=Harper & Row |location=New York |postscript=}}
7. ^{{cite web|title=Desegregation to diversity?|url=http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep04/deseg.html|publisher=American Psychological Association|year=2004|accessdate=May 15, 2008}}
8. ^{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/03/local/me-clark3 |title=Kenneth Clark, 90; His Studies Influenced Ban on Segregation – |work=Los Angeles Times |date=May 3, 2005 |accessdate=October 15, 2010}}
9. ^Mary L. Dudziak, "The Global Impact of Brown v. Board of Education" SCOTUS Blog
10. ^Mary L Dudziak "Brown as a Cold War Case" Journal of American History, June 2004 {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141207210755/http://www.history.ucsb.edu/courses/tempdownload.php?attach_id=5781 |date=December 7, 2014 }}
11. ^{{cite web |url=http://cjonline.com/stories/050904/04b_localcase.shtml |title=Legacy of Brown: Many people part of local case, Thirteen parents representing 20 children signed up as Topeka plaintiffs |last=Anderson |first=Ric |date=May 9, 2004 |newspaper=Topeka Capital-Journal |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080828064154/http://cjonline.com/stories/050904/04b_localcase.shtml |archive-date=2008-08-28 |access-date=2018-10-07 |deadurl=yes}}
12. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june04/brown_05-12.html |title=Black, White, and Brown |work=PBS NewsHour' |date=May 12, 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040610182739/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june04/brown_05-12.html# |archive-date=June 10, 2004 |dead-url=yes |access-date=August 25, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}.
13. ^[https://www.webcitation.org/5kwQQveNZ?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588641/brown_v_board_of_education_of_topeka.html Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka] MSN Encarta, archived on October 31, 2009 from the original {{webarchive|url=https://www.webcitation.org/5kwQQveNZ?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588641/brown_v_board_of_education_of_topeka.html |date=October 31, 2009 }}
14. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.cjonline.com/indepth/brown/historic-spots-map.shtml |title=Interactive map of locations in Topeka important to the Brown case – Topeka Capital Journal online |publisher=Cjonline.com |date=October 26, 1992 |accessdate=October 15, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100615182725/http://www.cjonline.com/indepth/brown/historic-spots-map.shtml# |archive-date=June 15, 2010 |dead-url=yes |df=mdy-all }}
15. ^Brown Foundation for Educational Equity, Excellence and Research, Myths Versus Truths {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050627080802/http://brownvboard.org/mythsandtruths/ |date=June 27, 2005 }} (revised April 11, 2004)
16. ^Ric Anderson, Legacy of Brown: Many people part of local case, Thirteen parents representing 20 children signed up as Topeka plaintiffs {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080828064154/http://cjonline.com/stories/050904/04b_localcase.shtml |date=August 28, 2008 }}, The Topeka Capital-Journal (Sunday, May 9, 2004).
17. ^{{cite news |first=Margalit |last=Fox|title=Zelma Henderson, Who Aided Desegregation, Dies at 88 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/22henderson.html?bl&ex=1211601600&en=d0a1ed67ee5b8c74&ei=5087%0A|work=The New York Times |date=May 22, 2008 |accessdate=May 29, 2008}}
18. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_9333780?nclick_check=1|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080524231336/http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_9333780?nclick_check=1|dead-url=yes|archive-date=May 24, 2008|title=Last surviving Brown v. Board plaintiff dies at 88 - TwinCities.com|date=May 24, 2008|publisher=}}
19. ^School facilities for Negroes here held comparable {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061101110358/http://www.cjonline.com/stories/031604/loc_brown10.shtml |date=November 1, 2006 }}, The Topeka State Journal (August 3, 1951)
20. ^{{cite court |litigants=Brown v. Board of Education |vol=98 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=797 |pinpoint= |court=D. Kan. |date=1951 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/98/797/1899646/ |accessdate=2018-05-15 |quote=}}
21. ^Student Strike at Moton High ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
22. ^¹Brown, 98 F. Supp. at 798.
23. ^{{cite web|url=http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/14/brown-v-board-of-ed-key-cold-war-weapon/|title=Brown v. Board of Ed: Key Cold War weapon|first=By Aryeh|last=Neier|publisher=}}
24. ^¹Antonly Lester, "Brown v. Board of Education Overseas" PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY VOL. 148, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2004 {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150501080744/http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/proceedings/480405.pdf |date=May 1, 2015 }}
25. ^See Smithsonian, "Separate is Not Equal: Brown v. Board of Education {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150630105121/http://americanhistory.si.edu/Brown/history/index.html |date=June 30, 2015 }}
26. ^¹²³⁴{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/03/040503crbo_books|work=The New Yorker|date=May 3, 2004|title=Did Brown Matter?|author=Cass R. Sunstein|accessdate=January 22, 2010}}
27. ^{{cite book|title=The quest for a general theory of leadership|url=https://books.google.com/?id=yoSpyA152NQC&pg=PT183&dq=earl+warren++++menendez&cd=6#v=onepage&q=|author=George R. Goethals, Georgia Jones Sorenson|publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing|year=2006|page=165|isbn=978-1-84542-541-8}}
28. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1120|title=Digital History|website=www.digitalhistory.uh.edu}}
29. ^{{cite web|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|date=November 15, 2014|publisher=|via=NYTimes.com}}
30. ^{{cite book |last=Warren |first=Earl |date=1977 |title=The Memoirs of Earl Warren |location=New York |publisher=Doubleday & Company |page=291 |isbn=0385128355}}
31. ^{{Cite book |first=James T. |last=Patterson |authorlink=James T. Patterson (historian)|title=Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York |year=2001 |isbn=0-19-515632-3}}
32. ^{{cite book|last1=Caro|first1=Robert A.|authorlink=Robert Caro|title=Master of the Senate|date=2002|publisher=Vintage Books|isbn=9780394720951|page=696|url=https://books.google.com/?id=XhZYCidNf8QC&pg=PA696&lpg=PA696&dq=justice+stanley+reed+brown+tears#v=onepage&q=justice%20stanley%20reed%20brown%20tears&f=false|accessdate=17 May 2017|language=en}}
33. ^Brown, 347 U.S. at 490.
34. ^Brown, 347 U.S. at 493.
35. ^{{harvp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=736}} (quoting Brown, 347 U.S. at 492–93).
36. ^{{harvp|Chemerinsky|2015|p=737}} (quoting Brown, 347 U.S. at 494).
37. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.cjonline.com/indepth/flood/stories/071001_floodclass.shtml |title=Topeka Capital Journal article on integration of THS sports teams |publisher=Cjonline.com |date=July 10, 2001 |accessdate=October 15, 2010}}
38. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.cjonline.com/stories/022802/ksb_release.shtml |title=Topeka Capital Journal on line article |publisher=Cjonline.com |date=February 28, 2002 |accessdate=October 15, 2010}}
39. ^"Racial bar down for teachers here", Topeka Daily Capital (January 19, 1956)
40. ^"First step taken to end segregation", Topeka Daily Capital (September 9, 1953)
41. ^"Little Effect On Topeka"Topeka Capital-Journal (May 18, 1954)
42. ^Erin Adamson, "Breaking barriers: Topekans reflect on role in desegregating nation's schools" {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040427065259/http://www.cjonline.com/stories/051103/our_brown1.shtml |date=April 27, 2004 }}, Topeka Capital Journal (May 11, 2003)
43. ^"Massive Resistance" to Integration ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
44. ^Howell, Mark C., John Ben Shepperd, Attorney General of the State of Texas: His Role in the Continuation of Segregation in Texas, 1953-1957, Master's Thesis, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Odessa, Texas, July 2003.
45. ^The Little Rock Nine ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
46. ^Michael Klarman, The Supreme Court, 2012 Term - Comment: Windsor and Brown: Marriage Equality and Racial Equality 127 Harv. L. Rev. 127, 153 (2013).
47. ^Id. citing Karlman, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality at 352-354 (2004).
48. ^{{cite web|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12874973081779579326&hl=en&as_sdt=2006|title=De La Beckwith v. State, 707 So. 2d 547 (Miss. 1997).|publisher=}}
49. ^Standing In the Schoolhouse Door ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
50. ^[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/sfeature/quotes.html The American Experience; George Wallace: Settin' the Woods on Fire; Wallace Quotes], Public Broadcasting Service, pbs.org, 2000. Retrieved February 6, 2007.
51. ^{{cite web |url=http://library.uncg.edu/dp/crg/topicalessays/schooldeseginteg.aspx|title=Civil Rights Greensboro |website=library.uncg.edu}}
52. ^{{cite web |url=https://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/schrag/wiki/index.php?title=Civilities_and_Civil_Rights|title="Summary of 'Civilities and Civil Rights': by William H. Chafe" George Mason University website|publisher=}}
53. ^{{cite web |url=http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/267/733/393864/ |title=Naomi Brooks et al., Appellants, v. School District of City of Moberly, Missouri, Etc., et al., Appellees, 267 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1959)|publisher=}}
54. ^{{cite web |url=http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/13-miss-buchanans-period-of-adjustment|title=Revisionist History Season 2 Episode 3|website=Revisionist History}}
55. ^[https://books.google.com/books?id=AkPnRoKK-XYC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Inter+group+Committee+on+New+York%27s+Public+Schools,+mallory&source=bl&ots=32y_grSeLC&sig=ctJKYMbzX-n2-UoaAChbwAaAOyU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xcF9VPzAJ8vdsAT4oYGIBg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Inter%20group%20Committee%20on%20New%20York's%20Public%20Schools%2C%20mallory&f=false Melissa F. Weiner, Power, Protest, and the Public Schools: Jewish and African American Struggles in New York City (Rutgers University Press, 2010) p. 51-66]
56. ^Adina Back "Exposing the Whole Segregation Myth: The Harlem Nine and New York City Schools" in Freedom north: Black freedom struggles outside the South, 1940-1980, Jeanne Theoharis, Komozi Woodard, eds.(Palgrave Macmillan, 2003) p. 65-91
57. ^{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/?id=Tm2I6LNZ7-cC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=plessy+ferguson+scientific+racism|page=55|title=Race, Law, and Culture: Reflections on Brown v. Board of Education|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1997|author=Austin Sarat|quote=What lay behind Plessy v. Ferguson? There were, perhaps, some important intellectual roots; this was the era of scientific racism.|isbn=978-0-19-510622-0}}
58. ^{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/?id=fuXX4wQXYlsC&pg=PA184&dq=plessy+case+lofgren+scientific+testimony|title=The Plessy Case|author=Charles A. Lofgren|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1988|page=184|quote=But he [ Henry Billings Brown ] at minimum established popular sentiment and practice, along with legal and scientific testimony on race, as a link in his train of reasoning.|isbn=978-0-19-505684-6}}
59. ^¹Race, Law, and Culture: Reflections on Brown v. Board of Education By Austin Sarat. Page 55 and 59. 1997. {{ISBN|0-19-510622-9}}
60. ^{{cite journal|last=Schaffer|first=Gavin|title="'Scientific' Racism Again?": Reginald Gates, the Mankind Quarterly and the Question of "Race" in Science after the Second World War|journal=Journal of American Studies|volume=41|issue=2|pages=253–278|year=2007|ref=harv|doi=10.1017/S0021875807003477}}
61. ^Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case Against Brown v. Board of Education. By John P. Jackson. {{ISBN|0-8147-4271-8}} Page 148
62. ^William Rehnquist, "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases" {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070615154055/http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/26sep20051215/www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh99-1067/324-325.pdf |date=June 15, 2007 }}, S. Hrg. 99-1067, Hearings Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist to be Chief Justice of the United States (July 29, 30, 31, and August 1, 1986).
63. ^Peter S. Canellos,Memos may not hold Roberts's opinions, The Boston Globe, August 23, 2005. Here is what Rehnquist said in 1986 about his conversations with other clerks about Plessy:

I thought Plessy had been wrongly decided at the time, that it was not a good interpretation of the equal protection clause to say that when you segregate people by race, there is no denial of equal protection. But Plessy had been on the books for 60 years; Congress had never acted, and the same Congress that had promulgated the 14th Amendment had required segregation in the District schools. . . . I saw factors on both sides. . . . I did not agree then, and I certainly do not agree now, with the statement that Plessy against Ferguson is right and should be reaffirmed. I had ideas on both sides, and I do not think I ever really finally settled in my own mind on that. . . . [A]round the lunch table I am sure I defended it. . . . I thought there were good arguments to be made in support of it.

S. Hrg. 99-1067, Hearings Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist to be Chief Justice of the United States (July 29, 30, 31, and August 1, 1986).
64. ^Justice William O. Douglas wrote: "In the original conference there were only four who voted that segregation in the public schools was unconstitutional. Those four were Black, Burton, Minton, and myself." See Bernard Schwartz, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Y5cUCl4hSWUC&pg=PA96 Decision: How the Supreme Court Decides Cases], page 96 (Oxford 1996). Likewise, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote: "I have no doubt that if the segregation cases had reached decision last term, there would have been four dissenters—Vinson, Reed, Jackson, and Clark." Id. Justice Jackson's longtime legal secretary had a different view, calling Rehnquist's Senate testimony an attempt to "smear the reputation of a great justice." See Alan Dershowitz, Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist, Huffington Post, September 5, 2005. Retrieved March 15, 2007. See also Felix Frankfurter on the death of Justice Vinson.
65. ^Adam Liptak, [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/weekinreview/11lipt.html?ei=5088&en=5f85796f9c88b565&ex=1284091200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print The Memo That Rehnquist Wrote and Had to Disown], NY Times (September 11, 2005)
66. ^Cases where Justice Rehnquist has cited Brown v. Board of Education in support of a proposition {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070615154053/http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/26sep20051215/www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh99-1067/303-305.pdf |date=June 15, 2007 }}, S. Hrg. 99-1067, Hearings Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the Nomination of Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist to be Chief Justice of the United States (July 29, 30, 31, and August 1, 1986).Also see Jeffery Rosen, [https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200504/rosen/2 Rehnquist the Great?], Atlantic Monthly (April 2005): "Rehnquist ultimately embraced the Warren Court's Brown decision, and after he joined the Court he made no attempt to dismantle the civil-rights revolution, as political opponents feared he would".
67. ^Michael Klarman, The Supreme Court, 2012 Term - Comment: Windsor and Brown: Marriage Equality and Racial Equality, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 127, 142 (2013) citing Learned Hand, The Bill of Rights at 55 (Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecture, 1958).
68. ^Id., Pamela Karlan, "What Can Brown Do For You: Neutral Principles and the Struggle Over the Equal Protection Clause, 58 DUKE L.J. 1049 (2008) citing Herbert Wechsler, Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law, 73 HARV. L. REV. 1 (Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecture, 1959).
69. ^{{ussc|name=Missouri v. Jenkins|volume=515|page=70|pin=120-22|year=1995}} (Thomas, J., concurring).
70. ^{{cite journal | last = McConnell | first = Michael W. | author-link = Michael W. McConnell | title = Originalism and the desegregation decisions | journal = Virginia Law Review | volume = 81 | issue = 4 | pages = 947–1140 | date = May 1995 | doi = 10.2307/1073539 | jstor = 1073539 | ref = harv }}*Response to McConnell: {{cite journal | last = Klarman | first = Michael J. | author-link = Michael Klarman | title = Response: Brown, originalism, and constitutional theory: a response to Professor Mcconnell | journal = Virginia Law Review | volume = 81 | issue = 7 | pages = 1881–1936 | date = October 1995 | doi = 10.2307/1073643 | jstor = 1073643 | ref = harv }}*Response to Klarman: {{cite journal | last = McConnell | first = Michael W. | author-link = Michael W. McConnell | title = Reply: The originalist justification for Brown: a reply to Professor Klarman | journal = Virginia Law Review | volume = 81 | issue = 7 | pages = 1937–1955 | date = October 1995 | doi = 10.2307/1073644 | jstor = 1073644 | ref = harv }}
71. ^{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10bar.html?_r=0|title=From 19th-Century View, Desegregation Is a Test|author=Adam Liptak|date= November 9, 2009|accessdate=June 4, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times}}
72. ^{{citation | last = Days, III | first = Drew S. | author-link = Drew S. Days, III | contribution = Days, J., concurring | editor-last = Balkan | editor-first = Jack | editor-last2 = Ackerman | editor-first2 = Bruce A. | editor-link2 = Bruce Ackerman | title = What 'Brown v. Board of Education' should have said | page = 97 | publisher = New York University Press | location = New York | year = 2001 | isbn = 9780814798904 | ref = harv | postscript = .}} [https://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN081479890X&id=gL1YYW3MOyAC&pg=RA1-PA97 Preview.]
73. ^Harvard Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 8 (June 1987), pp. 1938–1948
74. ^See, e.g., Randall Kennedy. "A Reply to Philip Elman." Harvard Law Review 100 (1987):1938–1948.
75. ^A Justice for All, by Kim Isaac Eisler, page 11; {{ISBN|0-671-76787-9}}
76. ^{{cite web | title = Supreme Court History: Expanding civil rights, biographies of the robes: Felix Frankfurter | url = https://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_frankfurter.html | website = pbs.org/wnet | publisher = Educational Broadcasting Corp., PBS }}
77. ^[https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040517-4.html Remarks by the President at Grand Opening of the Brown v Board of Education National Historic Site], Topeka, Kansas (May 17, 2004)
78. ^{{cite web |url=http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/10/04/dunbar-high-school-after-100-years-n2227261 |title=Dunbar High School After 100 Years |author=Thomas Sowell |date=October 4, 2016 |website=townhall.com}}
79. ^Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, {{Ussc|349|294|1955}}
80. ^Jim Chen, Poetic Justice, 29 Cardozo Law Review (2007)
81. ^The "Brown II," "All Deliberate Speed" Decision ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
82. ^{{cite book |last=Smith |first=Bob |title=They Closed Their Schools |publisher=University of North Carolina Press |year=1965}}
83. ^{{cite court |litigants=Brown v. Board of Education |vol=892 |reporter=F.2d |opinion=851 |pinpoint= |court=10th Cir. |date=1989 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/892/851/72610/ |accessdate=2018-05-15 |quote=}}
84. ^{{cite court |litigants=Brown v. Unified School Dist. No. 501 |vol=56 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=1212 |pinpoint= |court=D. Kan. |date=1999 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/56/1212/2449313/ |accessdate=2018-05-15 |quote=}}
85. ^[https://www2.topeka.k12.ks.us/scott/history.htm Topeka Public Schools Desegregation History: "The Naming of Scott Computer Technology Magnet"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071001021319/https://www2.topeka.k12.ks.us/scott/history.htm |date=October 1, 2007 }}
86. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-jan-june04-brown_05-12/|title=Brown v. Board of Education|last=|first=|date=2014-05-09|website=|publisher=PBS NewsHour|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140509020854/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-jan-june04-brown_05-12/|archive-date=2014-05-09|dead-url=yes|access-date=2018-04-15}}
87. ^{{Cite news|url=http://brownvboard.org/video/blackwhitebrown/|title=Black/White and Brown: Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka|last=|first=|date=2005-09-10|work=KTWU Channel 11|access-date=2018-04-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050910014053/http://brownvboard.org/video/blackwhitebrown/|archive-date=2005-09-10|dead-url=|publisher=KTWU Video|publication-place=transcript of program produced by KTWU Channel 11 in Topeka, Kansas. Originally aired May 3, 2004.|website=}}
88. ^{{cite web|publisher=NPR|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/26/597154953/linda-brown-who-was-at-center-of-brown-v-board-of-education-dies|title=Linda Brown, Who Was At Center Of Brown v. Board Of Education, Dies|author=Vanessa Romo|date=March 26, 2018|accessdate=March 27, 2018}}