Brown+v.+Board+of+Education

=Brown v. Board of Education= 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

This opinion was rendered after a second round of briefing and oral argument in the case. Significantly, between the first round of argument in December 1952 and the second argument in December 1953, Chief Justice Fred Vinson died unexpectedly and was replaced by Chief Justice Earl Warren. If not for this change on the Court, //Brown// might have been decided very differently.

Reargument focused on the circumstances around the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment; specifically, whether the framers of the Amendment intended to abolish segregation in public schools through passage of the Amendment. However, the evidence produced by both sides was inconclusive, and the Court found it not dispositive. Simply put, at the time of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, public education was underdeveloped and did not resemble the system of schools in place by the 1950s.

Having discounted a historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court turned to the body of law affecting segregation in public schools. When the Court first construed the Fourteenth Amendment, it held that the Amendment proscribed all discrimination against African Americans: //The Slaughter-House Cases//, //Strauder v. West Virginia//. The "separate but equal" standard did not make its appearance until //Plessy v. Ferguson//.

Since //Plessy// upheld the practice of segregating passengers by race on railway cars, "separate but equal" had come before the Court six times. In the first two cases, the validity of "separate but equal" was not challenged by the petitioners: //Cumming v. Board of Education// and //Gong Lum v. Rice//. Though neither case disapproved of segregation, because //Plessy// was not challenged, any comments on the application "separate but equal" were merely dicta.

In the last four cases in which //Plessy// was at issue, all were resolved in the black plaintiff's favor without the need to test the "separate but equal" doctrine. These cases were //Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada//, //Sipuel v. Board of Regents//, //Sweatt v. Painter//, and //McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents//.

Of these four cases, //Sweatt// comes the closest to the current facts. In that case, petitioner was denied admission to the University of Texas Law School, while there was another law school that Texas set up to accept African American students. The Court ordered that petitioner be admitted to the University of Texas Law School because of the gross inequality between it and the law school specially for blacks. "Separate but equal" cannot control if there is no equality.

Unlike in //Sweatt//, however, //Brown// had evidence in the record that states were equalizing the schools available for black and white students, in terms of facilities, curricula, teachers, and more. So in //Brown//, the Court was bound to decide directly the effect of segregation itself in public education.

The Court stepped through its decision:

1. To properly frame the question, the Court must consider the system of public education as it exists //now//, not as it was at the time that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed or at the time when //Plessy// was decided.

2. Today, education is vital and is important especially to the development of a child. It "is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."

3. "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?" The Court answered this question in the affirmative.

//Sweatt// explained that the educational experience consists of more than just objectively measurable qualities. //McLaurin// explored these intangibles and found that separation results in feelings of inferiority and a damaging educational experience.

In the lower courts in the present litigation, both the Kansas and Delaware courts found that school segregation had a "detrimental effect" on black children, and resulted in a sense of inferiority.

The Court then confronted //Plessy// directly: "Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of //Plessy v. Ferguson//, this finding [of psychological damage from segregation] is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in //Plessy v. Ferguson// contrary to this finding is overruled."

4. In public education, separate is inherently unequal. State-imposed segregation deprives plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

5. The Court set the case for reargument for the purpose of formulating an adequate and proper remedy. It gave the parties questions relevant to the remedy to focus on at reargument.