Brown v. Board of Education

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