Brown Vs. Board of Education - Research Paper Example

Brown v. Board of Education Black or white, are they all equal? Americans have been greatly affected by this outraged discrimination of skin color. It resulted in separation of the white and black people in various perspectives. Segregation was ugly, mean and humiliating. It made the black people know their place and thus this kept them in their place. If u were a Black, or Negro or African American your place was definitely at the bottom. There were traces of toilets and water fountains that were separated from movie theatres, amusement parks and municipal swimming pools. Old books would be sent from the whites schools to the schools of the black if they received new ones. However a number of reforms were formed and different people came up to oppose this act. By doing this they filed cases against the discrimination and segregation based on skin color. For instance, Brown v. Board of Directors is a case name given to five separate cases that were heard by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the issue of segregation in public schools. The cases included Briggs v. Elliot, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Davis v. Board of Education of Prince Edward County (VA), Gebhart v. Ethel and Boiling v. Sharpe. The facts of each case were totally different. Nevertheless, the main issue in each was constitutionality of state-sponsored separation in public schools. The cases were handled by National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense and Education Fund which was founded in 1909 and Thurgood Marshall (Joyner 168-169). A panel of three judges at the U.S District Court that heard the cases ruled the cases in favor of the school boards. However the complainants appealed to the U.S Supreme Court. In 1952, the cases came before the Supreme Court. The court combined the cases under the name Brown v. Board of Education. Marshall arguably raised issues on appeal, the common one was the violation of “equal protection clause” of the 14th Amendment of the U.S constitution. The complainants supported the separation of school systems for whites and blacks which were intrinsically unequal (Charles vol. 114). They also intended to make black children feel inferior to white children. Marshall argued that these systems should not be legitimately acceptable. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren of California brought all the justices to agree to support an undivided decision asserting that the segregation in public schools was unlawful. The court’s opinion in brown v. Board of Directors (Brown I) was a major victory that was against the forces of discrimination and racist domination in America (Joyner 160-161). Chief Justice Warren affirmed that the doctrine of “separate but equal” which traced to an era of “Jim Crow” did not apply in the field of education and thus unconstitutional. This doctrine posted racial inferiority feeling to the African-American children (Joyner 160-161). Furthermore, it stated that African-American schools were inferior in the quality of education it provided to its students and thus the students were sub-par or useful illiterates. The court made a passing reference to the fact that most of the schools that suffered segregation were virtually equal with respect to the countable factors used by the court at that time. What would a unified public school systems look like? How do we create equivalent educational chances on a non-racial basis? The brown II decision under Chief Justice Warren in 1955 attempted to answer these questions (Jennifer 1564). The instant goal to this decision was to give the African-Americans a chance in what was traditionally referred to as “white” schools. The ultimate goal was to fully transit nonracial system of public education to a unitary system. Nevertheless, Brown II was unbelievably a weak attempt to achieving this ultimate goal. The court found out that it had only dealt with creating a system of public education that was free from racial discrimination. It left out important verdicts like the busing systems to the same school authorities that once and would post a huge threat to racial discrimination. Due to this the court ordered an immediate action to be taken on desegregation that provided a weak, uninformative timeline for localities and states to stick to (Klarman 49-52). It is noted that the Brown II did little in the way of reinforcement of racial desegregation in public schools. The court was against the issue of freedom of choice stating that the plans failed to meet the principals and standards of unification that were set out in Brown II. There before, many school districts had initially found a solution to the desegregation mandate by implementing the plans of freedom of choice. Freedom of choice plans gave parents the right to choose the school of their choice regardless to the skin color that they wanted their children to attend to (Jennifer 1565). The Supreme Court, in the initiative of busing context, gave permission to lower courts to order inter-district busing in neighborhoods that were effectively segregated. However, there was the decline in the judicial support for inter-district busing. This was as a result of the court’s decision on Milliken v. Bradley. In this case, the court prevented busing across county and city lines which were viewed as a form of relief, even if the resulting schools were generally dominated by blacks or predominantly by whites. The court, conversely, remanded the case to determine whether the degree of unification could be liquefied and thus the school districts returned to its former all white status (Jennifer 1565). As a result of the court’s back-stepping, desegregation verdict across the country were ended even if the school had made a step to reaching a unitary status. It was noted that the Supreme Court’s failure was due because the enforcement of desegregation on the ground was beyond its capability. Chief Justice Warren in Brown II suggested that these issues were to be handled locally by the schools. There was an argument that it was not the court that was capable of creating and enforcing uniform school busing programs and other segregation initiatives. Rather, these issues were something that was state or federal legislature, in cooperation with local school officials ought to have decided. Despite the court’s failure to enforce desegregation in public schooling, the reality is that the country is still paying the price. African-American parents have taken the matter to their own hands concerning segregations ("Fifty Years of Progress Web"). They were among the leaders of the school choice movement demanding the alteration of the traditional systems. It has been observed that many scholars today, believe that as a result the people, as a society have entered into the age of resegregation. Charter schools in this case were initiated as an alternative means of educating black children. These schools were meant to provide the blacks with better education and better chance at a real future (Jennifer 1566). The charter school movement is described as an alteration of the public education. This movement began in 1991. Minnesota became the first state to pass the legislation of charter schools as a means of addressing the educational failings of the state (Jennifer 1567). Charter schools are public schools that have the freedom to produce results in the manner they feel is the best. They have a wide range of control over their curriculum, stuffing, budget, internal organization, schedule, calendar and instructions. However if the school fails to perform according to the agreement, it may be denied funds and the school will be forced to shut down (Jennifer 1568). The origin of these charter schools can be traced to the court’s decision in Pierce v. society of sisters of 1925 (Jennifer 1569). In the case, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that parents have all the rights to raise and educate their siblings as they wished to. Historically, this exercise has seen end of racial discrimination and it has enabled an easy eradication of integration. There came another desire to create schools based on racial distinctiveness. Local school districts and parents pushed for the amalgamation of afro centric curriculum. They therefore, believed that the revival of racial pride would lead to success in academics. The citizens of American did not trust the Supreme Court because of their negative outcomes in the fight against segregation. (“The Unfinished Agenda of Brown Vs. Board Of Education Web”). In the Court’s Equal Protection Clause in relation to charter schools that were race-conscious, it is clear that the clauses were unlawful because they break down social unity amounting to racial segregation of school children. Therefore, it has been observed that charter schools are the essence of increasing the threat in racial segregation. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his speech, I Have a Dream, fought graciously against racial segregation. This is traced 50 years down the line. Till today his words are still needed much as they were needed in 1963. It is the high time Americans do achieve racial equality like that of Justice Kennedy in Parents Involved where equality was viewed in general terms other than race which no longer matters. School districts must therefore, surrender to the interpretation of the constitution and surrender their efforts at the alternative schooling that is racially-based. Members of the community must shift their focus to providing eminence education that is available to all regardless of class or race. If this is done, the outcome will be lawful and their children will greatly benefit and for this reason immeasurable. Works Cited "Fifty Years of Progress." America 190.17 (2004): 3. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 11 Apr. 2015. "The Unfinished Agenda of Brown Vs. Board Of Education." Publishers Weekly 251.12 (2004): 77. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 11 Apr. 2015. Graglla, Lino A.1. "Fisher V. University Of Texas: Race Preference In University Admissions Survives Another Round." University Of San Francisco Law Review 48.2 (2013): 273-280. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 11 Apr. 2015. Harvey, William B., and Adia M. Harvey. "A Bi-Generational Narrative On The Brown Vs Board Decision." Negro Educational Review 56.1 (2005): 43-49. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 11 Apr. 2015. Jacoby, Jennifer Rose. "Race-Conscious Charter Schools And The Antibalkinization Perspective Of Equal Protection." University Of Pennsylvania Journal Of Constitutional Law 15.5 (2013): 1561-1580. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 11 Apr. 2015. Joyner, Irving. "Pimping Brown V. Board of Education: The Destruction Of African-American Schools And The Mis-Education Of African-American Students." North Carolina Central Law Review 35.2 (2013): 160-202. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 11 Apr. 2015. Klarman, Michael J. "The Supreme Court of Racial Injustice." Chronicle Of Higher Education 59.42 (2013): 3. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 11 Apr. 2015. Ogletree, Charles J Jr. "The Demise Of BROWN Vs. Board Of Education?: Creating A Blueprint To Achieving Racial Justice In The 21St Century. (Undetermined)." Crisis (15591573) 114.1 (2007): S1-S7. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 11 Apr. 2015. Read More