Talk:Brown v. Board of Education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Brown v. Board of Education has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Brown v. Board of Education as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

An event mentioned in this article is a May 17 selected anniversary

Hi. I'm currently writing the Brown v. Board of Education article on the french wikipedia. Different, with more background than here, as there are few US history articles there, and the average reader knows little on that topic. After I read both 1954 and 1955 ruling, I believe there are several minor inaccuracies in this article, in that part : the following year, 1955, the Court found that the decision was not being enforced by President Dwight Eisenhower as stringently as it had expected. In this second Brown case, "Brown II," the Warren Court therefore ordered the states' compliance with Brown I "with all deliberate speed". And it is rather unfair to President Eisenhower.

Warren's 1954 opinion decides the constitutional issue but not the cases. It asks for more arguments on how the constitutional principle could be implemented. Then there is the 1955 ruling, which decides the cases (send them back to lower courts). So the court could not find than President Eisenhower did not enforce the decision fully in between. Besides, Does not the wording "with all deliberate speed" mean something like quite fast, but not too fast? It also asks for "a prompt and reasonable start". As I understand it (please pardon my french), the court expected lot of practical difficulties in ending segregation, which is why it asked for more arguments in 1954. The court made lot of room for lower courts to appreciate which delay might be appropriate. Later, the language was different, in Griffin v. County School Board in Griffin v. County School Board 377 US 218 1964 it writes "The time for mere deliberate speed has run out", and in Green v. County School Board 391 U.S. 430 1968, "We need a plan that promises realistically to work and that promises realistically to work now".

After 1955, while Eisenhower may not have been a strong proponent of desegregation at that time, he was not responsible for enforcing the decision either. Local school authorities were. And Eisenhower enforced compliance quite strongly in Little Rock in 1957 when state authorities failed too.

May I request some help too : could someone help me translate to french "due process of law" and "with all deliberate speed"? (I know due process is not linked to Brown, which is decided on equal protection, but it will be useful sometime)

-- didup on the french wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Intro

Did B v. B "explicitly outlaw" all segregation, or was it a bit more limited than that. (Don't get me wrong: I'm AGAINST segragation and discrimination.)

Here's another view:

The decision did more than simply allow the Brown family to take advantage of that nearby school in Topeka, Kansas. It also made 21 state laws enforcing educational segregation unconstitutional. While it did not abolish all forms of segregation or even all public school segregation, it was, in the words of Brown's daughter Cheryl Brown Thompson, "the beginning of the end." (emphasis added for Wikipedia talk page)

My questions are:

  1. To what extent did the decision stop segregation in schools?
  2. What forms or instances of segregation did it leave intact?
  3. How did it lead to further restrictions on segregation?

It's call a "landmark" because like a milestone along a highway it shows a significant place along a path. (Let's not claim more progress than actually occurred at the time.) --Uncle Ed 14:10, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Brown only related to de jure segregation. Decisions about de facto segregation came later. I'll have a look at it & edit accordingly. -- Jmabel 18:37, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] factual issues in the article.

a couple of things I think need to be cleaned up, but I'm reluctant to edit core text on a prominent article.

  • Linda Brown did not have to walk a mile across railroad tracks to Monroe Elementary. The Topeka school district provided busses to black students. [1] (Brown foundation web site operated by Linda Brown.)
  • The article states: Brown's suit had the backing of the NAACP, whose chief counsel... again, the Brown foundation web site, as well as NAACP sources state that he Brown case was initiated and organized by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) leadership who recruited African American parents in Topeka for a class action suit against the local school board. and that further: Oliver Brown was asked to join the class action suit by Charles Scott, one of three serving as legal counsel for the Topeka NAACP The NAACP was activly RECRUITING parents to establish a test case in Topeka. Is this clarifcation important enough to mention, or is the PURPOSE of the decision more important that the history of how it came about?
  • This from the Park Service site re the Monroe school...
The current building was constructed in 1926 just to the south of the old school. It was one of many educational facilities in Topeka designed by the prominent Topeka architect Thomas W. Williamson between 1920 and 1935. His firm, Williamson and Co., was hired by the Topeka Board of Education to design a series of progressive schools. Monroe Elementary School is a two-story brick and limestone building in the Italian Renaissance Revival style. The building was made with some of the best materials and the most modern technology of the time. Monroe was the newest of the four segregated schools serving Topeka's African American community. The other schools were Buchanan, McKinley, and Washington. Washington no longer stands and the Topeka Board of Education no longer owns the remaining schools.

Clearly, NAACP history, as well as USD501 historical documents make it clear that Topeka was chosen because Monroe wasn't a horrific tar-paper-shack school, busses WERE provided, only the elementary schools were segregated, and so the Topeka case was a decent example of seperate but equal is still bad I am tempted to put that into the article, but on the other hand, it is, to a certain extent apologetics for my hometown of Topeka. I would appriciate input on it. Rick Boatright 4 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)

Done. I'm sure that it can be improved, but there is at least _some_ of the local history there now. Rick Boatright 5 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)


Wasn't there a fifth case, Bolling v. Sharpe? Dboon May 17, 2006 1:38 pm (EST)

  • See Bolling v. Sharpe. The case was not combined, because it was in DC, and hence did not raise the same states' rights issues. - Jmabel | Talk 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] legal criticisms.

I'm not particularly willing to step into the tarpit of legal critcisms of Brown without some substantial peer review.

Therefore, I'm posting a proposed text _here_ on the talk page before moving it onto the main page. I know, I know, be bold. -- not when it comes to race-wars thank you veyr much. Rick Boatright 17:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The note about McConnell is wrong. He has argued that Brown's result is compatible with the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment: "Further, as McConnell's law-review article shows, in the years immediately following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, as Congress acted to enact legislation enforcing the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, a substantial majority of both houses of Congress repeatedly voted to abolish segregation in the public schools. Although filibuster tactics and other procedural obstacles prevented ultimate passage of legislation abolishing segregated schools, McConnell demonstrates that these votes provide powerful evidence that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment was that segregated public schools were unconstitutional." [2] -- 69.19.2.36 00:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Criticisms

moved into the article... Brown v. Board of Education

    • Looks good, but the last paragraph should be dropped or expanded. Also the quote could be culled a bit, 3 paragraphs is too long. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:33, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
  • Cut the quote as far as I dare without rewriting and paraphrasing. Cited Korematsu.... Rick Boatright 18:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good. I think there should be more, though, about criticism of Brown as too timid. You have the one remark about "all deliberate speed". There should be more. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I couldn't help recalling a joke from the late 1960s: maybe they should have said "all deliberate immediate compliance". I wish I had a citation for that. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity capitalization

in the sentence

Their fear was that this would lead to further segregation. They believed that with this type of choice, white parents would shift their children to other schools creating predominately african american and predominately white schools.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style states in the capitalization section that ethnic groups get capitalized.

uh. err.... uh So.... In this sentence, African-American is an ethnicity and gets capitalized but in this sentence "white" implies "everyone else, Asians, While Americans, Latino's and Europeans" and so does NOT get capitalized? Which, still, somehow feels wrong.

can someone please look over the captitalization of negro, white, a-a, and other "ethnic" groups in this article and see if we're being at least consistant, and hopefully consistant with the Manual of Style?Rick Boatright 13:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] copyedit: case listing in background

is it necessary to list the cases on black rights in the background section? they are all listed again in See Also. how abt something like below, explaining two or three cases and consigning the rest to references:

Other landmark cases such as Shortpants vrs. Hickstown Board of Health conferring Podiatric Care rights, Winfrey vrs. Rest of Us outlawing reticence are listed below.

[edit] rationale

Given some of the discussion in the article, I take it that the decision was justified based on the 14th amendment, but the rationale is not discussed anywhere in the article. If that is indeed the case (or if it's not), could someone who knows about it add something about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.168.135 (talk • contribs) 28 Oct 2005.

[edit] another random question

Was BvB the first Supreme Court case to overturn a previous Supreme Court ruling? Of all the cases I'm aware of, I can't think of another such case, though I'm only familiar with 40-some major rulings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.234.215.76 (talk • contribs) 28 Jan 2006.

[edit] One minor problem

Google Maps link to Bus Stop is broken, specifically, the bus stop adress. Could anyone fix it? BTW, the white school google maps link is fine.

Edit: Now I fixed it. --66.240.36.2 19:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brown II section: POV

  • "This delegation to lower courts was seen as a sell-out.": seen by whom?
  • "The ambiguous language “all deliberate speed” was often interpreted as “never”.": interpreted by whom (this sentence is actually ambiguous: interpreted as the Court intentionally saying "never"? Conveniently interpreted that way by lower courts? Several other readings are also possible, because it doesn't say who was interpreting and in what context.
  • "In effect, Brown II hurt much of what Brown had set out to accomplish." Certainly needs citation, especially inasmuch as it attributes conflicting intentions to the same body.

I don't necessarily disagree with this characterization of Brown II, but my agreement does not make it less POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this section is POV, as there is no citation, and is clearly written from an anti-Brown II point of view. This needs to be rewritten. Elephantmaster 03:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the language and removed the section POV tag. If anyone still feels that the tag is needed, feel free to put it back. Sperril 06:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brown v Board Howard Law School Contributions

I think the role of the Howard Law School should figure more prominently in the article. At the very least I would recommend a link to the Brownat50 website with an annotated chronology, brief history, cases, bios, and more.

Thanks for considering it.

Steve

http://brownat50.org/

Added as an external link. If you want to expand on it further in the article, have at it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive links?

In the article, several names are linked that as far as I know have no notability aside from the present topic:

  • Oliver Brown / Oliver L. Brown (linked both ways). The former links to a disambiguation page; when you follow it up you get an article that is less useful than a redirect to the present article would be. The latter goes nowhere.
  • William Everett Glenn, Sr.
  • McKinley Burnett
  • Charles Scott: the link is to a disambiguation page, which shows no article on the relevant person.
  • Linda Brown is simply a redirect back to this same page.
  • Paul Wilson just might be notable beyond this, but Paul Wilson links to a disambiguation page that does not even mention him.

-- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale 2

This article is puzzling: what was the court's reason for holding that separate facilities are inherently unequal? Did it not say? HenryFlower 23:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, their argument was that in America's racial climate, the separation inherently carried a stigma. - Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrongheaded edits?

Several edits to this article over the last two months strike me as wrongheaded. Since this is obviously a controversial article, I am bringing these matters here for discussion rather than just reverting. I will allow at least 72 hours for comment before I edit, though I don't object if others edit sooner.

"The 17 May, 1954 decision reversed the Court's previous decision in Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education" became "The 17 May, 1954 decision edited the Court's previous decision in Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education (bolding mine, to highlight the difference). I agree that technically it didn't reverse the earlier decision. However, "edited" in this sense is a terribly technical term. I would suggest "reversed the precedent set by…".

The quote from Warren ("Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments…"), previously cited to http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031211-085722-8465r.htm, is now uncited. That might not have been the best choice of citations, but it is hard to see how it could be worse than nothing.

The following (a section entitled "Brown III") was cut without even a link to replace it. I think it belongs in this article; perhaps it belongs in a separate article of its own, but even then it should still be linked.

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 white 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 10th Circuit on 2-1 vote found that the vestiges of segregation remained with respect to student and staff assignment. In 1993, the Supreme Court denied the appellant School District's request for certiorari and returned the case 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 #501 on July 27, 1999. One of the new magnet schools is named after the Scott family attorneys for their role in the Brown case and civil rights. [3]

The section on "myths" now contains what appears to be a myth in the worst sense. See this diff] for changes between April 27 and today. The section now contains the following text, in quotations but (as far as I can tell) uncited: "Actually, the black schools in Topeka were at least as good as the white schools. Some even had better playgrounds than the white schools. While it is true that black students often had to travel farther to get to their schools, the school district provided busing for black students, a service not available to white students." Conversely, some well-cited material appears to have been removed.

Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Glarg... That's what happens when I take a wikibreak. Yuck. By all means fix it. Rick Boatright 03:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


I see that someone else fixed the "myths" one. I've fixed the others. - Jmabel | Talk 02:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You did. I split III out from II tho, 'cause it really needed to be. Rick Boatright 16:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New uncited criticisms

The paragraph that begins "Still other criticism focuses on basics of the cases" is new, totally uncited, and (among other things) argues counterfactuals about the possibility of having decided the case differently. I think this should be removed unless these views can be appropriately attributed. Otherwise, they just seem to be an unattributed defense of a less pernicious segregation. It appears to have been introduced by this anonymous edit with no summary. - Jmabel | Talk 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Criticisms and the 1952 Memo

The under the subject heading of "Legal Criticism" it begins with the discussion of the 1952 memo authored by a clerk of Justice Jackson. The first paragraph that is concerning this seems to imply that the memo was definitely written by the young Rehnquist but no substantial evidence has been given to sustain that it was in fact his opinion. I understand that there is strong evidence but not conclusive evidence, so it would be fair to say it was authored by him ( because it was signed 'whr') however factually we cannot say whether it was or was not his opinion. Therefore I think it should be changed to reflect that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Makwy2 (talk • contribs) 25 October 2006.

[edit] Applying to other segregation instances

Hello. I am a paralegal student trying to tie Brown to a segregation case regarding a developmentally disabled child in public school. What portions of Brown would be best to use? I am trying to argue that sending children in wheelchairs to a campus across town is segregation, and, according to Brown, inherently illegal.

FogCitygil207.62.237.123 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia specifically does not give legal advice. - Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/o/Talk%7EBrown_v._Board_of_Education_dfa2.html"