Talk:Brown v. Board of Education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Brown v. Board of Education has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
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 or German language Wikipedias.

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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top-importance within WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Kansas Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Kansas, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Kansas-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

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

"Many blacks feared for their culture with the decision since they would be with whies who distrusted and misunderstood them. [1]" This doesnt make any sense and is mispelled. I believe that the link is a misatribution. I say that this comment should be expunged.


Hi.I'm 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)
Initially, BvBE did almost nothing to end school segregation. But over the course of the next 15 years, after additional lawsuits and rulings, and much social struggle and no small amount of white violence, the practice of maintaining dual "separate but equal" white and colored systems was eventually ended. But BvBE did not directly address school segregation based on where people live (white neighborhoods, black neighborhoods). Nor did it address "white flight" of whites out of integrated schools and into white-only private schools or moving the whole family to overwhelmingly white suburbs with separate school systems. Brucehartford (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2008 (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.

No, it's not the first, but it's the most well-known. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriter's Association overturned Paul v. Virginia in 1944, but unless you care about the history of insurance regulation, you're unlikely to have heard of either case. Schoop (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Charles Hamilton Houston

How is it possible that this article doesn't mention Charles Hamilton Houston? He died before the decision, but the decision could not have happened were it not for his worknut-meg 00:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Houston was a mentor to Marshall and others, but he wasn't on the legal team that argued the case. I've added him to the see also section. Wl219 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Rose Johns

I have a student working on an article on Barbara Rose Johns. At the age of 16 she led a student protest at Moton High School in Farmville, Virginia. This protest led the NAACP to file suit in Davis v. Prince Edward. This case, one of the five cases included in Brown, is the only one that originated with a student led protest. As Brown serves as an unofficial portal for young researchers interested in the struggle for civil rights, I’d like to see a link to the article my student is writing included in the Brown article. The role of Barbara Johns and the involvement of teenagers in this struggle are far too frequently overlooked.

Do mention of Barbara Johns and the Farmville student protest belong in the Brown article? If so, where in the article should it be placed? How many words should be given to the topic? Your feedback is desired.

[edit] Thurgood Marshall

They should have some more things about Thurgood Marshall, he played an important part in this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koolkid93 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Brown v Board of Education is NOT affirmative action

I disagree and am somewhat offended by the fact that this article is listed as "Affirmative action in the United States" at the bottom of the article.

Wikipedia's article on affirmative action states the following: "Affirmative action is a policy or a program of taking positive steps [1] to increase the representation of certain designated groups allegedly seeking to redress discrimination or bias through active measures, as in education and employment. It is usually achieved through the use of preferential treatment for those groups. Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past or present discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity."

Brown v. Board of Education did not preferentially treat any group. It addressed obvious, inherent inequality in the idea that people can be separate and equal, two blatantly contradictory concepts in the context of race.

I strongly advise that this be removed from the category of "Affirmative Action in the United States." It is anything but that, and I don't see the case being challenged anywhere in the court system to this date. I would be appalled if anyone did. Travelsizedoug 08:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I second this. Affirmative Action is a form of discrimination; now, depending on your beliefs you may consider it a form of positive and necessary discrimination to counteract negative discrimination, or bad just because discrimination is bad, but it's inarguably a form of discrimination (in the form of preferential treatment). Brown v. Board of Education is the opposite, it is an elimination of discrimination. While Affirmative Action is part of Civil Rights, and can be used to promote integration, it is far different than what is in this article. It should be removed. -- Atamasama 20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

Shouldn't there be a section discussing the aftermath of the case and how much it actually affected segregation? we could also include a little bit on busing and forced integration.

[edit] my quiz for all

Hi all! You are The Best!!! G'night —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.218.93.157 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Various Criticisms, including factual errors

Here's a list of criticisms of this article from a guitar forum I frequent (yeah, we were off topic.) Anyway, I thought it might be useful for someone who's into these legal things (not me) to look at. The author would appear to have no interest in helping to clear this up. I am not in anyway knowledgeable in this subject, so I'm not of any help here.

Sorry, but I could not let the discussion of Wikipedia in today' Lunch Report lie. Went and looked up an entry I am a subject matter expert on - the Brown v. Board of Education case. To go over all of the errors and misconceptions would take quite awhile. Here are a just a few.

.#1: The case was initiated when Oliver Brown contacted a local attorney William Glenn. Only problem, I have never run across anybody by that name was practicing law in Topeka and certainly nobody with that name having any connection with the case. There is, of course, no footnote so I do not have a clue where the author of the entry came up with this. The lawyers of record were Charles Scott, John Scott, and Charles Beldsoe. Moreover, the origins of the case go back to 1948 when the local chapter of the NAACP sent a representative to NYC to try and gain the national chapter's support in a school segregation case. No plaintiffs had yet been signed up.

.#2: Thurgood Marshall argued the Topeka case in the Supreme Court. Sorry, the case was argued by Jack Greenberg and Robert Carter (who were also emploted by Legal Defense Fund) with local Topeka attorneys Charles and John Scott.

.#3: Topeka middle schools (Junior High Schools) were integrated in 1941. Again - nope. They had always been integrated - only grades K through 6th were fully segregated. The difference was that black kids attended elementary schools from grades K to 8 while white kids attended from K to 6. The Graham case ended with the Board of Education changing the system so that all children entered junior high school in the same grade.

Bottom line, you use this information in a school paper you fail.

That's it. Hope it is useful.

BrockFrazier 04:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinked to death!

I removed a ton of Wikilinks. It's standard practice to only link the first appearance of a word or phrase in an article, but in this case "segregation" was linked almost 20 times. I've removed all but the first link, and I've done the same for the terms "integration", "de jure", and "public school". I've probably missed something I'm sure.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)

A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking that follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;

Now, if someone wants to restore a link here and there feel free. But it was just excessive before. The manual also suggests:

However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate (but see the exception about dates, below). Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. Thus, if an important technical term appears many times in a long article, but is only linked once at the very beginning of the article, it may actually be underlinked. But take care in fixing such problems. If an editor finds themselves "reflexively" linking a term without having a good look around the entire article, it is often time to stop and reconsider.

So, just remember this, especially in an article like this where a term is repeated dozens of times. -- Atamasama 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some copyedits, fact checking, etc.

  • I have made a few copy edits for clarity and readability. Also added some info so that those not familiar with the law or American history could perhaps get a better feel for the topic from the first few paras. I moved the para about Mr. Brown from the Background section. It seemed out of place there and was misleading about the nature of the lawsuit.
  • I have also looked for sources to support the statement that Mr. Brown first consulted with William Glenn. I find a letter to the editor from Mr. Glenn's son here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20040507/ai_n11812896
Is this adequate to support these statements? It is interesting because it does show that Mr. Brown was not just herded into this case, but had been concerned before contacting the NAACP, but ?? What do others think?

--Tinned Elk 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you would really like to know the details of this topic contact the Brown Foundation in Topeka Kansas. Why is there no focus on the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. They were the initiators of it all. My view: there is still too much myth in this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis.angle (talk • contribs) 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 2007 compares against the six good article criteria:

  1. Well written?: The article reads well, and maintains the readers interest throughout.
  2. Factually accurate?: The article is extensively cross referenced with verifiable sources.
  3. Broad in coverage?: Coverage puts the article in both its legal and social context.
  4. Neutral point of view?: The tone and point of view of the article is neutral.
  5. Article stability?: The contributors to this article appear to negociate changes in a constructive and business like fashion.
  6. Images?: The images are highly relevant to the topic.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. --Gavin Collins 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] misconceptions

Hey, I apologize for criticizing something that many people obviously think is a wonderful encyclopedia entry, but I think the "common misconceptions" section should either be removed or entirely rewritten. I'm not a regular wikipedian, so I'm not sure I'd be comfortable altering the article much even if it weren't so controversial, but someone should. Without dissecting it line by line, I'll say at least that the section in question seemed insulting and irrelevant. I know I had not held the particular misconceptions mentioned...When a person consults a reference text, they're looking for information that is fact, not speculations about what misinformation or incorrect inferences might reside in a given person's head.

Otherwise it is an excellent article, which is prolly all the more reason to remove pieces that may hurt the credibility of the rest. R.Tempest 07:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "wonderful" characterization; yes, the article has met the Good Article criteria (which deals as much with format/style/presentation as with actual content), but even good articles have room for improvement (to get to Featured Article status, e.g.). Additionally you were wise to raise the discussion before fully deleting a section.
That being said, I concur with the general concern you raise and support the section deletion. Furthermore, none of the cites in the section actually present those items as misconceptions, not the least the "most common misconception" so the section is tantamount to original research/thought. As you imply, anything covered in that section should already be covered sufficiently as fact in the article text; bullet #1 is covered somewhat in the Supreme Court review section and bullet #4's facts should be mentioned in the Background section. Bullet #3 is basically trivia, and if deserving of a mention at all, should be in the Brown v. Board of Education section. Bullet #2 is actually not supported by the cited reference and is either presents an analytical conclusion or perhaps reflects the plaintiff's argument, in which case, it should be presented in a key arguments or questions section. AUTiger » talk 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm game, the miconceptions section is a -rather harsh- edit of a trivia section of rather long standing in the article. What I've tried unsuccessfully several times to do is to get into the facts-of-the-case section a refutation of the common misconception that Linda Brown had to attend some horrific tar-paper-shack school, that she had to walk twenty miles to the black school in waist high snow up hill both ways, and that the Topeka case was chosen because the racial segregation in Topeka was somehow especially horrific. Monroe was the newest elementary school in the city, built by the same builders as the other new schools, to the same standards. They used the same textbooks, more of their teachers had terminal degrees than any other school in the city, the pupil-teacher ratio was the same or better than the neighborhood white school, Linda Brown walked the same distance to her bus as she would have to the white school, the school district supplied buses to the black students which they DID NOT supply to the whites, etc etc. The Topeka case was a very pure case that segragation is bad JUST BECAUSE it is segregation even if the segregated schools are equal, or better. -- I've tried to put that information into the facts of the case area several times to have it deleted out because somehow, (even tho all those facts are in the court record and citeable) they're not the critical facts that wikipedia editors want listed in this article.
In point of fact, the article asserts: " The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but relatively equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. "
Now, I'm not going to argue that the accomodations, services and treatment for black Americas where GENERALLY equal, but in the case of Linda Brown and the twelve co-defendents in the Topeka case, that's NOT what the case was about. It wasn't about inferiority of accomodation. It was that segregation is INHERENTLY evil. The Warren Court's decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
to move up to a GREAT article, somehow, the distinction needs to be made between Briggs and Gebhart which WERE about the horribleness of the accomodation and Brown, which was pretty exclusively about segregation. The problem with THAT is, the article and the co-joined name of the unified cases is "Brown." It's difficult in the text of the article to distinguish between "Brown the case presented in Topeka" and "Brown the case decided before the Supreme Court."
That difficulty of writing is why the mis-conceptions section was originally included. It was originally called "Myths" -- and iin particular cited TWO VERSIONS Of the University of Virginia Library web site, the first of which stated that Linda Brown had to walk two miles to the Monroe instead of seven blocks to Sumner. There are perhaps hundreds of similar cites on the web and thousands in print that mis-represent the facts of Brown. It would seem reasonable that a discssion of that conflation of the conditions spelled out in Briggs and in Gephart with the conditions in Brown resulted from the public perception of all of that as "one case"... and all the horror of it lands on poor Linda Brown's head.
I'm not saying "let's retain the misconceptions" section, but somehow, that idea of public mis-perception about the case belongs in the article. Rick Boatright 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So, Rick, are there any articles that point out this specific misconception? If so let's just use a published, reputable author to make your point for you. (Which is a fine point and should be made somewhere in the article since I agree the point of the case was that segregation = unequal regardless of the quality of the facility.)--Tinned Elk 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, one place to start is at the Brown Memorial Foundation... and the misperceptions section ORIGINALLY derived from their and the national-parks-service misperceptions pages (which have the same informaiton on them.) ... [[4]] [[5]] Cheryl Brown Henderson's article at [[6]] speaks to it, as does the Brown pages at the Congress of Racial Equality. [[7]] The national archives page at [[8]] states the point in concise language:
Two of the cases had major differences from the others. A dissenting opinion in the South Carolina Briggs case stated that segregation was "inequality," and in Topeka, the judges added a statement to the decision that segregation was detrimental to colored children. Topeka was also different in that the separated school facilities for black and white children were similar, raising the issue that segregation of itself was harmful to the children, regardless of the "equal" facilities. Topeka's high schools were integrated in the classroom but not in social or athletic programs. The elementary schools were, by state law, segregated in towns with populations greater than 15,000.
But I my searches find few articles where this public mis-perception is the focus of the aticle, it's mentioned over and over, but not made the point, because, I presume, that the POINT of Brown is still that Plessy was wrong. Anyway, I'm not sure how to edit this into the article. -- Rick Boatright (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] move?

to "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka" (the case's proper name)? Ansh666 (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea but would need to have discussion and consensus first. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 02:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)