Of Court Its Implications for Interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
I DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 024 747 24 UD 007 754 By- Speer, Hugh W. Present and Future A Historical and Social Perspectiveon Brown V.Board of Education of Topeka with Implications. Final Report. Missouri Univ., Kansas City. Spons Agency- Office of Education(DHEW), Washington, D.C. Bureau of Research. Bureau No- BR-6-8939 Pub Date May 68 Contract- OEC- 3-7- 068939-284 I Note- 313p. EDRS Price MF- S1.25 HC-S15.75 Federal State Relationship, LegalSegregation, Negro Descriptors- *CourtLitigation. Equal Education, Laws, Supreme Students, School Integration. School Segregation,Self Concept, *Social Sciences, State Court Litigation Identifiers-Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,Fourteenth Amendment, NAACP This study records the politica!,social, and legal aspectsof "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka" and other schoolsegregation cases by meansof court records, testimony, recent opinionsof 60 social scientists, and interviewswith the 30 iudges, lawyers, witnesses, andplaintiffs who were involved. It presentsspecific information on the university cases inMissouri, Oklahoma, and Texas,and decisions in South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware,and the District of Columbiawhich preceded or were concurrentwith the "Brown" decision.The legal environment of thisdecision, with its implicationsfor interpreting the equal protectionclause of the Fourteenth Amendment. and the role of social scientistsin the case arediscussed in detail. An appendix contains the statementmade by the social scientists onthe effects of segregation and the consequencesof desegregation which wasintroduced into the Supreme Court as an argument fordesegregation. (EF) .( t'goe- F9 3 0349 0 06 724. FINAL REPORT Project No. 6-8939R4. Contract No. OEC-3-7-068939-2841 A HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE ON BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION -OF TOPEKA WITH PRESENT AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS MAY, 1968 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Education Bureau of Research U.S. DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE Of EDUCATION THE THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEENREPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM POINTS Of VIEW OR OPINIONS PERSON OR ORGANIZATIONORIGINMING IT. REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE Of EDUCATION STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY POSITION OR POLICY. A HISTORICAL AND SOCIALPERSPECTIVE ON AROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OFTOPEKA VITH PRESENT AND FUTUREIMPLICATIONS Project No. 6-8939 Contract No. OEC-3 -7-068939 -2841 Hugh W. Speer May,1968 The research reported herein wasperformed pursuant to a contract withthe Office of Education, U. S. Depart- ment of Health, Education and'Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects under Governmentsponsorship are encouraged to expressfreely their professions1 judgment in the conduct of the project. Points'of view or opinions,stateddo not, therefore, necessarily re- present official Office of Educationposition or policy. Unitersity of Missouri - Kansas City _ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 INTRODUCTION: Methods, Sources and Approach 1 THE UNIVERSITY CASES: "Whittling Away" atSegregation 11 2 THE TOPEKA STORY: 16 A Finding "TheSupreme Court Couldn'tDuck" 3 SOUTH CAROLINA: 85 A Key- Decisionand a Great Dissent 4 SOCIAL CUSTOMS INVIRGINIA: Defense Experts Help thePlaintiffs 109 5 NEGRO VICTORY INDELAWLRE: The Big Issue Still atStake 135 6 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Dred Scott and "TheWhite Man's Burden" 143 7 IN THE SUPREMECOURT: 149 Drama and Decision 8 THURGOOD MARSHALL ANDBIS FRIENDS: Perspectives and Personalities 206 9 QUESTIONNAIRE TOSOCIALSCIEiTISTS: 217 Stable and Consistent 10 OCINCLUSION: New Implications inthe Equal Protection Clause 243 270 SUMMARY: "The Case of the Century." REFERENCES BIBLIOGRARHY APPENDIX ii ACKNOW4DGEMENTS heavily on the help University researchgenerally depends Johnson, Mrs. EdnaMae Mitchell, students.Nrs. Wilna of graduate Harmon devotedpart of Strong and Mrs.Suzan Williams Niss Judy summarized much this study in1966-67. Miss Strong their time to the During 1967-68,Rrs.. Janet Bulkley saw of the testimony. to the many to completion,giving attention project through assisting a greatdeal in necessarydetails ofdocumentation and reserach, organizingand writing. contributing not Nhrgaret Gere typedthe final draft, secretary but herexperience in a law only berexpertise as a secretary in theSchool of Education was office. Mrs. Vera White, of continuoushelp. university atmosphere It is alwaysrewarding to work in a interaction withcolleagues where one has thestimulation of and students. the very significant The reader willreadily recognize judges, witnessesand contributions madeby over sixty-lawyers, interviews andresponded to the social scientistswho granted interviews,questionnaire results, questionnaire. These recorded documents willforma unique part and a completeset of court rights.in the HarryS. Truman Library. of thearchifives on civil University ofMissouri -- KansasCity Mhy, 1968 lii INTRODUCTION Methods, Sources and Approach The Perspective and Methodolou From "Black Monday" in 1954, when the Supreme Court announced the school desegregation decision, to "Black Tuesday" in 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King was buried, the Brum v. Topeka case has been changing the main streams of American life: education, social welfare, economics, religion and the check and balance system of the government. The decision had its prologue. During the previous fifteen years, the sustained efforts of afew Negroes, their white friends and a maturing national conscience had lud to President Truman's Civil Rights Commission Report of 1948 and resulting legislation. The Supreme Court under Hughes and Vinson had emerged from a half century of ambiguity on civil rights and decided the restricted covenant cases affectlng (real esLate) contracts and four university admission cases--all in favor of the Negro. The Court had "whittled away" at the Jim_ Crow, "separate bat equal" principle established in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of1896. Brown v. Topeka was the climax. When the reargument of the five public school cases grouped together under this title was heard by the Supreme Courb in December, 1953, Chief Justice Warren had been on the bench only two months.Five months later, May 17, 1954, he handed down the desegregation dacision for a unanimous court in what has come to be known as vthe Case of the Century."Many opinions have followed this first great decision of the Warren Cuurb, fAher defining individual liberties. Dr. Harry Ealven of the Unersity of Claicago Law Sclool has gone so far as to say, "If it had not been for the schoolsegregation cases, I do not think that there mould have been any realimpetus to the Negro freedom movement." (30.) During President Johnson's "honeymoon" period, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Coleman. lotorton Egua.1L,by_of._ZslucationaRon_bunitv followed in 1966 and the Commission on Civil Disorders in 1968. But, in education, de lam segregation has been replaced by de facto segregation. William L. Taylor, staff director for the report of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission of 1967 said, "We have educated a whole generation of children in schools that are inferior." Furthermore, he reported that the vast majority of the Negroes,who finished high school last spring had never "... attended a single class with a single whitestudent." (14.) 1 S The assalnation of Dr. Martin Luther King aroused a full spectrum of extreme reactions from non-violence to violence, from extrem guilt feeling to increased resistance and insulation. A reluctant Congress, representing aheven more neluctant white power structure, was finally jarred into passing an open housing bill after three years of bickering and filibuster. In Washington, the cherry blossom season of 1968 was narred by what threatened to be the early beginning of another long, hot summer. The internal struggle became more confused and compounded by the Vietnamese war. The Methodology Much has been written about Brown v. Topeka.It has been approached from many angles. In this particular history, ye hope to capture some of the flavor, drama, humor and attitudes that characterized the desegregation cases.We have traced the legal history and described the social context in the Tarioas settings. In addition; we have traced the major behavioral science arguments through the briefs, testimony, hearings and decidons. The story reveals an outstanding example of successful social action initiated by a relatively few professors, Negroes and their lawyers. A problem of the magnitude and complexity of desegregation cannot be confined within the pigeonhole of any one academic department. An inter-disciplinary effort is needed; but without an organized academic task forces a multiple approach is somewhat presumptuous. We would be on safer ground to say that this is a non-legal, non-political, non-social, non-psychological, non- educational, non-history. No one with any sense of professional responsibility would claim to be expert in anthropology, law, sociology, economics, psychology, political science and education. We do not. Yet, any balanced and comprehensive treatment of the 1.31s212_!4_Topleka story must draw from all these fields. Our degrees in English, Political Science and Education are really small comfort and not likely to impress the profezsionals in any one of the disciplines involved. In so far as we interpret, consciously or unconsciously, ve do so as an unlicensed generalist who has received generous help from many distinguished specialists who were involved. They are listed below in a Roster of Partici- pants. But the mistakes are ours. Let it be said that, without