1. NAACP v. Lansing Bd. of Ed., 429 F. Supp. 583 (W.D. Mich. 1976) | The negative impact of racially segregated schools is not confined exclusively to Black students. White students may also react to racial isolation in ways ...
The findings made by the court in this case parallel those made by the
United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.
483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954) [Brown I]. In addressing the
precise issue of the effect of racial separation on grade and high
school students the Supreme Court in Brown quoted *589 with approval
language from the District Court as follows:
"`Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a
detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater
when it has the sanction of law; for the policy of separating the
races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro
group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to
learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency
to [retard] the educational and mental development of Negro children
and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a
racial[ly] integrated school system." 347 U.S. at 494, 74 S. Ct. at
691. (Emphasis supplied.)
Although much may be said about the fact that Brown involved obvious and
conspicuous state action separating Blacks and Whites by statute, with
respect to the simple issue of whether racial separation fundamentally
poses a situation of inequity, Brown was and is unequivocal. "Separate
educational facilities are inherently unequal." 347 U.S. at 495, 74 S.
Ct. at 692.
II.
2. Crawford v. Board of Education (1980) - Justia Law | The court, relying on Brown v. Board of Education (1954) supra, 347 U.S. 483, reasserted the proposition that intentional segregation by race in the public ...
The United States Supreme Court decisions, starting with Brown v. Board
of Education, supra, have examined the problem of segregation in the
public schools of the various states in the light of the equal
protection clause of the United States Constitution. The essential
holding of Brown was that state constitutional and statutory provisions
requiring segregation of white and black children in public schools on
the basis of race deny black children the equal protection of the laws
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and are therefore void. In
rejecting the long-standing separate-but-equal rule ofPlessy v. Ferguson
(1896) 163 U.S. 537 [41 L. Ed. 256, 16 S. Ct. 1138], the court in Brown
held that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal for the
reason that the mere fact of legalized segregation generates a feeling
of inferiority in the black students. (P. 494 [98 L.Ed. at p. 880].) In
essence, psychological trauma was at the heart of the Brown decision.
Thurgood Marshall, the then counsel of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, in arguing before the Supreme Court in
Brown urged only "that the state-imposed racial segregation be taken
off.... If school officials were enjoined from enforcing segregation,
then I think whatever district lines...are drawn on [113 Cal. App. 3d
639] a natural basis, without regard to race or color, then I think that
nobody would have any complaint." (Argument: The Oral Argument Before
the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1952-1955,
pp. 47-49 (Friedman ed. 1969).)
...
I
Both California and federal law pertaining to segregation in the public
schools have a common origin in the United States Supreme Court decision
of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483 [98 L. Ed. 873, 74 S.
Ct. 686, 38 A.L.R.2d 1180]. But thereafter California and federal law
followed parallel but somewhat different courses. As we will develop,
infra, the clear impact of Proposition 1 is to bring one aspect of
California law into conformity with federal law.
3. United States v. State of Texas, 321 F. Supp. 1043 (E.D. Tex. 1970) | As noted above, Texas schools were segregated by law prior to 1954. This enforced segregation resulted in dual school systems within districts, as well as in ...
Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I), 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98
L. Ed. 873 (1954); Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294,
75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083 (1955); Green v. County School Board of
New Kent County, supra; Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education,
supra; Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, supra.
Further, not only will the State Agency be required by the order in this
case to re-evaluate and scrutinize its policies and practices, but it
will be required to submit to this Court a plan developed in light of
the analysis of its activities which will adequately assure the Court
that the State is prepared to assume an affirmative role in the
enforcement of Federal standards as required under Title VI and the
Fourteenth Amendment and as acknowledged by TEA by its execution and
submission to HEW of its statement of compliance. This plan will include
provisions for the use by the Agency of sanctions, such as denial or
withdrawal or accreditation (see Vernon's Revised Civil Statutes, §
2900a and TEA Bulletin 560, "Principals and Standards of Accreditation,"
Government Exhibit 106C), denial of State and Federal funds (United
States v. State of Georgia, supra), refusal to approve the transfer of
State funds based on student interdistrict transfers, and refusal to
grant textbooks to an offending district.
[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/429/583/1554790/
[2] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/113/633.html
[3] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/321/1043/2597124/