BROWN V BOARD OF EDUCATION

1954

THE ISSUE: Is the race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal” public schools constitutional?

→ Brown v. Board of Education was actually the name given to five separate cases that were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the issue of segregation in public schools.

These cases were:

– Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

– Briggs v. Elliot, Davis v. Board of Education of Prince Edward County

– Boiling v. Sharpe

– Gebhart v. Ethel.

While the facts of each case are different, the main issue in each was the constitutionality of state-sponsored segregation in public schools.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED:

→ 1951, the parents of the twenty children attempted to enrol them in the closest school to their homes, but each were denied enrolment and told they had to enrol in the segregated school.

→ This prompted the class action suit to be filed. At the district level the court ruled in favour of the Topeka Board of Education saying that both schools were equal in regards to transportation, buildings, curriculum, and highly qualified teachers.

→ The case then went on to the Supreme Court and was combined with four other similar suits from across the country.

THE DECISION:

The decision was handed down on May 17, 1954. It overturned the Plessy v Ferguson decision of 1896, which had allowed states legalize segregation within schools. The chief justice in the case was Justice Earl Warren. His court’s decision was a unanimous 9-0 decision that said, “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

The ruling essentially led the way for the civil rights movement and essentially integration across the United States.

IMPACT:

→ The Brown case served as a catalyst for the modern civil rights movement, inspiring education reform everywhere and forming the legal means of challenging segregation in all areas of society.

→ After Brown, the nation made massive progress toward opening the doors of education to all students.

→ Since then, desegregation became a thing of the past constitutionally