powerpoint for presentation
alshehfa
brown_v_board_pp.docx
BROWN v. Board of Education
PROLOGUE
This presentation, while titled, BROWN v. Board of Education, actually involves 9 separate cases, spanning 64 years or 1951 to 2014, as follows:
A. BROWN v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas – 5 Cases
· CASE I: BROWN v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas
· CASE II: Belton v. Gebhart and Bulah v. Gebhart
· CASE III: Bolling v. Sharp
· CASE IV: Briggs v. Elliott
· CASE V: Davis County v. County School Board of Prince Edward County
B. REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE
C. GRATZ v. BOLLINGER and GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER – 2 Cases
D. Abigail Noel FISHER & Rachel Multer MICHALEWICZ v. University of Texas at Austin
Except for the Bolling v. Sharp case which also involved the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, it is a history of similar cases involving race-conscious admission policies and the application of the principle of equal protection under the law afforded each citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. There were several early cases, from 1886 to 1951, that challenged legally sanctioned discrimination called “Jim Crow” laws and were upheld in Plessy v. Ferguson. It is interesting to note that some of these cases were handled by Thurgood Marshall, who became the first African American member on the Supreme Court and served from October 1967 to October 1991.
All of these cases applied the Fourteenth Amendment rule:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I. CASE PRESENTATIONS
A. BROWN v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas Decided May 17, 1954
This case is a consolidation of five cases from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. Several black children sought admission to public schools that required or permitted segregation based on race. The plaintiffs alleged that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, they contended that segregated schools were not and could not be made equal and that they were therefore deprived of equal protection of the laws. The cases are presented below as follows:
CASE I: BROWN v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas Team Member: Saeed Jrab
FACTS: An 8 yr.-old African-American girl had been denied permission to attend an elementary school only five blocks from her home in Topeka, Kansas. She was sent to a school for nonwhite students 21 blocks from her home.
Legal Issue(s): Is the race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal” public schools constitutional?
Court Conclusion: The segregation of children into “separate but equal” schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and is unconstitutional.
Reasonableness of the Conclusion and Rule of Law: Segregation based solely on race denies to black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, even though the physical facilities and other may be equal. Education in public schools is a right which must be made available to all equally.
CASE II: Belton v. Gebhart and Bulah v. Gebhart Team Member: Kseniya Chernukhina
These were two separate cases in Delaware in 1951, but the issues were the same. In each case, black students were excluded from the local white school.
FACTS: Belton and Bulah were black parents who sued because they were taking their children to a one room school two miles away while a bus passed in front of their houses going to a new white-only school close by. The teachers at the white school had better degrees and the white school offered more educational opportunities.
Legal Issues: Are the constitutional provision and the statute, in so far as they provide for segregation, in violation of the 14th Amendment? Are the separate facilities and educational opportunities offered plaintiffs equal to those furnished white children similarly situated?
Court Conclusion: The Delaware Court said that the separate but equal law had already been adopted by the US Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, and that they did not feel able to "reject a principle of US constitutional law which has been adopted by the highest court of the land." For this reason, the Court refused to find that the segregated schools violated the 14th Amendment. However, the Court observed, “We believe the 'separate but equal' doctrine in education should be rejected, but we also believe its rejection must come from the U.S. Supreme Court." The US Supreme Court found that the separate "colored" facilities were in no way equal to the whites-only facilities and ordered that African-American students be immediately integrated.
Reasonableness of the Conclusion and Rule of Law: While this was certainly a victory, it was not what the families had hoped for. Rather than rejecting the separate but equal doctrine, the decision by the Delaware Court accepted and enforced it. It was the State Board of Education that appealed the decision, and at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Delaware cases were combined with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case.
CASE III: Bolling v. Sharp (District of Columbia) Team Member: Maryam Almuqbel
The US Supreme Court rendered a separate opinion on Bolling v. Sharp based on the 5th Amendment because the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was not applicable in the Washington DC because Washington DC is governed by federal law rather than state law.
FACTS: Eleven African American students were denied admission to the local junior high school. The US District Court dismissed the case on the basis of a recent ruling by the Court of Appeals that segregated schools were provided by law in the District of Colombia.
Legal Issue: Did the segregation of the public schools of Washington DC violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Are rights different for residents governed by states than if they live in Washington DC which is governed by federal law?
Court Conclusion: The Supreme Court found in this case that segregation of children is not constitutional based on federal laws because personal liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment were violated.
The Supreme Court said that the lower courts must determine how to best implement racial desegregation in light of different local conditions.
Reasonableness of the Conclusion and Rule of Law: The Court held that the concepts of Equal Protection and Due Process are not mutually exclusive. While the 5th Amendment, which was applicable in D.C., lacked an equal protection clause, Chief Justice Earl Warren held that "the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive." While equal protection is a more explicit safeguard against discrimination, the Court stated that "discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process."
CASE IV: Briggs v. Elliott Team Member: Tamanna Ahamed
FACTS: In South Carolina, African-American families met with the school superintendent to request that a bus be provided for their children. He refused their request, explaining that all buses were needed for white school children and that the African-American families did not pay sufficient taxes to warrant expenditures on buses for their children.
Legal Issues: Does provision of vastly different resources to schools, segregated by race, violate the rights of students under the Fourteenth Amendment? Does state maintenance of separate schools segregated by race violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
Court Conclusions and Rules of Law: The District Court ordered the school district to equalize the relative quality of separately maintained schools. Having found that separate schools were far from equal, the court ordered the defendants to raise the quality of black schools such that they would be on par with white schools.
However, ultimately combined with other cases challenging racial segregation in schools, the Supreme Court declared that “separate but equal” schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Reasonableness of the Conclusion and Rule of Law: While the District Court found that the schools were in fact unequal, and ordered that State officials provide equal educational opportunities, it did not find the segregated schools themselves unconstitutional. It took the US Supreme Court to declare that “separate but equal” schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment in order to begin the desegregation process.
CASE V: Davis County v. County School Board of Prince Edward County Team Member: A. Mohand Alnabhani
FACTS: The conditions at a segregated public school attended by African-Americans in Virginia were poor due to classroom over-crowdedness, facilities in disrepair and a lack of equipment. A boycott by some of the parents and students brought light to the situation. This resulted in the closing of all of the public schools (whites and African-Americans) for 5 years. While white students transferred to a whites-only private school, the African-Americans were forced to either find an alternative, home school, or drop from school all together.
Legal Issues: Are the African-Americans students denied an equal education in the segregation of schools? Is the segregation of schools in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?
District and Supreme Courts’ Conclusions: The District Court allowed the School Board time to improve the African American public school, or return with a better reason of why schools should stay segregated. Again, the Supreme Court declared that “separate but equal” schools violated the 14th Amendment.
Reasonableness of the Conclusion and Rule of Law: The District Court responded, “It is inconceivable that any of the litigants would willingly see the public school system abolished or an interruption in the education of the children of the county. Either result would be disastrous to both public and private interests of the county”. The District Court, however, did not believe either parties were injured by the segregation at the public schools. Even after the US Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional, the public schools stayed closed until a Supreme Court decision in 1964 forced the county to reopen them.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion and Consequences of BROWN v. the Board of Education:
Conclusion: Decision: 9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against
Consequences: The US Supreme Court decision said that the questions presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the 14th Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the role of public education in America today. The “separate but equal” doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, which applied to transportation, has no place in the field of public education.
Separating black children from others solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The impact of segregation is greater when it has the sanction of law. Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority and any language to the contrary in Plessy v. Ferguson is rejected.
The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
B. REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE Team Member – Faisal Alshehri Decided 1978
FACTS: Bakke, a white applicant to the University of California, Davis Medical School, sued the University, alleging his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The University of California, Davis Medical School reserved 16 spots out of the 100 in any given class for “disadvantaged minorities.” Bakke, when compared to students admitted under the special admissions program, had more favorable objective indicia of performance, while his race was the only distinguishing characteristic. Bakke sued, alleging that the special admissions program denied him equal protection of laws under the 14th Amendment.
Legal Issues: Is the special admissions program of the University of California constitutional? Can race be considered as a factor in the admissions process?
Court Conclusions: Parts of the special admissions program of the University of California may be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that a university's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school's use of "affirmative action" to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances. Race can be considered as one of the facts in the admissions process but not the only fact that a student get rejected for.
Reasonableness of the Conclusion and Rule of Law: Race can be considered as one of the facts in the admissions process but not the only fact that a student get rejected for.
Consequences: Racial quotas, used extensively within the Affirmative action plans, was no longer allowed. Other considerations/methods would have to be used to promote racial diversity.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
C. GRATZ v. BOLLINGER and GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER Team Member - K Fountain Decided 2003
On June 23, 2003, the US Supreme Court decided two cases at the same time, Gratz V. Bollinger and Grutter V. Bollinger.
CASE I : Gratz v. Bollinger (College of Literature, Science & Arts of U of Michigan)
FACTS: Jennifer Gratz (applied 1995) & Patrick Hamacher (applied 1997) both were denied admission. Both sued the University of Michigan challenging the use of race in its admission policy because it added 20 points to minority applications.
Legal Issue(s): Their class-action lawsuit alleged “violations and threatened violations” of their rights & the class they represent (non-minority white) to equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment & for racial discrimination due to the usage of a point system that awarded 20 points to underrepresented ethnic groups.
Court Conclusion: The University’s point system was unconstitutional because pre-determined point allocations that awarded automatic 20 points to minorities insured that the diverse contributions of all applicants cannot be individually assessed.
Reasonableness of the Conclusion and Rule of Law:
The University violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it’s ranking system gave an automatic point increase to all racial minorities rather than making individual determinations. Giving minority races extra points, in general, was not an acceptable “narrowly tailored” method to achieve the University’s diversity goals.
Consequences: Applicants must be evaluated on a system that does not give preference to a minority based solely on the fact that he(she) is a minority without considerations of all other factors of the application.
CASE II: Grutter v. Bollinger (Law School of U of Michigan)
FACTS: Barbara Grutter applied in 1997 and was denied admission and challenged the use of race in the University’s admission policy because it used “race” as a predominant factor, giving a greater chance of admission to minority applicants with similar credentials as hers.
Legal Issue: She claimed that the admissions policy discriminated against her based on “race” in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Court Conclusion: The court said that the holding and opinion in Bakke was binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling state interest, and the Law Schools’ use of race was “narrowly tailored” because race was merely a “potential ‘plus’ factor”.
Reasonableness of the Conclusion and Rule of Law: The University did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it’s use of race was “narrowly tailored” The Court held that the law school’s interest in obtaining a “critical mass” of minority students was indeed a “tailored” use and allowed the use of race as a ‘plus’ factor.
Consequences: This case largely upheld most Universities’ admission policies that allow race to be considered as a ‘plus’ factor in determining whether a student should be admitted.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In conclusion:
In 2003, the US Supreme Court, upholding the decision in Bakke, said that race & ethnicity can be a “plus” factor used in the admissions process, to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body. However, there was dissention about what an appropriate definition of “critical mass” is. It said that for a University to apply an extra 20 points to each minority application is equal to using a quota system & it cannot be used because it did not ensure that all factors about a candidate would be considered, thereby being in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. Abigail Noel Fisher & Rachel Multer Michalewicz v. University of Texas at Austin Team Member - K Fountain Decided June 23, 2013
FACTS: Fisher & Michalewicz applied to attend the University of Texas but were denied because they narrowly missed the top 10 percent of their graduating classes. Because race based admissions had been eliminated through Hopwood v. Texas in 1996, state universities had to look for race–neutral methods of increasing diversity on campus. The Legislature in Texas passed the top 10% rule in Texas in 1997 which gives the top 10% of the graduating class in each public school in Texas immediate entry into the state supported university of their choice. Effectively, this increased the number of minority admissions because of the demographic patterns of Texas school districts. Because of this, Fisher and Michalewicz said that race need not be a factor in the remaining open positions available but they had still been discriminated against because they were white.
Legal Issue(s): Both Plaintiffs said that their denials were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Two questions are asked by this case: (1) Does using 10% rule in Texas stand as a race neutral method, thereby making having race as a factor illegal, as defined in the Grutter v. Bollinger case? and (2) Is the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions by the University of Texas sufficiently “narrowly-tailored”?
Court Conclusion: In 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University’s continued use of “narrowly tailored” consideration of race in the admission process but returned the case to the appeals court to decide if minorities still needed other race-neutral measures since the top 10% rule was relatively successful.
Reasonableness of the Conclusion and Rule of Law: The appeals court stood by its original ruling that other race-based considerations should be used. Judge Patrick Higginbotham said in his opinion: “It is settled that universities may use race as part of a holistic admissions program where it cannot otherwise achieve diversity. This is compelled by the reality that university education is more the shaping of lives than the filling of heads with facts – the classic assertion of the humanities.”
Consequences: The consequence of this ruling is that the US Supreme Court still feels in 2013 that ethnic minority populations still need special consideration when they apply to universities in order to ensure diversity on campuses.
|
FLOWCHART of BROWN v. BOARD of EDUCATION |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
CASE |
Plessy v. Ferguson |
-> |
Brown v. Board of Education |
-> |
Affirmative Action Plans developed to help correct prior discrimination |
-> |
U California v. Bakke |
-> |
Gratz & Grutter v. Bollinger |
-> |
Fisher v. U Texas |
-> |
? |
|
DATE |
1886-1953 |
|
1954 |
|
|
|
1978 |
|
2003 |
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLANTIFFS CHARGE |
Separate transporta-tion is discrimina-tion against minorities |
|
Separate facilities are discrimina-tion against minorities |
|
|
|
Use of race as a factor is discrimination against non-minorities |
|
Use of race as a factor is discrimination against non-minorities |
|
10% rule takes care of diversity so race does not need to a factor for those considered outside of the rule |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
14th Amendment – Equal Protection Under the Law |
|
||||||||||
|
Court Held |
“Separate but Equal” Separate facilities are OK for the races |
|
“Separate but Equal” Unconstitu-tional |
|
|
|
Quotas are unconstitution-al but use of affirmative action and race is OK is some circumstances |
|
Affirmative Action Plans & Quotas are unconstitution-al but race can be used “narrowly” as a “plus factor” |
|
10% Rule (1997) does not completely insure diversity so race can still be considered as a “narrow” factor |
|
|
|
Other Facts |
Segregation |
|
Desegregation |
|
|
|
Used Brown as a precedent |
|
Used Bakke as a precedent |
|
Used Grutter/ Gratz as a precedent |
|
|
II. ANALYZING THE CASES
A. How do the concepts of res judicata and stare decisis affect the cases?
Res judicata means that once a lawsuit is decided, the plaintiff parties are banded from raising the same issue again in the courts except if new evidence has become available.
Stare decisis is a Latin concept which refers to standing by principles that had been decided. [Latin, Let the decision stand.] It is the policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases.
Since all of these cases involved the 14th Amendment, these concepts were applied to each of the cases (i.e. Brown v. Board of Education was used in California v. Bakke, Bakke was used in Grutter and Gratz v. Bollinger, Grutter/Gratz was used in Fisher v. University of Texas. However, why was it necessary to re-hear any of the cases after Plessy v. Ferguson since the 14th Amendment question of equal protection under the law was answered at that time?
B. How can the Supreme Court revisit facts similar to cases already decided?
For these cases, the answer lies in the definition and re-definition of what constitutes “equal protection under the law”. As our country “matured”, the value system of the nation changed.
1. In 1896, from Plessy v. Ferguson, equal protection under the law could be provided to citizens by using “Separate but Equal” facilities.
2. In 1954, for Brown V. Board of Education, “Separate but Equal” was no longer equal protection under the law. Desegregation was mandated to correct the “Separate but Equal” segregation concept. Affirmative Action Plans were developed to over-correct for the years of segregation that had taken place and quotas could be part of those plans.
3. In 1978, for California v. Bakke, the Court reiterated that all people and all races qualified for equal protection under the law. However, Affirmative Action Plans could still be used to achieve “racial” diversity but quotas could not.
4. In 2003, for Gratz and Grutter v. Bollinger, Affirmative Action Plans were violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, race could still be used “narrowly” as a factor to guarantee “racial” diversity unless there were other “race” neutral methods that accomplished this.
5. In 2013, for Fisher v. University of Texas, there was a “race” neutral method in place called the “top 10 percent”. However, the Court found that there were still disparities in diversity that required special considerations to be given to minorities.
According to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, it was hoped that in 25 years, the value system of the nation would have changed so that all people could be viewed “equally” and these types of lawsuits would no longer be necessary. Other Justices however, were skeptical indicating that 25 years is not long enough. They felt that it takes a much longer time to change personal value systems of the people.
C. What variables determine that the case is eligible to be heard?
In order for a case to go to the US Supreme Court, at least four justices must agree to hear the case and a petition called a “writ of certiorari” is issued. Usually one of the following four instances must be present:
(1) The case presents a substantial federal question that the Supreme Court has not yet addressed;
(2) Multiple circuit courts of appeal have decided the issue of the case in different ways;
(3) A state court of last resort has ruled that a federal law is invalid or has upheld a state law that may violate federal law; or
(4) A federal court has ruled that an act of Congress is unconstitutional.
III. CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FUTURE
What will be the effect on the changing American demographics on future court decisions regarding minority/majority rights?
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) opened the door to widespread social change that is, perhaps only now, 60 years later, beginning to reach its true fruition. It was a symbolic beginning to one of the greatest national and international changes in attitudes, belief, and behavior in modern life. We are learning that creating multicultural educational environments that promote successful outcomes for all students requires thoughtful planning. The best multicultural learning environments are ones in which administrators and faculty encourage and arrange interaction in a variety of ways—from organizing campus dialogs to creating projects for students to work on together.
Additionally, as the American demographics change, so will the representation of those demographics start appearing on the Supreme Court. There are now Male and Female, and White, African-American and Hispanic Justices. Decisions will start to incorporate and reflect those unique viewpoints that come from being raised in different communities and cultures.
References:
1. http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/thurgood-marshall/videos/separate-but-not-equal
2. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/brown-board-education.html
3. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1952/1952_1/
4. http://www.civilrights.org/education/brown/brown.html
5. http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar04.html
6. http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka
7. http://brownvboard.org/content/brown-case-brown-v-board summary
8. http://www.uscourts.gov/edicational-resources/get-involved/federal-court-activities/brown-...html
9. Belton v Gebhart / Bulah v Gebhart (87 A.2d 862 (Del. Ch. 1952)
10. http://brownvboard.org/content/brown-case-bolling-v-sharpe
11. http://www.civilrights.org/education/brown/bolling.html
12. Briggs v. Elliott
13. http://www.civilrights.org/education/brown/davis.html
14. http://www.brownat50.org/brownCases/LowerCourtDecisions/DasvisvPrEdEDctVa.html
16. REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE
17. http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/overview/cases-summary.html
18. Case: 09-50822 Document:00511050593 From the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Abigail Noel Fisher; Rachel Multer Michalewicz, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. University of Texas at Austin
19. http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/06/supreme-court-sidesteps-affirmative-action-decision...html
20. http://www.texastribune.org/2010/07/21/affirmation -action-suit-challenges-ut-policy/...html
21. http://www.essence.com/2014/07/16/university-texas-can-consider-race-admission-decisions.html
22. http://www.mills.edu/academics/faculty/educ/szirkel/50years04jsi.pdf
23. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stare+decisis
