Brown Ruling and Immediate Response to Integration

Essential questions

• Does forcing someone to do a good thing make it good?

Outcomes and objectives

After the lesson students will…

Be able to articulate the reasoning behind the Brown decision and some responses to it. They will also be able to engage with a primary source to determine an author’s intent.

Preparing to teach

Before teaching this lesson, students should have prior understanding of the Plessy v. Ferguson case and what segregation looked like in America. They should also have some context leading up to the Brown case.

Scaffolds and accommodations to support learners

Reading support

This reading may require a lot of support. For the Brown reading, focus on the opinion of Chief Justice Warren, particularly the excerpt below:

In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications 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 effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

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 the 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.

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question -- the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term. The Attorney General of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954. (Brown v. Board of Education (1954) | National Archives)

This focus should help students narrow down what they need to read specifically. Provided in the materials is a reading guide that should help students look for and understand this reading better.

The first reading from the PDF should be accessible enough for students. A strategy may be to divide up the governors’ responses and have groups of students read some of them and then have the whole class make a representation of the feelings of those leaders.

The Thurgood Marshall memo is the most difficult to read. Unless working with exceptional readers, this piece should maybe be shortened or summarized so students can access it better.

Differentiation

Some differentiation for this lesson could be reading the primary source directly, allowing some students to engage with the texts as is. Another option could be an exercise summarizing or putting the texts into a student’s own words to show comprehension.

Adjusting for HIGH school grades

For high school students, it is recommended they just engage with the texts directly and maybe write on the decision and opinions they are seeing.

Instructional activities sequence

Begin with a brief review of segregation. Then provide the Brown decision, along with the worksheet below. Have students read the decision and check understanding with the worksheet. Then provide the governor responses and have students read those. This can be done in groups or individuals; for time management, groups may work better, with groups getting some, but not all, of the responses. Then on the board, have the students summarize each state’s response to the ruling. After that, provide Marshall’s memo to the NAACP. Have them highlight Marshall’s main ideas and discuss why he would write such a memo. Ask questions like: Who is this for? Why would he write this? What is he likely responding to? What issues will/is the NAACP facing at this time?

Finally, have students reflect on the essential question in a journal response, asking them to use Brown as evidence for their opinion.

Assessment

The worksheet as a knowledge check and the group board activity serve as assessing understanding. The reflection piece is an assessment of argumentation.

Materials needed and additional resources for enrichment

• Pages 81-85 and pages 174-179 of the NAACP Collection