Michael A. Middleton, Brown v.
Board: Revisited, 20 S. Ill. U. L.J. 19 (Fall, 1995).
The author stress through the entire article that the Brown
Court came to stress the wrong part of its decision. He states
that commentators have concentrated on integration and busing
people to help African Americans achieve the academic levels of
the white students. He notes that anytime someone tries to meet
the educational needs of African-Americans, it is viewed as being
regressive. The author believes that the desegregation strategy
that came from the Brown Court was not to integrate for the sake
of integration. He believes that the Brown decision should have
been seen more as a way of improving educational opportunities
for African-American children. He concludes that the remedy is
for schools to equally meet the needs of African-Americans and
White students as measured by outcome based measures of academic
I agree that the goal should be to have African-Americans and
White students achieve the same measure of academic achievement.
But I also think that integration and desegregation were
important facets of the achievement of African-American students
so far. Additionally, it has helped with race relations because
of the forced integration.
Kevin Brown, Has the Supreme Court
Allowed the Cure for De Jure Segregation to Replicate the
Disease?, 78 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (November 1992)
The author presents a theory that views the harm resulting
from de jure segregation from the perspective of socializing the
function of public schools. He also contrasts the harm of de jure
segregation of public schools in order show why desegregation was
required in public schools. The author speaks about decisions
that have affect desegregation since and how desegregation is
affecting African Americans now.
I do not agree with this author and his postulations. He seems
to argue both sides giving you what he believes is the good and
the bad. He misses what I view as the main point of
desegregation, and that is allowing African-Americans to come
into the same environment as the whites and to learn about them.
It also has a dual affect and teaches white about
African-Americans. However, I do agree with his assertion that de
jure segregated schools treat African-Americans as inferior and
need to change that sentiment.
Bradley W. Joondeph, Skepticism
and School Desegregation, 76 Wash. U.L.Q. 161 (Spring 1998)
The author begins the article by stating how good
desegregation has been for African-Americans. He postulates that
desegregation has allowed African-Americans to get better
educated. He argues that the test scores have had the gap
tightened between African-Americans and white. He should
desegregation helped improve life chances. However, he thinks
that many be would have the courts release issue of desegregation
and let the politics of it take. He contends that you get things
done better and quicker by having it become a political question.
He believes that politicians will equalize opportunity in
American’s public schools.
I feel that author is mistaken or flawed with his argument. I
see the judicial branch involvement in this issue as imperative
to it success. I can not trust politicians who will be looking at
what can get them more votes or keep them in power longer. The
African-American is the one that will be hurt having to stay in
non-segregated urban down trodden schools.
Kevin Brown, The Legal Rhetorical
Structure for the Conversion of Desegration Lawsuits to Quality
Education Lawsuits, 42 Emory L.J. 791 (Summer 1993)
The author looks at whether African-American communities are
best served by separate as opposed to integrated education. The
author looks at how desegregation throughout history has been
debated as to integrate as opposed to separate education. The
author stresses the Freeman v. Pitts decision allows
African-Americans to ask the district to terminate control over
student assignments and maintain control over other aspects of
the school system. The author thinks that the government should
eliminate the endorsing African-American inferiority by
eliminating desegregation. Finally, the author postulates that
the government is treating African-Americans as a group rather
than individuals and this violates the individualist principle of
the legal system.
I think the author brings up some very interesting points. I
can see where you can argue that race based education is wrong by
the legal systems own standing. I do not agree that we should
eliminate desegregation. We argue for the elimination of slavery
and the unfair treatment, and know we have received a treatment
to co-exist side by side fairly. I think based on what I can see
that we need to keep the desegregation in effect in order to
compete in a merit based system.
Jordan A. Lavine, The Supreme
Court’s Latest Rendition of Equality in Education: Examining
the Traditional Components of Success in Missouri v. Jenkins,
40 Vill. L. Rev. 1395 (1995)
The author discusses many of the relevant decisions that the Missouri
v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995), decision was based on. The
author does not agree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the
District Court should have heard the case, and the reasoning
behind its decision. The author believes that the Brown v.
Board of Education I, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) decision is
renounced by the Supreme Court in the Jenkins decision.
Also, the majorities’ argument lacks soundness because it
ignores the District Court’s original desegregation plan.
I agree with the author that this decision will set back
desegregation. The court continues to show its unwillingness to
see its original Brown decision through to the end. The
Judicial Branch of the United States want s to drop the ball it
has been carrying on desegregation. If they drop it, who is going
to pick it up? I see the implementation of segregated schools
rearing its head again. Segregated schools will, in my mind, hurt
race relation in the United States. If you do not have to death
with racism is their really racism? Yes still.
Brown v. Board of Education I,
347 U.S. 483 (1954).
The Court ruled that separate educational facilities for
children in public schools are inherently unequal. The Court
stated that segregation violates the equal protection clause even
if physical facilities and other benefits may be equal. Enforced
separation of the races not only reinforces a sense of
inferiority on the part of African-American school children.
I agree with the court decision, because it tried creating a
remedy for what it saw as an injustice for a people that were
American citizens. There is no way for a people to viewed as
equal, if their education does not have the ability to compete
with other who are receiving that education.
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1
The school authorities set up a desegregation plan, and the
Governor of Arkansas sent troops to stop black students from
entering Central High School. Federal troops were dispatched to
protect the rights of the black students. This Court reaffirmed
the Brown decision, saying it could not be nullified by the
action of state officials. The Court refused to delay the
integration of Little Rock schools.
I agree with the decision because it prevented a state
official from challenging a federal mandate. The fact that the
court did not succumb to the pressure of the peoples will to
disallow integration should that the federal government was
entrenched in its belief that the African-Americans had the right
to a fair education.
Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S. Ct.
The Court was deciding whether or not to end a desegregation
plan. The Court noted it need not retain control over every
aspect of school administration until school compliance is
achieved. The Court allowed the Dekalb County school system to
control student assignments, transportation, physical facilities,
and extracurricular activities.
I do not agree with this decision, because in essence I feel
the court is saying were are tired of watching after you schools
and you can basically do whatever. I see this as leading us back
to segregation. The white community is moving to the rural areas,
and thus creating black schools in the inner city and white
schools in rural area.
Green v. County School Board,
391 U.S. 430 (1968).
The Court invalidated the "Freedom of choice" plan
which did nothing to integrate schools which had been segregated
since Brown I. The Court held that all that need be shown is a
disparate impact, in the form of a dual school system, to invoke
the equal protection argument.
I agree with the court’s findings that you can not even give
the appearance of creating a dual school system. This was helpful
in upholding Brown.
Griffin v. County School Board,
377 U.S. 218 (1964).
In this case the county tried to close down its public schools
to avoid complying with a desegregation order. The county then
set up private white schools with state and local grants. The
United States Supreme Court said that assisting white students to
the detriment of African-American students violated the
African-American students’ equal protection under the
I agree with the courts reasoning that a state can not close
down its public schools to not comply with a federal decision. I
also agree that a state can not use its monies to promote
one-race well being over anthers. I think this decision help to
make states realize that their public schools will have to face
Jenkins v. Missouri, 515 U.S.
In 1977, the Kansas City, Missouri School District implemented
a desegregation plan to re-assign students within the school
district and effectuate a 30% minority enrollment in their
schools. The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that
orders designed to attract non-minority students from outside the
school district into the school district was beyond the scope of
the District Court, also, across-the-board salary increases for
teachers and staff in pursuit of desegregative attractiveness was
beyond the court's authority; and whether students in district
are at or below national norms is not appropriate test to
determine whether previously segregated district has achieved
partially unitary status.
I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision to
reverse the District Court’s finding. The problem I have is the
Supreme Court’s holing contradicts the prior desegregation
cases and is a step backwards in the effort to desegregate
schools. The case has now been further litigated and currently
will be resolved again en banc in the Eighth District. I also did
not agree with Justice Thomas’ assertion that a one-race school
is not by itself an indication of practicing segregation. A look
at legal history says that state segregation is school is wrong
and creates a disadvantage.
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S.
This case is the leading case on the busing issue. The Court
said that cross-district busing remedy could not for de jure
segregation in the Detroit school system cannot be imposed on
outlying districts absent a finding of constitutional violations
or acts of discrimination affecting those districts. The remedy
must be proportionate to the constitutional violation. If a
school was found to be a co-discriminator then it may be included
within a busing order.
I felt this was a somewhat fair decision. It did not preempt
any of the advances that had been made in terms of equal
schooling. Some may look at it as a minor set back. But, I do not
think that African-Americans could expect to all they wanted at
once. Today, this issue is still debated in some rural areas.
Oklahoma City Board of Education
v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991)
The Oklahoma City Board of Education had been under a court
order to integrate schools, partly through a busing program. The
Board wanted to adopt what was basically a neighborhood school
system, but the result would have created about half one-race
schools. The Court said that the desegregation decree should be
dissolved if the school board has complied in good faith, and the
problems of past discrimination have been eliminated.
I do not agree with the courts decision to allow Oklahoma to
basically start implementing segregated schools again if they
could show good faith that they have eliminated their past
discrimination. This decision allows them to know create schools
that have such a low amount of minorities, as long as in goo
faith that they basically would not even be recognized. In my
view the judicial branch is looking to get out of the education
Sheff v. O'Neill, 238 Conn.1,
678 A.2d 1267 (1995)
Public school children brought an action against state
officials for declaratory judgement to determine whether
defendants had failed to provide them with substantial equal
educational opportunity as a result of alleged segregation by
race and ethnicity of students in a metropolitan area and for
injunctive relief. The Connecticut Supreme Court said that, in
effect, the public students had been denied and equal education
opportunity and that the children had suffered from
unconstitutional segregation and that the disparities in racial
and ethnic composition violated their constitutional rights.
I agree with the court’s decision. The State of Connecticut
stresses education yet treats urban schools unfairly. The
students were denied an equal education as compared to rural
schools in the state. Also, districts were set up to the majority
of minorities in certain schools.
U.S. v. Fordice, 112 S.Ct.
The Court dealt with the question of whether Mississippi had
taken appropriate steps to dismantle a public university system
in which some schools were almost exclusively white and some
exclusively black. The court held that the state has to dismantle
this system and see to it that policies are put into effect that
will eliminate this problem.
I agree with the courts reasoning. I do think the court should
be a little more forward with the policy of eliminating such
policies. I thought the court should have made them report to
them as to their progress.
20 U.S.C. § 1702 (1998)
The Congress finds that the maintenance of dual school systems
solely on the basis of race denies to those students the equal
protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. It
also speaks to children being bused until the sixth grade in
order to eliminate the dual school system.
I agree that the dual system based sole on race denied equal
protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The busing issue is
still a hot topic, but the benefits of the integration on our
society as a whole.
20 U.S.C. § 1703(a) (1998)
"No State shall deny equal educational opportunity to an
individual on account of his or her race…
(a) the deliberate segregation by an educational agency of
students on the basis of race, color, or national origin among or
I agree with this statute, because it keeps the states from
having the ability to keep African-Americans from being forced in
to single race education. The past was indicative of this
statutes’ significance with the southern states trying to force
race based schools.
20 U.S.C. § 2000c(b) (1998)
"Desegregation" means the assignment of students to
public schools and within such schools without regard to their
race, color, religion, sex or national origin, but
"desegregation" shall not mean the assignment of
students to public schools in order to overcome racial
I agree with the right to be able to attend schools that seem
to have an even hand with other schools. This also allows the
many groups here in America to learn about each other earlier,
therefore, helping the melting pot.
A.R.S. § 15-816.02(d) (1998)
"A school shall admit pupils who reside in the attendance
area of a school that is under a court order of desegregation or
that is a party to an agreement with the United States department
of education office for civil rights directed toward remediating
alleged or proven racial discrimination unless notice is received
from the resident school that the admission would violate the
court order or agreement. If a school admits a pupil after notice
is received that the admission would constitute such a violation,
the school's district is not allowed to include in its student
count the pupils wrongfully admitted. A school shall not be
required to admit nonresident or resident transfer pupils if the
admission would violate the provisions of the court order or
The formation of this statute hinders schools from reaching
out into various other districts and selecting students.
Therefore, this statute eliminates the possibility of picking
students based primarily on their race. This also lets the school
know that the state will be looking for violations of their
Cal Ed Code § 35351 (1997)
"No public school student shall, because of his race,
creed, or color, be assigned to or be required to attend a
This statute is very simple and to the point. It assist
desegregation because it does not allow for the state or local
government to require that African-American student have to
attend a particular school, thus, eliminating the potential of
race based schools
R.R.S. Neb. § 79-238(2) (1998)
"A school district that has a desegregation plan adopted
by the school board or the board of education or ordered by the
federal court may adopt standards for acceptance and rejection of
applications for transfer into or out of such district which are
designed to make desegregation easier to maintain or improve.
Desegregation is made easier to maintain or improve by standards
which, considering all requests for transfer into or out of the
school district received prior to the school district's
application deadline established in conformity with section
79-237 or 79-240, prohibit transfers which if granted would
increase the racial percentage in the school district's total
enrollment of the minority group for whom the desegregation plan
was ordered or adopted. Any such standards may apply to students
residing within the school district who seek to transfer to a
school in another school district and to students who reside in
another district who seek to transfer into a school district
which has a desegregation plan."
I see this statute trying to lead to equality in schools by
not allowing increases in racial percentages. However
fundamentally, I do not agree with this statute because it can be
interpreted to help keep schools segregated. If you have a school
that is basically all of one race this state would prohibit the
transfer or busing in of the other race to offset it, because it
does not want to increase the total enrollment of minorities in
that desegregation plan.