Integration of public schools- Separate and Unequal

Integration and Desegregation

New York and New Jersey

UCLA Civil Rights Project report “New York State’s Extreme School Segregation: Inequality, Inaction and a Damaged Future 
 Latino Action Network v. State of New Jersey  complaint

 Elizabeth and Hazel - David Margolick
The Civil Rights Movement - David Woo

Evasive responses to Brown:
Ralph Lee Smith, The South's Pupil Placement Laws, The Crisis (1959)

New report shows segregation persists (2016)  - Guardian
GAO report (2016)
How the federal government built white suburbs - Kriston Capps - Citylab

Forgotten history: how the federal government segregated America
Terry Gross interviews Richard Rothstein, author of The Color of Law

Still Separate Still Unequal - Jonathan Kozol (2005)

Judges who re-shaped the landscape

Joel Friedman: Champion of Civil Rights - Judge John Minor Wisdom
Noah Feldman: Scorpions - the Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices

TPM post on white citizens councils resistance to integration
Walter Gellhorn, A Decade of Desegregation (1964)

The post Civil War Amendments 
Jones v. Alfred Mayer (1968) the 13th Amendment
Graber - The post-civil war amendments
Separate but equal - the 14th Amendment - a concise summary
Pope - Snubbed Landmark: Cruikshank v. U.S. (1876) Harvard CLCR L Rev.
McCluskey - Facing the Ghost of Cruikshank, Journal of Legal Education

Brown at 50 (Library of Congress)

Statutory and Constitutional landmarks

December 1865 Amendment 13 -  (with commentary)

April, 1866 Civil Rights Act (2/3 vote) 14 Stat. 27
See also Civil Rights Act of 1866, 1870, 1871, 1875 excerpted

July 18, 1868  14th Amendment - (with commentary)

February 29, 1869 Fifteenth Amendment

1870 Enforcement Act of 1870, ch. 114, 16 Stat. 141. (popular name: First Ku Klux Klan Act)
(forbade conspiring or going onto the highways or onto the premises of another to intimidate any other person from freely exercising and enjoying any right or privilege granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States)

January 23, 1964 Amendment 24 ratified (bans poll tax)

July 2, 1964 - Civil Rights Act of 1964

August 6, 1965 -  Voting Rights Act of 1965

Judicial Landmarks

1876 - U.S. v. Cruikshank - Reconstruction abandoned
Circuit Court of Appeals: United States v. Cruikshank, 25 F. Cas. 707, 708
Supreme Court - United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 559 (1876).

1883 - Civil Rights cases  - 14th Amendment reaches only state action
1896 - Plessey v. Ferguson - separate is not inherently unequal
1954 - Brown v. Board of Ed of topeka, Kansas - segregation inherently unequal
1955 Desegregate with all deliberate speed
Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)
1964 - Griffin v. Prince Edward County - defiance
1966 - Affirmative action to achieve racial integration mandated in the South Jefferson County 
1971 - City-suburb busing (intradistrict)
Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenberg
1973 - Equal Protection does not extend to funding disparities San Antonio Ind. School Dist. v. Rodriguez 
1974 - Detroit: the city-suburb barrier stands  (Milliken v. Bradley)
1996 - Kansas City: magnet district dismantled (Missouri v. Jenkins) (1996)
2007 - Voluntary, race conscious integration barred 
Parents Involved v. Seattle School district No. 1

In 1896 the United States Supreme Court, over the passionate dissent of the first Justice Harlan, in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 declared the constitutional doctrine of "separate but equal", rejecting the 13th and 14th Amendment-based challenges to a Louisiana statute mandating  "equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored races" on railroad cars.  The Court declared
We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.
The argument necessarily assumes that if, as has been more than once the case, and is not unlikely to be so again, the colored race should become the dominant power in the state legislature, and should enact a law in precisely similar terms, it would thereby relegate the white race to an inferior position. We imagine that the white race, at least, would not acquiesce in this assumption.
The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other's merits and a voluntary consent of individuals.
Justice Harlan dissented, declaring the decision to be as permicious as that in the Dred Scott case: the view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens.  There is no caste here.  Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.  In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.  The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.  The law regards man as man, and takes no account of   his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.  It is, therefore, to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race. 
10 years after the united States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 declared racially segregated public schools to be inherently unequal, and nine years after the Court in Brown II called for its mandate to be carried out wit "all deliberate speed", Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV of which embraced that principle.

In 1966 a panel of the 5th Circuit in the Jefferson County case declared that the day for delay had ended and that Brown v. Board required not simply an end to legal segregation via freedom of choice plans, but rather “affirmative action” to integrate the formerly de jure segregated schools.  It offered no opinion on northern “de facto” segregation.  The Circuit en banc embraced Judge Wisdom’s landmark opinion and entered a detailed integration order.  There were dissents at both levels.

In 1971 the United States Supreme Court approved a desegregation plan in Charlotte, N.C. that relied on extensive busing within the district to overcome the dual, segregated school system.

In 1974 in the Detroit case (Milliken) the U.S. Supreme Court limited the remedy for Detroit’s segregated schools: municipal boundaries would not be crossed to remedy racial segregation.

In 1996 the United States Supreme Court (5-4) rejected the state's creation of a "magnet district" - Kansas City - which sought to draw suburban white students to City schools - as a remedy for past discrimination by the state in which the suburban school districts were not implicated. (Missouri v. Jenkins)

In 2007 in the Seattle case the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Washington State Supreme Court and barred use of race-conscious criteria to achieve voluntary integration where there was no finding of past discrimination.

The beginning - Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, et al

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas - Brown I - 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

*Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas - Brown II 349 U.S. 294 (1955)

Griffin v. Prince Edward County (U.S. 1964) ("there has been entirely too much deliberation and not enough speed")

U.S. v. Jefferson County
U.S. v. Jefferson County Bd of Ed., 372 F. 2d 836 (5th Cir. 1966) Opinion by John Minor Wisdom

U.S. v. Jefferson County Bd. of Ed., 380 F2d 385 (5th Cir, en banc 1967) full opinion
*Jefferson County - en banc majority opinion and decree
*Judge Griffin Bell's dissent

Discussion slides - part 1 2017

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg, 402 U.S. 1 (1971)
Metropolitan area remedial busing and other uses and limits of the remedial power.

* Retro report - NY Times
Discussion slides
Video: The Battle for Busing - Retro Report  (10 minutes)
NY Times - related article: text
Reporter's Notebook - C. Drummond Ayres
Segregation in suburbia: Levittown's Legacy
The Color of Law - Rothstein - excerpt
The Federal role in housing segregation: Economic Policy Institute amicus brief in Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project
Housing Apartheid, American Style - NY Times Editorial (May 16, 2015)

Video: The Battle for Busing - Retro Report  (10 minutes)
Video: Boston busing crisis
 Busing Crisis
Equitable funding - Rodriguez v. San Antonio
discussion slides

The Detroit Desegregation Case
*Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)

Background for Detroit
discussion slides Kansas City and Detroit - 2016
 Milliken 1977 - post remand
Motown the musical
Detroit 1967
GM, Detroit, and the Decline of the Black Middle Class - NY Times
Dead End Street - Lou Rawls
NBC News Detroit 1967 52 minutes

Kansas City, Missouri
the magnet district rejected

*Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1996)
(excerpted in Weaver casebook at 411)

Background for Kansas City
Overview of Kansas City Public Schools
Accreditation: FAQ - KC Public Schools
NPR: Kansas City's Failed Schools
Transformation - Phase II - Kansas City Public Schools
Certification history of KCMSB schools
Jenkins I - Kennedy concurrence
Jenkins I - 1990
Failing schools - Ferguson - [This American Life ] the transfer remedy - Normandy School District
News report on Normandy to Francis Howell Transfer plan video
Francis Howell addresses transfer plan
Transfer plan stirs outrage St. Louis Public Radio
School Segregation - the continuing tragedy of Ferguson, Missouri by Nicole Hannah-Jones/ Pro publica
The Making of Ferguson - Report by Richard Rothstein

The Seattle Voluntary Integration Case

*Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, United States Supreme Court (2007)

Background for Seattle
Discussion slides - 2016
Washington Constitution, Article 9

Article IX, Section 1
It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.
Section 2
Public School System.
The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools...

RCW 49.60.400 Discrimination, preferential treatment prohibited

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, Supreme Court of Washington (2003)
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. , 9th Circuit, en banc (2005)
Parents Involved v. Seattle 9th Circuit Kozinski concurring opinion

Dept of Education guidance on Equalization of Resources  October 1, 2014
Seattle Human Rights Commission

Are race conscious remedies wrong? 
Historians amicus brief (PARENTS INVOLVED)
Ta-Nehisi Coates  The Case for Reparations
What about the Texas Ten percent plan?

No comments:

Post a Comment