Integration of public schools- Separate and Unequal


Integration and Desegregation of Public Schools

Reparations
Asheville, NC - slavery compensation fund

Connecticut

`Sheff Remedy'
Where do we go from here?NAACP Public Advocacy Materials

New York and New Jersey

New Jersey - Latino Action Network v. The State of New Jersey
Selected documents

UCLA Report 2017
Regionalization rejected - Englewood v. Englewood Cliffs (1992)

New York City 

UCLA Civil Rights Project report “New York State’s Extreme School Segregation: Inequality, Inaction and a Damaged Future 
Brown at 60
 


Saiger, Aaron J., Test Unrest: New York City's Examination High Schools (March 25, 2015). 21 City Law 1 (2015); Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2585213. Available at SSRN: 


Newsday: Long Island Divided
Newsday 
https://projects.newsday.com/

The New York Specialized High Schools

selected documents

Segregation and Integration


Born in Slavery


 
The Civil Rights Movement

Evasive responses to Brown:
Ralph Lee Smith, 

Today
New report shows segregation persists
GAO report (2016)
How the federal government built white suburbs

Forgotten history: how the federal government segregated America
Terry Gross interviews Richard Rothstein

Still Separate Still Unequal

Judges who re-shaped the landscape

Joel Friedman:  John Minor Wisdom
Noah Feldman: 

TPM post
Walter Gellhorn, 


The post Civil War Amendments 
Jones v. Alfred Mayer (1968) the 13th Amendment
Graber - 
Separate but equal - the 14th Amendment -  
Civil Rights Act of 1871 (3rd Enforcement Act) AKA Ku Klux Klan Act 42 USC 1985 (as now codiied in part)
James Gregory 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 
Tatel, Brown and Southern Resistance - NYU -

Statutory and Constitutional landmarks

December 1865 Amendment 13

April, 1866
See also Civil Rights Act of 1866, 1870, 1871, 1875

July 18, 1868  

February 29, 1869

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)

1961 - Executive Order 10925 - Affirmative action

January 23, 1964 

July 2, 1964 - Civil Rights Act of 1964

August 6, 1965 -  

Judicial Landmarks


Proclamation (1775) John Earl Dunmore, Governor General of Virginia
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
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,
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:
 ...in 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 

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)



A decade after Brown = a stone wall
 SLIDES U.S. v. Jefferson County
U.S. v. Jefferson County Bd of Ed., 372 F. 2d 836 (5th Cir. 1966)

U.S. v. Jefferson County Bd. of Ed., 380 F2d 385 (5th Cir, en banc 1967) full opinion
*
*

Busing

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)
North Carolina post-Brown - NCPedia
NY Times - related article: text
Reporter's Notebook - C. Drummond Ayres
Segregation in suburbia: Levittown's Legacy
The Color of Law
The Federal role in housing segregation: Economic Policy Institute amicus brief in Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project
Housing Apartheid, American Style

Video:
Video: Boston busing crisis
 Busing Crisis
Equitable funding -
discussion slides

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

Background for Detroit
discussion slides Kansas City and Detroit - 2016
 - post remand
Aretha Franklin - Respect
Coleman Young
Motown the musical
Detroit 1967 - NBC News 4 minutes video
GM, Detroit, and the Decline of the Black Middle Class
Dead End Street
NBC News Detroit 1967
Busing - Supreme Court Restricts Equity Powers of District Courts - Elizabeth Warren - Rutgers Law Review - 1975


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 
Accreditation: 
NPR: 
Transformation - Phase II
Certification history
Jenkins I - Kennedy 
Jenkins I
Failing schools - Ferguson[This American Life ] the transfer remedy - Normandy School District
News report on Normandy to Francis Howell Transfer plan
Francis Howell addresses transfer plan
Transfer plan stirs outrageSt. Louis Public Radio
School Segregation - the continuing tragedy of Ferguson, Missouri 
The Making of Ferguson


The Seattle Voluntary Integration Case

*

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...



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 (
Ta-Nehisi Coates
What about the Texas Ten percent plan?
Justice Clarence Thomas and affirmative action - Confusion or Bad Faith?
Eric J. Segall




No comments:

Post a Comment