On May 17, 1954, the Supreme court decided Brown v. Board of Educaton (347 US 483), in which it ruled that segregating students by race into separate school facilities was inherently unequal, and thus a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The case involved the consolidation of four separate cases of African American children who were denied access to their local school and filed suit to gain access--rather than be sent to a school designated specifically for African American children. In each of the cases, the trial courts and courts of appeals ruled that the students had no Constitutional right to access the same schools as White children. In three of the four cases, the denial of relief to plaintiffs were based on the "separate but equal doctrine."
To understand the Brown decision, it is important to fully appreciate what at is unequal about "separate but equal" in the context of racial segregation. After all, there are situations in which "separate but equal" is considered fully acceptable today, such as when public institutions have separate restroom facilities for men and women--and there is no meaningful challenge to such protocal.
In Brown, the Supreme Court concluded that: "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," specifying that "by reason of the segregation complained of" the students have been "deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."
That enforced segregation itself was made unconstitutional represents what most people would say if asked what made Brown historically important. However, it's the legal analysis that makes this case worth reading--and worth thinking about from the perspective of advancing civic education in this country.
For starters, note that the Black school and the White school discussed in Brown, were already equalized "with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors." The Court then explained that its "decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and White schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education." It is this aspect of the analysis that is often not adequately remembered or considered.
Legal analysis is not merely a recitation of legal rules, but is an analytical process that involves thinking through what prior case law and facts are relevant to determining how the law may apply to a given set of circumstances. Often the key to understanding a Court's decision analytical process is understanding the factual and background circumstances that seems most important to the Court. Here, the circumstances involve segregating students based on the color of their skin.
In thinking this through, the Court references Sweat v. Painter. In Sweat, a trial court determined that simply by forming a law school for Black students rather than integrading the law school at the University of Texas, which was available only to Whites, it provided "privileges, advantages, and opportunities for the study of law substantially equivalent to those offered by the State to White students at the University of Texas." In other words, the trial court applied the "separate but equal" doctrine and determined that the University of Texas was meeting its obligations by providing professors, facilities, and a library to its African American students, just as it was providing these to its White students.
In looking at this, the Supreme Court, however, noted that the newly-formed law school could not provide its students with the prestige of the law school at the University of Texas, or access to the more experienced professors or larger library offered to University of Texas students, and not offered to the students of the subsidiary institution.
Additionally, and most relevant to Brown v. Board, it commented that "legal learning and practice cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts." Thus, the students at the law school specifically for Black Americans are being denied access to communication with the vast majority of their colleagues in their profession. In other words, the Court was troubled by the inequality that comes when Black students are denied access to 85% of their future colleagues, leading academics, mentors, and the prestige of going to a well known institution.
In other words, the Supreme Court in Sweat, recognized that education involves more than just access to books, but access to prestige, collegues, and other atmospherics that shape ones ability to succeed in society.
This point is made more clear in Brown, where the Court writes, "Education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments" -- in part because it is "required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities [and] the very foundation of good citizenship." The Court further refers to education as 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."
Thus, education does not consist solely of the relaying over specific academic tools, but involves a whole host of additional access and atmospherics, including mingling with fellow students and professors, and segregating students based on skin color deprives them of an essential aspect of education, the ability to learn from other members of the larger community.
Brown further cites to McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents. In McLaurin, the African American graduate student in question, McLaurin, after initial litigation, was admitted to University of Oklahoma classes, but was required to "sit apart at a designated desk in an anteroom adjoining the classroom; to sit at a designated desk on the mezzanine floor of the library, but not to use the desks in the regular reading room, and to sit at a designated table and to eat at a different time from the other students in the school cafeteria." The Supreme Court notes that by setting McLaurin apart from his classmates, McLaurin is "handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. Such restrictions impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession."
There is a tendency, I believe, to think about the importance of Brown v. Board of Education without also thinking about why the decision is so important. Certainly most Americans know that the Supreme Court declared that segregated schools violate the Fourteenth Amendment, but unfortunately, I fear, few Americans are afforded the chance to study the decision in enough depth to fully understand why.
I content that an essential aspect of the Brown decision is the recognition, by citing to Sweat and McLaurin that "Education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments" and "required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities [and] the very foundation of good citizenship." In Sweat is the recognition that a law student can not be a part of the legal community without true rights and privileges to interact with the larger legal community. McLaurin extends that analysis to the graduate school community as a whole. Finally, Brown recognizes that this is true for all of us, that when government mandates segregation, it deprives the segregated minority from being a part of the larger community.
The Brown Court implores us to "look... to the effect of segregation itself on public education." Brown challenges us to think about education as an endevor to train young men and women how to be members of society at large, including to fulfill any responsibilities incumbent on him or her by virtue of his or her membership in the community of fellow Americans. Thus, just as segregation in the law school context deprives potential lawyers from knowing his or her potential colleagues and fellow professionals, segregation in the public school context deprives all citizens from knowing their fellow citizens, and those with whom civic responsibilities are shared. Thus, Brown stands for the proposition that Equal Protection of the laws implicitly includes equal access to the laws and instrumentalities of the laws.
In fact, in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, in 1973, the Supreme Court agrees with particular statements about the role of education in exercising citizenship, namely that education is "essential to the effective exercise of First Amendment freedoms and to intelligent utilization of the right to vote and "the right to speak is meaningless unless the speaker is capable of articulating his thoughts intelligently and persuasively. The 'marketplace of ideas' is an empty forum for those lacking basic communicative tools." Although the Rodriguez court clarifies that Brown should not be read to create a new fundamental Constitutional right to education, it certainly should be read to describe the importance of education to society and to exercising First Amendment and other fundamental rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment