Brown v. Board of Education

  In the trial of Brown v. Board of Education, the Plaintiff requested to contend with the notion that segregated schools had failed to provide the same quality of education for black schools. The Plaintiff argued that racial segregation deprived students of equal protection under the Constitution, adding that the Fourteenth Amendment had not been fully interpreted. The Plaintiff argued for the right for Black Americans to receive Constitutionally protected equal education apart from discrimination. Race, argued the Plaintiff, determined the inferiority of one facility, (Legal Information Institute, LII).

            The plaintiff built the case around the ineffectiveness of segregation and the ill effects in which it produced upon society. These facts hoped the plaintiff was enough to curtail the interest of segregation in advocacy of upholding the Constitution and the future of America. The plaintiff argued that Black students who attended Law school felt they had not received even education. As a result of segregation, the U.S. legal system would ultimately suffer.

            The defendant cited that in Plessy v. Ferguson and its six subsequent cases, the Court upheld the previous rulings. The defendant stated that it was the Founder’s intention that segregation is not unlawful. In each prior case the Framer’s “Doctrine of Separate but Equal” was upheld. The defendant argued for every position: that since the Black schools were built more recently than white schools they were even better than White schools, which were older. In addition, the defendant cited the potential that the ruling would instigate a societal upheaval.

            To some extent, the defense believed that segregation was ultimately good for society. The defense believed that sometimes the government was forced to impose a basis for safety. The argument in itself was fallacious in that by affirming the Disjunct, the defense failed to deny the remaining Disjunct. The lawyer could have led by denying the Disjunct, to present the clear option, however in this case, the argument was inherently invalid, and the defense likely knew it.“But I entreat them to remember the age-old motto that the best is often the enemy of the good” argued the defense John W. Davis, (State Library).

            The trial judge took into account previous rulings into his decision. Being limited by the Supreme Court rulings of the past, segregation remained Constitutionally upheld under the Judge’s ruling; stating, “In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race,” (Cornell)

            Previous cases such as Briggs v. Elliott, Davis v. County School Board, Gaines v. Canada resulted in, no change. Although as in Briggs v Elliott, the court consistently found that “the Negro schools were inferior to the white schools and ordered the defendants to begin immediately to equalize the facilities,” national desegregation did not occur, and the cases were used in lower courts to retain the inferior system of civil segregation.

In Gebhart v Belton, The Chancellor found that subjecting Negro children to racial segregation resulted in an inferior education. “The Chancellor's decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Delaware,” adding“The defendants, contending only that the Delaware courts had erred in ordering the immediate admission of the Negro plaintiffs to the white schools, applied to this Court for certiorari. The writ was granted, 344 U.S. 891” (Legal Information Institute, LII).

            The biggest question to the act of desegregation was the effect over the country. The Justices feared putting forth a divided decision that could not be enforced, (Separate But Equal, 1991 –  2:02:40). “A Divided Court will send a terribly confused signal to the country” (Separate But Equal, 1991 –  2:06:00) stated a Justice in the film depicting the discussion of the Supreme Court.

            One of the questions proposed among the Supreme Court Justices during their deliberation of the case, was the fear that the desegregation of society may lead to civil disorder. Previously the defense had dramatically argued during Plessy v. Ferguson that the desegregation of schools would likely cause White children to stop attending schools altogether. During Brown v. Board which began in 1952, the defense argued that racial segregation was being misinterpreted and was actually a form of protection for the safety of Black Americans from public discourse. “Was there any legitimate basis for segregation laws?...was it merely man’s inhumanity to man?” (Kluger, R. – 1975/2004).

            Despite the public call for justice, the Supreme Court’s decision making was heavily weighed upon the Founder’s original intention when they formed the Constitution. Ultimately, the Court determined they did not have all the facts, considering the Framers never disclosed their specific views on segregated schools. As they could not make a sound judgement based on the Founder’s intent, the nine-member Supreme Court was forced to make an interpretation based on past cases, the rule of law, and implement modern research and evidence.

However, a much larger question would need to be addressed before the Court could release their ruling. It would be two years of debates before the Court would decide on a verdict. While the defense argued that segregated education improved the ability to give equal opportunity under the Fourteenth Amendment, critics cited the fallacies invalidating the Doctrine of Separate but Equal, which defied the Equal Protection Clause guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Plaintiff then declared the previous rulings invalid under the newly acquired research conducted through the American Psychological Association (APA).

            The relevant facts in the case provided new information which added to the Plaintiff’s position. One study conducted by Dr. Kenneth Clark of the American Psychological Association (APA) revealed the effects of “Negro children” under circumstances of prejudice and discrimination. The results of these “Projective tests” indicated that “the practice of segregation impaired these youngsters, impaired their general functioning…three out of every four youngsters, who when asked the question ‘Which of these dolls is likely to act bad?’ picked the brown doll. The brown doll to them was associated with all the negative stereotypes which are usually ascribed to Negroes in our Culture. This indicated clearly the damage to the self esteem of these youngsters.” (Archive.org). In his research, the Plaintiff found Thaddeus Stevens, in the debate on the floor of Congress when the Amendment was first presented, “Where any state makes distinctions between different classes of individuals, Congress shall have the power to correct such discriminations and inequality. No distinction would be tolerated in this purified republic, but what rose from merit and conduct.” (Jstor.org) Thurgood Marshall placed this on the front section of the brief.

            Thurgood Marshall argued that leaving the object of desegregation to the states was no longer a viable option to effectively guarantee equal rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Marshall argued that Harry Briggs Jr. was guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to receive equal education but instead missed at least a dozen years of schooling. “There is no way you can repay lost school years” argued Thurgood Marshall, (National Review).

            Black Children since the founding of our nation had been impacted the most, argued the plaintiff. This historic discrepancy caused permanent changes that, like all things, translated into the formation of their adult life. The result would not be conducive to the longevity of America. Thurgood Marshall argued that the predominate fear was that White children would not be able to integrate with Black children, stating this was an illusion. (Separate But Equal) Thurgood Marshall revealed the fallacious claims that although they played together outside of school hours, they must remain separated in fear that the “world will fall apart.”

            By asserting segregation, in fear of inciting a civil catastrophe, the previous Judges’ rulings had committed the Fallacy of Affirming a Disjunct. This means that segregation was not the only means to keeping public peace between all differences, including race. It was unjustifiable that Negros were inferior to other human beings, argued Thurgood Marshall. Marshall stated that if this were the case, the cause of segregation could only be one thing, and that is the domineering of the White race above the Black man. This was not the Founders intent, nor is it the way America was intended to function under the law of God, and Christian influence. Slavery was a derivative of man’s fallen state, apart from God.

            The Court rejected previous rulings, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, citing an overwhelming amount of evidence to support that legal segregation was a primitive and ineffective practice. The court stated that regardless of the “psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson” due to detrimental impacts revealed through modern findings, any previous rulings contrary were rejected.

            The stated grounds for the final decision in Brown v. Board were that legal segregation was in Constitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore the Supreme Court ruled segregation of schools as un-Constitutional on the grounds that equality was evidently not possible through class division. Additionally the Court determined that segregation did not provide equal education which would inevitably weaken our great nation.

            While the Supreme Court Justices all knew racism and segregation was a terrible sin that was being committed, they needed legal evidence which would allow the formation of a sound logic argument, one which could not be argued with. This would have to be compatible with the law, and then enforced. While there was great debate between civil unrest and mass disobedience, in the end human rights were our national victor, emancipating Black children from segregation.

            “There are times where to Court must be free to interpret the Constitution based on the changes in men’s feeling of what is right and just. The humanitarian goal will have to do. You must work to unite the court.” (Separate But Equal) Despite the clear humanitarian choice, the challenge presented for the Supreme Court was to find evidence that segregation was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Another challenge was what if the ruling results in public upheaval and the public refuses to abide. Despite the enormous pressure, the Supreme Court pushed on. In order to ensure that all men are equal in America, it must apply to both Black and White Americans. White men were not intended by the Founders, nor by God, to be more equal than others.

            The Supreme Court ruling was reasonable, finally ending national segregation.  Slavery was likely not ended at the time of our founding, as advocates considered their slaves to be chattel, and were unwilling to give up what they believed was theirs without a fight. It was not a fight that was possible upon the founding of our nation. If our Framers had sought to stop slavery upon the inception of our American nation, they may have spread their interests too thin. This does not suggest slave owners should be shown sympathy for their injudicious thoughts and perversely offensive contortion of God’s intention. As the Lord destroyed the sinners in Gomorrah, He too would soon strike down human discrimination based on skin color, for God created man in His image. By forcing His creations into chattel slavery, man assumes the position of a god. As a Christian, this is an egregious offense. To place this context into everyday secular terms, slavery is just plain wrong.

            There are many parallels to the Bible and the unfolding of events which occurred following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Thurgood Marshall stated that “I love peace but I adore a riot. You’ve got to be angry to write a dissent.” (Washington University) Similarly, Scripture states Psalm 120:6 (NIV) “I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war.”

            If it had not been for both the passion of Thurgood Marshall and the Legal Expertise, the decision may have been a different result. Marshall acted throughout his career without opinion influencing his pursuit of justice.

            Brown v. Board of Education remains one of the most intense Supreme Court cases in the history of our nation. For two years the Justices remained such under pressure, one Justice Fred M. Vinson died of a sudden heart attack. (Oyez) Vinson was replaced by Earl Warren, an advocate who in 1942 testified to advocate the removal of all Japanese Americans during the war. Marshall knew first-hand of the “crippling insecurity” among those black children” and that “the government…was promoting self-hate in black children” (Williams, J. 1998)

            The defense’s case relied on the presumption that Marshall would fail to prove that Congress had intended for the 14^th Amendment to prohibit separate schools. Ultimately the defense’s position would be proven false as God revealed our intended true nature through His grace by allowing the Supreme Court to pass legislation. In many ways the defense may have been chosen to represent the case which could produce a valiant loss, as the Courts likely felt segregation was an archaic and obsolete practice in America. This is of course speculation, based upon the evidence that the defense did very much believe the invalidity of his argument, as he presented it before the Justices.

            Segregation is non-Biblical, and therefore at some point God needed to strike it down. However, rather than annihilating our species in light of this offense, He worked His will through the acts of people, effectively saving America from satanic practices. Had the lawyer emphasized different facts, or cases, that Biblical promise may have taken longer to implement. After over three hundred years, we were able to realign His Kingdom and our species back to the Lord’s intended position revealed through Scripture.

---

Citations

1)    American Psychological Association (APA). (2022). Featured Psychologists: Mamie Phipps Clark, PhD, and Kenneth Clark, PhD. https://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/psychologists/clark.

2)    Archive.org. (November 13th, 1952). Kenneth Clark Testimony : Kenneth B. Clark : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/KennethClarkTestimony/mode/1up?view=theater.

3)    Yale Law & Policy Review: J. Walker, A.. (2000). "No Distinction Would Be Tolerated": Thaddeus Stevens, Disability, and the Original Intent of the Equal Protection Clause on JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40239565.

4)    National Review. (January 16th, 2016). The Most Shocking Images of Anti-Black Oppression Yet | National Review. https://www.nationalreview.com/postmodern-conservative/most-shocking-images-anti-black-oppression-yet/.

5)    Oyez.org. (2022). Fred M. Vinson. https://www.oyez.org/justices/fred_m_vinson.

6)    Washington University. (1994). Washington University Law Quarterly. https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/7015/galley/23848/view/.

7)    State Library - DC.StateLibrary.SC.gov. (December 7th, 1953). ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLEES IN BRIGGS v. ELLIOTT. (Page 21) https://dc.statelibrary.sc.gov/bitstream/handle/10827/32143/FED_SC_Argument_on_Behalf_BvE_1953.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

8)    Legal Information Institute (LII). (May 17th, 1954). | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/483/USSC_PRO_347_483_1#fn5_ref.

9)    Stevens Jr., G. (Director). (1991). Separate But Equal [Film]. George Stevens Productions; New Liberty Productions; Republic Pictures (II) (in association with).

10) Crawfordsworld. (2022). Brown v Board of Education. https://www.crawfordsworld.com/rob/HEG/HEG_Government/HEGSeparate%20But%20Equal/Closingarguments.htm.

11) Kluger, R. (1975/2004) Simple Justice (2^nd ed.) pg. 290 First Vintage Books Edition (Original work published 1975)

12) Kluger, R. (1975/2004) Simple Justice (2^nd ed.) pg. 570 First Vintage Books Edition (Original work published 1975)

13) National Defense Migration - Warren, E. (1942). 10973. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21095491/warren-test-clean.pdf.

14) Williams, J. (1998) Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary pg. 210 Times Books, Random House