Part I - Life as a Brown Baby Part II - Brown vs. Board of Education: A Contemporary Analysis It would be a slight exaggeration to say that I clearly remember the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, since I was only six years old at the time this landmark legal edict was handed down. But precocious child that I was, I was about to complete second grade, and like every other little colored child in the state of North Carolina, I was in a racially segregated school at the time. What made school a special place for me was that it was across the road from the campus of Elizabeth City State Teachers College, which was the alma mater of my second grade teacher, and most of the other teachers in my town, including my father. We didn't actually go on the college campus very often - sometimes there was a special field trip to see a play, or listen to a debate. But most of the time, we just stared in awe and admiration at those cool college kids who dashed here and there, back and forth, in a world that we could only imagine. Just seeing those earnest young men and women inspired some of us to reach for similar heights. A college education was a rarity in North Carolina at the time, even for white people. So being in such close proximity to an institution of higher learning - one that I could legitimately aspire to attend - provided me with a sense of the possible that shaped my life at a very early point. Even at six though, I was keenly aware of segregation and what it meant. Our world, though nurturing and supportive, was also very tightly defined. Having attended kindergarten and first grade in a Catholic school that was two blocks from our house, I had been taught by white nuns. I remember them as being nice to me, encouraging and supportive, which is pretty important when you are the smallest person in your class. I also remember though, that in the parent-teacher meetings, when my mother went to check on the progress of my sister and I, that the interaction pattern was just a little different with the nuns than it was with the other people in my neighborhood. It was the same interaction pattern that I noticed when, with my mother, or father, or even my grandmother, we ventured out of our neighborhood to go downtown or to the supermarket - circumstances when we would encounter white people, whom I noticed were always in charge. Southern children, especially colored children, were brought up to be polite and always respectful of their elders. When we addressed them, we said sir and ma'am as an acknowledgement of their age and experience. It confused me then, when on a trip to the five-and-ten with my grandmother, she endeavored to get the attention of the white girl behind the counter by raising her hand and saying to her, "Please ma'am, could you give me some help." Of course I didn't say anything at the time-it wouldn't have been proper-but on the walk home, I asked Grandma why she said ma'am to someone so much younger than she, someone who accor
{"title":"A Bi-Generational Narrative in the Brown v. Board Decision","authors":"W. B. Harvey, A. Harvey","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.11","url":null,"abstract":"Part I - Life as a Brown Baby Part II - Brown vs. Board of Education: A Contemporary Analysis It would be a slight exaggeration to say that I clearly remember the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, since I was only six years old at the time this landmark legal edict was handed down. But precocious child that I was, I was about to complete second grade, and like every other little colored child in the state of North Carolina, I was in a racially segregated school at the time. What made school a special place for me was that it was across the road from the campus of Elizabeth City State Teachers College, which was the alma mater of my second grade teacher, and most of the other teachers in my town, including my father. We didn't actually go on the college campus very often - sometimes there was a special field trip to see a play, or listen to a debate. But most of the time, we just stared in awe and admiration at those cool college kids who dashed here and there, back and forth, in a world that we could only imagine. Just seeing those earnest young men and women inspired some of us to reach for similar heights. A college education was a rarity in North Carolina at the time, even for white people. So being in such close proximity to an institution of higher learning - one that I could legitimately aspire to attend - provided me with a sense of the possible that shaped my life at a very early point. Even at six though, I was keenly aware of segregation and what it meant. Our world, though nurturing and supportive, was also very tightly defined. Having attended kindergarten and first grade in a Catholic school that was two blocks from our house, I had been taught by white nuns. I remember them as being nice to me, encouraging and supportive, which is pretty important when you are the smallest person in your class. I also remember though, that in the parent-teacher meetings, when my mother went to check on the progress of my sister and I, that the interaction pattern was just a little different with the nuns than it was with the other people in my neighborhood. It was the same interaction pattern that I noticed when, with my mother, or father, or even my grandmother, we ventured out of our neighborhood to go downtown or to the supermarket - circumstances when we would encounter white people, whom I noticed were always in charge. Southern children, especially colored children, were brought up to be polite and always respectful of their elders. When we addressed them, we said sir and ma'am as an acknowledgement of their age and experience. It confused me then, when on a trip to the five-and-ten with my grandmother, she endeavored to get the attention of the white girl behind the counter by raising her hand and saying to her, \"Please ma'am, could you give me some help.\" Of course I didn't say anything at the time-it wouldn't have been proper-but on the walk home, I asked Grandma why she said ma'am to someone so much younger than she, someone who accor","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"56 1","pages":"43-49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41406708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
@contents: Selected Contents: Table of Contents Foreword Roslyn A. Mickelson Preface John U. Ogbu A Note from Marcellina Ada Ogbu Acknowledgments Marcellina Ada Ogbu PART ONE: HISTORY AND FRAMEWORK Chapter 1: The History and Status of a Theoretical Debate John U. Ogbu Chapter 2: Collective Identity and the Burden of "Acting White" in Black History, Community, and Education John U. Ogbu Chapter 3: Ways of Knowing: The Ethnographic Approach to the Study of Collective Identity and Schooling John U. Ogbu Chapter 4: Multiple Sources of Peer Pressures Among African American Students John U. Ogbu Chapter 5: Language and Collective Identity Among Adults and Students in a Black Community John U. Ogbu Chapter 6: "Signithia, You Can Do Better Than That": John Ogbu (and Me) and the Nine Lives Peoples Signithia Fordham PART TWO: COLLECTIVE IDENTITY, BLACK AMERICANS, AND SCHOOLING Chapter 7: High School Students of Color Talk About Accusations of "Acting White" David A. Bergin and Helen C. Cooks Chapter 8: Black Students' Identity and Acting White and Black Linwood Cousins Chapter 9: Reexamining Resistance as Oppositional Behavior: The Nation of Islam and the Creation of a Black Achievement Ideology A.A. Akom Chapter 10: What Does "Acting White" Actually Mean? Racial Identity, Adolescent Development, and Academic Achievement Among African American Youths Margaret Beale Spencer and Vinay Harpalani Chapter 11: "Excellence" and Student Class, Race, and Gender Cultures Lois Weis
{"title":"Minority Status, Oppositional Culture, & Schooling","authors":"J. Ogbu","doi":"10.4324/9780203931967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203931967","url":null,"abstract":"@contents: Selected Contents: Table of Contents Foreword Roslyn A. Mickelson Preface John U. Ogbu A Note from Marcellina Ada Ogbu Acknowledgments Marcellina Ada Ogbu PART ONE: HISTORY AND FRAMEWORK Chapter 1: The History and Status of a Theoretical Debate John U. Ogbu Chapter 2: Collective Identity and the Burden of \"Acting White\" in Black History, Community, and Education John U. Ogbu Chapter 3: Ways of Knowing: The Ethnographic Approach to the Study of Collective Identity and Schooling John U. Ogbu Chapter 4: Multiple Sources of Peer Pressures Among African American Students John U. Ogbu Chapter 5: Language and Collective Identity Among Adults and Students in a Black Community John U. Ogbu Chapter 6: \"Signithia, You Can Do Better Than That\": John Ogbu (and Me) and the Nine Lives Peoples Signithia Fordham PART TWO: COLLECTIVE IDENTITY, BLACK AMERICANS, AND SCHOOLING Chapter 7: High School Students of Color Talk About Accusations of \"Acting White\" David A. Bergin and Helen C. Cooks Chapter 8: Black Students' Identity and Acting White and Black Linwood Cousins Chapter 9: Reexamining Resistance as Oppositional Behavior: The Nation of Islam and the Creation of a Black Achievement Ideology A.A. Akom Chapter 10: What Does \"Acting White\" Actually Mean? Racial Identity, Adolescent Development, and Academic Achievement Among African American Youths Margaret Beale Spencer and Vinay Harpalani Chapter 11: \"Excellence\" and Student Class, Race, and Gender Cultures Lois Weis","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"109 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70599911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Class of Their Own: Black Teachers in the Segregated South","authors":"Theodore Carter DeLaney","doi":"10.5860/choice.45-2789","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.45-2789","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"116 1","pages":"94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71119008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
John M Wallace, Sara Goodkind, Cynthia M Wallace, Jerald G Bachman
The present study uses large nationally representative samples of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian American, and American Indian students to examine current patterns and recent trends (1991 to 2005) in racial, ethnic, and gender differences in school discipline. We found that Black, Hispanic, and American Indian youth are slightly more likely than White and Asian American youth to be sent to the office and substantially (two to five times) more likely to be suspended or expelled. Although school discipline rates decreased over time for most ethnic groups, among Black students school discipline rates increased between 1991 and 2005. Logistic regression analyses that controlled for racial and ethnic differences in socio-demographic factors suggest racial and ethnic differences in school discipline do not result from racial and ethnic differences in socioeconomic status. Future research and practice efforts should seek to better understand and to eliminate racial, ethnic and gender disproportionality in school discipline.
{"title":"Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Differences in School Discipline among U.S. High School Students: 1991-2005.","authors":"John M Wallace, Sara Goodkind, Cynthia M Wallace, Jerald G Bachman","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present study uses large nationally representative samples of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian American, and American Indian students to examine current patterns and recent trends (1991 to 2005) in racial, ethnic, and gender differences in school discipline. We found that Black, Hispanic, and American Indian youth are slightly more likely than White and Asian American youth to be sent to the office and substantially (two to five times) more likely to be suspended or expelled. Although school discipline rates decreased over time for most ethnic groups, among Black students school discipline rates increased between 1991 and 2005. Logistic regression analyses that controlled for racial and ethnic differences in socio-demographic factors suggest racial and ethnic differences in school discipline do not result from racial and ethnic differences in socioeconomic status. Future research and practice efforts should seek to better understand and to eliminate racial, ethnic and gender disproportionality in school discipline.</p>","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"59 1-2","pages":"47-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2678799/pdf/nihms50094.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"28164445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction Much of the country has participated in the 50th anniversary celebration of Brown v. Board of Education, a decision handed down by the Supreme Court on May 17, 1954. This historic, landmark, controversial, and revolutionary case nullified and reversed so much of the content, character, and spirit of American constitutional history, jurisprudence, and moral philosophy on the status, rights, and privileges of blacks and helped to catalyze, mobilize, and energize the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Revolution. It was fraught with deep and heavy symbolism and significance-moral, social, constitutional, political, and cultural. It is not easy to grasp the full dimensions of the "radical" and "revolutionary" decision. A completely new legal era, with fresh ethical and constitutional presuppositions and juristic vision, integrity, and higher possibilities, was born. The crowning jewel or element was the discovery or rediscovery and application of the great, precious, basic, and perennial ideal and sense of justice in the context of the African-American journey. Equality is the cornerstone of the edifice of justice. A distinguished professor of constitutional law and law school dean, Gene R. Nichol, makes the following observation on the uniqueness and far-reaching significance of Brown: Brown is surely the most central, defining, culture-altering decision ever handed down by a U. S. court. It not only bolstered an unfolding, muscular civil rights movement; it provided direct lineage for the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It initiated a framework of constitutional equality that has dealt steady blows to formal, legal discrimination across an impressive array of fronts in our national life. ... The Supreme Court's powerful rejection of state-imposed racial apartheid helped change the nation (Nichol, 2004). Justice and the Human Person Justice is one of the most precious, primordial, luminous, unique, and universal claims of the human person. It is, the ancients taught us, one of the most basic and perennial values of civilization and indeed the rational, moral, and natural order and structure of being. Whatever the definition, no one wants to be treated unjustly. Justice may be defined, for example, in Aristotelian terms as the disposition to give each person his due or proportion, or as a contemporary philosopher, John Rawls, as "fairness," or in an endless variety of other ways, but whatever definition is offered, each person wants "justice." There are aristocratic and democratic as well as oligarchic and hierarchical conceptions of justice. Ultimately, the moral claim to justice is generally rooted in the doctrine of the intrinsic dignity and value of the human person, each and every person-an inheritance of his/her common humanity. This is the democratic and humanistic ideal of justice. Equality is a regulative principle of justice, and so is liberty or freedom. A higher and more creative justice
1954年5月17日，美国最高法院宣布了布朗诉教育委员会案(Brown v. Board of Education)，全国很多地方都参加了该案件50周年纪念活动。这一历史性的、里程碑式的、有争议的、革命性的案件否定并颠覆了美国宪法史、法理学和关于黑人地位、权利和特权的道德哲学的许多内容、特征和精神，并帮助催化、动员和激励了民权运动和黑人革命。它充满了深刻而沉重的象征和意义——道德、社会、宪法、政治和文化。要掌握“激进”和“革命”决定的全部内容并不容易。一个全新的法律时代诞生了，它具有新的伦理和宪法前提，以及法律视野、完整性和更高的可能性。在非裔美国人的旅程中，最重要的是对伟大、宝贵、基本和永恒的理想和正义感的发现或重新发现和应用。平等是正义大厦的基石。著名的宪法学教授兼法学院院长吉恩·r·尼科尔(Gene R. Nichol)对布朗案的独特性和深远意义做出了以下评论:布朗案无疑是美国法院做出的最核心、最具决定性、最能改变文化的裁决。它不仅支持了一场声势浩大的民权运动;它为具有历史意义的1964年《民权法案》和1965年《投票权法案》提供了直接渊源。它开创了一个宪法平等的框架，在我们国家生活中令人印象深刻的一系列战线上，对正式的、法律的歧视进行了持续的打击. ...最高法院对国家强加的种族隔离制度的强有力的拒绝帮助改变了这个国家(尼科尔，2004)。正义是人类最宝贵、最原始、最光明、最独特和最普遍的要求之一。古人告诉我们，这是文明最基本、最永恒的价值之一，也是理性、道德和自然的存在秩序和结构。无论定义是什么，没有人希望受到不公正的对待。例如，在亚里士多德的术语中，正义可以被定义为给予每个人应得的或比例的倾向，或者像当代哲学家约翰·罗尔斯(John Rawls)那样，被定义为“公平”，或者以无数种其他方式，但无论给出什么定义，每个人都想要“正义”。有贵族和民主的正义观念，也有寡头和等级的正义观念。最终，对正义的道德要求通常植根于人的内在尊严和价值的教义，每一个人，他/她的共同人性的继承。这是民主的、人文的正义理想。平等是正义的调节原则，自由也一样。更高、更有创造性的正义，总是更平等、更包容的正义。因此，莱因霍尔德·尼布尔在《道德的人与不道德的社会》中断言，“在这些书页中一再被强加的结论是，平等，或者更确切地说，平等的正义是社会最合理的最终目标”(尼布尔，第234页)。平等的正义包括形式条件和物质条件。“整个世界，”埃米尔·布鲁纳断言，“都在呼唤正义。所有的苦难都是痛苦的，但不公正的苦难是加倍痛苦的。苦难是命运把人们团结在一起;不公正的苦难滋生冲突。”(布鲁纳，第4页)不公正不仅分裂，而且悲惨地使群体、社会和文化两极分化和腐败。1. 奴隶制制度使黑人沦为财产、动产和物品。黑人被剥夺了人性，至少是最基本的人性。这让人想起保罗·蒂利希令人信服的论断，即“错误的、不公正的权力关系可能摧毁生命”(蒂利希，. ...页)
{"title":"what are the Ultimate Meaning and Significance of Brown v. Board of Education?","authors":"S. Cook","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.5","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Much of the country has participated in the 50th anniversary celebration of Brown v. Board of Education, a decision handed down by the Supreme Court on May 17, 1954. This historic, landmark, controversial, and revolutionary case nullified and reversed so much of the content, character, and spirit of American constitutional history, jurisprudence, and moral philosophy on the status, rights, and privileges of blacks and helped to catalyze, mobilize, and energize the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Revolution. It was fraught with deep and heavy symbolism and significance-moral, social, constitutional, political, and cultural. It is not easy to grasp the full dimensions of the \"radical\" and \"revolutionary\" decision. A completely new legal era, with fresh ethical and constitutional presuppositions and juristic vision, integrity, and higher possibilities, was born. The crowning jewel or element was the discovery or rediscovery and application of the great, precious, basic, and perennial ideal and sense of justice in the context of the African-American journey. Equality is the cornerstone of the edifice of justice. A distinguished professor of constitutional law and law school dean, Gene R. Nichol, makes the following observation on the uniqueness and far-reaching significance of Brown: Brown is surely the most central, defining, culture-altering decision ever handed down by a U. S. court. It not only bolstered an unfolding, muscular civil rights movement; it provided direct lineage for the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It initiated a framework of constitutional equality that has dealt steady blows to formal, legal discrimination across an impressive array of fronts in our national life. ... The Supreme Court's powerful rejection of state-imposed racial apartheid helped change the nation (Nichol, 2004). Justice and the Human Person Justice is one of the most precious, primordial, luminous, unique, and universal claims of the human person. It is, the ancients taught us, one of the most basic and perennial values of civilization and indeed the rational, moral, and natural order and structure of being. Whatever the definition, no one wants to be treated unjustly. Justice may be defined, for example, in Aristotelian terms as the disposition to give each person his due or proportion, or as a contemporary philosopher, John Rawls, as \"fairness,\" or in an endless variety of other ways, but whatever definition is offered, each person wants \"justice.\" There are aristocratic and democratic as well as oligarchic and hierarchical conceptions of justice. Ultimately, the moral claim to justice is generally rooted in the doctrine of the intrinsic dignity and value of the human person, each and every person-an inheritance of his/her common humanity. This is the democratic and humanistic ideal of justice. Equality is a regulative principle of justice, and so is liberty or freedom. A higher and more creative justice ","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"56 1","pages":"3-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68781694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I. Introduction The hearts and minds of the American people have been won over on the issue of segregation.1 Flash back over the fifty years since the landmark decision, Brown v. Topeka,2 which ended legal school segregation, and reflect on the long and arduous effort to convert attitudes away from the longstanding acceptance of race segregation. It took a monumental civil rights movement, marked by marches, sit-ins, hoses, billy-clubs, beatings, dogs, bombings, murders, arrests and the myriad of memories and rememories we hold of the American Civil Rights Movement to achieve widespread acceptance of the ultimate wrongness of segregation.3 Today, only the most extreme groups, residing on the very fringes of polite society, herald the ideology of segregation of the races.4 American corporations, in preparation for their role in the global marketplace with an increasingly multi-racial consumer base, have been strong supporters of diversity for decades, and many submitted amicus briefs supporting affirmative action in Grutter v. Bollinger (The University of Michigan) .5 Recently, in The New York Times Magazine, several corporations collaborated on a lengthy article designed to extol the virtues of diversity and integration.6 Integration has been embraced as an unassailable structure in our society.7 The dilemma we confront as a society, is that while an overwhelming majority of Americans would cringe at the idea of a racially segregated America, America remains racially segregated and racial equality is more ideal than real.8 Even though there is almost no legal segregation in America, most Americans live in segregated neighborhoods,9 attend segregated schools10 and churches,11 play on segregated beaches, vacation in segregated hotels and resorts and many have segregated workplaces.12 There is an apparent theoretical disconnection in America between the evils of segregation and the virtues of integration. Our society accepts segregation as bad, but it also views forcing individuals to forego any personal liberty for the sake of integration and equity as unfair and illegal.13 Thus we have the "Big Disconnect" between the legal and social wrong of segregation and the means of achieving integration, whether that comes in the form of school integration plans or affirmative action. This article will take a look in broad strokes over the past fifty years at how America has progressed legally, ideally and really from the pre-Brown society that accepted the legal segregation of the races, to the post-Grutter society, which has sacrificed racial integration, and accepted racial inequality in the process. The United States Supreme Court (The Court) decisions from the popular affirmative action battlegrounds of education, business and employment will be used to demonstrate how the law and attitudes of the American people support the perpetuation of a segregated and unequal society, while extolling the virtues of integration. On several occasions in the past fi
在种族隔离问题上，美国人民已经赢得了人心回顾自布朗诉托皮卡案(Brown v. Topeka)这一具有里程碑意义的判决结束了法律学校的种族隔离以来的50年，并反思为改变人们对种族隔离的长期接受态度所做的长期而艰巨的努力。经历了一场不朽的民权运动，以游行、静坐、水枪、斗牛俱乐部、殴打、狗、爆炸、谋杀、逮捕以及我们对美国民权运动的无数回忆和回忆为标志，才使人们普遍接受了种族隔离的终极错误今天，只有生活在上流社会边缘的最极端的群体，才宣扬种族隔离的意识形态几十年来，美国公司为了准备在日益多元种族的消费者基础上在全球市场中发挥作用，一直是多元化的坚定支持者，许多公司在Grutter v. Bollinger(密歇根大学)案中提交了支持平权行动的法庭之友摘要。最近，在《纽约时报杂志》上，几家公司合作撰写了一篇长篇文章，旨在颂扬多元化和一体化的优点在我们的社会中，融合已被视为一种无懈可击的结构我们作为一个社会所面临的困境是，虽然绝大多数美国人会对一个种族隔离的美国感到畏缩，但美国仍然是种族隔离的，种族平等与其说是现实，不如说是理想尽管美国几乎没有法律上的种族隔离，但大多数美国人生活在种族隔离的社区，上种族隔离的学校和教堂，在种族隔离的海滩上玩耍，在种族隔离的旅馆和度假胜地度假，许多人的工作场所也是种族隔离的在美国，种族隔离的弊端与种族融合的优点之间存在着明显的理论脱节。我们的社会认为种族隔离是不好的，但它也认为强迫个人为了融合和平等而放弃任何个人自由是不公平和非法的因此，我们在种族隔离的法律和社会错误与实现融合的手段之间存在着“巨大的脱节”，无论是以学校融合计划还是平权行动的形式出现。本文将大致回顾过去50年来，美国是如何在法律上、理想上和现实上取得进步的，从布朗案之前接受种族隔离的社会，到格鲁特案之后牺牲了种族融合，并在此过程中接受了种族不平等的社会。美国最高法院(The United States Supreme Court)在教育、商业和就业等广受欢迎的平权行动战场上的裁决，将被用来展示美国人民的法律和态度是如何支持一个种族隔离和不平等的社会永存的，同时颂扬融合的优点。在过去五十年中，最高法院曾多次有机会促进学校、学院和大学的融合，促进平等就业机会，并鼓励被排斥的少数民族参与国家的经济增长。相反，最高法院一次又一次地放弃了这个机会，并作出了使一个分离和不平等的美国永久化的决定。我认为，在本文所讨论的许多场合，法院都是错的。2为什么我们的公立学校和社会仍然存在种族隔离和不平等?坦率地说，美国社会在1954年还没有为废除种族隔离做好准备，无论是在理论上还是在现实中。布朗案是一场思想革命的开端，直到60年代末民权运动全面展开，这场革命才生根发芽。美国人花了20多年的时间才消化并接受种族隔离是错误的这一观念，而且这种观念在接受时也遇到了巨大的阻力。…
{"title":"The Big Disconnect between Segregation and Integration","authors":"Vincene Verdun","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.15","url":null,"abstract":"I. Introduction The hearts and minds of the American people have been won over on the issue of segregation.1 Flash back over the fifty years since the landmark decision, Brown v. Topeka,2 which ended legal school segregation, and reflect on the long and arduous effort to convert attitudes away from the longstanding acceptance of race segregation. It took a monumental civil rights movement, marked by marches, sit-ins, hoses, billy-clubs, beatings, dogs, bombings, murders, arrests and the myriad of memories and rememories we hold of the American Civil Rights Movement to achieve widespread acceptance of the ultimate wrongness of segregation.3 Today, only the most extreme groups, residing on the very fringes of polite society, herald the ideology of segregation of the races.4 American corporations, in preparation for their role in the global marketplace with an increasingly multi-racial consumer base, have been strong supporters of diversity for decades, and many submitted amicus briefs supporting affirmative action in Grutter v. Bollinger (The University of Michigan) .5 Recently, in The New York Times Magazine, several corporations collaborated on a lengthy article designed to extol the virtues of diversity and integration.6 Integration has been embraced as an unassailable structure in our society.7 The dilemma we confront as a society, is that while an overwhelming majority of Americans would cringe at the idea of a racially segregated America, America remains racially segregated and racial equality is more ideal than real.8 Even though there is almost no legal segregation in America, most Americans live in segregated neighborhoods,9 attend segregated schools10 and churches,11 play on segregated beaches, vacation in segregated hotels and resorts and many have segregated workplaces.12 There is an apparent theoretical disconnection in America between the evils of segregation and the virtues of integration. Our society accepts segregation as bad, but it also views forcing individuals to forego any personal liberty for the sake of integration and equity as unfair and illegal.13 Thus we have the \"Big Disconnect\" between the legal and social wrong of segregation and the means of achieving integration, whether that comes in the form of school integration plans or affirmative action. This article will take a look in broad strokes over the past fifty years at how America has progressed legally, ideally and really from the pre-Brown society that accepted the legal segregation of the races, to the post-Grutter society, which has sacrificed racial integration, and accepted racial inequality in the process. The United States Supreme Court (The Court) decisions from the popular affirmative action battlegrounds of education, business and employment will be used to demonstrate how the law and attitudes of the American people support the perpetuation of a segregated and unequal society, while extolling the virtues of integration. On several occasions in the past fi","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"1 1","pages":"67-82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68781613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Richard Kluger, author of Simple Justice (1975), is correct in stating that Brown deserves "a high place in the literature of liberty" (Kluger 1975: X). Historian John Hope Franklin has written that "Perhaps no public question in the United States in the twentieth century aroused more interest at home and abroad than the debate about the constitutionality of segregated public schools" (Franklin 1974: 421). Brown, indeed, became both an exhilarating and a troubling experience for citizens of a nation-state whose government is guided by a Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, adopted unanimously July 4, 1776 by the second Continental Congress, declared that "all...are created equal." And the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States ratified in 1789 indicated that this nation was founded "to create a more perfect union," "to establish justice...[and] to promote the general welfare..." (Harvard Classics 1938: 150-155). And the Fourteenth Amendment proscribes all state-imposed discrimination against any citizen of the United States. Brown was exhilarating to citizens of this nation who recognized it as a way of achieving these goals mentioned above. Brown was troubling to citizens who classified it as judicial activism that ignored the authority of the legislative and executive branches of government. They pointed out that the Constitution empowered three separate but interdependent units of government to serve as checks and balances on each unit (Harvard Classics 1938: 180-198). Actually, the Brown v. Board of Education decision of the U.S. Supreme Court descended upon this nation as a way of checking the pervasive injustice rendered by public educational institutions on people of color, particularly African Americans. The injustices resulted from laws, regulations and other public policies promulgated or facilitated by actions of legislative and executive branches of government. Thus, Brown was a legitimate limitation on discriminatory activities facilitated by policies of government that violated the Constitution. In 1896, the Supreme Court in its Plessy vs. Ferguson decision permitted public agencies to separate people of different races, if the separate accommodations were equal. In the Brown decision, the Court rejected the Plessy opinion because the segregated public accommodations for black people and white people were unequal. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored people (NAACP) fashioned a litigation strategy beginning in 1938 designed to demonstrate in courts of law that separate educational facilities and policies in local communities for black and white populations were never equal. The Brown decision in 1954 was the outcome of several court cases argued by NAACP lawyers. I, personally, experienced the inequality of secondary schools in Dallas, Texas, the city of my birth where I grew up. Before 1940, all blacks in this big city attended one high school, The Booker T. Washington High School located in N
《简单的正义》(1975)一书的作者理查德·克鲁格正确地指出，布朗应该“在自由文学中享有崇高的地位”(克鲁格1975:X)。历史学家约翰·霍普·富兰克林曾写道:“在20世纪的美国，也许没有任何一个公共问题比关于隔离公立学校是否符合宪法的辩论更能引起国内外的兴趣”(富兰克林1974:421)。事实上，对于一个政府受宪法指导的民族国家的公民来说，布朗案既令人振奋又令人不安。1776年7月4日，第二届大陆会议一致通过的《独立宣言》宣布“所有……人生而平等。”1789年批准的美国宪法序言指出，这个国家的建立是为了“建立一个更完美的联盟”，“建立正义……(和)促进一般福利……”(哈佛经典1938:150-155)。第十四修正案禁止各州对任何美国公民施加歧视。布朗大学令这个国家的公民兴奋不已，他们认为这是实现上述目标的一种方式。布朗案令公民感到不安，他们将其归类为无视政府立法和行政部门权威的司法激进主义。他们指出，宪法赋予三个独立但相互依存的政府部门权力，以相互制衡(Harvard Classics 1938: 180-198)。实际上，美国最高法院的“布朗诉教育委员会案”的判决降临到这个国家，是为了检查公共教育机构对有色人种，特别是非洲裔美国人普遍存在的不公正现象。这些不公正现象是由政府立法和行政部门颁布或促进的法律、条例和其他公共政策造成的。因此，布朗案是对违反宪法的政府政策促成的歧视性活动的合法限制。1896年，最高法院在普莱西诉弗格森案的判决中允许公共机构将不同种族的人隔离开来，前提是隔离的条件是平等的。在对布朗案的裁决中，最高法院驳回了普莱西案的意见，因为对黑人和白人实行隔离的公共设施是不平等的。全国有色人种协进会(NAACP)从1938年开始制定了一项诉讼策略，旨在在法庭上证明，当地社区针对黑人和白人的隔离教育设施和政策从来不是平等的。1954年对布朗案的裁决是NAACP律师为几起法庭案件辩护的结果。在我的出生地、我长大的城市德克萨斯州达拉斯，我亲身经历了中学教育的不平等。1940年以前，这个大城市的所有黑人都上一所高中，那就是位于达拉斯北部的布克·t·华盛顿高中。来自东达拉斯、西达拉斯和南达拉斯的黑人学生进入了这所专为他们保留的高中。顺便说一句，黑人学生乘坐公共交通工具往返于布克华盛顿高中;维持种族隔离的交通成本是由黑人学生和他们的父母承担的。实际上，我们是被迫在我们自己的压迫中合作的。任何学校的容纳能力都是有限的，包括一所隔离的黑人学校。布克·t·华盛顿高中(Booker T. Washington High School)太拥挤了，不得不分两班上课，一半的学生上午上学，一半的学生下午上学。因此，达拉斯独立学区决定在南达拉斯为黑人学生建立一所新的高中。像我这样住在达拉斯西部奥克克利夫的学生被重新分配到南达拉斯的新学校。…
{"title":"The Continuing Spirit of the Brown Decision of the Supreme Court","authors":"C. Willie","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.6","url":null,"abstract":"Richard Kluger, author of Simple Justice (1975), is correct in stating that Brown deserves \"a high place in the literature of liberty\" (Kluger 1975: X). Historian John Hope Franklin has written that \"Perhaps no public question in the United States in the twentieth century aroused more interest at home and abroad than the debate about the constitutionality of segregated public schools\" (Franklin 1974: 421). Brown, indeed, became both an exhilarating and a troubling experience for citizens of a nation-state whose government is guided by a Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, adopted unanimously July 4, 1776 by the second Continental Congress, declared that \"all...are created equal.\" And the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States ratified in 1789 indicated that this nation was founded \"to create a more perfect union,\" \"to establish justice...[and] to promote the general welfare...\" (Harvard Classics 1938: 150-155). And the Fourteenth Amendment proscribes all state-imposed discrimination against any citizen of the United States. Brown was exhilarating to citizens of this nation who recognized it as a way of achieving these goals mentioned above. Brown was troubling to citizens who classified it as judicial activism that ignored the authority of the legislative and executive branches of government. They pointed out that the Constitution empowered three separate but interdependent units of government to serve as checks and balances on each unit (Harvard Classics 1938: 180-198). Actually, the Brown v. Board of Education decision of the U.S. Supreme Court descended upon this nation as a way of checking the pervasive injustice rendered by public educational institutions on people of color, particularly African Americans. The injustices resulted from laws, regulations and other public policies promulgated or facilitated by actions of legislative and executive branches of government. Thus, Brown was a legitimate limitation on discriminatory activities facilitated by policies of government that violated the Constitution. In 1896, the Supreme Court in its Plessy vs. Ferguson decision permitted public agencies to separate people of different races, if the separate accommodations were equal. In the Brown decision, the Court rejected the Plessy opinion because the segregated public accommodations for black people and white people were unequal. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored people (NAACP) fashioned a litigation strategy beginning in 1938 designed to demonstrate in courts of law that separate educational facilities and policies in local communities for black and white populations were never equal. The Brown decision in 1954 was the outcome of several court cases argued by NAACP lawyers. I, personally, experienced the inequality of secondary schools in Dallas, Texas, the city of my birth where I grew up. Before 1940, all blacks in this big city attended one high school, The Booker T. Washington High School located in N","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"56 1","pages":"11-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68782151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction The [Brown] decision ... became the archetype of a landmark decision. Landmark decisions are, at bottom, designed through reference to constitutional interpretations and supportive legal precedents to address and hopefully resolve deeply divisive social issues. They are framed in a language that provides at least the appearance of doing justice without unduly upsetting large groups whose potential for noncompliance can frustrate relief efforts and undermine judicial authority. For reasons that may not even have been apparent to the members of the Supreme Court, their school desegregation decisions achieved over time afar loftier place in legal history than they were able to accomplish in reforming the ideology of racial domination that Plessy v. Ferguson represented. (Bell, 2004). This passage from the book Silent Covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform by Derrick Bell provides a fitting description of the life of racial equality in America's public schools, and Bell's own early career illuminates the sequence of judicial events. Bell started his legal career in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Justice Department. In the years 1960-65 Professor Bell was an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund supervising the litigation of desegregation cases for that organization. In 1966 he reunited with the Justice Department aiding in the enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act "authorizing the termination of federal funds to school districts ... in noncompliance" with early federal court desegregation decisions. (Bell, 2004 p.3) Today, Mr. Bell is an ardent critic of those same decisions he helped to enforce, claiming that court ordered desegregation is a "fiction," that racial discrimination against people of color is as ingrained in American society as apple pie, and that school districts are inappropriate places to seek racial reform. So goes the journey of school integration as the legal status of discriminatory acts against students on the basis of race is rooted firmly in the United States Constitution, especially the concept of equal protection of the laws found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The journey of desegregation has been circular following the swings of social eras involving more than one hundred and fifty years of litigation. Except for a few significant cases, state and local government officials and members of school boards have been afforded power in determining authority to circumvent desegregation decrees based on the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution declaring, " [t]he powers not delegated to the [federal government] by the Constitution ... are reserved to the states." (U.S. Constitution, Amend. X) Specifically, racial discrimination in schools has had a history largely supported by judicial decisions under the rubric of states rights. Those in the racial majority in the South and the North have steadfastly resisted any change in the status
[布朗案]的决定……成为了一个里程碑式决定的原型。从本质上讲，具有里程碑意义的决定是通过参考宪法解释和支持性的法律先例来处理并有希望解决严重分裂的社会问题。它们的措辞至少提供了一种伸张正义的表象，而不会过度惹恼那些可能会阻碍救援努力、破坏司法权威的大群体。随着时间的推移，他们的学校废除种族隔离决定在法律史上取得了远高于他们在改革普莱西诉弗格森案所代表的种族统治意识形态方面所取得的成就，其原因可能连最高法院的成员都不清楚。(贝尔,2004)。这段话摘自德里克·贝尔的《沉默的契约:布朗诉教育委员会和种族改革未实现的希望》一书，对美国公立学校种族平等的生活进行了恰当的描述，贝尔自己的早期职业生涯阐明了司法事件的顺序。贝尔在美国司法部民权司开始了他的法律生涯。1960年至1965年间，贝尔教授是全国有色人种协进会法律辩护基金的律师，为该组织监督废除种族隔离案件的诉讼。1966年，他与司法部重新合作，协助执行《民权法案》第六章，“授权终止向学区提供联邦资金……不遵守”早期联邦法院废除种族隔离的判决。(贝尔，2004年第3章)今天，贝尔先生对他帮助执行的那些决定是一个热心的批评者，声称法院命令废除种族隔离是“虚构的”，对有色人种的种族歧视在美国社会就像苹果派一样根深蒂固，学区不是寻求种族改革的合适场所。基于种族歧视学生的行为的法律地位深深植根于美国宪法，特别是第十四条修正案中法律平等保护的概念，因此学校融合的历程也就这样结束了。随着社会时代的变迁，涉及150多年的诉讼，废除种族隔离的历程一直在循环往复。除了少数重大案件外，州和地方政府官员以及学校董事会成员都被赋予了规避废除种族隔离法令的权力，其依据是《美国宪法》第十修正案，该修正案宣称:“宪法未授予[联邦政府]的权力……是各州保留的。”(美国宪法修正案。X)具体地说，学校中的种族歧视在历史上很大程度上得到了以国家权利为名义的司法判决的支持。南方和北方占多数的种族坚决反对改变学生隔离的现状。最近，非裔美国人自己也开始质疑司法干预会迫使学生们呆在一起，尤其是在多年来一直伴随着黑人学生试图融入社会的那种充满敌意的环境中。这是一个不那么奇怪的故事;在那里，种族隔离制度的破坏构成了美国教育史上一条封闭的平面曲线。美国黑人儿童教育的历史始于法律规定教奴隶读书写字是犯罪行为。(戈尔茨坦等)历史告诉我们，内战前为北方黑人提供的教育常常被歧视性法律所限制。例如，在罗伯茨诉波士顿市案(Roberts v. City of Boston, 1849)中，马萨诸塞州最高法院认为，州法律没有要求黑人和白人一起上学，就此而言，甚至没有要求黑人学生接受教育，尽管黑人父母与白人父母缴纳相同的教育税。…
{"title":"The Not So Strange Path of Desegregation in America’s Public Schools","authors":"Philip T. K. Daniel","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.14","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The [Brown] decision ... became the archetype of a landmark decision. Landmark decisions are, at bottom, designed through reference to constitutional interpretations and supportive legal precedents to address and hopefully resolve deeply divisive social issues. They are framed in a language that provides at least the appearance of doing justice without unduly upsetting large groups whose potential for noncompliance can frustrate relief efforts and undermine judicial authority. For reasons that may not even have been apparent to the members of the Supreme Court, their school desegregation decisions achieved over time afar loftier place in legal history than they were able to accomplish in reforming the ideology of racial domination that Plessy v. Ferguson represented. (Bell, 2004). This passage from the book Silent Covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform by Derrick Bell provides a fitting description of the life of racial equality in America's public schools, and Bell's own early career illuminates the sequence of judicial events. Bell started his legal career in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Justice Department. In the years 1960-65 Professor Bell was an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund supervising the litigation of desegregation cases for that organization. In 1966 he reunited with the Justice Department aiding in the enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act \"authorizing the termination of federal funds to school districts ... in noncompliance\" with early federal court desegregation decisions. (Bell, 2004 p.3) Today, Mr. Bell is an ardent critic of those same decisions he helped to enforce, claiming that court ordered desegregation is a \"fiction,\" that racial discrimination against people of color is as ingrained in American society as apple pie, and that school districts are inappropriate places to seek racial reform. So goes the journey of school integration as the legal status of discriminatory acts against students on the basis of race is rooted firmly in the United States Constitution, especially the concept of equal protection of the laws found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The journey of desegregation has been circular following the swings of social eras involving more than one hundred and fifty years of litigation. Except for a few significant cases, state and local government officials and members of school boards have been afforded power in determining authority to circumvent desegregation decrees based on the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution declaring, \" [t]he powers not delegated to the [federal government] by the Constitution ... are reserved to the states.\" (U.S. Constitution, Amend. X) Specifically, racial discrimination in schools has had a history largely supported by judicial decisions under the rubric of states rights. Those in the racial majority in the South and the North have steadfastly resisted any change in the status ","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"56 1","pages":"57-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68781976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
LeRoy Benjamin Frasier, Jr. Ralph Kennedy Frasier and John Lewis Brandon, Plaintiffs vs. The Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina (University of North Carolina) Gordon Gray, President University of North Carolina (James Harris Purks, Acting President) Corydon P. Spruill, Dean of the General College of the University of North Carolina (Cecil Johnson, Successor) Clifford Lyons, Dean of the Undergraduate School of Arts and Sciences (J. Carlyle Stitterson, Successor) and Lee Roy Wells Armstrong, Director of Admissions University of North Carolina , Defendants "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty..... without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." - Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Every newspaper, most magazines and especially, the bar journals, have paused this year to recognize the most important U.S. Court ruling of the past century and perhaps of all time. Certainly, for African Americans, the decision has caused greater changes in our lifetime than any other. Prior to 1954, 17 states had laws requiring segregation of some aspect of society - law enforcement, housing, marriage, adoption, education, healthcare, burial, transportation, employment, entertainment, food service, hotels. Most of the 17 required segregation in all of those categories. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas began the change of the mindset of the entire country which had accepted or, at least tolerated, the rationale of the 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson that "separate facilities for the races are permissible.... so long as the facilities were equal." Plessy recognized, as fact, that segregation was required because of fears, prides and prejudices which were rampart in the South and latent in the North. Segregation sought to prevent dilution of blood or dissipation of faith - the instinct for self preservation. "Negroes do not have the capacity to absorb white education. Desegregation will result in lowering the intelligence of whites...." Brown reversed Plessy and turned the underlying rationale upside down. Much of the 2004 writing focuses on the trend toward re-segregating the races in public education. Jane Hancock Jones, a young African American lawyer from Columbus, Ohio, writing in the Spring issue of Columbus Bar Briefs analyzes trends in Columbus schools and concludes that we are back to the '50s. Unfortunately, the court did not set a timetable for enforcement and directed desegregation with "all deliberate speed" - interpreted as a euphemism for delay. In 1954, one hundred members of Congress issued the Southern Manifesto encouraging massive resistance and pledging the "use of all lawful means to bring about a reversal." The U.S. Attorney General, Herbert Brownell, called together the Southern State attor
Ralph Kennedy Frasier和John Lewis Brandon，原告诉北卡罗来纳大学董事会(北卡罗来纳大学)Gordon Gray，北卡罗来纳大学校长(James Harris Purks，代理校长)Corydon P. Spruill，北卡罗来纳大学普通学院院长(Cecil Johnson，继任者)Clifford Lyons，艺术与科学本科学院院长(J. Carlyle Stitterson，李·罗伊·威尔斯·阿姆斯特朗，北卡罗莱纳大学招生主任，被告"任何州都不得制定或执行任何剥夺美国公民特权或豁免的法律，任何州也不得剥夺任何人的生命和自由.....未经正当法律程序，不得拒绝在其管辖范围内的任何人享有法律的平等保护。”今年，所有报纸、大多数杂志，尤其是律师刊物，都停下来纪念上个世纪，也许是有史以来，美国法院最重要的裁决。当然，对于非裔美国人来说，这一决定在我们的一生中造成的变化比任何其他决定都要大。在1954年之前，17个州有法律要求在社会的某些方面实行隔离——执法、住房、婚姻、收养、教育、医疗、葬礼、交通、就业、娱乐、食品服务、酒店。17个州中的大多数都要求在所有这些类别中实行隔离。布朗诉堪萨斯州托皮卡教育委员会案开始改变整个国家的思维方式，这种思维方式已经接受或至少容忍了1896年普莱西诉弗格森案判决的基本原理，即“允许种族隔离设施....”只要设施是平等的。”普莱西承认，种族隔离是必要的，因为恐惧、傲慢和偏见在南方是壁垒，在北方是潜在的。种族隔离旨在防止血统的稀释或信仰的消散——即自我保护的本能。“黑人没有接受白人教育的能力。废除种族隔离会降低白人的智力....”布朗推翻了普莱西案的判决，将基本原理颠倒过来。2004年的大部分文章关注的是公共教育中种族重新隔离的趋势。简·汉考克·琼斯是一位来自俄亥俄州哥伦布市的年轻非裔美国律师，她在《哥伦布酒吧简报》的春季刊中分析了哥伦布学校的趋势，并得出结论说我们回到了50年代。不幸的是，法院并没有制定执行的时间表，而是以“刻意的速度”指示废除种族隔离——这被解释为拖延的委婉说法。1954年，100名国会议员发表了《南方宣言》，鼓励大规模抵抗，并承诺“使用一切合法手段扭转局面”。美国司法部长赫伯特·布朗内尔召集南方各州的总检察长，寻求他们在消除种族隔离方面的专业帮助。许多人告诉布朗内尔，他们是潜在的州长候选人，支持废除种族隔离无异于政治自杀。不，简，我们不能回到50年代。就像布朗案一样，弗雷泽案不仅仅是对三名原告进入北卡罗来纳州一所高等教育机构的权利的挑战，因为北卡罗莱纳州历来限制白人公民进入本科学校。相反，这起诉讼是一系列旨在废除根深蒂固的种族隔离制度和白人主人对黑人公民的奴役制度的诉讼之一。严格的种族隔离模式是奴隶制的残余，后来让位于美国公民所经历过的最伟大的法律虚构之一。…
{"title":"Frasier v. UNC—A Personal Account","authors":"Ralph K. Frasier","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.9","url":null,"abstract":"LeRoy Benjamin Frasier, Jr. Ralph Kennedy Frasier and John Lewis Brandon, Plaintiffs vs. The Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina (University of North Carolina) Gordon Gray, President University of North Carolina (James Harris Purks, Acting President) Corydon P. Spruill, Dean of the General College of the University of North Carolina (Cecil Johnson, Successor) Clifford Lyons, Dean of the Undergraduate School of Arts and Sciences (J. Carlyle Stitterson, Successor) and Lee Roy Wells Armstrong, Director of Admissions University of North Carolina , Defendants \"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty..... without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.\" - Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Every newspaper, most magazines and especially, the bar journals, have paused this year to recognize the most important U.S. Court ruling of the past century and perhaps of all time. Certainly, for African Americans, the decision has caused greater changes in our lifetime than any other. Prior to 1954, 17 states had laws requiring segregation of some aspect of society - law enforcement, housing, marriage, adoption, education, healthcare, burial, transportation, employment, entertainment, food service, hotels. Most of the 17 required segregation in all of those categories. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas began the change of the mindset of the entire country which had accepted or, at least tolerated, the rationale of the 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson that \"separate facilities for the races are permissible.... so long as the facilities were equal.\" Plessy recognized, as fact, that segregation was required because of fears, prides and prejudices which were rampart in the South and latent in the North. Segregation sought to prevent dilution of blood or dissipation of faith - the instinct for self preservation. \"Negroes do not have the capacity to absorb white education. Desegregation will result in lowering the intelligence of whites....\" Brown reversed Plessy and turned the underlying rationale upside down. Much of the 2004 writing focuses on the trend toward re-segregating the races in public education. Jane Hancock Jones, a young African American lawyer from Columbus, Ohio, writing in the Spring issue of Columbus Bar Briefs analyzes trends in Columbus schools and concludes that we are back to the '50s. Unfortunately, the court did not set a timetable for enforcement and directed desegregation with \"all deliberate speed\" - interpreted as a euphemism for delay. In 1954, one hundred members of Congress issued the Southern Manifesto encouraging massive resistance and pledging the \"use of all lawful means to bring about a reversal.\" The U.S. Attorney General, Herbert Brownell, called together the Southern State attor","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"56 1","pages":"83-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68782456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas U. S. Supreme Court public school desegregation decision on (hereafter the Brown Decision), I was tempted to refer to it as a "celebration of the Golden Anniversary of the legal end to racial segregation in the public schools of the United States." When the decision was rendered, on May 17, 1954, I was so elated that I was confident that 50 years later public school racial desegregation would be a thing of the past and a truly "golden celebration" would be highly appropriate. And while I still am convinced that the Brown Decision was a necessary and fundamental prerequisite for human dignity, race relations, personal/social adjustment, equal educational access, and progress toward the American Ideal, events that have emerged and continuing efforts to obscure, evade, emasculate, and override the Decision, demand that we have an "observance" rather than a "celebration" in its "golden" year. I There can be no doubt that the Brown Decision was one of the Court's most important, judicially ground-breaking, precedent-setting ones, with far-reaching impacts on the U. S. Congress, lower federal and state courts, state legislatures, the Presidency, federal agencies, private corporations and businesses, and of course, all levels of public and federally assisted educational institutions. To put all of this into proper perspective, I think that it is imperative that we examine, at least briefly, philosophies, societal patterns and court rulings that established, regulated, and limited the roles, status, and behavior of Negroes (blacks) in the United States, prior to the Brown ruling. It is generally accepted that Negro slavery was introduced into the United States colonies at Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. This slavery, though, was not confined to the southern and border states but reached visible and significant numerical levels as far north as New York City (Singer, 2003). There is also documented evidence that some Negroes (blacks) served as indentured servants, but it has been clearly shown that the overwhelming majority of Negroes brought from Africa to the colonies from the early 1600s to the 1800s were held as property, and existed in total involuntary servitude - for approximately two and a half centuries. II The most notable efforts to modify the slave system and upgrade the status of Negroes was the Dred Scott lawsuits, brought to establish himself and his family as free (non-slave) persons. Dred Scott was born a slave and was owned by Peter Blow in St. Louis, Missouri. Scott subsequently had several owners/masters. From 1830 to 1842 Scott, who married Harriet Robinson, also a slave, spent time in Illinois and Wisconsin, both non-slave states, in service to his then owner Dr. John Emerson, a military surgeon. In 1842 the Scott family returned to St. Louis with Dr. Emerson and his wife, and Emerson died in 1843. In 1846, the Scotts sued Mrs. Emerson for thei
{"title":"Observing the Fiftieth anniversary of the 1954 United States Supreme court School desegregation decision in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas","authors":"Charles U. Smith","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.7","url":null,"abstract":"As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas U. S. Supreme Court public school desegregation decision on (hereafter the Brown Decision), I was tempted to refer to it as a \"celebration of the Golden Anniversary of the legal end to racial segregation in the public schools of the United States.\" When the decision was rendered, on May 17, 1954, I was so elated that I was confident that 50 years later public school racial desegregation would be a thing of the past and a truly \"golden celebration\" would be highly appropriate. And while I still am convinced that the Brown Decision was a necessary and fundamental prerequisite for human dignity, race relations, personal/social adjustment, equal educational access, and progress toward the American Ideal, events that have emerged and continuing efforts to obscure, evade, emasculate, and override the Decision, demand that we have an \"observance\" rather than a \"celebration\" in its \"golden\" year. I There can be no doubt that the Brown Decision was one of the Court's most important, judicially ground-breaking, precedent-setting ones, with far-reaching impacts on the U. S. Congress, lower federal and state courts, state legislatures, the Presidency, federal agencies, private corporations and businesses, and of course, all levels of public and federally assisted educational institutions. To put all of this into proper perspective, I think that it is imperative that we examine, at least briefly, philosophies, societal patterns and court rulings that established, regulated, and limited the roles, status, and behavior of Negroes (blacks) in the United States, prior to the Brown ruling. It is generally accepted that Negro slavery was introduced into the United States colonies at Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. This slavery, though, was not confined to the southern and border states but reached visible and significant numerical levels as far north as New York City (Singer, 2003). There is also documented evidence that some Negroes (blacks) served as indentured servants, but it has been clearly shown that the overwhelming majority of Negroes brought from Africa to the colonies from the early 1600s to the 1800s were held as property, and existed in total involuntary servitude - for approximately two and a half centuries. II The most notable efforts to modify the slave system and upgrade the status of Negroes was the Dred Scott lawsuits, brought to establish himself and his family as free (non-slave) persons. Dred Scott was born a slave and was owned by Peter Blow in St. Louis, Missouri. Scott subsequently had several owners/masters. From 1830 to 1842 Scott, who married Harriet Robinson, also a slave, spent time in Illinois and Wisconsin, both non-slave states, in service to his then owner Dr. John Emerson, a military surgeon. In 1842 the Scott family returned to St. Louis with Dr. Emerson and his wife, and Emerson died in 1843. In 1846, the Scotts sued Mrs. Emerson for thei","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"56 1","pages":"19-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68782411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：