库珀v亚伦:事件与后果

T. Freyer
{"title":"库珀v亚伦:事件与后果","authors":"T. Freyer","doi":"10.2307/40028067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES PRESENT important new perspectives on the Little Rock school desegregation crisis. When Arkansas governor Orval E. Faubus, in the name of preserving order, directed the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine black young people from entering Little Rock Central High School on September 2, 1957, he precipitated a constitutional crisis. Blocking a federal court order upholding the Little Rock School Board's attempted compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions of 1954 and 1955 in Brown v. Board of Education, Faubus placed the governor's police powers at odds with city authorities, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the Supreme Court itself. Yet the constitutional issues engendered by Faubus's actions remained abstract to most people except for legal experts. At the time and ever since, it was the practical consequences that garnered public attention: the consequences for the school board's good-faith effort to implement the token desegregation of a single city school in the face of growing hostility on the part of the white community, for Faubus's purported political ambitions, for the Eisenhower administration's inconsistent stance on the Brown decision even as it wrestled with a Cold War propaganda battle over the same issue, for the authority of the Supreme Court as it confronted mounting opposition from southern segregationists and their northern conservative sympathizers, and, above all, for the courageous Little Rock Nine, bearing the painful assaults of racial animosity. The three essays that follow suggest how the litigation culminating in Cooper v. Aaron shaped these consequences and their ramifications for decades to come. The Cooper v. Aaron litigation went through several stages. The Supreme Court's Brown decision of 1954, holding that racially segregated public schools were inherently unequal and therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, precipitated the Little Rock School Board's efforts to comply. Shortly before the Court handed down the 1955 Brown II order, which required desegregation plans to proceed \"with all deliberate speed\" but left their formulation to community school boards-subject to local federal court oversight-Little Rock school officials published a plan that opened only Little Rock Central High to token desegregation, maintained racial segregation at all other schools, and left unstated when those schools might be desegregated. Once the limited scope of desegregation became apparent, the Little Rock branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) rethought its earlier trust in the school board's good faith effort, and, in the name of black parents and children, initiated suit in 1956. Styled Aaron v. Cooper, the case was tried and decided during August 1956. The black litigants lost at trial and upon appeal in April 1957. As the summer unfolded and the nine black students prepared to enter Central, Faubus and city school officials confronted mounting hostility from segregationists. Meanwhile, the federal government declined to become involved. After various public and secret maneuvers, Faubus implemented a strategy defying the federal court's desegregation order. The ensuing three-week crisis culminated in Eisenhower's dispatch of the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, which ended the violence and enforced the court order. Inside Central High, the Little Rock Nine-Minnijean Brown, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, and Carlotta Walls-endured continuous harassment. School officials responded by asking the federal court for a two-and-a-half-year delay in implementation of the desegregation decree. Although the local federal court awarded the delay, the NAACP appealed. The U.S. circuit court, sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court, upheld the NAACP's argument that Little Rock's desegregation plan had to continue to be enforced. …","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"261 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40028067","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cooper V. Aaron: Incident and Consequence\",\"authors\":\"T. Freyer\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/40028067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES PRESENT important new perspectives on the Little Rock school desegregation crisis. When Arkansas governor Orval E. Faubus, in the name of preserving order, directed the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine black young people from entering Little Rock Central High School on September 2, 1957, he precipitated a constitutional crisis. Blocking a federal court order upholding the Little Rock School Board's attempted compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions of 1954 and 1955 in Brown v. Board of Education, Faubus placed the governor's police powers at odds with city authorities, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the Supreme Court itself. Yet the constitutional issues engendered by Faubus's actions remained abstract to most people except for legal experts. At the time and ever since, it was the practical consequences that garnered public attention: the consequences for the school board's good-faith effort to implement the token desegregation of a single city school in the face of growing hostility on the part of the white community, for Faubus's purported political ambitions, for the Eisenhower administration's inconsistent stance on the Brown decision even as it wrestled with a Cold War propaganda battle over the same issue, for the authority of the Supreme Court as it confronted mounting opposition from southern segregationists and their northern conservative sympathizers, and, above all, for the courageous Little Rock Nine, bearing the painful assaults of racial animosity. The three essays that follow suggest how the litigation culminating in Cooper v. Aaron shaped these consequences and their ramifications for decades to come. The Cooper v. Aaron litigation went through several stages. The Supreme Court's Brown decision of 1954, holding that racially segregated public schools were inherently unequal and therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, precipitated the Little Rock School Board's efforts to comply. Shortly before the Court handed down the 1955 Brown II order, which required desegregation plans to proceed \\\"with all deliberate speed\\\" but left their formulation to community school boards-subject to local federal court oversight-Little Rock school officials published a plan that opened only Little Rock Central High to token desegregation, maintained racial segregation at all other schools, and left unstated when those schools might be desegregated. Once the limited scope of desegregation became apparent, the Little Rock branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) rethought its earlier trust in the school board's good faith effort, and, in the name of black parents and children, initiated suit in 1956. Styled Aaron v. Cooper, the case was tried and decided during August 1956. The black litigants lost at trial and upon appeal in April 1957. As the summer unfolded and the nine black students prepared to enter Central, Faubus and city school officials confronted mounting hostility from segregationists. Meanwhile, the federal government declined to become involved. After various public and secret maneuvers, Faubus implemented a strategy defying the federal court's desegregation order. The ensuing three-week crisis culminated in Eisenhower's dispatch of the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, which ended the violence and enforced the court order. Inside Central High, the Little Rock Nine-Minnijean Brown, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, and Carlotta Walls-endured continuous harassment. School officials responded by asking the federal court for a two-and-a-half-year delay in implementation of the desegregation decree. Although the local federal court awarded the delay, the NAACP appealed. The U.S. circuit court, sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court, upheld the NAACP's argument that Little Rock's desegregation plan had to continue to be enforced. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":51953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":\"261 1\",\"pages\":\"1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40028067\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/40028067\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40028067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

以下文章对小石城学校废除种族隔离危机提出了重要的新观点。1957年9月2日,阿肯色州州长奥瓦尔·e·福伯斯以维护秩序的名义,命令阿肯色州国民警卫队阻止9名黑人年轻人进入小石城中心高中,这引发了一场宪法危机。福伯斯阻止了联邦法院支持小石城学校董事会试图遵守美国最高法院1954年和1955年布朗诉教育委员会案判决的命令,使州长的警察权力与市政当局、德怀特·d·艾森豪威尔总统和最高法院本身发生了冲突。然而,除了法律专家之外,福伯斯的行为所引发的宪法问题对大多数人来说仍然是抽象的。从那时起,引起公众注意的是实际后果:面对白人社区日益增长的敌意,学校董事会善意地在一所城市学校实施象征性的废除种族隔离,福伯斯所谓的政治野心,艾森豪威尔政府在布朗案的决定上立场不一致的后果,尽管它在同一问题上与冷战时期的宣传斗争作斗争,为了最高法院的权威,因为它面临着来自南方种族隔离主义者及其北方保守派同情者日益强烈的反对,尤其是为了勇敢的小石城九人,他们承受着种族仇恨的痛苦攻击。接下来的三篇文章表明,在库珀诉亚伦案中达到高潮的诉讼如何影响了这些后果及其在未来几十年的影响。库珀与亚伦的诉讼经历了几个阶段。最高法院1954年对布朗案的裁决认为,实行种族隔离的公立学校本质上是不平等的,因此违反了宪法第十四修正案的平等保护条款,促使小石城学校董事会努力遵守这一裁决。1955年的布朗二世判决要求废除种族隔离的计划“以所有审慎的速度”进行,但将其制定交给社区学校董事会,由当地联邦法院监督。在此之前不久,小石城的学校官员公布了一项计划,只允许小石城中央高中象征性地废除种族隔离,在所有其他学校维持种族隔离,并没有说明这些学校何时可能废除种族隔离。一旦废除种族隔离的有限范围变得明显,全国有色人种协进会(NAACP)的小石城分会重新考虑了它早先对学校董事会善意努力的信任,并以黑人父母和儿童的名义于1956年提起诉讼。该案被称为“亚伦诉库珀案”,于1956年8月审理并判决。1957年4月,黑人诉讼当事人在审判和上诉中败诉。随着夏天的到来,九名黑人学生准备进入中央,福伯斯和城市学校官员面临着来自种族隔离主义者越来越强烈的敌意。与此同时,联邦政府拒绝介入。在各种公开和秘密的策略之后,福伯斯实施了一项无视联邦法院废除种族隔离命令的策略。随后的三周危机在艾森豪威尔向小石城派遣101空降师时达到高潮,结束了暴力并执行了法院命令。在中央高中,小石城的九名学生——珍妮·布朗、伊丽莎白·埃克福德、欧内斯特·格林、塞尔玛·马瑟希德、梅尔巴·帕蒂略、格洛丽亚·雷、特伦斯·罗伯茨、杰斐逊·托马斯和卡洛塔·沃尔——忍受着不断的骚扰。学校官员的回应是要求联邦法院推迟两年半实施废除种族隔离的法令。虽然当地联邦法院裁定延期,但NAACP提出了上诉。在美国最高法院的支持下,美国巡回法院支持全国有色人种协进会的主张,即小石城的废除种族隔离计划必须继续执行。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cooper V. Aaron: Incident and Consequence
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES PRESENT important new perspectives on the Little Rock school desegregation crisis. When Arkansas governor Orval E. Faubus, in the name of preserving order, directed the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine black young people from entering Little Rock Central High School on September 2, 1957, he precipitated a constitutional crisis. Blocking a federal court order upholding the Little Rock School Board's attempted compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions of 1954 and 1955 in Brown v. Board of Education, Faubus placed the governor's police powers at odds with city authorities, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the Supreme Court itself. Yet the constitutional issues engendered by Faubus's actions remained abstract to most people except for legal experts. At the time and ever since, it was the practical consequences that garnered public attention: the consequences for the school board's good-faith effort to implement the token desegregation of a single city school in the face of growing hostility on the part of the white community, for Faubus's purported political ambitions, for the Eisenhower administration's inconsistent stance on the Brown decision even as it wrestled with a Cold War propaganda battle over the same issue, for the authority of the Supreme Court as it confronted mounting opposition from southern segregationists and their northern conservative sympathizers, and, above all, for the courageous Little Rock Nine, bearing the painful assaults of racial animosity. The three essays that follow suggest how the litigation culminating in Cooper v. Aaron shaped these consequences and their ramifications for decades to come. The Cooper v. Aaron litigation went through several stages. The Supreme Court's Brown decision of 1954, holding that racially segregated public schools were inherently unequal and therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, precipitated the Little Rock School Board's efforts to comply. Shortly before the Court handed down the 1955 Brown II order, which required desegregation plans to proceed "with all deliberate speed" but left their formulation to community school boards-subject to local federal court oversight-Little Rock school officials published a plan that opened only Little Rock Central High to token desegregation, maintained racial segregation at all other schools, and left unstated when those schools might be desegregated. Once the limited scope of desegregation became apparent, the Little Rock branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) rethought its earlier trust in the school board's good faith effort, and, in the name of black parents and children, initiated suit in 1956. Styled Aaron v. Cooper, the case was tried and decided during August 1956. The black litigants lost at trial and upon appeal in April 1957. As the summer unfolded and the nine black students prepared to enter Central, Faubus and city school officials confronted mounting hostility from segregationists. Meanwhile, the federal government declined to become involved. After various public and secret maneuvers, Faubus implemented a strategy defying the federal court's desegregation order. The ensuing three-week crisis culminated in Eisenhower's dispatch of the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, which ended the violence and enforced the court order. Inside Central High, the Little Rock Nine-Minnijean Brown, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, and Carlotta Walls-endured continuous harassment. School officials responded by asking the federal court for a two-and-a-half-year delay in implementation of the desegregation decree. Although the local federal court awarded the delay, the NAACP appealed. The U.S. circuit court, sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court, upheld the NAACP's argument that Little Rock's desegregation plan had to continue to be enforced. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Cotton Plantation South since the Civil War “Dedicated People” Little Rock Central High School’s Teachers during the Integration Crisis of 1957–1958 Prosperity and Peril: Arkansas in the New South, 1880–1900 “Between the Hawk & Buzzard”:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1