美国公立学校废除种族隔离的道路并不奇怪

Philip T. K. Daniel
{"title":"美国公立学校废除种族隔离的道路并不奇怪","authors":"Philip T. K. Daniel","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.14","DOIUrl":null,"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 quo of student separation. African-Americans, more recently, have themselves begun to question judicial intervention that would force students to remain together particularly in the kind of hostile environment that for years accompanied black student attempts at integration. This is the not so strange story; one where the undermining racial rationales of apartheid constitute a closed plane curve in the chronicles of American education. The Expansion of Judicial Authority to Order Desegregation The history of education for black children in the United States began with laws making it a crime to teach slaves to read or write. (Goldstein et. al) History informs us that pre-Civil War education provided for blacks in the North was often encapsulated by discriminatory laws. In Roberts v. City of Boston (Roberts, 1849), for example, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that state law did not require blacks to attend school with whites, and for that matter, did not even require education for black students notwithstanding the fact that black parents were taxed for education at the same rate as whites. …","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"56 1","pages":"57-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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 quo of student separation. African-Americans, more recently, have themselves begun to question judicial intervention that would force students to remain together particularly in the kind of hostile environment that for years accompanied black student attempts at integration. This is the not so strange story; one where the undermining racial rationales of apartheid constitute a closed plane curve in the chronicles of American education. The Expansion of Judicial Authority to Order Desegregation The history of education for black children in the United States began with laws making it a crime to teach slaves to read or write. (Goldstein et. al) History informs us that pre-Civil War education provided for blacks in the North was often encapsulated by discriminatory laws. In Roberts v. City of Boston (Roberts, 1849), for example, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that state law did not require blacks to attend school with whites, and for that matter, did not even require education for black students notwithstanding the fact that black parents were taxed for education at the same rate as whites. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":88326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Negro educational review\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"57-66\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Negro educational review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.14\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Negro educational review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

[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。…
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
The Not So Strange Path of Desegregation in America’s Public Schools
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 quo of student separation. African-Americans, more recently, have themselves begun to question judicial intervention that would force students to remain together particularly in the kind of hostile environment that for years accompanied black student attempts at integration. This is the not so strange story; one where the undermining racial rationales of apartheid constitute a closed plane curve in the chronicles of American education. The Expansion of Judicial Authority to Order Desegregation The history of education for black children in the United States began with laws making it a crime to teach slaves to read or write. (Goldstein et. al) History informs us that pre-Civil War education provided for blacks in the North was often encapsulated by discriminatory laws. In Roberts v. City of Boston (Roberts, 1849), for example, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that state law did not require blacks to attend school with whites, and for that matter, did not even require education for black students notwithstanding the fact that black parents were taxed for education at the same rate as whites. …
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
A Bi-Generational Narrative in the Brown v. Board Decision Minority Status, Oppositional Culture, & Schooling Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Differences in School Discipline among U.S. High School Students: 1991-2005. A Class of Their Own: Black Teachers in the Segregated South The Big Disconnect between Segregation and Integration
×
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