Key Question:
Does the "separate but equal doctrine" of Plessy v. Ferguson apply to public schools?
Q. What harms did the lawyers for the children A.
say were caused by segregated schools?
Q. What evidence was there to support the
A.
claim that these harms actually occurred?
Q. How did the lawyer from South Carolina
A.
respond to this evidence?
Q. How are schools different from trains,
A.
drinking fountains, and other facilities where
segregation had been upheld?
Q. Why was it important for the lawyers for the A.
children to argue that schools are different?
So what? (What’s important to understand about this?)
Key Question:
Is the separate but equal doctrine consistent with "equal protection of the laws"?
Q. What might explain the Supreme Court’s
A.
conclusion in Plessy v. Ferguson that separate
but equal facilities did not deny the equal
protection of the laws?
Q. How does the argument from the lawyers A.
for the children that race is an improper
classification respond to the separate but equal
doctrine?
Q. Why does it matter whether segregation has A.
been upheld many times in the past?
Q. Why does the lawyer from South Carolina A.
think it is important that segregation was
common at the time of the 14th Amendment’s
adoption?
Q. Is it possible that something which was not A.
unconstitutional at the time of Plessy v.
Ferguson can be unconstitutional in the 1950s?
If so, how can that be?
So what? (What’s important to understand about this?)
Key Question:
Is there an acceptable justification for segregation?
Q. Why did Justice Frankfurter ask the lawyer A.
for the Topeka children about the "root" of
legislation providing for segregated schools?
Q. If segregation is discrimination, can it be
A.
upheld anyway if there are good enough reasons
for it? Can you imagine any reasons that might
be good enough?
Q. What reasons did the lawyer for the State of A.
Kansas give for the Kansas law allowing cities
to have segregated schools?
Q. Who should decide whether there are good A.
reasons for segregation, the legislature or the
Courts? Did the lawyers for the students and
for the state agree on this point?
Q. How does the lawyer for the South Carolina A.
students respond to concerns about the "mixing
of the races?"
So what? (What’s important to understand about this?)