School Desegregation Teaching with
Documents Secondary School Lessons for
Teachers and Parents
Background
On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark
civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of
public schools was a violation of the 14th Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. This historic
decision marked the end of the “separate but equal” precedent set by the Supreme Court nearly 60 years
earlier and served as a catalyst for the expanding civil rights movement during the decade of the 1950s.
While the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution outlawed slavery, it wasn’t until three years
later, in 1868, that the 14th Amendment guaranteed the rights of citizenship to all persons born or
naturalized in the United States, including due process and equal protection of the laws. These two
amendments, as well as the 15th Amendment protecting voting rights, were intended to eliminate the last
remnants of slavery and to protect the citizenship of black Americans. In 1875, Congress also passed the
first Civil Rights Act, which held the “equality of all men before the law” and called for fines and penalties for
anyone found denying patronage of public places, such as theaters and inns, on the basis of race.
However, a reactionary Supreme Court reasoned that this act was beyond the scope of the 13th and 14th
Amendments, as these amendments only concerned the actions of the government, not those of private
citizens. With this ruling, the Supreme Court narrowed the field of legislation that could be supported by the
Constitution and at the same time turned the tide against the civil rights movement.
By the late 1800s, segregation laws became almost universal in the South where previous legislation and
amendments were, for all practical purposes, ignored. The races were separated in schools, in
restaurants, in restrooms, on public transportation, and even in voting and holding office. In 1896, the
Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Homer Plessy, a
black man from Louisiana, challenged the constitutionality of segregated railroad coaches, first in the state
courts and then in the U. S. Supreme Court. The high court upheld the lower courts noting that since the
separate cars provided equal services, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment was not
violated. Thus, the “separate but equal” doctrine became the constitutional basis for segregation. One
dissenter on the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan, declared the Constitution “color blind” and accurately
predicted that this decision would become as baneful as the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857.
In 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was officially formed to
champion the modern black civil rights movement. In its early years, its primary goals were to eliminate
lynching and to obtain fair trials for blacks. By the 1930s, however, the activities of the NAACP began
1
focusing on the complete integration of American society. One of their strategies was to force admission of
blacks into universities at the graduate level where establishing separate but equal facilities would be
difficult and expensive for the states. At the forefront of this movement was Thurgood Marshall, a young
black lawyer who, in 1938, became general counsel for the NAACP's Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Their significant victories at this level included Gaines v. University of Missouri in 1938, Sipuel v.
Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma in 1948, and Sweatt v. Painter in 1950. In each of
these cases, the goal of the NAACP defense team was to attack the "equal" standard so that the “separate”
standard would, in turn, become susceptible.
By the 1950s, the NAACP was beginning to support challenges to segregation at the elementary school
level. Five separate cases were filed in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and
Delaware: Oliver Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, et
al.; Harry Briggs, Jr., et al. v. R.W. Elliott, et al.; Dorothy E. Davis et al. v. County School
Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al.; Spottswood Thomas Bolling et al. v. C.
Melvin Sharpe et al.; Francis B. Gebhart et al. v. Ethel Louise Belton et al. While each case
had its unique elements, all were brought on behalf of elementary school children, and all involved black
schools that were inferior to white schools. Most important, rather than just challenging the inferiority of the
separate schools, each case claimed that the “separate but equal” ruling violated the equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment. The lower courts ruled against the plaintiffs in each case, noting the
Plessy v. Ferguson ruling of the United States Supreme Court as precedent. In the case of Brown v.
Board of Education, the federal district court even cited the injurious effects of segregation on black
children, but held that “separate but equal” was still not a violation of the Constitution. It was clear to those
involved that the only effective route to terminating segregation in public schools was going to be through
the United States Supreme Court.
In 1952, the Supreme Court agreed to hear all five cases collectively. This grouping was significant
because it represented school segregation as a national issue, not just a southern one. Thurgood Marshall,
one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs (he argued the Briggs case), and his fellow lawyers provided
testimony from more than 30 social scientists affirming the deleterious effects of segregation on blacks and
whites. These arguments were similar to those alluded to on pages 18 and 19 in the first featured
document, the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Waites Waring in Harry Briggs, Jr., et al. v. R. W. Elliott,
Chairman, et al. The lawyers for the school boards based their defense primarily on precedent, such as
the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, as well as on the importance of states’ rights in matters relating to
education. Realizing the significance of their decision and being divided among themselves, the Supreme
Court took until June 1953 to decide they would rehear arguments for all five cases. The arguments were
scheduled for the following term, at which time the Court wanted to hear both sides' opinions of what
Congress had in mind regarding school segregation when the 14th Amendment was originally passed.
In September 1953, President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, governor of California, the new
Supreme Court chief justice. Eisenhower believed Warren would follow a moderate course of action
toward desegregation; his feelings regarding the appointment are detailed in the closing paragraphs of the
second featured document, Letter from President Eisenhower to E. E. “Swede” Hazlett. In his
brief to the Warren Court that December, Thurgood Marshall described the separate but equal ruling as
erroneous and called for an immediate reversal under the 14th Amendment. He argued that it allowed the
government to prohibit any state action based on race, including segregation in public schools. The
defense countered this interpretation pointing to several states that were practicing segregation at the time
they ratified the 14th Amendment. Surely they would not have done so if they had believed the 14th
2
Amendment applied to segregation laws. The U.S. Department of Justice also filed a brief; it was in favor
of desegregation but asked for a gradual changeover.
Over the next months, the new chief justice worked to bring the splintered Court together. He knew that
clear guidelines and gradual implementation were going to be important, as the largest concern remaining
was the racial unrest that would follow their ruling. On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the
unanimous opinion; school segregation by law was unconstitutional. Arguments were to be heard during
the next term to determine just how the ruling would be imposed. Just over one year later, on May 31,
1955, Warren read the Court’s unanimous decision, now referred to as Brown II, instructing the states to
begin desegregation plans “with all deliberate speed.” The third featured document, Judgment, Brown v.
Board of Education, shows the careful wording Warren employed in order to ensure backing of the full
Court.
Despite two unanimous decisions and careful, if not vague, wording, there was considerable resistance to
the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. In addition to the obvious disapproving
segregationists were some constitutional scholars who felt that the decision went against legal tradition by
relying heavily on data supplied by social scientists rather than precedent or established law. Supporters of
judicial restraint believed the Court had overstepped its constitutional powers by essentially writing new
law.
However, members of the civil rights movement were buoyed by the Brown decision even without specific
directions for implementation. Proponents of judicial activism believed the Supreme Court had
appropriately used its position to adapt the basis of the Constitution to address new problems in new times.
The Warren Court stayed this course for the next 15 years, deciding cases that significantly affected not
only race relations, but also the administration of criminal justice, the operation of the political process, and
the separation of church and state.
Other Resources
Dudley, M. E. Brown v. Board of Education (1954). New York: Twenty-First Century Books,
1994.
Forman, J. A. Law and Disorder. New York: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1972.
Goode, S. The Controversial Court, Supreme Court Influences on American Life. New
York: Julian Messner, 1982.
Koch, Kenneth. Wishes, Lies, and Dreams: Teaching Children to Write Poetry.
New York: Vintage, 1970.
Lawson, D. The Changing Face of the Constitution. New York: Franklin Watts, 1979.
Standards Correlations
This lesson correlates to the National History Standards.
Era 9 - Postwar United States (1945 to early 1970s)
Standard 4C - Demonstrate an understanding of the Warren Court's role in
addressing civil liberties and equal rights.
This lesson correlates to the National Standards for Civics and Government.
Standard II.A.2. - Explain the extent to which Americans have internalized the values and
principles of the Constitution and attempted to make its ideals realities.
3
Standard III.B.1. - Evaluate, take, and defend positions on issues regarding the purposes,
organization, and functions of the institutions of the national government.
Constitutional Connection
This lesson relates to the 14th Amendment, primarily the equal protection clause, as well as to the
powers of the Supreme Court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
Cross-Curricular Connections
Share these documents and teaching suggestions with your history, government, and language
arts colleagues.
Teaching Activities
1. Tapping into Prior Knowledge
Explain to the students that this lesson focuses on a Supreme Court decision made in 1955, one
that was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Further explain that in the following lessons, they
will learn about this landmark decision, including the opposition to it, from original court documents
and presidential correspondence. Begin by directing the students in a brainstorming activity to
assess the extent of their prior knowledge concerning the United States Supreme Court. Instruct
students to record everything they think they know about the United States Supreme Court in list
form or another appropriate graphic organizer. Lead a discussion about what they included without
making any corrections or clarifications. Collect the brainstorming sheets for later use (see Activity
7). Depending upon the depth of the students’ prior knowledge, lead an introduction or a review of
how the Supreme Court works, being sure to examine how the Court decides what cases it will
hear.
Analyzing the Documents
2. Document 1: The Dissenting Opinion of Judge Waites Waring in Harry Briggs, Jr., et al. v. R.
W. Elliott, Chairman, et al. is 20 pages in length, but for purposes of this lesson, the focus is
on the final three pages. The Briggs case originated in Clarendon County, South Carolina, and
was argued by Thurgood Marshall, counsel for the NAACP. Pages 18-20 of the dissenting opinion
describe some of the social scientists’ testimony later used by the Supreme Court in the Brown
decision. Before reading pages 18-20 together as a class, provide the students with background
information about the policy of “separate but equal,” specifically the Plessy v. Ferguson decision,
which Brown v. Board of Education helped to make obsolete. Prompt a class discussion of
the document with the following questions: Upon what evidence did the witnesses base their
testimony? What was the judge's conclusion about the acquisition of racial prejudice? What was
his opinion?
If time permits, a more complete understanding of the opinion may be gleaned by dividing the
remainder of the document among small groups of students. Direct each group to read and
summarize the main point of its assigned section and share its findings with the class.
4
The following page breakdowns are suggested:
pages 1-5 background information
pages 5-7 rationale for hearing the case
pages 7-8 slavery and the Constitution
pages 8-9 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments
pages 9-10 South Carolina laws
pages 10-12 litigation in other areas
pages 12-13 litigation in higher education
pages 13-14 Plessy v. Ferguson
pages 14-16 higher education decisions
pages 16-18 defendants' two witnesses
3. Document 2: The Letter from President Eisenhower to E. E. “Swede” Hazlett touches on
several significant topics of the Eisenhower presidency, from the election campaign to IndoChina to the appointment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren. Instruct students to
read the letter and, while doing so, to compose a list of the various topics Eisenhower
responded to in each of the 10 paragraphs. Focus the students on the last topic, the
appointment of Earl Warren, by asking the following questions. Lead a class discussion of their
findings. What seemed to be “Swede's” implication about the appointment of Earl Warren?
What was Eisenhower's response? What factors did Eisenhower consider important when
making his nomination decision? Why was age a significant determinant? How did
Eisenhower characterize the segregation issue? What were his expectations of the Court? Of
Warren? Do you think they were met? To extend the lesson, refer to the list of additional
topics compiled earlier in the activity. Challenge the students to research the context of one of
the subjects and to fashion a paragraph out of “Swede’s” original correspondence that might
have prompted Eisenhower’s reply.
4. Document 3: Judgment, Brown v. Board of Education, was issued on May 31, 1955, and
has come to be known as Brown II. Using the Document Analysis Worksheet as a starting
point, instruct the students to study the document and to prepare answers to the following
questions. Who was to be responsible for overseeing the decision? What guidelines, if any,
were given? Why do you think the language was worded this way? Why would the Supreme
Court direct a lower court to enforce its decision rather than handle it directly? Encourage the
students to share their answers with the class.
Putting the Pieces Together
5. Brown v. Board of Education is the collective title for five separate cases heard
concurrently by the United States Supreme Court from 1952 to1955.
Oliver Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, et al.
Harry Briggs, Jr., et al. v. R.W. Elliott, et al.
Dorothy E. Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al.
Spottswood Thomas Bolling et al. v. C. Melvin Sharpe et al.
Francis B. Gebhart et al. v. Ethel Louise Belton et al.
5
While their goals were the same, each case had unique elements and followed separate paths
prior to reaching the Supreme Court. Divide the students into five groups. Assign each group
one of the five cases and instruct them to independently research the facts for their assigned
cases. After research is completed, regroup the students so that each group includes at least
one student from each of the five original groups. Direct each new group to compile a graphic
representation of the main points of the five cases highlighting their similarities and their unique
characteristics, as well as their paths to the Supreme Court. Require that each group present
its finished product to the class so that the various approaches and findings may be compared.
Creating a Civil Rights Timeline
6. While Brown v. Board of Education is considered a landmark case of the 20th century, it
was neither the first nor the last in a series of cases that addressed civil liberties and equal
rights. Construct a classroom timeline of the civil rights movement after the Brown decision.
Divide the students into teams, assigning each team a specific decade (or some other
appropriate breakdown depending upon class size). Instruct the teams to research the
Supreme Court decisions from 1955 onward that impacted civil rights, the key players, as well
as the events, and legislation that followed in the wake of these decisions. Direct them to
creatively present their findings on poster boards, one board per team. Encourage the
students to research ARC for photos and other primary documents to display on their posters.
Construct the timeline from the finished posters and require each group to explain its piece.
Connecting with Poetry
7. Redistribute the students’ brainstorming lists collected after the first activity. Direct the
students to read over what they thought they knew about the U.S. Supreme Court at the onset
of this lesson and to make corrections or additions to their lists based on what they have
learned.
Write the following format on the board for the students to copy:
I used to think...
But now I know...
I used to think...
But now I know...
Instruct the students first to reflect on what ideas they might have had about the Supreme
Court that have now changed and then to write a poem following the format on the board.
Encourage them to write as many pairs of statements as necessary to demonstrate how much
their knowledge of the Supreme Court has grown.
Writing an Editorial
8. Explain to the students that the debate over judicial restraint versus judicial activism has
existed since the days of Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall. In fact, the Warren Court was
condemned more than once for “making law” rather than just “interpreting it.” Display the
editorial pages of several newspapers on a bulletin board or wall and discuss the manner in
which the press can address such issues as the powers of the Supreme Court. Divide the
class into four sections. Assign the students in section 1 to write editorials supporting judicial
restraint; students in section 2 should write editorials supporting judicial activism.
6
(Encourage the students to use examples of decisions made by the Warren Court in support of
their positions.) Explain to the remaining groups that their eventual task will be to respond
individually to one of the finished articles in the form of a letter to the editor. Assign the
students in one of the remaining two sections to respond to the judicial restraint articles, while
the students in the last section reply to the judicial activism articles. (Another option would be
to form a fifth group of students and direct them to create editorial cartoons depicting one or
both points of view.) Display the letters alongside the articles.
Designing A Book Jacket
9. The names, Thurgood Marshall and Earl Warren, will always be associated with the landmark
Brown v. Board of Education decision and the issue of school segregation. However,
each man had a prominent career that spanned decades before and after the historic Brown
ruling. Explain to the students that a local publisher is compiling a new series of biographies of
notable 20th-century Americans and is soliciting the students’ ideas for book jacket designs.
Challenge the students to work in pairs and design a book jacket for a biography of Thurgood
Marshall or Earl Warren. The design should include the following elements:
a. Series title
b. Individual book title
c. Front and back cover designs
d. Summary for inside flap (front)
e. Author information for inside flap (back)
Nominating a New Chief Justice
10. In his October 1954, letter to E. E. "Swede" Hazlett, President Eisenhower expressed his
beliefs about the important qualifications for a Supreme Court chief justice. Review
Eisenhower's considerations as outlined in the letter with the class. Ask the students to
privately brainstorm the qualifications they would consider most important for a chief justice in
the next millennium. Encourage volunteers to share their ideas and record them on the
overhead projector.
Lead a discussion of some possible issues before the Supreme Court in the near future. Next,
direct the students to pretend it is 2001 and to assume the role of president of the United
States. An unexpected retirement has created an opening on the Supreme Court, and the
Senate is awaiting a nomination from the president. Citing the second featured document as a
model, instruct the students to write a letter to a close friend outlining the qualifications they
feel the nominee must possess.
The documents included in this project are from Record Group 267, Records of the Supreme
Court; the Eisenhower Library; and the Records of the United States District Court, Eastern District
of South Carolina. They are available online through the Archival Research Catalog (ARC)
Identifiers:
279306
186601
7
ARC replaces its prototype, the NARA Archival Information Locator (NAIL). You can still perform a
keyword, digitized image and location search. ARC's advanced functionalities also allow you to
search by organization, person, or topic. ARC is a searchable database that contains information
about a wide variety of NARA holdings across the country. You can use ARC to search record
descriptions by keywords or topics and retrieve digital copies of selected textual documents,
photographs, maps, and sound recordings related to thousands of topics.
This article was written by Mary Frances Greene, a teacher at Marie Murphy School, Avoca District
37, Wilmette, IL.
Brown v. Board – Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivers the opinion of the court
These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They
are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies
their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.
In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of
the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated
basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children
under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to
deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each
of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the
plaintiffs on the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v.
Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races
are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities are separate. In the
Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the
plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.
The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not “equal” and cannot be made “equal,”
and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious
importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. Argument was heard in the 1952
Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.
Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress,
ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents
and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that,
although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are
faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments
undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among “all persons born or naturalized
in the United States.” Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and
the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in
Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment’s history with respect to
segregated schools is the status of public education at that time. In the South, the movement
toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of
white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost
nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was
forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding
success in the arts and sciences, as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that
8
public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the
effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates.
Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The
curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school
term was but three months a year in many states, and compulsory school attendance was virtually
unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the
Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.
In the first cases, this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its
adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro
race. The doctrine of “separate but equal” did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in
the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. American
courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been
six cases involving the “separate but equal” doctrine in the field of public education. In Cumming
v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, the
validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. In more recent cases, all on the graduate school
level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro
students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S.
337; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629; McLaurin v.
Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to reexamine
the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court
expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held
inapplicable to public education.
In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are
findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being
equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other
“tangible” factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible
factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the
effect of segregation itself on public education. In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the
clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v.
Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and
its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if
segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.
Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate
our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the
performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the
very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to
cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally
to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to
succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the
state has undertaken to provide it, is a right that must be made available to all on equal terms.
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on
the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal,
deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it
does.
9
In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide
them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on “those qualities which are
incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.” In McLaurin
v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white
graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: “. . .
his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in
general, to learn his profession.” Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade
and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of
their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their
hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their
educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which
nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs.
Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the
colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of
separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of
inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore,
has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to
deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v.
Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v.
Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place.
Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and
others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation
complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because these are class actions,
because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local
conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable
complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to
the primary question – the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now
announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we
may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the
docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously
propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term. The Attorney General of the United States
is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting
segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do
so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954.
It is so ordered.
10
Timeline of Events Leading to the
Brown v. Board of Education Decision, 1954
1857
Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error v. John F. A. Sanford
The Supreme Court held that blacks, enslaved or free, could not be citizens of the United States. Chief
Justice Taney, arguing from the original intentions of the framers of the 1787 Constitution, stated that at the
time of the adoption of the Constitution, black people were considered a subordinate and inferior class of
beings, “with no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
Significance: The Supreme Court denied citizenship to black people, setting the stage for their treatment as
second-class citizens.
1865
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands
The Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, also known as the Freedmen’s Bureau, was
established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1865. Its main mission was to provide relief and help
freedmen become self-sufficient in all areas of life.
Significance: The first black schools were set up under the direction of the Freedmen’s Bureau. One of
those schools – Howard University – would eventually train and graduate the majority of the legal team that
overturned Plessy, including Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall.
1865
Black Codes
Black Codes was a name given to laws passed by southern governments established during the presidency
of Andrew Johnson. These laws imposed severe restrictions on freedmen such as prohibiting their right to
vote, forbidding them to sit on juries, and limiting their right to testify against white men. They were also
forbidden from carrying weapons in public places and working in certain occupations.
Significance: Segregation Begins - Public schools were segregated, and Blacks were barred from serving
on juries and testifying against whites.
1866
Civil Rights Act of 1866
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 guaranteed blacks basic economic rights to contract, sue, and own property.
Significance: The intention of this law was to protect all persons in the United States, including blacks, in
their civil rights.
1868
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is ratified.
Significance: The 14th Amendment overruled Dred Scott v. Sanford. It guaranteed that all persons born or
naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside, and
that no state shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor deny to any person the equal protection of the law.
1873
Slaughterhouse Cases
These cases narrowly defined federal power and emasculated the Fourteenth Amendment by asserting that
most of the rights of citizens remain under state control.
Significance: Pro-segregation states would come to justify their policies based on the notion that
segregation in their public school systems was a state’s rights issue.
1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875
In March, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, prohibiting discrimination in inns, theaters, and
other places of public accommodation. It was the last Federal civil rights act passed until 1957.
Significance:
Discrimination in places of public accommodation was prohibited.
11
1883
Civil Rights Cases
The Supreme Court overturned the Civil Rights Act of 1875 and declared that the Fourteenth Amendment
does not prohibit discrimination by private individuals or businesses.
Significance: The Court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit discrimination by private
individuals or businesses, paving the way for segregation in public education.
1887
Jim Crow
The practices of comprehensive racial segregation known as “Jim Crow” emerged, and racial separation
becomes entrenched.
Significance: Blacks largely disappeared from juries in the South. Florida was the first state to enact a
statute requiring segregation in places of public accommodation. Eight other states followed Florida’s lead by
1892.
1896
Homer Adolph Plessy, Plaintiff in Error v. J.H. Ferguson, Judge of Section “A” Criminal
District Court for the Parish of Orleans
Homer A. Plessy challenged an 1890 Louisiana law that required separate train cars for black Americans and
white Americans. The Supreme Court held that separate but equal facilities for white and black railroad
passengers did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Significance: Plessy v. Ferguson established the “separate but equal” doctrine that would become the
constitutional basis for segregation. Justice John Marshall Harlan, the lone dissenter in Plessy, argued that
forced segregation of the races stamped blacks with a badge of inferiority. That same line of argument would
become a decisive factor in the Brown v. Board decision.
1899
Cumming v. Board of Education of Richmond County, State of Georgia
The Supreme Court upheld a local school board's decision to close a free public black school due to fiscal
constraints despite the fact that the district continued to operate two free public white schools.
Significance: The Court’s opinion argued that there was no evidence in the record that the decision was
based on racial discrimination and that the distribution of public funds for public education was within the
discretion of school authorities.
1908
Thurgood Marshall is born in Baltimore, MD, on July 2nd.
Significance: Thurgood Marshall would become lead counsel in the Brown v. Board of Education
case.
1908
Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
The Supreme Court upheld a Kentucky state law forbidding interracial instruction at all schools and colleges
in the state.
Significance: The Court upheld interracial instruction.
1909
W.E.B. DuBois, Ida Wells-Barnett, Mary White Ovington, and others founded the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Their mission was to eliminate lynching, and to fight
racial and social injustice, primarily through legal action.
Significance: The NAACP became the primary tool for the legal attack on segregation, eventually trying the
Brown v. Board of Education case.
1927
Gong Lum v. Rice
In Gong Lum v. Rice the Supreme Court held that a Mississippi school district may require a ChineseAmerican girl to attend a segregated black school rather than a white school.
Significance: The Court applied the “separate but equal” formulation of Plessy v. Ferguson to the public
schools.
1935
The NAACP begins challenging segregation in graduate and secondary schools.
12
Assisted by his protégé, Thurgood Marshall, Charles Hamilton Houston, of the NAACP, began his strategy of
challenging segregation in graduate and professional schools.
Significance: Houston developed a legal strategy that would eventually lead to victory over segregation in
the nation’s schools through the Brown v. Board case. Houston’s rationale for attacking segregated law
schools was largely two-pronged. First, the establishment of separate but equal law school facilities for black
and white students would become too costly for the states. Second, white judges who matriculated in some
of the nation’s finest law schools could not, in good conscience, suggest that black lawyers in segregated
schools received “equal” legal training.
1938
State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada
The Supreme Court decided in favor of Lloyd Gaines, a black student who had been refused admission to
the University of Missouri Law School.
Significance: This case set a precedent for other states to attempt to “equalize” black school facilities rather
than integrate them. The Court held that the state must furnish Gaines “within its borders facilities for legal
education substantially equal to those which the State there offered for the persons of the white race,
whether or not other Negroes sought the same opportunity.”
1939
Thurgood Marshall named special counsel of the NAACP
Marshall succeeded his mentor, Charles Hamilton Houston.
Significance: Thurgood Marshall would eventually become lead counsel in the Brown v. Board of
Education case.
1948
The NAACP board of directors formally endorsed Thurgood Marshall’s view on segregation strategy.
By adopting Marshall’s view, the NAACP decided to devote its efforts solely to an all-out attack on
segregation in education rather than pressing for the equalization of segregated facilities.
Significance: The NAACP defense team attacked the “equal” standard so that the “separate” standard
would, in turn, become vulnerable.
1948
Sipuel v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma
A unanimous Supreme Court held that Lois Ada Sipuel could not be denied entrance to a state law school
solely because of her race.
Significance: The Court ruled denial of entrance to a state law school solely on the basis of race
unconstitutional.
1949
Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al.
Thurgood Marshall and NAACP officials met with black residents of Clarendon County, South Carolina. They
decided that the NAACP would launch a test case against segregation in public schools if at least 20
plaintiffs could be found. By November, Harry Briggs and 19 other plaintiffs were assembled, and the NAACP
filed a class action lawsuit against the Clarendon County School Board.
Significance: Briggs v. Elliott became one of the cases consolidated by the Supreme Court into Brown
v. Board of Education.
1950
Sweatt v. Painter
The Supreme Court held that the University of Texas Law School must admit a black student, Herman
Sweatt. The University of Texas Law School was far superior in its offerings and resources to the separate
black law school, which had been hastily established in a downtown basement.
Significance: The Supreme Court held that Texas failed to provide separate but equal education, prefiguring
the future opinion in Brown that “separate but equal is inherently unequal.”
1950
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents
13
The Supreme Court invalidated the University of Oklahoma’s requirement that a black student, admitted to a
graduate program unavailable to him at the state’s black school, sit in separate sections of or in spaces
adjacent to the classroom, library, and cafeteria.
Significance: The Supreme Court held that these restrictions were unconstitutional, because it interfered
with his “ability to study, to engage in discussions, and exchange views with other students, and, in general,
to learn his profession.”
1950
Bolling v. Sharpe
Charles Houston provided legal representation for the Consolidated Parents Group, who, under the direction
of Gardner Bishop, attempted to enroll a group of black students in all-white John Philip Sousa Junior High
School, in Washington, D.C.
Significance: The Bolling case became one of the consolidated Brown cases. The U.S. Supreme Court
would eventually file a separate opinion on Bolling because the 14th Amendment was not applicable in
Washington, D.C.
1951
February
On February 28, Brown v. Board of Education was filed in Federal district court, in Kansas.
1951
May
Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al.
NAACP lawyer Spottswood Robinson filed Davis v. Prince Edward County, a challenge to Virginia’s
segregated schools.
Significance: Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al., was
another of the cases eventually consolidated as Brown v. Board of Education.
Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al.
This South Carolina case went to trial. Marshall and the NAACP presented a vast array of social science
evidence showing how segregation harmed black school children, including evidence from sociologist
Kenneth Clark’s controversial “Doll Study.”
Significance: The U.S. District Court denied the Briggs plaintiff’s request to order desegregation of
Clarendon County, South Carolina, schools and instead ordered the equalization of black schools. Judge
Julius Waring was the lone dissenter.
1951
June
Brown v. Board of Education
Robert Carter led the NAACP legal team into trial.
Significance: In August, a three-judge panel at the U.S. District Court unanimously held in the Brown v.
Board of Education case that “no willful, intentional or substantial discrimination” existed in Topeka’s
schools. The U.S. District Court found that the physical facilities in white and black schools were comparable
and that the lower court’s decisions in Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin only applied to graduate
education.
1951
October
Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al.; Gebhart et al. v. Bulah et al.; Belton et al. v. Gebhart et al.;
Bulah et al. v. Gebhart et al.
These cases went to trial.
1952
March
Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, VA
The U.S. District court found in favor of the school board under the theory of “separate but equal.”
Significance: The U.S. District Court unanimously rejected the Davis plaintiffs’ request to order
desegregation of Prince Edward County, VA, schools, ordering the “equalization” of black schools instead.
14
1952
April
Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al.; Gebhart et al. v. Bulah et al.; Belton et al. v. Gebhart et al.;
Bulah et al. v. Gebhart et al.
A Delaware court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to immediate admission to white
public schools.
Significance: In both of the Gebhart cases, the court ruled that the plaintiffs were being denied equal
protection of the law and ordered that the eleven children involved be immediately admitted to Delaware’s
white schools. The board of education appealed the decision.
1952
June
The Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral arguments in Briggs and Brown during the
upcoming October 1952 term.
1952
October
The Bundling of the Brown v. Board Cases
Days before arguments were to be heard in Briggs and Brown, the Supreme Court announced
a postponement. Three weeks later, the Court announced that it would also hear the Delaware cases, as well
as Davis v. Prince Edward County and the District of Columbia case, Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al.
Significance: The Supreme Court agreed to hear all five of the school desegregation cases collectively. This
grouping was significant, because it showed school segregation as a national issue, not just a southern one.
[Note: The U. S. Supreme Court eventually rendered a separate opinion on Bolling v.
Sharpe, because the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not applicable in the
District of Columbia.]
1952
December 9th – 11th
The first round of arguments were heard in Brown and its companion cases.
1953
June
The Supreme Court ordered that a second round of arguments in Brown v. Board be heard in
October.
1953
September
Chief Justice Fred Vinson Jr. died unexpectedly of a heart attack on the 8th. President Eisenhower
nominated California Governor Earl Warren to replace Vinson as interim Chief on the 30th. The Court
rescheduled arguments in Brown for December.
Significance: Justice Earl Warren would go on to deliver the unanimous ruling in the Brown v. Board
case.
1953
December 7th – 9th
The second round of arguments were heard in Brown v. Board of Education.
1954
March
The Senate confirmed Earl Warren as Chief Justice.
1954
May 17
Brown v. Board of Education
The Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and declared that racial segregation in public schools violated
the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Bolling v. Sharpe
That same day, the Court held that racial segregation in the District of Columbia public schools violated the
Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment in Bolling v. Sharpe. The Court scheduled arguments on
remedy in Brown for October but eventually put them off until April of 1955.
15
Significance: The Court ruled that state-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th
Amendment and was, therefore, unconstitutional. In the wake of the decision, the District of Columbia and
some school districts in the border states began to desegregate their schools voluntarily. State legislatures in
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia adopted resolutions of “interposition and
nullification” that declared the Court's decision to be “null, void, and no effect.” Various southern legislatures
passed laws that imposed sanctions on anyone who implemented desegregation and enacted school closing
plans that authorized the suspension of public education and the disbursement of public funds to parents to
send their children to private schools.
1954
October
After the sudden death of Justice Jackson, President Eisenhower nominated John Marshall Harlan,
the grandson of the lone dissenter in Plessy, to fill the vacancy. After long hearings before the
Senate, Harlan was finally sworn in as an Associate Justice in March of 1955.
1955
April
The Supreme Court heard its third round of arguments in Brown, this time
concerning remedies.
May 31: Brown II
On the last day of the term, the Supreme Court handed down Brown II, ordering that desegregation occur
with “all deliberate speed.”
Significance: Brown II was intended to work out the mechanics of desegregation. Due to the vagueness
of the term “all deliberate speed,” many states were able to stall the Court’s order to desegregate their
schools. The legal and social obstacles that southern states put in place and encouraged, in their effort to
thwart integration, served as a catalyst for the student protests that launched the civil rights movement.
16
U.S. National Archives & Records Administration
Written Document Analysis Worksheet
Designed and developed by the Education Staff, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408
1. TYPE OF DOCUMENT (Check one):
___ Newspaper
___ Map
___ Letter
___ Telegram
___ Patent
___ Press release
___ Advertisement
___ Memorandum
___ Congressional record ___ Report
___ Census report
___ Other
2. UNIQUE PHYSICAL QUALITIES OF THE DOCUMENT (Check one or more):
___ Interesting letterhead
___ Notations
___ Handwritten
___ “RECEIVED” stamp
___ Typed
___ Other
___ Seals
3. DATE(S) OF DOCUMENT: ___________________________________________________
4. AUTHOR (OR CREATOR) OF THE DOCUMENT: _________________________________
POSITION (TITLE): ________________________________________________________
5. FOR WHAT AUDIENCE WAS THE DOCUMENT WRITTEN? ________________________
6. DOCUMENT INFORMATION (There are many possible ways to answer A-E.)
A. List three things the author said that you think are important:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
B. Why do you think this document was written?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
C. What evidence in the document helps you know why it was written? Quote from the
document.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
D. List two things the document tells you about life in the United States at the time it was
written:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
E. Write a question to the author that is left unanswered by the document:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
17
The Documents (See the documents attached at the end of this packet.)
Opinion of Judge Waites Waring in Harry Briggs, Jr., et al. v. R. W. Elliott, Chairman, et
al
National Archives and Records Administration
Records of the United States District Court
Eastern District of South Carolina
Record Group 21
ARC Identifier: 279306
Letter from President Dwight D. Eisenhower to E. E. “Swede” Hazlett, October 23, 1954
Dwight D. Eisenhower Library
ADD COMPLETE CITE
ARC Identifier: 186601
Judgement Brown v. Board of Education
National Archives and Records Administration
Records of the Supreme Court
Record Group 267
ARC Identifier: 279306
18
Frontiers in Civil Rights
Introduction
Arguments presented and decisions rendered in court cases often illuminate, open, and sometimes
close frontiers in social history. For example, the arguments presented in school desegregation
cases of the early 1950s illustrate how the “separate but equal” doctrine presented in the Plessy v.
Ferguson decision of 1896 virtually closed the civil rights
frontier for nearly 60 years. Conversely, the decisions rendered
in the desegregation cases opened up that frontier and
encouraged the expansion of the civil rights movement in the
latter half of the twentieth century.
Background
In 1951, the students at Robert Russa Moton High School in
Prince Edward County, VA, went on strike. Their protest was to
persuade their school board to build them a better school; it led
to a landmark civil rights case that marked the end of
segregation in the nation’s public schools. Moton High was
typical of the all-black schools in the Virginia county. It was built in 1939 to hold half as many
students as it did by the early 1950s; its teachers were paid substantially less than teachers at the
all-white high school; and it had no gymnasium, cafeteria, or auditorium with fixed seats like the
nearby white Farmville High. Repeated attempts made by Moton’s principal and PTA to convince
the school board to erect a new black high school were fruitless. In the spring of 1951, the
students, led by 16 year-old Barbara Johns, went on strike and asked for help from the NAACP's
special counsel for the Southeastern region of the United States.
The NAACP lawyers told the striking students that the only way the organization could commit to
getting involved in the students’ cause was to sue for the end of segregation itself. This was a huge
step beyond the students’ goal of obtaining a new school building! After thinking it over very
carefully and gathering the support of their parents, the students agreed to challenge segregation
directly. On May 23, 1951, an NAACP lawyer, on behalf of 117 Moton students and their parents,
filed suit in the federal district court in Richmond. The first plaintiff listed was Dorothy E. Davis, a
14-year old ninth grader; the case was titled, Dorothy E. Davis, et al. v. County School
Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia. It asked that the state law requiring segregated
schools in Virginia be struck down.
In 1952, a three-judge U.S. District Court decided in favor of the school board and upheld
segregation. On appeal, the case went to the Supreme Court of the United States and was decided
along with three other school segregation cases from South Carolina, Delaware, and Kansas, in
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The Brown decision marked the end of the
“separate but equal” precedent set nearly 60 years earlier in Plessy v. Ferguson. The court
stated that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” and that school segregation
violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Virginia, and Prince Edward County in particular, resisted the
Supreme Court’s decision. The county closed its public schools from 1959 to 1964 to avoid
desegregation.
Note: This article originally appeared in the 2001 National History Day Teachers’ Guide - Frontiers in History: People Places, Ideas.
19
Standards Correlations
This lesson correlates to the National History Standards.
Era 9 -Postwar United States (1945 to early 1970s)
Standard 4C - Demonstrate understanding of the Warren Court’s role in
addressing civil liberties and equal rights.
This lesson correlates to the National Standards for Civics and
Government.
Standard II.A.2. - Explain the extent to which Americans have internalized the values and
principles of the Constitution and attempted to make its ideals realities.
Standard III.B.1. - Evaluate, take, and defend positions on issues regarding the purposes,
organization, and functions of the institutions of the national government.
Constitutional Connection
This lesson relates to the 14th Amendment, primarily the equal protection clause, as well as to the
powers of the Supreme Court under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
Cross-curricular Connections
Share these documents and teaching suggestions with your history, government, and language
arts colleagues.
Activities
1. Reproduce the photograph of Moton High’s exterior on a transparency. Use this photograph to
demonstrate to the students techniques in photo analysis. Give the students a few minutes to
look at the photograph. Turn off the projector and ask them to write down everything they saw
in the photograph. After a few minutes, ask students to share their findings. Cut an 8 ½” x 11”
piece of paper into four parts.
2. Place these four parts over the picture so that you can reveal one section of the photograph at
a time, keeping the rest of the picture covered. Ask students to look closely at the area that is
revealed and describe what they see in the photograph. This will draw their attention to the
details of the photograph. After students have had an opportunity to view each section,
uncover the whole photograph and ask them how what they now see in the photograph has
changed.
3. Divide the students into 3 groups and distribute one of the remaining 3 photographs to each
group. Instruct the students to analyze their photograph using the method described above.
Ask a representative from each group to describe their photograph to the class.
4. Conduct a class discussion about the photographs using the following questions: When do you
think these photographs were taken? Where do you think they were taken? Why do you think
they were taken? What might such a collection of photographs have been used for? Explain to
students that these images were exhibits introduced by the plaintiffs in the court case,
Dorothy E. Davis, et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County,
Virginia to illustrate the differences in the facilities of the white and black high schools.
5. Using the background information, describe the Davis case to the students. Tell them that
Barbara Johns, the student who led the strike, was quoted years later as saying “It [suing for
20
the end of segregation] seemed like reaching for the moon.” Ask them to assume the role of
Barbara Johns and describe what she meant by this statement in a 2-page explanation.
Enrichment/Extension
1. Divide students into 4 groups and instruct each group to investigate the other school
segregation cases that were decided by the Supreme Court in 1954 (Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, Briggs v. Elliott, Gebhart v. Belton, and Bolling v. Sharpe).
Direct a representative from each group to describe their case to the class. Ask the class to
compare the four cases and determine why the Supreme Court decided 3 of them with the
Davis and Brown cases and why a separate opinion was issued in the Bolling v. Sharpe
case.
2. The 12-page Opinion of the Supreme Court in Dorothy E. Davis, et al. v. County School
Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia is available online from the National Archives.
Direct students to read the opinion and write a one-page summary of it. Note: The opinion is
available through the National Archives ARC database. To access it, go to
http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/basic_search.jsp and conduct a Digital Copies Search on ARC
Identifier 279110.
3. Additional documents from the Davis case are available online from the National Archives.
These include additional exhibits, witness testimony, the complaint filed against the school
board, the defendant’s answer to the complaint, the original opinion, and the appeal. To access
them, go to http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/ basic_ search.jsp and conduct a Digital Copies
Search on the keywords “Davis” and “Prince Edward.” Encourage students to access the
documents for additional information on the case and incorporate it into a History Day project.
How to Use this Lesson for History Day Entries
Supreme Court cases, like the Davis case, lend themselves well to History Day entries. Research
for projects in all categories can include interviews with people involved in or affected by the case,
court documents, newspaper articles reporting on the case, and editorials expressing opinions
about the case. Using information from these sources, a student could develop a performance
depicting a courtroom scene, a witness’s testimony, or an attorney’s monologue. A performance
about the Davis case could also focus on the students’ strike, or Chief Justice Warren’s
announcement of the decision (this is described well in chapter 26 of Simple Justice). Court
cases also offer documentaries of a clear timeline and documents from which to quote and suggest
images that reflect significant events and individuals. Exhibits offered by both the defendant and
the plaintiff in a court case can often be great additions to an exhibit board, as could a timeline
illustrating concurrent events. Historical papers that focus on a particular court case can
incorporate the words of the plaintiffs, defendants, and judges found in the court documents.
Bibliography/Suggestions for Further Reading
Armor, David J. Forced Justice: School Desegregation and the Law. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995.
Greene, Mary Frances. Documents Related to Brown v. Board of Education. National
Archives Constitution Community.
http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/brown_v_board_documents/brown_v_board.ht
ml
21
Howard, John R. The Shifting Wind: The Supreme Court and the Civil Rights from
Reconstruction to Brown. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.
Kluger, Richard. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black
America’s Struggle for Equality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976.
National Park Service. We Shall Overcome: Historic Places of the Civil Rights Movement.
A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/civilrights/index.htm
Robert Russa Morton High School. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/civilrights/v1.htm
Wilkinson, J. Harvie. From Brown to Bakke: The Supreme Court and School Integration,
1954-1978. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.
National Archives Document Citation
1. Photograph No. 21-51E83-CA1333DAVIS(AB); “Exterior View, Farmville,” n.d.; Case No. 1333;
Dorothy E. Davis, et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County,
Virginia, Civil Action; United States. District Court. Eastern District of Virginia. Richmond
Division; Records of the District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21; National
Archives Middle Atlantic Region, Center City Philadelphia, PA.
2. Photograph No. 21-51E83-CA1333DAVIS(AB); “Auditorium, Farmville,” n.d.; Case No. 1333;
Dorothy E. Davis, et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County,
Virginia, Civil Action, Civil Action; United States. District Court. Eastern District of
Virginia. Richmond Division; Records of the District Courts of the United States, Record Group
21; National Archives Middle Atlantic Region, Center City Philadelphia, PA.
3. Photograph No. 21-51E83-CA1333DAVIS(AB); “Exterior View, Moton,” n.d.; Case No. 1333;
Dorothy E. Davis, et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County,
Virginia, Civil Action; United States. District Court. Eastern District of Virginia. Richmond
Division; Records of the District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21; National
Archives Middle Atlantic Region, Center City Philadelphia, PA.
4. Photograph No. 21-51E83-CA1333DAVIS(AB); “Auditorium, Moton,” n.d.; Case No. 1333;
Dorothy E. Davis, et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County,
Virginia, Civil Action; United States. District Court. Eastern District of Virginia. Richmond
Division; Records of the District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21; National
Archives Middle Atlantic Region, Center City Philadelphia, PA.
Article Citation
Potter, Lee Ann. “Frontiers in Civil Rights: Dorothy E. Davis, et al. versus County School
Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia.” National History Day Teachers'
Guide: Frontiers in History: People Places, Ideas (2001); 71-75.
22
U.S. National Archives & Records Administration
Photo Analysis Worksheet
Step 1. Observation
Examine the individual items. Next, divide the photo into quadrants and study each
section to see what new details become visible. Use the chart below to list people,
objects, and activities in the photograph.
People
Objects
Activities
_____________________
_____________________
____________________
_____________________
_____________________
____________________
_____________________
_____________________
____________________
_____________________
_____________________
____________________
Step 2. Inference
Based on what you have observed above, list three things you might infer from this
photograph.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Step 3. Questions
What questions does this photograph raise in your mind?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Where could you find answers to them?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Designed and developed by the Education Staff, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408.
The Photographs
Exterior View, Farmville
23
Plaintiffs' Exhibits:
Photograph filed in
Dorothy E. Davis, et al. v.
County School Board of Prince
Edward County, Virginia,
Civil Action No. 1333.
Record Group 21
Records of the District Courts of the United States, 1865 -1991
NARA’s Mid Atlantic Region (Philadelphia)
Exterior View, Moton
24
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits:
Photograph filed in
Dorothy E. Davis, et al. v.
County School Board of Prince
Edward County, Virginia,
Civil Action No. 1333.
Record Group 21
Records of the District Courts of the United States, 1865 -1991
NARA’s Mid Atlantic Region (Philadelphia)
25
Auditorium, Farmville
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits:
Photograph filed in
Dorothy E. Davis, et al. v.
County School Board of Prince
Edward County, Virginia,
Civil Action No. 1333.
Record Group 21
Records of the District Courts of the United States, 1865 -1991
NARA’s Mid Atlantic Region (Philadelphia)
Auditorium, Moton
26
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits:
Photograph filed in
Dorothy E. Davis, et al. v.
County School Board of Prince
Edward County, Virginia,
Civil Action No. 1333.
Record Group 21
Records of the District Courts of the United States, 1865 -1991
NARA’s Mid Atlantic Region (Philadelphia)
27