When responding to questions, students must reference the 4 documents: Brown v. Board, MLK Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I have a Dream, MLK Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Selma and Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ballot or BulletÃ¢â‚¬Â (ALL are located in CANVAS/Files), as well as key points from the film, Selma. Each question in worth 20 points, therefore, responses should reflect accordingly. Be certain to number each response and submit as a PDF. All questions are 20 points each.
1 Refer to the Brown v. Board document Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Explain the significance of this landmark Supreme Court case. Which case did it over turn? Why? Explain how this decision affected the Civil Right movement of the 1950s and 60s?
2 How did Martin Luther King, Jr. first gain national exposure as a leading advocate for the civil rights movement? Was he prepared for such fame? EXPLAIN.
3 Why did MLK believe that the use of nonviolent civil disobedience was the proper tactic for the modern civil rights movement? What were the advantages and disadvantages of this choice of tactic?
4 What major effort was King in the midst of planning as the time of his assassination in 1968? How did this plan reflect a CHANGE in emphasis from his earlier civil rights activities? EXPLAIN.
5 Refer to the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ballot or BulletÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“I have a dreamÃ¢â‚¬Â speeches by Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Compare and Contrast the approach to civil rights between Malcolm X and MLK.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): In 1896, the United States Supreme Court declared
in Plessy v. Ferguson that the doctrine of Ã¢â‚¬Å“separate but equalÃ¢â‚¬Â was constitutional. In 1954, the United States
Supreme Court overturned that decision and ruled unanimously against school segregation.
These cases come to us from the state 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 Ã¢â‚¬Å“separate but equalÃ¢â‚¬Â 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 be separate. Ã¢â‚¬Â¦
The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not Ã¢â‚¬Å“equalÃ¢â‚¬Â and cannot be made Ã¢â‚¬Å“equal,Ã¢â‚¬Â 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.
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 which 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 Ã¢â‚¬Å“tangibleÃ¢â‚¬Â factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority
group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.
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 Ã¢â‚¬Å“those qualities which are incapable of objective
measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.Ã¢â‚¬Â 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: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ His ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other
students, and, in general, to learn his profession.Ã¢â‚¬Â 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 the
finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:
Ã¢â‚¬Å“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
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 Ã¢â‚¬Å“separate but equalÃ¢â‚¬Â 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. Ã¢â‚¬Â¦
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 Ã¢â‚¬â€ the
constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the
equal protection of the laws. Ã¢â‚¬Â¦
[Source: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Available online via National
Purchase answer to see full