Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

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 racial[ly] integrated school system." 10

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 lan

10 A similar finding was made in the Delaware case: "I conclude from the testimony that in our Delaware society, State-imposed segregation in education itself results in the Negro children, as a class, receiving educational opportunities which are substantially inferior to those available to white children otherwise similarly situated." 87 A. 2d 862, 865.

"1 K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of

guage 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 questionthe 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

Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., 1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944).

12 See Bolling v. Sharpe, post, p. 497, concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

"4. Assuming it is decided that segregation in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment

"(a) would a decree necessarily follow providing that, within the

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.

limits set by normal geographic school districting, Negro children should forthwith be admitted to schools of their choice, or

"(b) may this Court, in the exercise of its equity powers, permit an effective gradual adjustment to be brought about from existing segregated systems to a system not based on color distinctions?

"5. On the assumption on which questions 4 (a) and (b) are based, and assuming further that this Court will exercise its equity powers to the end described in question 4 (b),

"(a) should this Court formulate detailed decrees in these cases; "(b) if so, what specific issues should the decrees reach; "(c) should this Court appoint a special master to hear evidence with a view to recommending specific terms for such decrees;

"(d) should this Court remand to the courts of first instance with directions to frame decrees in these cases, and if so what general directions should the decrees of this Court include and what procedures should the courts of first instance follow in arriving at the specific terms of more detailed decrees?"

14 See Rule 42, Revised Rules of this Court (effective July 1, 1954).

BRIGGS et al. v. ELLIOTT et al.

Civ. A. No. 2657.

United States District Court

E. D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.

Heard May 28, 1951.
Decided June 23, 1951.

Harry Briggs, Jr., and others sued R. W. Elliott, chairman, and the other members of the Board of Trustees of School District No. 22, Clarendon County, South Carolina, and others for a declaratory judgment and inJunctive relief. The three judge district court, Parker, Circuit Judge, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration to the effect that the school facilities afforded Negro children in the district were not equal to the facilities afforded white children in the district and to a mandatory injunction requiring that equal facilities be afforded them, but held that the segregation of the races in the public schools, as required by the Constitution and statutes of South Carolina, was not of itself a denial of the equal

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

13

Schools and school districts Segregation of races in public schools, so long as equality of rights is preserved, is matter of legislative policy for several states, with which federal courts are powerless to interfere.

4. Constitutional law 81

Each state must determine for itself, subject to observance of fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed by federal Constitution, how it shall exercise police power; that is, the power to legislate with respect to safety, morals, health and general welfare.

5. Constitutional law 220

Segregation of races in public schools, as required by Constitution and statutes of South Carolina, is not of itself a denial of equal protection of laws guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14.

[blocks in formation]

District Court, as court of equity, should exercise its power to assure children allegedly provided with inferior facilities that equality of treatment to which they are entitled, with due regard to legislative policy of state, but court should not use its power to abolish segregation in state where it is required by law if the equality demanded by Constitution can be attained otherwise.

Thurgood Marshall, Robert L. Carter, New York City, Harold R. Boulware, Columbia, S. C., Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Richmond, Va., Arthur Shores, Birmingham, Ala., A. T. Walden, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs.

T. C. Callison Atty. Gen., of South Carolina, Robert McC. Figg, Jr., Charleston, S. C., S. E. Rogers, Summerton, S. C., for defendants.

Before PARKER, Circuit Judge, and WARING and TIMMERMAN, District Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in which it is alleged that the schools and educational facilities provided for Negro children in School District No. 22 in Clarendon County, South Carolina, are inferior to those provided for white children in that district and that this amounts to a denial of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and further that the segregation of Negro and white children in the tion 7 of the Constitution of South Caropublic schools, required by Article 11, seclina and section 5377 of the Code of Laws of that state, is of itself violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs are Negro children of school age who are entitled to attend

Section 5377 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina of 1942 is as follows: "It shall be unlawful for pupils of one race to attend the schools provided by boards of trustees for persons of another race."

« AnteriorContinuar »