Question

case 2: brown v. board of education of topeka, kansas (1954)
after plessy, many states allowed segregating facilities, and with public schools, this resulted in white schools being funded better than black schools. after 1940, the national association for the advancement of colored people (naacp) used their legal defence fund to sue states over their segregation policies. at first, they sued to force states to make sure these facilities were equal, thinking that if states and businesses had to pay double the cost, instead of just letting blacks and whites use the same facilities, it would make them realize that segregation was too expensive. but then, they started suing under the argument that plessy v. ferguson was wrongly decided, and that segregation did imply inferiority and did violate equal protections under the law. in 1954, several lawsuits about public schools were consolidated into one case: brown v. board of education of topeka, kansas. in this case, the supreme court reversed its decision in plessy. their ruling stated that:
segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. the effect 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.
their reasoning was based in part on kenneth and mamie clark, who were both african - american psychologists (and husband and wife) and showed that separating black and white children makes them believe that blacks are inferior to whites. watch the video “a girl like me” on youtube to see a modern version of the kenneth and mamie clark doll test. the supreme court then ruled that desegregation of public schools should occur “with all deliberate speed”.

1. what do you think “with all deliberate speed” means?
2. if your teacher gave you an assignment, but instead of a due date, told you that you had to hand it in “with all deliberate speed”, would students work as fast as possible to hand it in? explain your thinking.
3. in reality, this did not happen. many school districts were ordered to desegregate, which meant they had to accept black students who wanted to go there. but could you force them to pay to transport black students to white schools on buses? what if an entire school districts population was white, and a school district next to it was mostly black, simply due to where people lived? should the state be forced to redraw school districts or build new schools? explain your thinking on the lines below.

Explanation:

1. "With all deliberate speed" in the context of Brown v. Board of Education meant that school districts should move promptly but also carefully and thoughtfully to desegregate. It did not set a strict timeline but indicated a sense of urgency along with the need for proper planning.
2. Students likely would not work as fast as possible. The phrase "with all deliberate speed" is vague and lacks a specific due - date, which could lead students to procrastinate as there is no clear deadline pressure.
3. Forcing school districts to pay for transporting black students to white schools could be seen as a way to enforce desegregation and ensure equal access to education. However, it may face resistance due to cost and local attitudes. If one district is predominantly white and a neighboring one predominantly black due to residential patterns, the state may be morally and legally obligated to redraw school districts or build new schools to promote integration and equal educational opportunities. But this would also face challenges such as funding and local opposition.

Answer:

1. It means promptly yet carefully and thoughtfully moving towards desegregation.
2. No, because the lack of a specific due - date and the vagueness of the phrase may lead to procrastination.
3. Forcing transportation payment could enforce desegregation but face resistance. The state may be obligated to redraw districts or build new schools for integration, but this has challenges.