Racial Isolation in the Public Schools. A Report of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Vol. I, 276 pp. Vol. II (Appendices), 203 pp. $1.00 each, softbound

Social Work ◽  
1968 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice M. Hammel ◽  
Ryan M. Hourigan

Legal wrangling, court decisions, and the timeline of a bill as it becomes law are not always met with public scrutiny or interest. However, there are many seminal moments that have shaped policies, legislation, and litigation in the areas of civil rights and the education of students with special needs. The keystone legislation examined in this chapter has continued to define us as a country and shape our public policy. Influenced by the civil rights movement, parents and advocates of students with special needs learned that true progress for their causes is steeped in the court houses and lawmaking bodies of our states, districts, and in Washington, DC. It is through legislation and litigation that change becomes reality. It was through this paradigm shift that the lives of students with special needs and their families improved. In addition, advocates learned that it is also possible to improve the quality of life for all students. It is through inclusion and an increasingly widened lens when viewing differences and diversity that all students (those with and without special needs) in our schools have the opportunity to learn and grow with those who are different. The path for all, then, is expanded and enriched for the experiences shared through an inclusive and diverse environment. While Linda Brown, and all other students who are African-American are now eligible to attend their neighborhood schools, students with special needs are often bused far from their neighborhoods to be educated with other students because the school system has decided to segregate them according to ability and disability. If Linda had autism today, she might have to ride a bus for an hour and a half (each way) to school every day when her local elementary school is no farther from her home than the Sumner School was in 1951. We clearly still have a long way to go in delineating the rights of all citizens to equal access under the law. The Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case was very important to the cause of those seeking to have students with special needs included in the public schools.


Author(s):  
Derrick Bell

Having Read An Early Draft Of This Manuscript, longtime friend and Harvard University professor Frank Michelman asked: “Was there any way that they, as a Court acting subject to certain public expectations about the differences among courts, legislatures, and constitutional conventions, could have framed their intervention differ­ently from, and better than, the way they actually chose?” I think the answer is yes. Despite decades of efforts to reverse Plessy v. Ferguson and the NAACP lawyers’ well-researched legal arguments supported by reams of social science testimony, the Supreme Court might have determined to adhere to existing precedents. Suppose that, while expressing sympathy for the Negroes’ plight, the Court had decided that Plessy v. Ferguson was still the law of the land? Suppose, moreover, they understood then what is so much clearer now: namely, that the edifice of segregation was built not simply on a troubling judi­cial precedent, but on an unspoken covenant committing the nation to guaranteeing whites a superior status to blacks? On this understanding, could the Court have written a decision that disappointed the hopes of most civil rights lawyers and those they represented while opening up opportunities for effective schooling capable of turning constitutional defeat into a major educational victory? Again, I think the answer is yes. And I have imagined such an alternative. Today we uphold our six decades old decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). We do so with some reluctance and in the face of the argu­ments by the petitioners that segregation in the public schools is unconstitutional and a manifestation of the desire for dominance whose depths and pervasiveness this Court can neither ignore nor easily divine. Giving full weight to these arguments, a decision overturning Plessy, while it might be viewed as a triumph by Negro petitioners and the class they represent, will be condemned by many whites. Their predictable outraged resistance could undermine and eventually negate even the most committed judicial enforcement efforts.


1968 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 700
Author(s):  
Robert C. Nichols ◽  
U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

1968 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Millard Clements ◽  
U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

Author(s):  
Derrick Bell

Graduation Day At Yale University in late May 2002 was blessed with warm, clear weather. It is the hope for such a beautiful morning that enables outdoor commencements to survive the rain-soaked disappointment of those hopes on far too many better-forgotten occasions. Yale’s Old Campus was filled with faculty, administrators, soon-to-be graduates, and their well-dressed families and friends. Under the canopy-covered stage, there were ten individuals designated to receive honorary degrees because of their significant achievements. I was there at the invitation of one of those honorees, Robert L. Carter, my mentor and friend for more than forty years. Then eighty-five, a senior judge on the federal district court with thirty years of service, Carter had previously enjoyed a long and distinguished career as an NAACP civil rights attorney and, for a few years, a partner in a large law firm. All of these accomplishments would be worthy of the praise and warm applause that other candidates received. When, though, Yale University president Richard Levin announced that Judge Carter was an important member of the legal team that planned the strategies and argued the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education , noting that the decision was only two years short of its fiftieth anniver­sary, the audience leaped to its feet and, with great enthusiasm, applauded and cheered. On that happy day, Judge Carter was the recipient of the audience’s appreciation for his work in helping litigate a case in which the Supreme Court had held racial segregation in the public schools unconstitutional. The mainly white audience that had assembled for the commencement exercises at one of the nation’s premier universities was not unsophisticated. For them, and so many others regardless or status or race, Brown v. Board of Education evoked awe and respect. I fasked, most would have agreed that the decision was the finest hour of American law. In their view, this long-awaited and now much-appreciated decision had erased the contradiction between the freedom and justice for all that America proclaimed, and the subordination by race permitted by our highest law.


Author(s):  
Derrick Bell

Yale Law School Professor Alexander Bickel was a major consti­tutional scholar of his time. When, in 1970, he questioned the long-term viability of the Brown decision in a highly praised book, civil rights lawyers and liberal scholars were annoyed. Few of us at that time had any doubts that we would eventually prevail in eradicating segrega­tion “root and branch” from the public schools. Now, more than three decades later, Professor Bickel’s prediction, heavily criticized at the time, has become an unhappy but all too accurate reality. In this chapter I will examine the resistance by whites and the rigidity by civil rights lawyers and leaders that combined to transform Bickel’s prediction into prophesy. Even the optimists among us had continuing reasons to regret the “all deliberate speed” standard for implementing Brown I. The Supreme Court insisted in Brown II that its unique-compliance formula was intended to do no more than allow time for the necessary adminis­trative changes that transformation to a desegregated school system required. After a decade of experience with the standard, Judge Robert L. Carter, former NAACP General Counsel, surmised that the formula actually permitted movement toward compliance on terms that the white South could accept.1 Until Brown II, Carter said, constitutional rights had been defined as personal and present, but under the guise of judicial statesmanship, “the Warren Court sacri­ficed individual and immediate vindication of the newly discovered right of blacks to a desegregated education in favor of a remedy more palatable to whites.” Carter suggests that the Court failed to realize the depth or nature of the problem, and by attempting to regulate the pace of desegrega­tion so as to convey a show of compassion and understanding for the white South, it not only failed to develop a willingness to comply, but instead aroused the hope that resistance to the constitutional imper­ative would succeed. As had happened so frequently before, southern politicians began waving the Confederate flag and equating the Brown decision with a Supreme Court-led attack on states’ rights. Highway billboards called for the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren, and candidates were elected to office on campaigns based on little more than shouting “Never.”


Author(s):  
James P. McCartin

This chapter focuses on Milwaukee priest James Groppi, who marched alongside local African American children boycotting public schools to protest racial inequality. It reaffirms that deep into the postwar era “integralism—the integration of Christian practice into all activities of one's everyday life—provided the spiritual foundation for Catholic activism.” Integral Catholics heeded the call of American Jesuit Gerald Ellard to “live ... with the life of Christ living within us.” This practice of piety changed politics, and then piety itself was changed via personal experiences of prophetic Catholicism in action. This prophetic mode became Dorothy Day's “radical” daily witness beginning in the 1930s; three decades later it approached normative status among a wide swath of Catholics from all walks of life.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document