《brown v. board of education of topeka 347 u.s. 483 (1954).doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《brown v. board of education of topeka 347 u.s. 483 (1954).doc（8页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、U.S. Supreme CourtBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)Brown v. Board of Education of TopekaArgued December 9, 1952Reargued December 8, 1953Decided May 17, 1954*APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSASSyllabusSegregation of white and Negro children
2、in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment - even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors of white an
3、d Negro schools may be equal. (a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education. Pp. 347 U. S. 489-490.(b) The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopte
4、d, but in the light of the full development of public education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Pp. 347 U. S. 492-493.(c) Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made ava
5、ilable to all on equal terms. P. 347 U. S. 493.(d) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal. Pp. 347 U. S. 493-494.(e)
6、The separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, has no place in the field of public education. P. 347 U. S. 495. (f) The cases are restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the forms of the decrees. Pp. 347 U. S. 495-496. MR. CHIEF J
7、USTICE WARREN delivered 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 opin
8、ion. Footnote 1 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 chil
9、dren 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 t
10、he plaintiffs on the so-called separate but equal doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Fergson, 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. In the Delaware case, t
11、he 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
12、the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. Footnote 2 Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court. Footnote 3 Reargument was largely devoted to th
13、e 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
14、 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 p
15、ersons 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 deg
16、ree of certainty.An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendments history with respect to segregated schools is the status of public education at that time. Footnote 4 In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Educ
17、ation 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
18、in the arts and sciences, as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that 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 Nort
19、h, 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, i
20、t 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 in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all stat
21、e-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. Footnote 5 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. Footnote 6 American courts have since labored with the doctrine f
22、or over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the separate but equal doctrine in the field of public education. Footnote 7 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.
23、Footnote 8 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; Sweat
24、t 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
25、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, qualificati
26、ons and salaries of teachers, and other tangible factors. Footnote 9 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 app
27、roaching 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 ca
28、n 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 re
29、cognition 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 valu
30、es, 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 underta
31、ken 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 tangible factors may be equal, deprive the children of th
32、e 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 those qualities which are incapable of objective me
33、asurement 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 dis
34、cussions 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
35、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 plai
36、ntiffs: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 i
37、nferiority 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. Footnote 10
38、Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Footnote 11 Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of
39、 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 guarante
40、ed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Footnote 12Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variet
41、y 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
42、 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
43、by the Court for the reargument this Term. Footnote 13 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 Sept
44、ember 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954. Footnote 14It is so ordered.* Together with No. 2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; No. 4,
45、 Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, argued December 10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953, and No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al., on certiorari to the Supreme Court
46、 of Delaware, argued December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953.Footnote 1In the Kansas case, Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs are Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enjoi
47、n enforcement of a Kansas statute which permits, but does not require, cities of more than 15,000 population to maintain separate school facilities for Negro and white students. Kan.Gen.Stat. 72-1724 (1949). Pursuant to that authority, the Topeka Board of Education elected to establish segregated el
48、ementary schools. Other public schools in the community, however, are operated on a nonsegregated basis. The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S.C. 2281 and 2284, found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon Negro children, but denied relief on the ground th
49、at the Negro and white schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers. 98 F.Supp. 797. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1253.In the South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in Clarendon County. They brought this action in the Uni
