brown vs. board of education of topeka kansas 1954 summary

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Brown v. Board of Education

By: History.com Editors

Updated: February 27, 2024 | Original: October 27, 2009

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case in which the justices ruled unanimously that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education was one of the cornerstones of the civil rights movement, and helped establish the precedent that “separate-but-equal” education and other services were not, in fact, equal at all.

Separate But Equal Doctrine 

In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that racially segregated public facilities were legal, so long as the facilities for Black people and whites were equal.

The ruling constitutionally sanctioned laws barring African Americans from sharing the same buses, schools and other public facilities as whites—known as “Jim Crow” laws —and established the “separate but equal” doctrine that would stand for the next six decades.

But by the early 1950s, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP ) was working hard to challenge segregation laws in public schools, and had filed lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs in states such as South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware.

In the case that would become most famous, a plaintiff named Oliver Brown filed a class-action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, in 1951, after his daughter, Linda Brown , was denied entrance to Topeka’s all-white elementary schools.

In his lawsuit, Brown claimed that schools for Black children were not equal to the white schools, and that segregation violated the so-called “equal protection clause” of the 14th Amendment , which holds that no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The case went before the U.S. District Court in Kansas, which agreed that public school segregation had a “detrimental effect upon the colored children” and contributed to “a sense of inferiority,” but still upheld the “separate but equal” doctrine.

Brown v. Board of Education Verdict

When Brown’s case and four other cases related to school segregation first came before the Supreme Court in 1952, the Court combined them into a single case under the name Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka . 

Thurgood Marshall , the head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, served as chief attorney for the plaintiffs. (Thirteen years later, President Lyndon B. Johnson would appoint Marshall as the first Black Supreme Court justice.)

At first, the justices were divided on how to rule on school segregation, with Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson holding the opinion that the Plessy verdict should stand. But in September 1953, before Brown v. Board of Education was to be heard, Vinson died, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower replaced him with Earl Warren , then governor of California .

Displaying considerable political skill and determination, the new chief justice succeeded in engineering a unanimous verdict against school segregation the following year.

In the decision, issued on May 17, 1954, Warren wrote that “in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place,” as segregated schools are “inherently unequal.” As a result, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs were being “deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”

Little Rock Nine

In its verdict, the Supreme Court did not specify how exactly schools should be integrated, but asked for further arguments about it.

In May 1955, the Court issued a second opinion in the case (known as Brown v. Board of Education II ), which remanded future desegregation cases to lower federal courts and directed district courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation “with all deliberate speed.”

Though well intentioned, the Court’s actions effectively opened the door to local judicial and political evasion of desegregation. While Kansas and some other states acted in accordance with the verdict, many school and local officials in the South defied it.

In one major example, Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas called out the state National Guard to prevent Black students from attending high school in Little Rock in 1957. After a tense standoff, President Eisenhower deployed federal troops, and nine students—known as the “ Little Rock Nine ”— were able to enter Central High School under armed guard.

Impact of Brown v. Board of Education

Though the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board didn’t achieve school desegregation on its own, the ruling (and the steadfast resistance to it across the South) fueled the nascent  civil rights movement  in the United States.

In 1955, a year after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus. Her arrest sparked the Montgomery bus boycott and would lead to other boycotts, sit-ins and demonstrations (many of them led by Martin Luther King Jr .), in a movement that would eventually lead to the toppling of Jim Crow laws across the South.

Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , backed by enforcement by the Justice Department, began the process of desegregation in earnest. This landmark piece of civil rights legislation was followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 .

Runyon v. McCrary Extends Policy to Private Schools

In 1976, the Supreme Court issued another landmark decision in Runyon v. McCrary , ruling that even private, nonsectarian schools that denied admission to students on the basis of race violated federal civil rights laws.

By overturning the “separate but equal” doctrine, the Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education had set the legal precedent that would be used to overturn laws enforcing segregation in other public facilities. But despite its undoubted impact, the historic verdict fell short of achieving its primary mission of integrating the nation’s public schools.

Today, more than 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education , the debate continues over how to combat racial inequalities in the nation’s school system, largely based on residential patterns and differences in resources between schools in wealthier and economically disadvantaged districts across the country.

HISTORY Vault: Black History

Watch acclaimed Black History documentaries on HISTORY Vault.

History – Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment, United States Courts . Brown v. Board of Education, The Civil Rights Movement: Volume I (Salem Press). Cass Sunstein, “Did Brown Matter?” The New Yorker , May 3, 2004. Brown v. Board of Education, PBS.org . Richard Rothstein, Brown v. Board at 60, Economic Policy Institute , April 17, 2014.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction & Top Questions
• Background and case

• What is the significance of Brown v. Board of Education ?
• What was the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education ?
• When did the American civil rights movement start?

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Constitution Center - Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
• United States Court - History - Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment
• National Archives - Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
• Ohio State University - Origins - The Long-Term Legacies of Brown v. Board
• Public Broadcasting Service - American Experience - Brown v. Board of Education
• BlackPast - Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Writing for the court, Chief Justice Earl Warren argued that the question of whether racially segregated public schools were inherently unequal, and thus beyond the scope of the separate but equal doctrine, could be answered only by considering “the effect of segregation itself on public education.” Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sweatt v. Painter (1950) and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (1950), which recognized “intangible” inequalities between African American and all-white schools at the graduate level, Warren held that such inequalities also existed between the schools in the case before him, despite their equality with respect to “tangible” factors such as buildings and curricula. Specifically, he agreed with a finding of the Kansas district court that the policy of forcing African American children to attend separate schools solely because of their race created in them a feeling of inferiority that undermined their motivation to learn and deprived them of educational opportunities they would enjoy in racially integrated schools. This finding, he noted, was “amply supported” by contemporary psychological research. He concluded that “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” In Bolling v. Sharpe he stated that racial segregation of schools violated due process of law, and, in a reference to the Brown ruling, noted that “it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution [which prohibits racially segregated schools] would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government.”

Recent News

In a subsequent opinion on the question of relief, commonly referred to as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (II) , argued April 11–14, 1955, and decided on May 31 of that year, Warren ordered the district courts and local school authorities to take appropriate steps to integrate public schools in their jurisdictions “with all deliberate speed.” This failure to set time limits helped set the stage for years of conflicts over public school desegregation and other discriminatory practices.

Southern states largely opposed desegregation, and efforts to integrate were often highly contentious . Notably, violent protests erupted when African American teenagers (known as the Little Rock Nine ) attempted to attend a white high school in Little Rock , Arkansas , in 1957–58. Barred from entering, they were admitted only after U.S. Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower sent in U.S. troops and took command of the state’s National Guard. Arkansas’s governor responded by closing all of Little Rock’s public high schools in 1958–59. Other Southern cities followed suit, often implementing “school-choice” programs that subsidized white students’ attendance at private segregated academies, which were not covered by the Brown ruling. As a result, many Southern schools remained almost completely segregated until the late 1960s.

Brown v. Board of Education is considered a milestone in American civil rights history. The case—and the efforts to undermine the decision—brought greater awareness to racial inequalities and the struggles African Americans faced. The success of Brown galvanized civil rights activists and increased efforts to end institutionalized racism throughout American society.

The most comprehensive and authoritative history site on the Internet.

The Supreme Court Decision That Changed America: Brown v. Board of Education

Finally, the justices overturned jim crow, tossing out ‘separate but equal’ standard.

On December 13, 1952, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court met to consider five cases they had heard argued earlier that week. Those cases raised the most explosive topic any of the jurists would ever have to rule on: whether the Constitution allowed American public school districts to continue to use racial criteria to segregate facilities. Opening the discussion, Chief Justice Fred Vinson admitted, “The situation is very serious and very emotional.”

This was no theoretical matter. In the South, 17 states required public schools to separate students by race, and Kansas, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Arizona permitted school segregation by law. But the country had begun to rethink segregation. In 1947, California had repealed a law mandating separate schools for Asians. The next year, President Harry Truman issued an executive order ending racial segregation in the armed forces and Arkansas desegregated its state university.

The justices had long relied on predecessors’ 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson , which said that it was not a violation of the guarantee of equal protection of the law to consign people of different races—for which read Whites and others—to separate facilities, provided those facilities were equal. But the justices had begun to take baby steps away from the court’s historic pattern of defending school segregation. In the mid-1930s civil rights activists had begun litigating the question of whether educational facilities assigned blacks were in fact equal. These efforts led initally to cases that involved graduate education—not nearly as hot-button a topic as integrating primary and secondary schools would have been.

That tactic generated the first Supreme Court ruling against racial segregation in education. The 1938 decision found that Missouri was not giving equal treatment—and therefore was violating the Constitution—when the state university law school refused to admit a qualified African American, even though the institution offered to pay his tuition at a law school in an adjacent state. In 1950 the court held unconstitutional the Texas policy of maintaining separate, racially segregated law schools, because not only did the school for Whites boast a greater variety of courses and a better library but also enjoyed a superior reputation and “standing in the community.” The same day, the justices embraced an even broader reading of “equal” by holding unconstitutional a University of Oklahoma policy forcing a Black doctoral candidate to sit at a separate table when in a classroom, library, or cafeteria.

The justices knew that any ruling on segregation in grades K-12 would detonate in ways that decisions on post-baccalaureate education did not. So incendiary was the prospect that at that December 1952 meeting the justices decided not to rule on the issue. Without a formal vote, they set the five cases for rehearing in 1953. However, discussion revealed that four justices were ready to ban racial school segregation and four others found the Constitution to permit school segregation, while one—Felix Frankfurter—would ban segregation only in Washington, DC.

Three months before the cases were to be argued again, Chief Justice Vinson died of a heart attack. President Dwight Eisenhower gave California Governor Earl Warren an interim appointment to the Court, allowing him to step immediately into the role of chief justice in time to hear the desegregation cases; Warren’s Senate confirmation, by acclamation, came five months later.

Vinson had favored segregation, infusing Warren’s appointment with huge impact. As governor Warren had spurred California’s repeal of its law dictating separate schools for Asians, and as a justice he could be counted as a fifth vote against segregation, making a majority.  

But Warren wanted the Supreme Court to strike down school segregation with a unified voice. He opened the conference after the 1953 re-arguments by saying, “There is great value in unanimity and uniformity, even if we have some differences.” He painted the question of continuing segregation as a moral one, precedent be damned.  

“The basis of the principle of segregation and separate but equal rests upon the basic premise that the Negro race is inferior,” Warren told colleagues. “I don’t see how we can continue in this day and age to set one group apart from the rest and say that that they are not entitled to exactly the same treatment as all others.”

Warren’s reasoning closely reflected the oral argument the lead lawyer for the students pressing for integrated schools had made to the court. The NAACP’s Thurgood Marshall, later the Supreme Court’s first African-American member, had told the justices that if they found continued school segregation allowable “the only way to arrive at this decision is to find that for some reason Negroes are inferior to all other human beings.”

Not every justice agreed. “Segregation is not done on the theory of racial inferiority, but of racial differences,” Stanley Reed, the most adamant resister, argued to his colleagues. “It protects people against the mixing of races.” But Warren was able to convince Reed and the other dissenters that, since a majority was going to hand down a contentious ruling deeming school segregation unconstitutional, it would be best for the nation if there were no public disagreement.  

That call for unanimity was so compelling that when the decision came on May 17, 1954, Justice Robert H. Jackson left his hospital bed to be with his colleagues in the courtroom.  

To underline the ruling’s national nature and make clear that it was not a regional jab at the South, the High Court cited as the first case one brought on behalf of Kansas schoolgirl Linda Brown. Local authorities had barred her from attending her neighborhood elementary; thus the historic title Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka .

Warren wrote the opinion, a mere 13 paragraphs long and devoid of Latinate legalisms. The issue could no longer be whether educational opportunities being offered Black and White students in segregated schools were equal—in the cases before the court, facilities and programs were in fact equal or making significant strides in that direction—but whether separation itself violated the 14th Amendment promise of equal protection under the law. Warren insisted that school segregation by its nature was unequal, inflicting particular harm on children: “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 that is unlikely ever to be undone.” As evidence, Warren unconventionally cited not legal precedent but results of seven sociological and psychological studies showing that Negro children in segregated schools did in fact feel that blacks were inferior.

Warren’s decision acknowledged “a great variety of local conditions” and asked the litigants to recommend how to achieve integration. In May 1955 the chief justice announced the High Court’s second Brown decision, calling for school desegregation to proceed “with all deliberate speed” but telling lower courts overseeing compliance to recognize that they “may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling.”

Change began. However, so many localities resisted that integration was still being fought in 1970. That year President Richard Nixon, declaring Brown “right in both constitutional and human terms,” created a Cabinet-level committee to put federal muscle behind its mandate. But Brown did generate one immediate impact. As lawyer-journalist-professor Roger Wilkins phrased it, the decision was a ringing rebuke to a cultural smear that African Americans had had to grow up with—that they were inherently inferior.  

“For me, May 17, 1954 was a second Emancipation Day,” Wilkins declared. 

This SCOTUS 101 column appeared in the April 2021 issue of American History

Related stories

Portfolio: Images of War as Landscape

Whether they produced battlefield images of the dead or daguerreotype portraits of common soldiers, […]

Jerrie Mock: Record-Breaking American Female Pilot

In 1964 an Ohio woman took up the challenge that had led to Amelia Earhart’s disappearance.

Western Writers of America Announces Its 2024 Wister Award Winner

Historian Quintard Taylor has devoted his career to retracing the black experience out West.

How Saladin Became A Successful War Leader

How Saladin, Egypt’s first Sultan, unified his allies and won the admiration of his foes.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Primary tabs.

Brown v. Board of Education  (1954) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the  “Separate but Equal” doctrine  and outlawed the ongoing segregation in schools. The court ruled that laws mandating and enforcing racial segregation in public schools were unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools were “separate but equal” in standards. The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous and felt that " separate educational facilities are inherently unequal ," and hence a violation of the  Equal Protection Clause  of the  Fourteenth Amendment  of the  U.S. Constitution . Nonetheless, since the ruling did not list or specify a particular method or way of how to proceed in ending racial segregation in schools, the Court's ruling i n  Brown II (1955)  demanded states to desegregate “ with all deliberate speed .”

Background :

The events relevant to this specific case first occurred in 1951, when a public school district in Topeka, Kansas refused to let Oliver Brown’s daughter enroll at the nearest school to their home and instead required her to enroll at a school further away. Oliver Brown and his daughter were black. The Brown family, along with twelve other local black families in similar circumstances, filed a class action lawsuit against the Topeka Board of Education in a federal court arguing that the segregation policy of forcing black students to attend separate schools was unconstitutional. However, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ruled against the Browns, justifying their decision on judicial precedent of the Supreme Court's 1896 decision in   Plessy v. Ferguson , which ruled that racial segregation did not violate the  Fourteenth Amendment 's  Equal Protection Clause  as long as the facilities and situations were equal, hence the doctrine known as " separate but equal ." After this decision from the District Court in Kansas, the Browns, who were represented by the then NAACP chief counsel Thurgood Marshall,  appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Brown overruled  Plessy v. Ferguson  by holding that the  "separate but equal" doctrine  was unconstitutional for American educational facilities and public schools. This decision led to more integration in other areas and was seen as major victory for the Civil Rights Movement. Many  future litigation cases used the similar argumentation methods used by Marshall in this case. While this was seen as a landmark decision, many in the American Deep South were uncomfortable with this decision. Various Southern politicians tried to actively resist or delay attempts to desegregated their schools. These collective efforts were known as the “ Massive Resistance ,” which was started by Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd. Thus, in just four years after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed its ruling again in the case of  Cooper v. Aaron , holding that government officials had no power to ignore the ruling or to frustrate and delay desegregation. 

See also: Oyez -  Brown  Revisited

[Last updated in August of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

• ACADEMIC TOPICS
• legal history
• civil rights
• education law
• THE LEGAL PROCESS
• legal practice/ethics
• constitutional law
• group rights
• legal education and practice
• wex articles

How Brown v. Board of Education Changed Public Education for the Better

• An Introduction to Teaching
• Tips & Strategies
• Policies & Discipline
• Community Involvement
• School Administration
• Technology in the Classroom
• Teaching Adult Learners
• Issues In Education
• Teaching Resources
• Becoming A Teacher
• Assessments & Tests
• Elementary Education
• Secondary Education
• Special Education
• Homeschooling
• M.Ed., Educational Administration, Northeastern State University
• B.Ed., Elementary Education, Oklahoma State University

One of the most historical court cases, especially in terms of education, was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka , 347 U.S. 483 (1954). This case took on segregation within school systems or the separation of White and Black students within public schools. Up until this case, many states had laws establishing separate schools for White students and another for Black students. This landmark case made those laws unconstitutional.

The decision was handed down on May 17, 1954. It overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which had allowed states legalize segregation within schools. The chief justice in the case was Justice Earl Warren . His court’s decision was a unanimous 9-0 decision that said, “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." The ruling essentially led the way for the civil rights movement and essentially integration across the United States.

Fast Facts: Brown v. Board of Education

• Case Argued: December 9–11, 1952; December 7–9, 1953
• Decision Issued:  May 17, 1954
• Petitioners:  Oliver Brown, Mrs. Richard Lawton, Mrs. Sadie Emmanuel, et al
• Respondent:  Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, et al
• Key Questions: Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Unanimous Decision: Justices Warren, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Jackson, Burton, Clark, and Minton
• Ruling: "Separate but equal" educational facilities, segregated on the basis of race, are inherently unequal and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A class action suit was filed against the Board of Education of the city of Topeka, Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in 1951. The plaintiffs consisted of 13 parents of 20 children who attended the Topeka School District. They filed the suit hoping that the school district would change its policy of racial segregation .

Each of the plaintiffs was recruited by the Topeka NAACP , led by McKinley Burnett, Charles Scott, and Lucinda Scott. Oliver L. Brown was the named plaintiff in the case. He was an African American welder, father, and assistant pastor at a local church. His team chose to use his name as part of a legal tactic to have a man’s name on the front of the suit. He was also a strategic choice because he, unlike some of the other parents, was not a single parent and, the thinking went, would appeal more strongly to a jury. 

In the fall of 1951, 21 parents attempted to enroll their children in the closest school to their homes, but each was denied enrollment and told that they must enroll in the segregated school. This prompted the class action suit to be filed. At the district level, the court ruled in favor of the Topeka Board of Education saying that both schools were equal in regards to transportation, buildings, curriculum, and highly qualified teachers. The case then went on to the Supreme Court and was combined with four other similar suits from across the country.

Significance

Brown v. Board  entitled students to receive a quality education regardless of their racial status. It also allowed for African American teachers to teach in any public school they chose, a privilege that was not granted before the Supreme Court ruling in 1954. The ruling set the foundation for the civil rights movement and gave African American’s hope that “separate, but equal” on all fronts would be changed. Unfortunately, however, desegregation was not that easy and is a project that has not been finished, even today. 

• An Overview of the American Federation of Teachers
• An In-Depth Look at the Common Core State Standards
• What Does the National Education Association Do?
• Pros and Cons of Teacher Tenure
• What are the Pros and Cons of Charter Schools?
• Educational Philosophy Basics
• Effective Learning Environment and School Choice
• Impact of the Common Core Standards
• Problems for Teachers That Limit Their Overall Effectiveness
• An Overview of Early Childhood Education
• How School Legislation Impacts Teaching and Learning
• 50 Important Facts You Should Know About Teachers
• How the Federal Title I Program Helps Students and Schools
• What Teacher Candidates Can Expect in a Teacher Interview
• Homogeneous Groups in Education
• Performance Based Pay for Teachers

Prologue Magazine

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

A landmark case unresolved fifty years later.

Spring 2004, Vol. 36, No. 1

By Jean Van Delinder

"Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments." —Chief Justice Earl Warren, Opinion on Segregated Laws Delivered May 1954

First page of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. (Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, RG 267)

View in National Archives Catalog

When the United States Supreme Court handed down its unanimous decision in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case fifty years ago this spring, it thrust the issue of school desegregation into the national spotlight.

The ruling that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" brought racial issues into the forefront of the national consciousness as never before and forced all Americans to confront a racially divided society and undemocratic social practices. At the same time, the decision opened the floodgates of decades of school desegregation suits in both the North and the South.

But the ruling did much more than that. It gave impetus to a young civil rights movement that would write much of American history during the next few decades.

The school segregation issue was ripe for being brought to the first tier of social concerns. Elsewhere in American society, segregation was breaking down.

Important steps were taken in 1941, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 , forbidding racial discrimination by any defense contractor and establishing a Fair Employment Practices Committee as a regulatory agency to investigate charges of racial discrimination.

In 1947, Major League Baseball saw its first black player in Jackie Robinson . In 1948, President Harry S. Truman ordered the desegregation of the armed forces, which had already seen black and white Americans fighting side by side in World War II. That same year, under the guise of states' rights, racial issues split the Democratic Party.

School segregation came at a high cost even outside of the human costs. For example, school districts had to maintain two school systems within one geographical area. Prior to 1954, Topeka, Kansas, maintained half-empty classrooms in segregated schools in order to keep the races separate. After Brown, this pattern continued with racism disguised as "freedom of choice"—justifying building new schools in outlying areas as merely a response to the population shift to new subdivisions rapidly being built in the western areas of the city (which turned out to be predominantly white and upper class). Left behind were the less affluent, primarily black, residents who had little choice but to send their children to outdated and increasingly inferior schools.

Brown also caused Americans to revisit the role of the national government in regulating local issues. Century-old arguments, reminiscent of the debates over slavery, were revived to defend the primacy of states' rights over federal jurisdiction. The same language used to defend slavery was now being used to defend segregation. Words like "interposition" and "nullification"—which hadn't been heard for more than a century—were used to defend school segregation. 1

Just as the Civil War caused Americans to confront the ugly reality of slavery, so too did Brown inspire Americans to confront its undemocratic system of education.

In recognizing the importance of education as the foundation of a democratic society, the Brown decision expressed the sentiments of Thomas Jefferson that publicly funded education was to be the primary mechanism to develop a natural elite and to ensure that the new republic had a literate citizenry regardless of social class. Jefferson's beliefs were reflected in the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who justified the significance of education in the Brown decision as being "the very foundation of good citizenship." 2

The Topeka Brown case is important because it helped convince the Court that even when physical facilities and other "tangible" factors were equal, segregation still deprived minority children of equal educational opportunities.

Over the years, numerous scholars have traced the history of the Brown case and analyzed its impact as federal legislation. Yet most of these studies have been written from a national perspective, distant from the day-to-day life of the local people most affected by school desegregation.

The Topeka Brown records provide a glimpse of what people were doing in their local communities, where the struggle for racial justice was a continuing reality, year in and year out. The records help us to understand the reality of school segregation in places like Topeka, where it was only legal in the elementary schools. What was the effect of "separate-but-equal"?

Overview of the National Case before the Supreme Court

In October 1952, the Supreme Court announced it would hear five pending school desegregation cases collectively. In chronological order, the five consolidated cases were 1949: Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al. (South Carolina); 1950: Bolling v. Sharpe (District of Columbia); 3 May 1951: Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al. (Virginia); June 1951: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Kansas); October 1951: Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al. (Delaware).

These cases all document inadequate funding for segregated schools—meaning that many black children lacked playgrounds, ball fields, cafeterias, libraries, auditoriums, and other amenities provided for white children in newer schools. In Summerton, South Carolina, and Hockessin, Delaware, school buses were only provided for whites, while black children had to walk. In Claymont, Delaware, and Farmville, Virginia, there was no senior high school for black pupils.

The Brown case of Topeka, Kansas, itself included twelve other plaintiffs besides Oliver Brown, whose daughter Linda was being bused twenty-one blocks from her home to a segregated school. The nearest school in her neighborhood was only a few blocks away, but it was for whites only.

All of these cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, and the first round of arguments were held December 9–11, 1952. The following June, the Supreme Court ordered that a second round of arguments be heard in October 1953. When Chief Justice Fred Vinson, Jr., died unexpectedly of a heart attack in September, President Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated California Governor Earl Warren to replace Vinson. The Court rescheduled Brown v. Board arguments for December. On May 17, 1954, the Court declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively overturning the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision mandating "separate but equal."

The Brown ruling directly affected legally segregated schools in twenty-one states. In 1954, seventeen states had laws requiring segregated schools (Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware), and four other states had laws permitting rather than requiring segregated schools (Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming). Kansas's state statutes restricted segregated elementary schools only to cities, such as Topeka, that had populations of more than fifteen thousand.

Page 11 of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which states that the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place in public education. (Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, RG 267)

Though the 1954 ruling declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, it did not specify how this was to be remedied. Originally the Court scheduled arguments on this subject for later in the year, but it did not hear what would become the third round of arguments in Brown until April 1955. 4 On the last day of its term, the Supreme Court ordered desegregation to begin with "all deliberate speed."

In the intervening year, the District of Columbia and some school districts in other states had voluntarily begun to desegregate their schools. However, state-sanctioned opposition to desegregation was already well under way in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, where the Court's decision had been declared "null, void, and no effect." Across the South, schools were closed and public education was suspended. Public funds were disbursed to parents to subsidize the education of their children in private schools. Some states even went so far as to impose sanctions on anyone who implemented desegregation.

Effects of the Supreme Court Decision in Kansas

In Topeka, resistance to desegregation was more indirect, subtle, and covert. Historically, the color line in Kansas was more permeable than it was South Carolina or Virginia. Its "border state" ideology was directed more toward racial collegiality and inclusion than animosity and exclusion. Kansas had relatively permissive segregation statutes (compared to some southern states).

For example, segregation was permitted in elementary schools where the population exceeded fifteen thousand (cities of the first class). The one segregated high school—Sumner High School in Kansas City, Kansas—had been established in 1905 after a special act of the legislature allowed segregation of a secondary school in this one instance. However, Kansas's permissive racial statutes served to disguise the underlying reality of an unwritten code of racial separation that rivaled locales where total de jure public segregation was practiced. Topeka's continued segregation of its public school system after Brown illustrates how the dismantling of a de jure system of segregation does not necessarily include the end of racist social practices.

Over the several decades following Brown, covert opposition to desegregation was carried out under cover of school redistricting and convoluted attendance boundaries. It was also aided by real estate developers riding the postwar housing boom, who urged white Topekans to buy new houses and move to the newer—and racially homogenous—western suburbs. The City of Topeka obliged this migration by annexing western territory several times between 1950 and 1979. There was a corresponding rise in demand for more schools from the Topeka Board of Education and its successor, Unified School District #501. Between 1957 and 1966, Topeka witnessed the creation of an "alternative predominantly white, school sub-system generally around the peripheral boundary but specifically concentrated in the southern and western portions of the Topeka school system." New schools built after 1959 would have pupil racial ratios that would be all or disproportionately white. Additionally, classroom additions and portable classrooms would be primarily placed at disproportionately white schools.

Though the official end of segregation in 1954 met with far less hostility in Kansas than in Mississippi or South Carolina, African Americans still encountered obstacles. News correspondent Carl T. Rowan had found Topeka to be a "pretty segregated city" when he lived there as a navy trainee during World War II. Returning to Kansas in 1953, he described his earlier experiences by observing, "Topeka was a paradox. There was no Jim Crow in some areas where you had expected it; segregation had deep roots where it was not expected."

The state's permissive segregation laws meant that overt segregation was strictly limited, while covert segregationist practices arose unrestrained. "There was no segregation on city buses, or in any public transportation," Rowan recalled. "But I was unable to go to a movie or into a restaurant with white navy buddies. Hotels, bowling alleys and other public recreation facilities were closed to Negroes."

A decade later and just a few months before the first Brown decision, Rowan still found it difficult to find a restaurant willing to serve him and his companion, attorney Charles Scott, the original lawyer involved in the Brown case. Despite the legal demise of segregation, informal segregation was still intact. Rowan and Scott were asked by one restaurant owner to eat in the kitchen not because of any law requiring racial separation, but simply because it was his "policy." As an attorney, Scott understood that it was much easier to remove segregation laws than to confront and change the informal racial practices that permeated the embarrassing day-to-day reality of racial segregation. "And it stems from Jim Crow schools," Scott declared to Rowan as they left one restaurant without being served, "because when segregation is part of the pattern of learning it permeates every area of life."

Early Challenges to School Segregation in Topeka: 1900–1950

In Kansas, the antecedents of the Brown case can be traced back through eleven previous lawsuits challenging segregation. Beginning in 1880, these suits all challenged the legality of school segregation as it was practiced in Kansas. 5 Of the three cases that involved Topeka's schools, two are especially relevant to the Brown case. The earliest case, dating from 1901, involved the introduction of segregation in recently annexed areas (the Reynolds case), and the other case (the Graham case in 1940) involved the decision of whether or not junior high schools fell under the state's segregation statutes.

Similar patterns of racial upheaval and containment, begun with the annexation issues related to the Reynolds case and the limitation of segregation to elementary schools as illustrated by the Graham case, continued throughout the Brown litigation.

The issues involved in both of these cases were the effect of segregation itself on public education, the system of social practices that had arisen around it, and whether segregation as it existed was a violation of the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, the same issues involved in the Brown decision.

"In approaching this problem," Chief Justice Warren wrote in 1954, "we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the [Fourteenth] 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 can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."

In Kansas, both the Reynolds and Graham cases illustrate the development of the issues that came to fruition nationally in the Brown case.

The Reynolds Case

The Topeka State Journal reported the historic May 17, 1954, decision that segregation in public schools must end. (Records of District Courts of the United States, RG 21, NARA–Central Plains Region [Kansas City])

On February 1, 1901, William Reynolds tried to enroll his eight-year-old son Raul in the new school that was reserved for whites. When he was refused, Reynolds filed suit on behalf of his son. In the complaint, the court record stated that

Because of race and color, and for no other reason whatever, his child has been and is excluded from attending school in said new building by the express order and direction of said board . . . thus putting publicly upon the plaintiff and his child the badge of a servile race, and holds them up to public gaze as unfit to associate, even in a public institution of the state, with other races and nationalities, in violation of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the United States, and, in violation of said fourteenth amendment, denies to the plaintiff and his child the equal protection of the laws.

The context behind the Reynolds suit was related to the geographical circumstances of Topeka. The westward growth of Topeka was caused in part by its being geographically constrained by the Kansas River to its north and southeast. Due to the contours of its flood plain, the least desirable land was north and east of the city, an area that came to be predominately African American. The more desirable land—which rarely flooded—was toward the west and south, and was predominately white. This pattern of settlement would continue throughout the twentieth century.

In the 1890s, the city of Topeka annexed part of a rural district, No. 91, south and west of the town's center, locally known as the "Lowman Hill District." Being a rural district, No. 91 did not have segregated schools. After annexation it continued to be integrated because "it did not become convenient or expedient to make provision for separate schools . . . until the said school building was destroyed by fire." After a fire occurred on July 20, 1900, the district implemented segregation by ordering that the fifty African American children living in the area be forced to attend classes in an old building that had been moved to the original site of the burnt-out school and outfitted with second-hand furniture. The district then built a new school for the 130 white children living in the area, which brought about the Reynolds suit.

Reynolds ultimately lost his case, and his son had to attend a segregated school. The school board argued that the new school building was larger and more centrally located in order to accommodate the white children, who outnumbered the African American children living in the area.

We see that as early as 1901, the parents of white children were able to enjoy the benefits of sending their children to newer, neighborhood schools while the parents of African American children had to send their children to segregated schools, many of which were not located close to where they lived.

The Graham Case

Just as land annexation resulted in a challenge to segregation, so too did the shift toward junior high curriculum bring another challenge to Topeka's segregated schools with the Graham case. When the segregation statutes were first written in 1861 and later modified in 1879, junior high schools did not exist, and very few people of any race went on to high school. The subsequent redefinition of state segregation statutes after 1940 was in response to an innovation in the institutional structure of public education accompanied by rapidly increasing enrollments in secondary and post-secondary institutions.

When Topeka adopted the junior high system, it implemented a different educational curriculum for seventh and eighth grade students based on race. White students were provided with a 6-3-3 system, consisting of six years of elementary or grade school, three years of junior high school, and three years of senior high school. Black children were under an 8-1-3 plan.

The 8-1-3 plan meant that African American children in Topeka remained in segregated schools through the eighth grade, choosing either to enter an integrated ninth grade at Boswell Junior High or remain in a segregated class by electing to attend Roosevelt Junior High. White children who left elementary school after sixth grade and attended junior high school were consequently introduced to a much more specialized curriculum.

A 1953 letter from the superintendent of schools advises a black teacher that she won't be retained if segregation is ruled unconstitutional. (Records of District Courts of the United States, RG 21, NARA–Central Plains Region [Kansas City])

The court transcript of the Graham case illustrates the differences between the segregated elementary schools and the junior high schools. When the plaintiff, who had just finished sixth grade, tried to enroll in Boswell Junior High School, he was refused admittance on the basis of his race. He filed suit, claiming the course of instruction offered at Buchanan Elementary was not equal to that available at Boswell Junior High.Boswell was a new facility and built for the express purpose of being a junior high. It contained many more classrooms than the elementary schools, allowing for students to change classes for specialized teaching. In the segregated schools, one instructor taught most of the subjects.

At segregated Buchanan School, one teacher taught most of the math and English courses, while at Boswell Junior High School different instructors taught all these subjects. In the testimony provided by witnesses in the Graham case, the home economics teacher at Buchanan, Miss Ruth Ridley, reported that though her students were well prepared when they graduated from the eighth grade, they did not have facilities comparable to the better equipped and more up-to-date sewing and cooking rooms at Boswell.

Graham won his case: The junior highs in Topeka were legally desegregated. However, the effect was uncertain—desegregation did not include the teaching and administrative staff. For example, after the Graham case, eight African American teachers lost their jobs due to the integration of the junior highs. The assumption that the curriculum was not equal to the white schools reflected poorly on the high dedication and exemplary training of the black teachers, which many of them rightly resented. At two of the four segregated schools in Topeka, more of the teachers held master's degrees than at any of the white grade schools.

Though no formal policy existed to not hire black teachers, it soon became obvious in Topeka that the number of African American teachers slowly dwindled after April 1953. Before the Brown decision, Topeka had 27 African American teachers who taught 779 students. By 1956, the number of African American pupils had increased to 898, but the number of full-time teachers had declined to 21. After the desegregation of the elementary schools in 1954, for most black teachers in Topeka and elsewhere, Brown did not result in integration; it still meant segregation or even worse, unemployment. This decline in employment of black teachers after integration is a largely unacknowledged fact of desegregation.

Contemporary Challenges to School Segregation in Topeka: 1950–1985

By 1950, the Topeka school system had twenty-two elementary schools (9.6 percent black), six junior high schools (9.9 percent black), and one senior high school (7.6 percent black). As permitted by state law, racial segregation of students at the elementary level was strictly adhered to. The four schools that were maintained for black students were Buchanan, McKinley, Monroe, and Washington. Each of these four schools was geographically located in predominately black areas, although students were brought in from throughout the system. Five of the eighteen white elementary schools were located in predominately white areas, while the remaining thirteen schools, though reserved exclusively for whites, were located in racially mixed neighborhoods.

Segregation was maintained at a considerable cost as the four segregated elementary schools had much smaller student enrollments than their white counterparts. In 1950, all four of the segregated schools had an average of 143 pupil spaces underutilized, while the all-white schools were much more crowded, averaging only 28 spaces underutilized. The average black school had an enrollment of 165 students, while the white schools had an average enrollment of 342. Topeka did not use the available classroom space in the black schools to relieve overcrowding in the white schools. Given that thirteen of the eighteen schools reserved for whites were in racially mixed neighborhoods, it would have been relatively simple to reassign pupils without the additional expense of providing transportation.

Racial segregation was sustained over the next thirty years as the Topeka School Board constantly changed boundary lines ensuring that some its elementary schools remained segregated, and its high schools became more segregated than they were before 1954. In 1955, three former all-black elementary schools were still 100 percent black with only 1 percent of its black children attending elementary schools that were formerly for whites.

From 1931 to 1958, Topeka had one, integrated, senior high school: Topeka Senior High School. Five years after the original Brown decision, when faced with the opportunity to continue the racial parity at the senior high school level that had already existed for more tan twenty years, the Topeka Board of Education made a series of decisions that ensured that racial segregation would be compounded by class. As city boundaries expanded to the south and west, two more high schools were added: Highland Park Senior High School, acquired through annexation in 1959, and Topeka West Senior High School, opened in 1961. The aging Topeka Senior High now had 83.2 percent of the black students in the Topeka school system assigned to it while was approximately 11 percent black, and Highland Park was 5.1 percent black. One year later, were now being Topeka High, while Highland Park had 6.5 percent and Topeka West had 0.3 percent.

The 1960 U.S. Census data indicates that the largest concentration of Topeka's black population with school-age children resided midway between Topeka High and Highland Park. A simple change in the attendance boundary when Highland Park was annexed would have brought its minority enrollment to 50 percent. It would have also alleviated overcrowding at Topeka High, since Highland Park had 497 empty seats. Instead, the Topeka School Board elected to build a third high school (Topeka West) at the western fringe of the growing city, assigning to it 2 black children and 702 white children.

Twenty years after Brown, in 1974, the Topeka school system (U.S.D #501) still underutilized predominately black schools while white schools remained overcrowded. For example, there was a 15.1 percent black enrollment at the elementary level, but more than half of them (56.7 percent) were assigned to seven schools, while the nine of the remaining eleven had an average of 4.5 black children assigned to each of them.

Two of those schools, McClure and Potwin, were all-white in 1974. On September 10, 1973, Johnson v. Whittier was filed as a class action brought on behalf of "all Black children who were then or had during the past ten years been students of elementary and junior high schools in East Topeka and North Topeka." The complaint concentrated more on "equality of facilities than distribution of students, alleging that the children in West Topeka and South Topeka received vastly superior educational facilities and opportunities, including buildings, equipment, libraries and faculties, than could be obtained by students in the areas of East Topeka and North Topeka, which contained higher percentages of minority students."

Though Johnson failed to qualify as a class action suit, it did set off an investigation by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) into "the practices of the Topeka public schools regarding race discrimination." This investigation led HEW to prepare to cut off federal aid to Topeka schools for desegregation noncompliance and to schedule an administrative hearing. This action also resulted in the filing of U.S.D. #501 v. Weinberger, No. 74-160-C5. Though on August 27, 1974, Johnson moved to consolidate with Weinberger, this motion was never decided. The Weinberger case was later dismissed after the Topeka school district's motion for a preliminary injunction was granted by a U.S. district court judge, who found that the district court, and not HEW, had jurisdiction over Topeka's school desegregation.

The school board argued that it was in compliance with the original desegregation plan that was approved by the district court on October 28, 1955, and fully implemented by September 1, 1961. Since the junior high schools were desegregated before Brown in the early 1940s, and the high school was never segregated, they were not considered to be part of the original court order. Additionally, the school board argued that the district court has "exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Topeka school system is in violation of the Final Order of Judgment and the Court approved plan for desegregation." The HEW attorney disagreed, stressing, "that while the original plaintiffs in our case were attacking segregation at only the elementary school level, HEW was charged with investigating discrimination in all its aspects at all levels of the public school system." Meanwhile, two other class action suits related to illegal segregation were filed on August 8, 1979 (Miller v. Board of Education), and September 7, 1979 (Chapman v. Board of Education).

The original Brown case had targeted legal, or de jure, segregation. But it could not address de facto segregation, or the type of segregation that was the "natural" outgrowth of an individual's choice and their financial resources allowing them to live in any given neighborhood. In 1979 the Brown case was reactivated.

The original lead plaintiff, Linda Brown, now an adult, and other African American parents and their children argued that the Topeka School Board and its successor, U.S.D. #501, had failed to desegregate within the mandates of Brown and Brown II, in which the court in May 1955 ordered that desegregation proceed with "all deliberate speed." Between September 10, 1973, and September 7, 1979, four separate cases were filed in the federal district court of Kansas raising questions as to whether the Topeka Board of Education and its successor had complied with the mandates of the high court. Though these cases resulted in minor judgments, they did prompt an investigation by the Office of Civil Rights of the federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). HEW found that Topeka was not in compliance and brought further attention to the ways in which the Topeka Board of Education sought to circumvent desegregation.

The reopening of Brown in 1979 tried to prove that the resegregation of Topeka's schools was not the "natural" consequence of individual choice, but rather the result of the deliberate actions of U.S.D. #501 to segregate its more affluent citizens (primarily white), who had fled to its western suburbs, from the less affluent (primarily black), concentrated in East Topeka. Because the school board had designed and built schools with the effect of limiting access to its newer facilities to only those residing in Topeka's western suburbs, most African Americans in Topeka were relegated to East Topeka's rapidly aging and increasingly inferior schools.

Not only were African Americans geographically bound to attend inferior schools, they were also now economically limited by not having the financial resources to purchase homes that automatically provided them access to newer and better schools. By the 1970s, Topeka was more spatially and economically segregated than it had been before Brown.

There was one important difference: segregation was no longer based on race so much as it was on class, even though being "black" and being "poor" were fast becoming synonymous, not only in Topeka, but in many other American cities as well. The 1970 census showed that in Topeka, Kansas, the mean family income in the wealthy, predominately white West Hills area was triple that of the predominately black southeast area: $19,909 to $6,886. This statistic is also reflected in the 1970 median value of housing, $28,800 in West Hills to $9,550 in East Topeka.

In October 1986 the reactivated Brown was tried in the District Court of the District of Kansas. Six months later the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit when the district court decided that there was not enough evidence of purposeful discrimination.

On December 11, 1989, the court of appeals voted to reverse the findings of the lower court. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court, but on April 20, 1992, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the court of appeals for further consideration. The appellate court reaffirmed its earlier decision and denied rehearing on January 28, 1993.

A few months later on June 21, 1994, the Supreme Court declined to consider the matter further. Finally, on July 25, 1994, the district court approved the school district's third desegregation proposal, but the school district continued to be subject to the court's jurisdiction.

As the Brown case files demonstrate, by choosing not to distribute the responsibility of desegregation over the entire school system, the Topeka Board of Education, and its successor U.S.D. #501, used its administrative tools in an ongoing manner to actively separate black from white.

What is even more disturbing is that after 1954, not only was there continued segregation at the elementary level, but it had also crept into the middle, junior, and senior high grades as well. Segregation after 1954 was perpetuated not on racial lines but class lines. That class incorporated the race most affected by segregation made it even more pernicious than before Brown.

The issues involved in this case are far from resolved. Unlike segregation laws, the social practices that arose to circumvent Brown fifty years ago are much more difficult to overcome.

Jean Van Delinder teaches sociology and American studies at Oklahoma State University. Her book on the early civil rights movement, Border Campaigns: A Genealogy of Civil Rights Protest, will be published later this year.

Note on Sources

Researching the Brown case is complicated because there are really two cases: the famous Supreme Court case called Brown (which was in fact a consolidation of five school desegregation cases including the Topeka, Kansas, case), and the original Topeka case Brown. In this essay, I focus on the specifics of the Topeka school case and its aftermath using the files housed at the National Archives and Records Administration–Central Plains (Kansas City).

The Topeka Brown case files first arrived in Kansas City on September 1, 1967, as part of records center accession 021-68A367. According to Tim Rives, an archives specialist at NARA–Central Plains, Brown (T-316) had "been removed and placed in the archival depository, not as an actual transfer of custody, but more for safekeeping, to store it in archival quality space." The Brown files left NARA in the late 1970s and were returned almost twenty years later as an archives accession (meaning permanently transferred from the courts to NARA) on September 27, 1994. On that date, the court files became available to researchers; however, not all the files were completely returned until the last exhibits were transferred to NARA on August 29, 2000. These records contain a wealth of information about school segregation, desegregation, and resegregation in Topeka, which is a microcosm of what happened nationally in the fifty years since the original Brown decision.

Selected primary sources: William D. Lamson, "Race and Schools in Topeka, Kansas," March 1, 1985, p. 164, Plaintiff's Exhibit 219, T-316; William Reynolds v. The Board of Education of Topeka of the State of Kansas, Vol. 66, p. 674, Supreme Court of Kansas, Plaintiff's Exhibit 23, T-316; "Lowman Hill School: Fight to be brought to a Final Test, Case has been Filed," Topeka Capital Journal, Friday, February 7, 1902, Box 12, Folder 297, Plaintiff's Exhibit 297, T-316; Anna Mary Murphy, "Negro Problem in Kansas—Negro Teachers Hit by Desegregation," Topeka Capital, January 29, 1956, Box 16, #293, Plaintiff's Exhibit 293, T-316; Johnson v. Whittier, T-5430, Plaintiffs Exhibit 78, Brown v. Board, T-316; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, 1970 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, PC (1)-C, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1971.

Selected secondary sources: Carl T. Rowan, "Jim Crow's Last Stand: December 1953," in Reporting Civil Rights, Part One: American Journalism 1941–1963 (New York: Library Classics of the United States, 2003). Richard Kluger, Simple Justice (New York: Vintage Books, 1975).

1 "Interposition" was a doctrine declared unconstitutional before the Civil War, supposedly allowing states to "interpose" their own authority in order "to protect their citizens from unjust actions of the federal government." It was resurrected to justify continuing school segregation as early as November 1955 in an editorial by James Kilpatrick that appeared in the Richmond News Leader. W. D. Workman, Jr., "The Deep South," in Don Shoemaker, ed., "With All Deliberate Speed" (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), p. 97.

2 Oliver Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, et al. 347 U.S. 483 (691).

3 The U.S. Supreme Court filed a separate opinion on Bolling because the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable in Washington, D.C. In this case, the Court held that racial segregation in the District of Columbia public schools violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

4 This delay was related to the sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. To fill the vacancy, President Eisenhower nominated John Marshall Harlan in October 1954. Ironically, Harlan was the grandson of Justice John Marshall Harlan, the lone dissenter in Plessy. In 1896, Harlan wrote the prophetic words in his dissent that "separate but equal" would forever stamp blacks with a badge of inferiority. This same type of argument would prove a decisive factor fifty years later in Brown.

5 The following eleven cases reached the Kansas Supreme Court: Board of the City of Ottawa et al. v. Leslie Tinnon (1881); Knox v. Board of Education, Independence (1893); Reynolds v. Board of Education, Topeka (1903); Cartwright v. Board of Education, Coffeyville (1906); Rowles v. Board of Education, Wichita (1907); Williams v. Parsons (1908); Woolridge v. Board of Education of Galena (1916); Thurman-Watts v. Board of Education of Coffeyville (1924); Wright v. Board of Education, Topeka (1929); Graham v. Board of Education, Topeka (1941); Webb v. School District No. 90, South Park Johnson County, Kansas (1949).

Library of Congress

Exhibitions.

• Ask a Librarian
• Digital Collections
• Library Catalogs

• Exhibitions Home
• Current Exhibitions
• All Exhibitions
• Loan Procedures for Institutions
• Special Presentations

Brown v. Board at Fifty: “With an Even Hand” Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

Three lawyers confer at the Supreme Court, 1953. Gelatin silver print. New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection, Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (98)

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and its legal offspring, the Legal Defense and Educational Fund, developed a systematic attack against the doctrine of “separate but equal.” The campaign started at the graduate and professional educational levels. The attack culminated in five separate cases gathered together under the name of one of them— Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.

Kenneth B. Clark's “Doll Test” Notebook

During the 1940s, psychologists Kenneth Bancroft Clark and his wife, Mamie Phipps Clark designed a test to study the psychological effects of segregation on black children. In 1950 Kenneth Clark wrote a paper for the White House Mid-Century Conference on Children and Youth summarizing this research and related work that attracted the attention of Robert Carter of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Carter believed that Clark's findings could be effectively used in court to show that segregation damaged the personality development of black children. On Carter's recommendation, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund engaged Clark to provide expert social science testimony in the Briggs , Davis , and Delaware cases. Clark also co-authored a summation of the social science testimony delivered during the trials that was endorsed by thirty-five leading social scientists. The Supreme Court specifically cited Clark's 1950 paper in the Brown decision.

The Library of Congress does not have permission to show this image online. Notebook recording data concerning the “Doll Test,” 1940–1941. Kenneth B. Clark Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (61)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#objobj61

Dr. Kenneth Clark Conducting the “Doll Test”

In the “doll test,” psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark used four plastic, diaper-clad dolls, identical except for color. They showed the dolls to black children between the ages of three and seven and asked them questions to determine racial perception and preference. Almost all of the children readily identified the race of the dolls. However, when asked which they preferred, the majority selected the white doll and attributed positive characteristics to it. The Clarks also gave the children outline drawings of a boy and girl and asked them to color the figures the same color as themselves. Many of the children with dark complexions colored the figures with a white or yellow crayon. The Clarks concluded that “prejudice, discrimination, and segregation” caused black children to develop a sense of inferiority and self-hatred. This photograph was taken by Gordon Parks for a 1947 issue of Ebony magazine.

Gordon Parks, photographer. Dr. Kenneth Clark conducting the “Doll Test” with a young male child , 1947. Gelatin silver print. Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (62)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj62

Reading Lesson in Washington, D.C.

As the nation's capital became more and more populated by blacks in the first half of the twentieth century, the schools in District of Columbia became more segregated. During World War II, there was no new construction of schools and the few that existed were extremely overcrowded. After the war, new construction started but did not meet the needs of the District's populace. Many black students were attending schools in shifts while many of the white schools sat nearly empty. This condition eventually led to the Bolling v. Sharpe case, one of the five included in the Brown v. Board of Education decision.

Marjory Collins. Reading lesson in African American elementary school in Washington, D.C. , 1942. Gelatin silver print. FSA-OWI Photograph Collection, Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (57C)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj57C

Kenneth B. Clark's “Doll Test” Data Sheet

The Clarks used printed data sheets to record the children's responses during the “doll test,” as well as general observations. This data sheet lists the nine questions that were routinely asked. The letters “B” and “W” denote “black” and “white.” The abbreviations “LB” and “DB” denote “light brown” and “dark brown” complexions. The data reveals that Mark A., a black boy age four with a dark brown complexion, prefers the white doll and selects the white doll as the one that looks like him.

The Library of Congress does not have permission to show this image online. Sample Doll Test data sheet, n.d. Kenneth B. Clark Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (64)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj64

Briggs v . Elliott (South Carolina)

In 1949, the state NAACP in South Carolina sought twenty local residents in Clarendon County to sign a petition for equal education. The petition turned into a lawsuit and first name on the list was Harry Briggs. In preparation for the Briggs case, attorney Robert Carter returned to Columbia University to confer with Psychologist Otto Klineberg, who was known for his research on black students' IQ scores. He sought Klineberg's advice on the use of social science testimony in the pending trial to show the psychological damage segregation caused in black children. Klineberg recommended Kenneth Clark. Clark became the Legal Defense Fund's principal expert witness. He also agreed to assist the Legal Defense Fund 's lawyers in the preparation of briefs and recruit other prominent social scientists to testify. This document records the depositions of two expert witnesses who participated in Briggs v . Elliott : David Krech, a social psychology professor at the University of California; and Helen Trager, a lecturer at Vassar College.

The Library of Congress does not have permission to show this image online. Testimony of Expert Witnesses at Trial of Clarendon County School Case Direct Examination by Robert L. Carter , May 29, 1951. Transcript. NAACP Records, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (57)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj57

Bolling v. Sharpe, (Washington D.C.)

Spottswood Thomas Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe, was one of the five school desegregation cases that comprised Brown . Because the District of Columbia was not a state but federal territory, the Fourteenth Amendment arguments used in the other cases did not apply. Therefore, the lawyers argued for “Due Process Clause” of the Fifth Amendment, which guaranteed equal protection of the law. The Consolidated Parents Group initiated a boycott of the black High School in Washington. D.C., which was overcrowded and dilapidated. In 1948, Charles H. Houston was hired to represent them in a law suit to make black schools more equal to white schools when Houston's health began to fail. He recommended James Nabrit as his replacement. Nabrit was joined by fellow attorney, George E. C. Hayes in presenting arguments for the District of Columbia case.

U. S. Supreme Court Records and Briefs, 1954 Term. Supreme Court Records and Briefs, Law Library , Library of Congress (57B)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj57B

Brief of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in Brown

In June 1950, shortly after the Sweatt , McLaurin , and Henderson victories, Thurgood Marshall convened a conference of the NAACP's board of directors and affiliated attorneys to determine the next step in the legal campaign. After several days of debate, Marshall decided to shift the focus from the inequality of separate black schools to a full assault on segregation. The NAACP immediately instituted lawsuits concerning segregated public schools in Southern and border states. Brown v. Board of Education was filed in the U.S. District Court in Topeka, Kansas, in February 1951 and litigated concurrently with Briggs v. Elliot in South Carolina. Oliver Brown, one of thirteen plaintiffs, had agreed to participate on behalf of his seven-year-old daughter Linda, who had to walk six blocks to board a school bus that drove her to the all-black Monroe School a mile away.

Brief of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs (Charles E. Bledsoe, Charles Scott, Robert L. Carter, Jack Greenberg, and Thurgood Marshall) in the case of Oliver Brown, . . .delivered in the United States Court for the District of Kansas , June 1951. Brief of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs (Charles E. Bledsoe, Charles Scott, Robert L. Carter, Jack Greenberg, and Thurgood Marshall) in the case of Oliver Brown, . . .delivered in the United States Court for the District of Kansas, June 1951. Page 2. NAACP Records, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (54) Courtesy of the NAACP //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0054p2s.jpg

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj54

Finding of Fact for the Case of Oliver Brown

On June 25, 1951, Robert Carter and Jack Greenberg argued the Brown case before a three judge panel in district court in Kansas. They were assisted by local NAACP attorneys Charles Bledsoe and brothers John and Charles Scott. As in Briggs , the testimony of social scientists was central to the case. The Court found “no willful, intentional or substantial discrimination” in Topeka's schools. However, presiding Judge Walter A. Huxman appended nine “Findings of Fact” to the opinion. Fact VIII endorsed the psychological premise that segregation had a detrimental effect on black children. This was the windfall the NAACP needed to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Briggs and Brown were the first cases to reach the Court; three others followed. The Court decided to bundle all five cases and scheduled a hearing for December 9, 1952.

Opinion and Finding of Fact for the case of Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, et al. Delivered in the United States Court for the District of Kansas , 1951. NAACP Records, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (55) Courtesy of the NAACP

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj55

Gebhart v. Belton; Gebhart v. Bulah (Delaware)

In 1950 Louis Redding filed a lawsuit on behalf of Sarah Bulah to admit her daughter Shirley to a nearby white elementary school, after the Delaware Board of Education refused to allow her to board an all-white school bus that drove pass their home. In 1951, Redding filed a second suit on behalf of Ethel Belton and nine other plaintiffs, whose children were barred from attending the all-white high school in their community. That fall, Thurgood Marshall sent Jack Greenberg to Wilmington to work with Redding on the litigation. Greenberg drafted this meticulous trial memorandum the week before the hearing. In it he provides a schedule of witnesses, instructions on deposing the witnesses, and the questions to be posed. Among the witnesses listed are psychologists Kenneth Clark and Otto Klineberg.

The Library of Congress does not have permission to show this image online. Trial Memorandum from Jack Greenberg concerning the Wilmington school case, October 11, 1951. NAACP Records, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (58)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj58

A Court Rules: Equalization, Not Integration

Spurred by a student strike, blacks in Prince Edward County, Virginia, called a lower federal court's attention to the demonstrably unequal facilities in the county's segregated high schools. As this “Final Decree” in Davis v. County School Board shows, they convinced the U.S. District Court that facilities for blacks were “not substantially equal” to those for whites. The Court ordered the two systems to be made equal. However, it did not abolish segregation. Therefore, the plaintiffs appealed, and the Supreme Court heard their case along with Brown v. Board .

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Final Decree, [1952]. Typed memorandum. Kenneth Clark Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (59)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj59

Brief for Appellants, Brown v. Board , 1953

The Supreme Court did not render a judgement after the initial oral arguments in Brown v. Board . Instead, the Court submitted a list of five questions for counsel to discuss at a rehearing that convened on December 7, 1953. The questions pertained to the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and the relation between the views of the Amendment framers' intent to “abolish segregation in public schools.” The questions also addressed what remedies to be used in the event the Court ruled segregation in public schools unconstitutional. After assessing the questions, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund assembled a team of experts, including John A. Davis, a professor of political science at Lincoln University, Mabel Smythe, an economist, and psychologist Kenneth Clark, and scholars John Hope Franklin, C. Vann Woodward, and Horace Mann Bond, to conduct research during the summer.

Brief for Appellants in the cases of Brown v. Board of Education: Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education, Kansas et al.; . . . in the United States Supreme Court-October Term, 1953 . Washington: GPO, 1953. Pamphlet. NAACP Records, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (73) Courtesy of the NAACP

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj73

Eisenhower and Davis

As President (1953–1961), Dwight David Eisenhower took decisive action to enforce court rulings eliminating racial segregation. He would not, however, endorse the Brown decision or condemn segregation as morally wrong. John W. Davis, who had been the Democratic Party's unsuccessful candidate for president in 1924, was the lead counsel in the South's effort to uphold the Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine of “separate but equal” in arguments before the Supreme Court in 1953. The two men are shown meeting in New York in October 1952, shortly before Davis would endorse Eisenhower for president. Thurgood Marshall in later years would say of Davis, “He was a good man . . . who believed segregation was a good thing.”

Ike with John W. Davis at the Herald Trib Forum 10/21 , 1952. Photograph. New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection, Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (73A)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj73A

Waiting for Courtroom Seats

This photograph shows interested members of the public waiting in line outside the Supreme Court for a chance to obtain one of the 50 seats allotted to hear the second round of arguments in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case. The case involved four states (Kansas, Virginia, Delaware and South Carolina) and the District of Columbia. Among an impressive array of legal representation for the plaintiffs was Thurgood Marshall serving as chief council for the NAACP. The opposing side was led by John W. Davis, one time Democratic presidential candidate and expert on constitutional law.

Waiting for courtroom seats , 1953. Gelatin silver print. New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection, Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (74) Digital ID# cph 3c13498

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj74

Three Lawyers Confer at the Supreme Court

In preparation for the Brown court case the three lead lawyers gathered to discuss their final strategy. Pictured ( left to right )are Harold P. Boulware, ( Briggs case), Thurgood Marshall, ( Briggs case), and Spottswood W. Robinson III ( Davis case). The lawyers said that the Brown case hoped to end the “separate but equal” doctrine of the earlier Plessy decision and make it illegal to continue segregation in public schools.

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj98

The Warren Court

Pictured in this photograph are nine members of the Supreme Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education . Seated in the front row ( from left ) Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Earl Warren, Stanley Reed, and William O. Douglas. In the back row are Tom Clark, Robert H. Jackson, Harold Burton, Sherman Minton. The photograph was taken late in 1953, after President Dwight D. Eisenhower had nominated Warren to the Court, but before the U.S. Senate had confirmed him as Chief Justice.

U. S. Supreme Court Justices , 1953. Photograph. New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection, Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (102)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj102

Brown Attorneys After the Decision

Three lawyers, Thurgood Marshall ( center ), chief counsel for the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund and lead attorney on the Briggs case, with George E. C. Hayes ( left ) and James M. Nabrit ( right ), attorneys for Bolling case, standing on the steps of the Supreme Court congratulating each other after the court ruling that segregation was unconstitutional.

George E. C. Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James M. Nabrit congratulating each other , 1954. Gelatin silver print. New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection, Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (99) [Dig ID # cph 3c11236]

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj99

“Segregation in Schools is Outlawed”

The case that gave the Brown v. Board of Education decision its name originated in a Federal District Court in Topeka, Kansas. The Russell Daily News , serving the city and county of Russell, Kansas, announced the decision with a banner headline and two front page stories. On the day of the decision, this evening newspaper carried United Press reports from Washington, D.C., and from Topeka, along with the ruling and the Kansas Attorney General's statement of intention to comply.

The Russell Daily News (Russell, Kansas), Monday, May 17, 1954. Historic Events Newspaper Collection, Serial and Government Publications Division , Library of Congress (84)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj84

Humiliation and Inferiority

William T. Coleman assisted Thurgood Marshall with the planning and execution of the Brown litigation. Member of the NAACP Legal Committee, Coleman's stellar academic record at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard Law School paved his way to the Supreme Court, where he became the first African American clerk in 1948. Coleman wrote this memorandum for Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1949. Agreeing with Coleman's contention that segregation was unconstitutional because it was an humiliating sign of inferiority, Frankfurter commented: “That it is such has been candidly acknowledged by numerous accounts & adjudications in those States where segregation is enforced. Only self conscious superiority or inability to slip into the other fellow's skin can fail to appreciate that.”

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj48

Warren Works For Unanimity

Realizing that overturning school segregation in the South might entail a degree of social upheaval, Chief Justice Warren carefully engineered a unanimous vote, one without dissents or separate concurring opinions. Assigning the two opinions—one for state schools, one for federal—to himself, he circulated two draft memoranda with opinions to his colleagues. He proposed to put off the tricky question of implementation until later. He also set forth his idea that “opinions should be short, readable by the lay public, non-rhetorical, unemotional and, above all, non-accusatory.”

Earl Warren to members of the Court, May 7, 1954. Typed memorandum. Earl Warren Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (80)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj80

“A Beautiful Job”

Early in May 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren circulated draft opinions for the school desegregation cases to his colleagues on the Court. Associate Justice William O. Douglas responded enthusiastically in this handwritten note: “I do not think I would change a single word in the memoranda you gave me this morning. The two draft opinions meet my idea exactly. You have done a beautiful job.”

William Douglas to Earl Warren, May 11, 1954. Holograph letter. Earl Warren Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (81A)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj81A

“A Great Day for America”

Associate Justice Harold H. Burton sent this note to Chief Justice Earl Warren on the day that the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board was announced. He said, “Today I believe has been a great day for America and the Court. . . . I cherish the privilege of sharing in this.” In a tribute to Warren's judicial statesmanship, Burton added, “To you goes the credit for the character of the opinions which produced the all important unanimity. Congratulations.”

Harold H. Burton to Earl Warren, May 17, 1954. Holograph letter. Earl Warren Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (82)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj82

Frankfurter's Congratulations to Warren

Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, who had worked to achieve a definitive repudiation of segregation by the Supreme Court, sent this note to Chief Justice Warren on the day that the decision in Brown v. Board was publicly announced—a day that Frankfurter said would “live in glory.” Frankfurter added that the Court's role was also distinguished by “the course of deliberation which brought about the result.”

Felix Frankfurter to Earl Warren, May 17, 1954. Holograph letter. Earl Warren Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (82B)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj82B

Warren's Reading Copy of the Brown Opinion, 1954

Chief Justice Earl Warren's reading copy of Brown is annotated in his hand. Warren announced the opinion in the names of each justice, an unprecedented occurrence. The drama was heightened by the widespread prediction that the Court would be divided on the issue. Warren reminded himself to emphasize the decision's unanimity with a marginal notation, “unanimously,” which departed from the printed reading copy to declare, “Therefore, we unanimously hold. . . .” In his memoirs, Warren recalled the moment with genuine warmth. “When the word 'unanimously' was spoken, a wave of emotion swept the room; no words or intentional movement, yet a distinct emotional manifestation that defies description.” “Unanimously” was not incorporated into the published version of the opinion, and thus exists only in this manuscript.

Earl Warren's reading copy of Brown opinion, May 17, 1954. Earl Warren Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (83)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj83

Celebration of the Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court's decision on the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954 marked a culmination in a plan the NAACP had put into action more than forty years earlier—the end to racial inequality. African American parents throughout the country like Mrs. Hunt, shown here, explained to their children why this was an important moment in history.

Mrs. Nettie Hunt and daughter Nikie on the steps of the Supreme Court, 1954 . Gelatin silver print. New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection, Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (97) Digital ID # cph 3c27042

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj97

Segregation Ruling Explained to the Press

Chief counsel for the NAACP Thurgood Marshall spoke to the press in New York City on May 31 after the Supreme Court decreed an end to public school segregation as soon as feasible. At the news conference in New York City, Marshall told reporters “. . .the law had been made crystal clear” and added, “Southerners are just as law abiding as anyone else, once the law is made clear.” He was speaking after Brown II , the court's second opinion in the Brown case, which ordered the implementation of the original ruling in a “prompt and reasonable” start towards desegregation.

Thurgood Marshall explains segregation ruling to the press , 1955. Gelatin silver print. New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection, Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (104)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj104

Congratulatory Telegram on Brown Decision

The NAACP's affiliation with the philanthropic Stokes family began with J. G. Phelps Stokes, one of the organization's founders. At the time of the Brown decision, Anson Phelps Stokes was president of the Phelps-Stokes Fund, a charitable trust that sponsored black schools and educational projects. Stokes became familiar with the racial politics of the South through his work with the Tuskegee Institute. This telegram celebrates the consensus of the Southern justices and urges the NAACP to “heartily support the court decision postponing implementing orders so that these wonderful new[s] gains may be safe guarded with minimum disturbances in a difficult situation. . . .”

Anson Phelps Stokes to Channing Tobias, Chairman of the NAACP, offering congratulations on the NAACP's victory in Brown v. Board of Education . Telegram. NAACP Records, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (96) Courtesy of the NAACP

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj96

Congratulatory Letter on the Brown Decision

William Patterson was an attorney and former Executive Secretary of the International Labor Defense (ILD), an organization dedicated to protecting the rights of racial minorities, political radicals, and the working class. In 1931, the ILD competed with the NAACP for the right to represent the “Scottsboro Boys,” nine black men convicted of raping two white women. The NAACP lost the bid because it lacked a full-time legal staff spurring Walter White, then head of the NAACP, to hire Charles H. Houston and set up a legal department. In this letter Patterson, head of the Civil Rights Congress, a leftist organization, attributes opposition to the Brown decision to “the demoralizing effect of segregated schools on white youth. It has made bigots out of millions who have not learned in their separate schools that there are no superior people.”

William L. Patterson, Executive Secretary of the Civil Rights Congress, to Walter White congratulating White on the NAACP's victory in Brown v. Board of Education , May 17, 1954. Typed letter. NAACP Records, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (95) Courtesy of the NAACP

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj95

An African American Response

The multi-faceted African American response to the decision was articulated throughout the black press and in editorials published in official publications of national black organizations. Founded in 1910, The Crisis magazine, shown here, is the official organ of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). In response to the decision, a special issue of The Crisis was printed to include the complete text of the Supreme Court decision, a history of the five school cases, excerpts from the nation's press on segregation ruling, and the text of the “Atlanta Declaration,” the official NAACP response and program of action for implementing the decision.

The Library of Congress does not have permission to show this image online. The Crisis magazine: A Record of the Darker Races. Volume 61, no. 6 (June–July, 1954). General Collections , Library of Congress (92)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj92

Conferring at the Supreme Court

In 1929 Louis L. Redding, a graduate of Brown University and Harvard Law School, became the first African American attorney in Delaware—the only one for more than twenty years. He devoted his practice to civil rights law and served as the counsel for the NAACP Delaware branch. In 1949 Redding won the landmark Parker case, which resulted in the desegregation of the University of Delaware. In1951, Redding and Greenberg tried two cases in Delaware's Chancery Court: Bulah v. Gebhart and Belton v. Gebhart, which respectively concerned elementary school and high school. On April 1, 1952, Judge Collins Seitz ordered the immediate admission of black students to Delaware's white public schools, but the local state-run-school board appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj111

Frankfurter's Draft Decree in Brown II , 1955

After the Brown opinion was announced, the Court heard additional arguments during the following term on the decree for implementing the ruling. In a draft, prepared by Felix Frankfurter, which Warren subsequently adopted, Frankfurter inserted “with all deliberate speed” in place of “forthwith,” which Thurgood Marshall had suggested to achieve an accelerated desegregation timetable. Frankfurter wanted to anchor the decree in an established doctrine, and his endorsement of it sought to advance a consensus held by the entire court. The justices thought that the decree should provide for flexible enforcement, appeal to established principles, and suggest some basic ground rules for judges of the lower courts. When it became clear that opponents of desegregation were using the doctrine to delay and avoid compliance with Brown , the Court began to express reservations about the phrase.

Felix Frankfurter's draft decree in Brown II, April 8, 1955. //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0107p2s.jpg

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj107

Topeka School Map

In response to requests from two Justices during the oral arguments of the implementation phase of Brown v. Board , Kansas Attorney General Harold Fatzer provided the Court with this map of the Topeka public school districts along with 1956 enrollment estimates by race. Although almost all of the schools shown were either overwhelmingly white or completely black, Fatzer argued that Topeka had not deliberately gerrymandered the districts so as to concentrate black pupils into a few districts. Also shown is a key to the map, representing the placement of students in the districts.

The Library of Congress does not have permission to show this image online. Raymond F. Tilzey. The Elementary School District Boundaries for the City of Topeka 1955–1956 . Printed Map. Earl Warren Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (109)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj109

Southern White Liberal Reaction

Many white Southern liberals welcomed the moderate and incremental approach of the Brown implementation decree. Ralph McGill, the influential editor of the Atlanta Constitution , wrote in praise of the Court's decision to have local school boards, in conjunction with Southern court judges, formulate and execute desegregation orders. Certain that “the problem of desegregation had to be solved at the local level,” he told Chief Justice Warren that the Court's ruling was “one of the great statesman-like decisions of all time,” exceeding all previous decisions “in wisdom and clarity.”

The Library of Congress does not have permission to show this image online. Ralph McGill to Earl Warren, June 1, 1955. Typed letter. Earl Warren Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (113A)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj113A

Adverse Reactions to Brown

Challenges to legal and social institutions implicit in the Brown decision led to adverse reactions in both Northern and Southern states. U.S. Solicitor General Simon Sobeloff forwarded to Chief Justice Warren this letter from an official of the New York chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution. The official attributed the impetus behind the Court's action to “the worldwide Communist conspiracy” and claimed that the NAACP had been financed by “a Communist front.”

The Library of Congress does not have permission to show this image online. Lee Hagood to Simon Sobeloff, September 29, 1955. Typed letter. Earl Warren Papers, Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (116A)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj116A

Thurgood Marshall

After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on May 17, 1954, and May 31, 1955, desegregating schools, Thurgood Marshall (1908–1994), was featured on the cover of Time magazine, on September 19, 1955. Born in Baltimore, Maryland, Marshall graduated with honors from Lincoln University in Pennsylvania. His exclusion from the University of Maryland's Law School due to racial discrimination, marked a turning point in his life. As a result, he attended the Howard University Law School, and graduated first in his class in 1933. Early in his career he traveled throughout the South and argued thirty-two cases before the Supreme Court, winning twenty-nine. Charles H. Houston persuaded him to leave private law practice and join the NAACP legal staff in New York, where he remained from 1936 until 1961. In 1939, Marshall became the first director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Marshall as Solicitor General in 1965 and nominated him to a seat on the United States Supreme Court in 1967 from which he retired in 1991.

Time magazine, September 19, 1955. Cover. General Collections , Library of Congress (115) Courtesy of Time-Life Pictures, Getty Images

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj115

Barnard Elementary, Washington, D. C.

This image of an integrated classroom in the previously all white Barnard Elementary School in Washington, D.C., shows how the District's Board of Education attempted to act quickly to carry out the Supreme Court decision to integrate schools in the area. However, it did take longer for the junior and senior high schools to integrate.

Thomas J. O'Halloran. School integration, Barnard School, Washington, D.C. , 1955. Gelatin silver print. U.S. News & World Report Magazine Collection, Prints and Photographs Division , Library of Congress (202)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-brown.html#obj202

Back to top

Connect with the Library

All ways to connect

Subscribe & Comment

• RSS & E-Mail

Download & Play

• iTunesU (external link)

About | Press | Jobs | Donate Inspector General | Legal | Accessibility | External Link Disclaimer | USA.gov

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

In many states African American students were placed in schools that were inferior to those attended by white children. The plaintiffs in Topeka did not charge that the schools' facilities their children attended were inferior, but that segregation itself did psychological and educational damage to black children forced to attend schools isolated from the other children in the community. 

They began to develop their challenge in 1950 with Topeka attorneys Charles Scott , John Scott, and Charles Bledsoe.  A petition to the school board was drafted and a number of African American citizens began the difficult but successful effort to collect necessary signatures. They were assisted in this effort by volunteers from the Menninger Foundation. When the Board of Education failed to terminate segregation as requested, black Topekans, joined by the NAACP, and several other cases: Briggs v. Elliott from South Carolina; Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County , Virginia; Bolling v. Sharpe from the District of Columbia; and Gebhart v. Belton from Delaware, to take their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time of the Brown oral argument, 17 states in the Union provided for separate schools for white and black children. Four others permitted school boards to segregate. Those four were Wyoming, Kansas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

The Brown case was the first case to be argued to the court. Robert Carter, representing the Brown family and the other plaintiffs, began his argument on December 9, 1952.

Listen to this interview with Judge Robert Lee Carter in 1992.

The state of Kansas was represented by 36-year-old Assistant Attorney General Paul Wilson. By the fall of 1952, the school board of Topeka had been transformed by elections to a group whose majority did not want segregation and did not want to defend it. Kansas Attorney General Harold Fatzer, who would later become chief justice of the Kansas Supreme Court, was not enthusiastic about the state's side of the case. However, he could not concede that Kansas' law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court essentially ordered the attorney general's office to file a brief and present oral arguments. Wilson, who would later become a much beloved law professor at the University of Kansas, wrote extensively about his experience in Brown. He had a feeling that he would lose the case because, as he said later, "history and social conscience had simply overtaken the law."

Following the 1952 oral argument, the Supreme Court justices remained deeply divided over the question of whether to uphold racial segregation in education. At the conclusion of the Court's session, the justices delayed their decision by asking the parties to present additional arguments. Five questions were issued to the parties, focusing on the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment and on judicial power to abolish segregation even if such abolition had not been contemplated by the writers of the Amendment and those who ratified it. The Court scheduled reargument on October 12, 1953. But those plans changed on September 9, 1953, when Chief Justice Fred Vinson died of a heart attack at the age of 63.

Less than one month after Chief Justice Vinson's death, Earl Warren took the oath of office to become the new Chief Justice of the United States. New arguments in Brown were rescheduled to begin on December 7, 1953.

During those arguments, the parties focused on whether, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress and others understood the Amendment would outlaw segregation in public schools. The parties also addressed whether future members of Congresses or the court had the power to interpret the Amendment to abolish segregation, it there was no such understanding at the time the Amendment was adopted.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that segregated public education violated the Fourteenth Amendment, a conclusion that rested not necessarily on the understanding or conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but on the later full development of public education and its current status in American life throughout the nation.

Because its decision applied to all public schools in a variety of local conditions, the Supreme Court was concerned about how to design a remedy. It directed the parties to submit additional briefs and return for another argument in 1955, this time concerning the relief that should be ordered. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that school boards must make a "prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance" and that the courts would monitor school boards to make sure they were putting compliance plans in place and following them.

In 1999, the U.S. District Court finally closed the Brown case in Topeka, after monitoring compliance for 40 years. Today some U.S. school districts are still under monitoring and supervision of federal courts.

The Brown decision altered the daily lives of black and white Americans. It laid a foundation of equal rights and opportunities for all. It demonstrated that educational opportunity and achievement are core values and recognized that education can be a great equalizer among people of different races, classes, and backgrounds. It shines as a beacon to all Americans and to the rest of the world, demonstrating that the ideals in the Declaration of Independence and the tenets of the United States Constitution will be universally applied to all citizens.

The landmark case Brown v. Board of Education was the result of the hard work of many people, including the following Topeka plaintiffs, who began their challenge in the U.S. District Court in 1951:

Entry: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

Author: Kansas Historical Society

Author information: The Kansas Historical Society is a state agency charged with actively safeguarding and sharing the state's history.

Date Created: June 2003

Date Modified: January 2019

The author of this article is solely responsible for its content.

Submit Kansapedia content

We invite you to send further details about existing articles or submit articles on other topics in Kansas history.

Submission criteria

• Kansas Memory

Our online collections contain more than 500,000 images of photos, documents, and artifacts, which grows daily. Find your story in Kansas through this rich resource!

Related Content

• McKinley Burnett
• Arthur Fletcher - Kansapedia
• Billy McCray
• Charles E. Bledsoe
• Charles Scott, Sr.

6425 SW 6th Avenue · Topeka, KS 66615-1099 · 785-272-8681 · kshs.org · Contact the webmaster

© 2024 The Kansas Historical Society

http://www.kshs.org/kansapedia/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka/11994

About | Events | Shop

• STATE HISTORIC SITES
• MUSEUM AND EDUCATION
• PRESERVATION
• State Archives
• State Historic Sites
• Internships
• Calendar of events
• Public notices
• Kansas Open records
• Executive director
• Annual report
• Plan Your visit
• Plan your visit
• Last Chance Store
• Digital newspapers
• Building survey
• County records
• Ancestry for Kansans
• Research Room
• Using Our Collections
• Kansas History
• Kansas Preservation
• Our Kansas Stories
• Ask a research question
• Finding Aids
• Interlibrary loan
• Copies and Photo Orders
• Archives Catalog
• Museum Catalog
• ATLAS Catalog
• Historical Records Advisory Board
• Law Enforcement Memorial
• Records Management
• Records Retention
• Records Protection
• State Records Board
• Search Retention Schedules
• Land Survey
• Lesson plans
• Resource trunks
• Enrichment activities
• Virtual + Video
• Read Kansas!
• Sources for student research
• Tours - Museum
• Tours - Capitol
• Tours - Historic Sites
• Events - Museum
• Events - Capitol
• Tours - State Archives
• Events - Historic Sites
• History Time Newsletter
• Education YouTube
• Conferences, Inservices, Events
• Online Exhibits
• Museum Collection
• Search database
• List a property
• Pending nominations
• Tax credits
• Technical assistance
• Publications
• State preservation law
• Federal 106 review
• Historic buildings
• Historical markers
• Archeological sites
• Certification
• Meeting materials
• Kansas Preservation Conference
• Antiquities Law
• Unmarked Burial Law
• Current Program
• Field School Archive
• Contract Archeology
• Board of directors
• Foundation director
• Annual reports
• Staff directory
• Vendor opportunities
• Join or renew
• Giving opportunities

The Kansas Historical Society is

• Artists and Authors
• Entrepreneurs
• Farmers and Ranchers
• Journalists and Media
• Legal Professionals
• Medical Professionals
• People A to Z
• Politicians
• Buildings and Structures
• Cities and Towns
• State-Owned Historic Sites
• African Americans
• American Indians
• Asian Americans
• European Americans
• Mexican Americans
• Agriculture and Ranching
• Arts and Literature
• Bleeding Kansas (Kansas Territory)
• Brown v. Board of Education
• Business and Industry
• Civil Rights
• Cowboys and Cowtown
• Native Peoples
• Politics and Government
• Public Health
• Reform Movements
• Science and Technology
• Sports and Leisure
• Transportation
• Weather and Natural Resources
• Womens Rights

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)

The task of implementing programs to achieve desegregation in public schools belongs to the schools themselves.

After the Brown I decision, which ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court sought an additional set of arguments on what remedies would be appropriate. This presented a notable challenge because the cases stemmed from many different regions of the U.S. with distinctive conditions and problems. The Court acknowledged that all of the federal, state, and local laws that condoned segregation must be altered.

• Earl Warren (Author)
• Hugo Lafayette Black
• Stanley Forman Reed
• Felix Frankfurter
• William Orville Douglas
• Tom C. Clark
• Sherman Minton
• Harold Hitz Burton
• John Marshall Harlan II

The courts that are most closely situated to local conditions are best equipped to consider whether the schools are acting in good faith when they are applying the constitutional mandate. Any further hearings can most easily be conducted in those courts, which should consider the need to reconcile public and private interests as well as the importance of practical flexibility in determining what remedies may be appropriate. In all areas, however, the school systems must start pursuing full racial integration promptly. The amount of time needed to achieve the goals of Brown I is unclear, and the time period may need to be extended, but the schools will be responsible for proving to the courts that an extension is needed and is compliant in good faith with the Constitution. Some of the practical issues that courts may need to take into account include facilities, transportation systems, changes to school district and local laws, and any proposals made by the school districts. During the shift toward integration, the courts will retain authority over the project. The lower courts must enter order orders that are consistent with this opinion and that further the goal of providing children access to public schools on a race-neutral basis.

The Supreme Court used this decision to delegate the responsibilities of implementing Brown I. Several decades later, many observers would argue that these efforts either failed or produced only short-term results that were eroded. White flight and other phenomena have led to the re-segregation of public schools in many areas, often in situations where there may be no discriminatory intent.

U.S. Supreme Court

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

Reargued on the question of relief April 11-14, 1955

Opinion and judgments announced May 31, 1955*

349 U.S. 294

1. Racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional, 347 U. S. 347 U.S. 483, 347 U. S. 497 , and all provisions of federal, state or local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to this principle. P. 349 U. S. 298 .

2. The judgments below (except that in the Delaware case) are reversed and the cases are remanded to the District Courts to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit the parties to these cases to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed. P. 349 U. S. 301 .

(a) School authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing and solving the varied local school problems which may require solution in fully implementing the governing constitutional principles. P. 349 U. S. 299 .

(b) Courts will have to consider whether the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles. P. 349 U. S. 299 .

(c) Because of their proximity to local conditions and the possible need for further hearings, the courts which originally heard these cases can best perform this judicial appraisal. P. 349 U. S. 299 .

(d) In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the courts will be guided by equitable principles -- characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping remedies and a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs. P. 349 U. S. 300 .

Page 349 U. S. 295

(e) At stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis. P. 349 U. S. 300 .

(f) Courts of equity may properly take into account the public interest in the elimination in a systematic and effective manner of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated in accordance with the constitutional principles enunciated in 347 U. S. 347 U.S. 483, 347 U. S. 497 ; but the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them. P. 349 U. S. 300 .

(g) While giving weight to these public and private considerations, the courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with the ruling of this Court. P. 349 U. S. 300 .

(h) Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner. P. 349 U. S. 300 .

(i) The burden rests on the defendants to establish that additional time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. P. 349 U. S. 300 .

(j) The courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems. Pp. 349 U. S. 300 -301.

(k) The courts will also consider the adequacy of any plans the defendants may propose to meet these problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. P. 349 U. S. 301 .

(l) During the period of transition, the courts will retain jurisdiction of these cases. P. 349 U. S. 301 .

3. The judgment in the Delaware case, ordering the immediate admission of the plaintiffs to schools previously attended only by white children, is affirmed on the basis of the principles stated by this Court in its opinion, 347 U. S. 347 U.S. 483, but the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Delaware for such further proceedings as that Court may deem necessary in the light of this opinion. P. 349 U. S. 301 .

98 F. Supp. 797 , 103 F. Supp. 920 , 103 F. Supp. 337 and judgment in No. 4, reversed and remanded.

91 A.2d 137 , affirmed and remanded.

Page 349 U. S. 298

• Opinions & Dissents
• Copy Citation

Get free summaries of new U.S. Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

• Brown Foundation Story
• Books for Kids
• Scholarships
• Visiting Scholars
• Make a Donation
• Audit Reports
• Building Blocks
• Timeline Poster
• Thurgood Marshall Book
• Myths vs. Truths
• Activity Booklets
• Traveling Exhibit
• The Brown Quarterly
• Black/White & Brown
• Background Overview
• Cases Before Brown
• Brown v. Board Visionary
• Combined Brown Cases
• Plaintiffs & Attorneys
• Opinions from the Courts
• Oral History
• The Preservation Effort
• Online Tour of Park
• Grand Opening & 50th Anniversary
• Brown Sites in Topeka
• Grants for Tours
• National Historic Site
• Speakers Bureau
• Contacts For Interviews
• Case Summaries

Brown Case - Brown v. Board

Brown et. al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, et. al.

In Kansas there were eleven school integration cases dating from 1881 to 1949, prior to Brown in 1954.  In many instances the schools for African American children were substandard facilities with out-of-date textbooks and often no basic school supplies.  What was not in question was the dedication and qualifications of the African American teachers and principals assigned to these schools.

In response to numerous unsuccessful attempts to ensure equal opportunities for all children, African American community leaders and organizations stepped up efforts to change the education system.  In the fall of 1950 members of the Topeka, Kansas, Chapter of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) agreed to again challenge the "separate but equal" doctrine governing public education. 

The strategy was conceived by the chapter president, McKinley Burnett, the secretary Lucinda Todd and attorneys Charles Scott, John Scott, and Charles Bledsoe.  For a period of two years Mr. Burnett had attempted to have Topeka Public School Officials simply chose to integrate schools because the Kansas law did not require segregated public schools only at the elementary level in first class cities.  Filing suit against the District was a final attempt to secure integrated public schools.

Their plan involved enlisting the support of fellow NAACP members and personal friends as plaintiffs in what would be a class action suit filed against the Board of Education of Topeka Public Schools.  A group of thirteen parents agreed to participate on behalf of their children (twenty children).

Each plaintiff was to watch the paper for enrollment dates and take their child to the school for white children that was nearest to their home.  Once they attempted enrollment and were denied, they were to report back to the NAACP.  This would provide the attorneys with the documentation needed to file a lawsuit against the Topeka School Board.  The African American schools appeared equal in facilities and teacher salaries but some programs were not offered and some textbooks were not available.  In addition, there were only four elementary schools for African American children as compared to eighteen for white children.  This made attending neighborhood schools impossible for African American children.  Junior and Senior high schools were integrated.

Oliver Brown was assigned as lead plaintiff, principally because he was the only man among the plaintiffs.  On February 28, 1951 the NAACP filed their case as Oliver L. Brown et. al. vs. The Board of Education of Topeka (KS).  The District Court ruled in favor of the school board and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  When the Topeka case made its way to the United States Supreme Court, it was combined with the other NAACP cases from Delaware, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington, D.C.  The combined cases became known as Oliver L. Brown et. al. vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, et. al.

On May 17, 1954 at 12:52 p.m. the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that it was unconstitutional, violating the 14th amendment, to separate children in public schools for no other reason than their race.  Brown vs. The Board of Education helped change America forever.

In 1979 a group of young attorneys were concerned about a policy in Topeka Public Schools that allowed open enrollment.  Their fear was that this would lead to resegregation.  They believed that with this type of choice white parents would shift their children to other schools creating predominately African American or predominately white schools.  As a result these attorneys petitioned the federal court to reopen the original Brown case to determine if Topeka Public Schools had in fact ever complied with the court=s ruling of 1954.

This case is commonly known as Brown III.  These young attorneys were Richard Jones, Joseph Johnson and Charles Scott, Jr. (son of one of the attorneys in the original case) in association with Chris Hansen from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) in New York.  In the late 1980s Topeka Public Schools were found to be out of compliance.  On October 28, 1992, after several appeals the U.S. Supreme Court denied Topeka Public School's petition to once again hear the Brown case.  As a result the school was directed to develop plans for compliance and have since built three magnet schools.  These schools are excellent facilities and make every effort to be racially balanced.  Ironically one of these new schools is named after the Scott family attorneys for their role in the Brown case and civil rights.  It is the Scott Computer and Mathematics Magnet School.

Make A Donation

The Brown Foundation succeeds because of your support.  We use the support from individuals, businesses, and foundations to help ensure a sustained investment in children and youth and to foster programs that educate the public about  Brown v. Board of Education  in the context of the civil rights movement and to advance civic engagement.

Make a Donation Online here .

Learn more about how your donation will be used or find out how to mail in a donation on our donation page here .

View photos from past events here .

Quick Links:

Financial Audits Board of Directors  

Brown et al., v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, et al., 347 U.S. 483, 349 U.S. 294

May 17, 1954 to May 31, 1955

While speaking at an annual luncheon of the National Committee for Rural Schools on 15 December 1956, Martin Luther King, Jr., reflected on the importance of  Brown v. Board of Education : “To all men of good will, this decision came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of human captivity. It came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of colored people throughout the world who had had a dim vision of the promised land of freedom and justice … this decision came as a legal and sociological deathblow to an evil that had occupied the throne of American life for several decades” ( Papers  3:472 ).

Brown v. Board of Education  (1954) was a consolidation of five school desegregation cases:  Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas ;  Briggs v. Elliot ;  Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia ;  Bolling v. Sharpe ; and  Belton v. Gebhart . These cases were designed to challenge the “separate but equal” doctrine established in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1896  Plessy v. Ferguson  decision, and because of their common legal challenge the Supreme Court combined the cases and decided them together. The  National Association for the Advancement of Colored People  (NAACP) Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s chief counsel, Thurgood  Marshall , managed the case. He was well aware that the Fund’s reputation and national racial progress were reliant on the outcome of  Brown .

Social psychologist Kenneth Clark testified in the lower courts that segregation causes black children “to reject themselves and their color and accept whites as desirable” (Williams, 202). Clark had traveled to Clarendon County, South Carolina, to administer a test he and his wife, Mamie, had developed. In the test, black children were shown two dolls, a white doll and a black doll, and asked for their opinions of each. The Clarks’ findings indicated that feelings of inferiority existed at an early age, as children generally considered the white dolls prettier and smarter than the black dolls.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous  Brown  decision, handed down on 17 May 1954, determined that the  Plessy  doctrine of “separate but equal” had no place in education and violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: “To separate [blacks] 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” (347 U.S. 483 [1954]). With this decision, racial segregation in schools became unconstitutional.

Initial excitement over the  Brown  victory dwindled, however, when desegregation of schools was not mandated as quickly as had been hoped. Marshall and his staff were disappointed that the Court did not impose a desegregation deadline on southern school districts. The NAACP prepared briefs suggesting that school desegregation transpire before fall 1956 and went to court again to argue for this relief. In  Brown v. Board II , the Court focused on ways to quickly integrate school districts. The Court recognized that different districts would need to implement different techniques to end segregation, and Warren ruled on 31 May 1955 that school districts were required to desegregate only “with all deliberate speed” (349 U.S. 294 [1955]).

Brown et al., v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, et al. , 347 U.S. 483 (1954), 349 U.S. 294 (1955).

King, “Desegregation and the Future,” Address Delivered at the Annual Luncheon of the National Committee for Rural Schools, 15 December 1956, in  Papers  3:471–479 .

Kluger,  Simple Justice , 1975.

Williams,  Thurgood Marshall , 1998.

You are using an outdated browser no longer supported by Oyez. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

On The Site

Brown v. Board of Education’s True Meaning

September 23, 2024 | victorialynn | Harvard Education Press Authors , Voices in Education

By Margaret Beale Spencer and Nancy E. Dowd

Brown v. Board of Education  is often treated as an icon; as standing for the best of us. But we make too little of it. We resist and ignore its true meaning. When we do that, this icon of equality, ironically, becomes an apology and justification for inequality.

Brown condemned the belief system that justified the comprehensive system of segregation. That is why it is a radical case with a radical mandate. We must rediscover its radical mandate to know where we need to go now. 

Commonly referred to as The Segregation Cases, Brown consolidated five cases, from Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia, reminding us that segregation in various forms was national. The Supreme Court said two key things in the decision. First, segregation is unconstitutional because it is “inherently unequal.” It violates the equality principal core to our country. Second, it is “inherently unequal” because at its core is the belief in the lesser humanity of Black people, the communication of inferiority based on that belief, and the false racial superiority of whites, causing incalculable harm to “hearts and minds unlikely ever to be undone.”

The remedy for the harm was its opposite—a comprehensive equality system based on common equal humanity. The intangible basis of Brown was its key. Beliefs dictate everything—buildings, teachers, curriculum, school culture, socio-emotional learning, maximizing the development of every child.    

Brown ’s comprehensive mandate can only be understood by understanding the scope of the harm. The purpose of segregation was to replace, restore, “redeem” white supremacy and racial hierarchy threatened by the end of slavery. The purpose was dehumanization and psychological harm. Slavery was a total system, reinforced socially as well as legally. Racial identity was key; Black racial identification was grounded in presumed lack of humanity Hegemony linked structured and pervasive inequality social science traditions precipitated and contributed to beliefs of White superiority. Segregation represented a morphing, reconstituted system of slavery. The two are inextricably intertwined. Finding segregation unconstitutional was radical. It requires remembering the totality of that system and creating its opposite, a multiracial comprehensive equality system. In an equality system, Black people are equals, equally human; and white people have recast toxic identity to a presumed standard of health and well-being. As the Supreme Court commanded in 1968, it means eliminating segregation “root and branch,” and establishing equality, root and branch, in its place.  

We have ignored this radical mandate of Brown ; 70 years on, our current context of educational and other inequalities is embedded with this failure. In our current unequal context, children of color are treated as less human, and White children are imbued with crippling beliefs and lessons of inhumane racial supremacy. 

Under-interrogated, “invisibilized,” dehumanization traditions continue to impact both Blacks and Whites. Inequality conditions and inhumanity beliefs harm us all as humans but do so differently.  In spite of numerous demonstrations of resilience and thriving, Black and brown children and adults have suffered and continue to suffer disproportionately and comprehensively from the failure to implement Brown’s mandate of comprehensive equality. Whites have been affected differently, unfairly benefitting from skewed, privileging systems infused with beliefs of White supremacy, and, at the same time, inflicting intergenerationally experienced conditions of Black incapacity and inhumanity.  

Whites function on a construction of Whiteness that profoundly undermines their humanity, socio-emotional-associated character virtue, and potential for morality. Black-White differentials of experience and structured contextual variations mandate approaches informed by equity.  

Creating real comprehensive equality requires, then, attention to history, context, and the developmental process to achieve real change. 

Unlike social science theorizing about diverse groups prevalent in the 1930s through the 1970s, PVEST is an identity-focused cultural-ecological theoretical perspective that acknowledges the human condition of both vulnerability status for everyone and the potential for resilience and thriving as experienced by all demographics. Inclusive theoretical framing (e.g., PVEST) underscores and analyzes how much context matters, how the ecology impacts the successful completion of developmental tasks and socio-emotional reactions, and can explain how beliefs that dehumanize blacks and, as well, structures beliefs of white superiority . Understanding this existing negative dynamic—as orchestrated systems—points to the means for change to achieve comprehensive equality. 

The way forward begins with unwavering dedication to Brown ’s principle of shared humanity.   

About the Authors

Margaret Beale Spencer is Charles F. Grey Distinguished Service Professor Emerita and Marshall Field IV Professor Emerita of Urban Education and Life Course Development in the Department of Comparative Human Development at the University of Chicago. Nancy E. Dowd is University of Florida Distinguished Professor Emerita and David H. Levin Chair in Family Law Emerita at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. They are the authors of R adical Brown , published by Harvard Education Press.

• Gift Guides
• Voices in Education

• Skip to global NPS navigation
• Skip to the main content
• Skip to the footer section

Exiting nps.gov

Public remarks about brown v. board of education nhp, remarks at a naturalization ceremony held at brown v. board of education national historical park in topeka, kansas, on june 27, 2024.

Good morning! We in the National Park Service welcome you to Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park for this momentous occasion in your lives. There is nothing we like more in the National Park Service than hosting naturalization ceremonies at our 429 units in the National Park System. Yes, we are just one of 429 sites that spread from the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico to Maine and across the continent to Alaska and Hawaii and Guam and even American Samoa. We like naturalization ceremonies so much, in fact, that the National Park Service plans to host at least 250 ceremonies across the parks next year. Why 250? Because we are one of the lead federal agencies charged by Congress to commemorate the 250 th anniversary of our nation’s founding in 2026. So thank you to our partners at the Citizenship and Immigration Services and the federal courts for allowing us to host ceremonies like this one at our park. Of those 250 ceremonies next year, several will be here, which is great! And you may think the others will be concentrated at iconic historic sites that the National Park Service takes care of. Like the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. Or at one of our many presidential sites, including the White House. Or perhaps at the monuments to American ideals such as the Lincoln Memorial. Or Mount Rushmore. Or Women’s Rights National Historical Park. Or even at the famous national parks that preserve for the enjoyment of future generations hot springs, mountains, waterfalls, dinosaur fossils, rivers, lakeshores, seashores, prairies, and caves. Yes, as I look at the list of upcoming naturalization ceremonies, it is just as likely for them to occur at Glacier National Park, Yellowstone National Park, and Saguaro National Park as it is to be at a historic site like this one. With 429 places to choose from, the options are almost endless. Our national parks have been called one of America’s great ideas. Yellowstone was the world’s first national park. Since its founding, other countries have looked to the U.S. for assistance, advice, and inspiration. Likewise, we in the National Park Service have learned much from the experiences of other park agencies and have adopted ideas from other countries in our own programs. Our nation’s natural and cultural heritage is directly connected to the rest of the world. Several U.S. parks have sister parks in countries including (but not limited to) Kenya, Morocco, South Africa, China, Mongolia, Nepal, Japan, Thailand, France, Poland, Germany, Ukraine, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, and Australia. The National Park Service also participates in programs that designate sites as having international significance. There are 19 units of the national park system that are on the UNESCO World Heritage list; others that are Biosphere Reserves, International Dark Sky Parks, and globally Important Bird Areas. This sounds all well and good and patriotic and wonderful. But let me tell you what I am especially proud of as an employee of the National Park Service. We are charged with telling America’s stories—all of them—not just the happy ones. And increasingly Congress and the Biden-Harris Administration have charged us to make sure that we include ALL Americans stories. So we have sites that commemorate Japanese American internment during World War II; we have sites at which visitors can learn about enslaved people, and factory laborers, and women, and Hispanics. This in fact is one of those places. The history of African Americans includes segregation, violence, and exclusion from the benefits of citizenship. This park was created in 1992 by Congress to commemorate the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The one that expanded citizenship to African Americans, but also guaranteed to all citizens due process and the equal protection of the laws. I hope you all will have time to explore our exhibits while you are here and to learn the often painful stories that we honor here of those who have struggled and persevered in the pursuit of education equity in this country. That struggle is far from over, but we are here to help visitors understand the history of the struggle and how that struggle relates to issues today. The American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s is so significant that this park, along with 12 other places from here to Little Rock, Memphis, Birmingham, Atlanta, and Washington DC will soon be proposed for inscription on the World Heritage list as sites of international cultural significance. We are very proud of this admission by the American people that our history has not always been pleasant and pretty, but that we are a stronger nation when we continue to welcome immigrants and bestow upon them citizenship with all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and our laws. There are some in this country who for seventy years have fought back against the Supreme Court’s declaration that “segregation is inherently unequal” and unconstitutional. We welcome you as citizens and invite you to participate in our national discussions about the rights of citizens and how we preserve them. Congratulations to you all.

"The Significance of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka," remarks delivered at the unveiling of the Brown v. Board Monument on the grounds of Legislative Hall in Dover, Delaware, May 16, 2024

Part of a series of articles titled Superintendent Articles about Brown v. Board of Education NHP .

Previous: Telling the Whole, and Sometimes Difficult, Stories

You Might Also Like

• brown v. board of education national historical park

Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park

Last updated: September 6, 2024