School Segregation

The 1954 United States Supreme Court decision in Oliver Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka Kansas is among the most significant judicial turning points in the development of our country. While this case was an important historic milestone, it is often misunderstood. This case was not the first challenge to school segregation. Also, that the Brown vs. the Board of education was a group of court cases with one name. The Supreme Court combined five cases under the heading of Brown v. Board of Education, because each sought the same legal action. The combined cases came from Delaware, Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington, DC. These cases were named Belton v. Gebhart (sometimes Bulah v. Gebhart), Brown v. Board of Education, Briggs v. Elliot, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County and Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe respectively. Originally led by Charles Houston, and later Thurgood Marshall and a decent legal team, they destroyed the legal basis for racial segregation in schools and overturned the separate but equal decision in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision of 1892. Brown v. Board of Education was not simply about children and education. The laws and policies brought down by this court decision were products of the humans to be prejudice, discriminate against, and stereotype other people by their ethnic, religious, physical, or cultural characteristics. Ending this behavior as a legal practice caused vast changes in our educational and social life, which continue to be felt throughout our country today. The Brown decision inspired human rights struggles across the country and around the world. When the final decision came forth, that it was now illegal to segregate anybody from anybody, the United States democracy had matured. Bringing about change in the years since the Brown case continues to be difficult. Nevertheless, the outcome of this case brought this country one step closer to living up to its democratic ideas. All the people in the U.S. could now be reassured that the protection of their natural rights did not have limits. Like it says in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, “All men are created equal.”

The outcome of this decision cheered on by millions of people throughout the U.S. is thoughtless and incorrect. People just don’t take the time to think about the subject enough to make up their own mind. They just follow what society tells them is correct and what to believe, like zombies following their food. When both sides of this case are thought of on more of a cause and effect type basis, it is clear that the blacks and whites should have stayed segregated in many parts of social life, including schools.

From this case arose many ethical questions in people’s minds. First that might come to mind is who is responsible for the final decision. Many people think that a jury got elected to sit at the case, hear both sides, and then deliberate over the result for a lengthy period of time. This assumption is incorrect because there were Justices of the Supreme Court which did the same thing that the jury would have done. Instead of the people electing the jury to sit-in on this case, it was the president himself that appointed the people of the Supreme Court. Ultimately, it was Chief Justice Warren who gave the unanimous verdict of the justices on this case. Here lies another ethical dilemma of was the president or any of the justices bias to making a thoughtful and correct decision. Although the justices are supposed to be unbiased to any case that comes up, it is true to conclude that everybody has feelings one way or another on any topic that comes up. Whether or not these feelings had any effect on the final decision nobody knows. Also, nobody knows whether or not the president hired these justices because he thought that they would think a certain way or not. It could be possible that the president did some research into a few justices and picked the ones that he thought had the closest viewpoint of his own. Or maybe the president could have also hired these people and just told them what decision was in “their” best interest. In this case, “their” really means the presidents best interest and not the justices or the peoples. The president could have persuaded these people in many different ways. For example he could have offered them money because for a lot of people money would be very intriguing and solve many problems for them. He could have also used blackmail to persuade the justices to follow his mindset. There are many possibilities and nobody is certain that any one of these is true, but one thing is certain, that people in general do have feelings about any and everything that gets proposed to them. I believe that the justices were biased towards one argument and the decision proves it. Another ethical question could be was it right to reconsider the Plessy