EOTO: Brown v. Board of Education

EOTO: Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

CASE CONCLUSION

In Talking About Freedom, we completed two mock trials. For our second presentation, class members outlined the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case. The lawyer teams assembled legal, economic, moral, and historical arguments. This 1954 case consolidated four separate litigations, centered on statutory law. More prominently, it discussed the "separate but equal" doctrine and whether it violates the rights protected by the 14th Amendment. 

CASE QUESTION: "Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?" (Oyez)

BROWN (APPELLANT): For the appellant's argument, the associated lawyers claimed that the "separate but equal" doctrine was unconstitutional. The doctrine was developed during the Plessy v. Fuergon (1896) case. With the enforcement of this ideology, two distinctive school systems developed. One institution is labeled for white students and one is designated for black students. Every individual could identify that these areas were inherently unequal. 

SUPREME COURT OF 1954

Furthermore, these separations were considered economically unsustainable. They represent a clear waste of taxpayer money along with job loss and a deprivation of economic opportunity. Each educational institution requires separate administrations, funding, curriculum materials, supplies, etc. 

Similarly, there was a clear psychological impact, backed by conducted experiments. Researchers took a group of children who attended segregated school systems. The children we given one white doll and one black doll. Consistently, the participants referred to the white doll as good but the black doll as bad. Comprehensively, Brown's representatives argued that these racist systems taught children to reject their own race, an inferiority that continues to follow them. 

Altogether, the appellant's team claimed that states MUST provide equal opportunity under their jurisdiction. 

LAWYER FOR BOARD OF EDUCATION

BOARD OF EDUCATION: On the other hand, the case's appellee is the Board of Education of Topeka, located in Shawnee County, Kansas. The second set of lawyers urged the court to support the "separate but equal" doctrine and its requirement for equal OPPORTUNITY rather than TREATMENT.  Many representatives claimed that the 14th Amendment didn't intend to prohibit school segregation. Instead, it was meant to maintain them. For example, the government developed segregated schools in the District of Columbia. 

Additionally, the Board of Education urged that this case was a Federalism issue rather than a moral, emotional, or psychological argument. The appellant's team highlighted the 60-year precedent of this case, surviving multiple federal and state court cases. Furthermore, these societal normalities have successfully provided structure and stability for both races, effectively serving the population. This tailed everyone's specific needs and circumstances. 

From a moral standpoint, the government is constitutionally prohibited from drafting conclusions on the basis of religion. The First Amendment claims, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therefore, the court is forbidden to rule by a religious doctrine.

NEW INFORMATION: Overall, this mock trial connects past events to today's current struggles. Recently, President Trump attempted to dismantle the Department of Education, claiming that education is a state issue. The Supreme Court sided with the president on the grounds of Federalism. Therefore, the information taught in Talking about Freedom and past historical cases have a direct influence on our current dilemmas.