Text of Court on four states segregation

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Text of Court on four states segregation
Language: English
Source: The Lawyers Journal XIX (5) May 31, 1954
Year: 1954
Subject: Segregation in education; United States -- Race relations
Rights
Abstract: [This article contains the text of the opinion delivered Monday by Chief Justice Warren on cases involving racial segregation in schools in the states of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware. ]
Fulltext: TEXT OF COURT DECISION ON FOUR STATES' SEGREGATION WASHINGTON, May 19 - lUSIS> - FoDowing ia the text of the opinion delivered Monday by Chief Justice Warren on cases involving racial segragation in schools in the states of Kansa111, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware: "These cases come to us from the states of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware. They are premised in different factors and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion. "·In each of the ca.sea, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a non-segregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by White children under laws requiring or permitting se.. gregation according to race. Thia segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under. the fourteenth amendment. In. each of the cases, other than the Delaware case, a three-judge Federal District Cou1·t denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called 'separate but equal' doctrine an- ' nounced by this court in Pleesy V. Ferguson 163 U. S. 637. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided eubstantiaJly equal facilities, even though these facilities bo separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to tha.t doctrine, but ordered that• the plaintiffs be admitted. to the White schools because of their superiority to Neira schools. "The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not •equal' and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the court took jurisdiction. Argument was heard in the 1952 term and reargument was heard this term on certain queationt propounded i.- the co'urt. "Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then existing practices in racial segregation, a.nd the views of the proponents and opponents of the amendment. Thia discuseiop and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is_ not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-war amend~ menta undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among •au persons bom or n&turalized in the United States~' Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the amendments and wished them to have the moat limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. "An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the amend. ment's history, with reiu>ect to eegregated schools, is the status of public education at that time. In the south, the movement toward free common schools, supported by the general taxation, hlltd not yet taken hold. Education of White c:hildren was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have a.chieved outstanding success in the arts and 9Ciences 88 well as in the business and pro. fessional world. It is true that public education had already advanced further in the north, but the effect of the amendment on northern states waa genera.Uy ignored in the Congressional debate&. Even in the north, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually :cudimentary; ungraded schools were £Om.mon in l'Ural areas; th~ school tei:,m was but three months a year in many states; and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a conae.. quence, it is not surprising that there should be ao little in the history of the fourteenth amendment relating to its intended effect on public education. "In the first cases in this court construing the fourteenth amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the court interpreted it as prescribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Nf.gro race. The doctrine of 'sparate but equal' did not make Its ap. pearance in this court until 1896 in the case. of Plese:v V. Fergu.. son, ~pra, involving not education but transportation. American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over haJf a century. In this court, there have been six eases involving the 'separate but equal' doctrine in the field of _public education. In Conuning V. Country Board of Education 175 U. S •. 528 and Gong Lum V. Rice 275 U. S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not cha.llenged. In more recent c&aeBt all on the graduate school level, inequality waa found in that specific benefits enjoyed by White students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifieations. In none of thf'.ae cases was it necessary to re-axamine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt V. Painter. supra, the court expressly reaeved decision on the question or whether Pleasy V. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education. "In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt V. Painter, there are findings below- that the Negro and White schools involved have been equalized or are being eqaalized with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications a.nd salaries of teachers, and other 'tantible' factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot tum on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and White schools involved in eaeh of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of Regrega.tion itself on public education. "In approaching this problem we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy V. Ferguson was written. We must consider pub1ie educa. tion in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the nation. Only in this way can it be det:ennined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaihtiffe of the equal protection of the le.we. "Today, education is perhaps the most important functions ot state and local govemmente. Compulsory school attendance lawa and. the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of educatiOn ·to our democratic aocidy. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the a.rmed forces. It is the very foundation of gOOd citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural vaiuee in preparing him for ~ ter professional training and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful· that any child may n:oeona.bly be expected to succeed jn life if he_ is denied the oppor. tunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to Jlrovide it, is a right which must be made available to all oa equal terms. . "We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ta.ngible factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational op.. portunities? We believe that it does. "In Sweatt V. Painter, supra, in finding a lf!gregated law school for Negroes could nof provide them equal educational OPportunities, this court relies in large part on 'those qualities whiclt are inca.pable of objective measurement but which make for great.. neas in a law school.' In McLaurin V. Oklahoma state regents, supra, the court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a White graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ' ..• His ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students and in gen. eral to learn his profession.' Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their ra.ce generates a feeling of inferiority 88 to their statue in the community that may affect their hearts and minds: in a way un.. iikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kan.. eas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs (Conh°nued on page 263) 220 LAWYERS JOURNAL May 81, 1954 nwnber of families for which such structures may be built may be regulated,212 ''It is needless to . . . analyze and enumerate all of the factors which make a single family home "'In.Ore desir11.ble for the promotion and perpetustfon of family 1ife than an apartment, hotel, or flat. It will suffice to say that there is a sentiment pra.etically universal, that this is so. But few persr.ns, if given their choice, would, we think, deliberately prefer to establish theil' homes and rear their chi1dren in an apartment house neighborhood rather than in a single home neighborhood. The general welfare of a c<immuw nity is but the aggrega.te welfare of its constituent members and that which tends to promote the welfare of the individual members of society cannot fail to benefit '!IOCiety as a whole. The entrallce · of one apartment house or flat into n district usua11y means thP. entrance of others, and while it m&y mean an enhancement of value of the adjacent property for the building of similar structurPs, it detracts from the value of neighboring property for home building. The man who is seeking to establish a permanent home would not deliberately choose to build next to an apartment house, and it is common experience that· the me.Ya W'ho has ah'eady built is dissa.. tisfied with his home location and desires a change, In other words, the apartment house, tenement, flat, and like structures tend to the exclusion of homes. The home owner may move to another district but this may not be a sufficient solution . , . (of) his problem, for if no protP.ction can be given to strictly borne districts - such as is contemplated by a comprehensive and 11roperly constructed zoning plan - he may be forced by the e.verincreasing encroachment of apartments and flats to relinquish, if not altogether abandon, the benefits emanating from a permn.. nent home site. "2ll ' "With particular refet'ence to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded b7 the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the &pa1tment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and at. tractive surroundings created by the residential character of ihe district. Moreover,, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free cir. cula.tion of air and monopolizing the i·ays of the sun which othel'WiR& would fall upon the smaller homes, and bl'inging, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and 11arked automo:>bilots, of larger portions of the streets, thus detract-ing from their safety an.d depriving children of the privilege of quiet e.nd open spaces for play enjoyed by those in more favored localitie.11 - until, filially, the residential character of the neighborhnod and its desirability as a place of detached residences arc utte1·Jy destroyed, Under these circumstanCf:s, apartment houses. which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobJectionable but highly desirable come v~ry near to being nuisances."21• ''Discussion of, a1'.d nason. for, m.le. - Restriction of the use of land to buildings each to be occupied as a re1idence for a singlP family may be viewed at least in two aspects. It may be regarded as preventive of fire. It seems tn us manifest that. other circwnstances being- the same, there ia less danger of a building ~ ~oming ignited if occupied by one family than if occupied by two or more families. Any increase in the number of persons or of stoves or lights under a sirteie roof increases the risk of fire. A regqla.. tion designed to decrease the number of families in one house may reasonably be thought to diminish that l'isk. The space betwef'n buildings likely to arise from th,; separation of people into a single family under one roof may rationally be thought also to diminish the hazard of conflag1·ation in a neighborhood . . . It may he a reasonable view that the health and general physical and mental welfare of society would be promoWd by each family dwe1ling in a house by itself. Increase in fresh air, freedom for the play of childreJI: and of movement of adults, the opportunity to cultivate a bit of land, and tke reduction in the spread of contagious diseases may be thought to be advanced by a general custom that each family 212 4.8 c. J. 838-368. 218 Miller v. Loa An1relea Bd. or P11blic Worka, 196 Cal. 4.77, 4.93, 284. P 881. 214 Euclid v. Am.bier Realty Co., (U.S.) 4.1 $11p. Ct, 114. live in a house standing by itself with its own eurtilage. These features of family life are equally essential or equally advantageous for all inhabitants, whatever may be their social standing or material prospel'ity ~ The1·e is nothing on the face of this by.law to indicate thet it will not operate indifferently for the g'eneral benefit. It is a matter of common knowledge that there are in humerous distl'icts plans for real estate development involvine modest single-family dwellings within the reach as to price of the thrifty and economical of modP.rate wage earning capacity. "215 "The power is not an inherent one, it must be expressly gronted t.•r rise by necessary implication, and in many instances the existence of the power has been denied, as for instance, prohibiting tbP erection of four.story apartment houses, prohi.biting the ereetio~ of frame office buildings, prohibiting the erection of one-story buildings within a particular district, prohibiting the ~rectltin, within a specified district, of buildings to be used by more than one family, prohibiting the erection of a four.family flat within a i·esidential district, prohibiting the erection of two-family houses within a district. In l'..ny event the power must be exercised within its scope. Thus, a regulation providing that no buildings shall be erected, altered, or used as a residence for more than one family, but not regulating the size of the \ot or specifying how far buildings shall be separated, is not authorized by statute authorizing municipalities to regulate the location of industries and buildings with a view to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Also, authority to regulate th.e 'manner and method of building' does not autho1·ize the restrfotion of the location of cne-story build. fogs. The reaulations mu1t have the tendency to promote th~ health, safety, or general \velfare. The power must be exercisei'. reasonably, not arbitrari1y, and without discrimination, although reasonable classification ma.y be permitted. "210 215 Brett v. Brookline Blda"., Comr., 260 MRBI. n, 7S, 146 N.E. 289. 216 4.3 C:. J. 889-HO, <To be continued> TEXT OF COURT . . . <Continued from page 220> "Segregation of White and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the pollcy of l!eparating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of in. feriority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the S&nction of the Jaw, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system." Whatever may have been the extent of psYchological knowledge at the time of Plessy V. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by mod~rn authol'ity, any language in Plessy V. Ferguson contra.ry to thi"s finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education th.e doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilitie11 are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs a.nd others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws raranteed by the fourteenth amendment. Because these arc class 8.ctions, beca.use of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On i-eargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question - the constitutionality of segrega.tion in public edueatioa. We have now announced t~at such St>gregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will l>e restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further &rgument on questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the court for the reargument this term. The Attorney-General of the United States is again invited to participate. The public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and sdbmission of briefs by October 1, 1954, It is so ordel'ed. May 31, Hl54 LA WYERS JOURNAL 263
pages: 220, 263