Brown vs. The Board of Education Term Paper

Pages: 8 (2426 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: ≈ 6  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Business - Law

Brown vs. Board of Education

The immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court's Decision

Almost a year and a half before Dwight D. Eisenhower had been elected as the American President, a pioneering and unprecedented ruling had been passed by a unanimous Supreme Court judiciary bench. This ruling, which had been lead by Chief Justice Earl Warren, had been intended to dramatically change the social and political dynamics of the American society. The Chief Justice speaking for the Supreme Court asserted, "We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate-but-equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal (Charles, 2004)." large majority had thought that this ruling will profoundly impact the social fabric of America. Firstly, because the lawyers had been able to succeed in such an endeavor where educators, leaders along with other social organizations had miserably failed. Secondly, the ruling had allowed the black children to not only have the same opportunities as their white counterparts but also achieve their American Dream in an education system, which was then willing to accept them as equals. The ruling however, had come amid fading expectations of majority of the black families who children had suffered a great deal (Charles, 2004).

Get full Download Microsoft Word File access
for only $8.97.
It is important to note here that the Supreme Court after making that brave and historic decision became fearful of a countrywide backlash, particularly from the Southern States, where the white majority had not taken this decision very well. Fearful of a social uprising, once again the same Supreme Court bench unanimously passed another decree, this time they asserted that in order to attain the aims and objective of universal integration, the lower courts had to "enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit republic schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases (Charles, 2004)."

Term Paper on Brown vs. The Board of Education Assignment

While the white majority accepted the second decision with open arms, majority of the social activists condemned the decision. For instance, a prominent civil rights activist and lawyer, Thurgood Marshall, assessed the second decision thoroughly. He along with several other lawyers attempted to determine what the Court signified in integrating the vital expression "all deliberate speed" to its initial ruling. It was accounted that after the lawyers had been informed of the second ruling, they referred to a dictionary, only to substantiate their most horrible fears, which had been that "all deliberate speed" expression implied "slow" and that the obvious conquest had been compromised for the reason that the opposers of the initial ruling had been permitted to stop segregation on a timetable set by them. The brown lawyers had not only been persistent, but they also had been in a hurry, however, sadly, these three significant words had certainly disregarded the rush, which the Brown lawyers persisted (Charles, 2004).

The United States had been profoundly and ineradicably influenced by the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling. Throughout the country, critics declared this ruling as the "case of the century." This is because of three reasons. Firstly, it legally recognized that deliberate segregation had been unlawful and undemocratic. Secondly, this Supreme Court ruling assisted to stimulate the civil rights movement. Thirdly, it confronted the legality of all government organizations that accepted and included segregation. On the other hand, there had been not only noteworthy political and legal opposition to Brown's directives, but also some critics and observers declared that since the directive had not been boosted by energetic enforcement, leaders in the Congress did not approve to the Brown directive, which could simply impede its potential.

After the second decision, throughout America, public demonstrations took place, which had not been surprising. The Supreme Court's Brown ruling had failed to make inroads into the social fabric of America due to manifold reasons. Firstly, the Supreme Court's gentle and soft response after the initial (famous) verdict, which also had been demonstrated in its fast negation to regulate an instant ban against segregation, as well as, in its "all deliberate speed" amendment, public confrontation, as a result, had been predictable. The confrontation that came from not only local but also state along with federal administrative officials, and the lack of a harmonized attempt on not only the state but also the federal level to implement unification vigorously complicated the Brown ruling and made it ineffective.

Furthermore, the "Plessy v. Ferguson" case had also been a significant factor in the failure of Brown to make a profound impact. The opponents of the Brown ruling had been quick to pounce onto this opportunity and record an amicus directive affirming that "Plessy v. Ferguson" had been incorrectly determined. They further declared that the Plessy ruling ought to take precedence should the Supreme Court arrive at any sort of difficulty in Brown. What complicated matters further was the election of a new Republican administration, which had been just as conservative as the previous one, if not more. Almost 15 months into the Brown verdict, President Dwight D. Eisenhower had taken over the Presidential office. Despite the fact that Eisenhower's added to the government's directive in the strengthening of desegregation, his political position on this issue had been considerably weaker than the previous government's position. Despite the fact that he said he preferred desegregation technically, he made small talk on the execution and timing of Brown's ruling in public schools. As the same time as this had not indicated a complete exit or even a slight shift from the government's preceding position, it considerably reduced the likelihood of effectual, forceful desegregation (Charles, 2004).

The second Brown ruling, which had been decided on May 31, 1955, to reply to the methods, which should be utilized to execute the ethics declared in the first 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision, offered no legal support on resolution: it simply indicated that school boards situation in the South ought to move slowly, "with all deliberate speed." Confronted with this new Supreme Court directive, school boards in the Southern States slowed down their desegregation process to a point where they had been pushed into a corner and they had no option left but to make a choice between the two alternatives, neither of which recognized Brown with instant desegregation through positive steps. The two alternatives accepted by the lower courts had been (1) assignment in the contest of "dwelling" and "freedom-of-choice" and (2) escorted the abolishment of de-jure segregation. Even before dwelling task had been declined by the Court as "inevitably leading toward segregation," "freedom-of-choice" tactics materialized as the best reply to the Brown ruling. These tactics had played a vital role in making the impact Brown ruling insignificant (Charles, 2004).

Most believed that President Eisenhower held a prominent position in the execution of the Brown ruling. Due to several political reasons, most thought that had been in the best position to make profound changes in the context of the Brown directive. Firstly, he had definitely been the strongest and the most authoritative leader. Secondly, as head of the government, he had the ethical power to greatly manipulate the public discussion on desegregation. Thirdly, he had been very popular and well-liked not only amid white business executives throughout the Southern States, but also leaders of the military establishment who held the vital strategic position to respond to the Brown ruling. Eisenhower, similar to majority of the whites, deemed himself to be a culturally broadminded person and therefore released several presidential rulings backing integration of federal educational services along with schools in Columbia. The point-of-view of the general public, although, had been that these proceedings had been more ritual than substantive (Charles, 2004).

The impact of the Case

Gary (2004) has been amid the toughest columnists of the America's disappointment in satisfying the aspirations of the plaintiffs in Brown. He reveals that the decision in the Brown ruling damaged the legality of Jim Crow, as well as, inspired optimism and demonstration, however directed almost no transformation. He further points out that integration has been carried out at a snail's stride and the mediocre transformation that have occurred had been the outcome of the civil rights movement, marked by Brown's emblematic significance (Gary, 2004).

Gary (2004) further writes that, in general, it is often said that the noble lawyers had done their job, created their eyewitnesses, confronted risk and resistance with bravery, thrived in illuminating extremely complicated problems to a mature panel of judges from the political system who had been persuaded by the influence of proof and line of reasoning to classify things that no designated officials had ever determined to do. Furthermore, the anticipation had been that the judges' verdict in these cases would be courageous, as well as, sensible. In short, new lawyers equipped with reason and bottomless knowledge of the specifics and constitutional values could petition to a faction of theorist kings who could bestow legality and compel key transformations (Gary, 2004).

What could more flawlessly represent this paradigm than a Court collectively concluding… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Buy full paper (8 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

U.S. Supreme Court Case Term Paper

Crisis at Central High Essay

Brown v. Board of Education - Court Term Paper

No Child Left Behind Implication for Special ED Teachers Term Paper

Scotus Brown V Board Research Paper

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Brown vs. The Board of Education" Term Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Brown vs. The Board of Education.  (2006, September 9).  Retrieved March 4, 2021, from

MLA Format

"Brown vs. The Board of Education."  9 September 2006.  Web.  4 March 2021. <>.

Chicago Style

"Brown vs. The Board of Education."  September 9, 2006.  Accessed March 4, 2021.