Chapter 12
School Desegregation
This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited by law: any
public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network; preparation of any derivative
work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images; any rental, lease, or lending of the program.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
De jure segregation
 De jure segregation is segregation
that is sanctioned by law as was the
case in Brown I.
 Because the equal protection clause
essentially covers state action, it
prohibits state endorsed
discrimination.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
Brown v. Board of Education


Four separate cases from Kansas, South
Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware were
consolidated and decided in Brown.
In each case, black students sought
admission to segregated schools in their
communities.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008


Three states, South Carolina, Virginia, and
Delaware had statutes that called for
segregated schools.
Kansas permitted but did not require
segregated schools. The four states relied
on the separate but equal decision in
Plessy v. Ferguson to defend their
position.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008



The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and
held for the students.
Students cannot be discriminated against
in their attempts to attend school on the
basis of race.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees
equal protection under the law for
students attending public schools.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008


Segregation sanctioned by a state
deprives minority children equal
educational opportunities.
Separate but equal schools based on race
are inherently unequal and
unconstitutional.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
Brown v. Board of Education
(Brown II)


Brown II’s ruling was fashioned to ensure
proper implementation of Brown I.
These cases were remanded to federal
district courts based on their proximity to
local school districts.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008

This ruling mandated that school
authorities be delegated the authority to
implement its ruling in good faith and with
all deliberate speed.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008


The ruling in Brown II was handed down
as a means of expediting the ruling in
Brown I.
Brown II remanded desegregation cases
to federal district courts because of their
close proximity to local school districts.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Board of Education


Swann was a leading case in defining the
scope of the duty to eliminate de jure
segregation and a dual school system.
The objective in Swann was to ensure that
school authorities excluded no student of
a racial minority from any school directly
or indirectly based on race.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008


The use of mathematical ratios was only a
beginning point in the process of shaping
a remedy for eradicating segregated
schools.
If an optional majority to minority transfer
provision is implemented, transferring
students must be granted free
transportation.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008

Pairing and grouping on noncontiguous
school zones is a permissible tool and
should be considered in light of the
objectives sought by the school district.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008

An objection to transportation of students
may be valid when the time and distance
of travel is so great as to either risk the
health of children or significantly impinge
on the educational process.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
De Facto Segregation


De Facto segregation is present when a
substantial number of students enrolled in
a school represent a racial and ethnic
minority.
This situation developed through no action
taken by the school district.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008

The courts did, however, mandate that
corrective action be taken in instances
where school officials gerrymandered
(altered) school attendance zones to
create zones with large concentrations of
black students assigned to historically
black schools within the district.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008


District courts may alter attendance zones
and may devise zones based on grouping
and pairing schools and may require
busing to achieve desegregation.
District courts may disallow patterns of
school construction and abandonment that
create a dual system of education.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008


Plans devised that result in substantially
segregated schools are illegal.
Conduct on the part of the school board
that is designed to create and maintain
segregated schools clearly violates the
Fourteenth Amendment and the Brown
holding.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008
Seeking Unitary Status



School districts across the nation have
filed for unitary status.
They have essentially made the claim that
they have operated in good faith and
made a concerted effort to achieve
desegregated schools.
Based on these efforts, they are
requesting that they be relieved of court
supervision.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008


A good faith incremental approach to
achieving unitary status is acceptable by
the courts and considered to be
constitutional.
Achieving unitary status in some areas
may lead to relinquished judicial control,
even when some other areas have not
achieved unitary status.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008

Through relinquishing control in areas
deemed to be unitary, a school district
may effectively focus on the areas in need
of further attention.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008