Homer Adolph Plessy
a.k.a. The 1/8th Wonder
from Down-Under
In 1890, Louisiana passed a statute called the "Separate Car
Act". This law declared that all rail companies carrying passengers
in Louisiana had to provide separate but equal accommodations for
white and non-white passengers. The penalty for sitting in the wrong
compartment was a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail.
Two parties wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the
Separate Car Act. A group of black citizens who raised money to
overturn the law worked together with the East Louisiana Railroad
Company, which sought to terminate the Act largely for monetary
reasons. They chose a 30-year-old shoemaker named Homer
Plessy, a citizen of the United States who was one-eighth black and
a resident of the state of Louisiana. On June 7, 1892, Plessy
purchased a first-class passage from New Orleans to Covington,
Louisiana and sat in the railroad car for "White" passengers. The
railroad officials knew Plessy was coming and arrested him for
violating the Separate Car Act. Well known advocate for black rights
Albion Tourgee, a white lawyer, agreed to argue the case for free.
Plessy argued in court that the Separate Car Act violated the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The
Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery and the Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the government treat people equally. John
Howard Ferguson, the judge hearing the case, had stated in a
previous court decision that the Separate Car Act was
unconstitutional if applied to trains running outside of Louisiana. In
this case, however, he declared that the law was constitutional for
trains running within the state and found Plessy guilty.
Plessy appealed the case to the Louisiana State Supreme
Court, which affirmed the decision that the Louisiana law was
constitutional. Plessy then took his case, Plessy v. Ferguson, to the
Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the country.
Judge John Howard Ferguson was named in the case because he
had been named in the petition to the Louisiana State Supreme
Court, not because he was a party to the initial lawsuit.
Outcome:
-In a 7-1 decision (1 judge abstained), the Supreme Court Decided:
1.) The Court upheld the Louisiana State Supreme Court's decision
and declared that the "Separate Car Act" was constitutional as long
as there were separate but equal accommodations for both whites
and blacks. It further stated that the legal distinction made by the Act
did not in any way destroy the legal equality of the two races.
As to the question Plessy raised in his petition to the Louisiana State Supreme Court
about his not being black, the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that it may be an
important question, but the question was not properly put in issue in this case.
Actually, it’s not as difficult as you might think…
-For this activity, I want you to partner up (that means only
one) with someone close to you.
-Then, read each of the following questions,
-Discuss your thoughts with your partner,
-Come to a mutual agreement,
-Write your mutual agreement on a single sheet of paper.
Make sure both names are on the paper.
1.) A man and a woman apply for a job as a shoe sales
person. What would the employer have to do to treat these
two applicants equally?
2.) Two patients come to a doctor with a headache. The
doctor determines that one patient has a brain tumor and the
other patient has a run-of-the mill headache. What would the
doctor have to do to treat these two patients equally?
3.) Two students try to enter a school that has stairs leading to
the entrance. One student is handicapped and the other is
not. What would the school have to do to treat these two
students equally?
Linda Brown
In Topeka, Kansas in the 1950s, schools were segregated by race.
Each day, Linda Brown and her sister, Terry Lynn, had to walk through a
dangerous railroad switchyard to get to the bus stop for the ride to their allblack elementary school. There was a school closer to the Brown's house,
but it was only for white students.
Topeka was not the only town to experience segregation.
Segregation in schools and other public places was common throughout
the South and elsewhere. This segregation based on race was legal
because of a landmark Supreme Court case called Plessy v. Ferguson,
which was decided in 1896. In that case, the Court said that as long as
segregated facilities were equal in quality segregation did not violate the
Constitution.
However, the Brown's disagreed. Linda Brown and her family
believed that the segregated school system did violate the Constitution. In
particular, they believed that the system violated the Fourteenth
Amendment guaranteeing that people will be treated equally under the law.
No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.
—Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) helped the Browns. Thurgood Marshall was the
attorney who argued the case for the Browns. He would later
become a Supreme Court justice.
The case was first heard in a federal district court, the lowest
court in the federal system. The federal district court decided that
segregation in public education was harmful to black children.
However, the court said that the all-black schools were equal to the
all-white schools because the buildings, transportation, curricula,
and educational qualifications of the teachers were similar;
therefore the segregation was legal.
The Browns, however, believed that even if the facilities
were similar, segregated schools could never be equal to one
another. They appealed their case to the Supreme Court of the
United States. The Court combined the Brown's case with other
cases from South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. The ruling in the
Brown v. Board of Education case came in 1954.
Outcome:
-In a 9-0 unanimous vote, the Supreme Court decided:
1.) Ruling determined that segregated schools are "inherently
unequal" and violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
2.) Declared that schools should be desegregated with "all
deliberate speed."
ACTIVITY CENTERS TIME!!
Please pay attention to and remember which group you are in.
-Students that are “Triangles” need to summarize, in a MEAL paragraph (minimum
7 sentences), the Plessy case. Then, they need to do a 3-2-1 Levels of Questioning
for the Plessy case. You will be quizzed as a group after you finish.
-Students that are “Circles” need to summarize, in a MEAL paragraph (minimum 8
sentences), the Brown case. Then, they need to 3-2-1 Levels of Questioning for the
Brown Case. You will be quizzed as a group after you finish.
-Students that are “Squares” need to write their name on the board, and meet Ms.
Richardson at the front for their activity.
(Raise your hand.)
Allan Bakke
Beginning in the early 1970s, the medical school of the
University of California at Davis used a two-part admissions program
for the 100 students entering each year: a regular admissions
program and a special admissions program. The purpose of this
program was to try to increase the number of minority and
"disadvantaged" students in the class, so the 16 spots in the special
admissions program were reserved for "qualified" minority and
disadvantaged students.
Under the regular admissions program, if a candidate had an
overall undergraduate grade point average below 2.5 on a scale of
4.0, the candidate was automatically rejected. Candidates who were
not automatically rejected were evaluated using other criteria such as
math and science grades, MCAT scores, letters of recommendation,
and an interview.
On the application form, candidates could indicate that they
wanted to be considered economically and/or educationally
disadvantaged or members of a minority group. Applications of
those who did so were sent to the special admissions program
where a separate committee, composed mainly of members of
minority groups, evaluated them. The applicants in the special
admissions program did not have to meet the same standards as
the regular candidates, including the 2.5 grade point average cut
off.
From 1971 to 1974 the special program resulted in the
admission of 21 black students, 30 Mexican Americans, and 12
Asians, for a total of 63 minority students.* During the same period,
the regular admissions program admitted 1 black student, 6
Mexican Americans, and 37 Asians, for a total of 44 minority
students. No disadvantaged white candidates received admission
through the special program.
Allan Bakke was a white male who applied to and was
rejected from the regular admissions program in 1973 and 1974.
During those years, applicants with lower scores were admitted
under the special program. After his second rejection, Bakke filed
suit in the Superior Court of Yolo County, California. He claimed
that the special admissions program violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 because it excluded him on the basis of race.
He wanted the Court to force the University of California at Davis
to admit him to the medical school.
The Superior Court of Yolo County, California and the
Supreme Court of California both found that the special
admissions program violated the federal and state constitutions, as
well as Title VI, and was therefore illegal. The Superior Court
declared that race could not be taken into account when making
admissions decisions but also ruled that Bakke should not be
admitted to the medical school because he failed to show that he
would have been admitted even without the special admissions
program. The Supreme Court of California, however, determined
that Bakke should be admitted to the school.
Outcome:
-In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided:
1.) Writing for a divided Court, Justice Powell holds that the quota
system used by the University of California at Davis medical school is
unconstitutional, but that race could be used as a "plus" in the
application process.
**kind of.
1995
Facts of the Case:
• Adarand, a contractor specializing in highway guardrail work,
submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project
funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Under
the terms of the federal contract, the prime contractor would receive
additional compensation if it hired small businesses controlled by
"socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." [The clause
declared that "the contractor shall presume that socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans,
Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans,
and other minorities...." Federal law requires such a subcontracting
clause in most federal agency contracts]. Another subcontractor,
Gonzales Construction Company, was awarded the work. It was
certified as a minority business; Adarand was not. The prime
contractor would have accepted Adarand's bid had it not been for
the additional payment for hiring Gonzales.
Question
• Is the presumption of disadvantage based
on race alone, and consequent allocation
of favored treatment, a discriminatory
practice that violates the equal protection
principle embodied in the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Conclusion
• In a 5-4 decision the answer is: Yes. Overruling Metro Broadcasting
(497 US 547), the Court held that all racial classifications, whether
imposed by federal, state, or local authorities, must pass strict
scrutiny review. In other words, they "must serve a compelling
government interest, and must be narrowly tailored to further that
interest." The Court added that compensation programs which are
truly based on disadvantage, rather than race, would be evaluated
under lower equal protection standards. However, since race is not
a sufficient condition for a presumption of disadvantage and the
award of favored treatment, all race-based classifications must be
judged under the strict scrutiny standard. Moreover, even proof of
past injury does not in itself establish the suffering of present or
future injury. The Court remanded for a determination of whether the
Transportation Department's program satisfied strict scrutiny.