Archive Hosted by the AFL-CIO

Brown v. Board at 60

May 13, 2014 By Michael Diedrich, Education Fellow

This Saturday will mark the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which found “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and put a large crack in the foundation of legally sanctioned racial segregation. 60 years later, we still have work to do before the dreams of the civil rights era are realized.

The major question decided in the Brown v. Board decision, of course, was whether black students could be legally prohibited from attending certain schools. By finding such a system unconstitutional, the decision was one of the first major steps in dismantling a larger system of mandated segregation. Since that decision, we have largely finished the job of taking apart the legal structure that required racial segregation.

This is not to say that we have ended segregation or achieved educational equity. Indeed, we are quite far from either. True, schools can no longer prohibit students of color from attending as a matter of law or policy. However, we have seen -- both in the South and elsewhere in the country -- that many of our schools have reverted to a heavily segregated state of being. There are several policy-related factors that contribute to this, but largely they enable a broader preference for the comfort that comes with homogeneity over the benefits that come from diversity.

We did make significant progress in the years following Brown v. Board, especially in the South where federal law and the judiciary worked for many years to actively require integrated schools. The Atlantic recently ran a lengthy piece detailing Tuscaloosa, Alabama’s experience of forced integration, which produced better results for students and narrowed achievement gaps. That one local example is in fact representative of a broader national trend which saw achievement gaps narrow faster during the integration era than at any time in more recent years.

Tuscaloosa has backslid, however, with the weakening of integration requirements. The town’s schools have gone back to being largely homogeneous. Again, this trend is being echoed across the country, including here in Minnesota where schools in the metropolitan area have become more racially and economically homogeneous.

It is the distinction between, “You cannot explicitly segregate,” and, “You must explicitly integrate,” that appears to make the difference. Court decisions and federal action in the wake of Brown v. Board did not trust states and communities to integrate with the simple removal of explicit legal segregation. Considering what has happened in the intervening years, and the fact that many subtle tools not explicitly tied to race were also deployed in the Jim Crow South to discriminate and segregate, this was a wise move. As that pressure has relaxed, people have fallen back into the comfortable patterns of segregation.

The loss of focus on school integration is likely to turn out to be at best a missed opportunity, and at worst actual harm, for students. Diversity, as we’ve noted elsewhere, is a source of strength, and being comfortable working with people from many racial and cultural backgrounds will be helpful for today’s students as they leave school and enter society. That active integration, however uncomfortable, appears to be beneficial for students is not enough to trump many people’s preferences -- often unconscious -- for schools full of those similar to themselves.

Nor is there just one system involved in this. Yes, school district attendance zones can be drawn to concentrate students by race. Districts may struggle, however, to draw more integrative attendance boundaries in cities with very homogeneous clusters of housing. That’s how we end up with students being bused for half an hour or more when there’s a much closer school available; that sort of arrangement has a long history of being politically lethal. Adding multiple systems of school choice that allow people to sort themselves into homogeneous schools doesn’t help, either. (The relationship between choice and self-segregation is complicated and will be getting its own Hindsight blog post soon.)

Clearly, disentangling all of this, especially at a time when federal and state governments and the judiciary seem less willing to require active integration of schools, is tricky.

Nor is integration a sufficient end goal in and of itself. When the Supreme Court required integration in the Brown v. Board decision, it was doing so at a time when equity of access to services like schools was an open question.

Today’s equity questions are more complicated, in part because of the disappointments that followed the deconstruction of the integration era’s achievements. We don’t have to fight as hard for equity of access anymore, but we’re still struggling to build a society with more equitable outcomes.

That struggle is a bit different from the question facing the Supreme Court 60 years ago. The long-term goals are still the same, but we still have a lot of struggling yet to do before we reach them.

Thanks for participating! Commenting on this conversation is now closed.


  • Rob Levine says:

    May 13, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    The very notions of “choice” and privatization of government services serves to hasten self-segregation.  If you take away the identity portion of charter schools, at least in the Twin Cities, you also take away one of the main reasons people choose certain charters. So the notions of choice and desegregation are opposed to each other, at least as practiced.  That is why studies have repeatedly shown that charters are more segregated than regular public schools.  So which do we want, charter schools or desegregation? The people who are leading the deform movement have already chosen: They don’t really care about segregation if it means higher math and language scores.

  • Kent says:

    May 19, 2014 at 8:51 am

    Even in a smaller town in Southern Minnesota, (25 thousand), suggesting boundries that would give all the schools greater diversity gets shot down everytime.  We are talking about students taking a 10 minute bus ride but even that is unaccdeptable to the public.

  • Christeen Stone says:

    May 19, 2014 at 9:23 am

    I find your assessment of where we are now very much on target and it is sad we have not made the progress we had hoped or expected for America. In 1950s I visited family in Texas in a small community south of Dallas and observed a long unpainted building in bad need of repair, with a lot of black children in recess outside. I was told that was their school house, the white was in town. Understood when segregation ended they were given the white school and a new school was
    built in the newer more upscale part of town for those who lived in that district. A bit like when all cafe tables were reserved, but if you were the right color it was for you. The in flux of so many nationalities of immigrants in America
    has added to our problem,too.

  • Bill Graham says:

    May 19, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Besides basic school skills (reading, writing, etc.), we need to teach attitudes and behaviors that are appropriate in a classroom.  Disruptive behavior obstructs learning for everyone in the room and encourages parents to move their kids to another school.  Every student must know which behaviors are acceptable and why those behaviors benefit everyone else in the room.  At some point, if those behaviors cannot be learned, then that student must be removed from the classroom in order to preserve favorable learning environment for the rest of the students.  Teachers need to manifest tact, patience and an affectionate attitude toward all students, but they are not babysitters or clinicians.  And they need an administrator with a bit of brains and spine to back them up.

  • Robert Nepper says:

    May 19, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    You betcha we have work to do on civil rights—- right here in Minnesota—and it has NOTHING to do with race!

    THOUSANDS of new Minnesota graduates will soon be required to yield their civil rights to creative freedom before they will be given a job!

    Most of our “sophisticated” industrial employers require that their employees “voluntarily” sign a crippling “Employee Agreement” (EA). These open-ended EAs claim the employee’s civil rights to all inventions 24/7/365! These civil rights are granted to all Americans under Art. 1, Sec.8 of the U.S. Constitution which clearly states:

    ” Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries”

    Using this authority, Congress established the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) to handle the many details in stimulating and protecting America’s creative citizens.

    Over the years since then, employers have usurped those rights for themselves in the form of the EA, which denies employees personal access to the USPTO—the very institution established for their stimulation and protection!

    We don’t object to employers claiming ownership of employee inventions which the employee is hired to create, but we strenuously object to employers claiming unrelated and often unwanted emloyee invention, which the employers has no right to claim. We urgently need these new products, businesses and jobs to reduce the over 100,000 unemployed and 10,000 homeless Minnesotans.

    MN2020 should investigate this critical issue and publicize it now when we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964!