Lucas Green
How does the Brown v. Board of Education decision affect public schools? Well, the answer largely depends on how the Court has ruled on other cases that have involved desegregation. In essence, the Court found that the separate but equal rule of law required that students get access to all schools that were operating in the area. In the past, these districts could decide who got to attend and which schools could be integrated. The Brown decision, however, changed all that. Now, there is only one school system that can choose who gets to attend and it can be a desegregation plan or a race-based desegregation plan.
Since the Court has ruled: That the disparate treatment of African American and Hispanic students was unlawful, how does the Court’s Brown decision relate to public policy and how does it impact Brown v. Board of Education in Florida? The crux of the new decision is the idea that the state legislatures should have the freedom to determine the educational landscape. That means that if Florida wants to cut its funding for higher education because it believes that students from low income and minority groups are not capable of learning the same things as more privileged Florida students, then it can do so. But, the Court has found that the disparate treatment must take place within the context of an overall deprivation of economic opportunity that is caused by the disparate treatment. This new case addresses whether the disparate impact on Florida students of a board of education desegregation plan is justified.
There are a few things to note about: The way the Court reads the Brown decision. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that the majority was relying on “a very long list of cases that demonstrate the proposition that whatever the state’s goals and beliefs, a deferential review of the facts may go beyond the minority’s reasonable expectations.” Roberts goes on to say that we have never before found a case like this, and that the “overriding concern” is whether or not education is best left up to the states or the parents. As a result, the Court goes out of its way to say that the Court in no way is determining what the proper goals and beliefs are. This is rather than saying, as most Justices have previously thought, that the Court is giving the states too much control over the educational system.
Another interesting question is whether or not: The Florida case addresses whether or not voting rights of minorities are automatically protected by the Constitution when they are deprived of their representation in a certain politically-charged and culturally distinct classroom. In the Florida case, the majority opinion insists that black Americans are not protected by the Constitution when they are deprived of their right to vote. While the Court has never once addressed the question (and it was never asked by the parties before the case was argued), the fact is that most decisions involving modern black suffrage issues are decided on an intangible principle of stare decisis: if the Supreme Court has done it, then so must have the Constitution. And anyone who questions this principle should ask how does the excerpt related to the premises of the Board of Education decision itself.
The third, and most importantly: Aspect of the Brown case that demonstrates how does the excerpt relates to the premises of the Board of Education decision is the fact that the Court assumes for the sake of discussion that the racial separation in the classroom is necessary to promote learning. The majority opinion contends that if blacks were placed in the same classrooms with whites, they would fail to learn anything about the principles of the American government. The fact is that most black students in our country are behind other races in both test scores and socioeconomic status. Separate schooling does not necessarily promote learning.
A final thought to answer the question: “How does the excerpt from Plessom v. Board of Education?” relates to the historical meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion claims that the Framers did not intend for the Privileges or Immunities Clause to protect the former slaves’ freedom of speech or of worship, when those were protected by the Constitution as natural rights possessed by all Americans. However, according to the majority’s own interpretation, including the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Fifth Amendment does not mean that all persons are equally protected from being excluded from participating in political processes or enjoying equal rights in the body Politico.
