布’’教’局’
Brown v.
Board of Education
我們’’結論’’公立教’領域’“’離’’平等”’論’’不’’’
1954’5月17日’最高’’’體’’’’裁’’公立學’’種族’離’反憲’’最高’’’’’’’高等’’中’種族’離爲’’’’最高’’’’裁’’’候’’’個’’公立學’仍’’實’種族’離’’’個’允’學區實’種族’離’最高’’’裁’不僅推翻’堪薩斯’托皮’市’’該市’’’’布’’’’’’街區白’學’之’’’’種族’離’’而’推翻’’’羅’’’’’華’’’尼’等’’首都華盛’’’類’’’’’’國’’交’’’’’個’區立’採’’動終止種族’離’’’’方’’部分’區’不執’裁’’
’布’’’’’期’’六’’’中期’’邦’’’難對’’’方諸’區衝’不’’’爲’個’’個’方’’鬥’(均’失敗’終)’維’種族’離學’’
布’’’裁’’’’遠遠’’’公立學’’’圍’它爲’’對’國生’’方面’種族’離提’’戰提’’’’基礎’該裁’’止’’’實’種族’離’’’’把’國黑’引’’’’’’’而比’’任’’項最高’’裁’’’’改變’’國’民’日’生’’
’’’’’堪薩斯’’’羅’’’’’尼’’’’華等’提交’我們’裏’它們’’’不’’’實’’’不’’當’情’爲’提’’’’個’’’’’問’證’’’統’’’’’’考’它們’重’’’
’’有’’’’中’黑’’種’未成’’’’’們’’’’’請’’’’’’幫’’’’’’’種族’離’基礎’’’’們’區’公立學’’讀’’’’’’中’’們’’’’’允’實’種族’離’’’’’’白’’’’讀’學’之’’’種種族’離’’控剝奪’原’’憲’第’’’正’’’’’’’等’’’’’’除’’’華’’’’’’’’件中’由’’’’組成’’邦’區’’均’絕援’原’’’’據’最高’’’’’普’’’弗’森’’中提’’’謂“’離’’平等”’論’’’’’據’’論’’’’提’給不’’種族實質’’平等’’’’’’’’’’’’離’’仍應視’給予’平等’’’’’
原’’’說’實’種族’離’公立學’’不“平等”’’而’’’’’變’“平等”’’而’們’剝奪’’’有關’’’’’平等’’’由’’提’’問’顯而’見’重’’’本’’’’裁’’’’’
’文中’調’結’’’’’件’及’黑’’白’學’’’’’課’’教’’資’’’’’及’’“有’’”’’方面’’平等’目’’平等’’’’我們’裁’不’僅僅’’對’’’’中有關黑’’白’學’’’’有’’’’’’比較’我們應該’’種族’離本身對公立教’’’’’
’’’’’問’’’我們不’把’鐘撥’1868’’’’正’獲’’’’候’’不’撥’’1896’對普’’對弗’森’’’’結論之’’我們應’據公立教’’整個’’’及’當今’’國’’’’考’公立教’問’’’有’樣’’’’公立學’’種族’離’’剝奪’’’原’’有關’’’’’平等’’’
今天’教’’’’’’’’’方’’最重’’’’’’務教’’’教’’’’’支’’’’都’’我們’識’教’對我們民’’’’重’’’’我們’’最基本’公’職’’需’教’’’’’’隊’’’需’教’’教’’’’’個’’’’’’不折不扣基礎’今天’教’’完成’’任務’’’手’’讓’’領’文化’價值’爲’’未’’’’’’’’準備’幫’’’’’’’應’’圍環境’’今’倘’’個’’失’’’教’’機’’’們’’難有什麽’由’望’’生’中’’成’’’樣’種’教’’機’’國’’證提’’機’’應該成爲’’均’’平等條件獲’’’’’
我們’’’論正’’’’’質’備’’’“有’’”’’’’平等’’公立學’僅僅’據種族’異對’’實’’離’做’’’剝奪’少數’種’’平等’教’機’’?我們’爲’’’’’
’斯’’’’’’’’中’’’本’’’’’’’’’據“那’’’’’衡’’’’成’’’’學’’精華’那’’質”’’’’’’黑’’讀’’’學’不’’黑’提’平等’教’機’’’麥’勞’’’’’’馬’評議Ⅸ’’中’本’’’’’個’’’’’白’’’’’’’錄’’黑’’’’’’學生平等’’’’當’本’’’’考’’’’’’’“’’’’’’’’’’’’學生’論問’’交’’’’’’’學習’’’’’’”’種考’’’用’中’學’’’種族不’’把’’學生’’’’’齡’學歷’仿’學生’離’’’’’’’學生對’’’’區’身’産生’’’’’種’’’對’們心智’成’’’日’難’’除’’種’離對’們’教’機’’’’’’’’’對堪薩斯’’’調’報’中’’’’楚’’而該’’’迫’壓’’’不’’黑’原’’’’’
“’公立學’’白’’黑’’’’離’做’給黑’’’’’有’’’’’’旦它’’’’准’’’’’’’’’’’爲種族’離’’策’’’’解爲’’黑’’’’等’’’’’’’’個’’’學習動’’’’’’’’’准’’種族’離’’’’成黑’’’們學’’智’’’遲’’而’剝奪’’們’’’’收不’種族學生’學’’’’’’’’’”
不論普’’’弗’森’’’期心’學’識’’’種’’’’’調’報’爲’’’’’’分證實’普’’’弗’森’’裁’中任’’’調’報’’’觸’’言應予’’’’
我們’’結論’’公立教’領域’“’離’’平等”’論’’不’’’’離’教’’’有’內’’不平等’’’’我們’爲’引’’’’原’’’’’境’’’’’’們’控’’種族’離剝奪’’憲’第’’’正’’’’’’’’’平等’’’’’
These cases
come to us from the states of Kansas, South Carolina,
Virginia, and
Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions,
but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this
consolidated opinion.
In each
of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives,
seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their
community on a non segregated basis. In each instance, they have been denied
admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or
permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to
deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth
Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge
federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called
"separate but equal" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. . .
. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are
provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be
separate. . . .
The
plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be
made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of theequal protection of the
laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court
took jurisdiction. . . .
There are
findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or
are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and
salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. Our decision, therefore,
cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and
white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect
of segregation itself on public education.
In
approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the
Amendment―was
adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v.
Ferguson
was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full
development and its present place in American life through out the nation. Only
in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these
plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.
Today,
education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.
Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both
demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic
society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public
responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of
good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to
cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in
helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful
that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the
opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken
to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
We come
then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools
solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other
"tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of
equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.
In Sweatt
v. Painter, . . . in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not
provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on
"those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for
greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v.
Oklahoma
State Regents, . . . the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white
graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible
considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and
exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession."
Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high
schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely
because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in
the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to
be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was
well stated by a finding in the
Kansas
case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro
plaintiffs:
"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental
effect upon the colored children. "The impact is greater when it has the
sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually
interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of
inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the
sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and
mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the
benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system."
Whatever may
have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v.
Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in
Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
We
conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but
equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom
the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of,
deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment. . . .
’
’ |