Supreme Court Opinions

The decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the requirements ofthe 14th amendment in public education set the framework withinwhich desegregation must be worked out. Any discussion of these problems must start with an analysis of that framework. The Court'sdecisions have been few but firm. The basic principles governing theapplication of the i4th amendment to public education are clear, butmany questions remain to be answered.

THE SCHOOL SEGREGATION CASES

In its historic decision in the School Segregation Cases, on May 17, 1954,the Supreme Court held that enforced racial segregation in publiceducation is a denial of equal protection under the I4th amendment.The decision recognized that the Negro and white schools involved hadbeen, or were being, equalized, in all tangible respects.1 Yet "separateeducational facilities," the Court held, "are inherently unequal." 2 The

Court said that the opportunity for an education, "where the State hasundertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available toall on equal terms." 8

THE SECOND BROWN DECISION

A year later in the second Brown decision the Court addressed itself tothe question of how desegregation should be effectuated. After reaffirming the principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional, it said that "[a]ll provisions of Federal, State, or local lawrequiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to this principle." 4

Prior to the second Brown decision, the Supreme Court of Delaware

had recognized that the effect of the 1954 decision was to nullify allState constitutional and statutory provisions requiring separate schools

for the two races. 8 After the clear statement in the second Brown decision, quoted above, many other courts so held. 6

Although constitutional rights of this type have often been declared

to be "personal and present," 7 the Court did not order immediateadmission of the plaintiffs to the schools from which they had beenbarred. Since the actions were class suits, all persons in the position ofthe plaintiffs in the defendant school districts were, of course, entitledto intervene and seek the same relief. The plaintiffs' constitutionalrights (if not their immediate legal remedy) were no greater than therights of 3 million other Negro, and 7 million white, pupils attendingcompulsorily segregated public schools in almost 3,000 biracial schooldistricts in 17 Southern States. 8

The Supreme Court recognized the magnitude of the problem, saying: "Full implementation of these constitutional principles may requirethe solution of varied local school problems." e It placed "primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving these problems" onlocal school authorities, and gave the Federal district courts the duty ofdeciding "whether the action of the school authorities constitutes goodfaith implementation of the governing constitutional principles." 10

The district courts were directed to observe "equitable principles"

in reconciling public and private needs. The public interest was saidto be the elimination in a systematic and effective manner of the obstacles to operation in accordance with constitutional principles. 11 The

private and personal interest of the plaintiffs was declared to be therealization of their constitutional right of admission to public schoolson a nondiscriminatory basis as soon as practicable. 12

Although not expressly stated, the rationale of the Supreme Court's

decision to permit a delay in the enforcement of the plaintiffs' rightsappears to be that the public interest in an orderly administration ofpublic schools in one-third of the Nation could, for a limited period,outweigh their personal interest2014at least in the factual situationpresented.

Hence the Court provided for a period of transition from a segregated to a nondiscriminatory school system and, after admonishing thelower courts to require "a prompt and reasonable start toward fullcompliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling," 1S enumerated the factorsthat may be considered in determining what additional time, if any,might be "necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner." 14

The burden of proof that additional time was required was placed upon

the school authorities.

Problems of adjustment

The factors that the lower courts were authorized to consider in grantingadditional time for good faith compliance at the earliest practicabledate were: "

. . . problems related to administration, arising from the physicalcondition of the school plant, the school transportation system,personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas intocompact units to achieve a system of determining admission to thepublic schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws andregulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoingproblems.

The courts were further instructed to consider the adequacy of theplans proposed by school authorities to meet the particular problemslisted above and "to effectuate a transition to a...