TIME MAGAZINE

(May 24, 1954)

 

It was 12:52 p.m., May 17, 1954. At the long mahogany bench sat the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme court. From the red velour hangings behind the bench to the great doors at the back of the room, every seat was filled. Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S., picked up a printed document from his desk and began to read in a firm clear voice.

 

When Warren finished reading at 1:20 the ruling was crystal clear; the U.S. Supreme court held that racial segregation in the public schools violates the Constitution. The decision was unanimous.

 

In its 164 years the court had erected many a landmark of U.S. history. None of them, except the Dred Scott Case (reversed by the Civil War) was more important than the school segregation issue. None of them directly and intimately affected so many American families. The lives and values of some 12 million schoolchildren in 21 states will be altered, and with them eventually the whole social pattern of the South. The international effect may be scarcely less important. In many countries, where U.S. prestige and leadership have been damaged by the fact of U.S. segregation, it will come as a timely reassertion of the basic American principle that "all men are created equal."

 

In his first important opinions since he became Chief Justice last October, Earl Warren was clear and concise. The court was not surprised that the history of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution "(Nor shall any state deny to any person the equal protection of the laws...") did not clearly show an intention to prohibit segregation in the schools. In 1868, there was little public education for white children, and less for Negroes. To decide the present case, the court had to consider "public education in the light of its full development."

 

For many years the South, aware that it might be brought under Supreme Court scrutiny, has justified its segregation policy as giving "equal but separate" facilities to white and Negro children. This phrase was used by the court in an 1896 case involving Jim Crow transport. This week's opinion flatly rejected "equal but separate" as a guiding principle in education.

 

Even if physical facilities are equal, said the court, there are intangible factors which prevent "separate" from being "equal." "To Separate [Negro children] 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...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

 

Because of the complex problems involved, the Supreme Court deferred decision on the method of implementing the new policy. It asked all sides to present arguments next fall on 1) when schools should be ordered to abolish segregation and 2) who (a special master or the district courts) should set and enforce the terms under which it will be abolished.

 

For a scholarly New York Negro lawyer named Thurgood Marshall, the court's decision was the victory of a lifetime. Marshall, a graduate of Jim Crow schools, handled the state cases for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Said he: "The most gratifying thing, in addition to the fact it was in favor of our side, is the unanimous decision and the language used. Once and for all, it's decided, completely decided."