Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Has the spirit and intent of Brown v. Board of Education been achieved in urban schools today?

As someone who is a direct beneficiary of the larger efforts of the Civil Rights Movement and the subsequent Brown v. Board of Education decision I find no pleasure in stating that I feel neither the spirit nor the intent of Brown v. Board of Education have benefited African-Americans. I would go as far to even suggest that while Brown v. Board of Education has been significant in terms of its ability to open doors for African-Americans the shortcomings have been and continue to be the genesis of many of the social ills within the African-American community.

To understand my position on this I suggest an understanding of the term integrate, which by definition suggest making something into a whole.  However, if the majority culture already felt a sense of superiority, thus a sense of wholeness then true integration never occurred.  Therefore, allowing those with the means the ability to maintain a system of de jure segregation, which exist till this day.  As such according to the Department of Justice 70 school districts in GA, 58 in AL, 12 in FL, 31 in LA, 17 in TX, were all still under court supervised desegregation as late as 2008 (McNeal, 2009).  In city’s such as Los Angles the school that bears Dr. Martin Luther King’s name is 99% African-American in Philadelphia a school with the same name is 98% and in San Diego the school that bears Rosa Parks name is 86% minority (Kozol, 2005). 

According to McNeal (2009) laws serve two functions they are either (1) symbolic or (2) substantive.  However, in the case of Brown v Board of Education it was both symbolic and substantive.  Symbolic in the sense that it satisfied the growing civil unrest of an entire population of “disenfranchised” African-Americans, who saw separate and equal as an insufficient remedy to the academic plight of African-American children. The substantive aspect of Brown v Board of Education was that it caused an entire population of African-Americans to give up a functioning although inadequately funded educational system that spoke directly to the academic needs of its constituents. 

I further lament the aforementioned as being a substantive issue because prior to Brown v Board of Education you had a system that was built for and by African Americans.  Therefore, the system of education innately had its student’s best interest educationally and socially at heart.  Furthermore, substantive changes that come as a result of changes in the law are suppose to solve that which is wrong with the law.  However, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education it is the opinion of the writer the only thing wrong prior to the court ruling was the inadequate funding of a separate educational system.  Institutions that were created to serve the needs of African-American were and still are in particular historical black colleges and universities.  Matter of fact historical black colleges and universities collective have produced more African-American professionals than majority institutions. 

Finally, this is not to suggest that I feel Brown v. Board of Education, was not a worthy legal achievement on the part of African-Americans, nor is it to suggest I am a racial isolationist.   It is quite the opposite.  However, it is to suggest there exist a larger issue of structural racism that exists within not only our education system, but in the very fabric of our society.  Therefore, those that have the ability to avoid issues like desegregation do and those that don’t simply refuse to cooperate.   Furthermore, leaving a system that is no less integrated now than it was 50 years ago. 



Kozol, J. (2005).  The Shame of the Nation:  The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America (1st ed). New York, NY:  Crown Publishers.

McNeal, L.R. (2009).  The Re-Segregation of public Education Now and After the End of Brown V Board of Education, Education and Urban Society. 41(5), 562-574.