Teachers' Domain; Civil Rights; Simple Justice: The Trial Begins

It is a free state. There is no city see city limits. Your Honors state laws which require a racially segregated schools denying negroes equal protection of the law. Now the lower courts in South Carolina Kansas and Virginia all cited one Supreme Court decision Plessy versus Ferguson which we contend turned its back. On the 14th Amendment. The Plessy doctrine relegated Negroes to second class citizenship and has been used ever since to keep Negroes down. We believe that Plessy should be overturned.

This court has itself. Recently. Contradicted blessing in sweat versus painter you found unanimously that what the University of Texas had denied Mr. Sweat. Extended far beyond equal facility you said unanimously. There is more to equal education. Than the same books and similarly qualified teachers. You recognize unanimously certain intangibles in law schools like reputation standing in the community even the opportunity to exchange views and ideas with other students. Mr. Marshall and a lawyer certainly any justice knows from experience the importance of those factors in a Graduate School of Law. But I think we've been through this before. What do they have to do with children in public

schools. Your Honor. We argue that. Negro children. Are especially handicapped by laws which set them apart. But you see the records from the lower courts abundant expert testimony from imminent social scientists confirming. The psychological damage caused by segregation. Schooling. Which should to enrich the lives of Negro children opened doors for them to participate fully in our society. Instead demeans them and cripples them. Mr. Marshall. I don't care how much social science testimony you have you're asking this court. To take away from 21 states the right to determine their own social policy. Mr Justice Jackson. We are just following the court's own logic. About what constitutes equal protection in this wet case and

applying the same principle. To children. Now Mr. Marshall Surely you have to consider whether these segregation laws came from nowhere and they passed for the purpose of avoiding racial friction. Mr Justice Reed. I'm sure that the people who wrote those laws would have said that they were thinking of maintaining law and order. Mr Justice Read my point is that in this century to date no need ro has served in the legislature of any of these segregating States. But behind the school segregation laws there are certain facts of life certain customers especially where there are large numbers of Negroes. Don't you think it helps us to realize that Iran or I can't say it helps us. At least school segregation laws

reflect attitudes of the past rolling up in America. We're beginning to understand and accept each other better we just fought a war. Together. To end fascist racism abroad. We believe that the time has come. To end racism at home. I reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal. Thank you Counselor. You know your honors. How can we say with certainty that racially segregated education offends the 14th Amendment. A Congress framed the 14th Amendment in June of 1866 and the very next month July of 1866 that very same Congress voted to establish segregated schools in the District of Columbia.

And from that good day to this the Congress has never wavered from this policy. Mr. Davis 1866 was a long time ago. Conditions change. Isn't it possible that what may have seemed all right that is constitutional in 1866 might now be considered unconstitutional. Your Honor changed conditions certainly may affect the laws as set by Congress and by Congress alone. But changed conditions should not extend the intended reach of the Constitution. As we all understand it is the responsibility of the court to interpret the laws not to make them. I respectfully submit that no reason is given here for this court to reverse the findings of 80 years. Thank you.