Summaries
of Decisions from
Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v.
Board of Education
Green v. County School Board
of New Kent County (1968)
In
Green, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must dismantle
segregated dual (or segregated) systems "root and branch"
and that desegregation must be achieved with respect to facilities,
staff, faculty, extracurricular activities, and transportation.
Subsequently, courts used these "Green factors"
as a guide in crafting desegregation plans. More importantly,
however, the factors have become a standard by which to determine
whether school districts have achieved "unitary status,"
or fully integrated schools.
Orfield, Gary, Susan E. Eaton, and the
Harvard School Project on School Desegregation.
Dismantling Desegregation:
The Quiet Reversal
of Brown v. Board of Education.
New York: The New Press, 1996.
<<
back to question
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg
Board of Education (1971)
This
decision struck down "racially neutral" student
assignment plans that produced segregation by relying on
existing residential patterns in the South. The Court in
Swann ruled that desegregation must be achieved in
each of a district's schools to the greatest possible extent
and approved busing as a means to do so.
Orfield,
Gary, Susan E. Eaton, and the Harvard School Project on
School Desegregation. Dismantling
Desegregation:
The Quiet Reversal
of Brown v. Board of Education.
New York: The New Press, 1996.
<<
back to question
Keyes v. Denver School District
No. 1 (1973)
This
was the first ruling on school segregation in the North
and West, where there were no explicit statutes requiring
segregation in the past. Under Keys, school districts
were responsible for policies that resulted in racial segregation
in the school system, including constructing schools in
racially isolated neighborhoods and gerrymandering attendance
zones. Once intentional segregation was found on the part
of the school board in a portion of the district, the whole
district was presumed to be illegally segregated. The case
also recognized Latino's right to desegregation, as well
as that of African American students.
Orfield,
Gary, Susan E. Eaton, and the Harvard School Project on
School Desegregation. Dismantling
Desegregation:
The Quiet Reversal
of Brown v. Board of Education.
New York: The New Press, 1996.
<<
back to question
Milliken v. Bradley (1974)
In this decision, the Supreme Court blocked efforts for
interdistrict, city-suburban desegregation remedies as a
means to integrate racially isolated city schools. The Court
prohibited such remedies unless plaintiffs could demonstrate
that the suburbs or the state took actions that contributed
to segregation in the city. Because proving suburban and
state liability is often difficult, Milliken effectively
shut off the option of drawing from heavily white suburbs
in order to integrate city districts with very large minority
populations.
Orfield,
Gary, Susan E. Eaton, and the Harvard School Project on
School Desegregation.
Dismantling Desegregation:
The Quiet Reversal
of
Brown v. Board of Education. New York: The New Press,
1996.
|
Online
legal resources at your fingertips. 
Search
the web for reviews and law journals.