Case 1
Issue
According to the Chapter 2 of the Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, one of the requirements for allocation of funds to public and private schools for the purchase of equipment and other educational materials is the “secular, neutral and nonideological” nature of education (Zirkel, Richardson & Goldberg, p.60).
In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, the actual situation was in contradiction with the Chapter 2 requirement: a significant share of Chapter 2 funds (about 30 percent) was provided to local private schools, most of which were religious. A group of public school students’ parents headed by Mary Helms filed suit claiming that Chapter 2 violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by providing funds to schools that are not religiously neutral and thus distributed taxpayers’ money to advancing religion (ibid.).
The question
Is there a contradiction between Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause?
Rule(s)
First Amendment’s Establishment Clause
Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981
Analysis
Several aspects should be taken into account when we discuss the Mitchell v Helms case:
- Eligibility to the program was not defined by religious bias.
- When providing direct aid to public and private schools, the government did not have the intent to advance religion. The preference was not given to religious schools; funding was distributed neutrally, regardless of whether a school was religious or not.
- The nature of the aid itself did not imply advancing religion.
Conclusion
Considering the points mentioned above, Chapter two does not have the effect of advancing religion. Neither eligibility to the program, nor the distribution of funds and the aid itself have the purpose of advancing religion.
This case is of big significance for the discussion of cases when aid is given to religious groups. If the aid is given without reference to religious groups and has a neutral, secular nature, it is not considered as the means of advancing religion.
Case 2
Issue
June 7, 1892, 30-year-old Homer Plessy who was 1/8 black and 7/8 white were arrested for taking a seat in the “for whites only” car. Plessy bought a “white car” ticket to support the act of disobedience initiated by the Committee of Citizens. According to the law of the State of Louisiana, Plessy was considered black and had to travel in the “black” car (Zirkel, Richardson & Goldberg, p.133).
Judge John Howard Ferguson who earlier claimed that segregation on trains that go through several states found Plessy guilty emphasizing that in this case, the train was traveling within Louisiana. Plessy appealed to the Supreme Courtof Louisiana arguing that the availability of “white” and “black” cars was a violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, but was found guilty. Plessy then appealed t the US Supreme Court, but the decision was that segregation on trains does not violate the Constitution (ibid.).
The question
Did the Separate Car Act violate the Thirteens and the Fourteens Amendments to the U.S. Constitution?
Rule(s)
Separate Car Act
Thirteens and the Fourteens Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
Analysis
The Thirteen Amendment to the United States abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except a punishment for the crime (13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gave the official definition of U.S. citizenship (14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ). However, the Plessy v. Ferguson case concerns not the fact of slavery or the issue of citizenship, but rather the civil rights of U.S. citizens.
The Court did not find a connection between the case and the 13th Amendment. As for the 14th Amendment, the Court operated with two terms: “equality” and “distinction”. It emphasized that while the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to provide equality to representatives of both races, the distinction between them is obvious and natural. Thus, the Court decided that the Separate Car Act addressed the issue of distinction, not that of equality.
Conclusion
The Plessy v. Ferguson case had big significance for the legalization of racial segregation: it provided the ground to consider that such segregation did not violate the U.S. Constitution. This case also relates to racial segregation in education which existed officially until 1954 ( Brown v. Board of Education) legalized by the “separate but equal” doctrine.
Case 3
Issue
Until Brown v. Board of Education, racial segregation in the U.S. schools was legal: white and black students had to attend different schools. The source of official racial segregation was the Plessy v. Ferguson case which legalized the “separate but equal” principle (Zirkel, Richardson & Goldberg, p.133).
Oliver Brown, the father of Linda Brown, a black third-grader who lived in Topeka, Kansas, and a group of other black students’ parents applied to the court arguing that despite the officially declared equality, black children were provided with worse conditions for learning. Segregation in education was characterized by Brown et al as that discriminating against black children and making them feel inferior to white students (p.137).
The question
Did the “separate but equal” doctrine violate the equality of black and white students?
Rule(s)
Fourteens Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
“Separate but equal” doctrine
Analysis
To decide this case, the Court had to focus on not the motives that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment had in their mind when developing the text of the Amendment, but on the actual situation with equality in segregated schools. The court decided that segregation at school causes the difference in the quality of education that white and black students had and makes black children feel inferior.
Conclusion
Racial segregation in U.S. education was declared illegal. Despite the strong resistance demonstrated by many white students and some local powers, the “separate but equal” doctrine stopped its action.
References
13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress. Web.
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress. Web.
Zirkel, P.A., Richardson, S.N., & Goldberg, S.S. (2001). A Digest of Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Education. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.