An Historical Analysis of the United States Supreme Court and Its Adjudication of Gong Lum V. Rice (1927) and Keyes V. Denver School District No. 1 (1973)

By Casas, Matha | Journal of Thought, Winter 2006 | Go to article overview

An Historical Analysis of the United States Supreme Court and Its Adjudication of Gong Lum V. Rice (1927) and Keyes V. Denver School District No. 1 (1973)


Casas, Matha, Journal of Thought


The landmark case Brown v. Board of Education helped dismantle de jure segregation in the South and for a time the dream of creating racially integrated schools via mandatory busing became a reality. Now we find that segregation is making a come-back (Orfield, 2001). Currently, there are public schools where the student population is predominantly poor minority. It is imperative, therefore, that all citizens scrutinize closely the actions and decisions rendered by the Justices of today's United States Supreme Court because historically, the Court has either served to improve the quality of life afforded to people of color, or it has hampered the struggle of minorities to eradicate racial and ethnic disparities.

Despite the Court's decision to support affirmative action, we need to remind the Court that its role is to help improve the quality of all people living in this country and that it cannot afford to forget the difficulties that minority groups have encountered in the past when cases of racial and ethnic disparities in education were first reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. If we allow today's Court to forget the educational and economic disparities that exist in our society, the Justices may deliver racially and ethnically insensitive decisions that some of their predecessors rendered in previous decades, notably the Taft Court. In short, history may repeat itself. Therefore, it is prudent that we examine earlier cases that first brought the issue of racial and ethnic disparities in education to light before the Court. Doing so may assist us as we seek to remain focused on the efforts to keep the struggle for racial and ethnic equality alive.

Consequently, this article examines Gong Lum v. Rice and Keyes v. Denver School District No. 1, two cases in which the plaintiffs challenged school systems practicing racial and ethnic discrimination (275 U.S. 78, [1927]; 413 U.S. 189 [1973]).1 The goals of this article are to: (1) show that minority groups have encountered prejudice and discrimination in education; (2) to provide a comparative analysis of the decisions rendered by the Court in both cases; and (3) to describe the effects of later U.S. Supreme Court decisions on American education. Before a description and analysis of these two cases begins, however, a review of the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson is warranted in order to provide the historical background underpinning the origins of the "separate but equal" doctrine which was used by the plaintiffs in both cases.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the legitimacy of racial segregation was Plessy v. Ferguson rendered in 1896 (163 U.S. 537, 1896). The task before the Court was to determine the legality of a Louisiana statute that mandated railway companies transporting commuters within the state to provide equal but separate accommodations for White and Black passengers and prohibited people of either race to sit in areas other than those designated to that race. In Plessy v. Ferguson the U.S. Supreme Court based its decision regarding the validity of segregation on two key issues. First, the Court held that since the practice of separating the races had been in long-standing usage, there was no need to question the status quo. Second, the Court held that racial separation was a "response to social conditions which the law could not dismantle and to which law must yield" (Hyneman, 1963, p. 9).

By granting the state legislatures the power to allow separate facilities for Blacks and Whites in public transportation, the Court implied that this power could then be broadened to allow for separate but equal facilities for both Whites and Blacks regarding all matters of social interaction including education. After Plessy v. Ferguson became law, the Southern states were quick to seize this inferred power in order to preserve the statutes that already existed pertaining to education. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

An Historical Analysis of the United States Supreme Court and Its Adjudication of Gong Lum V. Rice (1927) and Keyes V. Denver School District No. 1 (1973)
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.