Brown, Black, and Yellow: Desegregation in a Multi-Ethnic Context
Stanford University
The Brown decisions have become part of
our collective American memory. Students know that the 1954 decision ended
legalized segregation in elementary and secondary schools and rightly understand
it as a benchmark in educational history. However, when pressed for information
on the decisions few have ever read the original court documents and even fewer
realize there were two separate decisions, that four states and the District of
Columbia were involved, and that the South fought aggressively for years to
nullify their effect on school attendance. To teach Brown is to
deconstruct simple notions of Civil Rights Movement triumphs and visions of a
country eager to right historical wrongs. I incorporate Brown into three
of my courses, but for the purposes of this piece I will focus on my
Education for Liberation class since I believe that its comparative approach
to Brown—as well as the entire class syllabus—teaches the worth of
looking at educational reform through a variety of lenses.
Education for Liberation
uses a comparative approach to constructing educational history and is
cross-listed in departments outside the School of Education, including History,
Feminist Studies, Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, and Afro-American
Studies. It draws both undergraduate and graduate students from a variety of
disciplines across campus. The primary purpose of the class is to trace
and understand the location of education in the struggle for equal rights and
liberation. We examine how different groups (ethnic, gender, religious) have
defined “liberation” and “proper education” over time and attempt to understand
overlap and divergence in their conceptualizations. Also, we endeavor to
understand how these fights for educational access, quality, and equality have
influenced the nature of education for all American youth. In order to
accomplish this task, we examine shifts in what were considered progressive,
conciliatory, radical, and proper forms of education throughout history. Using
different communities as lenses, we examine questions such as: How should we
educate youth? To what end should youth be educated? Who should the educators
be?
The purpose of the course demands a thematic
approach not a chronological one. Each class period examines at least two
different groups and their experiences with a specific educational reform. For
instance, the Brown discussion is sandwiched between a class period where
we examine the historical debates over bilingual education and another where we
examine the role of college students in higher educational reform during the
1960s. The Brown decisions are paired with the court-based desegregation
efforts of Mexican Americans, Chinese Americans, and Japanese Americans. The
different groups fought for this brand of “education for liberation” at
different points in history, but comparing them forces students to see the long
history of ethnic group efficacy and
desire for education. Rather than reading about what reformers thought was best
for these groups, students learn about these communities as agents and actors.
Also, the readings remind students that the United States is not and never has
been solely Black and White, particularly in California.
Because student
views of American history are notoriously Anglo-centered, I begin each class
period with a short lecture about American history through the perspectives of
different groups. We discuss, among other things, demographic trends, United
States treaties and acts that affected the groups, and educational conditions.
I find that students do not appreciate the obstacles different ethnic
communities faced in bringing their cases to court. This quick view of history
is paired with primary sources such as early twentieth-century cartoons
depicting xenophobic attitudes toward Chinese Americans in San Francisco, and a
pamphlet distributed in the 1950s by the White Citizens Council entitled, “The
Ugly Truth about the NAACP." Together the lecture and primary sources provide
students with a clearer picture of each group’s circumstances and the physical,
psychological, and economic danger of the situation.
The class also works together to
examine how language shaped various debates over time. For instance, we discuss
the definitions of and differences between assimilation, integration,
desegregation, segregation, and separation. This strategy is useful for
two reasons. First, it forces students to grapple with the nuanced and
complicated nature of the issues. Is the purpose of desegregation necessarily
different from integration or assimilation? Is desegregation enough? Is
separation as inherently unequal as segregation? If separation is acceptable
how much separation is too much, and how do we reconcile it with the mission of
the common school? Second, it helps students understand the power of language.
After we discuss our definitions they examine the legal and sociological
arguments more closely to better comprehend how different groups attempted to
control the language of the debate. This discussion is useful in a course
called Education for Liberation since students often drawn to the course
hold leftist ideas. Some are quick to dismiss desegregation attempts as a
yearning for assimilation and voluntary forfeiture of ethnic identity. In the
course they are forced to recognize the radical nature of the demands and the
people they may label as Uncle Toms, Tío Tacos, or Bananas, given the historical
context of the time.
Next, a student group helps lead
the discussion during the second half of the class period. One way in which a
group engaged the subject was to create a modified historical simulation of the
1954 Brown v. Board of Education courtroom trial. The group
divided students into lawyers for the plaintiffs and the defendants, witnesses,
and a panel of judges who would decide the case. The lawyers for each side
called expert witnesses, children, parents, and school board members to the
stand to testify, and the opposing side had the opportunity to cross-examine
each witness. At the end of the arguments and mindful of the fact that the case
took place in 1954, the judicial panel deliberated in front of the entire class
to determine which side made the strongest case. Though the class activity
focused on Brown, students used the debate to inform their knowledge of
how external factors influenced the desegregation efforts of different
communities and their opposition.
Students often choose to engage
these themes in greater depth in their final papers where they are required to
compare the educational experiences of at least two groups. One popular topic
is the examination of how the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
used the courts for educational redress. Students explore the origins of each
group, the strategies used, and the consequences of the court decisions.
Another topic is the comparison of African-American and Asian-American
(primarily Japanese-American and Chinese-American) educational segregation in
California. State educational codes of the nineteenth and early twentieth
century lumped Mongolians, Indians, and Negroes together when denying
educational opportunity and enforcing segregation. The students who write
papers on the topic deconstruct the categories and examine the avenues each
group took to improve their educational conditions with an eye toward their
particular historical reality.
At the end of the class period I expect that students will have a more informed understanding of not only Brown, but also the desegregation efforts of diverse communities, their tactics, opposition, and judicial outcomes. Whereas students begin the class with simple and often ahistorical notions about desegregation attempts, they leave the class with an appreciation for the radical nature of the court cases in the face of intense and hostile resistance. Also, they recognize the central role of education in American history. African Americans, Mexican Americans, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, and other groups chose the educational arena as a battleground for community uplift and fought for their children’s right to receive a quality education. Though the scope of certain court decisions remained narrow they chipped away at racist legal and social policy and provided ethnic communities with psychological sustenance. My students, after this class period and at the end of the quarter, better understand the meaning of Brown within the broader framework of education for liberation.
From "Teaching Brown:
Reflections on Pedagogical Challenges and Opportunities"
History of Education Quarterly 44 (Spring 2004)
Copyright by the History of
Education Society. Reprinted with permission.
Alvarez, Robert, Jr. “The Lemon Grove Incident: The Nation’s First Successful Desegregation Court Case.” Journal of San Diego History 32 (1986): 116-135.
Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas 1954, 1955
Cook, Eugene. “The Ugly Truth about the NAACP.” An Address by the Attorney General of Georgia before the 55th Annual Convention of the Peace Officers Association of Georgia, 1955. Tougaloo College Archives, Ed King Papers, Box 1, Folder 19.
Kluger, Richard. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality. New York: Vintage Books, 1977. [Excerpts.]
Olmsted, Roger. “The Chinese Must Go!” [see political cartoon] In Neither Separate Nor Equal: Race and Racism in California, edited by Roger Olmsted and Charles Wollenberg. San Francisco: California Historical Society, 1971.
Wollenberg, Charles. “Mendez v. Westminster: Race, Nationality and Segregation in California Schools.” California Historical Quarterly 53, no. 4 (Winter 1974): 317-332.
Wollenberg, Charles. “‘Yellow Peril’ in the Schools (1),” and “‘Yellow Peril’ in the Schools (2).” In All Deliberate Speed: Segregation and Exclusion in California Schools, 1855-1975. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.