Talk:Brown v. Board of Education

Huxman Findings of Fact
Failing to mention Judge Huxman's "findings of fact" at the appeals district level is a serious omission. Without that, things would quite likely have gone the other way at the Supreme Court. These findings included the detrimental effect of a segregated education upon the children. This is arguably the linchpin on which the Supreme Court decision was made.

This brief newspaper account mentions it. Other sources provide the full set of "findings of fact", explaining why the appeals court had to rule the way it did, while handing this case to the Supreme Court with the facts that would justify overturning Plessey v. Ferguson. Yet there is absolutely no mention of this in the article.

Adding this link to view Huxman's opinion of the Tenth Circuit Court case. Fabrickator (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not a Tenth Circuit decision. It's the trial decision from the District of Kansas that was appealed directly to SCOTUS under the old version of .  White Whirlwind   00:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit I have been confused about this. I assumed Federal cases would have to go through an appeals court before they could be heard by the supreme court?  And as well, I had assumed that a 3-judge panel indicated it was at the appeals level.
 * So to clarify, because this case raised constitutional issues, it was initially heard by a 3-judge panel and then they could request a writ of certiorari for it to be heard by the Supreme Court. Is that right?  But these are old rules and no longer apply?  Am I close? Fabrickator (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In the past, the Supreme Court had much less say in the cases it took than it does today. Many cases could be appealed to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. During the late 19th century, Congress passed a law saying that certain types of cases could be heard by a panel of three judges immediately upon being filed in the trial court. These cases could be appealed directly to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. No certiorari was involved. You can identify these cases because the prior history will say "probable jurisdiction noted" instead of "cert. granted". One type of case that could be heard this way was any action in which the constitutionality of a state or federal law was challenged. Congress removed those types of cases from the statute in 1976. Only a small subset of cases still work this way, as you can see from § 2284(a).  White Whirlwind   04:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have previously made reference to the "findings of fact" issued by presiding Judge Walter A. Huxman in the lower court, but there have been disparaging statements made about some of the sources from which this might be obtained (e.g. the "Famous Trials" website). I therefore provide this reference:""As per the above source, Finding of Fact IV states:"There is no material difference in the physical facilities in the colored schools and in the white schools and such facilities in the colored schools are not inferior in any material respect to those in the white schools."This finding of fact by the lower court, in conjunction with Finding of Fact VIII, effectively precluded a finding in favor of Brown that would have allowed the doctrine of separate but equal to stand. Fabrickator (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That "journal article" is just a reprint of the district court's decision from the Federal Supplement. I fail to see why we're devoting so much attention to such a minor part of the article.  White Whirlwind   04:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I only offered this particular source because of your concern about the appropriateness of citing the "Famous Trials" website.
 * We would have to speculate how the SC would have ruled in the absence of this finding, but it seems to be a fundamental aspect of the basis for overturning "separate but equal". Now if someone wants details on how they came up with this, they know to do further reading on the lower court case.  Absent the source of this finding, the reader is likely to assume that the SC came up with this finding on its own.  Fabrickator (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was looking around a bit more regarding the "findings of fact", and I came across The Authority of Race in Legal Decisions: The District Court Opinions of Brown v. Board of Education. Perhaps this is just somebody's draft, but the part that caught my eye was this quote:"... their final judgment of law did not incorporate the substantial testimony of social science evidence that the LDF lawyers presented about the psychological effect of racial prejudice and segregation. Perhaps as a compromise, the judges attached nine findings of fact to their decision ..." My impression is that including this finding of fact did not represent a compromise, but something the court had believed would be likely to be relevant to the disposition of the case.  Hopefully this would have been reworded prior to actual publication. Fabrickator (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed removal of claim added in 2006
The 00:55 12 January 2006 edit adds a claim that the plaintiffs asserted that the "separate but equal" system "perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment" for black Americans.

This claim is not consistent with the statements made at trial by the plaintiffs' attorneys, and Huxman confirmed the position of the plaintiffs in the "Findings of Fact" section of the District Court ruling. Specifically, Finding Number 4 stated:"There is no material difference in the physical facilities in the colored schools and in the white schools and such facilities in the colored schools are not inferior in any material respects to those in white schools."

It is well-recognized that Huxman was extremely sympathetic to the plaintiffs, but he understood he had no authority to simply overrule Plessy and doing so would be unlikely to have the desired outcome. Fabrickator (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Here is another source that contradicts this claim: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Kansas Historical Society), stating "The plaintiffs in Topeka did not charge that the schools' facilities their children attended were inferior, but that segregation itself did psychological and educational damage to black children forced to attend schools isolated from the other children in the community." Fabrickator (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Detrimental effect of segregation
In your edits of 16 October 2023, you pointed out the determination of the detrimental effect of segregation in public schools. However, this is stated without mentioning that this finding of factwas actually part of the opinion in the 1951 trial, presided over by Walter Huxman (as mentioned in Brown v. Board of Education). Fabrickator (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of this fact?  White Whirlwind   01:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court does not make findings of fact. And as I asserted in, the findings of fact that Huxman provided forced the Supreme Court, if it were  to find in favor of Brown, to overturn Plessy (well, at least in this context).  (Otherwise, the court could have found in favor of Brown on the basis that the segregated schools were not in equal physical condition.)
 * In the Huxman section, I gave context to the "findings of fact" by making a "forward reference" to the Supreme Court opinion ("This finding would be specifically cited in the subsequent Supreme Court opinion ..."). When we cite this finding under the Brown v. Board of Education, we should make clear that this is actually a finding from the District Court case. Fabrickator (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the source of the findings would be relevant information for an average reader of this article. Also, I don't recall seeing any major source devote attention to that fact. (I seem to recall discussing this with you before.) Let's see if anyone agrees with your proposition.  White Whirlwind   04:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources that take note of Louisa Holt's testimony, referenced in the findings of the trial court and cited by the Supreme Court:
 * Why Brown Still Matters (The Nation)
 * Brown v. Board of Education: Implications for a Modern Era (Mississippi College Law Review)
 * Finding of Fact for the Case of Oliver Brown (Library of Congress: Brown v. Board at Fifty)
 * Fabrickator (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

add start and end date to sidebar
dates it started dec 1952 and ended may 1954 https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/landmark-brown-v-board-education/#:~:text=When%20Did%20Brown%20v.,Columbia%20starting%20in%20December%201952. and https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/landmark-brown-v-board-education/#:~:text=When%20Did%20Brown%20v.,Columbia%20starting%20in%20December%201952. Ocueye (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Why does the article say "**was** a landmark decision?"
On other SCOTUS decision articles, it usually uses "is" to describe currently active decisions, and "was" to describe overruled decisions. Why is this one saying "was," when Brown v. Board of Education is still active and was never overruled? DocZach (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the November 7, 2007 edit that introduced the change, without any explanation. Fabrickator (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Many major SCOTUS decision articles use "was", such as Marbury v. Madison, Loving v. Virginia, McCulloch v. Maryland, Miranda v. Arizona, and others. I go back and forth on which is better. "Was" is useful because it emphasizes that the decisions really are "decisions" which took place on certain dates. "Is" is useful because they have continuing applicability until they are overruled, but "is" also introduces the problem of requiring editors to decide when a decision has been overruled, which in my opinion would be a bad idea for many reasons.   White Whirlwind   05:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Brown wasn't overruled though. DocZach (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. But neither were any of the others I mentioned. The potential problem is a general one, as I indicated.  White Whirlwind   15:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)