*Swann+v.+Charlotte-Mecklenburg+Board+of+Education

The Case was argued before the court on October 12, 1970, and decided by the court on April 20, 1971
 * I. **

1/1

The Brown v. Board ITALCIS case ruling tried to get schools desegregated and allowed more diversity to be possible. Unfortunately, in the south (even though NC was more progressive then some other states), schools still suffered some segregation based on where the state had placed the schools. The Mecklenburg County education system served more then 84,000 student per year, 29% of which were black. Because of where the schools were COMMA however, the black kids that attended public schools went to schools that had a population of at least 99% black kids, therefore not eliminating any segregation. Many of the “black schools” were in the city, whereas the “white” schools were in the suburbs. DE FACTO V. DE JURE SEGREGATION
 * II. **



In 1965, the parents of James Swann and a 9 other families, represented by the lawyer Julius Chambers, went to district court saying that the school system had to find a way to get all the schools to have a proper proportional mix of white and black kids. In district court it was ruled that it was unconstitutional for the court to get involved in the affairs of busing, in order to mix schools. Eventually, the case was reopened and made it to supreme court. GOOD 5/5 The court was trying to answer these two questions: 1.) "Is the way the current school system in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area in violation of the 14th amendment (the equal protection clause)? Even though the schools are desegregated, the current living areas are segregated, will busing be the only way to fix the inequality in the school?" 2.) "Is it even constitutional for the courts to interfere with the state and local's existing busing plans in order to promote school diversity and desegregation?" GOOD 5/5
 * III. **

Even though the district court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government to get involved in busing and housing, the Supreme Court disagreed.
 * IV. **

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 (unanimous decision) that in order to minimize de facto segregation, they would have to enforce a busing policy, overturning the district courts decision. The courts immediately after the ruling required the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education to draw up a plan for bussing to minimize segregation. The court also looked into requiring ALL school systems to provide bussing to minimize nationwide school segregation. 5/5 GOOD

This case was very significant because it dealt with a case overturning, and a radical change for many school systems nationwide. It also showed the U.S. the power of the Supreme Court and their views on segregation (this was a fairly liberal court at the time). The unanimous ruling by the supreme court showed that the U.S. was not going to just stop at making segregation in public schools illegal, but they were really going to make sure it was enforced and that de facto segregation would not stand.
 * V. **

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system was considered by many to be "the school system that made desegregation work." After the court ruling, the busing scheme was implemented until the mid 90's. During the 90's the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area was being populated with so many immigrants the busing plan was beginning to look like a frugal attempt at desegregation. A case that went all the way to the court of appeals was opened that involved a girl who was refused admittance to a magnet school because of her race. Eventually, in 2000, the busing scheme was decided to only be used in very rare cases to attempt desegregation for the future.

Even though the busing system turned out not to work for recent years, it set an example for all schools nationwide, and was a solution to the problems with segregation in public schools in the 70's and 80's.

5/5

2/2

__Information: __

Burger, C.J. (n.d.). //Swann v. charlotte-mecklenburg board of education (no. 281) // . Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0402_0001_ZO.html

Burger, C.J. (n.d.). //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Swann v. charlotte-mecklenburg board of educ. // <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">. Retrieved from http://www.tourolaw.edu/PATCH/Swann/

(n.a.)(n.d.). <span style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: normal;">//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Swann v. charlotte-mecklenburg board of education // <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">. Retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Swann+v.+Charlotte-Mecklenburg+Board+of+Education

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Images: __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> School Bus [Online Image]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 24, 2009, from School Bus Central.com. http://www.schoolbuscentral.com/gallery/manufacturers/crown/images/1.jpg

Kids in School [Online Image]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 24, 2009, from How Stuff Works.com. http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/civil-rights-movement-5.jpg

2/2

EVERYTHING LOOKS GREAT - WAY TO HANG IN THERE WITH TECHNOLOGY ISSUES!

25/25 = 100% (A+)