Document 1 "The Supreme Court Reverses the "Separate but Equal" Doctrine, 1954

. . . We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. . . .
To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question--the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. . . .

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, United States Reports, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
The Court Reverses Separate but Equal Doctrine

Document 2 "A Southern Defense of Segregated Education, 1956

. . . [I]f the small children of the two races in approximately equal numbers--as would be the case in a great many of the South's schools--were brought together intimately and constantly and grew up in close association in integrated schools under teachers necessarily committed to the gospel of racial integration, there would be many in whom race preference would not develop. This would not be, as superficial thinkers might suppose, a good thing, the happy solution of the race problem in America. It might be a solution of a sort, but not one that the American people would desire. It would inevitably result, beginning with the least desirable elements of both races, in a great increase of racial amalgamation, the very process which throughout our history we have most sternly rejected. For although to most persons today the idea of mixed mating is disagreeable or even repugnant, this would not be true of the new generations brought up in mixed schools with the desirability of racial integration as a basic premise. Among those new generations mixed matings would become commonplace, and a greatly enlarged mixed-blood population would result.
That is the compelling reason, though by no means the only reason, why the South will resist, with all its resources of mind and body, the mixing of the races in its public schools. It is a reason which, when its validity is generally recognized, will quickly enlist millions of non-Southerners in support of the South's position. The people of the North and West do not favor the transformation of the United States into a nation composed in considerable part of mixed bloods any more than the people of the South do. Northern support of school integration in the South is due to the failure to realize its inevitable biological effect in regions of large Negro population. If Northerners did realize this, their enthusiasm for mixed schools in the South would evaporate at once.

Herbert Ravenel Saas, Atlantic Monthly (November 1956)."

A Southern Defense of Segregated Education

Document 3 "A Southern Criticism of Governor Orval Faubus, 1957

Governor Faubus said at his press conference yesterday that the Little Rock crisis now hinges upon the withdrawal of the nine Negro children who are presently peacefully attending Central High School under federal court order and federal military protection. . . .
So what Mr. Faubus is saying is that the federal government must abandon its position and let him have his way on his own terms. There is no indication that the federal government will do so.
But still, with all this, the governor contends that all he wants is delay. He says that Negroes cannot attend Central High School peaceably now, but he suggests that they can at some indefinite future date. At one point or another he has suggested that this might be possible next semester or next fall--the last date being, in our judgment, the significant one since it comes after the next gubernatorial election.
But what the governor never explains is why he thinks it will be any easier to carry out the court order then than it was this time around--or any easier, that is, than it would have been had he not recklessly chosen to disrupt the patient and careful work of the responsible local school officials who had every reason to believe that their limited and gradual plan was acceptable to a vast majority of the people.
Could the governor guarantee that no mob would form next semester, or next fall, if the Negro children again presented themselves under court order? He probably could, as a matter of fact, but he has repeatedly indicated that he will not do so--as indeed he cannot do without sacrificing the temporary political advantages he has gained. And so there is no valid reason to assume that delay will resolve the impasse which Mr. Faubus has made.
We doubt that Mr. Faubus can simply wear the federals out--although he is doing a pretty good job of wearing out his own people.

Arkansas Gazette, October 10, 1957.

From an editorial on Governor Faubus, October 10, 1957. Reprinted with permission of the Arkansas Gazette.