In the legal field, the NAACP has focused on eliminating segregation in public schools. This campaign was led by Thurgood Marshall, the first director-attorney of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and later a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1954, Marshall successfully litigated the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 pp. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873, before the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision in this case stated that racially segregated schools are inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional. Like other NAACP leaders, Marshall was firmly committed to the principle of racial integration. His arguments in Brown were heavily based on the work of Kenneth B. Clark, a black social psychologist whose research suggested that black children were stigmatized by being taught in racially segregated schools, causing them psychological and intellectual damage.
Marshall used this “stigmatizing harm” theory to convince the court that racially segregated schools were inherently unequal. Although the Brown decision called for an end to formal segregation, it did not explicitly call for positive measures to ensure the integration of public schools. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, judges and other federal officials who enforced it required schools to go beyond racially neutral desegregation policies to try to address past segregation by imposing a higher level of racial integration. This policy was established in 1968 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 88 pp. Ct.
1689, 20 L. Ed. 2d 716, in which the court held that a school district`s plan to abolish racial segregation was unacceptable after Brown. The Green case involved a school district that had two high schools that had previously been separated by race. When the district changed its rules to allow students to attend the school of their choice, few black students opted for the traditionally white school, and no white chose the black school, leaving the schools separate. In its decision in Green, the Court called the “freedom of choice” plan a “deliberate maintenance of the unconstitutional dual system” and stated that school boards had an “affirmative duty to take all necessary steps to achieve a unified system in which racial discrimination at its root and branch would be eliminated.” While a freedom of choice plan may theoretically be a viable method of transforming into a “unified, non-racial school system,” the court said it must “prove itself in practice,” adding that methods such as rezoning could prove faster and therefore more acceptable. Although the Court does not explicitly require active integration, it has proposed that the validity of racial segregation plans be measured by the extent of the integration they have actually produced. Other black academics and political leaders followed Du Bois` lead, questioning the value of integration for African Americans and instead recommending separating black schools, churches, and economic networks. In the 1960s, members of Black Power and black nationalist movements, including Malcolm X, argued that integration was an inappropriate strategy for blacks, who they believed could only free themselves from racism and oppression if they separated from the dominant white culture. Integration, they argued, would lead to the assimilation of African Americans into the white community. In 1967, for example, Stokely Carmichael, a leader of the Black Power movement, said, “The fact is that integration, as traditionally articulated, would abolish the black community.” More recently, some race relations legal theorists have criticized the stigmatizing harm theory that Marshall presented in Brown, claiming that it is based on an idea of African-American inferiority by claiming that black children can receive an adequate education, for the most part, yes.
The probation rule prevents the introduction of evidence for previous or competing negotiations that contradict the contractual terms of the final written contract. Except in cases where fraud, accident or error is claimed. The Florida Third District Court of Appeals ruled that if a party justifies its action to cancel the contract on the grounds that the contract was created by fraud, the contract is not final even if there is an integration clause. Cas-Kay Enterprises, Inc. v. Snapper Creek Trading Center, Inc., 453 So. 2d 1147 (Fla.3d LOAC 1984). Therefore, an integration clause is not always bulletproof, there may be cases where one party knowingly tries to deceive the other with certain conditions of the contract.
Other cases may occur when a provision or provision was accidentally designed and included or added in one place, but it was not deleted in time before the agreement was signed and executed. To avoid or further prevent these circumstances, it is always best to ask a licensed attorney to review and revise all legal contracts in which you are involved. Cashmore and other recent race relations researchers suggest that integration no longer simply means the abolition of racial segregation, but now includes pluralism. In this context, pluralism refers to a State in which there are no ethnic hierarchies, so that there are no ethnic minorities per se; Instead, different groups in society also participate in the social system and thus experience balance and cohesion rather than conflict and resentment. In this sense, the scholar Harold Cruse stated: “The separate but equal doctrine that Brown considered unconstitutional should have been replaced by the truly democratic doctrine of the plural but of equality.