Resolution
1954 Decision |
Illinois Commission on the 50th Anniversary of ACTIVITY FOUR AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS Monday, May 17, 2004
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas Library Room 102, Breakey Theatre On Monday, May 17, 2004 , the 50 th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, a commemorative event in celebration of the monumental and historic legal decision, was held on the campus of Chicago State University ; Dr. Elnora D. Daniel is President. This signal event occurred as the culmination of months of planning
Dr. Elnora D. Daniel, CSU President, Commissioner
The Honorable Mattie Hunter Illinois State Senator, Vice-Chair Governor Rod Blagojevich led Illinois in commemorating this historic case. He delivered opening remarks in Chicago State ’s Breakey Theater. “It took the Supreme Court 18 months to decide Brown v. Board of Education, but it took more than a century of struggle to get there. So today, as we celebrate this anniversary, we’re celebrating the lives of all those men and women who worked so long and so hard toward their dream of an America that would offer equal justice and equal opportunity to every one of us,” said Governor Blagojevich. The Governor was joined by elected officials, various dignitaries, Chicago Public School students, and members of the Chicago State University community. Some of the special guests and program participants included: Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, Jr.; State Senator Mattie Hunter (D-3); the Honorable Charles E. Freeman, Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court; the Honorable Arnette R. Hubbard; James D. Montgomery, Attorney-at-law; Diann Burns and Antonio Mora, CBS 2 News; Allison Payne, WGN 9 News; Harry Porterfield, ABC 7 News; and Warner Saunders, NBC 5 News. This state-sponsored event began at 9:00 a.m. with a reenactment of the oral arguments and decision rendered in 1954 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren was played by the first African American appointed to the Illinois Supreme Court, the Honorable Justice Charles E. Freeman of the Illinois Supreme Court. The Associate Justices of the 1954 Warren court were represented by judges from various divisions of the Illinois court system. In addition, James Montgomery and Lawrence Jay Weiner, Attorneys-at-Law, represented the attorneys for the plaintiff, Thurgood Marshall, and for the defense, John Davis. In an effort to enhance the reenactment, the CSU Theater staff designed a stage set that replicated the courtroom of the US Supreme Court. In addition, the judges and attorneys participating in the reenactment dressed in period clothing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| James Montgomery, Esq. | Lawrence Jay Weiner, Esq. | Honorable Justice Charles E. Freeman |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
The state’s two million public school children also participated in the celebration. The entire program was available to schools live via satellite, Internet-webcast, and broadcast on eleven public television stations throughout the state. Utilizing these varied media formats ensured accessibility to the greatest number of educators and students in Illinois schools. The Illinois State Board of Education also archived the event for future educational use. In addition, a computer disc of the celebratory event was produced and distributed to all members of the Commission and will be available to school, libraries and other venues for the future. The specific PBS stations that broadcast the May 17, 2004 event live from CSU are listed in Table One: Table One PBS Stations that Broadcast the Commemorative Event Live
Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, Jr. introduced the Re-enactment with remarks about the continuing importance of Education in a democratic society. “The intent of the Brown v. Board decision is to provide all children with equal access to a quality education. So, in keeping with the spirit of this historic decision, it is critical that every school child learn and understand the significance of this case and how it has shaped the world in which they live,” said Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, Jr. On the first day of oral arguments in the historic case, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 300 seats were filled with individuals who knew the importance of the issue before the court. The commemorative program at Chicago State University (CSU) was a “Standing Room Only” event. “Our goal was to provide a re-enactment that engaged and informed children and adults alike about the extraordinary impact of this case on American history,” said Dr. Elnora D. Daniel, President of Chicago State University.
May 17th 2004 Commemorative Event Receiption
A Reenactment of the Brown v. Board of Education Oral Arguments
Noted Chicago attorney, James D. Montgomery, playing the role of Thurgood Marshall, pleads his case before a mock supreme court during a re-enactment of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case, in which the historic decision was handed down that led to the integration of public schools in the United States. The re-encatment took place Monday at Chicago State University in celebration of the 50th Anniversity of the landmark ruling. A Reenactment of the Brown v. Board of Education Oral Arguments Summary of the Script for the Re-enactment of the Brown v. Board of Education Oral Arguments made before the United State Supreme Court:, developed by the American Bar Association. On May 17, 2004 , the State of Illinois commemorated the 50th anniversary of the historic unanimous legal decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas with a program that included a re-enactment of the oral arguments before the United States Supreme Count. The decision in Brown ended the long-standing discrimination in schools that had been supported by the doctrine of “separate but equal” in public education, which had been established by prior decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court rendered since the 1890's. "Separate, but equal" was the law of the land. The Brown decision heralded a victory in the fight to ensure that educational opportunities were available on equal terms to all United States citizens. The stories of the Brown case were stories that would have been familiar to millions of Americans in the early 1950s. The cases that were consolidated for argument under the name of Brown v. Board of Education came from across the country – Topeka , Kansas , of course, but also the states of South Carolina , Virginia , and Delaware . In addition to the four state cases consolidated under Brown, a lawsuit from the District of Columbia , Bolling v. Sharpe also was heard. The Bolling case was decided separately because the Fourteenth Amendment, upon the Brown based its equal protection claims, did not apply to the District of Columbia (DC) because DC is not a state government. In some of these localities (including Topeka , Kansas ) the differences between the physical facilities of the “white” and “colored” schools were minimal. For example, in Topeka , only the elementary schools were segregated, while the junior high and high schools always had been integrated. In other localities ( Clarendon County , South Carolina , for example) the differences were severe and starkly contrasting. Spending for black students was a mere fraction of what was spent for whites, and black students were relegated to unheated buildings without indoor plumbing where they were taught a limited curriculum. In all the cases, however, children from the plaintiffs’ families were educated in schools segregated by law, and it was the harmful effects of segregation per se, regardless of the purported physical equality of the segregated facilities, that were under attack in Brown. The script for the Re-enactment Program highlighted the legal strategy pursued by some of the defendant states, which involved a pledge to “equalize” segregated schools by improving their facilities and curricula in an attempt to avoid desegregation and a continuation of the doctrine of "separate, but equal." The task of the Brown plaintiffs was to convince the Court that "separate" could never be "equal." The South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, brought together the most famous and most formidable of the lawyers on the two sides of the Brown cases, and the excerpts that were presented were taken from the oral arguments in Briggs. Prominent Chicago trial lawyer, James D. Montgomery, was cast in the role of Thurgood Marshall, the legendary head of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund and, later in his career, the first African American to sit on the United States Supreme Court. Lawrence Jay Weiner, a leader in the field of school law, was cast in the role of John Davis, whose career highlights included serving in the Wilson administration (first as solicitor general and then as ambassador to the Court of St. James), running as the 1924 Democratic candidate for President, and, for 34 years, heading the New York law firm of Davis, Polk & Wardwell. The Re-enactment Program is but a short excerpt from the many hours of oral argument presented to the United States Supreme Court in the five consolidated cases before it reached its decision. The script was primarily selected from the arguments for the consolidated cases that began on Tuesday, December 9, 1952 . Thurgood Marshall and John Davis began their arguments in Briggs v. Elliott late that day and concluded on the afternoon of Wednesday, December 10, 1952 . A copy of the script was made available for teachers and students on the Commission's website. That site contained "hyperlinked" references to special "legal" words and concepts in order for students to better understand the context of the presentation. The Brown ruling firmly reiterated resounding fundamental principles of our democracy that are as relevant today and as they were when spoken 50 years ago by Chief Justice Earl Warren and his colleagues: "Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education . Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms." "We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.
Illinois Commission on the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education Contact: Executive Director Ollie McLemore |