Self-study
P1
Thurgood Marshall's litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952—the landmark case, decided in 1954, that made segregation illegal in United States public schools—was not his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court. ████ █████ ████████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███ █████████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████ █████ ███████████ █████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ██████
Legal scholars' perspective ·
Thurgood Marshall succeeded in Brown v. Board because of past litigation
Marshall had other cases in Supreme Court prior to Brown v. Board (which made segregation illegal in public schools).
P2
████ ████████ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ████████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██ ███████ ███████ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ███ ████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ███████████ █████████████ ██ ██████ ███████████████ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ██████████ ███
Historical context ·
NAACP was divided on how to attack doctrine of "separate but equal"
One potential approach ·
Argue that facilities were not in fact equal
Goal fo this approach was improving opportunity for African Americans and improving facilities themselves.
Second potential approach ·
Argue that "separate but equal" was self-contradictory
Marshall's strategy ·
Second approach is correct, but need to try first approach first to prepare courts to accept second
P3
█████ ████████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████████████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███ ██████████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ █████████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ █ ████████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████████ ██████████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███
Application of Marshall's strategy ·
Evolved way to go from individual instances of inequality to broader social argument
Shelley v. Kraemer ·
Marshall used sociological data to show that individual transactions constitute pattern of discrimination
Connection between Shelley and Brown ·
Use of sociological data in Shelley helped court to accept same kind of data in Brown
Passage Style
Single position
Spotlight
9.
The passage suggests that the ████████ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
Without Marshall's argument ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ ████████
Not supported, because we have no evidence of scholars’ belief regarding the potential of political reasons to help overturn “separate but equal.”
b
Without Marshall's argument ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████
This is the best supported answer, because scholars argue that
c
Without Marshall's argument ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ███ ████ ███████ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ███████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████ ████
The court did not excuse private dealings from the legal requirement for equal protection in Shelley v. Kraemer. Courts previously excused such dealings from this legal requirement, but Shelley v. Kraemer finally applied equal protection to those private dealings.
d
Without Marshall's argument ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ █████ ████████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████
Not supported. Although the scholars believe the data in Shelley v. Kraemer helped prepare the court for similar data in Brown, this doesn’t imply that they think the court would never have used sociological data in the future without Shelley v. Kraemer. It may have taken longer for the court to accept sociological data, but “never” is too extreme.
e
Without Marshall's argument ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ██████████████ ███████ ████████████ ██ █████ ████████
Not supported, because we have no reason to think the scholars believe housing discrimination would have been overturned on other grounds. There were no other potential grounds described for overturning housing discrimination.