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
12.
The primary purpose of the ███████ ██ ██
a
reveal the details ██ ██████████ ██████ ██████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ █████ ██ █████████
The primary purpose isn’t about the details of Marshall’s career. It doesn’t go into his prior jobs, his law school experience, other cases he might have worked on unrelated to Brown, etc. Although the passage discusses some of his work before Brown, that doesn’t make the overall purpose to discuss the details of his career before Brown.
b
examine the effects ██ █ ██████████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ █████████
The primary purpose isn’t about the effects of “separate but equal.” It’s about Marshall’s work overturning “separate but equal.”
c
describe the strategy ████████████ ██ █ ██████████ █████ ████████
This best captures the primary purpose, which is to tell us about the work that Marshall did before Brown that helped prepare the court to accept his argument against “separate but equal.”
d
provide guidance to █████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ █████ █████████
The primary purpose isn’t to provide guidance to other litigators. The author never tries to draw any lessons from Marshall’s work and never directs any statements toward how readers might approach litigation strategy in other cases.
e
call attention to ██ ███████ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████
The primary purpose isn’t to call attention to the unsound nature of “separate but equal.” “Separate but equal” has already been overturned. It’s part of history, and the author doesn’t treat the doctrine as if anyone still needs to be convinced that it’s wrong. The passage focuses on the work that went into overturning it to support the claim that cases Marshall worked before Brown helped prepare the court to accept his argument. The author never tries to draw attention to the unsound nature of “separate but equal” and never tries to advocate against the doctrine.