The civil rights movement, 1954–1965

Grade 11 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Cards A to E on Brown and what followed (the excerpts are exact; the summary and the note are in our words). Card A, "Brown v. Board of Education, the question about "tangible" factors". Who made it: the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice Earl Warren writing for a unanimous Court. When: May 17, 1954. For whom: the parties, the states and the public. Why: to ask whether equal buildings and equal resources are enough. Excerpt (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 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." Card B, "Brown II, the standard for delay". Who made it: the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice Earl Warren writing for a unanimous Court. When: May 31, 1955. For whom: the lower courts, the states and the public. Why: to say how much delay the courts could allow. Excerpt (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (II), 349 U.S. 294): "While giving weight to these public and private considerations, the courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling. Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner. The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith [honest effort] compliance at the earliest practicable date." Card C, "Cooper v. Aaron, the background". Who made it: historians and government agencies writing today. When: today. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: After the Little Rock crisis of 1957, the Little Rock school board asked a court to delay desegregation for two and a half years. The Arkansas governor and legislature had also claimed that they were not bound by the Brown ruling. In 1958 the Supreme Court decided unanimously against both claims in Cooper v. Aaron, and it held that Brown is the supreme law of the land that binds the states. Card D, "Cooper v. Aaron, the Court's answer". Who made it: the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion signed by all nine justices. When: September 29, 1958. For whom: the Little Rock school board, the state and the public. Why: to say whether state officials could avoid the Brown ruling. Excerpt (Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1): "In short, the constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color declared by this Court in the Brown case can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers, nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes [ways around the law] for segregation whether attempted "ingeniously or ingenuously."" Card E, "Tala's note on Brown" (written for this sheet, in our words): Brown (1954) said segregated schools were unequal only when their buildings and supplies were worse than the white schools'. So if the buildings are equal, separate schools are allowed.

2. 1.

   Ari traces how the Court treated delay from 1955 to 1958. Which statement do cards B, C and D support?

   • Brown II gave defendants a right to delay, and Cooper then ordered the delay the school board had asked for
   • Brown II ordered schools to desegregate within a year, and Cooper extended that year by two and a half years for Little Rock
   • Brown II allowed time only after a prompt start and put the burden on the defendants; Cooper then rejected a long delay
   • Brown II ended delays entirely, so the Little Rock board's request in 1958 never needed a court ruling
3. 2.

   Bo reads Tala's note (card E) against card A. Which objection to the note is strongest?

   • Card A asks whether segregation harms children even when tangible factors are equal, and the Court says it does
   • The note is correct, since the Court compared just buildings and supplies in the cases it combined, as the note says
   • The note leaves out that Brown covered cases from four states, so it describes only part of the ruling
   • The note is wrong, since the Court said each separate school is unequal because of its buildings alone
4. 3.

   One reader says "all deliberate speed" invited delay, and another says Brown II demanded a prompt start. How should Esme weigh these readings?

   • The delay reading wins, since the phrase includes the word "deliberate" and the board asked for a delay, which the Court's order allowed
   • Both use the Court's words, one stressing "deliberate" and the other the burden on defendants; Cooper rejects a long delay
   • They are the same reading, since both agree that the Court expected schools to desegregate in time
   • The prompt-start reading wins, since Cooper rejected delay in 1958 and so the 1955 order could not have invited any
5. 4.

   Jun wants to test the claim that Brown II's wording led to long delays. Which added evidence would help most?

   • More excerpts from the Brown II opinion, to read the Court's wording again in more detail and compare phrases closely
   • Records of how many districts had begun to desegregate by later years, and the reasons boards gave for waiting
   • A newspaper story about one school board's meeting in 1956, as an example of its delay
   • The text of Brown I from 1954, which says segregated schools are inherently unequal

6. Use this

   Cards A to D on the Voting Rights Act (the table is exact; the summaries and the note are in our words). Card A, table: Black voting-age population registered, percent, before the Voting Rights Act and in 1967 (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Political Participation, May 1968, pp. 12-14; the before-figures are the Commission's estimates). Alabama: 19.3, then 51.6. Georgia: 27.4, then 52.6. Louisiana: 31.6, then 58.9. Mississippi: 6.7, then 59.8. South Carolina: 37.3, then 51.2. Caution from the Commission: its before-figures are estimates from official and unofficial sources that vary widely in accuracy, and each state's before-figure has a different date, such as December 1962 for Georgia and November 1, 1964 for Mississippi. Card B, "What the Voting Rights Act did and did not do". Who made it: historians and government agencies writing today. When: today. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: The Department of Justice says the Act of 1965 suspended literacy tests and similar devices and sent federal examiners to register voters. The Act did not ban poll taxes. It told the Attorney General to challenge them, and in Harper v. Virginia (1966) the Supreme Court held that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional. Card C, "Zee's note on the 1965 Act" (written for this sheet, in our words): The Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned the poll tax in every kind of election. After that law, nobody had to pay a poll tax to vote anywhere. Card D, "Two accounts of the final vote". Who made it: historians and government agencies writing today. When: today. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: The National Archives gives August 5, 1965 as the day Congress passed the voting bill, and says President Johnson signed it the following day. The House of Representatives' history office says the House approved the Voting Rights Act by a vote of 328 to 74 on August 3, 1965. It says the Senate then concurred and President Johnson signed the bill on August 6, 1965.

7. 5.

   Kira reads Card A. Which statement about Mississippi and South Carolina is correct, given the Commission's caution?

   • Mississippi and South Carolina ended at about the same level, since 59.8 and 51.2 are close, so their gains were similar
   • South Carolina's gain was larger in lasting terms, since it started higher at 37.3 percent and stayed ahead
   • The caution means the gains cannot be compared, since the before-figures have different dates in each state
   • Mississippi rose about 53 points and South Carolina about 14, though the before-figures are estimates
8. 6.

   Luz reads Zee's note (card C) against card B. Which objection to the note is strongest?

   • The Act suspended literacy tests, so the note is wrong about the Act's reach in general, whatever it says about poll taxes
   • The note is wrong, since the 24th Amendment of 1964 did away with poll taxes in elections of any kind, state or federal alike
   • Card B says the Act did not ban poll taxes; the Attorney General was told to challenge them, and Virginia's fell in 1966
   • The note is correct, since Harper v. Virginia in 1966 shows the Act ended poll taxes in the whole country
9. 7.

   Card D gives August 5 for passage in one account and August 3 for the House vote in another. How should Milo reconcile them?

   • Both accounts say the President signed on August 5, so the dates conflict just in the signing
   • They may mark different steps, the House vote on August 3 and the Senate's concurrence; a historian checks the record
   • Both accounts describe the same vote, so the two dates are the same event reported in two ways
   • One account must be thrown out, since a vote can have just one date and the other writer made an error in dating it
10. 8.

    Noah wants to test the claim that the Voting Rights Act caused the gains in Mississippi. Which added evidence would help most?

    • The same table again, with Mississippi's before and 1967 figures stated to more decimal places
    • Year-by-year registration counts for the same counties, with the dates federal examiners began registering voters
    • The registration figure for one county in 1967, taken from a newspaper story about that county, as a sample of the state
    • The text of section 2, which forbids race-based rules for voting in any part of the nation

11. Use this

    Cards A to C on Montgomery (the dates are from public agencies; the summary and the interpretations are in our words). Card A, "Browder v. Gayle, in brief". Who made it: historians and government agencies writing today. When: today. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Four women who had been mistreated on Montgomery's buses, with Aurelia Browder first in the case's name, asked a federal court to strike down the city's bus segregation rules. Their lawyer, Fred Gray, argued that the rules broke the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, the same argument used in Brown. A three-judge federal court ruled 2 to 1 in June 1956 that bus segregation was unconstitutional, and the judges relied on Brown. The National Archives dates the ruling June 4, 1956, and the National Park Service dates it June 5, 1956. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling on November 13, 1956. Card B, "Dates": the Montgomery bus boycott began on December 5, 1955, and lasted 381 days. Card C, "Two interpretations" (two common arguments, written for this sheet in our words, not quotations). Interpretation 1: The courts ended bus segregation in Montgomery, because the legal change came from a ruling that applied Brown. Interpretation 2: The boycott made the lawsuit possible and kept pressure on the city while the case moved through the courts.

12. 9.

    A classmate says the Montgomery bus segregation was "won in court." Which objection is strongest for Ren?

    • Four women brought the case, with Aurelia Browder named first, and their lawyer was Fred Gray
    • The lawyer, Fred Gray, used the same equal-protection argument as in Brown, which shows the case was strong
    • The cases drew on Brown, and the boycott kept pressure on the city for months after the ruling; protest and law worked together
    • The boycott alone won it, since the plaintiffs were riders who joined the boycott before the lawsuit
13. 10.

    Zee wants to test interpretation 2, that the boycott made the lawsuit possible. Which added evidence would help most?

    • The text of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause that the lawyers cited
    • More summaries of the three-judge court's ruling in June 1956 and the later Supreme Court action, since a ruling shows what mattered
    • Records showing when the lawyers prepared the case and whether boycott leaders and the plaintiffs worked together
    • A photograph of one crowded carpool pickup taken in the winter of 1956