Dear (_____): 
 
 

I am calling (writing) to ask if you would be willing to help with my ongoing research about black students' experiences in moving from segregated schools to desegregated schools. 
 
 

I am interested in such things as how desegregation was explained to you and by whom, what your expectations were, how you were treated, etc. 
 
 

All responses will be kept anonymous; the names of this city and county will not be identified. 
 
 

Would you be willing to meet with me and discuss the possibility of interviewing you about your experiences. 
 
 

If you decide that an interview would be okay, the interview itself would take about one hour and, again, anything you say will be kept confidential. 
 
 

If you have a story to tell, or know of someone else who does, I invite you to write to me privately and in strict confidence. 
 
 

Richard Porr 

11980 45 RD SE 

Agency, MO 64401 
 
 

Dear Madam or Sir: 

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Richard Porr, from the University of Missouri at Kansas City. I hope to learn how black students experienced desegregation in this city. Results of this study will contribute to the completion of my doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of your experiences with desegregation. 

You will be asked to share from your experiences with desegregation. If, at any time, you wish to not answer a line of questioning you are free to decline. If you decide to participate, your comments will be either tape recorded or written verbatim by me. Audio tapes and notes will be kept in a secure place at my home office and will be accessible only by me. At the completion of the analysis phase of this study, all tapes will be erased and interview notes will be destroyed to protect your anonymity. Your initial interview will be approximately one hour long and you may be asked to participate in a 30-minute follow up interview at a later date. There is absolutely no risk to you, as you will not be identified by name but by a pseudonym of your choosing. I will be the only person who will know that you participated in this study. In addition, the name of this city and any other distinguishing characteristics, which could help a reader to identify the location of this study, will be changed to preserve anonymity. If we cannot agree upon a comfortable setting for the interview, we may conduct the interview by telephone. By sharing your experiences, you will be contributing to a written record, which could lead to a better understanding of the impact of desegregation upon the black community. However, I cannot guarantee that you personally will receive any benefits from this research. The results of this study may be published in scientific journals or presented at professional meetings, but, if this happens, your identity will be kept strictly confidential. 

Your participation is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time without penalty. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 253-9104. You will be given a copy of this form to keep. 

Your signature indicates that you have read and understand the information provided above, that you willingly agree to participate, that you may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty, that you will receive a copy of this form, and that you are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies. Thank you very much for your willingness to participate. 
 
 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Signature Date 
 
 

1. Where were you in your schooling when the schools were desegregated in 1954? 
 
 

› grade school › not in school yet 

› high school › out of school 
 
 

2. What is your ethnicity? 
 
 

› black › white 
 
 

3. Have you ever attended a segregated school? 
 
 

› yes › no 
 
 

4. Who explained desegregation to you? 
 
 

› a parent/parents › other family member 

› teacher /school worker › minister/church worker 

› other › no one did 
 
 

For the following, please choose the answer which best fits your experience: 
 
 

1 – greatly disagree 

2 – somewhat disagree 

3 – neutral, don’t disagree or agree 

4 – somewhat agree 

5 – greatly agree 
 
 

5. My schooling experience changed for the better as a result of desegregation. 
 
 

› 1 › 2 › 3 › 4 › 5 
 
 

6. The curriculum used in my classroom did not change as a result of desegregation. 
 
 

› 1 › 2 › 3 › 4 › 5 
 
 

7. The way in which I was treated by school workers changed as a result of desegregation. 

8. My circle of friends did not change as a result of desegregation. 
 
 

› 1 › 2 › 3 › 4 › 5 
 
 

9. As a result of desegregation, I no longer wanted to attend school. 
 
 

› 1 › 2 › 3 › 4 › 5 
 
 

10. My parents and/or close family members were supportive of desegregation. 
 
 

› 1 › 2 › 3 › 4 › 5 
 
 

11. Some of my family members expressed anger about desegregation. 
 
 

› 1 › 2 › 3 › 4 › 5 
 
 

12. At the time of desegregation, I lived in a racially mixed neighborhood. 
 
 

› 1 › 2 › 3 › 4 › 5 
 
 

13. Information was sent home from school explaining the process of desegregation. 
 
 

› 1 › 2 › 3 › 4 › 5 
 

14. The school district did an adequate job of meeting with community members to explain the process of desegregation. 

15. My close family members had concerns about desegregation but seemed to be afraid to speak openly about those concerns. 

16. I believe I learned more in school after desegregation. 
 
 

› 1 › 2 › 3 › 4 › 5 
 
 

17. As a direct result of desegregation, I had more hope that I could be a success in life. 

18. I do not believe school desegregation had any impact on my life one way or another. 

OPENING QUESTIONS 
 
 

Sent: 16 August 1998 03:54 

To: D.M.Wainwright@ukc.ac.uk 

Subject: Qualitative/Critical 

Dr. Wainwright- 

Greetings from St. Joseph, Missouri, USA---where the Pony Express began and Jesse James ended---where I am the chair of the education department at our college. 

I am completing my dissertation using Glaser's grounded theory approach but found that as I conducted interviews I was, at times, explaining concepts from critical theory instead of merely providing open-ended questions and prompts. After explaining a relevant concept, such as cultural capital or habitus, I would then lapse back into a more passive role as my subjects took their newfound ability to name what they had been trying to describe and often moved their sharing to a new level of connections and insights. I realized this was a heretical approach if I was going to remain true to the rituals of grounded theory. I had not yet made a decision how I was going to report this in my dissertation when I came across your article on-line in The Qualitative Report, July , 1977. 

Would you be so kind as to respond to the very minor way in which I am attempting to apply the synthesis you described in the article? Am I at 

least partially on track? 

What follows is a brief description of when I think it is most appropriate to actively intervene and an example of an intervention: During an interview, when it seemed that a participant had more to say about a particular experience and ran out of words or couldn't seem to find words with which to name a phenomenon, I would shift from open-ended questions with brief prompts to a more dialogical approach and share names and concepts from critical theory. For example, Mr. Henderson demonstrated a great deal of insight into some aspects of hegemony, although he was not familiar with either the term or the concept. After a particularly fruitful accounting related to unwritten rules of behavior for blacks, he seemed to wander away from the concept and seemed unable to elaborate further. I shared with him some of the challenges I face in exposing preservice teachers to the concept of hegemony. I asked him if he was familiar with the term, and when he stated he was not, I defined hegemony and applied it to his most recent sharing. The interview moved on into other areas. However, within ten minutes or so, he experienced an epiphany that was very fruitful for both of us. He shared how he had once gone to his physician to be treated for anemia and was shocked to find that no blacks in this city had sickle cell anemia, an inherited disease, since they had so closely intermarried over many generations. My subject made the connection that the black community then most likely shared common perspectives and reinforced those with family discourses, essentially free from an outsider's point of view. I do not believe he would have made the connections he did without my intervention. And I might never have learned of this very important addition to my theory. In addition to the contribution I was able to make to Mr. Masterson's social consciousness, I believe I can also make a more valid judgement of his other insights into other phenomena after witnessing the depth of his response to this new liberatory knowledge. 

-Richard Porr 
 
 

From: David Wainwright <D.M.Wainwright@ukc.ac.uk>To: "'Richard Porr'" <porr@mwsc.edu> 

Subject: RE: Qualitative/Critical 

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:55:09 +0100 

X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by griffon.mwsc.edu id JAA29051 

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your message. I'm doing fieldwork at the moment and am not spending much time in the office. I think your approach is an interesting one. It reminded me of Paulo Freire's book: "The Pedagogy of the Oppressed," in which he describes his educational work amongst Latin American peasants. He suggests that rather than the traditional talk and chalk approach where the teacher lectures to the class, progressive teachers should engage in a process called 'conscientization', starting from the beliefs and experiences of the peasants, but equipping them with the analytical and theoretical skills to develop an understanding of their location in society and the difficulties they encounter. To be successful the teacher must avoid dogmatically imposing his own beliefs on the student, but also avoid accepting everyday beliefs at face value - the aim is to arrive at 'cultural synthesis', where the teacher learns from his students, and the students learn from the teacher, together they arrive at a new understanding which goes beyond their previous knowledge. I think you have applied a similar approach to social research. My only concern would be that there is a danger of giving too much primacy to the existing body of social theory, at the expense of really listening to your subjects. You've got to be careful that you don't just shoe-horn people's beliefs into an existing theory, instead of being prepared to modify the theory if it doesn't fit with observations from the real world. I think this is partly what Marxists mean when they refer to ‘practically informed theory and theoretically informed practice’. My feeling is that if we are committed to progressive social change, then we should be prepared to learn from the people we study, but also attempt to use our intellectual skills to develop their consciousness and that of the broader populous---after all they are the real agents of social change. Applied sensitively I think your approach is both progressive and valid. Sociological jargon, the best social theory can be translated into everyday language. Good luck with your research. 

David 
 
 

Superintendent (_____): 

Dear Sir: I have the pleasure again to make to you a report of the Colored High School for the year ending June 16^th, 1899. 

We have not the pleasure to report any great increase in numbers, the enrollment for the year being about what it has been for the past three years. This is due to several causes. To the two most potent we hereby direct your attention. 

There is but a small pecentum of the pupils of the Grammar School who avail themselves of the advantages of a High School training. That average is fixed and cannot change materially unless there is a decided change in the number of children in the Grammar grades. Ever since 1896 there has been quite a decrease in the enrollment of the grades especially in the Grammar department. This is so, and must continue so, as long as children poorly clad, from six to ten years of age are compelled to walk from sixteen to twenty blocks to get to school. If these are obliged to remain at home, how must it be with children living in Saxton Heights, Florence, South Park, and St. George [parts of the city from five to 8 miles away]. If they had money of course they could attend; but their parents have all they can do to provide them with the necessities of life. I am aware of the fact that it has been said these children would not attend school if they were given one. Notwithstanding, I do know that the year before, the board was compelled to close two of the Negro schools, that there were 107 pupils enrolled in the Eighteenth Street School and 52 in the South Eleventh Street School with an average daily attendance of 75 and 25 pupils respectively. Those pupils are there now and they are not attending school. This condition while very injurious is made more so when it is remembered that many of the older children must stay at home to care for the little ones while their parents are at work. 

The raising of the standard of the Colored High School has had much to do toward decreasing the enrollment. The pupils now entering the school are placed on their honor and are compelled to make the required per cent or they are not promoted. Many who fail take this as an excuse to quit school, losing sight of the benefits of such a rule. Three years’ results have justified the means. Quality not quantity is the ideal for which the school is now bending its energy. The graduates leaving the Colored High School will in the future be much stronger and more able to fight their way in the battle of life than those who have preceded them. 

"It is the work of the educator to help whom he [sic] educates to discharge the functions for which as man [sic] he has been made." It has been for years a question in my mind whether the High School is doing this as completely as it should be done. A fair knowledge of Latin, Greek, mathematics and science is surely indispensable to the development of the mind but they do not fit wholly the Negro child in the majority of case for the function he must perform in life. The Negro boy emerging from a high school meets a cold prejudiced world with almost every avenue to independence closed against him. There is scarcely a trade of any kind that admits him. Besides, those places in which he has found employment are now calling for men and women with some previous training of their professions. In view of these conditions it seems to me it would be no waste of money and would be serving the purposes of education to establish a mechanical department in our school. The white boy is taught bookkeeping and stenography because it prepares him for what he proposes to do in life. Then why not teach the Negro boy and girl something they will have to do? 
 
 

Superintendent (_____): 

Respected Sir: Following we give you a report of the fifteenth year’s work of the Colored High School which emphasizes two truths: that the best results come from throwing the pupils upon their honor and that the philanthropic people of this country cannot expect the best talent of any race to develop when no opportunity is offered for its cultured minds. Six years ago we established the rule that there would be no more detentions from poor recitations and that the rules laid down by the High School for daily marking, tests, and promotions should be strictly followed. The experiment has brought me this conclusion that while it decreases the school in numbers by driving away the drones it gives to the school benefits that far outweigh the force of numbers. The extra time gained enables the teaches to go before their classes not only prepared but freighted with those weapons of a true teacher that are necessary to stimulate and draw out the mind. The child himself is taught that to the victor belong the spoils and that all things worth having are the reward of effort. Corporal punishment is unknown, discipline of any kind rare, and parents seldom register a complaint against one of the teachers. 

When I see the strength of the teachers in the class room, the conduct of our graduates today as compared with those before this system and are made to know how the patrons appreciate the work done by the school, I am led to believe that all of this is due to the idea adopted six years ago. 

Upon talking with the graduates of the Colored High School I find this complaint is general after going through school, on account of their color alone, they can find nothing to do or aspire to, except that which the most unlettered Negro can do. This is felt keenly by the young men of the race. From these premises it is easy to see how boys fifteen and sixteen years of age will conclude to begin now the work which they must do their entire life. Thus, these boys lured by showy clothing, the jingle of money and the exhilarations of society are thrown into life unprepared for it and without the qualifications of good citizenship. To this cause alone is attributed the gradual decrease in the Negro schools of First, Second, and Third and in fact all over the country of which I have any knowledge. When the school board was employing almost yearly out of the alumni a Negro teacher, our schools were full and as the years advanced, so did the numbers of the preparatory year of our high school increase. Since this has stopped, the interest of the mothers of the girls has slackened and there are few children now in the Colored High School who are there because their parents wish it. They are there because they themselves want to come. 

We are thankful that a few firms in the city have given the school a consideration by employing some of its graduates. We desire on behalf of the Alumni to thank most profoundly the following firms for giving the boys a chance by hiring them: Doniphan Commission Store, The National Bank of St. Joseph, The Tootle & Lemon Bank and the Townsend & Wyatt Dry Goods Co.. 
 
 

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+) 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

347 U.S. 483 

Argued December 9, 1952 

Reargued December 8, 1953 

Decided May 17, 1954 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

Syllabus 

Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment -- even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal. 

(a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education. 

(b) The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the full development of public education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. 

(c) Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. 

(d) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal. 

(e) The "separate but equal" doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, has no place in the field of public education. 

(f) The cases are restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the forms of the decrees. 

Opinion 

WARREN 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. 

These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Fergson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools. 

The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court. 

Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. 

An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment's history with respect to segregated schools is the status of public education at that time. In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences, as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states, and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education. 

In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. The doctrine of "separate but equal" did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the "separate but equal" doctrine in the field of public education. In Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. In more recent cases, all on the graduate school level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to reexamine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education. 

In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education. 

In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws. 

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 come then to 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. 

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs: 

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. 

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. 

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question -- the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term The Attorney General of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954. 

It is so ordered. 

* Together with No. 2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; No. 4, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al. , on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, argued December 10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953, and No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al., on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware, argued December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953. 

The National Center for Public Policy Research 300 Eye Street NE, #3 Washington, DC 20002. Phone: (202) 543-1286 Fax: (202) 543-4779