Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Citation: Brown v.
引用：布朗诉。
Board of Education of Topeka , Opinion; May 17, 1954; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States; Record Group 267; National Archives.
托皮卡教育委员会，意见； 1954 年 5 月 17 日；美国最高法院的记录；唱片组267；国家档案馆。
View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog
查看国家档案目录中的所有页面
In this milestone decision, the Supreme Court ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional.
在这一具有里程碑意义的裁决中，最高法院裁定公立学校中基于种族将儿童分开是违宪的。
It signaled the end of legalized racial segregation in the schools of the United States, overruling the "separate but equal" principle set forth in the 1896 Plessy v.
它标志着美国学校种族隔离合法化的结束，推翻了 1896 年普莱西诉美国一案中提出的“隔离但平等”原则。
Ferguson case.
弗格森案。
On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v.
1954年5月17日，美国最高法院法官厄尔·沃伦对具有里程碑意义的民权案件“布朗诉美国”案作出一致裁决。
Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas .
堪萨斯州托皮卡教育委员会。
State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional.
国家批准的公立学校种族隔离违反了第十四修正案，因此违宪。
This historic decision marked the end of the "separate but equal" precedent set by the Supreme Court nearly 60 years earlier in Plessy v.
这一历史性判决标志着最高法院近 60 年前在普莱西诉美国最高法院所确立的“隔离但平等”先例的终结。
Ferguson and served as a catalyst for the expanding civil rights movement during the decade of the 1950s.
弗格森先生，并成为 20 世纪 50 年代民权运动不断扩大的催化剂。
Arguments were to be heard during the next term to determine just how the ruling would be imposed.
下届任期将听取争论，以确定如何实施裁决。
Just over one year later, on May 31, 1955, Warren read the Court's unanimous decision, now referred to as Brown II , instructing the states to begin desegregation plans "with all deliberate speed."
一年多后，即 1955 年 5 月 31 日，沃伦宣读了法院的一致裁决（现在称为“布朗二世”），指示各州“以极快的速度”开始废除种族隔离计划。
Despite two unanimous decisions and careful, if vague, wording, there was considerable resistance to the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v.
尽管做出了两项一致的决定，并且措辞谨慎（甚至含糊），但最高法院在“布朗诉纽约州”一案中的裁决仍遭到相当大的抵制。
Board of Education .
教育委员会。
In addition to the obvious disapproving segregationists were some constitutional scholars who felt that the decision went against legal tradition by relying heavily on data supplied by social scientists rather than precedent or established law.
除了明显反对的种族隔离主义者之外，还有一些宪法学者认为该决定违反了法律传统，因为该决定严重依赖社会科学家提供的数据，而不是先例或既定法律。
Supporters of judicial restraint believed the Court had overstepped its constitutional powers by essentially writing new law.
司法克制的支持者认为，法院实质上制定了新法律，从而超越了宪法权力。
However, minority groups and members of the civil rights movement were buoyed by the Brown decision even without specific directions for implementation.
然而，即使没有具体的实施方向，少数群体和民权运动成员也受到布朗决定的鼓舞。
Proponents of judicial activism believed the Supreme Court had appropriately used its position to adapt the basis of the Constitution to address new problems in new times.
司法能动主义的支持者认为，最高法院适当地利用了自己的地位，调整了宪法的基础，以解决新时代的新问题。
The Warren Court stayed this course for the next 15 years, deciding cases that significantly affected not only race relations, but also the administration of criminal justice, the operation of the political process, and the separation of church and state.
沃伦法院在接下来的 15 年里坚持了这一方针，所判决的案件不仅对种族关系产生了重大影响，而且对刑事司法、政治进程的运作以及政教分离产生了重大影响。
This document is available on DocsTeach, the online tool for teaching with documents from the National Archives.
该文档可在 DocsTeach 上找到，这是一个使用国家档案馆文档进行教学的在线工具。
Find teaching activities that incorporate this document, or create your own online activity .
查找包含本文档的教学活动，或创建您自己的在线活动。
Brown v.
布朗诉。
Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+)
教育委员会，347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+)
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS*
美国堪萨斯地区地方法院的上诉*
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.
一个州的公立学校仅仅因为种族而对白人和黑人儿童进行隔离，根据允许或要求这种隔离的州法律，黑人儿童就无法享受第十四修正案所保障的法律的平等保护——尽管白人和黑人学校的物质设施和其他“有形”因素可能是相同的。
(a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education.
(a) 第十四修正案的历史对于其对公共教育的预期影响尚无定论。
(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.
(b) 这些案例中提出的问题不能根据第十四修正案通过时的现有条件来确定，而必须根据公共教育的充分发展及其在全国美国人生活中的当前地位来确定。
(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.
(c) 如果国家承诺在其公立学校提供受教育的机会，则这种机会是一项必须以平等条件向所有人提供的权利。
(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.
(d) 公立学校仅根据种族对儿童进行隔离，剥夺了少数群体儿童的平等教育机会，尽管物质设施和其他"有形"因素可能是平等的。
(e) The "separate but equal" doctrine adopted in Plessy v.
(e) Plessy v. 案中采用的“隔离但平等”原则。
Ferguson , 163 U.S. 537, has no place in the field of public education.
弗格森，163岁，美国，537岁，在公共教育领域没有一席之地。
(f) The cases are restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the forms of the decrees.
(f) 将案件恢复到案卷，以便就与法令形式有关的具体问题进行进一步辩论。
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
先生。首席大法官沃伦宣读了法院的意见。
These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware.
这些病例来自堪萨斯州、南卡罗来纳州、弗吉尼亚州和特拉华州。
They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.
它们的前提是不同的事实和不同的当地条件，但共同的法律问题证明它们在本综合意见中得到了共同考虑。
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.
在每一起案件中，黑人种族的未成年人都通过其法律代表寻求法院的帮助，以在非种族隔离的基础上获得其社区公立学校的录取。
In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race.
在每一起案件中，根据要求或允许按种族隔离的法律，他们都被拒绝进入白人儿童就读的学校。
This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.
据称，这种隔离剥夺了原告根据第十四修正案受到法律平等保护的权利。
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.
在除特拉华州案件之外的所有案件中，三名法官的联邦地区法院均拒绝根据该法院在普莱西诉美国联邦地区法院一案中宣布的所谓“隔离但平等”原则向原告提供救济。
Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537.
弗格森，163 美国 537。
Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate.
根据该原则，当为各个种族提供基本平等的设施时，即使这些设施是分开的，也能获得平等待遇。
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.
在特拉华州案件中，特拉华州最高法院坚持了这一原则，但命令原告被白人学校录取，因为白人学校优于黑人学校。
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.
原告辩称，种族隔离的公立学校不是“平等”的，也不可能变得“平等”，因此它们被剥夺了法律的平等保护。
Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction.
由于所提出的问题显然很重要，因此法院拥有管辖权。
Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.
1952 年任期听取了辩论，本任期就法院提出的某些问题听取了反驳。
Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
重新论证主要针对 1868 年第十四修正案通过的情况。
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.
它详尽地涵盖了国会对修正案的审议、各州的批准、当时存在的种族隔离做法以及修正案的支持者和反对者的观点。
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.
这次讨论和我们自己的调查使我们相信，尽管这些来源提供了一些线索，但还不足以解决我们面临的问题。
At best, they are inconclusive.
充其量，他们还没有定论。
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.
战后修正案最热心的支持者无疑希望消除“所有在美国出生或入籍的人”之间的所有法律区别。他们的反对者同样反对修正案的文字和精神，并希望修正案产生最有限的效果。
What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
国会和州立法机构的其他人的想法无法确定。
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.
该修正案关于种族隔离学校的历史尚无定论，另一个原因是当时公共教育的状况。
In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold.
在南方，由一般税收支持的免费公立学校运动尚未扎根。
Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups.
白人儿童的教育主要掌握在私人团体手中。
Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate.
黑人几乎没有受过教育，几乎所有种族都是文盲。
In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states.
事实上，在一些州，法律禁止对黑人进行任何教育。
Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences, as well as in the business and professional world.
相比之下，今天许多黑人在艺术和科学以及商业和专业领域取得了杰出的成功。
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.
诚然，修正案出台时的公立学校教育在北方取得了进一步的进步，但修正案对北方各州的影响在国会辩论中普遍被忽视。
Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today.
即使在北方，公共教育的条件也与今天不相近。
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.
课程通常是初级的；农村地区不分级的学校很常见；许多州的学年只有三个月，义务教育的入学率几乎无人知晓。
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.
因此，在第十四修正案的历史中，与其对公共教育的预期影响相关的内容如此之少，也就不足为奇了。
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.
在本法院解释第十四修正案通过后不久做出的第一批案件中，法院将其解释为禁止国家对黑人种族施加的一切歧视。
The doctrine of "separate but equal" did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v.
“隔离但平等”的原则直到 1896 年 Plessy v. 案中才出现在最高法院。
Ferguson , supra, involving not education but transportation.
弗格森，同上，涉及的不是教育而是交通。
American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century.
半个多世纪以来，美国法院一直在遵循这一原则。
In this Court, there have been six cases involving the "separate but equal" doctrine in the field of public education.
本法院已审理了六起涉及公共教育领域“隔离但平等”原则的案件。
In Cumming v.
在卡明诉。
County Board of Education , 175 U.S. 528, and Gong Lum v.
县教育委员会，175 U.S. 528，以及Gong Lum 诉。
Rice , 275 U.S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged.
Rice，275 U.S. 78，该学说本身的有效性没有受到质疑。
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.
在最近的案例中，所有的研究生院层面都存在不平等，即白人学生享有的特定福利被剥夺了具有相同教育资格的黑人学生的待遇。
Missouri ex rel.
密苏里州前关系。
Gaines v.
盖恩斯诉。
Canada , 305 U.S. 337; Sipuel v.
加拿大，305 美国 337；西普尔诉
Oklahoma , 332 U.S. 631; Sweatt v.
俄克拉荷马州，332 美国 631；斯威特诉。
Painter, 339 U.S. 629; McLaurin v.
画家，339 美国 629；麦克劳林诉。
Oklahoma State Regents , 339 U.S. 637.
俄克拉荷马州摄政，339 美国 637。
In none of these cases was it necessary to reexamine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff.
在这些案件中，没有必要重新审查该原则以向黑人原告提供救济。
And in Sweatt v.
在斯威特诉。
Painter , supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v.
Painter，同上，法院明确保留对 Plessy v. Painter 是否成立的问题的裁决。
Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.
弗格森应该被认为不适用于公共教育。
In the instant cases, that question is directly presented.
在当前情况下，直接提出该问题。
Here, unlike Sweatt v.
在这里，与斯威特诉不同。
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.
画家先生，有以下调查结果表明，所涉及的黑人和白人学校在建筑、课程、教师资格和工资以及其他“有形”因素方面已经或正在平等。
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.
因此，我们的决定不能仅仅基于对每个案件所涉及的黑人和白人学校的这些有形因素的比较。
We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.
相反，我们必须关注种族隔离本身对公共教育的影响。
In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v.
在解决这个问题时，我们不能把时间倒回到 1868 年，当时修正案被通过，甚至不能倒回 1896 年，当时 Plessy 诉。
Ferguson was written.
弗格森是这样写的。
We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation.
我们必须根据公共教育的全面发展及其在整个国家的美国生活中的当前地位来考虑公共教育。
Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.
只有这样才能确定公立学校的种族隔离是否剥夺了这些原告受到法律的平等保护。
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.
如今，教育也许是州和地方政府最重要的职能。
Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society.
义务教育法和巨额教育开支都表明我们认识到教育对民主社会的重要性。
It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces.
这是履行我们最基本的公共责任，甚至在武装部队服役时所必需的。
It is the very foundation of good citizenship.
这是良好公民的基础。
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.
如今，它已成为唤醒孩子了解文化价值观、为他以后的专业培训做好准备以及帮助他正常适应环境的主要工具。
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.
如今，如果一个孩子被剥夺了受教育的机会，那么他能否合理地期望在生活中取得成功是值得怀疑的。
Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
如果国家承诺提供这种机会，则必须以平等的条件向所有人提供这种权利。
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?
那么我们来讨论提出的问题：即使物质设施和其他“有形”因素可能是平等的，公立学校仅仅基于种族对儿童进行隔离是否剥夺了少数群体儿童的平等教育机会？
We believe that it does.
我们相信确实如此。
In Sweatt v.
在斯威特诉。
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.
画家，同上，在发现一所针对黑人的种族隔离法学院无法为黑人提供平等的教育机会时，本法院在很大程度上依赖于“那些无法客观衡量但在法学院中造就伟大的品质”。在麦克劳林诉。
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: ".
俄克拉荷马州董事会，如上所述，法院在要求进入白人研究生院的黑人受到与所有其他学生一样的待遇时，再次诉诸了无形的考虑：“。
.
。
.
。
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.
他的学习能力、与其他学生进行讨论和交换意见的能力，以及总体上学习他的专业的能力。”这些考虑因素对于小学和高中的儿童尤其适用。
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.
仅仅因为种族而将他们与年龄和资历相近的其他人分开，会产生一种对他们在社区中的地位的自卑感，这可能会以一种永远不可能消除的方式影响他们的心灵和思想。
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:
堪萨斯州法院的一项调查结果充分说明了这种分离对他们教育机会的影响，但该法院仍然觉得有必要做出对黑人原告不利的裁决：
Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children.
公立学校中白人和有色人种儿童的隔离对有色人种儿童产生了不利影响。
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.
当它得到法律认可时，其影响更大，因为种族隔离政策通常被解释为表明黑人群体的劣等。
A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.
自卑感会影响孩子的学习动力。
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.
因此，经法律制裁的隔离往往会[阻碍]黑人儿童的教育和智力发展，并剥夺他们在种族融合学校系统中本应获得的一些好处。
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v.
无论普莱西诉案件时心理学知识的范围有多大。
Ferguson , this finding is amply supported by modern authority.
弗格森先生，这一发现得到了现代权威的充分支持。
Any language in Plessy v.
Plessy v. 中的任何语言
Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
弗格森驳回了与此相反的结论。
We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place.
我们的结论是，在公共教育领域，“隔离但平等”的学说没有立足之地。
Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
单独的教育设施本质上是不平等的。
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.
因此，我们认为，原告和其他处境相似的人，由于所指控的种族隔离，被剥夺了第十四修正案所保障的法律的平等保护。
This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
这一处理使得没有必要讨论这种隔离是否也违反第十四修正案的正当程序条款。
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.
由于是集体诉讼，由于该判决适用范围广泛，而且各地情况千差万别，这些案件的判决问题就相当复杂。
On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question -- the constitutionality of segregation in public education.
经反驳，适当救济的考虑必然要服从于首要问题——公共教育中种族隔离的合宪性。
We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws.
我们现在宣布，这种隔离是对法律平等保护的否定。
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.
为了让我们在制定法令时能够得到当事人的全力协助，案件将被恢复到备审案件中，并请当事人就法院此前提出的本期再辩论提出的问题4和5进行进一步的论证，再次邀请美国司法部长参加。
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.
要求或允许公共教育中种族隔离的州的总检察长也将被允许在 1954 年 9 月 15 日之前应要求以法庭之友身份出庭，并在 1954 年 10 月 1 日之前提交案情摘要。
* Together with No. 2, Briggs et al.
* 与第二名 Briggs 等人一起。
v.
v.
Elliott et al.
艾略特等人。
, 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.
，针对南卡罗来纳州东区美国地方法院的上诉，于 1952 年 12 月 9 日至 10 日进行辩论，并于 1953 年 12 月 7 日至 8 日重新辩论；第四，戴维斯等人。
v.
v.
County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al.
弗吉尼亚州爱德华王子县县学校委员会等。
, 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.
，根据美国弗吉尼亚东区地方法院的上诉，于 1952 年 12 月 10 日进行辩论，于 1953 年 12 月 7-8 日重新辩论，第 10 号，Gebhart 等人。
v.
v.
Belton et al.
贝尔顿等人。
, on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware, argued December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953.
，向特拉华州最高法院提交调卷，于 1952 年 12 月 11 日进行辩论，并于 1953 年 12 月 9 日重新辩论。