種族岐視教育與美國民權運動：「布朗控訴投陴卡教育局案」

美國獨立宣言中所特別強調的「生命、自由、及追求快樂的權利」崇高理想，對少數族裔來說，曾經是空中樓閣式的環境。縱然是美國的憲法，也故意不將保障民權的修款列入。因此各州政府得徑自制定種族歧視法律，將因白、黑膚色而分裂的社會法制化與正當化；尤而甚之者，則是聯邦最高法院助紂為虐的、以其至高無上的權位，曾在1857年公開宣布非黑奴不是美國公民，因此不得享有憲法保障的公民權。南、北內戰後，種族的歧視危機，不但未曾減少，反而因吉姆‧科若（Jim Crow）法條的制定與擴張，更行嚴重。社會原本就存在著的白、黑隔離習俗，由于法律的規定，成為了政府的政策。公共場所、公共交通工具、公共娛樂場所、醫院、餐館、學校等處，都以使用者的膚色為主，被強制性的間隔成為白、黑專用、不得混合雜用的部分。人民對此等政策違反憲法基本精神的上訴，反而被聯邦最高法院以吉姆。科若的法律確實遵守「隔離但平等」為由，而加以駁回。在聯邦最高法院的贊同下，「隔離但平等」成為了此後制定教育、社會、經濟等政策的原則。南方的義務教育，也因此以膚色為主，被劃分成為白、黑學童分別求學的學區，不得混合。原已飽受種族歧視之苦的黑人家長們，眼見自己子女又因政府假借「隔離但平等」之名、但暗中廷續種族歧視教育之實的時侯，便決定採取法律手段，要求政府還給他們應該享有的憲法保障權利。從「普列西案」，經「布利格斯案」，一直到「布朗案」，都是要廢除「隔離但平等」，爭取不分種族的平等教育運動的民權運動。聯邦最高法院在1954年的決議，不但廢除了教育上的種族歧視政策，更是在一百七十多年後，實現了獨立宣言中的崇高理想。

關鍵字

美國聯邦最高法院；吉姆‧科若；「隔離但平等」；憲法修正案第十四條；「增進有色人種全國聯合會」（the Advancement of Colored People，簡稱NACCP）；馬歇爾律師；華倫大法官；「德瑞德.司考特控訴約翰‧參德福特案」；「普列西控訴佛古森案」；「哈利.布利格斯控訴依利歐特」；「布朗控訴投陴卡教育局案」

並列摘要

Though the Declaration of Independence had manifestly stated that “We hold these Truths to be self-evident that, that all Men were created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” the independent movement that started in 1776 still had a long way to achieve this noble ideas. The civil rights of the black Americans were not only ignored, they were officially declared nonexistent by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1857. Though the slaves had been emancipated by President Lincoln in 1861, they were yet to be treated equally by the fellow Americans. After the civil war, the southern states issued various Jim Crow laws to separate the blacks from the whites Americans in all kinds of associations and activities. Those most affected the blacks were the racial discriminations of the public education that used the skin-color as a criterion to compel the blacks children to attend black-only schools. The different cases that fell under the general name of Brown v. School Board of Topeka were the attempts by the black Americans to contest the constitutionality of the Jim Crow laws in the public education. Facing the complicated legal matters and socially explosive issues, the U.S. Supreme Court had for longtime been unable to pronounced a clearly direct verdict. This article is trying to analyze how the highly-charged emotional issues of the race relations in the public education was tackled through the legal process and to discuss how difficult it was for the civil rights to be recognized and respected even in their founding land of the United States of America.

並列關鍵字

Supreme Court of the United States ； Jim Crow ； Separate but Equal ； Amendment XIII ； The Constitution of the United Stated ； Amendment XIV ； The Constitution of the United States ； the Advancement of Colored Pe