Green v. County School Board of New Kent County
-
What was the Green v. County School Board of New Kent County case?
In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 27, 1968, that a Virginia school board's "freedom-of-choice" desegregation plan was unacceptable. The Court found that the plan did not effectively convert the school system into one that was not racially segregated and that there were quicker, more-effective alternatives available.
The ruling came more than 10 years after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), in which the Supreme Court had declared that segregation in public education was unconstitutional. The Green v. County School Board case identified six areas, known as the "Green factors," that needed to be desegregated: facilities, student assignments, faculty and staff assignments, transportation, and extracurricular activities. The Supreme Court ordered the school board to develop a new desegregation plan.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What issue did the Green case address in public schools?
The Green v. County School Board of New Kent County case addressed the issue of ineffective desegregation plans in public schools. The Supreme Court ruled that a "freedom-of-choice" plan, allowing students to choose their school, was unacceptable because it didn't dismantle segregation effectively.
The court emphasized that school boards had an affirmative duty to create a non-discriminatory, unitary school system. The "Green factors" were identified as areas needing desegregation: facilities, staff, student assignments, transportation, and extracurricular activities. The ruling mandated that New Kent County develop a new desegregation plan, setting a precedent for more effective desegregation efforts nationwide.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What is a 'freedom-of-choice' plan in the context of school desegregation?
In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the inadequacy of a "freedom-of-choice" desegregation plan. This plan allowed students to choose which school to attend, but it failed to produce real integration in New Kent County, Virginia, where schools remained largely segregated.
The Court ruled that such plans were unacceptable if other options could more effectively create a non-segregated school system. It emphasized that school boards had an affirmative duty to eliminate segregation, and delays were no longer acceptable. The ruling identified six "Green factors" for desegregation: facilities, student assignments, faculty, staff, transportation, and extracurricular activities. The court ordered the school board to develop a new plan, potentially including measures like zoning, to achieve a genuinely integrated system.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why did the Supreme Court rule against the New Kent County School Board's plan?
The Supreme Court ruled against the New Kent County School Board's "freedom-of-choice" desegregation plan in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968) because it did not effectively dismantle segregation. The Court found that the plan, which allowed students to choose their school, failed to create a non-discriminatory, unitary school system and maintain segregation.
The ruling emphasized that school boards had an "affirmative duty" to actively eliminate segregation, and delays were "no longer tolerable". The Court ordered the board to develop a new plan, considering alternatives like zoning, to achieve real desegregation.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did the ruling in the Green case change how schools approached desegregation?
The 1968 Green v. County School Board of New Kent County case addressed insufficient desegregation plans. The Supreme Court ruled that New Kent County's "freedom-of-choice" plan, allowing students to select their school, was unconstitutional because it failed to dismantle segregation and didn't ensure a non-discriminatory, unitary school system.
The Court highlighted six "Green factors" for desegregation: facilities, student assignments, faculty, staff assignments, transportation, and extracurricular activities. This ruling mandated that school boards actively convert dual systems into non-discriminatory ones, marking a shift from "deliberate speed" to immediate, effective desegregation efforts.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What impact did the Green decision have on civil rights and education in the United States?
In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, the Supreme Court addressed the inadequacy of a "freedom-of-choice" desegregation plan, stating that it did not effectively convert the school system to one that was not racially segregated. The Court ruled that school boards had an affirmative duty to eliminate segregation, and delays were no longer acceptable.
The decision identified six areas, known as the "Green factors," that needed to be desegregated: facilities, student assignments, faculty, staff assignments, transportation, and extracurricular activities. This ruling led to increased desegregation efforts across the country. The Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County cited Green, and held that lower courts should have used every available remedy to fashion a remedy that promises realistically to work and to work at the present time.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on May 27, 1968, ruled (9â0) that a âfreedom-of-choiceâ provision in a Virginia school boardâs desegregation plan was unacceptable because there were available alternatives that promised a quicker and more-effective conversion to a school system that was not racially segregated.
The case came more than 10 years after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), in which the Supreme Court held that in public education the doctrine of âseparate but equalâ had no place. Segregated educational facilities were found to be inherently unequal. In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (II) (1955), the Supreme Court gave lower courts the authority to fashion remedies that promoted desegregation âwith all deliberate speed.â The lower courts were tasked with settling individual complaints on a case-by-case basis and maintaining jurisdiction in disputes while school boards made efforts toward compliance with Brown.
Many states, however, fought desegregation. Virginia officials undertook a policy called âMassive Resistanceâ and enacted various antidesegregation statutes. In New Kent county, Virginia, the school board operated only two schools, one for white students and the other for black students. A year after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964âwhich allowed for the withholding of federal funds to localities that maintained a segregated school systemâa lawsuit was filed on behalf of Charles C. Green and other African American students in New Kent county. In response, the board adopted a desegregation plan based on freedom of choice, which many school boards had implemented to maintain segregation. New Kent countyâs plan called for each student, except those entering first and eighth grades, to annually choose between the two schools. Students who failed to select a school were assigned to the last one they had attended. In addition, first and eighth graders were required to affirmatively select a school.
In 1966 a federal district court approved the desegregation plan, after the school board had also revised its staffing policy. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently approved most of the plan, notably the freedom-of-choice provision, but it remanded the case over the staffing proposal, asking that it be âmore specific and more comprehensive.â
The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari, and oral arguments were made on April 3, 1968. The court held that the school system in New Kent county, consisting of separate white and black schools, represented the segregation that Brown and Brown (II) found unconstitutional. The court pointed out that the countyâs dual system extended ânot just to the composition of student bodies at the two schools, but to every facet of school operations.â In evaluating a plan, the court identified six areas that had to be desegregated. Commonly known as the âGreen factors,â they included facilities; student, faculty, and staff assignments; transportation; and extracurricular activites.
Further citing Brown (II), the Supreme Court stated that school boards were âclearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convertâ a racially discriminatory system to one that was nondiscriminatory and constitutional. The court further noted that delays to desegregation were âno longer tolerable.â Given that the New Kent county school board had waited 11 years after Brown to develop a desegregation plan, the court held that any proposed plan had to promise to realistically work and to realistically work in the present. According to the court, the proposed freedom-of-choice plan failed to meet this standard and instead provided no meaningful change. In the three years after the plan was implemented, no white students had attended the black school, and 85 percent of African American students were still at the black school. The court held that freedom-of-choice plans were unconstitutional when they failed to result in a racially nondiscriminatory, unitary school system. The court thus ordered the school board in New Kent county to formulate a new desegregation plan and to consider other efforts, such as zoning. The case was thus remanded for further proceedings.
Desegregation efforts subsequently increased across the country. The decisionâs significance was noted in an exchange between Chief Justice Earl Warren, who had written the majority opinion in Brown, and William Brennan, author of the Green decision. In a note to Brennan, Warren wrote, âWhen this opinion is handed down, the traffic light will have changed from Brown to Green.â

" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">