Thurgood Marshalls litigation of Brown v. Board of Education in 1952

Thurgood Marshall’s litigation of Brown v. Board
of Education in 1952—the landmark case, decided in
1954, that made segregation illegal in United States
public schools—was not his first case before the U.S.
(5) Supreme Court. Some legal scholars claim that the
cases he presented to the court in the sixteen years
before his successful argument for desegregation of
public schools were necessary forerunners of that case:
preliminary tests of legal strategies and early erosions
(10) of the foundations of discrimination against African
Americans that paved the way for success in Brown.

When Marshall joined the legal staff of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) in 1936, the organization was
(15) divided on how to proceed against the legal doctrine
that for forty years had promoted “separate but equal”
facilities for African Americans in educational
institutions, in public transportation, and various other
civic amenities. One approach was to emphasize that
(20) facilities were not in fact equal and to pursue litigation
whose practical goal was the improvement both of
opportunity for African Americans and of the facilities
themselves. A second, more theoretical, approach was
to argue that the concept of separate but equal facilities
(25) for the races was by its very nature impossible to
fulfill, rendering the doctrine self-contradictory and
hence legally unsound. Marshall correctly believed that
the latter approach would eventually be the one to
bring repeal of the doctrine, but felt it necessary in the
(30) short term to argue several cases using the former
approach, in order to demonstrate the numerous ways
in which segregation prevented real equality and thus
to prepare the courts to recognize the validity of the
theoretical argument.

(35) While Marshall enjoyed several successes arguing
for the equalization of facilities and opportunities in
such areas as voting practices and accommodations for
graduate students at public universities, it would be
twelve years before he evolved a strategy for arguing
(40) against pervasive discriminatory practices that enabled
him to make the leap from individual instances of
inequality to the broader social argument needed to
later invalidate “separate but equal.” In 1948, Marshall
litigated Shelley v. Kraemer, in which he convinced the
(45) court to outlaw housing discrimination practiced by
private parties. Although the court had previously
supported such practices implicitly under a doctrine
that excused private dealings from the legal
requirement for equal protection of citizens under law,
(50) Marshall presented sociological data demonstrating
that, in sum and over time, these individual
transactions constituted a pattern of insupportable
discrimination. Marshall later used this strategy when
arguing against individual schools’ enrollment
(55) restrictions in Brown; scholars argue that his successful
use of the strategy in Shelley prepared the court to
accept such data as convincing evidence for finding
“separate but equal” insupportable on its face.

1. Which one of the following titles most accurately describes the contents of the passage?

(A) “Broader Social Patterns: Theoretical Arguments Heard in the Supreme Court, 1936–1952”
(B) “Thurgood Marshall: The Growth of His Career, 1936–1952”
(C) “Toward Change: The Development of Thurgood Marshall’s Argument against ‘Separate but Equal,’ 1936–1952”
(D) “Separate but Not Equal: The Impact of Brown v. Board of Education on School Segregation”
(E) “Conflict and Compromise: Early Divisions in the NAACP’s Attack on School Segregation”


2. It can most reasonably be inferred from the passage that Marshall’s legal strategy for attacking the “separate but equal” doctrine

(A) sought to answer critics within the NAACP
(B) suggested Marshall thought the court would never accept the validity of a theoretical argument
(C) satisfied the requirement that cases first be argued in lower court
(D) presumed that the court could only gradually be convinced to overturn the “separate but equal” doctrine
(E) reflected Marshall’s preference to seek practical goals


3. According to the passage, sociological data presented by Marshall in Shelley v. Kraemer showed that

(A) numerous examples of individual discriminatory enrollment policies in public schools amounted to a general pattern of discrimination
(B) numerous examples of individual discriminatory transactions by private parties amounted to a general pattern of housing discrimination
(C) the legal requirement for equal treatment of citizens was not applicable to private transactions
(D) the pattern of discrimination in housing transactions was due to inequities in financial resources
(E) the pattern of discrimination in the enrollment policies of public schools was similar to the pattern of insupportable discrimination in housing transactions


4. The passage suggests that the scholars referred to in the passage would be most likely to believe which one of the following statements?

(A) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably have overturned “separate but equal” for political reasons.
(B) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably not have ruled in his favor on Brown v. Board of Education.
(C) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably not have excused private dealings from the legal requirement for equal protection of citizens under law.
(D) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably never have relied on sociological data in any future cases.
(E) Without Marshall’s argument in Shelley v. Kraemer, the court would probably have overturned discriminatory housing transactions on other grounds.


5. According to the passage, the more theoretical approach to proceeding against the “separate but equal” doctrine was to

(A) show that the doctrine often resulted in unequal opportunities for African Americans
(B) argue that the doctrine was legally unsound because it contradicted itself
(C) adopt a short-term strategy to prepare for the use of a long-term strategy (D) erode its foundations by successfully arguing individual cases
(E) demonstrate that the separate facilities provided for African Americans were not in fact equitable


6. The function of the third paragraph is to

(A) provide support for the view presented in the first paragraph
(B) sharpen the distinction made in the second paragraph
(C) question the claim made in the first paragraph
(D) summarize the argument made in the first two paragraphs
(E) counter the criticism of “separate but equal” made in the second paragraph


7. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) reveal the details of Marshall’s career before he litigated Brown v. Board of Education
(B) examine the effects of a particular legal doctrine on the lives of African Americans
(C) describe the strategy contributing to a successful legal argument
(D) provide guidance to other litigators who attempt to overturn legal doctrines
(E) call attention to an unsound legal doctrine by focusing on the strategy of its successful challenger