answersLogoWhite

0

The Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971, upheld the use of busing as a means to achieve school desegregation. The Court ruled in favor of the Swann plaintiffs, affirming that federal courts had the authority to oversee and implement desegregation plans in public schools to eliminate racial discrimination. This landmark decision was significant in advancing civil rights and ensuring greater equality in education.

User Avatar

AnswerBot

2w ago

What else can I help you with?

Continue Learning about General Arts & Entertainment

What did the swann v mecklenburg case impact?

The Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education case (1971) significantly impacted school desegregation in the United States. The Supreme Court upheld the use of busing as a legitimate means to achieve racial integration in public schools, thereby affirming the authority of federal courts to enforce desegregation plans. This ruling reinforced the principle that schools must take active measures to eliminate segregation, leading to widespread implementation of busing policies across various districts. Ultimately, it marked a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement, emphasizing the government's role in ensuring equal educational opportunities.


What music is used in BBC's 'When Andy won wimbledon'?

The music that is used in BBC's 'When Andy won wimbledon' is L.O.V.E. by V V Brown.


Looking at the McCleskey v Kemp was it morally resolved?

No, the case of McCleskey v Kemp stated that racial discrimination would have to be proved in a defendant's specific case. Justice Powell stated that if he could change his vote in one case this would be the one. It is very difficult to prove that racial discrimination effected the outcome of a case.


Who were judges in the case of hazlewood v khulmeier?

There judges were Kenny Beenensee and Kyla Mulnix.


Who won Flast v Cohen?

The Supreme Court case Flast v. Cohen (1968) was decided in favor of the plaintiffs, Flast and others. The Court ruled that taxpayers have the standing to challenge government expenditures that allegedly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This decision allowed taxpayers to bring lawsuits against governmental actions that they believe improperly support religious institutions.