Brown v. Board. The Nation has, online, a massive forum on the big time decision 50 years ago.
By the way, I listened to a great "State of Things" (a NC radio show) that reflected on Brown. Professor Jack Boger spoke about the reasoning of the decision, and the Court's decision--overturning Plessy--that separate is not equal. The other way of saying this, of course, is that equality requires integration.

During the show's discussion, a caller spoke about his fine education at a either all-black, or largely black school. The caller echoed what has been argued in various circles regarding historically black schools; to wit, that the schools should not forced to level out black/white admittance when the education is arguably stronger as is. It is a sensible argument--that we should focus on the quality of education rather than have "integration-blinders" that cause us to seek further integration before improving the quality of education in the schools

While the argument is compelling---is it not a refutation of Thurgood Marshall's argument in Brown? Indeed, it sounds like the Plessy reasoning; that, as long as the schools are equally qualifies, integration is not required to assure equality. The emphasis, under Plessy, is on school quality. The profound revelation in Brown is that equality requires co-mingling. That separate is inherently not equal.

I tend to think that sentiment in Brown was not simply that separate but equal was a fraud. Otherwise, the court would not have required integration, but would have required better black schools. In that sense, some would have Brown's decision really a conclusion that racism was creating apathy towards black schools and quality white schools.
Rather, the court made a sort-of sociological observation- that even in schools that seem perfectly equal, segregation means unequality. It is, so to say, a per-se rule.