English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Over 20 years ago, in Brown v. Board of Education, 2 the Supreme Court held that government-mandated racial segregation in public schools violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After Brown courts and commentators disagreed as to the constitutional doctrine underlying the holding.3 Some believed the violation arose from the manner in which the racial separation 4 had been brought about: explicit discrimination on the basis of race. According to this interpretation Brown was grounded in a constitutional requirement of equality before the law and the ideal of a colorblind government.5 This interpretation differentiated between unconstitutional ("de jure") segregation, which arose from explicit assignment of pupils on the basis of race, and permissible ("de facto") segregation, which arose from causes other than race-conscious government action. 6

Reading the Mind of the School Board: Segregative Intent and the De Facto/De Jure Distinction